1910-03-16

FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 165) for the relief of Elmore Walker Scott.-Mr. Carvell.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER read a message from His Excellency the Governor General as follows:
Ottawa, March 16, 1910.
Sir,-I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Mr. Justice Girouard, acting as deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber tomorrow at 3.30 o'clock, for the purpose of giving assent to certain Bills which have passed the Senate and House of Commons during the present session of parliament.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
.	C. J. JONES.

Mr. PUGSLEY.: I beg to lay upon the table of the House an amended petition of the St. Lawrence Power Company, Limited, to His Excellency the Governor General in Council, for permission to erect the structures therein described in the town of Mille Roches, Ontario. This Telates to the application for the development of power at the Long Sault rapids. Also, a description of the works proposed by the St. Lawrence Power Company, Limited at the Long Sault rapids in the St. Lawrence near the boundary line, which is the same thing. Also, the amended plans of the company; also, five plans connected with the original project; also, blue prints showing the contour along the north shore of the river; also, some additional plans. I think, Mr. Speaker, as I propose to present a copy of the report 176i
of the engineers, with your permission and that of the House, it might be well to read it, so that it may appear in the 'Hansard' for the information of hon. members:
No. 344395.
Ottawa, January 13, 1910. Hon. William Pugsley,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-We have the honour to report in regard to the amended petition of the St. Lawrence Power Company, Limited, to His Excellency the Governor in Council, for permission to erect certain dams in the St. Lawrence river, as follows:-
On December 15, 1908, we reported on the facts as contained in the application of the company at that time. The objections found against the original plan have, in a large measure been remedied by the amended proposition. The integrity of the Cornwall canal has been preserved. No detail plans have been submitted showing the style of dam proposed to be erected; and this, of course, will have to be done before the project could be allowed to be entered upon. An approximate computation of the horse-power capable of being developed at the site of the proposed dams is about six hundred thousand. The creation of such an enormous quantity of power will be of the highest importance to the district in question. Experience has shown us that in the proximity of such a large development of power, great industries are created and that towns and cities grow up. We are convinced that the project is one worthy of the most serious consideration at the hands of the government.
The plans contemplate the construction of a lock in the American channel, and the objections which were taken against the former proposition apply with equal force to the present one, viz.: the approach channel to the lock, as it now exists, is a tortuous one, with the swift current, and is not, in our opinion, a satisfactory channel. It is our opinion, however, that a single lock about one thousand feet long between hollow quoins, eighty-five feet wide, with twenty-five feet of water on the sill, should be built on the Canadian side, so as to duplicate the Cornwall canal. We believe that if this lock is constructed on satisfactory lines, it will, to a considerable extent, eliminate any objections the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company might reasonably have in being interfered with in their descent of the Long Sault rapids. It is also necessary that there should be built a timber slide, and all necessary piers and booms for the protection of the lumber industry and the free use of the navigation of the river for that purpose.
The location and position of the powerhouse and dam on the Canadian side would have to be adjusted, when the plans are worked out in detail. We have satisfied ourselves that the objections which we formulated, with regard to the possible danger in having such a large dam in a river like the St. Lawrence, are obviated by the amended plan.

The effect of the board ice and frazil, upon which we laid considerable stress in our former report, we are convinced need not be seriously considered, for the reason that the company is willing to enter into an undertaking to not permit board ice to form at the head of the dam. They are willing to supply ice-breakers to prevent such a possibility.
The plans show a small percentage of development on the Canadian side, and the geographical conditions are such that it will be somewhat difficult to increase the power plant [DOT]on the Canadian side to the fifty per cent which we feel should be preserved for the use *of Canada. This difficulty, however, may be obviated by the company undertaking to hold in readiness fifty per cent of the total power *developed in the river available for Canadian consumption. No doubt, if the project goes Through and the working plans are submitted, a more equitable division of the power plants *can be worked out.
We desire to reiterate the necessity of a complete agreement on behalf of the governments of Canada- and the United States as to the supervision and control of the plans, specification, and every detail of the works in question. The subsequent operation in so far as the level of the water in the river is concerned, and the regulation of the flow, should in like manner be under tbe joint supervi-*sion of an officer from both governments.
A question has been propounded to us as to what effect the construction of such dams as are proposed would likely have upon the elevation of the water in the harbour of Montreal. We agree that they would have no effect whatever.
It must be understood that the present report does not attempt to deal with the sites selected for the several dams or power-houses, or other works connected with the scheme. All such ^matters are to he determined later should the general scheme be approved of by the government.
We are, Sir,
Your obedient servants,
(Sgd.) M. jr. BUTLER,
Chief Engineer, Railways and Canals. (Sgd.) EUGENE D. LAFLEUR,
Chief Engineer, Public Works. (Sgd.) WM. P. ANDERSON,
Chief Engineer, Marine and Fisheries.
As these plans were in the possession of Mr. Stewart, secretary of the Canadian branch of the International Waterways Commission, I would like it understood that they are not placed in the custody of the House, but they will be returned to the department after hon. gentlemen have had full opportunity to examine them.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I would like to ask the minister to furnish the original report of the engineers.


William Pugsley: I will be glad to make inquiries for that, and will get it. I may say that one difficulty I had in getting the plans, or rather the report, was that they were left with Mr. Butler, the late deputy minister, and owing to his having resigned, Mr. PUGSLEY.
and the Minister of Railways and Canals being away, I was not able to get all the papers. But I have no doubt I will be able to get the original report.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: I thought they were all in the hands of the International Waterways Commission.


William Pugsley: Only the last plans. The original report, I presume, would be in the Railway Department.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works what- personal plan he has with regard to this Bill?


William Pugsley: The Minister of Public Works has no plans with regard to the Bill.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am glad to hear it, because, judging by what he said the other night, he has some plan which wo would like to have divulged.


Mr. BRODER.: Were those plans got up by the engineers of the department, or by some one else?


William Pugsley: These were nlans submitted by the company


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I would like to ask toe hon. gentleman if these are blue prints? If they are, I cannot see why additional copies cannot be obtained by the secretary of the Waterways Commission, and these should remain in the custody of the House for discussion of this matter. If they are originals, we can get blue prints made of them.


William Pugsley: These plans will remain here just as long as is necessary for discussion, probably until the close of the session. There is no objection, I think, to their remaining here.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. PAPINEAU:: Has tbe government received a request for indemnity on behalf of the Canadian veterans for services rendered in 1866 and 1870? If so, has the government arrived at any decision in the matter?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: There have been such requests, but no decision has been reached.


ALIENATION OF COAL AND TIMBER LANDS.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	During the time the Hon. Clifford Sifton was Minister of the Interior, what was the total acreage of coal lands alienated from the Crown ?
2.	What was tlie total acreage of timber lands for which licenses and permits were

issued, and what is the total acreage of land sold ?
3.	During the time Hon. Frank Oliver has been Minister of the Interior, what was the total acreage of coal lands alienated from the Crown ?
4.	What was the total acreage of timber lands for which licenses and permits were issued ?
5.	What has been the total acreage of lands sold, exclusive of pre-emption?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 
FRONTIER QUARANTINE INSPECTORS.
Mr. W. H. SHARPE:: Was there any correspondence wjien appointing th& following frontier quarantine inspectors: Dr. Bradford, Dr. Carter, Dr. Duncan, Dr. Thornton, Dr. Wallace, Dr. Nay, Dr. McKenty, Dr. Little, Dr. Henderson and Dr. Scott? If so, how many letters were sent and how many received by the department?	.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER.: Yes. Sent sixteen letters and seventeen telegrams; received, nine letters and seven telegrams.
These messages were dealing with the appointments and were not such as are usually brought down to the House.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-THE LUMSDEN COMMITTEE.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Sim-coe) Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to a. question of privilege. On Friday last the-hon. member for Vercheres (Mr. Geoffrion)„ the chairman of the Lumsden Committee, speaking in reply to a complaint made by my ion. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), as to the omission of certain words from the second report of the Lumsden Committee, said:
The report was prepared by the clerk of ,„lffc°mrait.tee' ncl was submitted to the com-ww VvancLnobody Ejected. I do not know h! , °.n- gentleman means by saying that the chairman omitted any words at all.' i s'!i 'utfe<1, *- le report which was prepared by the clerk, according to the order of the-House, which says that the committee shall report to the House from time to time.
I he printed minutes of the committee-show that on the 22nd February last the toll owing resolution was carried:
Mr. Lennox moved that committee recommend that their proceedings and the evidence taken by them be printed and reported to the House from day to day, which was agreed to.
The committee sat on the following day, the 23rd February, and at that meeting the minutes of the previous day were read, including the resolution I have just read, these minutes were duly confirmed, as appears by the printed evidence on page 41 and these minutes were accordingly attested as being correct by Walter Todd, clerk of the committee and marked * approved ' over the signature ' Victor Geof-fnon, Chairman,' which will be found in the printed proceedings at page 8. I call to the attention of the House the fact that there was no chance for any misconception or mistake in this matter. I do so because it is important to know how this extraordinary omission occurred, an omission very embarrassing to some members, of the House. On the occasion when I moved this resolution the attention of the chairman was specifically directed to it, I mean by that, Mr. Speaker, that it was not one of those resolutions; that go through without the attention of the chairman, but his attention was specifically directed to the resolution at the time-of its going through, and that is evidenced by the fact that he says ' I shall have to-be empowered by the House to have it ! °bC- Dealing with this in a way which substantially amounts to practically the-second reading of my resolution, although not, on the second occasion, in the exact words, I say in reply: [DOT]
My motion is that the evidence he printed and reported day by day.
[Stage Direction]
Not only was the attention of the chairman evidently directly challenged by the motion that was made, but the attention of the clerk was specifically directed to it.
I say that, because, as the members of the committee were leaving, the clerk came to me and said: * Do you really mean reported as well as printed from day to day '? To which I replied: ' I mean every word of it;
I mean it very much; see that you get it just as I put it I may say that I did so far the reason that^ I had some little experience upon committees of this kind, and I had considerable experience as to the difficulties that confront us in the Public Accounts Committee where, when the ruling is, in the opinion of the minority, unjust, we are unable to bring the matter into the light of day in the House because the majority refuse to report to the House. Therefore, advisedly, and I think, wisely, I had taken the precaution of preparing a resolution which covered the whole ground that the proceedings should be printed from day to day, and that they should be reported to the House from day to day, so that we would have an opportunity of, to some extent, controlling the action of the committee. The result of it is this, as I submit to the House, that it was manifestly impossible for the clerk inadvertently to omit the important words: reported to the House,' and equally impossible, as I know the clerk, for him to be dishonest. We are, therefore, confronted by an important inquiry, a very exceptional inquiry, one that I am glad to say has not often presented itself to this House, that is how this peculiar blunder, if you call it a blunder, occurred, by whose command, or at whose instance, or instigation, this important provision, calculated to enable us to carry on our proceedings more satisfactorily, and calculated to enable the people to know just what was being done was left out, and how it is that our intention should have been so speedily, and for the time being, so effectively blocked. The public, Mr. Speaker, is interested in this. It goes to a question which has come up in this House very frequently during recent years, namely, the procedure for getting these matters before the public, and letting the people know what is being done. It is important to the public, and it is important to me personally, and to the other members of the minority of the committee, because, by reason of what was done our way is blocked for the time being and certain important incidents that have occurred in that committee, we have not been able to discuss because there is no report before the House. Our way is barred, but I trust to effectively urge on the Prime Minister that it shall be barred no longer, and that an opportunity shall be afforded to the minority to Mr. LENNOX.
present certain matters to this House, and to the people. Resuming the thread of the incidents-in professed pursuance of the action of the committee which provided that the proceedings should be reported from day to day to the House, there .was a report presented by the committee and passed by the House in these words:
Your committee recommend that their proceedings and any evidence taken by them be printed from day to day for use of the members of the committee and that rule 72 be suspended in reference thereto.
Two important changes are made in that report. First, it entirely omits the important provision that the proceedings are to be reported to the House from day to day, and next, they have incorporated in it this qualification: That the printing is to be done for the use of the members of the committee, and not for the use of the members of the House. And so, if this plan was carried out in the way suggested the effect would be that the resolution is absolutely useless, because the committee already had power to report from time to time as they saw fit. Of course, the report provided for the printing of the proceedings and evidence from day to day, but only for the use of the members of the committee, and that does not amount to anything, because we already had better than that in the typewritten copy of the proceedings to hand every morning of what took place the day before. It does, Mr. Speaker, suggest some puzzling thoughts as to why and how this thing was done. I shall not at the moment say what my idea of it is, because the chairman of the committee will no doubt make a statement which I hope will be more satisfactory than his statement of the other day. I shall feel it my duty to analyse his former statement. The chairman said:
The report was submitted to the committee and nobody objected.
Surely this experienced chairman, the chairman of the Hodgins committee as well, a gentleman whom I think I can say without offence, but rather in compliment, above all other of their supporters the government selected for offices of this kind; surely he has not so far lost his head as well as his candour as to say that such is the fact. The facts are: At one o'clock in the afternoon the resolution was moved and the committee dispersed. At three o'clock in the afternoon the report is presented to the House. Every hon. member of the House had the right to presume, I certainly presumed that once the report was brought in it was in harmony with the action of the committee. But that has not turned out to be so. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Geoffrion) seriously want to pro-

pound to this House that the report was presented to the members of the committee and was not objected to? There is not one word of foundation in fact for that statement; it is absolutely incorrect. It was never submitted at any time to the members of the committee; but, of course, it is most important to establish that it was, because if it were it would to some extent estop us from complaining. Now, the second defence of the chairman of the committee is the statement that the report was prepared by the clerk. What does the hon. gentleman mean by saying that the report was prepared by the clerk? Of course, the Teport of the committee is always prepared by the clerk, but does he mean by that, that the clerk is responsible for the mutilation of this report? I venture to say that I refuse to believe it. Mr. Todd is an experienced, an efficient and painstaking official as everybody in this House knows. Could he make a mistake under the circumstances? Let us see. With the resolution before him, within' probably half an hour after it was read in the committee, twice read in his presence, impressed upon him by the subsequent conversation, a mistake on the part of the clerk is wholly inconceivable, and treachery on his part is to my mind equally inconceivable. If the chairman of the committee _ wishes to put it otherwise I will give him an opportunity now. If he does not feel that he has to shoulder not only the theoretic responsibility for this improper report by which the House was misled, but the actual responsibility as well, I will challenge him to get up in his place now and say that he had no hand in guiding the wording of that report. The third defence of the chairman of the committee is-and this is very innocent in this gentleman who has had' so little experience in matters of this kind-his third defence is to say:
I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by saying that the chairman omitted any word at all.
He does not know-what marvellous innocence-he does not know what was meant by the leader of the opposition. I hope he' has had time for reflection, and knows now. He does not know: I have endeavoured1 to make my meaning reasonably undisguised. What I mean to-day is that a most unprecedented omission has occurred in this report, and if the chairman made it accidentally he should have detected it the next day, when the wording of my resolution was read in his presence. What I mean is this: that when the matter was brought to the attention of the chairman, the other day it was time for him to get busy, and I mean that he1 shall get busy now. What I mean
to say, just as emphatically, though I hope moderately, as I can, is that if this matter is not adjusted now the government will have to hear something more about it-we will have something more to say, and it will be said. One other point. I admit that the chairman had not much' time for thought. The complaint was presented unexpectedly to him, and he wound up in this way:
I submitted the report, which was prepared by the clerk according to the order of the House, which says that the committee shall report to the House from time to time.
Here is the clerk again. We have, I think, exonerated the clerk pretty effectually. 1 think the hon. gentleman has left it so that there is no loophole in that direction. The First Minister suggested the other day that there may have been a misprint in the report. I had examined the records, and I knew that there was no mistake in the printing, so that that avenue of escape is not open. The chairman says that the report was prepared by the clerk according to the order of the House. Mr. Speaker, I will ask you if in your experience you have ever known such an extraordinary statement as this. I thought the report was to be prepared according to the resolution which I submitted, and which was carried unanimously by the committee. Does the hon. gentleman mean that what he thought he was bringing into the House was an application of the House of Commons to authorize that which the House had authorized to be done?-because that is what he would have us understand if he thought he was presenting a report which was prepared according to the order of the House. I think he will hardly argue that that is a position which he can very successfully take. The only other alternative is that the chairman, a gentleman of distinguished ability, and of special training in matters of this kind, forgets within two hours all about the resolution which was passed in his presence, which he declared carried, to which he had his attention specifically called, and when he prepares the report absolutely omits practically all the provisions that were to have been covered by the report, all the ground practically that was to be covered by that report. Referring to the order of the House,' the hon. gentleman says:
Prepared by the clerk according to the order of the House, which says that the committee shall report to the House from time to time.
The_ order of the House does not say anything of the kind. My resolution was that the committee should report from day to day, but the order of the House is 'that the committee shall be appointed to in-
[Stage Direction]
vestigate this matter, and that it shall have power to send for persons, papers and records and examine witnesses on oath, and report from time to time.' But the hon. gentleman, the other day, wanted us to understand that he thought it was not necessary to include the exact terms of my resolution, inasmuch as we were already ordered by the House to report from time to time; in other words, that the order of reference was mandatory that the committee should report from time to time. If the hon. gentleman means that he thought it was mandatory and obligatory, why has he not reported accordingly? That is a cogent and important question, particularly so in face of the fact that we have an event in that committee which is unprecedented in the annals of the Dominion parliament-an action by which three members of the committee have been practically compelled to retire from its deliberations; and yet there is absolute silence from that day to this, although the committee meet from day to day, and although I have reason to believe that the question has been considered. Yes, and I have reason to believe that the First Minister has been consulted as to whether there should be a report or not; and he can say I am wrong if he choses to say so. I have reason to believe that the First Minister has been consulted as to whether this committee should proceed practically in the dark with only members.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. LENNOX.: Yes, in the dark practically-a committee which is not constituted according to the order of this House; a committee proceeding as it was never intended to do by the order of this House; and I ask the chairman of this committee if he thought that order of reference meant that we were to report from day to day, why is it that he has been contented with perambulating backwards and forwards to interview the First Minister instead of reporting to the House?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend has brought up this question as a matter of privilege; but in my humble judgment he has not uttered a single word which has any reference to a matter of privilege. My hon. friend comlains that the full orders of the committee
ave not been reported to the House. On the 22nd of last month Mr. Clarke, of Essex, for the chairman, brought in this report:
Mr. Clarke (Essex), from the special committee appointed to investigate the charges and allegations made by Hugh D. Lumsden regarding a portion of the engineering staff of the National Transcontinental Railway, pre-Mr. LENNOX.
sented the second report of the said committee, which is as follows:-	.
Your committee recommend that their proceedings and any evidence taken by them be printed from day to day, for the use of the committee, and that rule 72 be suspended in reference thereto.
Subsequently:
On motion of Mr. Clarke (Essex), the second report of the special committee appointed to investigate the charges and allegations made by Hugh D. Lumsden, presented this day, was concurred in.
I do not know whether my hon. friend was present in the House on that day, and heard the report. My impression is that he was. If he was in the House at that time, his attention was not called to the fact that the report did not, as he states now, contain a true statement of the proceedings of the committee. If that be so my hon. friend made a mistake in not giving to the report the attention which he might have done. If he is mistaken other members may have been mistaken also. My hon. friend charges the chairman of the committee by insinuation with having voluntarily deceived the committee. My hon. friend has no reason to make any such insinuation. If my hon. friend when the report was twice read to the House on Friday last did not perceive the mistake which he says was in the report, it is quite possible that the acting chairman, my hon. friend from Essex (Mr. A. H. Clarke) who brought in the report may also have overlooked the same mistake. I have only to appeal to the fairness of every member of this House. Everybody knows that the proceedings of the committee are prepared from day to day by the clerk of a committee and brought to the chairman, and as a rule the chairman signs simply on the statement of the officer that the report is correct without looking at it farther. If any one is guilty many of us are guilty, I cannot say that I have not been guilty as I have been chairman of a committee, and that is what I have done. I have taken the word of the clerk that it was all right, and presented the report accordingly. My hon. friend says the report is not a true statement of the proceedings that took place in the committee. That is possible. I do not say it is not so. I assume, since my hon. friend says so, that that was the case, but I have to say to my hon. friend if the report of the committee is not a true statement of the facts that, took place in the committee on that day, then what is there before the House to-day, but that report of the committee? We must assume that this report is correct. It is no use for my hon. friend to say on the floor of this House that the report is not correct, and not a true statement of the proceedings of the committee on that day.

How can we change it or alter it, and if there has been a mistake how can we amend it? The remedy of my hon. friend is to go before the committee, there is the place where he should address himself, and if there has been, as I understand, a mistake made somewhere, there the mistake can be corrected. But I ask my hon. friend and every member of this House how will the House undertake to amend this report, which is now here, and which has been adopted? How will any member say the report is not correct, and ought to be amended accordingly? There is only one thing for my hon. friend to do, that is to go before the committee, and there have the statement corrected. My hon. friend has no confidence in the committee; I understand he has withdrawn from it, and I understand he says the committee is proceeding in the dark. If the committee is proceeding in the dark, according to common report, it is because my hon. friend refuses to give it the benefit of his light. The committee would have the full light upon it if my hon. friend would be present, but he has chosen for some reason or other to withdraw from the committee, if I am correctly informed. But even although he has chosen to withdraw from the committee, I see no reason why he should not go back into it. If he cannot go as a member of the committee he can as a member of the House, and he hag only to call the attention of the chairman or members of the committee, and to show them that the report is incorrect to have it corrected, and he would have satisfaction. If the statement is correct that he made a certain motion which should have been reported, and has not been reported I would be the very first to say to my hon. friend that he ought to have his rights properly placed before the House. But I appeal to his sense of justice and fairness, and I am sure he will agree that at this moment this House is powerless to redress the grievance of which he complains. How can we change the report of the committee? What have we before us to do so? He will agree that the only thing for him to do is to go before the committee, and I am satisfied he will have every satisfaction there. Perhaps I have no right, no reason, no authority to offer any advice to my hon. friend, but I may say to him that I hope he will bear with me. I have a high idea of his sense of honour and justice, but is he the only man who has a right sense of honour and justice in this House? There are others besides him, and I believe that when such a clear fact is brought to the attention of the committee as he states, that is that he made a motion, that the motion should have been included in the report, and was not included in the report, he is entitled to have the correction made. In so saying I have no desire to throw blame on anybody. My hon. friend was altogether unwarranted not in the statement, because he made no statement, hut in the insinuations which he made against the chairman of the committee. He stated that Mr. Todd, the clerk of the committee, is an experienced and faithful officer of this House. No one denies that, Mr. Todd is a faithful and experienced officer of this House. But by making that statement my hon. friend made an insinuation against the chairman, and I have only to say that the chairman of the committee is an experienced and faithful member of this House. My hon. friend may depend on his honour to do my hon. friend every justice, and all the justice to which he is entitled.


Mr. BARKER.: Mr. Speaker


Mr. SPEAKER.: I have no objection to a question of privilege being raised and an explanation given on the other side, but as there is nothing before the House, I am wondering where the debate will lead us. There is nothing before the House, and it is not customary to debate a .question of privilege. The House will realize that there should be something before the Chair.


Samuel Barker: Mr. Speaker


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: In view of what occurred the other day in the discussion of this question, I would like to know how far this debate is to be permitted to go. If my hon. friend is to be allowed to speak, and no one on this side is to be allowed later on I would like to know it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: My idea at present is that it cannot be continued because there is nothing before the Chair.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Are the government taking the stand that they will not allow


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am not consulting the government, I am consulting the practice of the House that there must be something before the Chair.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.



SUPPLY-THE LUMSDEN COMMITTEE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supplv.
Samuel Barker: I intend to say but a very few words upon the subject which has just been engaging the attention of the House. I am awaiting and I hope before long to have an opportunity to deal with all the proceedings of the committee while I remained a member of it. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) takes two positions here. One is that it is the duty of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) to go before the

committee, and get this report rectified; the other is that there is no question of privilege. I have very great respect for the opinion of the right hon. gentleman in a matter of that kind, but feeling inclined myself to rise to the question of privilege, I certainly think that my hon. friend from Siimcoe (Mr. Lennox) was within his rights in raising the question in that way, and I shall state why. The right hon. gentleman first says it was the duty of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken to get this rectified. What did he do? He came here before the House, the House to which that report was made, and he complained. What was the result? Instead of any attention being paid to that complaint made properly here in the House, the committee have been going on for about twelve days conducting this investigation, and not making a single report. Why is that? There is no question about the facts. The resolution moved in committee was not a verbal one, and it is printed in the minutes of the committee exactly as my hon. friend from Simcoe has said.


Haughton Lennox: And reported.


Samuel Barker: And reported. Every member of the House has got it. There is no question whatever as to what the resolution was. But the chairman of the committee, instead of reporting, according to the resolution in his hand, and the evidence before the committee, reported otherwise. It seems to me that the proper place to bring that matter up is in the House, and when it was brought to the attention of the right hon. gentleman, it was his duty to tell the chairman of that committee to report properly. What did he do? Instead of instructing the chairman to report properly, he appears to have had conferences with him, the result of which is that no report has been made. There is my answer to the right hon. gentleman. He does not deny what my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) has said, he does not deny that he was in consultation with the chairman who made this erroneous report; and instead of telling the chairman to correct his report and present a report to the House in accord with the evidence, he apparently advised him to make no report.


Wilfrid Laurier: I never saw the chairman until last evening, and the result of my conversation with him was that the matter was one for the committee to take up and not the House.


Samuel Barker: Whether a conference oi a consultation


Wilfrid Laurier: I said I had no conference with the chairman of the committee.


Samuel Barker: Probably it was with somebody else, and I do not care so much Mr. BARKER.
about that. The other point made is that this is not a question of privilege. Why the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) and myself withdrew from that committee because we considered that we were rend ered useless by the proceedings of the majority, and we were told at the time by the other members of that committee that we had no power to legally withdraw from it. And we have been waiting for twelve days to have a proper report brought in so that we might state to the House oui true position and be relieved from our duties as members of that committee. That, it seems to me, is a question of privilege. It is a question affecting my self and my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr Lennox). We consider that we were fully justified in withdrawing from that committee, but we are not able to get a formal, legal, discharge because there is apparently a deliberate design not to report and thus prevent our bringing up the question. Ii that be not a question of privilege, I do not know what is. The committee have suddenly become very slow in making their reports. Prior to our withdrawal we had reports from that committee, some two or three of them; but since we retired, we have not had a word. The committee, 1 am told, have engaged another counsel After we left, they passed a resolution nominating a certain counsel to prosecute this inquiry against the government. These four supporters of the government, who were alone on that committee, carried a resolution to appoint a counsel to conduct the prosecution against their own friends. That gentleman refused and I am told they then appointed another counsel, and all this is done without a word to this House. I appeal, Mr. Speaker, to your sense of fair play whether that is treating the House properly. Does the right hon. gentleman think it is right or ptopei that these gentlemen, a section of the committee, should appoint counsel, and after the one they first called on refused to accept a retainer that then they should appoint another, and this House be given no opportunity to know anything about it for twelve days afterwards.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Both my hon. friends opposite know very well that it is entirely out of order to discuss the proceedings of any committee before that committee has reported. I do not think it is necessary, for the purpose of this discussion, to go into the proceedings of that committee. Botli my hon. friends have been in the unfortunate position, ever since this matter came up this year, of looking for a grievance and trying very hard to find one, and when they could not find a grievance, they invented one. They now complain because the com-

mittee sits every day and they do not attend its meetings. It is unfortunate that the committee should have to do its work without the assistance of these hon. gentlemen, but that is not the fault of the committee. The committee is bound to carry out the mandate of this House. This House directed it to proceed with an inquiry into this matter and the committee is endeavouring to do that-that is the members of it who are attempting to carry out their duties. But these hon. gentlemen opposite have refused to carry out the instructions of this House and they do this without the permission of this-House. If they do not want to carry out the instructions of this House, they should have applied to	the House,
through you, Mr. Speaker, to be relieved of the task assigned to them. My hon. friends are aching for an opportunity to come before this House and have a debate but they have not taken the proper way. They know that they are in contempt of the House iby their refusal to attend the meetings of the committee. They know that they should by resolution have asked the permission of the House to withdraw from the committee and be relieved of the duties which they had under taken to do. As regards the motion of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), he knows that it was purely a catch motion. Unfortunately for him, he did not read it over himself. The proceedings of the committee, which are in his own possession, show that he has given three different versions of what he wanted the committee to do. First he moved that the proceedings of the committee and the evidence should be printed and reported to the House from day to day. As was pointed out, that could not, as a matter of fact be done. He knew very well, when he made the motion, that it could not be carried into effect. The chairman said that the committee would be required to be empowered by the House to have that done. Whereupon the hon. gentleman gave another and a different version of his motion. He said that his motion was not that the proceedings be reported to the House, but that the evidence be printed and reported from day to day. So that he gave a second version of what he meant and ultimately there appeared in the minutes a third statement. Then the clerk of the committee prepared the report, so that we have four versions of what the hon. gentleman wants to have done. Apparently the hon. gentleman did not know what he wanted.


Mr. STAPLES.: Was the motion not in writing?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: He was careful not to Tead the motion, if it was in writing.


Haughton Lennox: I did read it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am reading from the stenographic report of the proceedings which is also in the hon. gentleman's hands. According to that report the hon. gentleman gave two different versions of his motion, and on being interrogated the second time, he narrowed his request down so as to mean simply that the evidence be reported to the House from day to day, which is always done, when it is printed. My hon. friend knows that up to date the committee had not been able to get from the printers a single piece of printed evidence.


Haughton Lennox: There are five separate volumes of evidence actually printed, and I have them in my possession.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend has got them, I have not got them, as a member of the committee. Here are my hon. friends lamenting about the great lack of opportunity they have had to do things, and they have got something which I, as a member of the committee, have not got. These gentlemen run away from their duty to attend the committee, and now they come here and give different versions of the proceedings. They refuse to perform their duties, and yet they come here and make complaints of this kind. I say my hon. friend has been playing the baby act in this business from the beginning, his attitude here is playing the baby again today. The evidence here to which he refers shows that. My hon. friend did not manfully and above-board stand up and make the motion that he is trying to show should be presented in this House. But the motion he did make was one which no one had any objection to, that is the one which was reported to the House, that the evidence should be printed and reported to the House day by day. Now my hon. friend from Hamilton alleges that some high principle is being subverted, and, therefore, his conscience would not permit him to attend this committee and take part in its deliberations. All I can say, is that the hon. member for Hamilton will search in vain the history of this parliament, or of any colonial parliament, or the English parliament, for any precedent where the minority of a committee were given the control of the appointment of the counsel to control the proceedings. The assertion of this principle, which is made by my hon. friends for the first time in the history of this country, is simply put forward by them to enable them to find a grievance which did not exist, and to afford them an opportunity of making an exit from the committee for other reasons than the reasons they have given.


Mr. T. W. CROTHERS (West Elgin).: I do not understand that this is the proper

time to discuss our reasons for leaving that committee, as the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) just now began to discuss them. The time will come when it will be proper to discuss our reasons, and then we shall be fully prepared to meet the statements made by that hon. gentleman, or any other member of that committee. Early last week the attention of this House was called to the fact that the report presented on the 22nd of February was not accurate, and on that occasion it was admitted by all parties concerned, that it was not accurate. Now the hon. member for Pictou, sitting as a member of that committee, knows full well that the motion made by my hon. friend from Simcoe was in writing.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Not at all.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, it was.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It may be he suppressed it; I never saw it.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The member for Pictou was sitting at the table, the motion was put in in writing, it was read by the chairman of the committee, and carried in the presence of the member for Pictou.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The records do not show it.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I have the records here, and they do show it, on page 8 of this report. I may say, in passing, that a copy of this report as printed from day to day, is sent through the post office to each member of that committee, and it is remarkable that my hon. friend from Pictou has not received a copy of it from day to day, as the rest of us have. On page 8 of the report it is recorded that a motion was made by my hon. friend from Simcoe.in these words:
Mr. Lennox moved that the committee recommend that their proceedings, and the evidence taken by them, be printed, and reported to the House from day to day, which was agreed to.
I repeat that the motion was in writing, it was read by the chairman of the committee', who declared it was carried, no one dissenting.


Mr. GEOFFRION.: Allow me to interrupt the hon. member. He probably does not remember that the motion was not read by the chairman at all. There was a motion read by the chairman, but I cannot remember whether it was written or not. But I know a motion was made, and the chairman said simply:	' You have heard the
motion; are you in favour of it?'


Thomas Wilson Crothers: My hon. friend, the chairman of the committee, having made a statement, of course it would be improper for me to contradict it; I am bound under the rules of the House to accept it. But I Mr. CROTHERS.
have stated what occurred. The House has heard his statement and it has heard mine, and I am in the judgment of the House. However, this matter was before this House early last week. My hon. friend, who is the chairman tif that committee, and my hon. friend from Pictou, who is a member of it, have had an opportunity of ascertaining since whether that motion was in writing or not, and of examining the contents of it, if it was in writing. I have no doubt whatever that one of two things happened: If they have forgotten the contents of that motion, I have no doubt they have since examined it in the clerk's hands, and know what it contains; or else they did not find it necessary to examine it because they knew its contents without examining it. The question is as to whether the report made by the chairman of that committee was an accurate report; that is a very serious matter. It is admitted now that it was inaccurate. The Prime Minister says that because that report went through this House, as such reports generally do, without any opportunity of reading them, without half the members of the House hearing them, therefore we are bound by it for all time to come. My hon. friends, including the Prime Minister, knew early last week that the report presented to this House on the 22nd of February was an inaccurate report. Their attention was called to the fact that the motion of the committee required that the proceedings should be, not only printed, lout reported to this House day by day, they found that out early last week, if they had overlooked it before. The question naturally arises why have they not, since their attention was called to it, since they admit that the motion carried in the committee required them to report from day to day - why have they not since reported from day to day? We have had the spectacle this afternoon of my hon. friend from Simcoe challenging the chairman of that committee to say whether or not he had had any hand in mutilating that report, and we find the chairman of the committee sitting tight. Further. Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, when charged this afternoon with having been consulted by the chairman of that committee, said that he had not seen the chairman until last night, but he did not deny that he had seen other members of that committee. The Prime Minister knew early last week that the report brought into this House on the 22nd of February was an inaccurate one, because the charge was made here in his presence and admitted, all round. So the Prime Minister, since early last week, has known that it was the duty of this committee to report to this House from day to day.
Knowing that, we have the result that the report has not been made from day to

day. The lion. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) told us yesterday that nobody controlled this House-


Mr. FIELDING.: Hear, hear.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That we were a free parliament. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have sat in this House long enough to know that such is not the case. I have seen the Prime Minister hold up his linger time after time, and his followers obey. Every member of this House knows that all the First Minister required to do, when he ascertained that the report presented to this House was inaccurate, admittedly so, was to say to the chairman of the committee:	It is your duty, since your attention
has been called to it, since it was the instruction of the committee, according to the resolution of the hon. member for Sim-eoe, to report from day to day, even though you misapprehended it, even though you were labouring under a mistake even though you did not realize at the time that the motion carried, that it required you not only to print, but report the proceedings from day to day, to report to the House from day to day as instructed by the resolution. It is clearly your duty not only to the members of the committee, but to parliament. But, notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Minister of Finance, it is evident that the Prime Minister does control this House, and the committees of this House when he desires to do so. He has been consulted by members of the committee. Why is it that we have not had reports presented, in order to give the three gentlemen who retired from that committee an opportunity of explaining why they retired? I want to ask the Prime Minister when we may expect to get an opportunity, on the report of this committee, for these three gentlemen to explain the reasons why they left that committee, and I will sit down to give the right hon. gentle^ man an opportunity to answer that question. The Prime Minister does not propose to answer that question. In the face of these facts, when I give him the opportunity to say whether or not this House is to have the resolution moved by my hon. friend from South Simcoe carried into effect, he sits tight to his seat. He knows that would permit us to bring the report into this House to-morrow, and if the report is brought to this House, and laid on the table, these three members of the committee who retired will have an opportunity in the face of this House, and country to make their statement as to why they retired. I ask the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) when that opportunity will be afforded?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why did you not take it before?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: We might have put a notice of motion on the order paper, but it would not have been reached until the end of the session, and my hon, friend knows that very well. Can he suggest any reason why this report is not brought down, if it be not to deprive us of the opportunity of giving the people of this country the reason why these three gentlemen left the committee? I repeat the time will come. We will take good care that the members of this House, and the people of this country know just why we retired from that committee, and I have no doubt whatever that when these reasons are given, they will meet with the approbation of every intelligent member of this House, and of the good citizens of this country.


Victor Geoffrion: The hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), a few minutes ago, quoted a statement of mine to the effect that the clerk had prepared the report. I want it understood that I do not wish to shield myself behind anybody. I take the responsibility of my acts as. chairman of the committee, and I know that if the clerk made a mistake I should have to take the responsibility myself. He is an intelligent and efficient man, and it was my duty if an error was made to see that it was corrected. Some insinuations have been made with regard to myself, but if there is an hon. gentleman in this House who knows that these insinuations are false it is the hon. member for South Simcoe. He will remember, and he will not deny that when that motion was put by himself -perhaps some members of the committee may not recall it-it was at the very last minute when the committee was rising, and everybody was on his feet. Then, the hon. member for South Simcoe submitted the motion. I cannot remember whether it was in writing or not, but I know he read or recited it. Nobody paid any attention tc it, but this dialogue passed between the chairman and the member for South Simcoe.


Haughton Lennox: I move that our proceedings and the evidence be printed and reported to the House day by day.


The CHAIRMAN.: Reported to the House day by day, that means at different times.
Perhaps it was not couched in very intelligible or elegant English, but everybody must know that when the chairman said that he evidently meant that it was almost impossible to report day by day, and that he must have meant that it should be reported from time to time.


Haughton Lennox: As a matter of fact we cannot get it done, but that is the way the motion reads.
What does that mean? The hon. member for South Simcoe evidently meant that it

was impossible for the committee to have that done because it would impose too much of a hardship on the reporters. We could not have the report made every day, and he simply said: Well, that is the motion as it reads, but we will not insist on it being acted upon. That must be the understanding.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I shall have to be empowered by the House to have it done.


Haughton Lennox: My motion is that the evidence be printed and reported to the House day by day.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The evidence only.


Victor Geoffrion: The evidence only. Evidently the hon. member for South Simcoe kjiew that it was impossible. The insinuation is made that I have been guilty of presenting a false report. It is not my habit to do anything false, and I am always prepared to take the responsibility for_my actions. The report in fact, was not presented to myself. I am sorry to say that I was obliged to leave the citv. I did not stay to present the report, and it was presented by my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Clarke). He evidently did not read the report. He presented it just as it had been written, and he knew nothing more about it than the hon. member for South Simcoe, or the hon. member for Hamilton. But, where is the great harm after all? I know that the House is jealous of its privileges. If a motion is carried directing that a certain course be taken I know that the House will insist upon its directions being carried out. But, where is the harm? My hon. friends had the report before we had it ourselves. They had the report of the committee printed before we had it, and Die committee is open to everybody. What interest had I to make a false report, or to order the clerk, which he would not have done, to change the wording of the report? I think it is all nonsense to insinuate that we had an interest in withholding the evidence. The final report will be made, and it will contain the evidence, and other reports will be made before that time. But suppose we did not, when the final report comes the evidence will be put on the table and an opportunity will be given to every member of this House to study it. For instance, the Hod-gins report was laid on the table to give an opportunity to every member to study it, and the motion to have it adopted was not made until a couple of weeks after the presentation of the report. I know that if the motion was properly put, and that it was understood it was to be acted upon, then it was the duty of the chairman to have the report made accordingly. I admit that. But, I did-not think at the time- I was of the same mind as the hon. member for Simcoe-I did not think it could be done as he himself said, and then probably Mr. LENNOX.
the clerk, after having heard that conversation, prepared the report which was not examined by me, and which was presented to the House, and accepted by the House. Of course we cannot do anything about it now until another report is made.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I would ask my hon. friend where the difficulty would arise in carrying out the recommendation would it be in the printing of the evidence?


Victor Geoffrion: Before that report was made I communicated with the reporters and they said it would be very difficult for them even with two sessions a day, and now that we are trying to get through as quickly as possible and trying to have three sessions a day they said it would be very hard to have the report from day to day.


Robert Laird Borden: Was that after the motion was passed?


Victor Geoffrion: It was before that when I had a conversation with the reporters.


Robert Laird Borden: How did that arise when the motion had not then been presented?


Victor Geoffrion: It was in the general course of the proceedings of the committee. When there was a question of having another session in the afternoon the reporters said it was very doubtful if they could manage to have the whole thing reported.


Robert Laird Borden: Printed.


Wilfrid Laurier: Prepared.


Robert Laird Borden: I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Geoffrion) whether he denies that there has been a change in the recommendation. I do not understand that my hon. friend denies that; I do not understand the Prime Minister denies it, because we have the papers here to show exactly what took place. The recommendation of the committee was in these words:
Mr. Lennox moved that the committee recommend that their proceedings and the evidence taken by them be printed and reported to the House from day to day.
That motion was agreed to, but the report which is made to the House omitted the important words:	,
* and reported to the House/
There has obviously been a change. My hon. friend (Mr. Geoffrion) does not deny there has been a change. Was that change a mistake or was it intentional?


Victor Geoffrion: 
Robert Laird Borden: I am not making an insinuation. I am asking a very plain question.


Victor Geoffrion: There was no intention at all.


Robert Laird Borden: Then it was not intentional and was a mistake?


Victor Geoffrion: It must be a mistake.


Robert Laird Borden: Then if it was a mistake why is it that my hon. friend when he had his attention directed to that mistake on Friday last has not taken steps to correct it?


Victor Geoffrion: I have answered that. I said that I was obliged to leave the city, that I was absent, and that it was only last night I could look into the matter.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend say he will take the first opportunity of correcting it?


Victor Geoffrion: I will take the first opportunity to see what can be done, and if anything should be remedied, it will be remedied as it should be.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend take the position that knowing there was a mistake-because he has admitted that-and declaring that that change was [DOT]not intentional, does he now take the position that he will not correct it?


Victor Geoffrion: I say that it is for the committee, and that my hon. friends on the other side, if they wish, can attend-


Haughton Lennox: You know we cannot.


Victor Geoffrion: We will be very glad to see them, and we will discuss the matter and come to a conclusion.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Geoffrion) places himself in a very unfortunate position by the way in which he evades a question which can only be answered in one way if there is good faith in this matter. And the very best evidence that there is not good faith in it is to be found in some of the statements which have been made in the House to-day. The right hon. the Prime Minister had this matter brought to his attention; he introduces a great many ' ifs ' and qualifications-' if there was a mistake,' he said. Is he satisfied now that he has it out of the mouth of the chairman of the committee that there was a mistake? Will he put in any more ' ifs' in connection with the change in that report? The right hon. gentleman is responsible for fair dealing in this House, and for the decency and dignity of the proceedings of parliament, and does he think that it conduces to the decency and dignity of this parliament that there should be an intentional change of this kind? I am aware that any such intention has been denied. Well, Sir, does the right hon. gentleman think it conduces to the decency and dignity of this parliament that when a mistake has been pointed out -a mistake vitally affecting the rights of certain hon. gentlemen on this side of the House-that he should resort to the kind of argument which I was sorry to hear from his lips to-day. There was admittedly a mistake-


Victor Geoffrion: Will my hon. friend allow me. I did not admit there was a mistake; I said if there was a mistake, after discussing it in the committee I would act accordingly.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend assert that the recommendation which passed that committee was reported in its terms to this Hous^1 Did not the hon. gentleman, not ten minutes ago, admit to me that there had been a change made in that report from the recommendation of the committee?


Victor Geoffrion: No, I did not admit it. I could not make an admission that there was a change made in that report because I do not know of any change.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, my hon. friends seem to be remarkably obtusf^ but I will read again the recommendation as it passed the committee:
Mr. Lennox moved that the committee recommend that their proceedings and the evidence taken by them be printed and reported to the House from day to day.
That was agreed to. That is found in the official report of that committee and it is borne out by the stenographic report, because at page 39 of the proceedings on the 22nd of February I find this:


Haughton Lennox: I move that our proceedings and the evidence be printed and reported to the House day by day.
Therefore the stenographic report and the report of the committee both agree. It is perfectly true that further down Mr. Lennox is reported as saying:
My motion is that the evidence be printed and reported to the House from day to day.
Every hon. gentleman knows that the stenographic report of the proceedings in the committee bears the same relation to the record of the committee as signed by the clerk, that the ' Hansard ' report bears to the record of this House as kept by the clerk of the House, and the records of the House as taken by the clerk of the House would always be taken of course as a true record of the proceedings. Well, that is

the way in which the motion passed, and it was reported to this House in this way:
Your committee recommends that their proceedings and any evidence taken hy them he printed from day to day.
Does my hon. friend deny that the omission of the words ' and reported to the House ' is a change? Does he deny it, or does he affirm it?


Victor Geoffrion: What I said was that I did not know whether there was any mistake. I said that I had inquired and tried to find the original motion to see if it was as the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) said. It may read ' that the evidence be printed and reported to the House from day to day,' or it may read ' that the evidence be printed from day to day.' I cannot tell until I see the original motion.


Robert Laird Borden: I am talking about the report, about which there is no doubt whatever, and I ask the hon. gentleman to state whether the omission of the important words to which I have alluded constitutes a change. My hon. friend places himself in a peculiar position before this House when he declines to answer. I would be inclined to think that if he is not capable of determining whether or not the omission of those words constitutes a change, it would be well for him to resign the chairmanship of that committee, because I think we should have some gentleman at the head of that committee who would know and be able to state in a straight-for-wardfcway in this House whether the omission of those important words constitutes a change. I think it is high time that we had as chairman of this committee an hon. gentleman who would be in a position to say yes or no. without equivocation ot deliberation. There is no need of arguing it. I thought my hon. friend would have been manly enough to say at once that it 'was a change, and I intended to follow that up bv asking him whether that change was due to a mistake or was intentional. I propose to ask him once more, if he takes the ground that it was a mistake, why he has not seen fit to correct that mistake during the week that has elapsed since it was brought to his attention? If he was too busy to devote the necessary time to redress that mistake, why did not the Prime Minister, or some other member of the committee, take it upon himself to redress that wrong and correct that mistake? I think, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most extraordinary instances that has ever occurred in the history of parliament, within my recollection. I cannot account for it. I do not see any occasion for it. Can this be due to >a desire that three members of that committee on this side of the House should be silenced? If that is so, it seems to me that it is a.11 extremely awkward and undignified method to adopt for that purpose. I would suppose there was not such Mr. LENNOX.
party gain as to justify that method. My right hon. friend says he has told the chairman of the committee that this is a matter for the committee. It is not only a matter for the committee, but it is also a matter for him, as the guardian of the dignity of this House, and as one whose position demands that he shall see that such things aTe done in order, and that nothing that can be regarded as discreditable conduct on the part of any committee of the House shall be brought to the attention of the House without some effort being made to redress it. I am sorry that the Prime Minister has made no such effort. I repeat again that it must have been either a mistake or intentional. I am not charging that it was intentional, but I do say that it is beyond question that a change was made in that report. You have only to read the record of the committee and the record of this parliament to know that, and I say that it was the bounden duty of the chairman of that committee as an honest man, and it was also the bounden duty of the Prime Minister, as the guardian of the dignity of this parliament, to see that that mistake was corrected, and that it was made good at the earliest possible moment after it was brought to their attention.


Wilfrid Laurier: I hope that my hon. friend will not shed any tears over my delinquencies in this matter or any other matter. I vfilue very much the attention which he gives me. He wants to keep me right, which is his duty and privilege; but I may say that I am not the victim of the false heroics which he has directed to me this afternoon. What am I to do in this matter? My hon. friend the leader of the opposition and my hon. friend from West Elgin (Mr. Crothers) do me too much honour when they say that I am the dictator of this House. I am but a humble member of this House. I do not claim to have any other power or right here than any other member of this House. It happens that I have responsible duties to perform, and I try to perform them. But in this matter, I ask mv hon. friend the leader of the opposition, what am I to do?


Robert Laird Borden: See that the mistake is corrected.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER/ I do not know what relations my hon. friend has with the members of the committee who represent the minority in this House. Perhaps he can dictate to them; but I cannot dictate to those members of the committee who represent the majority of this House. They would resent, and properly resent, any attempt of mine to dictate to them what they should do. When this matter was brought to my attention yesterday, I told them very plainly what my mind was-that it was a matter for the committee to look into, to find out whether or not there had been an

incorrect report made to the House. This is the only thing to do. ;I am 'sorry that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has dealt with my hon. friend from Ver-cheres (Mr. Geoffrion), the chairman of the committee, in the way he has done. My hon. friend had no more to do, I am sure, with the preparation of that report than the leader of the opposition himself. He simply signed it as any other man would have done.


Robert Laird Borden: I made no statement to the contrary.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well, then, if the mistake has not been made by the chairman of the committee, but by some one else, is not the natural course and the common sense course simply to bring it before the committee?


Robert Laird Borden: Will my right hon. friend tell me what question there is about the report of the committee?


Wilfrid Laurier: I look at this matter from an altogether different point of view from that of my hon. friend. He has discussed the report of the committee; I have carefully abstained from discussing it, because it is not before this House.


Haughton Lennox: If the right hon. gentleman will look at page 5 of vol. I of the proceedings of the Lumsden Commission, he will find that not only was there a second report, on the 22nd of February of the proceedings issued down to that date, but a subsequent report, which brings us down to the 23rd of February; so that so far as these are concerned, we have the right today to discuss this matter. My right hon. friend was probably not aware of that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then I am sorry my hon. friend has not brought it in such a shape that we can discuss it, but has brought it up simply as a matter_ of privilege. I abstained from discussing what took place before the committee. I am right there, and -whether the matter has been rectified by the committee or not, it will then be time for it to come here. If the alleged error in the report has not been rectified, it is by the fault of my hon. friend. Why did he give up his duties? And to crown all that, my hon. friend suggests that the chairman of the committee, my hon. friend from Vercheres (Mr. Geoffrion) should also resign. _ Resignation after resignation. If an injustice has been done to my hon. friend, I am sure the chairman will see it is corrected.


Robert Laird Borden: The Prime Minister says he is not a dictator. He is a dictator whenever he wants to be, but whenever it suits him to pose as a


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend the Prime Minister spoke twice.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman has spoken, he cannot speak again.


Robert Laird Borden: The Prime Minister spoke again.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not on the motion to go into Committee of Supply, my hon. friend is all wrong.


Haughton Lennox: I am very much pleased that we have got as much light on this matter as we have. If the government are satisfied to leave the matter in this wray, 1 do not know that the opposition have from a party standpoint any great reason to complain. The leader of the government suggested to the House a little while ago that I had no right to bring this matter up as a matter of privilege. I have great respect for the views of the First Minister upon a question of this kind, a question of procedure, but I beg to assert that I have ample justification for bringing it up as a matter of privilege because the order of the committee, the solemn resolution of the committee passed on February 22 last, has not been carried out, and by reason of that, three members of the committee are prevented from exercising those rights which as members they have a Tight to exercise. That is one substantial ground of privilege, and the other ground is that when the hon. the chairman of the committee spoke the other day he made assertions which, as I have pointed out, were not justified; errors I admit, if you like, at all events, statements which were not justified, saying for instance, that the members of the committee had assented subsequently to the handing in of the report in the form in which it was presented to the House. We have a right to speak of this matter as a question of privilege, and I have said on that branch of it all I desire to say. I have given a concise unbroken record of what took place, and I am oontent to leave it there. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald), whose adroitness is marvellous-he is a good second to the Prime Minister in that regard-endeavoured to draw us away a little from the point in discussion, and he submitted that three members of this committee were guilty of contempt, wgre in contempt of the House, by reason of the action they had taken. I will admit that if you like, I am not particular. If the hon. gentleman thinks that way, he has his remedy, and I would like to have it fought out on the floor of the House. But I would rather be in contempt in this House than be in contempt before the people, and that is what the other members of this committee will be in if they persist in their refusal to comply with the order of that committee regularly passed. I am not going to follow the hon. gentleman in



an argument which did riot address itself to the point at issue, but I may say I am not daunted by the fact that he suggested that I am-I do not think he coupled my associates in that regard, so I exonerate them-but he says that I am playing the baby act. I would rather be playing the baby act than some acts I have known my hon. friend to play. He says that history affords no parallel for the action of the minority of the committee in demanding or asking to have the right to name the second counsel, the government already having one. I shall discuss that point and give our authority when the matter comes up properly in the House. But what is more important is that we should pay _ a moment's attention to the record. First, in reference to what has been read to the House on page 39. I referred to that in bringing the matter before the House a few moments ago. The stenographic report says:
I move that our proceedings and the evidence be printed and reported to the House day by day.


The CHAIBMAN.: Reported to the House day by day. That means at different times.
I am reported to have said:
As a matter of fact we cannot get it done, but that is the way the motion reads.
This is almost correct, but not absolutely so. What I did say was: As a matter of fact it cannot get the printing done. But that does not affect the motion in any way. We were to have the report to the House from day to day and we have the evidence as rapidly as it can be printed, and so it was understood by the committee at that time. The only difference is that insteal of putting the words ' the printing,' they put the word ' it.' Then I gave a summary of what I meant, wishing to impress on the committee, as I did at that time, that the material point was that it should be reported to the House from day to day. I went on:
My motion is that the evidence he printed and reported to the House day by day.
So that matter was impressed on the committee. What was the other record? I have pointed out to the Prime Minister that the proceedings are reported to us down to February 23. In other words, we have the reports of the committee that cover the matter that we have been discussing to-day, but we have not the report of the committee that covers the matter of the resignation of the three members, and that is what they do not want us to have. It is important, perhaps, that we should look again at the order of events. I moved the [DOT] resolution that has already been read once or twice. At this point a very peculiar suggestion is made by the hon. mem-Mr. LENNOX.
her for Pictou (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) and also echoed by the chairman. It may have more significance than we think. If I understand the hon. member for Pictou, he suggests that my motion may not now be in the committee room. I do not know anything about that, perhaps my hon. friend knows more about it than I do. This is followed up by the chairman of the committee, and he hints that possibly my motion is not now on record in the committee. I do not know anything about that, but I do know this, that I presented it, that I read it, that I handed it to the chairman, and that I left it with the chairman and left it with the committee. That is the end of my responsibility there, and if the motion is not there now, as is pretty broadly suggested, it only means, Mr. Speaker, that there is another incident to be explained. But it is only right that I should point out that not only was my motion read in the form:
Mr. Lennox moved that the committee recommend that their proceedings and the evidence taken by them be printed and reported from day to day, which was agreed to.
Not only that, but in the next day's proceedings, which have also been reported to this House, we have this:
Wednesday, Feb. 3, 1910.
The committee met at 11 a.m. Present Messrs. Geoff r ion, chairman; Macdonald, Clarke .(Essex), Wilson (Laval), Barker, Lennox and Crothers. The committee appointed R. C. Smith, K.C., counsel for the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners. The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed.
So that we had the resolution again in committee and .'again brought to the attention of the chairman that this resolution bad been passed the day before, providing that its proceedings should be reported to the House from day to day. That being so, it does not come with very good grace from the right hon. the leader of this House to take the position he does. He is responsible for the conduct of this House and it is his duty to suggest to the com mittee he appoints that at least fair plaj should he meted out to all the members of that committee and the public. He must know that there can be no question whatever as to what took place in the committee. He cannot doubt that the committee did solemnly determine that its proceedings should be reported to the House from day to day. He must know, as an experienced parliamentarian, that the dearest right which the minority on a committee possesses is to have the proceedings repotted from dav to day, because that furnishes the only means for an appeal to the House against the majority. He does know that a serious injustice

has been done to the minority of that committee. He does know that the public is waiting to hear whether or not the minority on that committee were justified in their action or whether a system has been pursued which made it impossible for that minority to continue on that committee. The minority were not on the committee for the purpose of whitewashing the administration. The right hon. gentleman knows all that, and he knows that the minority would be belittling themselves were they to go back and ask the majority to ratify this mistake. He knows that the proper place to ventilate this wrong is, not in that committee room, but in the open, before the public, in the House of Commons. I have brought the matter to his attention and make no apology for having done so. I have done simply what was my duty and I will continue to press this matter, let the Prime Minister take what attitude he likes. I make the demand that this mistake or wrong, which ever you like to call it, shall be rectified now; and if my demand be not granted, I will consider it my duty to bring the matter up again from time to time. What is the object of preventing a rectification of this error or wrong-doing? Is it because the Prime Minister and his following desire that the minority on that committee shall be gagged and shall not have the right to tell this House why they were compelled to leave that committee? Will the right hon. gentleman get up now and say that, regardless of the report of the committee, he will allow us to make our statement to the House to-morrow? If he will do that, I shall not argue any more; if he will do that, I venture to say it will not on his part be good politics or wise administration.


John Dowsley Reid: I merely want to say a few words on this matter. We have heard from a lawyer and I wish simply to speak as a layman. This matter, particularly in so far as it concerns the National Transcontinental railway, is one in which the public take great interest, and I may not at all be surprised at the anxiety of the right hon. the leader of the government to prevent a discussion of it. When the question of privilege was raised, a little while ago, he objected to any further discussion at that particular time, and had the opportunity not been given on the motion to go into Supply, we would have been debarred from discussing it at all. The right hon. gentleman knows that the question of privilege applies to the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker) as well as to the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox), yet he would not allow the hon. member for Hamilton to explain his position. The right hon. gentleman has 177J	,
told us that he does not control this House, but no sooner does he cry out, 'order' than he is echoed by every hon, member at his back. If he had told the members behind him that they could vote as they wished on the Naval Bill, I believe the hon. gentleman would have found himself obliged to go into opposition. At the time when the right hon. the Prime Minister brought in his motion for a special committee, we on this side wanted to have an investigation into all the circumstances in order that we might ascertain whether the contractors had been paid solid rock prices for loose rock, but the right hon. gentleman carefully worded his motion so that it did not give the committee the right to investigate into this. His motion simply read that a special committee of five members, to be named hereafter, be appointed to investigate the charges made-by Mr. Lumsden against a portion of the engineering staff. Mr. Lumsden, in his letters, made charges against parties on the railway,_ and claimed the contractors had been paid much more than they should have been. But the Prime Minister takes a similar course to that he took in reference to the steamer 'Arctic'. At that time he took very good care to limit the investigation so that we could not go into it as we desired. But fortunately, as we proceeded in the investigation, we were able to show that a great deal of wrong had been done, and the Prime Minister had to admit afterwards that we were absolutely right. Now I do not know what is going on in this committee. I have not been at the committee, and one reason is that_ if I had gone in there and asked a question, I would simply have been ruled out of order. But I read in the newspapers what is going on, I am only referring to what I have seen in the newspapers, and if I can get the correct meaning of what is reported, these four gentlemen who are members of that committee took good care that the gentleman appointed as counsel to represent the people was practically an official of this government. Now, is that the right kind of a gentleman to appoint to look after the interests of the people? That gentleman is practically a paid official of this government, and he is going to do everything in his power to save this government from, trouble. Why, Sir, the Prime Minister remembers when he sat in this House as-leader of the opposition, and when charges-were made against a member of the Conservative party who were in power, the opposition were allowed the privilege of appointing a solicitor to look after the interests of the public, and Sir John Thompson, who was then Prime Minister, allowed them to choose their own counsel and

allowed the opposition to examine all the -records.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What case is the *hon. gentleman referring to?


John Dowsley Reid: I refer to the Connolly and McGreevy case.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The records of the department show that _no thing of the kind occurred. Mr. Tarte brought his own counsel, Mr. Geoffrion, who conducted the matter throughout. Mr. Tarte's lawyer was counsel for the prosecution.


John Dowsley Reid: What about Mr. Osier?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Osier and Mr. Henry represented the Public Works Department.


John Dowsley Reid: They were appointed at the request of the opposition.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Let the hon. gentleman go to the records and refresh his recollection.


John Dowsley Reid: The records show that it was at the request of the member who made the charges, and that member was advised by the Prime Minister, and his party to do so. These are the facts, as I remember them, without looking them up. But an hon. gentleman tells me now that he has looked them up, and that my statement is correct. The Prime Minister knows at that time he was in conference all the time with the gentleman who made those charges, and was advising him what to do, and he knows that that gentleman was carrying out his wishes. He must also admit that Sir John Thompson was willing to give him all the assistance he wanted. Now I ask the Prime Minister if his course in this matter at all compares with the course of Sir John Thompson in the Connolly and McGreevy matter? I think there is no comparison whatever. The Prime Minister must admit that in every case where we bring something before the House, 'the whole object of the government and their supporters is_to try and prevent us from getting at the facts. We frequently see the same thing occurring in the Public Accounts Committee. It is a strange thing that in the matter of these charges, some of the gravest that have ever come before the House, the Prime Minister appoints the hon. member for Vereheres, one of his supporters, as chairman of that committee, and he remembers well that the *chairman of this committee was the same gentleman whose conduct w'as complained [DOT]of in the Public Accounts Committee. The whole thing, to my mind, is simply a put up job, or at least, is an effort to try to squelch the investigation so that we may not be able to get out the facts.
Now in regard to this National Trans-Mr. J. D. REID.
continental railway, I have been over a part of it myself, and when I went along the line I heard it said that part of this work had been put in as rock when, so far as I could judge, it was only sand. I do not know whether that was the case, but if we had a fair opportunity to investigate, we could find out whether that was the fact. Now when Mr. Lumsden's letters were made public, it was surely the duty of the Prime Minister to throw open the books and records, and give the opposition a chance to find out whether there was any truth in the charges. It is absolutely necessary, if the public interest is to be protected, that we should have that opportunity. In England, when investigations are being carried on by the Public Accounts Committee, and whenever any charge is made, the government offer to appoint a member of the opposition as chairman of the committee in order to insure a fair inquiry. I must aay that when the Conservative party were in power every opportunity was given to the opposition to ascertain the facts in relation to any charge that was made, but since this government have come to power - the Prime Minister need not smile, because he knows that every word I am saying is true. He knows well enough that in the Public Accounts Committee he picked out four of the ablest lawyers on his side, and each one had his own part assigned to him to stand up and try and block proceedings and prevent anything from coming out. If I were allowed to state what some of his supporters sitting behind him hiave said about the rascality that is going on in some of these departments, it would shock, I think, even the Prime Minister, and I think he would have to admit that it is a pretty serious affair. But of course hon. gentlemen opposite sav:	We have got to
vote these things through, and if we don't we shall be voting want of confidence in the Prime Minister, even though we were to lose our seats in consequence; so we will ' swallow the whole thing, even to a saw^dust wharf or something of that kind.
Now, as to the evidence before this committee, the Prime Minister must have read where, in one place, it shows a motion to have been made, and now the chairman makes a different report. When this discussion arose I thought that the right hon. Prime Minister would have stood up and said: If this thing is wrong I shall instruct the committee to at once look into the report and see that it is corrected. But the right hon. gentleman did not want to do that, because, if that report had come down, we could have discussed the whole thing, and it would have been shown why these three gentlemen had retired. The Prime Minister admits that is the reason why he does not want the report to come down. He nods his head. He wants the whole in-

vestigation to be complete before he will allow any discussion. The investigation is being carried on simply by four of his followers, who must do what he says, and by a solicitor from Montreal, a great supporter of the right hon. gentleman, and who will do anything to carry out his wishes, and prevent the government from getting into trouble. These four gentlemen have employed as the solicitor for the people practically another official of this government to look after their interests, and who knows that if he were instrumental in bringing in a report that would censure, or put the government out of power, he would lose his position. Under those circumstances, is it reasonable to expect that justice will be done in the interests of the people? I have just been informed that practically this public official has drawn about $30,000 from this government since they came into power. I would appeal to any man in this country, be he Liberal or Conservative, to say whether we can reasonably expect that man to do what is right in the interests of the people; or is it reasonable to expect that if there was any way that he could help this government he would not do so? I do not believe that the Prime Minister has done what is right and square in the interests of the people in allowing the committee to go on as he has done with four of his own followers, four lawvers, some of whom have been blockers in other investigations, or in other committees of this kind just as they have been on this committee. Therefore I say that justice has not been done on those other committees, and I believe that in this case justice will not be done in such a way as the people have a right to expect.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I think it will be acknowledged by every member of the House that the object in appointing this committee, or what should have been the object, was, in the first place, to investigate the charges that were made that there has been over-classification on the Grand Trunk Pacific, and I think we should keep that thoroughly in mind when we consider the result of the action that has been taken by some person in changing, or mutilating the report as presented, whether that change was made through inadvertance, or mistake, or otherwise. It is quite clear at any rate to the members on this1 side of the House that the motion made by my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) was in writing, and it is quite clear that in that motion there was a provision that the proceedings and evidence should be printed by the committee, and reported to this House from day to day. That being the case, it was the bounden duty of the committee, and all those under the authority of the committee, to print and report the evidence from day to day. Then it would be only fair to assume that every
member of this House would be expecting that the proceedings and the evidence would be reported from day to day. At once, upon a member finding that that was not being done it would be reasonable to expect him to go and ask how it was that the-order of the committee was not being carried out. That is as the matter strikes me. Then, upon the matter being brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend from South Simcoe again only a week ago it would be natural to expect that the error would have been corrected, but that has not been done, and the matter has been allowed to go on from that time until the present day. That makes it all the more inexcusable, and one would be almost tempted to suggest that there was something of intention in regard to the error that was made in the report. I happened! to be sitting in the room at the time my hon. friend from South Simcoe marie his motion, and I certainly understood, as he did, that it was intended that the evidence-and proceedings should be reported and printed day by day. It is true that the statement was made by somebody that it was quite impossible, but nevertheless that was the order of the committee, and I believe that it was a case in which we did not expect the evidence and proceedings to-be actually brought to the House from day to day, but it was supposed to be done as soon as it possibly could be done by the officers whose duty it is to prepare the report. But there has been absolutely nothing done in that line, and the very fact that the matter was brought to the attention of the committee in such a way would leave it in the mind of the committee that it could be done would seem to make it all the more suggestive to them when the proceedings and evidence were not reported to the House from day to day.
I noticed by the press reports that it was suggested that Mr. Wallace Nesbitt be employed as counsel on behalf of the Dominion for the purpose of investigating the accuracy of the statements made by Mr. Lumsden. These newspaper reports said that the Conservative members of the committee objected to the selection of such an eminent counsel as Mr. Nesbitt, and also that they were very greatly surprised because o.f that objection by reason of the fact that he was alleged to be a Conserva-, tive. I do not know the politics of Mr. Nesbitt, but I will say that I have every confidence in his ability and integrity, and I have more confidence in his integrity than I had prior to the time when his name was first mentioned, because I find that Mr. Nesbitt has upheld the dignity of his profession by saying that he will not act as counsel for the people of Canada in this matter, because the government employed him as counsel not more than two years ago, and took his opinion, and that

he gave an opinion directly contrary to the position of Mr. Lumsden.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does the hon. gentleman say that he was consulted by the government of Canada?


William Sora Middlebro: Perhaps not by the government of Canada, but he was employed by the contractors to give an opinion as k>
the interpretation of the specifications which are the subject matter of investigation before this committee. Mr. Wallace Nesbitt gave his opinion that Mr. Lumsden had made an improper interpretation of the specifications. How could you expect that Mr. Nesbitt would come forward now and endeavour to prove that the opinion which he had previously given was wrong? Therefore, I say it is to the credit of Mr. Nesbitt to say: I will not act as counsel and controvert an opinion which I have expressed, and for which I have been paid by the very contractors whose Interests are adverse to those of the people and by whom I wa3 retained as counsel. Then, the right hon. leader of the government, through his majority on that committee, and whose duty it is to protect the public interest, calls in a gentleman against whom I have not one word to say personally in any manner, shape or form, but a gentleman who has been employed by this government since 1896, and has received from the public treasury about $30,000.
He is brought here to prove that this .government is guilty of the charges we have laid at their door. Is it human to expect that gentleman to come before that committee and to use the best of his endeavours and ability to prove that the very .men from whom he got $30,000 have done anything wrong? I say the position is wholly inconsistent with the public interest, and I say that the three Conservative members of that committee were, acting in the interests of the people of this country when they declared they would no longer sit on a committee which first proposed to employ as counsel, a gentleman who gave an opinion directly antagonistic to the interests of the country, and secondly a gentleman who has got $30,000 from the coffeTS of this country, and who they expect to prove that this government has been guilty of maladministration in 'connection with the Transatlantic railway.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: Does the hon. gentleman suggest that the three members refuse to act on that committee on account of the employment of Mr. Chrysler?


William Sora Middlebro: If the chairman of the committee performed his duty and reported the proceedings to the House, I would be able to answer the hon. gentleman.


William Sora Middlebro: 


Alfred Henry Clarke: That is not an answer to my question.


William Sora Middlebro: I cannot answer your question until I know what took place in the committee.


Alfred Henry Clarke: I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the three members of the committee were justified in quitting the committee on account of the appointment of Mr. Chrysler. I now ask him is that the reason?


William Sora Middlebro: If the hon. member (Mr. Clarke) says that they retired before it was suggested that Mr. Nesbitt should be employed I accept his explanation because he knows better than I do. I started out by saying that the Reform press of this country stated that the three members of the committee were not justified in retiring because the committee proposed to appoint a Conservative counsel on behalf of the public and were therefore very magnanimous. I say the committee wms>
doing nothing magnanimous because they were appointing a gentleman who they knew had given an opinion in favour of the contractors right in the Hodgins inquiry, which oninion was got through the medium of the office of the Minister of Justice, Messrs. Aylesworth, Wright & Moss, of the city of Toronto.


Alfred Henry Clarke: Was it on account of the appointment of Mr Nesbitt they retired?


William Sora Middlebro: I am not a member of that committee and I cannot know what took place there, but if the report of that committee were allowed to come before the House these three gentlemen would have an opportunity to answer my hon. friend.


Haughton Lennox: We will answer him.


William Sora Middlebro: It looks to me very much as if the report of the committee was not brought down, in order to prevent the three Conservative members from answering that question. I now make an appeal to the right hon. gentleman:	Having had
this matter brought to his attention to-day, and putting the most charitable construction on what has taken place, beyond all doubt there was a mistake riiade in that report which, if not made, would have enabled these three hon. gentlemen to rise in their places and explain to the House and to the country the reasons why they resigned from the committee; I ask the right hon. gentleman now in his place will he not use his efforts and power as Prime Minister to rectify that mistake and allow the report of that committee to be presented to the House at the earliest possible moment, so that these gentlemen may explain their action in retiring from that committee.


George Taylor: I beg leave to move the adjournment of the debate.


William Sora Middlebro: I am not finished. I am waiting for the Prime Minister to reply.
Motion (Mr. Taylor) withdrawn.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection at all to answer the question of my hon. friend, though it is becoming a practice to interrogate members on this side of the House; a right which for my part I do not recognize. But, the hon. gentleman having put his question, my answer is to tell him that there is no necessity for my 'interference in this matter because I am sure that the members of the committee will do what is proper and see that the minority shall have all the rights to which they are entitled. I will be glad to hear my hon. friend on that point when this matter comes up again.


William Sora Middlebro: I might have thought that the majority of the members of that committee would have done what is right did I not know that nearly a week ago their attention was drawn to this mistake and they have not rectified it.


Wilfrid Laurier: This matter was brought to the attention of the House on last Friday, and the chairman of the committee was not here. At the time.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman has the right to answer a question, but he has no right to make a speech. He called me to order a moment ago, and I call him to order now.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, really I have no objection-


Robert Laird Borden: I insist on my point of order.


Wilfrid Laurier: If you rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, I shall of course bow to your ruling.


Robert Laird Borden: I am giving you a dose of your own medicine.


Wilfrid Laurier: I wanted to answer my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro), and it is no fault of mine if I cannot answer him.


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. member for Pictou denied the statement that in the Tarte-McGreevy inquiry counsel for the people were appointed and paid by the government of the day.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not say that.


William Sora Middlebro: What did the hon. gentleman say?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I said, in answer to the hon. gentleman from Grenville, that the counsel which conducted the McGreevy inquiry was Mr. Geoffrion counsel for Mr. Tar.te, who made the charges on his responsibility as a member of this House. I said that Mr. Osier and Mr. Henry were appointed expressly on motion of Sir John Thompson, to represent not the people but the Public Works Department, and I said that the burden of the investigation was carried by Mr. Geoffrion counsel for the complainant.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Is not the hon. gentleman awaTe that Mr. Osier and Mr. Henry were suggested to Sir John Thompson before he made the motion.


Mr.   E M. MACDONALD@: I am speaking from the records of the committee, which speaks for itself.


John Graham Haggart: You would not find that fact in the records of the committee. You would simply find that Sir John Thompson moved the appointment of counsel, but the truth is that the suggestion was made by the opposition of the day.


William Sora Middlebro: I will explain that because I read the debate a few days ago.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: So did I.


William Sora Middlebro: In bringing in that report the chairman of the committee said that Mr. Tarte had appointed Mr. Geoffrion-the brother of the chairman of this committee-and he recommended that the government also pay, and the government did pay for the services of that counsel.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Certainly.


William Sora Middlebro: And on the Lums-den committee the minority members are representing the public. You [DOT] have the Transcontinental Railway Commission represented by Mr. R. C. Smith and the engineers represented by Mr. Moss, but there is nobody there representing the people of this country except Mr. Chrysler, who is a man who has drawn $30,000 from the coffers of the government since 1896.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the hon. gentleman make any imputation on the standing and good faith and credit of Mr. Chrysler?


William Sora Middlebro: I have already said that I did not and I think it is rather small politics for the hon. gentleman to ask that. But I say that human nature is the same in Mr. Chrysler as in every individual in the Dominion of Canada. And I am saying that the distinction between the action of this government and the action of the previous administration is that in the one case the plaintiffs the people of Canada appointed their ow;

counsel, and in this case they are not allowed to. In the former case the representatives of the people had consultation with their own counsel, they produced their own evidence in accord with their own idea of the evidence, and these counsel were paid by the government of that day, but in this case we are not allowed to make the appointment of counsel and the appointment of counsel whicn has been made is of no benefit whatever to the minority members because they are not going to divulge to a paid advocate appointed by the government the evidence which is in their possession. I, therefore, say it is not a fair investigation, and I say that unless counsel is appointed who is nominated by the three minority members of that committee you will not have an impartial inquiry. I am not allowed to refer to the proceedings of the committee because no report has come before us, but any one who attends that committee can see what is going on. There is nobody there taking an active interest on behalf of the people of Canada; all the questions are leading questions put by the counsel for the commission and put by the counsel for the contractors, and they are endeavouring to obtain from Mr. Lumsden the very answer they require. Any one can see that Mr. Lumsden, had he proper counsel there, could prove the charges he has made, and even with all that the evidence so far has been very damaging to the government. It can easily be seen that Mr. Lumsden alone on the one side, and with an array of six K. C's. against him and badgered by experienced counsel, we could not expect that the evidence would come out as it would with counsel acting with the full confidence of the minority of committee and with the consciousness that he was doing his duty for the public and for the public alone.


George Taylor: I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the debate is adjourned, I wish to say that I do not know that it is a very usual form of tactics to call one to order under the circumstances under which I was called to order a little while ago. The Prime Minister frequently speaks two or three, or even four times on motions before this House. Jle does that by the courtesy of hon. members on this side of the House. But as he is so careful about points of order, he will have to meet them moie frequently in the future than he has done in the past, because what is a good rule for one side of the House is an equally good rule for the other side.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not complain.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend has no reason to complain, and he ought Mr. MIDDLEBRO
always to be ready to take the medicine that he prescribes to others. He had spoken on a question of privilege in defiance of his own statement that there was no question of privilege before the House; and afterwards he took advantage of the Speaker's having brought that debate to a conclusion to refuse to permit me to reply to vjsorne personal observations which he had addressed to myself. It was perhaps not very good tactics, in view of the fact that at that very time the government were asking us by consent to give them a vote of twenty-five per cent on account. However, I have no advice to tender to my right hon. friend in that regard. He will, of course, take his own course in regard to that and other matters. So far as I am concerned, I propose to say now what I was debarred from saying a few moments ago. The right hon. gentleman can be a dictator when that is thoroughly in accord with party interest; it suits him also, when that course is not in accord with party interests, to pose as an independent member of this House, having no control whatever over hon. gentlemen who sit behind him. Every one understands how much reality there is in all that. There is just as much reality in it as there is in the pretense that they do not understand that this omission or ' mistake,' was made for a purpose. There need be no such pretense as that. If there was not some object in that mistake, then it would have been rectified. It has not been rectified, and the reason is very apparent. The investigation before this committee is a farce, it was intended to be a farce, and the hon. gentlemen who are members of that committee from this side of the House were perfectly justified in retiring from it, because no man in this House ought to be compelled against his will to take part in such a farce. That is all I have to say on the subject.


Mr. BRISTOL.: Mr. Speaker, this matter seems to be one that is very simple if the right hon. the First Minister wants to do what is just. It i3 quite obvious that three hon. members of this House are having from day to day a great injustice done to them. They have rights and privileges which are affected by the alteration which has taken place in the report which has been presented to this House by the chairman of the committee. Now, it seem3 to me that the chairman of the committee, having been in this House to-day, and having had brought to his attention the fact that he had made an incorrect report to this House was in a position to have corrected that report, and to have said at once that he would have issued a correct report. There is no question as to the facts, and just for a moment I am going to bring them to the attention of the House. The first report on February 22, made by the clerk

of the Commons, and approved by the chairman, contains these words:
Mr. Lennox moved that the committee recommend that their proceedings and the evidence taken by them be printed and reported to the House from day to day, which was agreed to.
The chairman does not deny that that was so. He quibbles as to whether he read the document out loud or whether it was read to him; but he does not deny the truth of that report which he and the clerk of the committee presented to the members. Nor does he deny any of the facts stated therein. Now, what confirmatory evidence have we that he knew the nature of the motion that was made? That appears at the conclusion of the evidence taken on that day, where it stated:


Haughton Lennox: I move that our proceedings and the evidence be printed and reported to the House day by day.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Reported to the House day by day-that means at different times.


Haughton Lennox: As a matter of fact we cannot get it done, but that is the way the motion reads.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I shall have to be empowered by the House to have it done.
Now, what does he ask the House to have done? Instead of asking the House for permission to report from day to day, he reports to the House in this fashion:
Your committee recommend that their proceedings and any evidence taken by them be printed from day to day, and that rule 72 be suspended in reference thereto.
After having had the written motion before him, after having read the motion, and after having discussed the matter in the committee with the member who made the motion, he carefully omits these words: 'and reported to the House.' Now, that report is before the House; the chairman who made that report is here to-day, and he is the man who should have stated at once, when the omission was brought to his attention, that he would correct the report, make it in accordance with the facts, and do justice to the three hon. members who for some time have been deprived of certain rights and privileges thereby. But is that all the evidence that he was aware of the nature of this report? We have this fact, that at the meeting of the committee following the meeting at which that motion was carried, it is stated: 'The minutes of the last meeting were read and confirmed.' So that you have the cumulative evidence of three statements, which put it beyond peradventure that the chairman of the committee knew of the motion, discussed the motion, and confirmed the motion; but when it came to doing his duty and reporting truthfully to this House, we have these important words,
'and reported to the House,' omitted. If it was a layman who did a thing of that kind you might say it was a mistake, but where it is a man of high standing in the legal profession he cannot shield himself before this House or the public on the plea of having made that mistake with the facts before him in writing. Is there any member on that side of the House who believes that was an innocent mistake? How can he believe it in the face of such evidence? Would any jury in this country, whether it be composed of Liberals or Conservatives, if they had these facts, the written motion, the discussion by the judge, as it were, with the witness, that is the person making the motion, the confirmation the following day ol that motion, and then the report with the essential part of it left out presented afterwards. Would any jury believe that was done innocently when the effect of it is and continues to be that three hon. gentlemen are deprived of an opportunity of explaining to this House in respect of a matter vitally affecting their honour and their duty to the House and to the country, and so long as the report is permitted to stand in this shape they are debarred from and deprived of certain rights and privileges dear to every member. They are gagged and stand gagged, and the Prime Minister allows his chairman, who admits the mistake and who, when he found the box he had put himself in, presented the spectacle of suddenly saying: Oh, if it is so. Did any one ever see anything more ridiculous, a lawyer of his standing getting up and hedging with 'ifs' and 'ands' and shiftings. The thing is ridiculous, it is a spectacle I am sorry to see in this House, and I trust that the right hon. gentleman and the gentleman who is chairman of this committee will see that what is just and fair and right is done in this matter without delay.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Amendment of Mr. Taylor that the debate be now adjourned, negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to consider resolutions reported from Committee of Supply.
Trent canal-construction, $1,750,000.
Glenlyon Campbell: I beg to move that this item, No. 113, for the Trent canal construction be reduced by the sum of $150,000, said amount being the intended expenditure upon the Newmarxet canal. I

move this in the absence of my hon. friend from Centre York (Mr. Wallace) who is unable to be present for a few minutes, but we hope to have him here before this debate is over. I object to this expenditure for various reasons In the first place, i believe that all the members of this House, with the exception, perhaps, of the hon. Minister of Justice, are strongly of the opinion that this expenditure is not advantageous to the people of Canada in any degree. I realize that the Minister of Justice may think that it has been advantageous to some people in Canada, because it is the general impression throughout the country and in this House that through the promises with regard to this Newmarket canal, and in consequence of the amount of work that was done, it was railroaded, or canalled, or boated, through this House, and gives him the position here that is so objectionable to this side of the House. I object to it also-I am pleased to see that the First Minister has arrived-I object to it very largely on account of what the First Minister said last year when this matter was under discussion. If I am correct, and if I am not, I want the right hon. gentleman to correct me. he gave as an excuse for the expenditure on this Newmarket ditch that a number of Tories, with a few Liberals, I presume, had come to him as a delegation and asked for the work. I think I am fairly representing what the First Minister said, and I would like to ask him if I am right?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think this time my hon. friend is about right.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am proud that for once, in the opinion of the First Minister,
I am right. That was the excuse that he vouchsafed to this House last year-he granted the expenditure on this ditch because some Tories asked for it. But, Sir, he did not tell this House that all they asked for was $43,000, or $47,000 at the outside, which the engineer said the'work would cost. He forgot also to tell the House that it was not for a canal, Dr a ditch, whether the Aylesworth or the Newmarket ditch, or anything else, that they asked for this expenditure, but it was to deepen the Holland river from Lake Sim-coe up to Newmarket. That is what they asked for. I think that when it comes to expenditures of vast sums of money, hon. members on the government side ought to be able to get up and forget their politics and._ vote as men, forget that they are partisans and vote for what they know is right. Every hon. gentleman on that side of the House who knows anything about this Newmarket ditch, knows that it is an absolute waste of money, and no reason other than a partisan reason can be given Mr. CAMPBELL.
for it. I defy any man to get up and honestly say that I am wrong in what I am saying. The First Minister knows that I am right, and he is ashamed of the fact that I am right. I heard the argument used last year, when he whipped his followers into line, that they had already expended so much money on that canal that it would be a tower of folly, and that they must now go on and complete the work, even though it would be of no use. But they were whipped into line last year to vote for a continuance of the folly. I trust now that we have seen the last of partisanship in that connection, and that the First Minister will not use that little influence he has over his followers to induce them to vote for this item, knowing as he does, and as every one of them does, that it is against their conscience. Seldom have we seen a project criticised so adversely by the press of Canada. I think it is time for this House to forget partisanship and do the proper thing, and relegate this Newmarket ditch to the scrap heap. No hon. gentleman on the government side can get up _ and show by facts and figures that elevations, and quantities of water, and all the necessary requirements to a canal service are present in this case and will justify the House in voting this item. Even if the canal were built, and even if there was any need of a canal, no hon. gentleman can show that there is any boat service there at present, nor can they show in pounds and tonnage that there is ever likely to be navigation sufficient to justify the expenditure of this money.
I regret that he is not here because, were he here he would put before this House very much more clearly and more succinctly the various points in regard to this matter than I can do; but in his absence, I ask the House to forget that last year hon. gentlemen were whipped into line, and made to vote against honest sincere wishes in this regard. It may be said by some one who will follow me that that is not so, but I say it absolutely knowing that it is true, because I heard many of the members of this House say, before the vote came on that they would not vote for it because they did not believe it right. But, they voted for it because they had to. Surely it is time that we forgot this party-ism, and that in matters that pertain to the public interest we should vote honestly and decently.
House divided on the amendment (Mr. Campbell):
++YEAS
Arthurs,
Barnard,
Best,
Blain,
Messieurs
Lor tie, Macdonell, McCall, Maddin,

Blondin,
Borden (Halifax), Bradbury,
Bristol,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron), Clare,
Crosby,
Crocket,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Donnelly,
Elson,
Fraser,
Goode ve,	,
Gordon (Nipissing), Haggart (Winnipeg), Lake,
Lennox,
Middlebro,
Nantel,
Northrup,
Paquet,
Perley,
Price,
Reid (Grenville), Roche,
Sharpe (Ontario), Stanfield,
Stewart,
Taylor (Leeds), Thornton,
Wallace,
White (Renfrew), Wilcox (Essex), Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Wright.-46.
++NAYS
Messieurs
Allen,
Aylesworth,
Beland,
Black,
Borden (Sir Frederick),
Boyer,
Brown,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Conmee,
Currie (Prince Edward),
Delisle,
Demers,
Dubeau,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Girard,
Gladu,
Guthrie,
Harty,
Hodgins,
King,
Knowles,
Lachance,
Lanctqt (Laprairie-Napierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid Lavergne,
Loggie,
Lovell,
Macdonald,
MacNutt,
McAllister,
McCoig,
McColl,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Oliver,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin
Richards,
Robb,
Ross (Middlesex),
Roy (Dorchester),
Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Sperry,
Stratton,
Templeman,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet),
, Turcotte (Quebec County),
Turriff,
Verville,
War burton,
Wilson (Laval)).-91.
Ministerial.
Lemieux,
Fisher,
PAIRS: Messieurs
Opposition.
Barker,
Lewis,
Paterson,	Henderson,
Graham,	Haggart (Lanark):
Brodeur,	Porter,
Templeman,	Hughes,
Murphy,	Foster,
Low,	Smyth,
Harris,	Beattie,
Gordon (Kent),	Osier,
Reid,	Doherty,
Ecrement,	Lancaster,
Kyte,	Sproule,
Martin (Ste. Mary's),.	Armstrong,
Bickerdike,	McCarthy,
Tobin,	Sexsmith,
Chew,	Boyce,
Mayrand,	Broder,
Gervais,	Ames,
McLean (Sunbury),	Worthington,
Clark (Red Deer),	Staples,
Rivet,	Forget,
Talbot,	Owen,
Douglas,	Thoburn,
Todd,	Kidd,
Law,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Devlin,	Marshall,
German,	Russell,
Beauparlant,	Edwards,
Turgeon,	Rhodes,
LeBlanc,	Meighen,
McMillan,	Magrath,
Sinclair,	Monk,
Major,	Cowan,
McCraney,	Taylor (New Westminster),
Lafortune,	Herron,
White (Victoria),	Schaffner,
McGiverin,	Jameson,
Ross (Rimouski),	Daniel,
Lapointe,	Maclean (York),
Amendment negatived and item agreed to.



WAYS AND MEANS.

[Stage Direction]
On. motion of Mr. Fielding, the House went into Committee of Ways and Means.
William Stevens Fielding: That towards making good a supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1910, the sum of $70,000 be granted out of the consolidated funds of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Stevens Fielding: That towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1911, the sum of $42,333,023.58 be granted out of the consolidated fund of Canada.
He said: This is the sum which the committee has voted, as made up by the clerks of the House in the usual way.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Charges of management-removal of foreign and uneurrent coin from circulation, $2,500.
['It is understood that we shall drop the Supply Bill previously introduced and that a more comprehensive Supply Bill will be brought in to-morrow.\nItems concurred in.']
William Stevens Fielding: This is to carry out an arrangement for encouraging the exportation of foreign silver, both for the convenience and improvement of our own currency, and also because there is a profit involved in silver coinage which we might as well have in our treasury as to leave in the treasuries of other countries.
Post Office Department, contingencies-* sundries-further amount required, $1,500.


Mr. LAKE.: Would it not be possible to make the official post office guide more convenient for reference? A better system of indexing would facilitate matters greatly.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I will see that we get a better index next year.
Saskatchewan and Alberta Buildings- Moosejaw-immigration building.. .. $ 3,500
Regina-immigration building	 3,900
Biggar-immigration building	 2,800
Phillips (Alberta) - immigration
building	 2,700
Battleford-immigration building ..	2,700
Saskatoon-public building	 300


Mr. U. WILSON.: I would like to have an explanation about these immigration buildings.


Frank Oliver: Regina requires a new building. The old building was removed and a basement put in and other repairs. The building on the former site was merely a temporary matter without a basement. There is a new building erected at Regina, also at Phillips. At Battleford, the building was erected two years ago. At Saskatoon, repairs are required.


Uriah Wilson: How is it that it cost $3,000 to remove the building at Regina, when the old one only cost $2,800?
Mr. OLIVER, When we removed the old building, we put in a basement on the new site. Thera was no basement on the new site. There was no basement in the former one. We also improved the buildings generally, so that the cost of its removal and repairs amounted to more than the old temporary building cost.


Uriah Wilson: I have no objection that these items should pass provided that we may get information on the main estimates if reguired.


William Stevens Fielding: There will be no objection to discussion of these items on the main estimates.


William Stevens Fielding: Sault Ste. Marie wharf - dredging approaches, $14,600.


Mr. BOYCE.: With regard to the approach to the wharf at Sault Ste. Marie, of which I spoke some days ago, is the dredging of t-hat included in this amount?


William Pugsley: That remains to be done. This is to close up the work done during the current year.
British Columbia-Skeena river-improvements, $762.38.
Mi-. PUGSLEY. We have been engaged in removing snags, such as drift-wood, from the Skeena river. The work begins with the opening of navigation, and after the commencement of the fishing season, and will last till after it is closed. The river is a navigable river.
Dredging-maritime provinces, $150,000.


William Pugsley: We are asking this sum to close up the accounts which are due for dredging, both by the operation of government dredges and for contract work in the maritime provinces. But there is a sum of $25,000 which has not yet been adjusted, and I move that the vote be reduced by $25,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Would the minister state who this .is due to?


William Pugsley: There is an amount due to W. J. Poupore & Co., for dredging in the Miramichi bay, $19,083; to the Dominion Dredging Company, for work at Cheticamp, $19,610; to Beasley Bros., $1,478; to A. & R. Loggie, at Caraquet, $3,162; to the Cape Breton Company at Fourchu, $9,963; to A. & R. Loggie, at Dalhousie, $31,362; to the Maritime Dredging and Construction Com-$19,610; to Beazley Bros., $1,478; to A. & R. Loggie, at Bathurst, about $10,000. There is a further claim which has not yet been adjusted, and I only ask for about $10,000; to Peter England, $1,975. These make altogether about $121,000. The amounts for Bathurst and Loggieville require to be adjusted, and I am not asking for an amount to cover these at present.


John Dowsley Reid: Did A. & R. Loggie receive these contracts by tender?


William Pugsley: They received contracts for Dalhousie, Loggieville, and Caraquet by tender. Then they were allowed to do work at Bathurst at the same price as at Caraquet, forty-one cents.


John Dowsley Reid: When we were discussing dredging last year we expected that all the dredging contracts would be let by tender, but it appears from what the minister says now that some of them were not let by tender. I suppose the minister knows that some contracts were practically let before the tenders were advertised for.


William Pugsley: No. There were some cases of urgent work where parties were put to work temporarily pending tejiders.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister knows that this Maritime Dredging Company got contracts given them before tenders were advertised. They were to get the contract at whatever the lowest tender would be.


William Pugsley: No. That was at Gas-pereau, and we are not asking for anything at Gaspereau. Let me refresh my hon. friend's memory. In that case the work was urgent, and their dredge was coming down from the St. Lawrence to the Bay of Fundy, and they were asked to stop there and go to work immediately, with the understanding that if they were the lowest tenderers they would get the work, but if they were not, they would be paid for the work they did in the meantime at the price of the lowest tender. My hon. friend will remember that I stated to the House last session that I should probably renew the contracts of the previous year. We did renew the contracts, because our experience of previous years had been that we lost money by putting them up to tender again. Our experience has rather been that where contractors have their plant upon the work, and where they are doing the work satisfactorily, at reasonable prices, it is better to let them continue, rather than call for new tenders. In the previous year, by calling for new tenders, we lost about $200,000, which we would have saved by extending the contracts. So last year, in most cases, we extended the contracts.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister's statement would be all right, if I understood it as he does. My understanding of the Gaspereau matter, as I read it in the newspapers


William Pugsley: In which newspapers?


John Dowsley Reid: In the Toronto ' Globe ', the Montreal ' Herald ', and even in the St. John ' Sun '. The minister says that the Maritime Dredging Company had a dredge coming down from the St. Lawrence, and that this work was urgent. I understand there was practically no Maritime Dredging Company before that.


William Pugsley: Yes, they had a dredge before that.


John Dowsley Reid: They may have had a dredge a few weeks before. But the Maritime Dredging Company was made up hurriedly, consisting of a Mr. Moore, the gentleman who, I suppose in conjunction with the Minister of Public Works, owns the St. John ' Telegraph '.


William Pugsley: No, the hon. gentleman is misinformed.


John Dowsley Reid: I am only stating what I read in the Toronto ' Globe ' and the Monreal ' Herald '.


William Pugsley: I am sorry to say that I do not own the St. John ' Telegraph ', I wish I did.


John Dowsley Reid: Now, this Mr. Moore forms a company called the Maritime Dredging Company. He purchased this dredge at Montreal in July, knowing that the very minute he purchased the dredge, all he had to do was to get it to Gaspereau. He had in his possession the instructions to take it there, and practically to do the work at his own price. The minister told the department that they were to give this contract to Mr. Moore, and of course they did. That means the Maritime Dredging Company. We would not have known what the Maritime Dredging Company was had we not learned from the Toronto 'Globe' and the Montreal 'Herald' that it and Mr. Moore are one and the same. The minister knows that before the tenders were advertised for the contract was let to Mr. Moore at the price that the lowest tender would be. Work was being done long before the tenders were received.


William Pugsley: Only a few days.


John Dowsley Reid: The dredge went down there about the 1st of August, and of course it got to work. That makes me a little suspicious of these dredging matters. The minister had an engineer who, as faT as 1 understand previous to this, was considered to be a pretty respectable man and his reputation was pretty fair. This man told the minister that 20 cents a yard was a good, fair price for the work. I take it for granted that he understood his business when he said that 20 cents a yard was a fair and reasonable price, but when the tender of Mr. Moore came in at 90 cents a yard the same engineer changed his mind in a day or a night. He went to bed one night with a contract at 20 cents a yard, and next morning he got up and said that he thought it was worth 90 cents, and got this price of 90 cents. There is a sample of the changes in dredging prices. I do not hesitate to say that at 20 cents a yard Mr. Moore made money and that the other 70 cents a yard went into the St. John 'Telegraph', that the people of the country paid 70 cents a yard in order to give the Liberal party a paper in St. John. That is what happened in that case, but that is not the only case. The work was given to Mr. Moore at Gaspereau because it was urgent. The minister knows that after the work has been done the harbour is in no better shape than it was before because this is only a part of the work.


William Pugsley: They could not work alter the season closed.


John Dowsley Reid: Has there been anything done since?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: The work was stopped and the dredge taken away.


William Pugsley: In the winter?


John Dowsley Reid: But even then they stopped work and did not proceed.


William Pugsley: Because they thought they could not afford to go on at that price, and we put the government dredge to work there the next year.	.


Mr.  J. D.@: REID At 90 cents a yard?


William Pugsley: No.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose they wanted riiore money to buy the St. John ' Sun '?


William Pugsley: But they did not get it.


John Dowsley Reid: But they were put in another place where they would probably make more money.


William Pugsley: No, the very same dTedge went to work at 374 cents at St. John, rather than continue at 90 cents at Gaspereau.


John Dowsley Reid: At all events it gets back to the same point. I understood from the minister that the tenders that were being called for would be let in a fair, open manner.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


John Dowsley Reid: When I wanted them opened in public, the minister assured me that they were to be opened in the presence of himself and one of his officers.


William Pugsley: That is right; that has always been done.


John Dowsley Reid: If that has always been done, how is it that in this case the minister wrote to the deputy and told him that the contract was to be let at the lowest price in answer to this advertisement? I cannot see how the minister can explain that.


William Pugsley: That was long after the tenders had been received and opened1.


John Dowsley Reid: Of course, as the minister knows, I have got the information out of these papers, but we will take it up on the report. As far as the interests of the people are concerned, I do not think it right that the minister should let a contract to any person unless every one tendering has a fair chance of bidding on the work.


William Pugsley: That is right.


John Dowsley Reid: 


John Dowsley Reid: The minister knows that there was no use of any person else putting in a price for this work, because the dredge was already at work.
Mr.. PUGSLEY. That is entirely erroneous.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think there is any doubt about that. I think that when this item of $150,000 was up instead of it being reduced by $25,000, as the minister states it ought to be, it ought to be almost wiped out, considering the way that these dredg-, ing matters have been carried on. The fact of my bringing the matter up here has saved the country $25,000, because it seems that it was the intention to put it through. We were led to believe that A. and R. Log-gie got nothing at all, yet here are three contracts on which the following payments were made to them; one of $3,162, another of $31,362 and another of $11,000. It is no wonder that this man would travel all the way up here to give evidence in connection with saw-dust wharfs and such things as that.


Mr. CROSBY.: Is that the man who bought the saw-dust wharf?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the man who was willing to buy the saw-dust wharf and pay $500 more for it. We are voting him this session $45,000, and I would not hesitate, if I were making money like that, to buy a saw-dust wharf. He could afford to pay $10,000 for a saw-dust wharf and still be money ahead. This is the man who is giving evidence. We are paying him money to-night. We pay for this saw-dust wharf. He is buying a part of this wharf for $3,500. We are going to vote it right through because this man cannot wait.


Adam Brown Crosby: Will you not give him the wharf?


John Dowsley Reid: We give him the wharf, but in an indirect way. It is matters of this kind that make a person hesitate when he sees money going in this way, and I want to tell the minister that I am going to protest in the strongest terms against the way these contracts are being let. The minister stated a few minutes ago that he had had some experience, after we had brought this matter up, and that when the contracts were let they had cost the country $200,000 more. Of course, at that time it was very easy for these men to combine because they had got this work. They practically had it. The minister told them that they could have the work, and they combined and fixed the prices as they liked.
I would hesitate if I were the minister to acknowledge that. The Dominion of Canada could be held up by a few dredge men. A great many of these works were not pressing, and as there was no work elsewhere for these dredges, they would not

tie them up, and the minister could have said he would not give the contract unless the prices were fair. The minister might easily have saved $200,000 to the people of Canada.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman think that having called for tenders and the chief engineer having certified the price to be fair, I would have been justified in refusing to give the contract to the lowest tenderer?


John Dowsley Reid: The minister is a business man, and if he were getting the work done for himself and knew the contractors were asking an enormous price he would not have accepted the tender, and he should not have allowed the courttry to be robbed in this case.


William Pugsley: I did not think it was an enormous price.


John Dowsley Reid: If you did not I would not hesitate to say you did not know your business. In the Gaspereau case the engineer certified 20 cents a yard a fair price, and it would seem as if the minister did not know his business when he let the contract at 90 cents a yard.


William Pugsley: The engineer and two other experienced men said it was worth 90 cents.


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly, because he knew if he did not certify he would be out of his job the next morning. The minister knows that all he has to do is to give these men a hint; of course, he would not say it openly: in this case he would say: John E. Moore is going to buy the St. John 'Telegraph,' and if you don't certify to that you will be out of a job the next day.


William Pugsley: I would be sorry to say that to the engineer.


John Dowsley Reid: I don't suppose you would say it, but you could give him a hint.


William Pugsley: That would be as bad as saying it to him.


John Dowsley Reid: Oh, no.


Mr. J. P. TURCOTTE.: A Conservative might do that, but not a Liberal.


John Dowsley Reid: I would be sorry to call myself a Liberal and support a minister who does that kind of thing. If the hon. member (Mr. Turcotte) thinks that right I hope he will always remain a Liberal and never come over to this side of the House. I must admit that the Minister of Public Works is a pretty good sinner, but he has some other confreres just as bad in the other departments. So far as these contracts are concerned, I will protest as hard as I can to prevent the public beine robbed.


William Pugsley: I do not complain of the hon. gentleman bringing the matter up to-night, but when the report of the Public Accounts Committee Is submitted I shall welcome in the strongest way the very fullest discussion into these dredging matters. If there has been any remissness on the part of myself or any official of the department I shall be very glad to have it pointed out. I have endeavoured to do the very best possible in connection with all these contracts.
Mr. GEORGE 'TAYLOR. If this item is going to be discussed let it stand.


William Pugsley: I do not wish to discuss it now.


John Dowsley Reid: I will not let any of
these items through without proper discussion.


George Taylor: Then let it stand. We are anxious to get the money voted and the Supply Bill assented to before the Senate adjourns so that the Civil Servants may be paid.


William Pugsley: Let the item stand.
Telegraph lines, British Columbia, $9,000.


Mr. GOODEVE.: Is there anything in this estimate for telephone lines on the Arrow lakes?


William Pugsley: No, this is for work alreadv done.


Mr. BARNARD.: What is the mileage of telephones in British Columoia?


William Pugsley: I will maxe a note of it and give the information on the main estimates.


George Henry Barnard: Has the minister had an application for the extension of government telegraph lines to Stewart?


William Pugsley: Yes. We are considering the question of either extending the line from Fort Simpson to Stewart or building a branch across from the mainland. There are difficulties in the way. It is possible we may establish one or two wireless stations,- which would be considerably cheaper. I intend to ask my colleagues for an appropriation in the supplementary estimates for establishing that connection.


George Henry Barnard: The work will be done in the cominp season?


William Pugsley: I hope so.
Telegraph lines, Saskatchewan and Alberta,


John Dowsley Reid: Are you going into the telegraph business in the other provinces?


William Pugsley: The government owns a telegraph line in British Columbia, in Alberta and Saskatchewan, in Quebec, and

5615
in the lower provinces in portions of the country where a commercial system would not be established.
To pay for the services of administrator of the Yukon Territory for five months, $2,500.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is getting that?


Frank Oliver: I think Arthur Wilson is the name. The governor was called out on business here, and this gentlemen administered while he was away.


John Dowsley Reid: Who i^ Arthur Wilson?


Frank Oliver: He was in the employ of the local Yukon government for some time, but is not in that employ now.


John Dowsley Reid: We were paying two salaries while the governor was here?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Was there not any other government official employed by the year who could have acted in that capacity while he was out?


Frank Oliver: There was no other person in the government employ whose position and responsibilities were such as to *warrant h is appointment as acting administrator.


Mr. PRICE.: Why was the administrator called out?


Frank Oliver: For the purpose of consultation with the government. There are many intricate matters coming up that cannot be handled satisfactorily by letter or telegraph, and it is thought desirable that the commissioner should come to headquarters for consultation.


William Price: Does it generally take five months for consultation?


Frank Oliver: No, but owing to climatic conditions, when the commissioner came out, it was not unreasonable that he should make a considerable stay.


William Price: As a matter of fact, was he not after another job?


Frank Oliver: Not to my knowledge.


William Price: Is he not likely to receive a position as collector of customs or something else at Vancouver?


Frank Oliver: Not to my knowledge. In fact, to my knowledge, it is quite the contrary.


John Dowsley Reid: Perhaps the Minister of Inland Revenue can tell us whether or not there is to be a vacancy at Vancouver?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: The report in the newspapers regarding the intended retirement of Mr. Bowell, at Vancouver, is absolutely untrue and unwarranted. Mr. Bowell has not the slightest intention of retir ing, and, if he had, I am sure Mr. Hender-Mr. PDGSLEY.
son would not be an applicant for the position.
Some resolutions reported.


William Stevens Fielding: I desire now to move concurrence to the items which the committee have passed this evening in order that the clerks may be able to prepare them for inclusion in a Supply Bill for tomorrow's house. I shall then ask you to allow me to drop the Supply Bill from the record in order that I may reintroduce it to-morrow.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Shall these items be concurred in?


William Stevens Fielding: It is understood that we shall drop the Supply Bill previously introduced and that a more comprehensive Supply Bill will be brought in to-morrow.
Items concurred in.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
George Taylor: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: 
Mr. STANFIELD.: I do not propose to object t-o this item, but I am sorry that the Minister of Railways is out of the city, because I wish to call his attention to an accident that happened on the Intercolonial a few days ago at Folleigh, in which three men were killed-an engineer, a fireman and a brakesman. The engineer leaves a family of five small children, and the brakesman a family of seven small children. These families, I believe, are left almost destitute outside of a few dollars which they receive from the insurance fund. I would ask the Minister of Finance I to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the matter, and see if he cannot put something in the supplementary estimates for these people.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall be glad to call the attention of the Minister of Railways to the remarks of the hon. gentleman.


George Taylor: The Immigration Bill will not go on to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: No, the Minister of the Interior will not be able to be present.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 17, 1910.