1911-01-23

INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
Mr. MONK.: I would ask the government to expedite the preparation of two returns that have been very much delayed. One was ordered by the House November 22, 1909, for papers connected with Mr. Preston's mission to Japan, and the difficulties that arose there. JThe other was ordered on December 6, 1909, concerning expenditure in connection with the Imperial Defence Conference of 1909.



GIFTS TO MINISTERS OF THE CROWN.

Mr. BOYCE.: I beg to give notice that tomorrow I will move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a matter of urgent public importance, to wit, the receipt by ministers of the Crown of gifts of money in the form of testimonials and of the reported contribution to such testimonials or testimonial of a sum of money by one William R. Travers, late general manager of the Farmers' Bank of Canada, now in liquidation, said Travers having been convicted and being now under sentence of six years' imprisonment for having falsified returns to the government and for theft of the moneys of the hank.



CONSTRUCTION OF PIER AT HALIFAX.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I would ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals whether the government propose to proceed without delay in the erection of the promised pier on the Cunard property at Halifax, .acquired by the Department of Railways and Canals for that purpose. I make this inquiry because it is represented to me by the Halifax Board of Trade that the present termi-

nal facilities of the Intercolonial railway at Halifax are very inadequate, and because that body believes that the congestion of outgoing steamers during the present season will be very great. I shall send the Prime Minister a copy of the representations I received.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Huron):: 1.	Were any representations made to the government or to any member thereof, or to any official of the Finance Department, by the Canadian Bankers Association, or any private individual, during the past two years, in the nature of a warning as to the instability of the Farmers''Bank of Canada?
2.	If so, what action was taken by the government for the protection of the shareholders and depositors of the said bank?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1 and 2. So far as the records of the Department of Finance show no such representations were made during the time referred to. The transactions in which the Farmers' Bank, through its General Manager, became implicated in December, 1909, with the First National Bank of Syracuse, New York, and the alleged obligation of the Farmers' Bank on a deposit receipt for $150,000 in such connection, were brought to the attention of the Minister of Finance, but beyond suggesting the irregularity and impropriety of these transactions there was nothing in the correspondence received to indicate that the Farmers' Bank, by these transactions, came into a position of ' instability.' The whole matter was fully discussed in the Toronto press at the time and the shareholders and depositors had ample notice of the character of these transactions. Ultimately, the Department of Finance was credibly advised that there was no obligation of the Farmers' Bank in the above connection, and that the alleged deposit receipt was returned to the bank. The correspondence in this connection will form part of a return now ordered by the House. The only evidence, during the time in question, from which the ' instability ' of the bank might be inferred and which came directly to the attention of the Finance Department, was in the form of broker's lists of market valuations. . In these lists Farmers' Bank stock was quoted as equal to half its paid up value and lesser sums. These indications of value were circulated by brokers for the information of the public including shareholders and depositors in the bank. Upon information of this character no action which the government could reasonably and legally take would improve the position of the shareholders.


Robert Laird Borden: 



Mr. THORNTON :: 1.	What is being done by the government to prevent the assets of the defunct Farmers' Bank from being sacrificed or eaten up in useless and unnecessary legal expenses?
2.	What steps are being taken by the government to ascertain the value of the Keeley mine property, an asset of the defunct Farmers' Bank, and whatever value there is in it being preserved for the benefit of the depositors and shareholders?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER :: 1.	When the bank suspended payment
last month a curator, appointed under the provisions of the Bank Act, took possession of the assets of the bank for the protection of the rights and interests of the creditors and shareholders. Until a liquidator, appointed by a competent court, displaces the curator that officer remains in charge of these assets for the purposes aforesaid. The shareholders, the persons primarily in interest, and the creditors who may be said to have a secondary interest so far as measure of loss is concerned, at a meeting convened a few days ago, have taken steps, pursuant, to the law as made by the parliament of Canada, to express their wishes in regard to the liquidation of the bank. The proceedings at this meeting will be reported according to law to the court, and the court will	carry, out	the	wishes soexpressed and appoint a liquidator, nominated by the persons mentioned, whose duty it will be, under the direction of the court with due regard to all interests, to realize upon	and distribute	the	assetsreferred to.	Under the	law	the	courtsand not the	government	have the	power
to interfere and secure proper distribution of assets.
2.	The duty of ascertaining the value of the Keeley mine properly belongs to the liquidator. The shareholders and the creditors in whose interests he acts may, under the provisions of the law, make known their wishes to him in this behalf for his guidance.


EMPLOYEES ON PICTOU ROUNDHOUSE.
Mr. STANFIELD :: 1.	What are the names of men who have been employed on the Intercolonial railway in 1910, and present year, at the work of filling in ground between station house and roundhouse at Pictou and Moncton?
2.	For how many days and between what dates was each man employed?
3.	What are the wages paid to each man?
4.	Were any of the men discharged from the work? If so, for what reason was each man discharged?


Mr. GRAHAM :: Questions 1, 2 and 3 answered as follows :



EMPLOYEES ON PICTOU ROUNDHOUSE WORK.

[Stage Direction]
Name.	1910.	1911.	Total Number of days.	Rate per day.	AmountNo. of days in October.	No. of days in November	No. of days in December	No. of days in J anuary.	8 cts.	S cts.Robert Smith	2G	20	23	ii	86	3 15	270 90
John A.: McEachern	20	20	23 ft	H	86ft	1 50	130 20M	3	i	4	2 90	11 601	1	1 50	1 50Howard Joudry	18	22	104	1 50	111 30John McEwen	14ft	4	23 ft	81	50ft	1 50	75 15John Kerwin	174	22	22	68?	1 50	103 15Geo. Wood	6	6	1 50	9 00Duncan English with horse and	U	64	2 50	16 2516'	24	ni	5l|	1 50	76 88Edward Hemmings	8	hi	H	35A	1 50	53 104	4	1 50	0 00Elijah Sarson	7 At	23 ft	si	56ft	1 50	85 3513^	22 h	19ft	n	66ft	1 50	99 683"	1 50	4 504	4	1 50	6 00A. W. MacMillan	4	1	1	6	1 50	9 0014 h	20	1 50	30 0013	184	1 50	27 75if	14	1 50	2 2513	11J	244	1 50	36 75li	14	1 50	2 253	12	94	24i	1 50	13	13'	1 50	19 503ip	3S	1 50	5 632i	2J	1 50	3 3817ft	lot	28ft	1 50	42 30George Matatall	2"	2'"	1 50	3 0061	94	16	1 50	24 001	4	1 50	0 756'	84	144	1 50	21 754	9|	134 44	1 50	20 2541	1 50	6 75Harry Heighton	4	1	1 50	0 75
4. Two men discharged : John J. Wilson, not capable ; 'George Coombs, for drinking. The following men were laid off waiting for cars with stone ballast, with the option of returning to work : Howard Joudry, Wm. Langide, Edward Hemmings, Wm. Benson, George Wood, John McEwen and John Jollymore.



GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY PENSION FUND.

Mr. LENNOX :: Will the Minister of Railways lay on the table of the House a copy of the rules and regulations relating to pensions framed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company, pursuant to the provisions of G and 7 Edward YII., chapter 89, 1907,-of the statutes of Canada?


George Perry Graham: Yes.



TORONTO BARRACKS.

Mr. MACDONELL :: 1.	Has the government yet purchased a site for the erection of barracks for the permanent corps at Toronto?
2.	If so, (a) where is such site, (b) from
whom was it purchased, and what was the cost thereof ?
3.	(a) Have plans yet been prepared for such new barracks? If so, (b) what is the cost thereof and (c) when will the work be commenced?


Mr. MURPHY :: *
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Lots Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9,. concession 3, south of Dundas 'street, in the township of Toronto, county of Peel. .
(b) *
Owner.	Price paid.
	$ 9,400 20,000 * 30,000 Expropriated: - Price to be paid not yet determined by Exchequer Court. $1,421
	
The Halliday Estate	 The Cawthra Estate	| The Denison Estate	\ The City and District Land 1 Company	1 Township of Toronto (road allowance)		
* This does not include compensation to a number of owners of cottages which have been erected on the land acquired.

3.	(a) Plans of the proposed new 'barracks are now being drawn up.
(b)	Not yet known.
(c)	It is hoped that work will be commenced in the spring.



BABY FARM.

Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	Has the government sold the property known as the Baby Farm at Toronto, and recently held by the government for military purposes ?
2.	If so, (a) to whom was it sold; (b) when; (o) what was the property sold for, and; (d) was public competition invited?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) W. L. Scott, Esq., barrister, Ottawa. (b) July 4, 1910.	(c) $121,000.	(d)
Yas.



FRENCH CENSUS COMMISSIONER.

Mr. PAQUET:: Does the government intend to appoint a French Census Commissioner, as in 1901?


Air. FISHER.: For several of the census districts French commissioners will be appointed. The duties performed by the chief commissioner and assistant to the chief commissioner in the previous census will, in connection with the census of 1911, be performed by members of the permanent staff of the census and statistics office.



ARCHIVES HISTORICAL WORK.

Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	In what European countries are historical researches now being made, and are these researches directed by Mr. Biggar?
2.	Are historical researches now being made in the United States, and who are the persons charged with making historical researches in our country?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	A regular staff of copyists is employed permanently in England and in France under the general direction of Mr. Biggar.
2.	No regular agent is employed to make researches in the United States, but papers are copied in various places from time to time. The Rev. P. M. O'Leary is engaged in research work in the province of Quebec, and arrangements are being made for another representative in the province of Quebec, and special copyists are employed from time to time in Quebec and Montreal. Mr. Laidlaw, of the archives branch, is frequently sent out on a mission of investigation in the province of Ontario, and the government of British Columbia co-operates with the archives branch in research work. Research work is also carried on by means of correspondence.
Mr. MURPHY,


Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	Has the commission on historical manuscripts, established in 1907, completely discontinued its work?
2.	What was the object of this commission, how many meetings have been held and why has it discontinued its work?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	No.
2.	The Historical Manuscripts Commission was established to act m an advisory capacity to the Minister of Agriculture and to co-operate with the Dominion archivist in collecting, arranging and rendering accessible those original sources from which alone an adequate knowledge of Canadian history may be gained, and in studying the best means of increasing the usefulness and opportunities of the archives branch.
Six meetings were held, but all the members were not able to attend the last three meetings for various reasons.


Eugène Paquet: Has the government sent to the archives building all the documents, charts and plans of the different federal departments, that are not protected against fires?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The government has removed to the archives branch several thousand volumes of the older manuscripts and over three thousand maps and plans. There are possibly other documents that may be removed to the archives, but a large number of old plans are retained by the departments, as they are required for current business.



CANADIAN TRADE COMMISSIONERS.

Eugène Paquet: In what countries have we commercial representatives, what are their names, where do they live and what are their salaries ?


Wilfrid Laurier: 



[Stage Direction]
Salary per annum.
Australia-
D.	H. Ross, Melbourne	$3,600
British West Indies-
E.	H. S. Flood, Bridgetown, Barbadoes	 3,006
China-
J. B. Jackson, Shanghai	 3,500
Cuba-
E. S. Kirkpatrick, Havana	 3,200
France-
A. F. A. Poindron, Paris	 3,350
Germany-
W. G. Fischer, Berlin	 3,350
Holland-
W. T. R. Preston, Amsterdam.. .. 3,600 Japan-
G. A. Harris, Yokohama	 3,500
Mexico-
A. W. Donly, Mexico	 3,100

Newfoundland-
J. E. Ray, St. John's	 2,500
New Zealand-
W. A. Beddoe, Auckland	 3,000
South Africa-
J. A.	Chesley, Cape Town	
3,200H. R.	Poussette, Durban	
3,350
United Kingdom-
P. B. MacNamara, Manchester.. .. 3,350 W. A. MacKinnon, Birmingham.. .. 3,350
E.	D.	Arnaud, Bristol	
3,350F.	A.	C. Bickerdike, Belfast.... 3,350J. M.	Mussen, Leeds	
3,350J. T.	Lithgow, Glasgow	
3,200

[Stage Direction]
Salary per annum.
British West Indies-
E. A. H. Haggart, Kingston, Jamaica. $500 Edgar Tripp, Port of Spain, Trinidad. 500
R. H. Curry, Nassau, Bahamas	 500
South America-
A. E. Beckwith, Cartagena, Colombia. 500
Norway-
C. E. Sontum, Christiania	 500

Mr. AMES:: 1.	Who, not now connected with the National Transcontinental railway, drew up, or aided in drawing up, the plans and specifications for the National Transcontinental railway shops P
2.	Is Mr. W. J. Press, mechanical engineer, who was appointed as machinery expert May 23, 1910, still in the employ of the department?'
3.	If so, what salary is he paid, and what are his terms of engagement?
4.	In .whose employ had Mr. Press been during the year preceding his appointment as mechanical expert for the National Transcontinental railway shops?
5.	Had he previously acted as mechanical expert on behalf of or in the employ of any persons or companies to whom contracts were subsequently awarded for machinery or tools for the National Transcontinental railway workshops ?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Plans for shops were furnished by the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
2.	Yes.'
3.	$350 per month, no particular terms of engagement.
4.	Mussens Limited, Montreal, Que.
5.	No.



DREDGING AT LUNENBURG.

Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Is any dredging being performed by the government in the harbour of Lunenburg, N.S.?
2.	Were any plans of the proposed dredging prepared? If so, by whom?
3.	In front of, or opposite to, whose properties is the dredging required to improve navigation of the harbour?
4.	In front of, or opposite to, whose properties is the dredging being performed, and by whose recommendation?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, by District Engineer Dodwell.
3 and 4. The department, on the recommendation of the district engineer, is dredging the entrance channel of harbour to 20 feet depth, and along face of wharfs, in harbour, to a depth of 17 feet. Ownership of wharfs unknown to department.



GRAND TRUNK TRAINMEN'S STRIKE.

Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	Did the government offer to appoint Judge Barron to investigate the cases of striking Grand Trunk railway employees who had not been taken back, and did the railway company decline to accept such appointment?
2.	Did the railway company subsequently appoint Judge Barron for this purpose? If so, what control or supervision has the government over the investigations now being held by Judge Barron?
3.	What facilities are provided the men for having their cases investigated, and is there any limit to the time in which this investigation shall be completed?
4.	Have the men who are not yet reinstated received due notice of the investigation, and is there any understanding with the government that Judge Barron's recommendations will be carried out by the railway?
5.	Does the government consider that because of this investigation now being held, it has done its full duty towards the men and relieved itself of all further responsibility, under the agreement or understanding had between the railway company and the government on 2nd August last, when the strike ended ?


Mr. KING:: 1.	It was suggested by the government that a reference to some third party of the cases of those employees who had not been reinstated, would appear to be a fair means of settling the points in dispute between the parties. Judge Barron was mentioned as a person well qualified to act in such a capacity. The employees of the Grand Trunk railway expressed their willingness to have outstanding difficulties so referred; the company did not express a like willingness.
2.	To the first part the answer is * Yes '. To the second part the answer is ' None '.
3.	The government is informed by Judge Barron that he is affording the men every possible facility, and that he is proceeding with the investigation as rapidly as possible.
4.	To the first part, the answer is 'Yes '. To the second part the answer is ' No '.
5.	The agreement of August 2 last was between the parties to the dispute, and not between the government and either or both of the parties.



DREDGE 'SYDENHAM.'

Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	What were the earnings each month during 1910 of the dredge ' Sydenham ' of the Canadian Dredging Company, operating at Tiffin, Victoria Harbour, Waubaushene, or elsewhere ?	,
2.	What quantities and kind of excavation was removed by it each of said months?
3.	Who was the government inspector on said dredge certifying the same?
4.	Were there any differences between the amount claimed by owners or operators and the amount so certified to by the department?
5.	Have any complaints been received by the department or its engineers as to the manner in which said work is being done or work previous thereto, or as to overcharge in quantity or quality of said excavation? If so, what and by whom was such complaint made?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1. April 30 to July 2, Tiffin.
July 4 to October 8, Victoria Harbour.
October 10 to October 12, Victoria Harbour.
October 12 to 29, Tiffin.
October 25, Midland.
October 31 to December 3, Tiffin.
		 $ 435 00
May			 17,378 24
June			 25,688 01
July			 9,116 28
August			 10,100 00
September			21,317 38
October			 13,795 90
November			 31,914 03
December			 4,124 25
2.	Cubic yards.
April			 1,500
May		
*June 			13,241
*July			 68,532
*August			 80,800
*September			 40,200
* October			 31,661
November			16,583
December			 1,833
*Clay, sand, gravel, boulders and rock. 3. William H. Hecker.
4 and 5. No.



GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS PENSION EUND.

Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	Did a delegation of Intercolonial railway and Prince Edward Island railway men interview the Minister or Deputy Minister of Railways and Can'als within the last two years with reference to some proposed amendments to the Intercolonial railway and Prince Edward Island railway Employees' Provident Fund Act?
2.	Were those proposed amendments referred to an actuary? If so, on what date?
3.	Has the actuary made his report? If so, when ?


Mr. KING.: 4.	Is it the intention of the government to lay these proposed amendments before the House this session?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. September 22, 1910.
3.	December 31, 1910.



RAILWAY MAIL CLERKS.

Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	What is the minimum and what is the maximum salary per annum, respectively, paid to railway mail clerks?
2.	What percentage of the railway mail clerks receive the maximum salary?
3.	Do the railway mail clerks require to pass examinations before entering the service?
4.	Is the government aware that the insurance companies are said to recognize mail clerks as dangerous risks, and class them as extra hazardous, and that as a consequence a mail clerk, if he desires insurance, must pay an extremely high premium?
5.	Is it the intention of the government to give a favourable consideration to the claims of the railway mail clerks now being made for an increase in salary?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Minimum, $400; maximum, $1,200, in addition to which such employees are paid mileage allowances for every mile travelled whilst on duty.
2.	18-3 per cent.
3.	Yes.
4.	No, on the contrary it is understood that such employees can obtain accident insurance at rates applicable to the * ordinary ' class, and that no extra rate is charged for life insurance.
5.	Question under consideration.



NOVA SCOTIA PUBLIC WORKS.

Mr. MADDIN:: 1.	Referring to the estimates providing for the construction of the following public works: Melford, N.S., construction of wharf, $6,000; Mulgrave, N.S., construction of wharf, $5,000; Port Felix, N.S., construction of wharf, $5,000; will these works be constructed by tender and contract or by day work?
2.	Have any of these contracts for these works been awarded? If so, to whom?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to proceed with all these works in 1911 ?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	By contract.
2.	Port Felix awarded to Messrs. A. W. Girroir and K. Sweet.
3.	Yes.



PREVENTIVE OFFICERS.

Mr. MADDIN:: What are the duties of the preventive officers at outposts, and on whose recommendation or request are such officers appointed?


Charles Murphy: The duties of preventive officers of customs vary according to the locality in which they are employed. At outports, preventive officers are usually engaged in the prevention of smuggling, and in checking, manifesting and delivering bonded freight. They are appointed on the recommendation of the Minister of Customs.



CUSTOMS REVENUE IN GUYSDOROUGH COUNTY.

James William Maddin: What was the total amount of customs revenue received or collected during the last ten years at the following ports in Guysbor-ough county. Nova Scotia: Sonora, Port Hil-ford, Oyster Ponds and Country Harbour?


Charles Murphy: No customs revenue was collected at Sonora, Port Hilford, Oyster Ponds or Country Harbour during the last ten years. The places mentioned are preventive stations and not customs ports; and the officers located at these points are not authorized to collect customs duties.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
Return showing the date of incorporation, a copy of the Act of incorporation, and any subsequent amendments thereto, all petitions, correspondence, applications and other papers or data asking for or relating to the grant of subsidy thereto, a copy of all contracts for construction, the subsidies granted and the several payments of the same, the dates of payment and the persons to whom cheques were issued therefor, a copy of engineer's reports and certificates on which payment was authorized in each case, the number of miles completed, the number now being operated, the number of miles still to be finished, the total cost to date and the estimated cost of completion, and the present condition of the road, in the case of the Atlantic, Quebec and Western Railway Company, the Quebec and Oriental Railroad Company and the new Canadian Company. Also the shareholders, directors and officers of each of these companies, the capital subscribed and ipaid up by each subscriber, the amounts paid out each year to directors and officers as fees and salaries, the amount paid for promotion or other expenses, in detail, for each of the above companies. In the case of any mileage operated, the yearly revenues and working expenses.-Mr. Foster.
Copy of all correspondence with the Department of the Interior or any officer thereof in regard to half-breed scrips numbers A. 8931 and A. 9970 issued to Joseph William Malboeuf, together with a copy of all documents in any way relating to the said scrips.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, petitions and communications referring in any manner to the establishment or maintenance of the mail route from Athol post office to South Athol, County of Cumberland, N.S.-Mr. Rhodes.
A return showing-1. A copy of the report of the engineer who made the survey and estimate of the Back river or Riviere des 69
Prairies, between the eastern end of the island of Montreal and the lake of Two Mountains, in the province of Quebec, in view of the dredging and deepening of said river.
2.	Details of work and expenditure to date in connection with the said work.
3.	Estimate of cost of work remaining to ho done and especially of the part between Bqrd-a-Plouffe and the Lake of Two Mountains.-Mr. Monk.
1.	Showing in tons the eastbonnd and westbound traffic on the Intercolonial railway for the five years ending June 30, 1910.
2.	The miles of main Trunk line and branches of the Intercolonial railway in each province through which it passes, distinguishing the Trunk lines from the branches.
3.	Showing in tons the westbound traffic originating in each of the maritime provinces during the period of five years ending June 30, 1910.-Mr. Sinclair.
For a return showing how many appointments have been made by the government from the constituency of Wentworth since 1904, together with their names, to what positions appointed, and the salary or remuneration in each case.-Mr. Blain.
For a return showing:-1. All grants, leases, licenses, and concessions given to individuals or corporations of water power rights or privileges on the Winnipeg River at present in force.
2.	The names and descriptions of such power sites.
3.	The terms and conditions upon which they are respectively held.
4.	The dates upon which these powers or privileges were respectively given.
5.	What constitutes forfeiture.
6.	What grants, leases or licenses have been
forfeited.	_	_
7.	The general rules and regulations, if any, applying to the giving and holding of the water powers on this river.
8.	The amount of development effected -by the grantees or lessees respectively.
9.	What title or interest the Dominion claims in the running water, the bed of the river, and the hanks thereof-Mr. Haggart (Winnipeg)-

Mr. FOSTER moved:: For a return showing the average value for duty in 1896 and 1910, respectively, of the unit of each article or commodity enumerated in the schedules of the Customs Act, on which an ad valorem duty was payable together with the rate of duty, the amount on which duty was paid, and the amount of duty paid for each year, with the totals, respectively.
He said:	A return has already been
brought down this year giving the units so that two of the three columns are already provided for. I would like to have all included in one return.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. WILSON (Laval) moved:: For a summary report on the state of the dredging works executed in the Riviere des Prairies up to the present time, making



specially known the length, depth and width of the canal dredged up to date and the amount expended on this work.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to detain the House at any length on this motion. The object of the motion is explicit enough on its face. Last year there was a certain amount of money voted for this purpose. I understand that some work has been done and the object of the motion is simply to get a summary report to find out what the progress of this work has been. I move that this motion 'be concurred in.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before the motion carries,
I would like to call the attention of the House to a motion of which I have given notice. It is No. 26 on the Order Paper and it calls for the same particulars in regard to this work. I think it would suit the convenience of all concerned if that motion were carried at the same time as that of my hon. friend, because it merely asks for the report of the engineer upon that work, a report having been ordered by the Department of Public Works before the work was undertaken, some details as to the cost of the work executed, and an estimate of the cost of the work remaining to be done. It is very much in the same direction as that of my hon. friend. I suppose there would be no objection on the part of the right hon. the Prime Minister to allow my motion to pass at the same time.


Wilfrid Laurier: None whatever, if mv hon. friend (Mr. Wilson, Laval) is agreeable. The hon. gentleman's motion will be called during the day.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then, I would like to say a word on my hon. friend's motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very good; I have not heard my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) for some little time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Mr.  J. W.@: There is no objection at all to bringing down the returns in answer to these two motions. With regard to the work of dredging the Rivier des Prairies, I may say that when the matter was first brought to my attention, it was urged that the channel would give accommodation for motor or pleasure boats. I was not greatly impressed with the argument in that respect, but later on my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Wilson), had a delegation wait upon me and presented petitions, and made very strong representations that the improvement of the Riviere des Prairies would be of great advantage to the farmers, in enabling them to get their produce to market by water at a much cheaper rate than by rail. On the invitation of the hon. member for Laval, (Mr. Wilson), I had the pleasure of visiting the Riviere des Prairies last summer, and I would say to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), that I was greatly impressed with the advantages which w^ould accrue from opening up and improving the waterway between

the St. Lawrence river and the Lake of Two Mountains. I concluded, however, that the work from the lower end of the Riviere des Prairies was more important, or rather that the improvement there was more urgently required than further up. That is where the work has been done during the past season. I have asked from parliament a further amount to continue this work and the intention is, as the money is provided, to continue the work up to the Lake of Two Mountains. However, for the present, I think the work on the lower part of the river is the most important, because it will afford better means of communication between that very beautiful and very rich section of the country, and the city of Montreal, than if we had begun tire work further up in the first instance. But later on, as the moneys are provided I expect to continue the work right up to the Lake of Two Mountains.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Do I understand the minister to consent to the adoption of these two motions ?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Yes, to each of the two separately.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to say that years before my hon. friend (Mr. Wilson), came to this House, and when he was still in the lower latitudes of provincial politics, I asked the chief of the Public" Works department to carry out this work for the reasons which have been indicated now by my hon. friend from Laval. I repeatedlv invited the Minister of Public Works to visit the locality, but I have never found him disposed to accept my hospitality. However, the advantages of, and need for, this work were pointed out by me more than 12 years ago.


Charles Avila Wilson: I quite agree to a certain extent with the remarks of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), except on one point. When this appropriation was asked last year for the dredging of the river, it was my intention and as a matter of fact, I communicated it to the" Minister of Public Works, that the work should be started at both ends of the river. But, when we came to commence the work, we found we could not find a suitable dredge for operations on the upper part of the river, and it was thought better to start from the main channel of the St. Lawrence, so that the navigation which formerly existed between St. Vincent de Paul and the St. Lawrence river, might be restored. I understand from the minister, that there is no objection (if the report of the engineer which is already in the department, endorses it), that the work will be completed next year if possible.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: May I ask my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. Wilson), as he seems to 69i
have taken an interest in the matter, if the work on the upper part of the river is going to be carried out next year ?


Charles Avila Wilson: I understand that depends on the report of the engineer. My information is, that there was not a suitable dredge to start the work at the Lake of Two Mountains, and as a matter of fact, the only dredge adapted for the work, is known as an orange peel dredge-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This looks like a lemon.


Charles Avila Wilson: That dredge can work in five or six or eight feet of water, and the dredges which belong to the department of Public Works draw too much water to go down by the rapids.



ADMIRALTY COURT, N. S.

Mr.  D. D.@: McKENZIE (N. Cape Breton), moved for:-
A copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Nova Scotia in respect to the proposed change in the constitution of the Admiralty ' Court for that province.
He said: For some time past I have been endeavouring to get better facilities than now exist for the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court in the province of Nova Scotia. As far back as 1905, when I first entered this House, I had some negotiations with the then Minister of Justice, now Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, and the then judge of the Admiralty Court, and my proposition at that time was to form of the island of Cape Breton, or its four counties, into a separate admiralty district. However, something happened at that time to prevent that proposition from being put into operation. The then Minister of Justice and the late judge of the Admiralty Court both agreed that it was necessary to improve the situation in the province of Neva Scotia, and to give us better facilities for the administration of the business of that court than we then had. In the year 1908 a resolution was introduced by the present Minister of Justice proposing, by a Bill to be brought into the House, to give us the kind of facilities we desired. The Bill reached only its first reading on the 12th of March, 1908, and for some reason or other was dropped, and nothing much has been said about it since. Now, in the province of Nova Scotia, as well as in the other provinces of the Dominion, there is a great deal of work for this oourt to do.. My complaint is not that the law and the practice are not properly administered by the court now dealing with it. We have had, for many years, a very capable gentleman at the head of that court, at one time Minister of Justice of this Dominion and afterwards chief justice of our own province. He is not now, however, actively

engaged in the administration of that court, but we have in his place one of the fudges of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, who is well able' to discharge the duties devolving upon him. What I am complaining of is not the law, or the practice of the court, but the difficulties in the way of starting proceedings in the court. It will be observed, on looking at the Admiralty Act of this House, being chapter 141 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, that there is only one place in each province where a writ of the Admiralty Court can be issued-for the province of Ontario, in the city of Toronto; for the province of Quebec, in the city of Quebec; for the province of Nova Scotia, in the city of Halifax; for the province of New Brunswick, in the city of St. John; for the province of Prince Edward Island, in the city of Charlottetown. It is well known that in Nova Scotia the admiralty business extends to every part of the province. In the port from which I come there entered last year over 1,000 large steamers, only a few ships in number below the num-[DOT] ber that entered the grjat national port of Montreal. Out of this business there arise a great many complications, requiring the speedy exercise of the jurisdiction of the A.dmiralty Court, and it is 'exceedingly awkward to be obliged to go to Halifax, a distance of some 300 miles, before we can issue a writ. The proceedings against a ship are different from those against a person. A writ against a ship can only be issued while the ship is within the bounds of the province, and often claims are lost to seamen, salvers and towboats because the ship against which the claims lie gets out of the jurisdiction before it is possible to gat the papers from Halifax to proceed against her. It is not necessary to argue that it is not sufficient to have good laws, but that it is equally necessary to have those laws executed and to have the court so placed that litigants can with case and expedition take proceedings. The purpose of my moving this motion is to ascertain from the government whether it is proposed to take any steps to correct the difficulty of-which I complain, so that we shall have in connection with the Admiralty Court exactly the same opportunities of getting into the court as -we have in the other courts of the provinces. Although not a very old barrister, I remember when we had only two sittings of the Supreme Court in the county of Cape Breton. To-day we have seven sittings of that court, which shows how its business has enlarged. While the business of the Admiralty Court is enlarging in the same way, even more rapidly proportionately, we have in that court the same condition of things that we had 150 years ago, at the time the court was established. I think that every hon. member of this House will acknowl-edga that to be obliged to go 200 or 300 Mr. McKenzie.
miles to issue a writ in any court in this Dominion is rather behind the age, and that we cannot move too quickly in bringing about better conditions which will enable litigants more speedily to get their remedies in this court, which has exclusive jurisdiction in many matters.


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the motion which the hon. gentleman has placed upon the Order Paper, there is, of course, no objection to the production of any such correspondence which may exist. The subject which my hon. friend has discussed in making the motion is one of very considerable practical importance. I may say at once that, so far as I am concerned, I have not in the least degree changed the opinions which I formed after a good deal of considefation of this matter, and which I stated to this House cn the 12th of March, 1908. I then introduced a resolution, which was considered in Committee of the Whole, declaring the expediency of making better provision for the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction within Canada, and upon that resolution being adopted in committee, I introduced a Bill founded upon it. That Bill was not pressed to a conclusion, but was dropped at the end of the session. The only reason, so far as I am concerned, why it was not pressed to a conclusion was the very strong objections to what was being proposed, which, on that occasion, were given utterance to by hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House for whose opinions I had the most sincere respect. The general feeling, as I gathered it from the course of that debate, was against making any change, and, indeed, some hon. gentlemen_ expressed themselves as entirely content with the existing condition of things in the different provinces of the Dominion, and as thinking that no improvement could be made upon it.
I am sorry that I was not convinced by anything I heard on that occasion, and the three years which have passed since, with the experience they have given me of the working of the present system, have confirmed the opinion I then had formed, and which I then strongly expressed, namely, that existing conditions in the administration of justice in admiralty matters in Canada are simply intolerable. My hon. friend has instanced one circumstance which, if it were the only one, would seem to me now, as it did three years ago, to call for a remedy. Action has often to be taken and taken speedily. It is often a denial of justice to a man and the loss of his claim unless he can assert it, in admiralty matters particularly, with promptness and despatch, as the proceedings are frequently issued, not against the individual but against the ship, with the object of fastening the claim upon something tangible and secur-

ing judgment against the thing itself. A ship is here to-day and gone to-morrow. Wages to the men may be due; they may be unable to collect unless they can attach the ship and force payment in that way of what is justly due them by the owner. The ship may be a foreign vessel, it may be in port in Canada only a few hours, and unless you can serve process against the ship while she remains within Canadian jurisdiction, there may be no redress. But, under the present system proceedings cannot be instituted except through the post. You cannot attach by telegram, so that no matter where you may live, you must have your papers issued from the centre of the province to be served in the port, a process which may take 48 hours or longer. In the meantime the ship is gone, and your claim with it. That position of matters, if there were no other reason, did seem to me to call for a remedy ; and I thought that in the proposition to transfer the admiralty jurisdiction from the Exchequer Court to the various provincial courts, I had found a remedy. I was not able to understand the violent-I think I am not using any too strong a word-opposition which this proposition created among lawyers generally in the different larger centres in Canada where legal business would no doubt be more or less affected by the change I was proposing. That change, I must remind hon. gentlemen who were here at the time, was what I have just intimated, namely, simply the transfer of the admiralty jurisdiction to the various provincial courts so that every judge of a Superior Court in every province would be clothed with that jurisdiction, and so that a Surrogate Court or local judge, having authority to act in Superior Court matters, could be found in the person of every county judge in every province. The effect would be that any one desiring to institute proceedings in admiralty matters could do so in his own county town with the same facility with which he could issue an ordinary writ of summons for the enforcement of an ordinary civil claim. But the proposal was infringing upon what had been supposed to be a greater or less extent, the private preserves of this, that or the other local practitioner. It was interfering with existing conditions and vested rights ; it was going to take from a judge in one province or another some exclusive jurisdiction and hand that over generally to all the Superior Court judges in that province ; and accordingly every friend of every judge who would be effected by this measure, and every friend of every local registrar or clerk of court who might see a possible diminution in his salary was in arms against the suggestion ; and with regard to the local legal practitioner who
at present is compelled just because he cannot do this admiralty work in his own town or office, to send it to some provincial centre, all of the professional men in those provincial capitals were at once arrayed against this proposal which might cut into their incomes. It was too radical, it was wrong from every point of view, and the opposition offered both by friends and opponents in this House being all but unanimous, I was forced to think, in deference to the body of opinion which seemed to be against me, that I was altogether too radical and had better cease my efforts to become a law reformer. The Bill accordingly was not gone on with, and matters have remained in the same condition since 1908 that they were in since 1891. I think that is entirely anomalous, and if it appears, from .the course of the present debate, that the views of hon. gentlemen in this regard have changed, and that a measure such as I introduced three years ago would now receive a different sort of welcome, I shall be only happy to introduce it over again and submit it for consideration. I should like to say further that if it be remembered how the admiralty jurisdiction which is now vested in the Exchequer Court, came to be conferred upon that court, I think it will be seen at once that in the suggestion to transfer that jurisdiction to the various provincial courts there is nothing really radical. Until 1891 the admiralty jurisdiction had been exercised in Canada by the British Vice Admiralty 'Court, which might be, and probably was in each case, presided over by a judge who possessed by appointment from Canadian source the ordinary jurisdiction of Superior Courts in Canada, but who received his admiralty jurisdiction from England, and the procedure differed materially, when he was sitting in admiralty from that which existed when he happened to be sitting in the ordinary discharge of his duties as judge of ia Canadian court.
In 1890, the imperial parliament passed its Act by which jurisdiction was conferred upon colonial legislatures, if they saw fit, to alter that state of things; and the language of the Imperial Act passed in 1890, contemplated, as it seems to me, that the admiralty jurisdiction which was then being taken away from the British vice-admiralty courts in the various colonies should be conferred upon the ordinary courts of each colony by colonial legislation. Let me read the section of the British Act, which, as it seems to me, has that plain intendment:
Every court of law which may be declared to be a Court of Admiralty shall possess this jurisdiction, or, failing any such declaration, every court of law which has in a British possession original unlimited civil jurisdiction ' shall be a Court of Admiralty.

Now, if we had made in Canada no declaration on the subject-as we did make by the statute of 1891-then, under the Imperial Act, this admiralty jurisdiction would have gone just where by the Bill of three years ago I proposed to send it-namely to those courts which had original unlimited civil jurisdiction. But in 1891 this parliament passed its Act by which admiralty jurisdiction was conferred upon the Exchequer Court, the only federal court available, not a court which possessed original unlimited civil jurisdiction, but a special statutory court which had then recently been established. If any one will take the trouble to examine the debate upon that occasion, he will see how much Sir John Thompson, who was then Minister of Justice, hesitated. He states his hesitation with perfect candour to the House and with how slight an overbalancing of the hesitation it was he came to the conclusion to try the experiment of conferring this jurisdiction upon the new Exchequer Court which, at that time, I suppose-indeed, I know-had not very much of Exchequer Court business to do as compared with what it has to-day.
Well, now, the practical working out of the course which was then taken is that there must be a deputy of the judge of the Exchequer Court in certain localities in the Dominion. These deputies of the exchequer judge are local judges in admiralty of the Exchequer Court. There is one in Nova Scotia, one in Prince Edward Island, one in New Brunswick, one in Quebec, one in Ontario, one in British Columbia and one in the Yukon. The other provinces, having no maritime business to do, have never had a local judge in admiralty appointed. Now, in each of the provinces where there is a local judge in admiralty, the individual holding the position is either one of the judges of the Superior Court of the province or a retired judge of the Superior Court of the province. The proposition that I made was, not that there should be only one such judge in each province and that one a deputy of the judge in exchequer at Ottawa, but that there should be as many judges in admiralty in each province as there were judges in the Superior Court of that province, and that these judges should not be any retired judges of the court who had been superannuated, but the active working judges for the time being of the provincial Superior Court, the work to be divided among them and taken by them exactly as their ordinary'-work is divided, and as they would distribute among themselves the ordinary work of the courts which they were assigned to take, and that there should be in each instance a surrogate or local judge of the provincial court in the person of the county judge of each county in each province possessing the jurisdiction to do the ordinary practice work which such Sir ALLEN AYLESWOKTH.
judges now possess in the Superior Courts of the various provinces.
I was not able to understand the strong opposition which that proposition elicited; and I can only say that, in my humble judgment, the three years which have passed since then have made matters just three years worse. In some provinces, I think, there is to-day no practical difficulty. It would be invidious to particularize, but while it is the case that in some of the provinces everything is satisfactory, although all of the admiralty work is being done in each case by one judge instead of being distributed among all the members of the court, in other provinces, I am satisfied, things -are certainly in a very unfortunate position at the present time.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou).: I would like to join with my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) who moved the resolution in expressing the opinion that the time has come when there should be an amendment of the law in regard to the admiralty jurisdiction and the carrying out of litigation before that court, if not all over Canada at least in the maritime provinces. It'is not necessary to supplement the remarks of the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) who. has gone into the matter so fully, and who, if I understand him, expressed the opinion that there is ample cause for the amendment sought by my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie). Certainly, so far as jurisdiction is concerned, there could be no anomaly in assigning to each one of the members of the Supreme Court of any one of our provinces, the right to deal with all questions which may ari'se in regard to shipping. There is no magic, there is no mystery, surrounding the law relating to shipping. I remember that the discussion on the Bill introduced by the Minister of Justice three years ago, some hon. members ventured to assert that there was some particular quality in the law relating to shipping, making it so different from any other branch of the law that the only way in which it could be satisfactorily administered was to assign to it a judge whose sole duty it would be to deal with this subject. Those who deal with the practice of the law must know that there are many branches of the law of which this could be said with at least equal truth. For instance, in regard to companies; the complications that have developed in the law relating to companies have been so great that it might be said with greater reason than in the case of the law relating to shipping that we should have a special judge to administer that law. To those engaged in shipping and those living in the seaport towns, the grievance arising out of this matter is a very real one, the present system giving rise to great difficulty and serious expense. Even after giv-

ing due weight to the arguments in the debate referred to against the change in the courts, I trust that the motion of my hon. friend from Cape Breton will be implemented and that this much desired re. form will be brought into effect.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as the operations of the matter referred to by the Minister of Justice are concerned, 1 should imagine that an easier remedy, or at ail events, a more effective remedy mignt be found than the one suggested. As 1 understood his argument in the first instance it related to the necessity of expedition in admiralty proceedings. He pointed out that a ship may be in a Canadian port for only a few days or hours, and he spoke of the delay which resulted from the necessity of obtaining a warrant from the central office. AH that could be avoided, it seems to me, by a change in the rules of the Exchequer Court, by the establishment of local offices in different parts of the province. So far as to the magnitude of the business is concerned, I do not remember the time in Nova Scotia and I am more familiar with conditions in that province than elsewhere, when the business could not be attended to by one judge in addition to the other work devolving upon him. I have had a good deal of experience in the work of the Exchequer Court and the Admiralty Court and I am bound to say I never had the slightest difficulty in effecting an arrest and I never had any special difficulty in getting any case heard in the Admiralty Court. In fact I have had just as much difficulty and just as much delay in respect of the ordinary every day business of the Exchequer Court of Canada as I have had in connection with the local Admiralty Court of the province of Nova Scotia.
I do not desire to again go over the arguments upon the Bill with which my hon. friend has dealt, at very great length. I know there was a great deal of opposition to the Bill which he introduced. Opposition developed in different quarters for different reasons. I fully appreciate the position taken by the Minister of Justice and the hon. member who introduced this motion that there ought to be no unusual or unnecessary delay in the Admiralty Court. I am prepared to go further and say that the Admiralty Court ought to be one in which cases could be proceeded with more expeditiously perhaps than in any other court in the country. It is so for the most part; in the Admiralty Court there are no nleadings. Within a few davs after a vessel has been seized and without any formal pleadings the case is set down for trial unless the court in its wisdom orders that pleadings shall be filed. Tor the most part the ease goes on without pleadings and without much delay
1 venture to suggest that a great deal of what my hon. iriend from Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has put forward as a grievance can be met by the establishment of local omces of the Admiralty uourt in the different provinces and by the appointing of deputy registrars. The conditions were not very much changed by the Act of 1891. Up to that time, in a great many provinces at least, the chief justice for the time being had been appointed by the imperial authorities to be the judge in admiralty. After the introduction of the Act of 1891 by Sir John Thompson the judge of me -tixcnequer Court oi Canada became the judge in admiralty, and he appointed the same men to be the local judges who had been acting before, at least in Nova Scotia, so that after all things went on very much as they had been going on in the past. The practice of file court was rendered simpler, but otherwise matters went on in very much the same way. I repeat that the appointing of a number of registrars would do a great deal to remove the inconvenience which has been alluded to this afternoon by the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie).


Mr. CONMEE.: I do not rise to discuss the question from a legal point of view, but it appears to me that the Bill to which the Minister of Justice referred is the best remedy to apply. There is no reason, so far as I can judge, why there should not be every facility for dealing with such matters. I happen to represent the cities of Port Arthur and Fort William where there is a large amount of shipping, I believe larger than in any other port in Canada, taking the two cities together. There is a great deal of difficulty there. Time and again it has occurred that vessels could not be arrested and the remedy which ought to have been applied under the Admiralty Court could not be applied because of the distance from any jurisdiction in that regard. I think that matter has been referred to by the legal profession in those two cities and called to the attention of the Minister of Justice. I am sure the Minister of Justice is right and I hope he will have the courage of his convictions and go on and put the Bill through.


Mr. McKENZIE.: The remedy proposed by the. leader of the opposition will to some extent meet the particular grievance that we complain of in Nova Scotia, particularly in the eastern part of that orovince, but unless the Act will provide that the judge will go on circuit and try cases when ready for trial we would still be in verv much the same difficulty as before. Very of + on, we have as our witnesses in a case every member of the crew of a ship. It costs $30 a head of conduct money to take

witnesses from the town where I live, a seaboard town, to Halifax. If you have to take ten or twelve seamen it amounts to a large sum in trying a ease in Halifax.


Robert Laird Borden: It has been [DOT] the practice sometimes to take the evidence of such witnesses before a commission and thus obviate their being brought to Halifax. I know that is done in many cases and possibly it might be done still. But apart from that I would like to supplement my remarks by saying that I think there is no reason m the world why the judge should not go on circuit and try these cases.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The practice of taking evidence before a commission does not apply much more to trials in the Admiralty Court than in any other court. There is, of course, a provision under the judicature Act which differs very little from the practice of the Admiralty Court that the judge may order that the evidence may be taken before a commission and submitted to the judge. That applies, of course, perhaps with greater facility to admiralty cases but if it is objected to on the other side and a desire is expressed before the judge for the cross-examination of these witnesses before the judge himself I do not know that the order would be granted or that it would be permitted to examine witnesses in that way. Therefore, having the judge go on circuit, having the cases tried on the spot and as speedily as possible, because you cannot hold these witnesses for any great length of time, would be the best remedy. It is desirable to have facilities for issuing papers in the Exchequer Court as in any other and the trial in the ordinary way by a circuit judge.
I do not quite understand how my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bcrden), hesitates in agreeing to throw this jurisdiction into the Supreme Court of Neva Scotia. I think myself, that the tendency will be, to have a more competent better equipped court, than we have now. We would then have seven judges in admiralty with the ordinary life in the court which does not exist in any court when there is only one judge, and that one judge only dealing with admiralty as something subsidiary to his other business. I think, judging by the court we have to-day in Nova Scotia, it would be an exceptionally strong Admiralty Court, the practice being the same, the law not changed in any way whatever and a great part of the law being common to both courts. The law of evidence, the law of practice and procedure, and the law of damage is common to both courts and each of the judges being quite capable of trying a suit in admiralty, I can hardly understand why any lawyer from Nova Scotia should object at all to having the jurisdiction exercised by one of these Mr. McKENZIE.
judges exercised by each and every one of them. I would be in favour, of the Bill if the Minister of Justice will introduce it again and in that way I hope that such remedies as will give us improved conditions in the province, will be brought about. . I beg to move the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  J. W.@: RICHARDS (Prince Edward Island), moved:	'
For a copy of all memorials, reports, correspondence and documents in the possession of the government, not already brought down, relating to a survey of a route for a tunnel under the Straits of Northumberland between the province of Prince Edward Island and the mainland of Canada, and also relating to the construction of such tunnel.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say a few words upon this question before the motion is passed. It has been discussed upon several occasions very fully, especially during the last session of this parliament, when my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Warburton), gave us a great deal of information with regard to the necessity of such a work. In the province of Prince Edward Island, we are very often at a great disadvantage in consequence of not having regular means of communication. In a fertile island of that kind, productive as it is,, especially in its agricultural lands, the question of transportation is one of very great importance to us. It is true, that the winter steamers which we have in the service there, have been a considerable amount of help to us during the winter season in taking our products from the province to the mainland and other parts of' the continent, but during severe winters communication in that way is very irregular and uncertain, and it has, to a certain extent, a bad effect on the progress of the island from a commercial point of view. I am ready to give credit to the government for their good work in giving to the province that magnificent steamer, the * Earl Grey '. That boat was designed and built as an ice-breaker. She has done very good work and no doubt will do as-well as any boat of that kind can possibly do, but there are times when it is impossible for any ice-breaker, no matter how strongly she may be built, to keep up regular communication and during these times,
I feel that we are at a great disadvantage-in consequence of not having regular communication.
With reference to the tunnel, there are-some who, perhaps are disposed to treat this matter very lightly. But, it is a well known fact that tunnelling has made great advances in the world. There are many tunnels in the United States, in England and in other parts of Europe and the cost;

of tunnelling to-day is not nearly as great as it was some years ago. A great deal more information has been obtained with reference to the work of tunnelling and consequently, the cost has been greatly reduced. Considering this matter in that light, I think that we are entitled in the province of Prince Edward Island to have some steps taken with the view of making an investigation or survey of the proposed route for the tunnel. This is a question of so much importance that it will not down until some investigation or survey has been made, in order that the question of the practicability or otherwise of the work may be settled.
I do not intend this afternoon to go fully into all the particulars with regard to tunnelling ; that is to say, the size of the tunnel, the material of which it should be constructed or such things as that because those are matters that have already been brought before this House, and it would 'be a subject which would be taken up by those who would undertake to make the survey. My object on the present occasion is again to bring this matter to the attention of this parliament, and I hope that in my efforts in this regard I shall have the support of members from the other provinces. I feel that the construction of this work would not only be of advantage to the province from which I come, (but it would also be of great advantage to tire provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick. Quebec and, in fact, Ontario. It is not from the sectional point of view that I approach the discussion of this question. I look upon it as a question of national interest and importance. What benefits one province, especially with regard to the matter of allaying irritation and promoting harmony and good-will, is an advantage to all the provinces and, looking at the matter in this light, I think that we would expect that the people of the other provinces would give us their sympathy and support. I have understood that on some other occasions in this House, when this matter has been brought up for discussion, hon. members from the great province of Ontario Who know practically something about tunnels have given expressions of opinion favourable to the construction of this work between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.
My object, as I have said, in bringing this matter before the House, is to again direct the_ attention of parliament to the great desirability of having some steps taken with a view to making a proper survey. It is true that a survey was made some few years ago, but I am told by engineers who are capable of passing an opinion upon such a subject that the ser-vey, though good as far as it goes, is not sufficient to enable anybody to make an
estimate as to the cost of the work. The position, as far as I can gather, that the people of Prince Edward Island take with reference to this matter is this : They say that if we have a survey made, and it is a proper survey, and it is found that the construction of this tunnel could be undertaken at something like a reasonable cost, at such an expenditure as we would have a right to expect the government would be justified in making, then, let us have it. If, on the other hand, it is shown by an investigation that this work is of such a magnitude, that its cost would be so great that this parliament would not be justified in making such a big expenditure for a province like Prince Edward Island, then the question will be settled, and there will be no more about it. But, until something of this kind is done there will be this agitation for the construction of this work, and I do sincerely hope that serious consideration will be given to this matter, that it will be taken up vigorously, and that such measures will be adopted that the question can be settled as to whether the construction of a tunnel between Prince Edward Island and the mainland is a practicable work or whether it is not.
From the information that I have been able to obtain from engineers who have had experience in work I am led to believe that, such a project may be practicable, but that it will be difficult to make an estimate of its cost until -a survey has been made. If that work can be constructed for $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 I think the parliament of Canada would be amply justified in making such an appropriation to afford to the smallest province of this great Dominion regular and continuous communication both winter and summer with the mainland. I could say a very great deal more on this important question, but I think I have said sufficient to-call the attention of the government to the desirability of taking steps towards having a proper and thorough survey made in connection with the tunnel project.


Mr. A. L. FRASER (Kings, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to say a few words on this subject, which is not new to the House, and which in the past has been often and ably advocated. I shall not go at length into the subject, but I may say to those people who have expressed an opinion that the country would not be justified in building this tunnel at all on account of the cost, that they do not exactly know what they are talking about. However that may be, what the people of Prince Edward Island want now, and what they have been asking for years is that a survey be made to determine the estimated cost. If the cost is so large as to be unreasonable and unjustifiable, then the people of Prince

Edward Island would not press their claim. But, Sir, the people of my province make a fair and reasonable request when they ask the government to provide money for a survey. I spoke on this point last year, and I was answered by the Minister of Finance in the following words, which I shall quote from page 290 ' Hansard,' vol. I, 1909-10. These words of the Finance Minister, when circulated in our province, raised the hopes of many people that the survey would be proceeded with at once, but, unfortunately for us, nothing has been done. I quote from Mr. Fielding:-
I am glad to hear my hon. friends from the island say that all they ask is that this matter shall be thoroughly and impartially inquired into, and if the tunnel can be built at a moderate cost they think the work should be done. To that sentiment I most heartily subscribe, and I am quite sure that the government will have that feeling towards,it. There have been some surveys in the past. ' I suppose that each of them in its day served the purpose, it was the best that could be had; but I quite agree with my hon. friends that the matter should be taken up more vigorously and more seriously, and that we should endeavour to get a reliable and thorough survey by the best engineers, and if, as a result of that survey, it is found that this important work can be constructed at a moderate cost, I for one, would promise my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island my most hearty and cordial support.
The Minister of Finance made this statement on the 22nd of November, 1909, in the early days of last session, and his announcement that the matter would be taken up vigorously and seriously led the people to think that last summer steps would be taken to begin this survey. I regret to say that the government are not entitled to claim any very great praise for the way in which they have since dealt with this question. The Minister of Finance told us it should be taken up seriously, and yet we are well on into the present session and the main estimates for next year are down and theTe is not one cent included in them for this tunnel survey. I would not like to accuse the government of holding this matter back until the next election, but I am afraid some people will be suspicious that the government is waiting until the approaching elections to take the matter up seriously and vigorously. I urge now that a sum of money be placed in the supplementary estimates of this year for the beginning of the survey, and that the government should proceed with the work without further delay.


Mr. A. B. WARBURTON (Queens, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, last session I had the honour of bringing this question myself before this House, and as I went into the question at considerable length and in great detail, I shall not speak at any great length to-day.


Austin Levi Fraser: The question has been a sort of hardy annual before the House for many years, and unfortunately a great many people had come to took upon it, not in the serious light which it deserves. That, I think, is due to the manner in which this important question has been placed before the country in the past, by some well intentioned, but indiscreet, advocates in the press, on the platform, and in parliament. Owing to these ill-directed efforts this great scheme became, to some extent, 1 am sorry to say, a matter of more or less ridicule. At the first session of the present parliament, when I entered this House, 1 noticed this state of affairs, and in consultation with my colleagues we decided not to bring the matter before the House at that first session, but that the wiser course was to drop it for the time being, so that the absurd impression which had been created should be allowed to die out. I am glad to think that my anticipation in this regard has to some extent c.ome to pass, and that now the people of Canada and the members of this parliament look upon the Prince Edward Island tunnel scheme in a more serious light than they formerly did. I shall not refer to. the survey made 20 years ago by Sir Douglas Fox, further than to point out that in speaking of t,he method of the survey which he thought ought to be carried on before the government undertook the work, he was careful to state, in giving his estimate of the cost upon such data as he had before him, that this estimate would be likely to change as a result of more complete information than was then in his possession. He pointed out that the proper course would be to take the line across the straits, where it was proposed to build the tunnel, and then, taking two lines parallel with the centre line at a distance of 300 yards on either side, to bore hol-ss along these lines through the underlying strata at intervals of 500 yards, so as to discover what the material was through which the tunnelling would have to be done. All that we ask at the present moment is that this recommendation of Sir Douglas Fox, or something similar to it, should be carried out. I wish it to be distinctly understood that at the present time we are not asking the government or the country to build a tunnel. Whenever we mention this matter in this House it is published in the newspapers that we are asking,the government to build a tunnel. But, again, I wish it to be understood that what we are now asking is that a survey should be made to determine whether a tunnel is practicable or not. That, I think, is a very reasonable request. Owing to the supposed geological formation of red clay shale on a carboniferous or gray sandstone basis, said to contain small masses of fine standstone, it is said that there are likely to be fissures, and, therefore, a prime consideration in the question

of cost would be as to how much water would percolate through these fissures if there are such. It is said that if there are no fissures there will be no difficulty in building the tunnel, and hence the absolute .necessity for a careful and complete survey.
A very large proportion of the cost of this great undertaking will depend upon the nature of the ground through which the tunnel has to pass-not with regard to the difficulty of boring, but with regard to the difficulty of keeping out the water; and the great object of a survey is to ascertain whether there are any such fissures. This shale overlies a sandstone base, which it is believed continues for about one-fourth of the distance; so that if fissures were found to exist in the sandstone, the amount of water they would admit into the tunnel would be a most important factor in the whole distance, according to Sir Douglas Fox. My hon. friend from Kings county, has put this matter very briefly, but very well, and I am not going to take up the time of' this House in going into it in detail, as I thought I was justified in doing last session. I wish simply to try to impress upon you, Mr. Speaker, and this House the very great importance of this subject of transportation to Prince Edward Island. There is no province of the Dominion, not even excepting the western provinces, to which that subject is of so much importance; and if the question of a tunnel can be taken up and settled one way or the other, it will be of great advantage. If it is found to be practicable, it will be of great advantage to have the tunnel. If it is found to be impracticable, it will be of great advantage to have the question removed from the public arena.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it would be possible to give to our hon. friends from Prince Edward Island any stronger assurance of the sympathy Which the government has for this most important project than was conveyed in the language of my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), at the last session of parliament, when he used these words:-
I am glad to hear my hon. friend from the island say that all they ask is that this matter shall be thoroughly and impartially inquired into and if the tunnel can be built at a moderate cost they think the work should be done. To that sentiment I most heartily subscribe, and I am quite sure that the government will have that feeling towards it. There have been some surveys in the past. I suppose that each of them in its day served the purpose, it was the best that could be had; but I quite agree with my hon. friends that the matter should be taken up more vigorously and more seriously, and that we should endeavour to get a reliable and thorough survey by the best engineers, and if, as a result of that survey, it is found that this important work can he constructed at a moderate cost, I for one, would promise my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island my most hearty and cordial support.
I have no reason, Sir, to suppose that the views which -were presented by the Minister of Finance on that occasion, are any different from those which are entertained by the government as a whole. The question, however, of making a survey is a very important one. There is no use of making further surveys unless they are more thorough and complete than the surveys which have been made in the past. Speaking for myself personally, I would say that if a company were formed, which would undertake to build a tunnel between Prince Edward Island and the mainland for the sum which has been mentioned, $10,000,000, I .would favour the granting of that aid for the purpose. The difficulty, however, as presented to me by the engineers of my department, is that a tunnel may cost $10,000,000 or it may cost $40,000,000, depending upon whether fissures should be encountered in the progress of the work, and let in water from the ocean, which would enormously increase the cost. Anybody who has made a study of tunnels, even through mountains, on dry land, realizes how difficult it is accurately to estimate the cost and the difficulty is, of course, enormously increased, in the ease of a tunnel under water. Therefore, when a survey is undertaken, it is necessary that it should be undertaken under tire guidance of the most competent .and , experienced engineers, and that it should be thorough and complete covering almost every foot of tire distance between the mainland and the island. I can assure my hon. friends that the matter which has already been engaging the attention of my department, will be seriously considered, and I am not without hope, that provision will, before long, be made for a thorough and complete survey, which will be entirely satisfactory to our friends from Prince Edward Island.


Haughton Lennox: Has the government ascertained anything as to the probable cost of a complete" survey P


William Pugsley: Only in a general way. A complete survey would be pretty costly; but still, upon the information I have, I think the cost would not be regarded by parliament as larger than would be warranted by the great importance of the work, in case it should be possible to undertake it.


Austin Levi Fraser: Can the hon. minister give us any idea of the time at which he intends to take up this work of the survey ?


William Pugsley: I intend to submit the matter for the consideration of the government during the present session.


Robert Laird Borden: I may say, that at least three years ago, I am not sure that it was not four years ago, I strongly urged upon the government to do this very thing. I stated then that the people of Prince Edward Island and the people of the whole of the Dominion of Canada were entitled to know whether this was a practicable project or not, that ample time had already elapsed during which that information might have been obtained, and that, in my opinion, not a single day ought to be lost in taking effective steps for the purpose of enabling the government to place on the table of this House definite and specific information on this question. I entertain the same opinion to-day. I only regret that three or four years have been lost between that time and the present in which this work has not been taken up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  J. D.@: TAYLOR (New Westminster), moved:	.
For a copy of all correspondence since the 1st of January, 1910, with the Department of Justice or any officers of that department, making or supporting request for increase of pay to employees of the penitentiary at New Westminster; and of all reports or recommendations in that connection made by any officer of the department. Also a copy of all reports made during the period indicated by the grand jury at New Westminster with reference to the conditions at said penitentiary.
He said: My object is to bring to the attention of the government and the House the very unsatisfactory situation of the officials of the penitentiary at New Westminster. The subject of the pay of these officials is not new to the government because for two or three years they have been making most persistent efiorts to get an increase which will to some extent put them on a level with their much better situated neighbours in the city of New Westminster. They have been encouraged by government officials to believe that their petitions were receiving serious consideration, and that in a short time they might expect good results, but the years have gone on the conditions of their labour have continued the same and their responsibilities and expenses have increased, and still, .hough the necessity for their being paid higher wages has increased, nothing has transpired to warrant the belief that they are any nearer success now than when they began to petition. In the meantime public attention has been directed to the conditions in that institution. We had a few years ago a report, a most unfair report, from an official at Ottawa referring to irregularities [DOT]in that penitentiary, and claiming that these showed inattention, neglect or perhaps incapacity on the part of the officers, Mr. PUGSLEY.
notwithstanding the fact that the officers had petitioned in vain for efficient help, and also to have the conditions of those who were employed made tolerable. We have had the matter brought before the public in a new and in a very formal manner in a report made by the grand jury at the city of New Westminster, in which report the attention of the government was invited to the conditions at the penitentiary, and which declared that these conditions were such as to invite and facilitate the escape of every prisoner confined in it. No doubt the Department of Justice has taken cognizance of that report and has resolved on some line of policy; but so far as the officials at the penitentiary are concerned, they have heard nothing whatever of anything being done for the purpose of providing a remedy and removing the reproach which the grand jury has fastened upon that institution. In bringing this matter before the House, I am anxious to impress upon hon. members as forcibly as I can, the fact that there is not in the minds of the public at New Westminster, any reproach upon the penitentiary officials. The view taken locally of that institution is that there is indeed a lack of that efficiency which we have the right to expect, but that this is due to the fact that the rate of pay offered by the department makes it impossible for those in charge to secure the class of help which they desire in order to carry out its work effectively. They find their old hands constantly leaving to accept more lucrative employment outside; they find the material available to fill the vacancies consists only of persons temporarily out of employment who take that service merely as a means to obtaining better positions outside it later. I am well aware that the conditions at New Westminster are not confined to that city but are common to all the penitentiaries in the west, and to a lesser degree, to those in the east; but the conditions at Westminster are accentuated by the excessive cost of living as compared with the east, and by the failure of the department to make a proportionate allowance to equalize these conditions.
I have had prepared a statement from the figures presented in the ' Labour Gazette ' of the cost of living in different places in Canada. I find that, as compared with eastern cities having penitentiaries, the cost of living in New Westminster is 51 per cent higher than at St. John, N.B., the point of comparison for Dorchester penitentiary, and 56 per cent higher than at Kingston. There is allowed to the lower officials west of Ontario $100 per year in consideration of their location, but this is absorbed absolutely by the difference in rent between New Westminster and the eastern cities. The table of rents.

as shown by the statistics in the ' Labour *Gazette 5 shows that at St. John, the nearest town to Dorchester quoted in these statistics, the average working man pays $9 per month, at Kingston he pays $10 per month, while at New Westminster the lowest at which any of the staff of the penitentiary can secure a house is $18 per month. So you will see that the difference in rental between the east and the west absorbs the whole of the extra allowance and leaves nothing to compensate for the extra cost of living in other respects.
This matter of salary is regulated, I believe, by statute, and therefore, cannot be so readily adjusted as if the conditions were otherwise. But I see in the estimates a move on the part of the Minister of Inland Revenue to deal with the officials of that department west of Ontario by providing a special allowance of $150 a year for every employee below a certain amount. I would suggest that a similar course should be followed with regard to the New Westminster penitentiary and other institutions, pending a more thorough statutory adjustment which might well be made in the shape of a general increase in the salaries of the officials of those institutions. There is no purpose to be served by dwelling at any length on this matter, but I would ask the minister whether he cannot give some indication to these men to encourage them and their families to hope that there is a ray of light ahead of them.


Mr. BRADBURY.: In this connection I would like to say a word or two regarding the institution at Stony Mountain. The employees there occupy very much the same position as those at Westminster. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) has put the case so well before the House that I need not say more than that 1 heartily concur in the opinions and sentiments expressed by him. The hon. Minister of Justice, has, I believe, received a petition from the employees of the Stony Mountain penitentiary drawing his attention to some of the facts in Manitoba similar to those described by my hon. friend from Westminster as existing there'
As everybody is aware who knows anything about western life, the cost of living is very much higher in the west than in the east. We also know that men occupying the position, for instance, of instructors in these institutions command, as a rule, very much larger wages outside than are received from the government. Men occupying positions similar to those of instructors in the Stony Mountain institution receive in Manitoba any where from $5 to $6 or $7 a day; and I understand that these men are working for the government for something like $2.50 a dav. This, surely. should not be continued, and I enter
a plea with the Minister of Justice to consider the position of these men, taking into consideration at the same time the fact that they must be men of ability to instruct those who are placed under their charge, and of a good deal of force of character to command the respect of those whom it is their duty to instruct. And that they have been successful is evidenced by many of the men who have been turned out of that institution in Manitoba. The class of instructors the government has secured for that institution, 1 am glad to say, is perhaps as high as that in any other institution in Canada. They are worthy of every consideration the government can show them. I urge upon the government the desirability of treating the instructors and others in these institutions fairly liberally to encourage them to take an interest in their duty by showing them that the country appreciates what they are doing for the unfortunates who are placed under their care.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think I
may at once state that I sympathize very sincerely with the views which have been expressed by both the hon. gentlemen who have discussed this motion. It is no longer ago than this morning that, at the breakfast table, I heard a discourse which was very eloquent and moving upon this very subject of the increased cost of living. And I scarcely know what the solution of the difficulty is to be. I think, however, that I can assure my hon. friends of the west that it is not alone in their part of the country that these difficulties are felt. Possibly, we shall continue to have them until the views of my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) prevail, and we get rid of the increased price of commodities by getting rid of our tariff. Then, I suppose, we shall have nothing to pay except our taxes. And if we can manage to meet the taxes, the increased cost of living, possibly, will not be one of the things troubling every one who has to depend upon a fixed salary.
Now, with regard to the particular motion that is made here, there is certainly no objection to bringing down all the papers which exist and which are referred to in the motion. There is not, so far as I am aware, any presentment from a grand jury such as is referred to in the motion. I certainly have no recollection of seeing any such document within the last twelve months. But, upon the other branch of what is asked for, the application for increase of salaries of officials in the penitentiary at New Westminster, there have been urgent representations made during the last few months, and I have been for a longer period than that aware from the practical administration of affairs in the penitentiary that conditions are not satisfactory. Exactly what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor,

New Westminster) mentions is taking place. We need good men, reliable men, men of good physical as well as mental' qualifications, for the responsible position of guards in our penitentiaries. But such men can get better wages outside than they can get in the service, and the result is very generally that we no sooner get a good, capable man acquainted with his duties than some one else comes along and offers him more, and, of course, he takes it and we lose the man who has just learned to be valuable. But, while that is so, the practical question of what is to be done is far from being free from difficulty. The increased cost of living, as I said, seems not to be at all confined to the west. We have just as strong representations, just as numerous and emphatic representations, from our penitentiaries in the maritime provinces and in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and these * representations have been so unanimous from each one of our six penitentiaries and there has been so much practical difficulty In securing anything like permanency of service, of our guards particularly, that the question has become one which, I am afraid, cannot be any longer put off from practical consideration. I had been sanguine, when I took up the duties of the Department of Justice four years ago that this question, so far as the penitentiaries were concerned, would probably not' need to be considered again during my tenure of office. It was the first piece of work, I think, to which I fell heir when I took charge of the Department of Justice, to have in hand before the Committee of the Whole in this House the newly revised Penitentiaries Act which was passed in 1906. By that statute, a very considerable general increase in salaries was given. There was an effort to make that uniform. I think that effort was in the right direction. I should like to see the salaries uniform. It is difficult to satisfy the man from Nova Scotia or New Brunswick that his services in thd penitentiary are not worth just as much as those of the *man in identically the same position at Stony Mountain or New Westminster. And it is a very invidious sort of thing to make a distinction upon any such ground as that the cost of living is higher in one section of the country than in another. If it is to be recognized as right in the penitentiary service, it must follow in all branches of the service, and with the service to the .country worth just as much in one part of the Dominion as in another, it is difficult to justify upon principle the making of any distinction.
In respect to what is to be done about it, I cannot*give any other answer than to say, and I do say in all sincerity, that the subject is receiving, -and will continue to receive, the most careful consideration of which I am capable. It is one which does Sir ALLEN AYLESWOBTH.
not rest altogether with me, perhaps not at all _ with me; it is something in respect to which I must procure the assent of my colleagues to any recommendation I may make and, of course, the assent of this House. These salaries are fixed by statute. If the time has come, notwithstanding that it is only four years since there was an increase, it is for this House to say so, and if I can see my way to a recommendation which will to some extent .alleviate the condition of things which has been spoken of loy hon. gentlemen this afternoon and which in the practical everyday administration of the department, I certainly have very acutely felt for months, if not for years, I shall personally be only too glad.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster), moved:
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence between the Department of the Interior or any of its officers and any other persons, respecting the timber on the Fanny Louise Irwin homestead in the district of Chilliwack, British Columbia, including any instructions to solicitors to issue a writ in Exchequer Court for cancellation of timber rights not reserved in Crown grant of the homestead.
He said: I wish in a very few words to call attention to what I regard as a bluff on the part of the Department of Justice, but which while it does not appear serious to me is giving a great deal of uneasiness to the farmers in the district of Chilliwack against whom it is directed. The story at the foundation of this motion, is told in a couple of official letters summarized in this communication from the legal firm of Davis, Marshall & Macneil, of Vancouver, addressed to William R. Barge, of Rosedale. That letter reads:-
In January, 1910, you purchased from Mrs. Jane E. Hermon 10 acres of land, being part of the northeast quarter-section 31, township
2.	Mrs. Hermon purchased this property from Fanny Louise Irwin, who in turn obtained it from the Crown in August, 1903. The Department of Justice have instructed their solicitors at Ottawa to bring an action against you and the other holders of this property to have the patent issued, cancelled on the ground that it was issued in error, and should have reserved to the government the timber upon the lands in question. We have been asked by the solicitors for the Department at Ottawa to endeavour to come to some amicable arrangement with the owners before they issue a writ in the Exchequer Court against you.
The proposal made by the department is for the owners to agree to surrender the patent in question, upon the understanding that the Crown will issue a fresh patent reserving the timber. Would you be prepared to do this? Kindly let us know at once, os failing to hear from you, or should you re-
[Stage Direction]
fuse, proceedings will be commenced in the Exchequer Court against yon.
I have another letter to the same effect from the same firm addressed to Mrs. .T, E. Hermon.
If the Department of Justice were dealing with the original patentee of this land, there might be some sense in these proceedings, because so long as the original patentee held something to which he was not legally entitled, it would be proper for the department to endeavour to overtake the error it had made, and to remedy the error; but in this case you find that several years have elapsed, these properties have passed into 16 or 20 hands; the first patentee of 160 acres, as I believe,	divided the property
into about four sections, each of these subdivided it and they have continued to subdivide it since, and now all these persons are menaced by a threat from the Department of Justice to take proceedings in the Exchequer Court to assail the rights which they obtained by virtue of a patent from the Department of the Interior to the original holder of these lands. I do not think that these persons have anything to fear from the Department of Justice or any other department of the government if they stand uj)on their rights. I do not think the department will ever go to the Exchequer Court with a case of that kind; I do not think they would last long if they did, and I say that in all humility as the opinion of a layman upon a point of law. I say further that the Department of the Interior should not be a party to this, they should be ashamed, to permit another department to issue this bluff against innocent persons, who had nothing whatever to do with the mistake in question, who had no possible means of knowing that any mistake had occurred, but who, on the contrary, owing to the conditions surrounding the timber in the Chilliwack district, had every reason to believe that this patentee who held the patent in her hand not reserving from the land the timber rights was indeed the owner, of the timber as so many settlers in that locality are the owners of the timber. This matter having been brought out in this way, _ I think it would be opportune for the Minister of the Interior to give some assurance to these settlers that they will not be harassed in this matter by the government, but that the responsibility for the error will be placed where it belongs, in the Interior Department, instead of, _ being visited on the heads of this large number of innocent persons in the Chilliwack district.
Mr. OLIVER.: The case to which my hon. friend alludes is, in fact, as he has stated it. At one time, many years ago, it was the custom, to allow homestead entry upon timber lands in the province of British Columbia, excluding timber from the right of the homesteader and when the patent was issued to the homesteader, the timber was excluded from the patent. In this particular case, which my hon. friend has mentioned, and I think in one^ther case that has come to the attention of the Department of the Interior, the patent was issued to the homesteader without the reservation of the right to the timber.
The department, of course has no knowledge of what disposition has been made of his rights, or her rights, by the patentee but the department is perfectly aware that the original owner of the timber is still the owner of the timber and, in dealing with the matter, the effort has been made to secure to the holder of the timber the rights which he paid for, and which he possesses, that is, the right to cut the timber upon this land, a right of which the homesteader was perfectly aware at the time that the homestead entry was given, and, of course, at the time the patent was issued. Instead of the present holders of the land being willing to accept a patent for the land excluding the timber, according to the equity of the case, they have seen fit to stand upon what they are pleased to consider their legal rights. Holding a patent which does not exclude the timber, they refuse to give up the timber. It was a legal matter, and was left by the Department of Interior to that of justice. On the advice of the Department of Justice proceedings were being taken to reinstate the respective parties to their rights according to the conditions upon which they had been parted with. In so far as the Department of Interior is concerned, we are anxious not to do anything that will oppress or injure any individual settler, or the purchaser from an individual settler, but, on the other hand, the department is anxious to protect rights which it has passed to other individuals, and which by error have not otherwise been protected. If my hon. friend asks for an apology from the Department of Interior for the action taken, I can only say that I do not see that any apology can be offered, except that an apology might be offered by the officials of the government who made the error, which government I may say, was our predecessor in office ; hut, for the action of this government in doing what can be done to protect the rights of the owners of the timber, who have unquestionably the right in equity to the timber, I do not think that there is any apology to be offered.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: Was there a license on the timber when the patent was issued?


Frank Oliver: Yes, and when the homestead was given also.


Mr. MIDDLEBEO.: I would like to ask the minister if the letter written by the Vancouver solicitors was written with the authority or by the instruction of the Department of Interior.


Frank Oliver: I could not answer that .unless I saw the letter.


William Sora Middlebro: It is the letter which my ,hon. friend from New Westminster has just read.


Frank Oliver: I would have to refer to the records of the department. I could not answer off-hand.


William Sora Middlebro: The letter, I see, states that they have authority from the government to take proceedings in the Exchequer 'Court. I can only say that this is the ordinary, usual case of a bona tide purchaser for value without notice, and it is recognized in all the courts in the land that a person who gets a title in that way has a perfect title. I think it is idle for the Minister of the Interior to say that the department are justified in instructing a firm of solicitors to endeavour to recover from those parties, who have innocently purchased in good faith and paid full consideration, any compensation whatever because of the two they are the innocent parties. But here, notwithstanding that this letter states that if these innocent, bona fide purchasers for value, do not do as thei department suggest-that is release the right to the timber, I suppose-action will be taken in the Exchequer Court of Canada. In the first place, I submit that no action can 'be taken as a matter of law and that as a matter of equity it should not be taken, and therefore, the department has no right to put up a bluff of this kind against innocent purchasers.


Robert Laird Borden: The department seems to be very much more zealous in this case than it was in the case of the Blairmore townsite. There a grant had been procured from the Crown by the grossest fraud and imposition, proved by evidence, and found by the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada. Notwithstanding that fact, the department recalled the judgment of the court after it had been pronounced, took no further proceedings, and left those in possession of the property on whose behalf the fraud and imposition had been practised.


Frank Oliver: If I may have the privilege, I would like to point out a very wide difference between the two cases. In the case under discussion of the patent of Fanny Louise Irwin, if it were merely a question between the government and Mrs. or Miss Irwin, there would be no attempt on the part of the department to cancel the patent which had been issued.


Frank Oliver: It is not an attempt to assert the right of the Crown to this property ; it is an attempt to protect the right of the proper owner of the timber upon that property, which right he has not disposed of, which we have no right to take from him and cannot take from him, and which the owner of this property knows perfectly well that he or she has no equitable right to. Because of an error in the issue of the patent, which, I repeat, was not the fault of the present administration, they hope to secure a value in the timber that does not belong to the Crown but belongs to another private person.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is a very great difference between the two cases, but for the reason that I pointed out, and not for the reason that the minister has assigned. In the Blairmore town-site case action was taken 'by the Attorney General of Canada upon the relation of a man who was entitled to the property as against the Crown. That man proved his case in court. He was the relator in the suit at whose instance the Attorney General of Canada took that proceeding. His case proved up to the hilt that fraud and imposition had resulted in the title passing from the Crown to some other person. That was absolutely proved by evidence, and that was found by the judgment of the judge of the Exchequer Court. Notwithstanding all that the Crown put to one side the man who had proved his case in court and directed that no further proceedings should be taken against the men who had received the benefit of the fraud and imposition that had been practised upon the Crown and which had been described in very emphatic and distinct terms not only by the judge in the west, Mr. Justice Wetmore, to whom the matter had been referred for the purpose of taking the evidence, but also by tire then judge of the Exchequer Court of Canada, Mr. Justice Burbidge. I think there is a difference between the two cases, but I do not think it is a difference that would impel the government to take action in the present case when they had refrained from action in the case to which I have alluded.


Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: Mr. Speaker, .1 would like to correct a couple of errors into which the Minister of the Interior appears to have fallen. In the first place he said that the mistake, if any, was not of this administration but of their predecessors. I wish to call attention to the fact that the mistake was made in 1903 when this administration was in office as it is now. Next, the minister stated on two occasions, that these persons perfectly well knew they had not the rights to which they so tenaciously held. 1 am in a position to say to the minister

that he has no warrant for that belief, that as a matter of fact the present owners, or some of them whom 1 know, had no reason whatever to suppose that they were not the absolute proprietors of this timber when they bought the lands under the deed giving that right to the persons from whom they purchased. I am in a position to say further, that one of the persons to whom this threat was addressed had actually resold his right before he was ordered by the department to surrender his patent. He would have been in the position of having to compensate the person to whom he had sold, but without anv recourse himself. I have another letter here which I will read to round off the correspondence, and this letter covers one or two of the points unintentially mis-stated by the minister. It is dated April 13, 1910. and addressed to Mrs. Jane E. Hermon, Rose-dale P.O., B.C., I would like to lay emphasis upon the chivalry of a department that will attack a helpless woman in this manner. The letter goes on:
Dear Madam,-In August, 1903, the Crown granted to Fanny L. Irwin certain lands in the railway belt in the province of British Columbia. On the 20th of November, 1909, the lands were conveyed to you by Fanny L. Irwin-
So that, as you will see, the department very well knew that she was not the original homesteader:
-subsequently you sold a portion to Joseph W. Oakes and a portion to William Robert Barge. Apparently from the documents in the land registry office you still have an interest in a portion of this property. The Dominion government have instructed proceedings to be taken in the Exchequer Court of Canada against you and the other owners to cancel this patent on the ground that it was issued in error as the timber should have been reserved from the lands in question. Messrs. Chrysler, Betliune & Larmonth, of Ottawa, are acting for the Crown in this matter and have asked us to see if some amicable arrangement cannot be arrived at with the owners before commencing legal proceedings. The proposition made is that the parties now entitled to the property should surrender their patent to the Crown.
Mark the words: ' now entitled to the property; ' that is what these lawyers said:
The proposition made is that the parties now entitled to the property should surrender their patent to the Crown, on the understanding that a new patent shall issue reserving the timber. Kindly let us hear whether you would be prepared to consent to such an arrangement.
Yours faithfully,
DAVIS, MARSHALL, MACNEIL & PUGH.
So, here we find an answer to the minister's statement that this was done by his Tory predecessors when as a fact it was 70
done in 1903, and also to his statement that the department were dealing with parties who very well knew they had no rights. His own solicitor's letter actually refers to this long series of transfers. I think it is a most astounding thing that the government of a great country like Canada should presume upon the ignorance of settlers in a remote part of the Dominion to think that these settlers would accept a bluff of this kind, and at a cost of hundreds of dollars to each of them, enable the department to find an easy way out of an error which it had committed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster), moved:
For a copy of all correspondence between the Post Office Department and any of its officials or other persons, relative to making an allowance for the transportation of letter carriers on the tramway system in New Westminster.
He said: I am happy to say that since I put this notice on the paper its object has been accomplished by the issue of an order for the payment of the transportation of the letter carriers. However, if the minister has no objection I think it is well that the motion should carry because there was very extraordinary delay in securing this little concession, and I should like to know why this delay occurred.
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: I have no objection to the papers being brought down. I may tell my hon. friend that there was no ill-will on the part of the department towards paying for the transportation of the letter carriers, but we thought at the time there was a combine between the street railway companies of the various cities to claim an exorbitant amount for this service. We did not object to pay the transportation of the letter carriers in these cities, but at the same time we did not wish to pay the street railway companies an exorbitant amount. We were always willing to pay a moderate price. The reason of the delay was that we were conducting negotiations with the various street railway companies of the cities from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier), moved for:-
A return showing in detail:-
1. All sums paid by the concessionnaires of grantees of the Beauharnois canal as rental or royalties upon the rights conveyed to them by the Crown on the Beauharnois canal, or paid by their assigns in the enjoyment of the said rights, since the concession.



2.	Of all sums paid oi' expended by the government upon the said canal since the date of the said concession.
3.	Of all sums actually due the Crown by the grantees or assigns for the use of said canal or in connection therewith.
He said: The object of this motion is to put the House in possession of all the facts and circumstances connected with the alienation of the Beauharnois canal. Some of these papers were brought down some time ago, but I have not been able to find them, and it is important at, this juncture that we should become familiar with the facts, as there is now before the House a Bill to regulate the method of the alienation of our water-powers. 1 presume there is no objection to our obtaining this information. I may add that we have just had held in the city of Quebec a forestry and conservation meeting, at which the resources of this country have been discussed and enumerated and enlarged upon as never before. We were told there of the vast extent of our forest wealth, and it was asserted by those who are competent to speak upon the subject, that there was to be found in Canada probably 40 per cent of all the water-powers in the world. The importance of husbanding these resources and of alienating them only after the observance of most careful formalities, were subjects fully treated of at that meeting in Quebec. It is very important that we should know the extent of our resources, but it seems to me it is equally essential that we should do something practical towards their conservation, or otherwise the circumstances which have attended their alienation in the past would soon leave us without these resources. There were some guiding principles laid down at the Quebec meeting, which do not seem to have been observed when the government parted with the Beauharnois canal. The principle was admitted on all hands that none of our water-powers or other resources ought to be rented or alienated without, in the first place, the preparation of a careful estimate of what the particular object to be alienated consists of and upon what terms such alienation should take place. I have been unable to discover that this rule was observed when we parted with the Beauharnois canal. There was not a carefully prepared estimate of what that canal represented in the way of capital expenditure, what we should claim as a return upon that capital expenditure, what the future worth of the water-power to the surrounding country might be, and what we received as a return for that alienation. No such careful estimate was made before the property was alienated. There was no provision made in the deed of alienation for an increase of rental in case the waterpower of the Beauharnois canal should be increased bv subsequent work on the part of the concessionnaires in order to derive a Mr. MONK.
larger revenue than was anticipated. There was no publicity before the alienation took place. There was no general invitation for tenders in order to ascertain whether others v ere ready to give more for that valuable pioperty than was given finally by those who acquired it. That was another condition which is insisted upon not only in the laws and regulations of all tne other countries that have dealt with the alienation of water-powers, but by all those on this continent who have studied the question. Here was a valuable water-power situated within reach of several important centres, and within easy reach of the city of Montreal. Indeed, I believe that it is at present intended to use that water-power to supply the city of Montreal with electricity. A vast field was thus opened to those who had the handling of the power, and no tenders were asked for. The alienation, I understand, was a perpetual one. On this matter there has not been much legislation in Europe, but there has been some in Switzerland and in France, and I believe attempts have been made to get legislation in the United States. There was no provision, as I understand, for a revision of the rentals from time to time. I speak without having seen the deed. The original grantee of the powers has, I understand, transferred his privileges.


John Graham Haggart: In what year was the grant made?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know exactly in what year, but I think four or five years ago.


Wilfrid Laurier: About five years ago.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: So that, as far as we know, none of the principles which it is claimed everywhere should apply to such alienations from the state were observed in the alienation of the Beauharnois canal. I remember that my hon. friend paid a visit to Beauharnois at the time there was a rumour-abroad that the alienation was about to take place, but I am not aware that rival parties were given a chance to make an offer, which I believe would have been superior to the one which was accepted by the government. At all events, it is conceded by those who know about the transaction that it has been immensely profitable to the grantees. I hope we shall have no more of such alienations. I hope that even at the present session the government will adopt some legislation which will, for the future, prevent any indiscriminate alienation of a most valuable asset. I cannot but believe that there is exaggeration in the statement, made by competent persons, however, that we have in Canada 40 per cent of the water-powers of the world, but even if we have a far less proportion of the world's wealth, it is evident that we

must, be careful of it, and that we must not merely announce the policy of conservation, but put it into practical shape, so that governments can never in the future be tempted to make such alienations as the one referred to in this motion. We can, of course, only speak fully as to the facts when the return is brought down. I desire, with the permission of the House, to add to this motion these words:-
4.	The names of the shareholders of the present tenant or proprietor company, with the number of shares held by each and the par value of such shares.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. Minister of Public Works answers my hon. friend with reference to the production of the documents for which he has moved, let me say that the granting of the lease to Mr. Robert of the water-power on the site of the old Beau-harnois canal was the result of a longstanding fight between the citizens of Montreal and the Montreal Light, Heat- and Power Co. For many years, as my hon. friend is aware, the taxpayers of the city of Montreal were endeavouring to get rid of that monopoly. Five or six years ago I took a persona] interest in this matter, along with some citizens of Montreal, and I am glad to say that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was one of those citizens. We were taxpayers of Montreal, and we intended, as soon as possiDie, to get rid of that monopoly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am afraid my hon. friend is giving me a merit to which I am not entitled. I have no recollection of this.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will refresh my hon. friend's memory. Deputations were organized, not to go before the city council, because it was recognized that the citizens of Montreal could not get justice from the city council, but it was realized that there was a magnificent water-power to be had at the Beauharnois canal, which was not being used, and delegations were organized to ask the government at Ottawa to protect the taxpayers of Montreal as against the monopoly known as the Montreal Light, Heat and Power 'Co. I remember the last delegation which came to Ottawa, composed cf some members of the city council of Montreal, including the mayor and my hon. friend from St. Mary's (Mr. Martin), and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk).


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. gentleman is mistaken there.	.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am sorry to say that my hon. friend has in this instance a bad memory.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I cannot lay claim to such patriotism.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course his presence there was all to his credit. He was present at the office of the Prime Minister with the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Mr. Martin), some of the aldermen of Montreal, as well as delegations from the surrounding districts of Jacques Cartier, Laprairie, Beauharnois and the various electoral divisions of Montreal. They all urged, irrespective of politics, that the water-power of the Beauharnois canal should be leased to a strong firm which would not be bought or would not be induced to give up its rights to the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company. And this is the reason why it was stipulated there and then and published throughout the press that the government would not call for tenders, but would be given to a body of men, respectable and responsible, the management of the Beauharnois canal water-power. If tenders had been called for, of course the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company would have repeated the very unsavoury operation which took place with regard to the Soulanges, Heron Island and Richelieu river water-powerS. Therefore, when a company came before the Prime Minister, with a subscribed capital of $4,000,000, representing the best elements in the city, the government wisely decided	to lease to it the
Beauharnois canal power. What was the consequence? I happen to know the facts, because I took some part in the fight which took place a year or two ago in Montreal in order to obtain a pure civic administration there. The result was that after that waterpower was given the Canadian Light and Heat Company, the prices for electric energy in Montreal for lighting and heating purposes fell some 30 per cent.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not quite so much.


Rodolphe Lemieux: To what extent did it fall?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I cannot say, but not so much as that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course I cannot give the exact percentage, but there was a very large reduction, and the people of Montreal to-day are free from the thraldom under which they formerly surrered as regards electrical energy.
We are told that we have given away a very valuable concession for years and years to come. Well, the papers have all been laid before the House. The lease is renewable every twenty-one years during a period of some 70 or 80 years. I happen to know a little about this matter because some year and a half or two years ago, the Prime Minister being ill, I was asked to replace him when the first sod was turned at Beauharnois and the new building was being put up. Let me tell you that the new company have spent some $2,000,000 on this

project. I do not know if my hop. friend has seen the building being erected at St. Timothee, but certainly it will be one of the finest power buildings ever put up on this continent. Ig it reasonable then that a company which has broken the worst monopoly the citizens of Montreal had ever contended against and which is spending so much money should be called on to renew its lease every year. Every one will understand that what was done has been done in the interests of the taxpayers of the city of Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any clause providing that the company may not amalgamate with the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company?


William Pugsley: There is.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think my hon. friend will find that such a clause is in the contract, and it was inserted at the request of the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) and myself. The Minister of Justice himself (Sir Allen Aylesworth) inserted that clause in order to prevent, the possibility of that company joining the monopoly which had crushed the citizens of Montreal for fifteen years before. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk)-[DOT] and I say it to his credit-joined his efforts with ours. There was no political bias, it was purely a municipal question, and both Conservatives and Liberals joined hands to get rid of the monopoly then existing.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. minister says that the lease is for 70 years renewable every 21 years. When renewable in 21 years, does that mean revising the rates?


Wilfrid Laurier: The contract was brought down three or four days ago and is on the table now.


Mr. J. A. ROBB (Huntingdon).: Just one word in answer to the statement of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier that the government had no report before them by engineers on the value of the canal. Before the Soulanges canal was constructed the Beauharnois canal was used for the purposes of navigation. At the time the Conservative government had under consideration the construction of the Soulanges canal, the people along the Beauharnois were very anxious that instead of constructing the Soulanges, the Beauharnois canal should be deepened. But the report of the engineer-no doubt a very distinguished man in his profession-then was that it would be impossible to deepen the Beauharnois canal because along by Val-leyfield there was but a continuation of rock. Now we all know that the Soulanges canal has not been the success which the engineer expected; and the lessees of the Mr. LEMIEUX.
Beauharnois canal discovered that the report of the engineer at that time was altogether wrong because they have succeeded in deepening that canal to the extent of about twelve feet. The people along the Beauharnois take an altogether different view from that taken by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). At the time there was an agitation for the leasing of this canal and I was upon the delegation of which the Hon. the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) has just spoken, which went to Ottawa, not for the purpose of urging the government to refuse to lease this canal but for the purpose of urging it to grant a lease to the present lessees and thus prevent it getting into the hands of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company and in this way deprive the people of Valleyfield, Montreal and the surrounding districts of the cheap electrical power which they so much desired. The Canadian Power Company have expended a sum almost equal to the cost of the canal and are not yet in operation, but the result of their operations has been that the people of Valleyfield are now offered their light and heat at a reduction of 40 per cent. That is one reason why they take an altogether different view from that taken by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier? I have not the lease before me, but my recollection is that it contains a clause which compels that company to give light and power to the city of Valleyfield, to the city of Montreal, to Beauharnois and the surrounding section at prices to be fixed by the Railway Commission. There could be nothing fairer than that. And I submit to my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that the conservation of natural resources does not mean locking up those resources but giving them to people with capital who will develop them. We who live on the south side of the St. Lawrence, along the Beauharnois canal, are very well satisfied with this lease. The people generally thought, in view of the report that engineer Munro had made twenty years ago, that the lessees of the Beauharnois canal had been buncoed by the government and were paying prices in advance of what their leases were worth. It remains to be proved whether that company will make the big lot of money that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) imagines they will.


Mr. MEDERIC MARTIN (Montreal, St Mary's).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the House will allow me, I hope, to add a few words to what has been said on the question. As a Montreal city councillor and as a representative of St. Mary's division, I have had the honour to accompany the delegation which, a few years ago, interviewed the ministers with the object of obtaining the lease of the Beauharnois canal on behalf of the Robert Company, as stated

by the hon. Postmaster General a moment ago.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier remembers no doubt that for some time past there was a movement going on in the Montreal city council with a view to effecting a change in the lighting system. We were intent on getting rid of the Montreal Light, Heat and Power, which, as stated by the hon. Postmaster General, had full control of the lighting.
Now, the city council, last year, advertised for tenders. The Robert Company put in a tender, and I remember fully well that one evening council sat until midnight in the hope of securing the contract for lighting to that company. However, the majority in the council made all kind of objections, so much so that the company found it impossible to accept the terms set down.
I remember, among other things, that they would not give them a contract for more than five years, and finally, they had to refuse it.
I sincerely believe that the government, by giving a lease to the Robert Company acted in the best interest of the public. It had the result of relieving the people of Montreal, in view of the fact that the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company had to reduce their rates to a very great extent. As a matter of fact, the Montreal Light, till last year, made an allowance of 15 p.c. upon the consumer paying within ten days. It is quite different now. I know what I am talking about, having had a contract with the same company for the lighting of my own house for a period of five years, and I got a discount of 46 p.c.
My opinion is that, while the government may not realize any profit by its lease to Mr. Robert, the benefit will all go to the people living alongside the canal, and more particularly the people of Montreal.
I do not see wThv the member for Jacques Cartier should ask any explanation about this matter. I am sure that the consumers in Montreal will greatly benefit by that arrangement:
I endorse all the statements made by the hon. Postmaster General, and I think that the member for Jacques Cartier ought to be quite satisfied.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Pugsley: After the remarks which have been made by the hon. gentleman who followed my hon. friend from Jacq,ues Cartier (Mr. Monk), there remains but very little for me to say, beyond giving to the House a summary of the lease which was entered into between His Majesty and Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Robert, of the right to use water of the Beauharnois canal. I think it desirable that the terms of the lease should be placed on * Hansard ' in consequence more especially of the statement of the hon. member from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), that he trusted no such lease as this would ever again be entered into by the government. I understand that the reason my hon. friend made that statement is, that he is of the opinion that it does not follow out the principle of conserving the water-powers of the country. My own idea is that the proper way to conserve the water-powers of this country is not to lock them up, not to prevent them from being developed, but to encourage their development and to ensure, as far as it can possibly be done, that power shall be supplied to the people at the lowest possible price. It seems to me that in order to do that, first of all it is desirable that strong men, men of good financial standing, shall be induced to take hold of those water-powers with a view to developing them, that is, unless the government itself, on behalf of the country, is prepared to engage in the development of water-powers as a public work. That has not so far, been done in Canada. It is true that in Ontario they have organized the Hydro-Electric Commission, but that is only a commission for the distribution of water-power, it is not a commission that, so far, has had anything to do with the development of water-powers. The commission purchases its water-power from piivate companies which have expended large sums in the development of power. It seems to me that these are two essentials, but the most important of all is, of course, that this great public utility shall be furnished to the people desirous of using it at the lowest possible cost. In order that the people may get electricity at the lowest possible cost, there must be some permanency of tenure to the company developing the power. If the views of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk), should prevail that a company should only be allowed a lease of a water-power for a short period of time, and the lease should then terminate, and if it is my hon. friend's views that the company then should receive no compensation for the money expended in the development of power, which might amount in many cases to a very large sum of money, then in order to recoup themselves, the company would be obliged during the short period of their tenure, to charge very much higher prices for the use of electricity than would otherwise be the case. I do not think that would be desirable or in the interest of the country.
Another feature which I think is essential is, that it should be provided that, if at any time in the future -the government

ox the country should feel it desirable in the public interest to acquire the property and operate it as a public work, the government should be enabled to take over the property of the company on giving fair compensation, which I assume would embrace not only the actual cost, but a reasonable percentage on the moneys the company had invested in its undertaking. It seems to me that in that way, the public interest would be conserved, the people would get electricity at the lowest possible cost and the government would be enabled at any time in the future to take control of the property when it might become necessary to do so in the public interest.
You will agree with me when I have read this lease, that it fulfils every condition which I have suggested to the House as being desirable in the public interest. And looking back now to the time when this lease was executed and 'bearing in mind that the idea of the conservation of water-powers and other natural resources had not advanced to the stage it has now reached, it is remarkable that the government should have exercised such great care iu seeing that in every respect the public interest was guarded in the lease of this water-power. I can account for it by this fact that even before the great number of people who are to-day interested in the conservation of the natural resources of the country became so interested, I can well remember my hon. friend the Prime Minister, both in Ottawa and elsewhere, putting forward in the very strongest manner possible, the desirability of talcing steps for the conservation of the natural resources of our country and to him is largely due the forward movement which conservation has taken during the last few years and the very forward state which it has reached to-day.
The lease was made on December 10, 1907. It is between His Majesty, the King and Mr. William Cassels McIntyre and Mr. Edmund Arthur Robert, both of the city of Montreal. It recites that the Beauharnois canal is no longer needed for purposes of navigation and that it is considered desirable to lease it for the development of electricity for heating, lighting and industrial purposes and for the reasons which are set forth in the order in council, and which are to be found set forth to a considerable degree also in the lease, it was decided to grant a lease without competition to the gentlemen whom I have named. Then it provides that the lessees may have the right to take water from the Beauharnois canal and certain rights are given in the land bordering on the canal. The lease is for a period of 21 years renewable as therein provided, returning therefore the annual rent or sum of $12,000.


William Pugsley: 


Robert Laird Borden: For how long may it be renewed ?


William Pugsley: There may be two renewals. The lease is for 21 years with two renewals of 21 years each. '
It provides that the lessees shall make all urgent and necessary repairs to the canal and the works in connection therewith subject always to the supervision and approval of the minister. It also provides that the lessees shall at their own cost and expense maintain, perform, operate and keep in good and sufficient repair, all bridges, including farm bridges, ferries, weirs, roads, fences, ditches and culverts, and all other servitudes whatever, which it is now incumbent on His Majesty to maintain and to keep in repair in The premises.
Thus the government is relieved of considerable burdens which would otherwise exist in respeet to bridges crossing the canal and other matters to which this clause refers.
It is also provided that the lessees shall indemnify His Majesty against all liabilities for damage, detriment or injury that may result from the construction, or operation of the works or from neglect to maintain them in an efficient condition. It provides for the rights of the Montreal Cotton Company and of all other lessees. Here is a very important clause:
The lessees shall, whenever so required by the municipality of Valleyfield, or by the municipality of Beauharnois, or other municipality adjacent to the canal, or by the city of Montreal, furnish the municipality or the city with electrical power for municipal lighting purposes at reasonable rates and on reasonable conditions, such rates and conditions in the event of disagreement between the parties to be determined by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada; provided always that notification of such requirements be given by the municipalities respectively, or the city, as the case may be, to the lessees within two years from the grant of this lease, and that reasonable time be allowed the lessees after such notification to enable them to comply therewith.
You will see that evidently one of the objects which the government had in view was to enable the municipalities of Valley-field, Beauharnois, and any other municipality adjacent to the canal, as well as the city of Montreal, to secure electrical power for municipal lighting purposes at reasonable rates, and it is provided that if the company and these municipalities cannot agree upon the rates, then they are to be fixed by the Board of Railway Commissioners. That. I think, Mr. Speaker, is a very important safeguard for the public interest. Then, certain other provisions are made with regard to sewer pipes, carrying cables over the canal, &e.

My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier stated that there is no provision that there shall be an increase of rental in case the company should develop additional power. Well, as I said before, I do not think the matter of increasing the revenue of the country is of such great importance as the reduction of the cost of lighting and power. It is the reduction of the cost of the supply of these important utilities to the people that is the essential thing to be aimed at, but, even in the suggestion which my hon. friend made that there is no power to increase the rental, I think it will be found that he is entirely wrong because my hon. friend would agree with me that it would not be possible, at all events, not reasonably possible-indeed, I do not think possible at all-to increase the power unless the flow of water through the Beauharnois canal were increased. That would necessitate the deepening and widening of the Beauharnois canal, so as to give a larger intake and to allow more water to flow into the canal. It is expressly provided by the lea^e that no work of that kind shall be undertaken except with the approval of the minister, who must be satisfied that any such works will in no way interfere with the level of the St. Lawrence river, and as no such works can be undertaken except with the consent of the minister, it would be quite within his power, if he thought it in the public interest, to exact a larger rental commensurate with the additional power which would be derived by the company by reason of the enlargement of the intake and the consequent increase in the flow of water.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the minister if any such additional works have been undertaken.


William Pugsley: No, not as yet, but plans for such works are now before the government, and are under the consideration of the engineers.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They have not yet been approved?


William Pugsley: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there not a clause in the lease that the rates shall be under the control of the Governor General in Council?


William Pugsley: Yes, I read that. They are under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners. In so far as the rates are concerned, my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) spoke of there being a revision of the rental. That is of some importance from the financial standpoint in so far as the country at large is concerned. It might very well be, that, as the water-powers of this kind belong to the nation, the nation should receive a certain rental-not an un-

reasonable rental, but a fair, reasonable rental for the use of these water-powers- but what is of far greater importance than the question of rental is the question of the rates which the people are to pay for the use of electricity, light and power, and this lease expressly provides that every five years the rates that the company can charge these municipalities may be revised by the Board of Railway Commissioners. This is a most important provision and I think it is evidence of the very great care which the government exercised in the preparation of this lease. Then, Sir, I come to another provision, which I think is also of vast importance, and it is this:
If the demised premises or any portion thereof shall be required for public purposes, possession of the same may at any time during the said term be resumed by the government upon twelve months' notice in writing by the minister to the lessees. Upon such resumption all privileges and rights of the lessees hereunder shall cease, arid His Majesty shall pay to the lessees the value, with an addition of five per cent thereon, 'of all work, plant, buildings, machinery and material done, erected, built, or placed by the lessees under this lease in or upon the leased premises or upon other premises leased or required by them, for the purpose of converting the hydraulic power of the canal into electric power and of disposing of the same in Beau-harnois, Valley field, or other municipality adjacent to the canal or in Montreal, including the transmission and distribution system, such value to be fixed by arbitration as hereinafter provided as representing the fair value of the same in the then existing conditions.
To summarize briefly the important provisions of this lease-we have the fact that a fixed rental is reserved, that no works can be undertaken for the enlargement of the intake and thus increasing the flow of water and consequently the power, without the consent of the minister who can impose such terms as he thinks best in the public interest. We have the fact also that no assignment can take place without the assent of the minister, and upon assignment being made the controlling interest dn the capital stock must be placed in a trust company. Then 51 per cent of the capital stock is placed in the Montreal Trust Company, by the agreement entered into, >a copy of which is attached to the lease, for the purpose of ensuring that amalgamation should not take place between the company and the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company. We have the further provision that the charges for light and power to these municipalities adjacent to the canal and to the city of Montreal, shall be subject to the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and subject to revision every five years. W'e have also the further and important provision, that the government, whenever it may deem it Mr. PUGSLEY.
advisable in the public interest to do so, may take over all the rights of the lessees, all their power, all their plant, all their works of development, all their transmission lines, on simply paying the actual value to the company with an advance of five per cent thereon. It seems to me that if the hon. member for Jacques Cartier were to set to work to prepare a lease that would most effectually carry out the best ideas of those interested in conserving the water-powers of the country it would be impossible for him to improve upon the lease which the government gave in respect to the power in the Beauharnois canal. There is no objection, of course, to giving the information asked for in the notice as printed, but the hon. gentleman has amended the motion to ask that the government shall lay upon the table of the House a list of the shareholders in this company. There is no such list of shareholders so far as I am aware in any of the departments of the government. There is no provision in the charter by which a list of the shareholders is to be submitted to the government, and it would, therefore, be impossible for the government to comply with the motion if it were amended as asked by the hon. member.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: After the description given by the Minister of Public Works of the absolute control and power which the government have over the grantees of the Beauharnois canal, I am surprised that he should find it impossible to consent to the proposed amendment by which it is sought to obtain a list, of the shareholders, and the par value of the shares of this company. Surely if the government has all this influence over this company it is possible for the minister to obtain for parliament a list of the shareholders, particularly in view of a stipulation that a proportion of the shares will be placed in the hands of a trust company in the event of a transfer by the original grantees. It is very important under the circumstances that we should know Who are the partied interested in this company and in the grant, and unless the House is adverse to getting that information I shall insist upon that part of the motion. It seems somewhat strange that just at this moment when the discussion of the disposition of our national wealth is so prominent, that a demand for such information as I have asked should be met with so much protest. I presume the Postmaster General is speaking as acting Minister of Railways, and if one were to believe him the whole of this transaction was dictated to the government by a zealous desire to come to the assistance of the city of Montreal which he says was some years ago suffering from the oppression of a powerful

company which distributes electricity throughout the city. Therefore, according to the Postmaster General, in order to come to the assistance of the city of Montreal, the government without observing the rules and principles which now obtain throughout the civilized world in regard to *such matters, conceded this power upon most favourable and happy terms to Mr. McIntyre and the other gentlemen associated with him. I wonder if it occurred at that time to the Postmaster General, that it would have been a fit and proper thing- as the establishment of a municipal lighting plant for the city of Montreal was then being discussed, and is to-day a live question-to offer these singular advantages to the city of Montreal itself. Why was not that done? Why was not such an offer made? It will be difficult to understand why it was absolutely necessary, in order to relieve the situation in the city of Montreal, to concede such a very favourable grant to two gentlemen, who, if we are well informed, have since, upon the transfer of that grant realized very considerable profits. That is a question of some importance. Was the situation of the city of Montreal at that date so bad that it was necessary in conceding this grant to omit all the precautions which generally surround grants of that nature. Why was not a careful survey made of the Beauharnois canal, and an estimate prepared by experts, setting out upon what terms that grant should be made, what the rental, and what conditions should be attached to it. None of these formalities, judging by what we have heard from the treasury benches this afternoon, were observed at that time. The Minister of Public Works tells us that the grant is not perpetual. Well, until we have carefully examined the deed it is difficult to see how far it extends, and what length of time it gives to the grantees or their assigns, but the minister himself has told us that it was a grant for 63 or 64 years. At Quebec, during the discussion of this most important subject, very strong objection was made to a grant over 50 years, and it was stated there by competent persons that a grant for that length of time was absolutely contrary to the public interest. I myself did not share that view, and I urged at the time that it was impossible within a period of 20 or 25 years in the case of important concessions given to concessionnaries to have sufficient time to carry out the scheme of development. But, 64 years is a very long period indeed, particularly as I assume from what has been stated by the minister that the rental continues the same during the whole period of the lease. The state receives upon a capital expenditure of over two million dollars, a revenue of $12,000 per year, which does not vary. It
is true, as the minister says, that improvements and changes cannot be made without the consent of the government. But nowhere in that clause did I hear my hon. friend point out that if improvements and changes were made which the government could not otherwise accept, it might avail itself of that opportunity to exact additional rental. That would not be honest or proper on the part of the government, under the clause read by my hon. friend. It was not contemplated that improvements and changes would give rise to an increase of rental. It is now well known to everybody that a clause such as that mentioned by my hon. friend will not prevent a merger of interests, an evasion of what was contemplated by the clause, a fusion between these grantees or their assigns and the company mentioned by my hon. friend. There are so many devices known to the public by which clauses of that kind may be entirely set at nought that it seems almost a childish argument in the mouth of my hon. friend to suggest that such an obstacle could not be overcome. For instance, suppose this company made a contract to furnish electricity, not to the city of Montreal, but to the Montreal Light, Heat and Power Company-my hon. friend is a lawyer-would we have a right to intervene? No. Our right to intervene, and the application of the clause cited by my hon. friend, is restricted to the case of the grantees or their assigns undertaking to furnish electricity to the city of Montreal. It is, therefore, open to this company-and this is only one way out of many-under this very deed, to furnish electricity to those who furnish electricity to the city of Montreal, without in any way coming under the control of the clause invoked by my hon. friend. My hon. friend the Postmaster General seemed to claim great merit for having brought about a diminution of rates in the city of Montreal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not personally. I said the citizens who led the movement for better treatment on the part of the electric company. I claimed credit, not for myself, but in company with my hon. friend and the delegation which came to Ottawa at that time to ask for that power.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would be glad to give credit to my hon. friend for the great public spirit which he manifested at that time and since, but I do not think the facts are exactly as he says. This company has not yet reached Montreal; it is not furnishing electricity there, and, although I would not utter a single word in disparagement of the great company which my hon. friend the Postmaster General thinks so poorly of, I do not think they are of a disposition to be terrified by what is going on now at the Beauharnois canal, for they long before-

hand began reducing their rates to their customers. I quite sided with those who thought we were paying excessive rates, because it seemed to me that the city of Montreal, surrounded on all sides with water-powers of great magnitude, easily developed, ought to have electricity just as cheap, even much cheaper, than the city of Toronto, for instance. But other companies have since established themselves at Montreal, and this is the real cause of the reduction of rates.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend will admit that the first break in the monopoly was the granting of that lease of the Beau-harnois canal, and since that policy was adopted there has been a reversal of public opinion in Montreal. Last year the good municipal organization fought a battle which brought victory, and since that victory the Local League of Quebec has given all other electric companies the power to operate in Montreal, and a commission was granted by the Quebec government, as a result of the fight which was begun here in the Prime Minister's office, where my hon. friend was so conspicuous in his advocacy of improvements which would bring about cheaper electricity.


Mr.   M.@: ONIi. I do not know whether my hon. friend refers to the hon. member for St. Mary's division (Mr. Martin).


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. member for St. Mary's division was taken to task last year, and the new city council accorded an investigation of the charges against him, but no one would bring a charge against him, and the worst opponents he had with regard to his municipal career had to admit that there was nothing against him.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will not dispute my hon. friend's statement, When my hon. friend refers to the good municipal government which ws have in Montreal, I quite agree with him that we had an end put to a state of affairs which was almost intolerable, but the result of the popular vote on that occasion does not seem to have favoured my hon. friend from St. Mary's division, and I would assume, from what he said to-day, that his electors were very ungrateful to him, after all he had done to reduce the price of electricity. Now, Sir, I have spoken of the futility of the clause mentioned by my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works. As a matter of fact-and this is some justification, I hope, for my asking for these documents-at the present moment there is a rumour of an arrangement practically amounting to a merger,"or amalgamation between the very grantees to whom this concession was made and this very company which has been so much animadverted upon to-day by my hon. friends opposite. The grant was made some Mr. MONK.
time ago. Transfers have taken place since, the government has intervened, payments have been made, at the present moment communications are passing between the government and this new company, and I hope we shall have all these documents before the House, as we are entitled to see them. To the control of rates under these circumstances I would apply the same argument as I would apply to the argument made by the Minister of Public Works respecting the furnishing of electricity to the city of Montreal. The right to control the rates arises when this company furbishes electricity to the city of Montreal. Until then there is no such right. Does it arise if the grantees or their assigns furnish electricity to the. Light, Heat and Power Company? It does not seem so, from the clause read here by the hon. minister. Besides, we know what this control of rates amounts to nowadays. Companies must be allowed to collect sufficient revenue to pay the interest upon their capital and debentures, and we know something of watered stock, of over-capitalized companies, to know of what worth such an argument is in the mouths of those who carry out transactions of that kind. It is better to foresee than, to apply a remedy, which, under the circumstances, must necessarily be nugatory one-half the time, if not more.


Médéric Martin: I ask the hon. member to let me say one word in order to answer the insinuation that he has made a moment ago against me.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When I shall have done you will speak as you like.


Médéric Martin: When you shall have done it will be impossible for me to speak because, according to the rules of the House the discussion shall be closed and nobody can speak after you.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have another motion immediately after this one on the order of the day and you can speak on that motion.


Médéric Martin: Mr. Speaker says that I cannot speak upon the deibate when you shall have done.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: (Translation.) You will speak a little later.


Médéric Martin: Therefore you do not wish I should answer the insinuation you have made.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I said that there were other companies in the city of Montreal. We have the Saraguay Company, we have the Central Light and Heating Company, there are other companies projected, there is the possibility of the city of Montreal establishing a lighting and heating plant itself, and there is, as my hon. friend the
JANUARY 23, lail
Postmaster General stated, the new administration of the city of Montreal. These facts, and these alone, have influenced the movement to which my ihon. friend the Postmaster General pointed a moment ago.
I find that there is no change in the rental. I find that the alienation is for more than half a century; ipossible it may be more than that; but, according to my hon. friend, it provides for sixty-three or sixty-four years of enjoyment, and I do not find that the clause invoked by my hon. friend as amply protecting the city of Montreal, is sufficient excuse for the government having violated in this instance the cardinal principles of alienation as they are recognized by all the authorities on the subject, short periods of alienation, changes of rates according to the amount of power developed, absolute control of rates under all circumstances, and, above all, the tender of an opportunity to all the citizens of Canada to make an offer before an alienation takes place.'


Médéric Martin: ^ If the House will allow me, I would like to* answer the insinuation which has been made about me a moment ago by the honourable member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk).


Mr. SPEAKER (Translation).: I cannot allow the hon. member to go on with his speech, the debate being closed, and he having already addressed the House on the subject.	.


Médéric Martin: I wish to speak on a question of privilege, with a view to giving some personal explanations.
While it is true that last year an investigation was carried on under a Royal Commission into the affairs of the Montreal city council, that investigation was held at my own request.
Without going into the particulars, I may say at the outset that having taken an aggressive stand in regard to the city council, having branded my eollegues as ' boodlers ' and tliiefs, it was natural that they should do all in their power to crush me by -whatever means available. Things even went to the point that false affidavits were forged, but the commissioner conducting the inquiry would not allow me to defend myself. Nevertheless, I was one of the eight who were singled out in the commissioner's report. I called on the Montreal city council at the time to institute proceedings against me, in order to give me a chance to vindicate myself, but without avail. I requested the present council to institute proceedings against me, in order to give me an opportunity of defending myself, but the new council did not move any more than their predecessors. I even went a step further, Mr. Speaker, and asked
the attorney general for the province of Quebec to take proceedings against me so that I might be in a position to shoiv the falsity of the charges laid against my character. Here again, I -was unsuccessful.
If the hon. member for Jacques -Cartier, who has thought fit to refer here to these slanderous insinuations, is serious, knowing as he does that a man guilty of fraud and corruption in the way that he gave the House to understand that I had been, that such a man, I say, ;s unworthy of occupying a seat in this House, it is incumbent on him- and I challenge him to do so-to move for an investigation into my dealings, in order to find out wThetner or not I was guilty of -such offences, whether or not there is any foundation to these charges against me. Let him move for an inquiry whereby my right to occupy a seat in this House "will be settled one way or another. If I am unworthy of occupying a seat in this House, that inquiry will show it. It is the only means of finding out the truth in this connection and of vindicating my good name. I would welcome such a move on the part of the member of Jacques Cartier, as it would put me in a position of defending myself and setting matters right.
Notwithstanding what Judge Cannon or anybody else may have stated. I challenge whomsoever it may be to show that I failed in doing my duty while sitting m the Montreal city council, and I fear none of the insinuations which may be aimed at me, and especially by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.


William Pugsley: I object to any important amendment being added ter the motion.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Objection being taken, I find that, according to Bourinot, the motion must be according to the notice given and its terms cannot be * altered without the consent of the House. I therefore cannot allow any amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: For a copy of all correspondence concerning the lease or alienation of the Beauharnois canal, of all reports called for by the government and made concerning the said alienation by experts, officers of the departments or others, of all orders in council respecting said alienation, and of the deed or deeds between the Crown and the coneessionnaries embodying the said lease or alienation and respecting also any transfers of their rights ami privileges by the original grantees.
?He said: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I need not repeat what I said on the preceding motion, in connection with the Beauharnois canal; it is substantially the same thing. But I consider it my duty to say a word in answer to my hon. friend from

St. Mary's (Mr. Martin). I made n-o charges against my hon. friend. The hon. Postmaster General stated that he, together with the hon. member for St. Mary's had gone to much trouble to protect the citizens of Montreal against the monopoly set up by the Montreal Light, Heat and Power. I took occasion to state that the constituents of my hon. friend from St. Mary's had been very ungrateful, since in the municipal election which followed, they had forgotten the zeal he had shown for their interests. It is neither a charge nor an insinuation that I made.
I did not follow the inquiry carried on by Judge Cannon, but I understand that it was utterly unbiased, and the citizens of Montreal were satisfied with the findings.
If this statement which T make is satisfactory to my hon. friend, I make it with the greatest pleasure, as Judge Cannon has been submitted to vicious attacks before the public and in the- press and he was without the means of vindicating himself.


Mr. MARTIN (Montreal, St. Mary's).: (Translation.) Specific charges were made. I myself made specific charges against my fellow councillors, but he refused to look into them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable for the convenience of members of the House and of the public, to provide additional copies of the printed report of the Imperial defence conference of July and August, 1909.
He said: I hope there will be no objection to the expression of this wish. I think the members of the House will admit that the Imperial Defence Conference of 1909 was a very important event indeed in the history of this country; that arrangements were arrived at there the result of which was to change in very large measure the understanding between the British government and the government of this country regarding the defence of this country and the share of Canada in the general defence of the empire. These arrangements and agreements are contained in a blue-book the supply which failed very long ago when we should have had an ample supply of a document of such importance. The consequence is that to-day-and even long before to-day-when any body wishes to refer to the discussions and proceedings of the Imperial Defence Conference of 1909, it is impossible to secure copies. Members of the House know the exceedingly large quantity of blue-books printed, to my mind unnecessarily, when you consider the matters treated in many of them. We are embarrass-Mr. MONK.
ed from one year's end to the other with printed matter of which a very limited supply would, I think, suffice concerning analysis of honey or fertilizers or other such matters. But this imperial defence conference report is a document to which reference requires to be made continually, which the public desire to consult, which we wish to have at hand, and which will be required for a long time to come. Last year, before the session was half over, it was very difficult to obtain any copies of this blue-book. I myself suffered much inconvenience in this regard. One applied for the blue-book and could not get it; the French version particularly was wanting in an extraordinary degree. And during the public discussion and public meetings which followed the session during the by-election we could not possibly obtain a copy of this important document which the whole discussion bore upon. I have laid upon the table the letters of the three officers of the House from whom we most naturally would expect readily to obtain copies of the English and French versions of this report, but By these letters it will appear that I could get neither, because, as was stated, the supply was exhausted. i\Ve will require these documents again, and it is convenient that we should have them handy. This is not a very voluminous document; and I hope the House will adopt the expression of this desire that we should have easy access to this document, and that a certain number be printed in both languages.
While on my feet, I would like to say that I have been informed on very creditable authority that the whole verbatim report of that conference had been transmitted to Canada, and that certain members of the House had that word for word report what was said at the conference as well as of what was decided and done. That is what happened with regard to previous conferences. What I wish to call particular attention to is that some members of the House have access to that verbatim report though it was refused to others, and these others had no opportunity of seeing it. If this motion is carried, I hope the government will carry out the suggestion I make that the whole report be printed and placed at the disposal of members of the House.


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: There is certainly no objection to the motion of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) being carried. I understand that he refers to the blue-book brought down to the House last session. If there were no more copies printed, it is certainly not the fault of the government. I understand that questions relating to the printing of blue-books are decided by the joint committee on printing, a committee composed of members, of the Senate and members of the House of Commons. This com-

mittee has standing rules stating how many copies of each blue-book have been printed and distributed, and, unless they pass some orders to 'the contrary, this standing Tule would apply. I understand that the rule has been covered in this case. But I see that the number of copies of the French edition especially-I do not know anything about the English-are exhausted. Under these circumstances, there is no objection- quite the contrary-on the part of the government that some more copies should be printed. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) however, does not state in his motion what would be the number of copies required. Perhaps it would be better to have this defined in the resolution, in order that the clerk of the House may immediately give the necessary instructions for printing, or, what will be still more regular, refer the matter to the joint committee on printing to determine the additional number of copies required. But, as to the principle of the motion, there is absolutely no objection.


George Eulas Foster: I should like to second the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that the full report of the proceedings should be printed. I suppose that the government has that report. I presume the government could obtain the consent of the home government to have the report printed for parliament. I see no reason why we should not have not only the conclusions which were arrived at, but what is far more important, the grounds which were urged for or against those conclusions, and the attitude on these various questions of the representatives of the other Dominions of the empire. In the case of the conference of 1902, I think the Prime Minister himself suggested that there was no reason why the report should not be published in full and if I remember correctly he said he would communicate with the home government.


Wilfrid Laurier: Last session the Minister of Marine and Fisheries stated that so far as Canada was concerned, there was no objection whatever to bringing down everything.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, I remember that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Unfortunately Canada was not the only party to the conference and objections were raised to bringing down the report. We have no objection, we had none then and we have none now, but I doubt if it will be possible to obtain the consent of those objecting until perhaps the next Imperial Conference. For my part no objection will be raised on the part of Canada to the publication of everything that took place. Not only that but we will urge it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries finds that the motion might well pass the House and I am satisfied with this. As to the number of copies, I do not like to make an excessive demand, but it is an important document and judging from the number of demands that have come for it, I should say that a large number should be printed in both languages, as in every province there must be many electors who would like to see the very terms of the agreement arrived at.


Wilfrid Laurier: Let it pass and we will confer with the clerk as to the number to be printed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I had expected that the minister would say something about the verbatim report. Of course the Prime Minister has alluded to that. If we are all agreed that we should see that verbatim report, how is it that we are not given that opportunity? I could understand if the objections came from the imperial government that my right hon. friend would have to defer to that government but does he think that there is no distinction between an objection coming from that quarter and an objection coming from one of the other dependencies where perhaps for purely local reasons the publication of the verbatim report would not be desired. Such an objection would be no valid reason for not publishing the report here.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: For a copy of all orders in council, regulations and rules of the several departments of the government respecting the participation by employees of the government in civic or municipal affairs, and especially with regard to their disability from serving in civic or municipal councils; and all correspondence, documents and papers since the first day of January, 1900, touching the operation of the said orders in council, rules and regulations. Also a list of all employees of the government who have been elected to or have served in city or municipal councils during the said period from the first day of January, 1900, up to the present time, including all those now so serving and those who have been prevented by the government from serving.
He said: I mentioned this to the Prime Minister the other day. The facts are that a preventive officer in the county of Halifax holding a position which commands a salary of $150 a year happened to be elected in November or December as member of the municipal council of the county of Halifax. After his election it was brought to his attention that his position as a preventive officer might be lost by holding the position of municipal councillor. He wrote to me to ascertain whether this intimation '
22 IS

was correct. I made application to the Department of Customs and in reply received from them the following regulation:
File No. 58140.	No. 1345 B.



MEMORANDUM.

[Stage Direction]
Department of Customs, Canada, Ottawa, 2nd January, 1906. To Collectors of Customs:
Customs Officers not to hold any Corporate Office.
The attention of customs officers is directed to the following regulation, under order of the Governor General in Council:-
' No officer of customs is allowed to hold any corporate office, nor to interfere in political questions, either local or general.'
That portion seems to be the language of the order in council. Then the memorandum continues:-
The corporate offices above referred to are such offices as warden, mayor, alderman, school trustee, councillor, &c.
The rule applies to officers in the inside and outside service of the Customs.

[Stage Direction]
Commissioner of Customs.
As I understand it, no copy of this memorandum was ever sent to the officer to whom I allude. It is perfectly clear that the salary of $150 a year which he enjoys is absolutely insufficient for the support of himself and his family. It is, therefore, abundantly evident that a very considerable portion of his time must be devoted, and is devoted, to seeking other means of support. As a matter of fact, his appointment is simply made for the convenience of a small number of vessels visiting this outport, and he does not pretend, nor is it expected by the Department of Customs, that he should devote the whole of his time to the performance of his duties. The office to which he has been elected as a member of the municipal council of the county of Halifax takes, I suppose, ten, or twelve, or possibly fifteen days in each year; that is to say, he wculd be absent from his home at Ingram docks, in the county of Halifax, about that number of days in each year. The unfortunate position of matters at the present time is that his district will remain unrepresented for a portion of the year, because he cannot resign until he is sworn in after the council meets, and there will not be time to elect another representative of the district.
Well, what I desire to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister is, in the first place, that this seems to be a rather paltry and unnecessary rule in so far as officers of that status are concerned. I entirely agree that employees of the government of Canada, even holding a very small position, such as this man, ought not to interfere offensively in political affairs-I mean in federal or provincial elections-but I am bound to say that I see no particular reason Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
why they should not be elected as members .of the municipal councils, which, in this particular instance, and, I think, generally throughout the country, are hot run on federal or provincial political lines. That rule seems to be rather unnecessary in so far as officers of this character are concerned.
mere is no such rule generally prevailing in ail of the departments of government, or else the rule is absolutely violated every day. I am not speaking from personal knowledge, but I am informed on good authority that there are at the present time, in the council of the city of Ottawa, no less than three civil servants who are receiving remuneration of a very considerable character and the whole of whose time is supposed to be devoted to the public service. Now, why is it that a civil servant at Ottawa, receiving a salary of $1,500 or $2,000, is at liberty to become a member of the city council and participate in the municipal government of this city and an officer holding the petty position to which I have alluded, a position commanding a salary of $150, and taking only a few days of his time in each year, should be debarred from doing exactly the same thing? It is perfectly obvious that the rules of the different departments are not the same, or that these rules are not being carried out. Therefore,
I have asked for a return, which will set forth a copy of the orders in council, regulations, rules, &c., touching upon thi3 subject. I think it is desirable that we should have some statement of the principle or policy upon which the government is acting in such matters, and that we should also know exactly what any employee of the government throughout the country serving in any department is to expect. So far as the unfortunate individual whose case I have brought to the attention of the House is concerned, he entered into this election contest in absolute ignorance of any rule or regulation which would debar him from doing so, and as a result he, and the district which he represents, have been placed in the unfortunate position which I have pointed out.
Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker.
I confess that I was somewhat taken by surprise when my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Borden, Halifax) informed the House that this customs officer in Halifax, who receives a salary, if salary it can be called, of $150 a year, should be called upon at the same time to resign a position to which he had been elected in the municipal service of his district. It is evident that this officer cannot liye on the salary that he receives, that he must have another mode of living, that this is only an adjunct to his ordinary avocation, that, therefore, he is more of a private citizen than an official of the government, and I must say that under such

circumstances I could not see the reason of the rule which has been exercised against him. But, I have not been able yet to take the matter up, as my colleague the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) is away, but I intend, on his return, to confer with him and have the reason for such a'rule, if such a rule exists.
At the same time, I must express my satisfaction with my hon. friend that he has brought the matter to the attention of the House, because evidently there is an anomaly which must be rectified in what is going on. It is perfectly true that at this moment there are three members of the civil service who are now in the service of ' the city of Ottawa. One or two of them are aldermen, and one is on the board of control. No exception has been taken to their election, and though some of them were elected after a somewhat severe contest, I am not aware-it has not reached me-that any exception has been taken by anybody to these particular candidates because they were in the service. On the other hand, I have at this moment correspondence showing that in another city where men similarly situated, that is, being in the service of the government, attempted to be candidates, objection was immediately taken to them. It is very often found here and elsewhere, that there are men in the service who enjoy the confidence of the community in which they live to the extent that no one has found fault with them when they sought to take part in the municipal politics of their locality. In other localities men quite respectable, but still having their enemies, as most of us have, were confronted with notice of objection the moment they attempted to enter municipal politics. Under such circumstances, I believe that we shall have to adopt a uniform rule. I have not talked over the matter, and I would be obliged for any opinion that would come from the other side of the House, but, expressing my own opinion, I would say that, perhaps, the safest course would be to make the rule absolutely uniform that any man in the service of the government obtaining a salary which provides for his living-I do not mean a customs officer who is receiving only $150 a year-should be debarred from entering the municipal service. I would not call on any man who is now in possession of a municipal office to resign, and, perhaps, the best course would be to give notice that in future no man who is a servant of the government should be allowed to enter the municipal council of the locality in which he lives. Either, the rule must be that all servants of the government shall be allowed to enter municipal politics or else that all shall be debarred from so doing. I do not think the present practice of allowing some employees of the government to enter municipal politics and others not, should be allowed to continue.


Mr. PERLEY.: I would suggest to the Prime Minister that if he is going to make a rule of that kind he should only apply it to civil servants who are in receipt of large salaries and who are supposed to devote all their time to the service of the government. All good citizens owe a duty to the municipality in which they live, and the civil servants owe that duty as well as the rest of tire community. I think the government of this great country should be willing to put themselves to some little inconvenience, if some valued citizen who happens to be in the employ of the government, should be selected by his fellow citizens to represent them in the civic administration. If any salary limit is made, I would suggest that only those who receive large salaries should be debarred from accepting municipal honours.


Mr. EMMERSON.: When I was Minister of Railways we had a great deal of difficulty in the department with reference to this very matter. We must recognize that the municipalities pay practically nothing for the services of their representatives. For example, in the city of Moncton, the remuneration is so paltry, if it is anything at all, that it could not strike any one to engage in civic politics, but there were cases in which men who sought the suffrage of the people, were foremen in different" departments of the railway, and it was represented that as they had, in consequence of their position, control over the voters, it was unfair to those who were running against them. One hon. member has stated that these municipal contests are not run on party lines, but I think it is the experience of every hon. gentleman here that it is an unfortunate fact that too often party politics do enter into municipal contests. There should be discrimination as to what officers should be allowed to seek municipal honours, in any general rule that may be established, and when I was Minister of Railways that principle was given effect to.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the principle; I do pot understand.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The principle is that where a man in the government service has control of a large number of men under him, and can grant them favours, he should not be allowed to enter into these contests. It is not that the government loses very much of the time of the employees by attending to their municipal office, but there were constant complaint that the government official had an advantage over the other man who was opposing him.
Mr. McGlVERIN. (Ottawa). It is very probable that this question concerns more

particularly the city of Ottawa than any other municipality in the Dominion. The citizens of Ottawa have had the <rood fortune to have had many memhers^of the Civil Service represent them on the board of aldermen, on the school board, and in seme cases on the board of control. It would seem to me, Sir, that where we have a large body of civil servants, as in this capital city, gentlemen who are paying their taxes and who are deeply interested in the good government of the city, they should be allowed to have the ordinary rights of citizenship and permitted to aspire to any municipal office which is in the gift of their fellow citizens. If there should be any question as to their civic duties interfering with the discharge of the duties of their official position, that can be easily set right, because the deputy minister of any department can see that the official attends to the work of his office. Of course, the first duty of such officials would be to earn the salary they are paid by the government of the country, but surely in their spare hours, after they have rendered full service to the State, they should be entitled to take part in the municipal government of this city. It would appear to me that one of the great difficulties in this country, is to get men of position and intelligence to interest themselves in municipal affairs, and if we are to make a rule that no civil servant shall enter municipal politics, then the city of Ottawa would be deprived of some of its most honoured municipal representatives. We have been fortunate in Ottawa that we have had some very good men, particularly members of the Civil Service, to represent us in the city council, and on the board of control and on the school board. In this city the government officials, do not, as a rule, come under that class referred to by the member for Westmorland who is in a position to wield an influence over other employees, and consequently, the condition of affairs spoken of by that hon. gentleman, would not be applicable here. For my part, I would be extremely sorry to see any rule adopted by the government which would preclude members of the Civil Service, at all events in the city of Ottawa, representing their fellow citizens in municipal matters.


James Conmee: I agree with the hon. member (Mr. Emmerson) that those who enter the public service should not be permitted to enter municipal politics. I should think that a civil servant running for municipal office might be able to wield a very unfair influence as against his neighbour who is not in the service. If the matter is dealt with jby the government, and there is to be an exception made of the city of Ottawa I do not think that I would enter very much objection, Mr. McGIVERIN.
but, as a general rule the civil servant cannot do justice to the public interest for which he is paid and at the same time do justice to the municipality. I know of cases where gentlemen of the Civil Service have entered municipal politics very much to the injury of the Civil Service, and I do not know that they were very much use to the municipality. When gentlemen enter the Civil Service, with the advantages it affords, it seems to me that they should devote their time and energy and ability to that service, and if they do that, I do not believe they will do more than justice to the reward they receive.


Henry Robert Emmerson: May I be permitted to explain that if my hon. friend referred to me as having objected to government officials taking ipart in municipal or civic affairs, I failed to make myselif understood. The point I wished to make was this. The rigiht hon. leader of the government intimated that some general rule, perhaps a sweeping rule, would be desirable, and I asked him to discriminate by taking into consideration the relative positions of the officials. I thought it was not a question of the payment which they might receive from the municipality or the city, but a broader principle-that possibly men in the government service should be permitted to give their services to the advantage of the community in 'which they reside.


James Conmee: If I may be permitted, I did understand the remarks of the hon. gentleman in the light in which I spoke. Now I understand that he wants to draw a line, and I would like him to tell us where he would draw that line. If I understood him aright, he would draw it at the employees of a government railway. There are a great many others in the government service, however, whom it would be even more objectionable to have engaged in municipal affairs. Even men in the employ of a great company can wield and do wield an unfair influence in a small community as compared with other men.


Haughton Lennox: I think in the course of ten years L have not had the pleasure of agreeing with my right hon. friend the Prime Minister until now. Listening to the debate, I find that the ideas enunciated by the right hon. gentleman are more in harmony with what I think would be a safe rule than any that have been expressed subsequently. 1 think the only safe way would be that those who earn their livelihood in the Civil Service of the country should be debarred from entering anything in the nature of political life. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that municipal politics are to some extent diverted into political channels. It

is a happy circumstance when it is not so ; but it is the rule, almost if not wholly universal, that the municipal elections have a bearing upon the subsequent parliamentary elections ; and I think it would be a very dangerous thing-and here I agree with another gentleman whom 1 do not often agree with, the hon. member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee)-if the large army of civil servants that we have in Ottawa-and if this government is permitted to remain in power long, the army will increase in number-were allowed to engage in the municipal warfare of the city of Ottawa. An exception might be made in the somewhat limited number of cases of persons who are so locally situated that it is found convenient to employ them to perform some minor office for the government ; but the exception should be confined pretty strictly to that class of cases. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) said he would like to have discrimination, and. that the position of the person aspiring to municipal honours should be the determining factor ; that if he were a person likely to exercise influence over those who voted for him, it would be improper for him to have the position. On the other hand, if it be a position in which he would not likely exercise influence, he might well be allowed to exercise the rights of citizenship. But who is to draw the line? Is the candidate to ask permission of hi3 minister to be allowed to take this position or not? And, if he is, where is the guarantee that all will be treated alike? I confess that I would not have perfect faith that all the employees of the various departments would have equal justice ; and we can well imagine that if a head of a department has to draw the line, there might be a feeling, and might perhaps be justified, that there was unjust discrimination, and that a Conservative, for instance, would be prevented serving a Liberal given that privilege. Or there might be a Conservative and a Liberal opposing each other, so that the minister would have practically the power to determine which one should be in the municipal council and which should not. I trust, therefore, the government will take this matter into early consideration, and make a rule on the lines the Prime Minister has indicated, that those who are drawing comfortable incomes from the Civil Service shall feel obliged to give all their energies to that service and shall not consider it a hardship to be deprived from engaging in municipal affairs.


Mr. SPROULE.: It seems to me we can hardly apply the same rule to both classes of civil servants, namely, those in Ottawa and those on the Intercolonial railway, because the cases are not at all par-71
allel. In a city like this the rule that I would be disposed to apply would be that when civil servants who own property and are therefore on a par with other citizens, they should have the right to go into municipal life because municipal officers have the power to tax or prevent taxation of property. If civil servants are property owners to an extent sufficient to qualify them for municipal office, I would be inclined to the opinion that they should have the right to be elected to those offices. But I would go a step further. I would make the civil servants here the same as any other citizens. I would enable their creditors to collect debts from them and deal with them in the business relations of life just as they would with other individuals. If that be done, I can see no reason why it would not be perfectly proper for civil servants to accept municipal office and take their share of municipal government the same as other property owners. It is unfortunate that in some parts of the country, of late years there has been a tendency to run these municipal campaigns on political lines. That is very wrong and it sometimes gives a civil servant an advantage in a contest which he should not enjoy. We ought to discredit as much as possible the tendency to run municipal contests on political iines. With that understanding, I can see no objection to civil servants who are property owners being elected to municipal office.
But when we come to the employees of the Intercolonial railway, who have a great deal of business patronage to dispense, the case is different. Take an important employee on the Intercolonial railway in some town where he can control many things, that railway has much to do with the municipality, and in such a case I think that these civil servants should not be eligible for municipal election. I think that there you might probably draw the line and say that where the employee is receiving a reasonable salary, he should give his whole time to the service and not take part in municipal matters. But if he be only in receipt of a trifling salary, such as $100 or $150, it ought to be beneath us to make any rule prohibiting such a man from taking part in municipal life, if he be qualified in other respects.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In a former debate I had occasion to express the same opinion as has been giyen to-night by the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Bor- * den) and the right hon. the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) with regard to the recipient of such a paltry salary as $150. These parties should not be disqualified from participating in any of the duties of citizenship. However, I find the expression of opinion prevalent in the House that the government does not



begrudge the time which civil servants may bestow on their duties as councillors or municipal officers. If there be no objection on the part of the government to let civil servants give their time to the discharge of such duties, this subject might well be dropped in this House altogether. The qualification of our aldermen or municipal councillors is a purely local matter to be dealt with by the local legislatures. If any one will look over the statutes of the different provinces, he will find many which disqualify certain persons from running for municipal councils, such as sheriffs, clergymen and municipal employees; so that if we do not begrudge the time given to these municipal duties, it is perfectly safe for us to leave to the legislatures of the different provinces the duty of saying who shall be eligible. If any one who is running should abuse the office he holds from the government, that will very soon become lrnown, and it will be in the hands of the local legislature to disqualify any such person. But there is no power in this House to enforce any such regulation except by the drastic method of dismissal. But if a regulation is to be enforced, let it be enforced by the local legislatures. Not so very long ago we had a drastic regulation in force in the province of Nova Scotia which prevented Dominion officials from voting in a Dominion election. I had the honour of introducing a Bill into the legislature of Nova Scotia to remove such disqualifications. So, I think, in the province from which I come, we are advancing along the line of being willing that Dominion officials should take part in municipal government. And, as I said, if this House is willing that the time should be devoted to the service of the municipality, I think we can well leave it to the provincial authorities to decide who are eligible for such positions.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I have listened with great interest to the opinions expressed on this question, and perhaps I may not agree with any of them. I think that as to the inside service here in Ottawa, when a man accepts a public position with a fixed salary, he agrees to give all his time and all his services to the country. It may be said that his hours only extend from 9 a.m. or 9.30 a.m. to 5 p.m., and that outside of that time he is free to do what he pleases. I do not so regard it. I think the civil servant is paid for all his time and for his whole service, and that, besides the time, he spends in his office he should give time to rest and recreation in order to better fit him for his duties. But, if he takes advantage of that, and devotes five or six hours of the evening to a municipal council meeting, he is certainly not going to be as well prepared for service next day, Mr. McKenzie.
and I do not think it fair to the country that he should accept the salary paid to a civil servant, and waste energy, if not his time,'in doing work other than that which the country requires of him.
I think it would be a hardship to impose this condition upon the outside service, upon the man who does not agree to give all his time or, possibly, even more than a small part of his time, to the service' of the country, as in the case instanced by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax). It seems to me it would be rather a hardship to deprive such a man of the right to run for municipal office. But he is in a vastly different position from that of a civil servant at Ottawa, who accepts payment for his entire time. I have had occasion, before now, to appeal to the Minister of Customs in a matter somewhat similar, the case of a collector of customs in my own county who was running a hotel. I thought it not a reasonable thing that a man should hold these two positions. However, I think I was overruled. Nevertheless, I contend I was right. I do not think a man engaged in commercial business should be permitted to be an officer of the customs and pass his own goods through the customs. But that is very different from a civil servant engaging in municipal affairs. I think a civil servant whose whole time is paid for by the country should abstain from having anything to do with municipal affairs, but should give his entire time to the service of the country, including the time of rest and recreation which he should use in better preparing himself for his duties.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Elenderson) consider it fair that a civil servant who owned a lot of property in the city should have no say in the way in which that property was taxed for municipal purposes? And, if you do not allow him to be elected to municipal office, he can have no say in the matter. The taxes he has to pay are low or high according as there are or are not qualified municipal officers. For the owner of property to have no say in the question of taxation would, I think, be unfair.


David Henderson: He would be in no worse position than thousands and tens of thousands of other citizens who are not elected to the municipal council. I understand that the civil servant is allowed to vote for municipal affairs. He can express an opinion in that way. I think he -would be under no hardship. Besides, the civil servant knows, when he accepts a position in the service, one condition of which is that he is to be paid out of the public treasury for his whole time, that certain privileges do not belong to him as they do to citizens who make no such engagement.

He should give his time to the service of the public, either in the shape of work or rest or recreation the better to fit him for the duties of his position.


Mr. DANIEL.: It is easily seen that there is something to be said on both sides of this question. At the same time, so far as my experience goes-and I have had some experience in municipal affairs-I should agree with the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). With regard to gentlemen holding positions in the outside service, most of them are in the same position as those in the inside service so far as being paid for all- their time is concerned. Speaking for my own city, 1 know that the duties of an alderman or councillor require a great deal of the time of the person upon whom they devolve. A man who is not a master of his own time is not in a position to carry out the duties of alderman or councillor in that municipality at all events, so far as that municipality is concerned. I do not think the man elected for office, municipal office there, can fulfil his duty towards the government and perform his municipal duties also. Mention has been made also of the issues which arise, of the character of the issues involved in these municipal elections. While, in many cases, elections are not run on Dominion issues, yet, in almost every municipal election in this country, the influence of Dominion politics does enter to some extent; and there is no doubt that for his own welfare as well as for the general welfare of the community, I think, it is much better that the civil servant should not take any part whatever in political elections or anything of that kind. I think that is better for himself and also better for the service of the country. We recognize in our province and I presume it is so in other provinces, that an officeholder under this government is not eligible, for instance, for election to a local legislature. A civil servant who has once accepted such an office is under no greater disadvantage with regard to matter's of that kind than those who wish to run for the local legislature, A civil servant would understand that, he was debarred from seeking municipal preferment and I see no hardship in that. I believe it would be much better if this government made a hard and fast rule that persons accepting positions in the civil service of Canada were thereby debarred from entering into contests for municipal offices. A municipal council might have to do business with these civil servants on behalf of the government and if they were members of the city council the government might have an influence over them that would not be in the interest of the municipality. I endorse the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister that it would be better to make a Tule debarring officials of the Dominion 711
government from taking part in municipal politics, although I can understand that a municipality might thus be deprived of the services of very useful men.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be rather difficult to define where the line, if there is to be one, should be drawn. I would be inclined to accept the line laid dewn by tire Prime Minister, that is a line between those offices which command the entire time and service of the officers and those of a paltry or petty nature, which are merely adjuncts to the chief means of livelihood of the person holding them. Take the office to which I have called attention. That man has been in the service of the government for 30 years. For 26 years he enjoyed a salary of 17c a day or $60 a year. About four years ago. some change was made in the Department of Customs, under which his salary has been advanced, I think to $150. It does not seem reasonable that a man holding a position like that, purely for the convenience of the country just as many postmasters throughout Canada, hold their offices, should be debarred from becoming a member of a municipal council. After all the main consideration is to make some clear and definite rule, to make all the employees of the government understand what that rule is, and then to carry it out uniformly all over the country. That does not now seem to be done and it is for that reason that I brought this matter to the attention of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Eulas Foster: For a copy of all correspondence between the government or any member thereof, or any official of the Department of Finance, and any person or association, with reference to the conduct and affairs of the Farmers' Bank since the date of its organization.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this resolution and the two that follow It, my desire is to get all the information possible in the hands of the government, which will enable the House and the country to form a correct opinion as to what, if any, responsibilities lie at the door of an imperfect Act on the one hand, or of an imperfect administration of the Act on the other and to define as sharply as possible, the line between the two.
The story of the history and failure of the Farmers' Bank, is, to say the least of it, not pleasant reading for the citizens of our country and no pleasant comment upon the Banking Act of which we have been so proud, and which probably w% have been prone to eulogize a little too highly. Just as I would deprecate the too great eulogy of

the Bank *Aet and the system that is founded upon it, so I would deprecate going to the other side of the scale and in a moment certainly of a good deal of stress and anxiety, where criticism is easily and largely evoked, undertaking over drastic legislation, because of any one failure or because of the circumstances which bring some of these matters more distinctly into the public mind. I do not imagine that this House proposes to lose its calmness or good temper or good sense, but at the same time the circumstances surrounding the failure of the Farmers' Bank and the public opinion which has been aroused because of that lay a duty upon this House of examining very carefully as to where the weaknesses have been and after examination of remedying them fully,, completely and, I believe, just as soon as legislation can be passed.
Now What are the circumstances of the case ? We have already had within the last few years, too few years, several rather bad bank failures. They came, some of them, suddenly; ithey struck very heavily, but there were certain circumstances in connection with them, which enabled the public to more quickly forget them. The principal circumstance was that, by the interposition of the other banks, no one lost anything. The note holders, of course, were paid and the depositors were paid, and if any loss occurred it was the loss of the capital by those who subscribed to a business venture with all the risks which surround a business venture. This is a different case. In the first place, this is a farmers' bank. The very name of it, and the canvass which was put on for stock appealed to the farming community, and it bad the effect of introducing, amongst the shareholders of the bank, a. large amount of the capital of farmers, which at the best, is earned slowly, and which when it is to be parted with in the way of loss, is a more serious matter possibly than it is to the average business man and to the business community. On that bank, being a farmers' bank, farmers were placed as directors and, without at this present time canvassing that subject at all, it certainly, in the results which have taken place, cannot be. said to have eventuated in the very best conduct of banking affairs. Fortunately, under the banking system that we have, the note holder has been in this, as in all the other cases, absolutely protected. Unless there was an avalanche of failure, a cataclysm, that would hold good under our legislation, and to my mind is a very excellent point in our banking system. When they came to invest their money in it and expected to make a profit by it, you find that they lost, not only the money they put in, but all their prospective profit as well, and have to double up by adding to Mr. FOSTER.
the amount they lost, an equal amount because under the liability clause they, have to pay the losses that have occurred. Depositors who thought that when they were depositing in the bank, it was as safe as a bank, as the rule runs, and that they would have there not only their savings, but the interest thereon, find that they are liable not perhaps to lose everything, but yet a large part of the money which they had deposited and the interest which they had hoped to gain. But what makes it more particularly hard and hitter is, that, being a farmers' bank, the farmers - putting their money into the stock of the bank, and followed up their confidence and optimism, by putting in then- earnings and savings also, as deposits hoping to strengthen the bank while at the same time, they made their own profits.
You have the institution running four years, and in that time making a banking loss of $780,000, more or less. You find it at the end of that time on the rocks, and, from the curator's reports and the examinations which have been made in the court, you find that during that four years a strange series of banking operations was taking place-directors who did not direct, inspectors who did not inspect, a Banking Act framed for the purpose of preventing abuses which did not prevent a single abuse, and a government charged with the supervision and the working of the Banking Act during the whole time not supervising, at least, not to the extent of changing by a single inch the course which was being pursued, or saving by a single dollar the money which was at stake. Now, that is the presentation of the case, that is the way it stands.
But you find more than that. The Act was supposed to set out clearly and definitely the conditions to be fulfilled before an engine of that kind could get running rights on the broad track of finance and trade in this country. You find that every provision and particular of the preliminary conditions laid down in the Bank Act have been absolutely broken, flatly defied, and yet there seemed to be no trouble at all in the bank getting in a position to do business.


Mr. MILLER.: Will the hon. gentleman go a little more into detail and say what provisions were not complied with?


George Eulas Foster: The hon. gentleman will have all the detail before I get through if he will curb, his impatience for a moment.


Henry Horton Miller: That is all I want.


George Eulas Foster: This is about the condition of things as it appeared. I do not want to enter into this matter too much in detail, as I am simply asking for papers, but one point that I want to bring before

the House is this: On that condition of things there is a broad feeling of unrest, and, I might say, indignation, particularly in those parts of the country where the matter comes home to the depositor on the one hand, or to the shareholder on the other, and the demand is made, if I understand, not only for an investigation, but for a remedy as well. It is on that line that I want to call the attention of the House for a few moments to the conditions laid down by the Act, and to discuss the question as to whether or not. the Act is all to blame, or the government, which called the engine into operation, is all to blame, or whether the Ac.t is partly to blame, and the supervising authority partly to blame and to apportion, as I think we must before we can come to any definite and proper conclusion, just the amount of defect that there may be in each of these and where it chiefly lies. If the Act is defective, then the supervising authority is without fault, because it had not the powers under which it could act. If the Act is not defective and still that condition of things happens that I have spoken of, then it must be that the supervising authority has been careless, or lax, or inefficient in its work. Now, then, what is the power that the Act gives? Who is responsible for the formation of a bank? There is, first, the legislative authority granting the incorporation of the bank. This parliament is responsible for the instrument calling into existence a banking company in this country. The government lays down the conditions which govern the formation and running of a bank. It then puts into the hands of certain officials and certain departments the duty of seeing that the conditions are carried out. If the conditions are ineffective the suoervising authority, as I said, has not the machinery with which to do the work, and you cannot hold it responsible, but, if the Act, in its provisions, gives a plentitude of power, then we must inquire if the supervising authority has done its duty under the powers that the Act has given. It is the company's incorporation that this House is responsible for. But the Act of incorporation cannot call the bank into existence, cannot authorize one single bit of the work to be done, cannot put a single operation into running order.
It makes the frame work, but something else has to be done to put the machine into active working order. The motive power is not the act of incorporation, it is gathered up by tire provisional directors. The provisional directors, after parliament has done its duty, under the authority of that legislation open the stock books and take subscriptions. That takes a certain amount of time and has to be done under certain regulations, and when it is all done you yet have absolutely no bank because not a stroke of business can be done up to that
point. After- the provisional directors have done their duty and have assembled the motive power, to wit, the money which is to be put into the operation, and have called the subscribers together, the duties of the provisional directors cease and the subscribers take up the work and they elect their directors, and those directors make an application for what? For running orders; for leave to go ahead. And until these running orders are given you cannot have any harm done. Then we come right to the point: Who gives the running orders? It is the government of the country through the Department of Finance. The conditions laid down are in brief these: That there shall be at least $500,000 bona fide subscribed. That word 'bona fide' is in. It. must be an actual subscription not a fake subscription. That must be subscribed in order that there shall be a backing to the bank in its operations. Is that a casual provision? No. It is elementary, it is fundamental, it is the essence of the contract arrived at by the wisdom of parliament. It was not always so, but after years of experience and much deliberation it is a fundamental condition now that if a bank shall go into operation it shall have at least $500,000 bona fide subscribed. But that is not all. It must have $250,000 of that $500,000 which is bona fide subscribed, collected in cash and put into the hands of the Minister of Finance. Both those things are fundamental and no running orders can be given until both those things are done. Now, if it is fundamental that $500,000 should be subscribed bona fide and that of that $500,000 $250,000 shall be paid up and paid into the Finance Minister, the next question comes :	Who
is to judge as to whether that $500,000 is a bona fide subscription or not; who is to be the judge as to whether that $250,000 has been paid up and is paid in? The judge is the government in and through the operation of the treasury board. Then, Sir, if anybody is made a judge as to whether these two provisions have been carried out, it is no perfunctory office that that person has to fill; it is vital. The interests not only of the shareholders but of all possible depositors, and to a large extent the business of the country are in the hands of that organization which decides whether these two actions are bona fide and whether they have been complied with. There is no prima facie complying with them, no 'possibly' complying with them, no complying with them by this or that man saying they have been complied with; no. Too big interests hang on that, too much is at stake; that must be an actual satisfactory decision come to on facts and the facts must be considered sufficient to make it beyond cavil. Is the act lame in tying the hands of the Treasury Board at that particular

point? I do not think so; I do not think the act is to blame, for what does it say:-
No certificate shall be given by the Treasury board until it has been shown to the satisfaction of the board, &c.
If these words 'to the satisfaction of the board' were not in, there might be some reasons why it might be urged that the Act was defective:-But it matters not if one man makes a solemn affidavit or ten men make a solemn affidavit, or 5,000 men make a solemn affidavit the Treasury Board is not bound to take that as evidence. It has to be satisfied ; it can call for, and it has the right, and I think the duty to call for evidence which absolutely satisfies it. I think the language of the Act is clear enough and wide enough and inclusive enough to put the responsibility upon the deciding power. Now, Sir, what happened? It turns out that in the first place $500,000 was not bona fide subscribed. In the second place it turns out that $250,000 was not bona fide paid in ; was not paid in at all. What does the curator say? He says that $170,000 was all that remained of the collections from the subscribers. More than that was collected from the subscribers, but $41,000 was paid out by and to the provisional directors for the purposes for which it was paid which are not given in detail-we will say the expenses of promotion, and the like of that. And when that $41,000 was taken out there was 'but $170,000 left of the money that actually was paid in, the whole amount paid in being $211,000. But there were notes given where cash was not paid and these notes were used, possibly. as collaterals, I do not know. But to make a long story short, there being a deficit some man borrowed $80,000, and out of his borrowings made up the sum of $250,000, and that $250,000 was deposited to the credit of the Receiver-General in the Bank of Montreal in the city of Toronto. There is actually the state of the case: The Treasury Board had the application before it. The fundamental conditions are, the subscription of $500,000, and the paying up and paying in of $250,000 of actual cash. Neither the one nor the other was done, and tlhe only way that the $250,000 came to be paid in at last was that some men, the bank not being in existence, not having running power, borrowed a sum of money and added to it. If you contend that a man can borrow $80,000 to make up the deposit, you could just as well contend that not one dollar of the $250,000 need be paid up, but that the whole of it might be borrowed, and that would satisfy the meaning of the Act. Will any man say that it would satisfy the meaning of the Act? No, nor can he say. that the borrowing of $80,000 satisfies the meaning of the Act? Yet, Mr. FOSTER.
that being the condition of. things, the Treasury Board issued the certificate on the 30th of November, 1906.
Now, I am not going to say that the case is complete, or that this House of the country should judge it until the other side is heard. I am simply putting the tiring as it is, and asking the government for all the papers and all the knowledge in their possession, in order to get all the facts together with the version of the government. That it seems to me is eminently fair. But, I am putting this case as. strongly as I can from the point of view of the sufficiency of the power which was put into the hands of the Treasury Board, and we vrill see what the information is and hear' what the government has to say.
Now, what did the government do? The government-that is, the treasury board -evidently felt that there was some trouble in -the matter. It went to the Minister of Justice for an opinion upon the evidence that came before it as to the sufficiency of the preliminary conditions being fulfilled. What was that evidence? An affidavit by Mr. Travers; that is all, so far as the Prime Minister's answer would lead me to conclude. An affidavit was handed in by Mr. Travers, stating that the money had been subscribed bona fide, and that $250,000 had been paid in, and that it lay there in the Bank of Montreal. According to the Prime Minister's answer, no other evidence was . asked. Now, suppose that there had been no discussion of the matter, no cautions, no warnings, was the Treasury Board justified in taking the affidavit of the man interested-that and nothing more, and asking for nothing more? I say, not in a case of that kind. I say that was not the proper attitude of the Treasury Board. Even if not a breath of suspicion had reached the Treasury Board, it ought to have asked something more; it ought to have made further examination; for all the interests of depositors and shareholders in the future lay upon the shoulders of those who made that decision, a decision made under great responsibility, and the grounds of it should have been as broad and as well substantiated as possible. What did the Minister,of Justice say? He said that the affidavit 'submitted; if accepted by the Treasury Board, was sufficient for them to base the certificate upon. The Minister of Justice did not estop the Treasury Board from going behind the affidavit of Mr. Travers. He said: If you accept that -as being sufficient, I suppose-you can issue the certificate; but that did not authorize the Treasury Board to issue it, or preclude it from saying, we think under the circumstances this is not enough, and we must make a further exemination. I say that even if there was no suspicion or

hint of things not being as they ought to be, more information should have been insisted upon by the Treasury Board before setting that engine going. But were there no cautions, no warnings? We ask that question. I will not say positively that there were, but this I will say, that if there were warnings, if there were cautions, written to or whispered in the ear of any member or official of the Treasury Board that matters were not as they should be- and it was known on the streets of Toronto that they were not-and that an investigation should be made, a decision given by the Treasury Board in the face of these cautions and warnings would be a very serious matter. Were any such cautions given? Were they warned? Were they expostulated with, not once, not twice, but many times? I ask the government; we will get the answer. If they were not, that part of my argument will fall. If they were, their responsibility is undeniably greater and much more heavy. Then the order to go ahead is given, and the engine starts with its full train; and it runs for four years. But there is still the Bank Act; there is still the Finance Department; there is still the government; and just as that engine stood still on the track until the Treasury Board gave it the running orders, just so it could be pulled up at any time by the same Finance Department and ordered to report its conditions. Every month certain returns had to be made; but that is not all. and that is not the most. Those returns are scheduled, and the official mind might say, we have read over the returns and they seem to be all right; we need not go further. But there is another provision which gives additional power to the Finance Department-section 113 of the Act. I will just read that. Parliament in its legislation decided upon the questions that would be asked, arranged the schedule, tried to make it take in every important particular, so that when it came each month to the Department of Finance, that department might have grounds for criticism, for judgment. It is not supposed that the returns come to the Finance Department simply to be pigeon-holed. They are there for a purpose-to be carefully scanned, to see if possible what is the condition of the bank as revealed by those returns.
What if there be anything that does not seem to be just right to the minister? If he feels he has not what he ought to have and there is something still wrong, under section 113. ' The Minister may also call for special returns from any Bank, whenever in his judgment they are necessary to afford a full complete knowledge of its condition/ That is a power virtually untrammeled. Whenever the minister likes he may call for a return, the object being to bring about information
which will guide him in ascertaining the exact condition of the bank. Those are the words of the Act ' to afford a full and complete knowledge of its condition.' This is a broad and strong power, and one which brings its own responsibility. After going orders had been issued and the bank was in operation, what happened? Among a number of others, one thing happened, the record of which we have in a non-official way. On the 11th January, 1910, the Superintendent of State Insurance in the state of New York wrote a letter to Mr. Fielding, Finance Minister. What induced the superintendent to write that letter? It was this: A man by the name of Tevis from Kentucky, with some associates, conceived the idea of buying out a mutual beneficiary insurance society or the control of it in the state of New York. It was a society which had about $3,000,000 of assets, and was in rather a comatose condition. Tevis and his associates came to Travers and borrowed $150,000 from him to buy control of that insurance company. They bought control and then immediately turned round and sold $180,000 of securities, with $150,000 of which they were to satisfy the loan. But the state of New York said, that is a mutual insurance company and the assets belong to it, and the state superintendent of insurance got busy to get back the $150,000, a part of the proceeds of the sale of securities of that society, from its lodgement in Toronto in the Farmers' Bank. He could not get it back from manager Travers, but it was necessary that it should be got quickly before liens could be put against it. He invoked the aid of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) on the 11th of January. He detailed the whole of the circumstances to that minister and he said to him: Can you help me in the matter to the extent of getting information as to just how this thing stands in the bank? What was the answer? It was: THere is no government inspection and consequently we cannot act; but if you will just apply to Travers, I thirrk you can get all the information you require. But Mr. Hotchkiss had been applying to Travers and did not get the information he wanted, so that the Finance Minister, on the 11th or 12th of January was made cognizant of that kind of transaction-a transaction which, if it had been explained to a proper kind of banker-'and no banker would make $150,000 advance upon it until it had been explained to him- would have been dismissed in shorter time and in stronger words than I would take in telling you. But that was the kind of transaction of which the Finance Department was aware on the 11th of January, 1910, and that was the answer which the department gave. But after the department thought it over, it came to the conclusion that it was somewhat grave and

made up its mind to communicate with Travers, and it so informed Mr. Hotchkiss and asked him if his letter could be used. Permission was given, and a letter was written to Travers, and in due time an answer came which was transmitted to Mr. Hotchkiss, and Mr. Hotchkiss again wrote in further explanation of the transaction and still asking the Minister of Finance for his aid as far as it could be given. In the reply of Travers to Mr. Fielding, there is this phrase:	I regret that you think this an
unusual banking transaction. Therefore, the letter of Mr. Fielding to Travers, which we have not got, but which we will get, must have contained that statement. There then is the confession by the Department of Finance that this was a peculiar banking transaction, that the department knew ail about it, so far as its salient features were concerned, and that it had felt impelled to communicate with Travers and ask for an explanation. So far so good, but from the 11th of January up to the time of the closing of the bank, though often importuned, the Finance Department does not seem to have made any progress at all in aiding the insurance commissioner on the other side of the line to get at the rights of the transaction.
Now we want an explanation. Possibly a full and complete explanation may be given. We have no right to form a judgment until an explanation is given, and for my part I do not.
What else took place? We have what is called a bakers' association. What is that banking association for, and had it any particular duties or could it have exercised any rightful influence on a transaction of this kind and on the bank which was carrying it on? We had the idea in this House that whether by the direct giving of powers to the banking association or by that still stronger power which the association of all the banks must inevitably have upon any one of them, irregularities like this could be checked and managers committing them could be called down. Did the Bankers' Association know of this transaction? I should judge that they were fully appraised of it by Mr. Hotchkiss. Did they make any representations to the Finance Minister that something should be done? That information we want to get; but there is the fact that during the whole year, the Bankers' Association did not move to obtain an efficacious adjustment of that matter. Whether that association tried its influence or not we do not know. Whether its powers allowed it to exercise an influence in a ease of that kind, I am not lawyer enough to be a judge.
But, I do have faith enough in the power of the associated banks to know that, if they had got a hustle on, they could have had an explanation and a restitution from the Farmers' Bank in a very short time.


George Eulas Foster: So that in this case, we evidently found no particular * advantage from the Bankers' Association. The question comes up: If the Bankers' Association did not act, was it because they had not the poweft1 If they have not the power, is it the proper thing for this parliament to enlarge their powers, so that, if the Finance Department does not do what some of us think its duty, the associated bankers will be able to remind the recalcitrant bank that it is outstepping the bounds? Not making any assertions as to whether they should have acted-I do not know whether they have the full power to act; one thing is certain, that, by some means or other, a remedy must be found. If the Banking Act is not strong enough in the powers it gives the Finance Department and the Treasury Board, give them stronger; if the Finance Department and the Treasury Board have not done their duty, let that be known to the country. If the Bankers Association is useful for balancing such things and has not the necessary powers, and we think it would be a good body to trust with such powers, let us give them the powers that are needed. The whole matter can be brought under review. For my part, there stand out clear before me two things: one is that a bank should not be able to get into operation in this Dominion under the conditions under which this bank got into operation; and the other thing is that, in this case as in the cases that have preceded it, the-weak spot is the head office and the almost complete lack of effective inspection in the head office. Does any one mean to say that a level headed inspector, one who was at nobody's beck and call, absolutely independent of the bank he was inspecting, could have gone into the Farmers' Bank at any time in 1910 or any other year during which it has been running and not, almost in a trice, have put his finger upon the weak spot in that management? But, the inspector did not inspect, from the fact that it is almost impossible, under present conditions, for the inspector to inspect the head office. When the inspector of a bank goes out to the branch offices, he is boss there, and they know it; but when he is in the head office, he is not the boss there-the manager is the boss and the inspector knows pretty well his limits.
How that should be remedied is not for me to discuss to-night; but it is for mo, and for pther members of this House, to think about,- and it is for us to discuss without fear and without favour, with the one supreme object in view of preventing such abuses in future, thereby conserving the people's confidence in the banking institutions of this country, which is the first great thing; secondly, the people's savings in these banks, and thirdly the capital which is put in good faith into these banks by men who hope to make a

success of their venture in the banking business.
That is all I have to say on the point. ^The information I have asked for is designed to bring before the House what is absolutely necessary to my mind. And let me say just one word there: I have asked for returns over and over again; I have asked for bread and have got a little bit of a stone. That is too common in the returns brought down by the government. But this is a return that will not stand for anything like that; this is a request that calls for all the information and wants it frankly, freely, fully, no matter whom it hurts. We must have it before we can remedy the evils. And it is with that view, and with these reasons to support it, that I ask the House to pass this order.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) has, in this case, asked for information. He works himself up into a great state of indignation, making out a case before the information is handed out. I think that in this, as in so many cases, it would have been more in keeping had he first obtained the information and then made his speech. He has told us that he reserves judgment until he has the information. I am glad that in one part of his remarks he made that statement. In the beginning of his remarks he said there had been loss, and there was indignation. Notwithstanding thestatement that he would suspend judgment until the information was before him, and knowing that where there is a loss of money there is indignation and an effort to flk blame, it would seem that he was endeavouring to take advantage of that state of affairs to make a case against the government which he feared he could not make when the information came down.
I do not think that any hon. membei of this House will say that in the Banking and Commerce Committee party politics ever plays any great or serious part. I think that committee is composed in large part of business men from both sides of the House who always endeavour to do business on business principles without regard to partisanship. I was not a member of the House when the Farmers Bank obtained its charter, which was in the year 1904. But that bank did not within the year prescribed, make the required deposit of $250,000, and applied, as many other banks have done, for a renewal ol its charter. This application came up when I was a member of this House and of the Banking and Commerce Committee, in 1905. The hon. member who has spoken (Mr. Foster) has endeavoured, I think I may fairly sav, to charge grave negligence to the Finance Department. The Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) is absent from the House, but he is primarily responsible for the acts of that department. I remember very well that when the Farmers' Bank Bill asking for a renewal of their charter was before the Banking and Commerce Committee, the Minister of Finance very strongly objected to tire renewal being granted ; and I remember that in that case, as in a number of other cases since, the Banking and Commerce Committee ruled against the advice of the Minister of Finance, and the Bill was carried through the committee against his hard opposition. That is not the only time it has occurred.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Henry Horton Miller: Did I understand the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) to speak?	.


David Henderson: I have been asked how that is, because I am a member of that committee, I think the Finance Minister, when he comes, will bear me out that on every occasion in the refusal to extend the time for bank charters, at any rate beyond one year, I have stood with the Finance Minister. And, on more than one occasion, the Minister of Finance has remarked : That is one question on which we agree.


Henry Horton Miller: Then the hon. member for Halton affords the corroborative evidence that in many cases the Finance Minister has opposed the renewal for enlarging the time of bank charters, as he did in this case. The hon. member spoke of the shareholders of the bank. I think it is the duty of this government and of this parliament to protect, as far as possible, the rights of note holders, who are well protected, and the rights of depositors. I do not know by what process of reasoning it can be argued that the government or this parliament ought to safeguard the interests of the shareholders of a bank more than the rights of the shareholders in any other financial or other institution. The shareholders enter into the banking business, they elect their own officers, their own general manager, their own board of directors, and they have the same rights, the same privileges, the same opportunities of guarding the money that they have put into the stock of the bank that any other shareholder has. In this case the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said that there had been a neglect and an overlooking of the preliminary provisions on that point. I asked him to speak more in detail and he said he would later on. I suppose he did and that he thought he was giving me the information for which I had asked when he said that the Bank Act points out that there must be $500,000 in stock, in bona fide subscriptions. The Act does say so. He argued further, and correctly, that the Banking Act, section 15, says:

No certificate shall be given by the treasury board until it has been shown to the satisfaction of the board, by affidavit or otherwise, that all the requirements of this Act and of the special Act of incorporation of the bank, as to the payment required to be made to the minister, the election of directors,

and so forth-
-have been complied with.
The hon. member and others will note that section 15 says:-
Until it has been shown to the satisfaction of the board, by affidavit or otherwise.
The board may, if they choose, accept the bald statement of the incorporators, or they may require an affidavit. The Act seems to imply that if an affidavit is obtained that is all the evidence they may naturally be expected to ask for or require. But the hon. gentleman says they accepted the affidavit of Travers, who is a man interested. Let me say they accepted the affidavit of Travers, who was the man of all men who knew the facts. Affidavits in support of many actions in court are taken from the men interested because they are the men who have the knowledge, perhaps the only men who have, or ought to have, the knowledge. It turns out that part of that $250,000 was borrowed money. The Fina&ce Department and the Treasury Board have given the right to many, many banks to do business; had they any greater ground in this case to suspect that part of the deposit had been borrowed than in any other case, or than they will have in any case in the future? If the hon. gentleman knows any reason now why the treasury board should have had suspicions, when that part of the $250,000 was borrowed and not paid in the usual way, he might state what information he has in that regard. It was not suspected, the Treasury Board had no such suspicion. It is all right for us now that the steed has been stolen to look back, but there w'as no reason then to suspect any wrongdoing. Mr. Travers is known now to have been a dishonest man, or a very weak man, but nobody knew that at the time. Many of the provisional directors of the bank were known to be men of good character and repute, and still they have that reputation as honest business men, so I repeat there is no reason why the Treasury Board should have had any such suspicions. The hon. gentleman has said: If there were hints and warnings. That is a style and argument characteristic of him: If there were rumours, if there were hints, if there were warnings-then he immediately goes on to build up his case as if he had proven there were hints and warnings, although he has not afforded one tittle of proof that there was anything of the kind. If I say that actually there were no hints or warnings the hon. gentleman cannot con-Mr. MILLER.
tradiet me, because he does not know and he has no information that there were any hints or warnings, or that the Treasury Board or the Finance Department, or the minister had any reason to suspect that these people were not honestly doing an honest business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would not the hon. gentleman regard it as the duty of the Treasury Board to go beyond the mere statement of an interested party and ascertain from the stock books in what position they stood, if $500,000 was bona fide subscribed, if $250,000 in cash was bona fide paid in on the spot, because I assume the books would show it unless they are falsified? Would he not regard it as the duty of the Treasury Board' to . make at least that inquiry?


Henry Horton Miller: I would ask the hon. gentleman whether any person in the whole history of the government of Canada has ever made any such hint or whether any person on either side of the House when the Bank Act was being framed, or at its last or any former revision, has ever hinted that an affidavit as required by the Act, was not sufficient evidence ?	.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member has not answered the question.


Henry Horton Miller: I quite agree with the hon. member for North Toronto that if at that stage there had been any warnings or hints, or any reason for the Treasury Board to believe that these people weTe not honest and the statement in the affidavit untrue, they would have had reason to go further afield for information.


George Eulas Foster: Will my hon. friend state from actual knowledge, that there were no cautions, no hints, no warnings at. that, time ?


Henry Horton Miller: We have often heard it said that it is not possible to proMe a negative. I am not building up a case against the government.


George Eulas Foster: You do not need to say that.


Henry Horton Miller: If I could, I would not be unfair enough to endeavour to build up a case against the hon. member for North Toronto, upon any accusation whatever, upon fancied facts or mere Tumours, nor has the hon. member the right to endeavour to build up a case against the Finance Minister, the department or the Treasury Board, upon rumours or street gossip, and I say, it is too often his habit, and it would be to his credit, if he did not do it as often as he does in this House.


George Eulas Foster: My hon. friend has stated positively that I had no such, information. On what ground does he make that statement ?


Henry Horton Miller: I made no such statement. I said: If I say that there was no hint, that there was no warning, the bon. member for North Toronto cannot contradict me, because he does not know.


George Eulas Foster: How do you know ?


Henry Horton Miller: I know that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), does not know. I know it very well, because I know if he had the evidence, he would have produced it, and he did not produce it. I am not pretending to giv<j evidence for any one. The hon. gentleman is endeavouring to build up a case on evidence that he assumed to have and did not have.
The hon. member has spoken of the the Bankers' Association. The Bankers' Association are in a much better position to hear any rumours that may be heard.


David Henderson: I assume the. hon. gentleman is making a defence, possibly for the government, possibly for somebody else. But if the treasury board or any of its members were informed that this $250,000 was not raised in such a manner as is described by the banking Act, would he then consider that the affidavit of Mr. Travers should be accepted without any further inquiry ?


Henry Horton Miller: That would depend very much upon the source from which that information came, and the shape in which .it came. I can easily understand, and I do not know' whether it was the case in this instance or not, that financial companies already existing, other banks, jealous of the incorporation of a new bank, might cause a rumour to be circulated that no one might' reasonably rely upon, but if any person had absolutely that information he ought to have given it to the Treasury Board, before the certificate was issued, not as a mere rumour, but in some such shape that the Treasury Board could have accepted it, and would have had a reasonable right to believe that the information was true. I do not believe that the Treasury Board could act on mere rumour at all.
The hon. member for North Toronto spoke of the Bankers' Association. I was saying when the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) rose, that the Bankers' Association are in a much better position to know what is going on in banking circles than anybody else. The Bankers' Association are always jealous of the reputation of the banks because if one bank fails and causes loss to depositors and shareholders it always reflects upon and injures the credit of other banks as was done in this case. Therefore, the members of the association are always careful to give warning to the Finance Department in cases where the circumstances
seem to justify it, and I do not believe that any such warning ever came to the Finance Department of the Minister of Finance from the Bankers' Association. The hon. member for North Toronto has pointed out section 113 of the Bank Act which does give the Finance Department or the Minister of Finance the right to call for special returns.
The minister may also call for special returns from any bank, whenever, in his judgment, they are necessary to afford a full and complete knowledge of its conditions.
Section 147 of the Bank Act provides for regular monthly returns showing the financial condition of the bank:
Every bank which neglects to make up and send to the minister, within the first fifteen days of any month, any monthly return by this Act required to be made up and sent in within the said fifteen days, exhibiting the condition of the bank on the last juridical day of the month last preceding, and signed in the manner and by the persons by this Act required, shall incur a penalty of fifty dollars for each and every day, after the expiration of such time, during which the bank neglects to make and send in such return.
So that the Minister of Finance must have had a return less.than a month from the time he received a warning, in so far as it was a warning from the notice alleged to have been received from some one	in	the	United States
That return which showed, over the signature of the officials of the bank, the standing of the bank had been received not more than a month prior to that notice so that it was not necessary for a special return, nor could anything be gained by seeking such a special return. While this section pointed- out by the hon. member for North Toronto gives the Minister the right to call for special returns there was no section of the Banking Act that gave the Minister of Finance the right to send any official into any bank to make an inspection of its books. The Bank Act expressly says that no person shall have that right except the directors and officials of the bank. There was some gentleman in the State of New York who it is said did advise the Minister of Finance that a loan of $150,000 had been made that was irregular. What would any person expect the Minister of Finance to do in such a case? He writes to Mr. Travers, the general manager of the bank, and points out that the loan was not a regular loan, that it was not properly made. This is not the only instance, I imagine, in which the Minister of Finance has had to point out to many men, managers of banks, insurance, loan and trust companies that the business that they were doing was irregular business not being honestly-I will not say honestly-but not being regularly carried on. In most cases it would be sufficient to call

the attention of the manager, or the managing director, to the irregularity in the business that was being carried on. There was no neglect of duty. As to whether, in view of what has taken place in regard to the failure of two or three banks in the last few years, there ought to be an amendment to the Bank Act and whether the Department of Finance ought to have greater power, is another question. The Minister of Finance evidently thought, before the failure of the Farmers' Bank, not influenced in any way by that failure because the failure had not taken place at the time, that the depositors and shareholders of a bank ought to have greater protection than the Bank Act at present gives them because in section 56 of the new Bank Act submitted to this House there is provision for the election of shareholders' inspectors. This principle has been excepted by the Bank of Nova Scotia because for some time the shareholders have had the right to appoint shareholders' inspectors and inspections have been made by the shareholders' inspectors of that bank. The Minister of Finance is carrying that into the proposed new Bank Act. I do not know that I have really anything more to say as to that. I do not think it is fair at this time, simply because the Farmers' Bank has failed, to endeavour to make any capital out of any accusation against the Minister of Finance. I think that in the newspapers some very unfair accusations and charges have been made. We cannot help what is done in the newspapers, but I think that the hon. member for North Toronto is too old a parliamentarian to properly and fairly take advantage of any feeling which exists at the present time to make charees against the Minister of Finance or the Finance Department that are dependent entirely on rumour which has probably not the slightest foundation in fact.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, all the information in the hands of the government in respect to this matter will be brought down, in the language of my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) fully, frankly and freely. There is no reason at all why all the particulars with regard to the formation of this bank and every other transaction should not be brought down absolutely as it is in the records of the government. I cannot but believe that my hon. friend from North Toronto on reflection, will agree with my hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) that it would have been more advisable if he had waited until the whole of the information was before the House to make the comments which he has made, because I have reason to think that some of his surmises will not be borne out by the facts. If there has been laxness on Mr. MILLER.
the part of anybody, I think everybody in this House must bear the blame. This Farmers' Bank was incorporated-I forget in what year now. But it did not organize during the time allowed it in which to complete its organization. It had to come back to parliament, and it got an extension of time. It had to come back again to get a further extension of delay. I know, and, in fact, it has been stated by my hon. friend from South Grey, that there was some hesitancy on the part of the Committee on Banking and Commerce to allow this renewal of the charter which had been given to the Farmers' Bank. Perhaps it may be after all that this hesitation was overborne by the very title of the bank itself. It was to be a farmers' bank. It was to be outside of the general curriculum of the other banks, and if the committee had refused it incorporation it is quite probable that there would have been a great deal of murmuring and it is quite possible that it might have been said that when the farming community came to have a bank of their own the Bankers' Association were powerful enough to prevent incorporation being given. If the incorporation had been refused it is quite possible that instead of 1 aving the government blamed in the year 1910, it would have been blamed in the year 1905 because this incorporation was not granted. At all# events, whatever may have been the motive, the committee thought it advisable to give the charter, and they renewed it not once, but twice. When it came before parliament, so far as my memory serves, not a word of dissent was heard from anybody. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) passes rather lightly over these facts, but he insisted on two points as to which he thought the_ government was to blame, basing his opinion on the information which he has before him at the present moment. The first of these was as to the action of the Treasury Board in giving a certificate to the bank, and the second with reference to a certain transaction w'hicli was mentioned in the press only a few days ago. With regard to the certificate granted by the Treasury Board, in considering the information we have before us at present, can any one say that the Treasury Board wuts in any way blam-able. It may be said that other facts will be disclosed, although I do not think so, but even if the insinuation made by my hon. friend (Mr, Foster) turned out to be true, namely, that there had been outside information given to the Minister of Finance; or to some one I do not know who, would it have been advisable on the part of the board to exercise even more than the caution they did? Under our present information, I ask any man in this House, does he believe that the Treasury Board which is presided over by the Minister of

Finance was in any way blamable in granting the certificate? The evidence before the Treasury Board upon which the certificate was issued that the bank should commence operations, was the very substantial fact that the $250,000 required by law was deposited to the credit of the Receiver General. This was accompanied by an affidavit that all the formalties had been complied with and that all the necessary requirements enacted by law had been carefully observed. Could any man under these circumstances have his imagination so perverted as to suppose that there was something wrong behind this? I ask any business man in this chamber, if, under such circumstances he would not have acted just as the Minister of Finance did, namely, take the advice of the Minister of Justice as to whether the law had been complied with, and then give a certificate. I am not a member of the Treasury Board, and I do not know what tome place, but on the evidence before us at present I do not think any one will attach blame to the Minister of Finance. Then we come to the second point made by my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) with reference to the particular transaction revealed but a few days ago by the correspondence published in the press as having taken place between Mr. Hotchkiss, superintendent of insurance for New York state, and the Minister of Finance.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: May I be permitted to put the same question that I put to the hon. member for South Grey? Would not the right hon. gentleman think it the duty of the Treasury Board, having this information from disinterested parties, to try in some way to verify the allegations by an examination of the books of the bank? That would be the best way to ascertain whether the stock had been subscribed bona fide and whether the amount the law required had been paid up bona fide.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think so. I should think that the proper man to give an affidavit was Mr. Travers, manager oi the bank. It has been stated by the hon. member for North Toronto that the affidavit which had been put in the hands of the government was false. That mav be, but my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) knows as well as I do that there never was a law passed by the legislature of any country which was not violated at some time or other. You can pass all the laws you want to in this parliament, or any other, 'but so long as human nature is what it is there will, unfortunately, be some one found to violate that law. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) states that the affidavit put in the hands of the Minister of Finance was false, but I put it to any business man if he would be likely to suppose, in a similar transaction, that such was the ease. Now,
the second point raised by my hon. friend was with regard to the correspondence between Mr. Hotchkiss and the Minister of Finance. It may be that the law is defective in this respect, but at all events the Minister of Finance answered very properly that we had no bank inspection provided for in our Act, and, therefore, he could not assist Mr. Hotchkiss as that gentleman wanted him to. I may observe, by way of parenthesis, that in the Bill now before the House to renew the Bank Act, the Minister of Finance has himself suggested that the law be amended, and he _ provides for _ a different audit, which, if it had been in force previously, possibly would have prevented some transactions of the Farmers' Bank. But there was no inspection provided for in our law at that time, and the Minister of Finance very properly answered that he had no authority to give Mr. Hotchkiss the information asked for, or to take the proceedings which Mr. Hotchkiss wanted him to take. But the Minister of Finance was not satisfied with that; he at once wrote to Mr. Travers, manager of the bank, informing him of the complaint which had been made against him. What followed then? If what I am informed is the fact, then the comments of my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) fall to the ground. I am informed-I have not had time to verify the information-that this transaction between the Farmers' Bank and Mr. Tevis for the purchase of the assets of this Mutual Insurance Company fell through and was not carried out, and that the securities which Mr. Hotchkiss was pfter were returned to him. If that be so the Minister of Finance had nothing more to do when he was informed that the transaction about which complaint was made had been called off for some reason or other, and the Minister of Finance would be free from the blame which the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) tries to place upon him. The Bankers' Association is also free from the -blame he tries to place upon it, because he said-if I have taken his words correctly-that from the Ilth of January up to the present time, no explanation has been given of this transaction. Well, no explanation has been given of the transaction, because, if I am correctly informed, the transaction was never completed, and the moment it fell through there was nothing more to inquire about it. I think, therefore, that my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) was a little premature in his judgment.


George Eulas Foster: I do nqt think I was premature, and if my right hon. Mend will allow me to say it, I do not think his information covers all the ground.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know whether it does or not, but at all events it would be better for me and for the hon. gentleman to reserve our observations until

we know all the particulars. However, if my information be correct, I think the hon. gentleman will agree with me that his opinions are a little premature.


Robert Laird Borden: There is just one observation which I would like to make with regard to the duty of the Treasury Board in such cases. I do not propose to pass any judgment upon the transaction, nor do I understand that my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has done so, in the absence of the evidence that is to be brought down, and before the inquiry that possibly may have been made. But I would like to point out to the Prime Minister, and to the hon. member for South Grey (Mr. Miller) that the provisions of section 15 seem to go a little further than the Prime Minister has intimated. The provisions of section 15 are:
No certificate shall be given by the Treasury Board until it has been shown to the satisfaction of the board, by affidavit or otherwise, that all the requirements of this Act and the special Act of incorporation of the bank have been complied with.
The expression, * by affidavit or otherwise ' is merely directory as to the character of the evidence which may or may not be accepted. The definite and specific provision of section 15 is that the Treasury Board must be satisfied. It is the right of the Treasury Board-more than that, it is the duty of the Treasury Board-to withhold that certificate until it is fully satisfied.


Henry Horton Miller: Does the hon. gentleman think there was anything in this case that was unusual at that time, that ought to have made the Treasury Board act otherwise with this bank than they had been in the habit of acting with others?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend told us a moment ago that none of us could know anything about it, and therefore, from his own standpoint, his question is meaningless. I have no personal knowledge of what took place at that time; he reminded us that none of us could have any personal knowledge; therefore, his question is irrelevant at the present moment. I am pointing out to the Prime Minister that whether an affidavit was made or not is not the question. The question is whether or . not the Treasury Board was satisfied, whether or not under the circumstances it had a right to report itself as satisfied. As my Iron, friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has pointed out, it is not a light matter to give a bank in this country the power to begin business. The statute has very properly required that certain very distinct and definite conditions shall be" complied with, and the last condition of all is that the Treasury Board, as trustees for the whole people of Canada, shall be absolutely satisfied.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


Wilfrid Laurier: The Treasury Board in this case was satisfied with the deposit of the money and the affidavit.


Robert Laird Borden: As it turns out, they were entirely wrong in being so satisfied, if my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is right in his statement of what has transpired in connection with the liquidation of the bank. The Treasury Board were satisfied, but they ought not to have been satisfied, because the actual conditions, not the conditions as stated in the affidavit, should not have permitted that bank to receive a certificate from the Treasury Board. The Prime Minister argued that Mr. Travers was the man who knew more about this than any one else, and therefore when he made a certain affidavit, the Treasury Board, without any further inquiry, without calling for the production of the stock books, without making an investigation which they might have made, should grant a certificate as a matter of course. If that is what the Prime Minister intended to convey to the House, I do_ not agree with him. I say that, pre-eminently in a case where the man making the affidavit is the man who, to the knowledge of every one in the country, was the promoter of the bank, it would have been a very proper and a very reasonable thing, and not a very unusual thing, for the Treasury Board to say, we have your declaration as to all these matters, but we desire to make further inquiries and to have the production of certain other documents and papers. It is quite apparent to us now that if the government had taken that reasonable and not very unusual course, the condition of affairs would not now be so lamentably against the interest of many people in this country as it is, if we can judge by the press reports, in the case of this bank. However, I do not desire to pass judgment on the action of the government in that regard until we have the papers and until we have possibly some further inquiry into the whole matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: For a copy of the full report and finding of the curator of the Farmers' Bank, up to the time of his appointment as liquidator of the same by the shareholders for the requisition of which authority is given to the Minister of Finance by section 122 of the Bank Act.
He said:	I suppose the Finance Department has already called for that and has it in its possession; but if it has not, the minister has the right to call for it. A curator's report is as full a resume of the whole situation as we can get without a minute legal investigation, and would be very satisfactory for us to have.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Eulas Foster: For a copy of the by-laws, rules and regulations of the Canadian Bankers' Association as approved by the Treasury Board and now in effect.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 15) to amend the Canada Medical Act-Mr. Black-read the second time.
Mr. BLACK moved:: That it be referred to a special committee composed of Messrs. Black, Daniel, Beland, Paquet, Schaffner, Roche, Neeley, Currie (Prince Edward), Chisholm (Huron), Sproule, Cash, Chisholm (Inverness), McAllister, Rankin and Carvell.
He said: I do not anticipate any opposition to this Bill at all. These amendments have been submitted to the medical councils and associations of every province and have been approved by them all. These associations and councils represent between 6,000 and 7,000 medical men in the Dominion. When this Bill was introduced in 1902, it met with a good deal of opposition, but all that opposition has passed away and from Vancouver to Halifax, as far as the medical profession is concerned, they are in favour of it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Sir Wilfrid LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.
George Eulas Foster: I would like to say to the Prime Minister that the report we were speaking about a little while ago, was the one of 1902. I would ask that he take note of this and see that we get it.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Order (No. 6) was asked to stand at the request of the right hon. the Prime Minister on his assertion doubtless made innocently though wrongly, that I was out of the House. It was my desire that this order should be gone on with. It was left to stand until the next private members' day, and I should iike to know what disposition is proposed to be made of it.


Wilfrid Laurier: These orders were called at a quarter before midnight, so that this Bill could not be disposed of at the present sitting. We have reached the hour of adjournment and there was no discourtesy intended to my hon. friend in not going on with his measure. There are as many on this side who wish to discuss it, as on the other, and no doubt on Monday next we can reach it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: When I gave notice.of my intention to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a certain motion, I was under the impression from what I had seen in the newspapers that the Finance Minister would be in his place to-morrow, I have since learned that he will not, and therefore announce my intention to bring on the motion at the earliest possible opportunity after his return.


Robert Laird Borden: If convenient, my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), would like to bring on to-morrow, a motion with regard to the amounts paid in Ottawa for the use of rented buildings.


William Pugsley: What buildings ?


Robert Laird Borden: We will send my hon. friend a copy of the motion some time tomorrow forenoon.


William Pugsley: I shall be very glad if you will do so.


Robert Laird Borden: What business to-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: I intend to take up some Bills, but if convenient will take up Supply the first order to-morrow- Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.	.

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, January 24, 1911.