1911-02-01

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 105) to incorporate the All Red Steamship Company.-Mr. McKenzie.
Mr. FOSTER.: Bill (No. 106) to incorporate the Lake-Erie and Northern Railway Company.- Mr. Harris.



ONTARIO AND MINNESOTA POWER COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CONMEE moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend chapter 139, 4 and 5,. Edward VII., intituled an Act respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Ltd. He said: The object of the Bill is^ to amend the Act of 1905, chapter 139, relating to the Rainy river at Fort Francis, which is a navigable river, and also an international stream; hence the necessity of federal legislation dealing with it. Works have been carried out upon the river which interfere with the navigation of the stream, and which have changed the conditions in connection with the Canadian canal that was constructed some years ago at that point. They also interfere with the water necessary for the navigation of the river, not only below the works, but also of Rainy lake, situated above the works. The question is considerably involved. It will be necessary, as I consider, to give some of the history of the conditions and circumstances leading up to the present situation to do That would involve a reference to agreements, to Acts of the provincial legislature, and to Acts of the federal parliament of Canada. These works were proceeded with a good deal in the manner in which such works are ordinarily undertaken. The first permission, as far as the federal authorities are concerned, to go on with the works was obtained by an order in council on the submission and approval of plans. The works have not been carried on according to those plans, but quite different plans have been adopted. After the works were constructed the company desired to have the changed plans ratified, but they have not been ratified by the Minister of Public Works of the Dominion, and, therefore, the work stands in that position. Hence the importance of making some regulation by enactment by which the public interest in the navigable stream and the chain of navigation both above and below should be dealt with. I assume that the Bill *would have to go to a committee. Although it is a public Bill, I think the practice has been, where there are questions which might affect the private interests of individuals, or of a company, to refer it to a committee of the House. I may say that it is not the intention of the amendment to take away from that company any rights they now have under existing legislation, or to impose upon them new or more onerous conditions. The object is to clear awav doubts that have arisen and to enact such legislation as will enable the proper protection of the public interest in the

matters involved. As it would take me a Ions time to go through these various documents with the necessity, here and there of short explanations of what has led ud to the present condition, I would ask, instead of taking up the time of the House for some considerable time, as the question is involved and I take it that the Bill will get its first reading and be referred to the Private Bills, or th'e Railway Committee, that, in the meantime, I be permitted to put this record on ' Hansard.' Hon. members will then have before them the information which is necessary to an intelligent understanding of the question. When the Bill comes up, either in committee or in this House, for its second reading, or in Committee of the Whole House, hon. members will be able to discuss it very much more to advantage than can be done to-day under the circumstances. If I am permitted to hand these papers to ' Hansard ' and allow the Bill to go through its first reading I will not take up any more of the time of the House.
Mr. SPEAKER.: I am unable to give permission as far as ' Hansard ' is concerned.


Mr. CONMEE.: I do not quite understand you, Mr. Speaker.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that only tables of figures are allowed to be put in ' Hansard,' and that nothing else can be put in ' Hansard ' unless it is spoken in the House.


James Conmee: Then I shall have to make reference to these various documents. I may say that the development of this power, which affects the public interest in the manner I have shortly outlined was entered into as a joint undertaking, an international work, upon the strength of an agreement that was entered into at the request of the town of Fort Francis, and, on their behalf, by the government of Ontario, in 1904. I conceive it to be necessary to make reference to the agreement, as it is the foundation of the whole transaction, and, perhaps, I may be permitted, instead of reading this document, which is somewhat lengthy, to hand it in to ' Hansard.'


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It is against the rules and cannot be done.


James Conmee: Well, unfortunately, I feel bound, then, under these circumstances, to read the document:-
Memorandum of agreement made in triplicate . this 17th day of February, 1901, between His Majesty represented by the Hon. the Commissioner of Crown Lands of the province of Ontario, hereinafter called the government.


Mr. BLAIN.: Could not my hon. friend use this document to the same advantage
before the committee? I do not wish to interfere with my hon. friend, because this is his right, but I was only making that suggestion, and it will likely have to be gone over again when the committee meets to discuss the Bill. I cannot just see how the reading will help the hon. gentleman in his case.


James Conmee: I feel disposed to accept that suggestion if I understand it aright. I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) to suggest that instead of going into this matter in detail to-day, the Bill be read the first time, and that this information be used before the committee to which it may be referred.


Richard Blain: I was expressing my individual opinion of it. I suppose that the question as to whether the Bill should be read a first time is a matter for the House to deal with. I was only directing my attention to the very large volume of records which the hon. gentleman has and suggesting that they might be presented to the committee which deals with the Bill.


George Eulas Foster: I think that if my hon. friend would do that it would result in better economy of the time of the House. It has been the practice in this House to have very little discussion upon the first reading and especially not to introduce documents or the like of that. It all has to be gone over again on the second reading, and it duplicates time and expense. I think the Speaker has been very generally in accord with that idea, and has always suggested that the first reading be limited to a mere explanation of the Bill without the introduction of arguments.


Wilfrid Laurier: Every Bill presented to this House is accepted for the first reading as a matter of course unless there is on the face of the Bill a paramount objection. There can be no objection to the Bill of my hon. friend being introduced; but, if I am correctly informed, he is attempting to amend a private Act, and there is a regular procedure to be followed in such a case. If it is a public Bill, there is no objection at all to the first reading.


James Conmee: The Bill is to amend a private Act, but it deals with a'public question. The whole object of chapter 139 of 4 and 5 Edward VII. is to regulate certain works and the public rights in regard to those works. The Interpretation Act provides that all Bills, whether private or otherwise, are considered public Bills. Section 18 of that Act reads in this way:
Every Act shall be so construed as to reserve to parliament the power of repealing or amending it, and of revoking, restricting or modifying any power, privilege or advantage thereby vested in or granted to any per-

son, whenever such repeal, amendment, revocation, restriction or modification is deemed by parliament to be required for the public good.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House, and if the Bill can be read the first time and be sent to the committee, I am quite willing to accept that situation.


Wilfrid Laurier: So far as I have been able to follow my hon. friend, he is attempting to amend a private Act, and in that case there are certain rules which have to be followed. The parties concerned may desire to be heard. It is for the Speaker to decide whether the Bill is in order or not in order, and I would suggest to my hon. friend that he present his case so as to obtain the ruling of the Speaker on that point.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I think my hon. friend should address himself to the point just mentioned. It seems to be absolutely impossible that any gentleman, desiring that a private Act shall be amended, can get rid of all the requirements of this House with respect to notice and advertisement by introducing his proposed amendment as a public Bill.


James Conmee: I am quite willing to discuss that point if it is necessary^ to raise it at this time; but I did not think that would be necessary. This is not the first public Bill that has amended a private Act. I submit that the practice of parliament and the authorities sustain the position I take. I find the following in Bouri-not, at page 688:
As a rule it may be stated that when Bills treat of matters of general policy, such as sanitary, or police, or commercial, or fiscal regnlations, they may be considered as public measures. In fact, all Bills affecting the general interests of the community and involving considerations of public policy, are out of the category of Private Bills dealing with the special interests of corporations or associations.
I submit that this is a Bill of that character, not dealing with the private interests of anybody, hut with matters of public interest and public policy. Further on Bouri-not says:
Whenever public Bills involve private interests, which should be carefully guarded they are subjected to the same examination provided for private Bills.
He goes on to show that such Bills are referred to the committee. I find that several Bills of that character have passed the parliament of Canada, and I have no objection to this Bill going to the committee. Perhaps this case, referred to by Bourinot, might be cited as fully warranting the course I am taking:


James Conmee: In' the session of 1875, the Premier (Mr. Mackenzie) moved for leave to introduce a public Bill to rearrange the ' capital of the Noitliern Railway of Canada, to enable the said company to change the gauge of its railway, and to provide for the release of the government lien on the road on certain conditions.' Objection having been taken that seme of the provisions affected private interests and altered the powers of the company in very material points^ the Speaker decided that the Bill ought to be withdrawn. Separate Bills were subsequently passed by the House-one relating to the government lien, was treated as a public Bill, and the other, relating to the gauge and capital, as a private Bill.
This Bill may require treatment of that kind. If anything in it required to be cut out as not being within the legitimate scope of a public Bill, that could be done by the committee. According to Bourinot, all local and private Acts passed in Canada previous to and fox some years after 1840 contained a clause declaring that it should be deemed a public Act and should be judiciously taken notice of as such by the judges, justices of the peace, and other people, without being specially pleaded. From 1850 to 1860 the clause was shortened and it was simply enacted that it shall be deemed a public Act. Bourinot says further, that in the first session of the Dominion parliament it was enacted that every Act shall, except by express provision it is declared a private Act, be deemed a public Act and shall be judicially noted; and he says that consequently the public clause has been ever since omitted. The law and practice seems to be that unless there is a declaration in a private Act that it is such, then ever since confederation it is held to be a public measure. Under these circumstances, I would submit that this Bill might very well go to the committee, where it can be looked into, and if it is found to contain provisions that ought not be in a public Bill of this character, why of course the Bill can be dropped. I will be glad to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether the Bill can be permitted to be introduced or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no doubt that my hon. friend is attempting to amend a private Act, and he may be right in his contention that it is possible to amend a private Act by a public Act, and to dispense with the notices, advertisements, &c. But, of course it is impossible for Mr. Speaker or the House to know whether this private Act can be amended by a public Act unless the hon. gentleman places his Bill before us. He will therefore, I think, be serving hik own case if he told us what is the nature/ and object of his Bill.


James Conmee: I desired before taking up the amending Bill to give the House information as to the circumstances and conditions which make this amendment necessary, if the public interest is to be protected. There was a joint arrangement for the development of the power by a dam from side to side of the Rainy river at Fort Frances, which is an international stream, and the works were commenced by order in council.


Wilfrid Laurier: A joint arrangement between whom?


James Conmee: A joint bargain between Mr. Backus, of Minneapolis, and the corporation of the town of Fort Frances, which was under an agreement bearing date 17th February, 1904, made at their request by the provincial government. I regret to have to take up the time of the House, but I feel it necessary in the public interest that I should do so. The community of Fort Frances have in my opinion and in their opinion been placed in a very unfortunate position. Rights which they had as natural rights, rights which they had by contract, rights which are vital to their future prosperity are attempted to be taken from them, and to deprive them of the use of the water power at the present time, and not only of the utilization of the power from this joint development but also of the navigation of the river. Several lines of steamers ply on that stream across the Lake of the Woods, and in a stretch of 100 miles of navigation on the river there are what is known as the Long Sault rapids, over which vessels cannot be navigated in low water. The goods are transferred from below the rapids to above the rapids and the people living along the stream are accommodated in that way. On two occasions since these works were erected that traffic has been cut off. in one case for nearly ten days. A vessel could not navigate the river for the reason that the gates were shut down and while the water was rising in the Rainy lake there was no navigation at all below the works. The same thing occurred on another occasion but not for the same length of time. At Fort Frances there is a lock which was built by this government many years ago at considerable cost. That lock is not now in operation. Goods are brought below the falls and transferred to vessels above the falls and carried on up to Rainy lake. That traffic has been entirely checked for weeks at a time because of the lack of construction^ of slides although such construction was imposed upon this company by the order in council authorizing it to go on with the work, and bv statute of this parliament, chap. 139. Still there is no redress. What Fort Frances is asking 90
for is not that the privileges which the company enjoys be taken away, but that the conditions under which the company obtained its franchise, the obligations that were placed upon it by order in council, and the plans which tihe company submitted, be complied with. I have referred to the plans. It was my intention to bring them here and lay them on the table, but I have not got them at present. I shall however, lay them on the table later so that hon. gentlemen may see that the first plan showed an equal number of units of water to be vented on each side of the International boundary, assuming that boundary to be in the centre of the stream. Hon. gentlemen will likewise see by the second plan that there is not an equal number of units on each side, but that there are more on the American than on the Canadian side. They will see by the first plan that this lock, which was previously constructed, was to have a gate at its upper entrance so that at any time the public could use the lock for navigation without difficulty. But what happened ? As will be seen by the second plan, which the minister refused to approve, the whole entrance to the lock has been blasted away. There have been three or four inlets made into it, the south wall of the lock has been entirely blasted away, and possession taken of that public property in such a way as to make it very expensive indeed to open it for navigation. I am not going to argue that it is not in the power of the government to force this company to remove the works I speak of, but what I do say is, that these people have gone on in a high handed manner, without authority and constructed works designed for the very purpose of forestalling the. operation of that canal. They planned their works, they planned their power-house in such a way that it is evident to any one -and I am sure the engineers of the department must know it-that these works were planned deliberately for the very purpose of forestalling the use either of the canal or the power on the Canadian side. The agreement to which I refer, provided that there should be a power-house on each side of the international line and the development of an equal quantity of power- one half the flow of the stream to be delivered on the Canadian side for use in Canada. The Act which was passed in 1905 by this parliament contains the same principle because it provides that the power shall be used concurrently on both sides and that there shall not be more power available for use on the American than on the Canadian side at any time. Now, if good faith had been kept, the conditions which.exist today at that point could not exist. What are these conditions? To-dav there is 18,000 horse-nower from that development being used for the purpose of operating pulp wood



grinder for the manufacture of paper on the American side, while there is not a single horse-power used on the Canadian side for any industrial purpose. I submit that that is not a concurrent development or use of the power such as parliament intended. I do not believe that .parliament ever intended to give this company the right to permanently take a greater portion of the power to the American side than the half to which they are entitled. I am aware that under Sec. 16-1 refer to the electrical exportation Act-there is power given to the Governor in Council to impose conditions and regulations and to stipulate not only with regard to the quantity of power that may be taken away for use in a foreign country but with regard to the power that shall be reserved for use in Canada. But I want to point out that that Act was passed three years aftel the agreement to which I have referred was entered into. I do not think it was the intention of parliament, in passing that Act to make it retroactive or take away the contractual rights of persons who had such rights previous to 1907. I refer to the order in council upon which this company got the right to proceed with its work, and 1 must say that this order in council is a very -extraordinary document. It compels me to make a little further explanation. In 1905 when .the company applied for incorpora-.tion to this parliament, the Bill that was introduced as Bill (No. 86); and if I may be permitted, I wish to read the Bill as introduced toy the company, for I think that is necessary to a proper understanding of the present position:-
Whereas, the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited, has by its petition represented that it was incorporated by letters patent under the general seal of the province of Ontario, dated 13th January, 1905, under the Ontario Companies Act, being chapter 191 of the revised statutes of Ontario, 1897.
Whereas the said company has prayed that it he enacted as hereinafter set forth and it is expedient to grant the prayers of the said petition, therefore His Majesty by the authority and advice of the Senate and Honse of Commons of Canada enacts as follows:-
The works of the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited, hereinafter called the company, are declared to he for the general advantage of Canada.
Section 2 refers to the capital stock of the company. The head office of the company is located in the city of Toronto.. The provisional directors are to be the gentlemen named in section 4, as follow:
4. The provisional directors of the company shall he Edward Wellington Backus, of the city of Minneapolis, in the state of Minnesota, one of the United States, Robert Alexander Grant, and Alexander McKenzie, of the city of Toronto, and William Johnston and Thomas Bremner Rankin, of the city of Ottawa, in the province of Ontario.


James Conmee: This has reference to chapter 139 *

referring to the production of power or
electrical energy, the delivery thereof, the construction of power-houses, &c.
So -that, while I do not wish to weary the House with too long quotations from this document it will be seen that [permission to go on with the work was granted subject to certain conditions.
That the permission he granted subject to the conditions inserted in the agreement between the government of the province of Ontario and the applicants and also subject to all the conditions and reservations expressed in the Act of parliament passed at its last session respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited.
That no work will be done under the permission to he given to the company which will in any way interfere with the lock, canal, or other works of a public nature already executed at Fort Frances by the government of Canada, nor will any bridge of any other erection or construction of any nature whatsoever on, over or across the said lock, canal, or other works, be built, nor generally shall any use he made thereof except by permission in writing to that effect by the Minister of Public Works.
Now, I submit that this work has gone on quite irrespective of this provision. No such permission for the works to be erected has ever been obtained, and I have already pointed out the very damaging nature of the work. The reason for the application for this public Bill on behalf of Fort Frances may be given in this way. First, the town obtained an agreement to which they consented, and which was made on their behalf. Perhaps I may be permitted just to read the preamble of the agreement in order to show that my statement is fully borne out by the document itself.
Whereas the Rainy river is the district of Rainy river forms an International boundary between the province of Ontario in the Dominion of Canada and the state of Minnesota, one of the United States of America, which said river in the neighbourhood of the town of Fort Frances forms a valuable and extensive water-power;
And whereas the municipal council of the town of Fort Frances and the municipal council of the township of Mclrvine and the residents of the said town and township have at various times petitioned the government to develop or procure the development of the said water-power, so that the same might be utilized for municipal purposes and for manufacturing and milling in the said municipalities thereby assisting in the development of the said municipalities and of the surrounding districts;
And whereas application has been made by the purchasers for a grant in fee of such lands adjacent to the said river, and of such lands covered by the said river, and of such privileges as are necessary to enable the purchasers to develop the said water-power, and to render the same available for municipal marnfactnring and milling purposes;
.And whereas the sa'id water-power can he more advantageously developed, and more
power produced, jjy works embracing the entire width of the river, and dealing with it as a whole, than by an independent development on the Canadian side of the International boundary, and it is therefore in the public interest to adopt such plans of development;
And whereas the purchasers are the owners in fee simple of the lands and water-power on the Minnesota side of the International boundary opposite the said town of Fort Frances, and are desirous of obtaining from the government of the province of Ontario a grant in fee of the lands and power on the Canadian side of the International boundary, for the purpose of developing the water-power to the full capacity of the stream from side to side at high water mark, and of utilizing such storage facilities as may he available for maintaining the river at such high water mark, thereby rendering available a_large amount of power on the Canadian side of the river, for municipal purposes and for the operation of pulp and paper mills, flour or grist mills and other manufacturing establishments;
And whereas it is necessary in order to carry out such a scheme of development, that the purchasers should be permitted to construct a storage dam at the outlet of Lake Namekan, at or near Kettle Falls, on the international boundary and to set apart sufficient lands for the construction and maintenance of the said dam, and that they should also, if necessary, he in a position to create storage reservoirs on upper and lower Manitou lake and big Turtle lake under conditions satisfactory to the government by the construction of the necessary dams for that purpose, with the view of maintaining a more regular and uniform flow of water over the falls at Fort Frances, by reinforcing the waters of Rainy lake;
And whereas the construction of the said dams and the maintenance of the waters of Rainy lake at a higher level during the low water period will he of great advantage to navigation;
And whereas it is expedient and desirable, in the interests of the town of Fort Frances, of the said township of Mclrvine and of the public generally, that the said water-power he speedily developed to its full capacity and that an agreement he entered into to that end, upon the terms and subject to the conditions and stipulations herein contained;
And whereas the prrrchasers propose to form a joint stock company under the provisions of the Ontario Companies Act, for the purpose of acquiring this agreement and all the benefits and advantages appertaining thereto, and of assuming the obligations hereby incurred hv the purchaser, and of carrying on the development and operation of the said water-power.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is abundantly clear that at the request of, and on behalf of Fort Frances this agreement was entered into, and for the very purpose of creating water-power to be used in Canada for the operation of pulp and paper mills. I may now be permitted to state what has happened. I hold in my hand a series of questions that were asked of the company

by the Department of Inland Revenue which has the administration of the expropriation of electricity. Before granting the request of the company for a license, that department, as was quite proper, desired to know from the company how much power they would deliver on the Canadian side, when they would deliver it, and at what price, and on what conditions the Canadian consumer could get it. It was a well known fact that the company had refused to give to any Canadian either mechanical or hydraulic power which could be used for the manufacture of pulp, and the following question was iput to the company.
5. As one of the main natural products ou the Canadian side of the river is pulp-wood, state whether the company or those associated with the company in the manufacture of paper purpose manufacturing pulp-wood into pulp or pulp into paper on the Ontario side of the river as well as on the Minnesota side of the river, and if so, when?
The answer to that was :
The company propose to install a pulp mill on the Canadian side as soon as a pulp-wood concession is granted by the provincial government, which was promised to the company by the late Ross government. The company also propose to erect paper mills on the Canadian side as soon as a pulp concession is secured of sufficient capacity to supply the western Canadian demand.
The impertinence of that answer must be quite apparent to everybody. The Department of Inland Revenue- asked the very plain question, if they intended to erect such works in Ontario, and the answer of the company is : We do if the Ontario government-a government over which this federal government has no control-will give us a pulp concession such as we ask, and we think sufficient to supply the Canadian demand. Now, it was well known at that time that the present government of Ontario had refused to give them or anybody else a pulpwood concession. The policy of the present government in Ontario was. not to give these pulp concessions subject to certain works being erected as had formerly been done but to put them up at public auction, and those who wanted them could ibid on them. The writer of that answer knew perfectly well that there was no possibility of him getting that concession, and I, therefore, say that the answer was extremely impertinent under the circumstances. With regard to concessions, I can speak with knowledge of these early conditions because at that time I represented the community at Fort Frances in the local legislature, and I know the facts. It is true the Ross government did offer this gentleman a concession in 1882 or 1883, but it is also true that he refused to take it. Why? It is very easy to explain why. In the first place, he at that Mr. CONMEE.
time regarded himself, and his associates as the possessors of the only available water-power on the watershed of Rainy Lake, and his words to me were : What advantages would a concession be ; we are obligated to do certain things if we accept, we control the price of wood, nobody else can enter into it, we have the only waterpower in the district. But, Sir, -we all live to learn, and this gentleman learned something later on because it transpired later on that the government of Canada proposed to build a lock at what is known as the Long Sault rapids of the Rainy river in order to improve navigation there. The construction of that lock would involve the building of a dam which would create a considerable water-power, and that might enter into competition with this company. Therefore, we had a revival of the application to get the pulp concession, and other difficulties interposed to prevent the use of the power on the Canadian side. Now,
I will just refer to one more question, question 6 :
If question 5 is answered in the negative, please state whether the use of the grinding room in the Canadian power-house for grinding pulp direct, so as to make the manufacture of pulp by an independent Canadian concern feasible, could be obtained by any Canadian manufacturer desirous of embarking in such an industry, and under what terms and conditions ?
Now, that is a very plain question. Here is the answer:
This would not be practicable, as the company would not allow outsiders to use its power-house. Therefore, in that case the grinders would have to be driven electrically.
That means simply a refusal, because there is no such thing, in a situation such as exists at Fort Frances, of operating pulp-wood grinders by electricity. You have to transform the mechanical power into electric current, then it has to be stepped down, and motors have to be applied, so that the machinery is doubled and the cost is practically doubled. Every manufacturer will understand, without any argument, that that means shutting out any competition whatever with the American company.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Does the hon. gentleman not think that he is discussing the merits of the Bill rather than following the custom on the first reading, of simply explaining the provisions of the Bill?


James Conmee: I will endeavour to comply with the views just expressed. I considered it necessary to make some preliminary remarks as to the conditions that justified the introduction of this as a public Bill.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: This is not the time to give those reasons. They may be given on the second reading, but not at this time.


James Conmee: If I had a guarantee that the Bill would reach the second reading, I would be satisfied. Well, to come to the Bill, it proposes to amend chapter 139 of the statutes of 1905, as follow:
Chapter 139 of the Statutes of 1905 is amended by adding after the word 'council* in the last line of section 1 thereof the following: Provided further that the company shall from time to time, if directed by any authority having jurisdiction herein, provide further plans and execute any additional works, alterations or changes, and carry out any new work or works required; or if, upon any application of the town of Fort Frances or otherwise, it shall appear that the company has heretofore constructed, or that the company does at any time hereafter construct or erect any work not approved, the company shall, if directed by any order or ruling, provide plans showing such alterations, changes, additions and new works as may be required by any order or ruling made in pursuance of any such application, and, if so directed by any such order or ruling, execute, perform and carry out all works necessary or required, including the removal of any unauthorized works, if ordered to be removed, and shall, in the execution of such alterations, changes, removals, additions and new works, give full effect to anv such approved plans, and also to the provision of any such order or ruling, not only in regard to the execution of the works or any of them, or other matter incidental thereto, but also in regard to the flow of water for navigation over or through the works of the company, and for the passage of logs and timber, and for the operation of the canal on the Canadian side, the supply of hydraulic power and electrical energy and the regulation of the methods and conditions under which such power and electrical energy shall be furnished to Canadian users, as well as the prices which the company may charge such users for such units ~of power or electrical energy provided for in the said order or ruling.
There are a number of amendments similar to this, none of which change the position of the company under chapter 139, These I submit are matters of public concern and not of a private character. It is not necessarily the duty of a private member to have to undertake an amendment [DOT]of this kind, but I have introduced it at the request of the community of Fort Frances, who feel that their interests are vitally involved, and who feel that they ought to get protection at the hands of parliament-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman will confine himself to an explanation of the main provisions of the Bill. The merits are discussed on the second reading.


James Conmee: I cannot do that unless I make reference to the laws which it is proposed to amend.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think it is easy for the hon. gentleman to explain exactly the chief provisions of the Bill.


James Conmee: I have read some of the sections which cover the purport of the Bill as to the regulation- and protection of the public interests in regard to the navigation of the river and as to the works of this company in so far as they affect the public interests. There is another section of the Bill which provides, along the lines of the existing statute, that one-half the total power of the stream created by the works shall be delivered for use on the Canadian side, and that the conditions and prices under which such power may be used shall be regulated either by the Governor in Council or the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada. Either would be acceptable, and that the power shall be supplied either in the form of mechanical power or electrical energy. I submit that parliament never intended to permit these gentlemen to dictate to Canadian users of power in what form they should use it, the Canadian interests are as great in this matter as are the interests of these American gentlemen. The Ontario andi Minnesota company immediately transferred all its rights and interests to an American company incorporated under the laws of the state of Maine, which company is not registered in Canada and has no place of business in Canada. It is that company which is to-day in possession of, and operating these works, and while that company takes all the benefits of the Canadian company, and use the latter as a sort of conduit pipe through which to get favours, it refuses to carry out the obligations imposed by this parliament upon the Canadian company. The object of my amendment is to make it clear that the law may be invoked to compel these gentlemen to carry out their obligation in good faith.
There is another section of the Bill to which I might refer. Every one will admit that I have adduced sufficient evidence to. show that there was to be an equal division of this power. While the town of Fort Francis finds no fault with this company getting its full half of the power of the stream or even more until the power is needed on the Canadian side, what we do say is that we want our position defined and have it definitely decided whether we are entitled to an equal portion of the power. This company says the Canadians are only entitled to one-quarter.


Mr. BRODER.: How many horse-power are involved?


James Conmee: About 36,000 horse-power. That is the estimate of this company, but in my humble opinion there can be developed there and utilized 50,000 horsepower. Another clause of this Bill simply provides that the Act of parliament passed by this House in 1905, in which it was said there should be concurrent development and use of the power, be made as was the

284s
evident intention to provide for an equal division of the total power of the stream- and not a division of the Canadian portion of it-and that that principle be carried out and that there shall be a clear declaration that Canadian interests are entitled to one-half of the total power of the stream and entitled to use it under conditions which will admit of its practical use, and that they are not to be denied the right to use mechanical or hydraulic power if it be their interest to do so. They are not to be shut out of the only industry which is natural to their position and for which they have the raw material, namely, the manufacture of pulp and paper.
I submit that these are all matters of a public nature. Although the Bill is said to be a Bill relating to the Ontario and Minneapolis Power Company-I refer now to chapter 139-I submit it is a public Bill. I have read the Bill that company introduced, hon. gentleman can look at it, it will appear in ' Hansard ', and then look at chapter 139 and see that it is a very different Bill. Parliament imposed conditions for the purpose of safeguarding Canadian interests in this water-power, and therefore. whatever may be the title of the Bill, it is in every sense of the word a public Bill, and I submit that this amendment ought to go at least to a committee so that the community at Fort Frances, which has now for ten years been subjected to the very great hardship of sending lawyers and deputations a thousand miles from time to time to protect its interests, may have justice done it by this parliament. If by any technical ruling this measure might be shut out, I hope that there is no member in this House who would take, under these circumstances, a technical objection, and I ask that the measure be allowed its first reading and sent to a committee where it can be threshed out. If any of the provisions of the Bill affect injuriously the private rights of the company, the committee will not tolerate it, and no such measure can pass; but I submit it is a fair measure for removing doubts and difficulties which are due to hasty legislation passed in the manner I have described. One of the clauses of the Act, chapter 139, provides that the Eailway Board of Canada may fix prices and conditions and that application may be made to that board by any applicant for power or by the town of Fort Frances. I submit that every layman would understand by that language that the town of Fort Frances was given the statutory, right to make application to the Eailway Board to have the prices and the conditions fixed in order that the town might be able to say to manufacturers:	Here is the power which you can
have at such prices and under such conditions. But I am told that the town of Fort Francis has been advised that, not-Mr. CONMEE.
withstanding that language, it is doubtful if it could succeed on such an application. The reason given is that under the municipal law it could not apply for power for general purposes. As a town it could apply for power for municipal purposes, but when they go outside of that they might be mpt with difficulty. That is the difficulty raised by the lawyers. I do not know if it be good law or not, but I do know there is sufficient in it to put that small community against this powerful company in a contest in the courts, that it would take six or seven years to determine their rights and they have not the financial ability to do this. Under all the circumstances it seems to me there should be conscience enough in the House of Commons to grant this community some relief from the very perilous condition in which their interests have been placed.


Mr. SPEOULE.: I did not hear the objection to the first reading of the Bill, but it seems to me that the gravamen of it must be that this is a Bill proposing tp amend a private Act. Now, private Bills, including Bills to amend private legislation, require certain notice to be given to the public. Such a Bill must be introduced by petition, but a public Bill may be introduced simply on two days notice in this House. In this case, the public have no notice of what this Bill purports to do, nor have the holders of rights under this private legislation any such notice as is provided for by the rules of this House. It seems to me that this is wrong. I say nothing at present about the desirability of amending the law referred to, or securing the rights of Eainy river; it is simply a question of observing the rules of the House in giving notice of legislation of this kind. There must be, I take it, vested rights grown up under the Act of incorporation, and this proposed Bill would affect such rights.


James Conmee: If I may be permitted to answer the hon. member: I do not think he was in his place at the opening of my remarks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not.


James Conmee: I showed that, under sec. 18 of the Eevised Statutes of Canada, of 1906, all Bills are public Bills,-that section states so in so many words; I do not need to read it again. And I showed by quotations from Bourinot what the practice of this House has been. A number of public Bills amending private Acts have been passed in this House. I do not know that I have prepared myself fully for an argument on the rules of parliament in that respect, but, so far as I have been able to examine-and I have consulted some of the gentlemen who are in charge of the

committees, and who have had a good deal of experience-the opinion seems to be that the procedure is quite regular. And, so far as notice is concerned, I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), that notice of this question has been before the public for years. The newspapers of Fort Frances are full of it; the company has had written notice,-I saw to it myself that they should know exactly what was done. And there is lots of time for anything of that kind. This Bill will have to go to committee, and it will be some time before it reaches the House again. No one will be taken by surprise, and no interest can possibly be prejudiced for want of all the notice necessary.
Mr. LANCASTER, I do not think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oonmee), has quite appreciated the objection made by the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule). If he has, I think that I personally should interpose here. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee), if there is any merit in his Bill, is seeking to amend a private Act. The hon. gentleman cannot evade the rules of the House, and introduce what is, in fact, a private Bill, of which notice should be given, by merely declaring it a public Bill. If this were introduced as a private Bill, notice in the form which is well known, would have to be given to the public so that those interested -would have a chance to be heard. These rules are made for a purpose, and are always carried out, for our -procedure in relation to private Bills is different from that in relation to public Bills.	[DOT]


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And there are fees to be paid.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Yes, there are fees to be paid and all sorts of things to be done in the case of a private Bill. It seems to me that the hon. member for Thunder Bay and Rainy River (Mr. Conmee), is trifling with the intelligence of this House in taking up time with this matter. I thinlf the whole thing is out of order, because it must be apparent to you, Mr. Speaker, as to every member of the House, that the hon. gentleman is introducing what is really private legislation, and ought to be introduced in accordance with the rules applying to legislation of that kind. He had no right to introduce it as he did and call it a public Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: I pointed out to my hon. friend (Mr. Conmee), that the purpose disclosed by the notice which he gave, and which appears on the order paper is to introduce ' an Act to amend chapter 139, 4 and 5, Edward VII., intituled an Act respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, Limited.' The Act to be amended is undoubtedly a private Act. It is quite true that all Acts passed
by this parliament are public Acts; but it is equally true also that there are two categories of public Acts,, one known as private Acts, to be introduced in this House in accordance with certain rules, and not to be amended except in the same manner. My hon. friend (Mr. Conmee), has quoted some authorities which go to show that private Acts may foe amended by public Bills in some matters which are not essential, which are not part of the parliamentary contract,-for a private Act is a parliamentary contract and is to be amended only under the rules which have been provided by parliament for the security of private parties. My own impression, at first blush, is that the Bill proposed by my hon. friend certainly interferes with the corporate powers of a private company and is, therefore, to foe introduced only in accordance with the rules relating to private legislation. But, if I may be permitted, I would suggest that the Bill be read the first time, and the question whether it is a private Bill or not, should be settled by you, Mr. Speaker, before the-next- reading.
MrTLANCASTER. If I am in order: I would point out that it would, I fear, be trifling with the rules of the House to let the Bill go in that way. I think that the first reading should stand for the consideration which the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), proposes. We should be stultifying ourselves to let the first reading go through when the rules declare that it should not go through. I think the point ought to be decided.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is for Mr. Speaker.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I am prepared to say now that my impression is, after hearing the explanation of the hon. gentleman and reading the provisions concerning - the company, that this is purely a private Bill, and so comes Under Rules 88, 89 and so on and must be introduced by petition, the fees paid and the other formalities that are provided for, observed. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee), wishes a more elaborate opinion, I will be able to give it tomorrow, setting forth the definition of private Bills, the precedents and so on. In the meantime, I may briefly quote Bouri-not:
Private Bills are distinguished from public Bills in that they directly relate to the affairs of private individuals or of corporate bodies, and not to matters of public policy or to the community in general. They must pass through the same stages as public Bills, but, at the same time, must originate by petition and be subject to certain, special standing orders in both Houses of parliament.
There can be no doubt that this Bill merely relates to the community residing-

in Fort Frances and its immediate vicinity, and not to the community generally. In another place, Bourinot describes this class of Bill:
Bills from the corporation of towns and municipal bodies, generally, are always treated as private Bills when they desire special legislation affecting their proper interests.
This is such a case, I submit, and therefore I cannot allow the Bill to be introduced. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee), will have to comply with the rule of the House. I will give a more elaborate opinion to-morrow if necessary.
Motion ruled out of order,



DOMINION LANDS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. OLIVER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 107) to amend the Dominion Lands Act. He said: This Bill is a very short amendment. It relates to the disposition of schools lands. As these sections stand in the Act at present they provide only for the sale of school lands. In practice it is frequently found desirable that school lands should be leased for various purposes, such as grazing rights, mineral rights, or timber rights. There is no specific authority in the Act now to permit leasing and while in practice we have granted leases it is thought it would be right and proper that the practice should be sanctioned by an amendment to the Act.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	What advances have been made since the 1st of July, 1905, to the Quebec Harbour Commissioners P
2.	What rate of interest has been imposed on these loans?


Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	$543,748.16.
2.	4 per cent, but no amount of interest has been received on account thereof.


MR. FERDINAND ROY.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	Is Mr. Ferdinand Roy, of St. Lazare, county of Bellechasse, employed by the government or by the Transcontinental Company?
2.	If so, what is the date of his appointment* what is his monthly or yearly salary, and what is the nature of the services he renders to the government?


Mr. SPEAKER.: 3.	Has he made any reports to the government or to the company since his appointment? If so, how many reports has he made, and are they in writing?
4.	What amounts has he received from the government since his appointment?
Mr. GRAHAM-:
1.	Mr. Ferdinand Roy is not employed by the Department of Railways and Canals, nor the Transcontinental Railway Commission.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.


OTTLECOCK DAM.
Mr. CROCKET:: 1.	Did the Department of Public Works authorize the construction during the year 1910 of a dam and wing on the Ottiecock stream in the county of Victoria, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, at whose request was said work undertaken, what was the object thereof, and what was the cost?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: 1 and 2. No.


COTEAU LANDING BREAKWATER.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Has the government decided to construct a breakwater at Coteau Landing? If so, what amount is appropriated for this purpose?
2.	Will the work be done by contract or by the department? If by contract, is it granted at the present time, and what is the name of the contractor?
3.	Has the government considered whether the construction of a new sluice would not be preferable and less expensive?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes. An amount has been placed in the parliamentary estimates for the present session of 1910-11 for that purpose.
2.	(a) Tenders will be called for in the usual way for the principal part of the work, which will be let by contract, (b) No. (c) None.
3.	The engineers have considered all the circumstances, and have decided that the construction of a breakwater will be the most satisfactory solution of the problem.


Mr. BOYER:: Since when has the project of constructing a breakwater at Coteau Landing been under consideration?


Mr. GRAHAM.: For several years past.


SOULANGES CANAL DAMAGES.
Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Is there a claim before the Department of Railways and Canals on the part of Mr. Denis Martin and others residing near the Soulanges oanal for damages sustained?
2.	In what years are these claims dated?
3.	Does the government intend to reply to them shortly in one way or another?

4.	What are the causes, which have up till now, delayed the solution of this matter?
5.	The government having already replied to one of those interested that it could do nothing before having a report of the engineers charged to make a hydrographical or topographical plan, is this work finished and when did it commence?
6.	Could not the department have a partial report of the plan relating to the persons charming damages in order to take more sipeedy action in one way or another?


TRADE WITH NEWFOUNDLAND.
Mr. MACDONALD.: 1.	What is the total value of exports to Newfoundland from 1900 to 1910, inclusive, in eaclh year?
2.	What is the total value of imports from Newfoundland during each year of said period inclusive?


Mr. PATERSON:: 


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	1905.
3.	Yes; as soon as the necessary reports from the engineers can be obtained.
4.	The necessity of making certain surveys, &c., in connection with the water sheds.
5.	The report of the engineers- have not as yet been received by the department. This work commenced in 1908.
6.	It is necessary that certain observations be made during the spring freshet before any action can be taken.


SARDINE CANNERIES.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Bow many canneries are there in Canada in which sardines preserved in oil are put up, where are they located, and how many persons are employed in each?
2.	How many cans of sardines, preserved in oil, were put up by each of said canneries during the last year, and what was the value of the pack of each cannery?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Four. Black Harbour, Charlotte county, employs 100 persons. Letang, Charlotte county, employs 80 persons. Fair Haven, Charlotte county, employs 40 persons. Leonardville, Charlotte county, employs 25 persons.
2.	Black Harbour, 3,000,000 cans, value, $97,500; Letang, 950,000 cans, value $30,875; Fair Haven, 550,000 cans, value $17,875; Leonardville, 250,000 cans, value $8,125.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY TELEGRAPHERS CONCILIATION BOARD.
Mr. MACDONALD:: Under what statute and what section of statute was the Board of Conciliation granted to the telegraphers on the Intercolonial railway which is now sitting?


Mr. KING:: Under section 6 of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907, the Crown consenting to take advantage of the Act, though not specially named in it.
1. The total value of exports from Canada to Newfoundland during the fiscal years from 1900 to 1910, inclusive, was as follows:
1900		 $2,144,070
1901		   2,257,399
1902		 2,373,445
1903		 2,510,926
1904		 2,898,690
1905		 3,473,598
1906		  3,213,609
1907	(9 months	 2,244,469
1908		 3,408,518
1909		,. ...	3,552,293
1910		  3,970,952
2. The total value of imports into Canada from Newfoundland during the fiscal years from 1900 to 1910, inclusive, was as follows:
1900		 $ 660,678
1901		 625,610
1902		 1,118,567
1903		  1,197,372
1904		 1,076,757
1905		  1,059,417
1906	...'	
1,758,8071907	(9 months)	1,464,5821908	
1,777,6591909	
1,639,2301910	
1,468,099


TRADE WITH WEST INDIES.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What was the value of the exports to the various British islands in the West, indies during the years 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910?
2.	What articles formed the largest item in these exports, with their values in said years?
3.	What was the value of the imports from the said islands during said years?
4.	What articles formed the largest items in these imports, with their values in these years?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1. The total value of exports to British West Indies during the fiscal years from 1907 to 1910, inclusive, was as follows:
1907	(9 months)	 $1,799,426
1908		 2,483,118
1909		   2,549,043
1910		 3,109,825
2. The principal articles of exports to British West Indies, with their values in said years, were as follows:

285&

1907. (9 months.)	1908.	1909.	1910.t	S	[DOT]S	SCodfish, dry salted	081,711	859,138	870,545	840,615Herrings, pickled 	130,018	136,076	156,241	132,403Mackerel, pickled	47,776	57,374	64,796	90,593Herrings, smoked	
....	15,703	24,624	21,282	38,882Sea fish, other, pickled	24,399	35,684	37,255	47,873Planks and boards	102,587	190,384	118,614	156,647Butter	59,313	85,371	103,194	83,846Pease, split	66,769	04,355	82,852	63,806Flour of wheat	175,527	334,948	319,433	930,339Potatoes	34,019	44,433	55,063	49,939Total	1,397,822	1,832,387	1,829,875	2,434,9433.	The total value of imports into Canada from British West Indies during the fiscal years 1907 to 1910, inclusive, was as follows:1907	(9	months)	
$2,174,3921908	
7,211,8011909	7,387,0561910	
5,448,1994.	The principal	articles of import from
British West Indies, with their values, in said years were as follows:
-	1907. 9 mos.	1908.	1909.	1910.s	$	$	$Sugar	1,421,295	5,839,279	6,201,128	3,572,112Molasses....	335,543	929,433	362,799	1,413,960Bananas....	89,417	17,400	18,360	139,259Total	1,846,255	6,786,112	6,582,287	5,125,331


HOMESTEAD REGULATIONS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster) moved:: For a return showing all applications for homestead or pre-emption in the railway belt in the district of New Westminster, with names of applicants, and description of proposed location^ pending at the time of the recent suspension of the regulations governing the disposal of these lands; also any order or orders in council by virtue of which these regulations have stood suspended during 1910.
He said: While this motion as offered refers only to the riding of New Westminster, the conditions there indicated are common throughout the whole railway belt in British Columbia and have constituted during the past year a very serious grievance to persons who have approached British Columbia with a view to taking up residence there. I may say that in no other year since confederation have there been so many persons looking towards British Columbia as a place of future Mr. PATERSON.
residence, and yet we find that in this year, the year of all others when the Department of the Interior and its officers should have been alert in guiding applicants for location in British Columbia towards the land there, the railway belt has been completely locked up without, any warrant whatever in law, as I say, after diligent inquiry made of the Department of the Interior. We find the origin of the trouble to be in a new set of regulations sprung upon the public early in the spring without any notification whatever even to the agents of the department in British Columbia that anything of the kind was in contemplation. The result of these new regulations if they had gone into effect would have been to kill every one of the hundreds of applications sent into the department for locations in that province. However, at the time set for these regulations to go into effect an order in council was passed suspending their operation until a time to be stated in the future, a time which has not yet been stated, so that during the whole of the active season of 1910 we have been in British Columbia without any regulations whatever applicable to the land in the railway belt. I say without any regulations applicable but the fact that the administration is paralyzed appears to be due to the personal act of the Minister of the Interior, because when the new regulations were suspended it is quite plain to any one who studies the situation that the old regulations in the absence of any interference with them by law by any other agency than the proposed new' regulations must continue in effect. Still while by law they are in; effect we find that by the personal order of the Minister of the Interior, I presume, because it is in his department, by some order not communicated by order in council or in any other public manner, the land agents throughout British Columbia were instructed not to receive any applications whatever, not to deal with a bit of land in any way, not to give any

satisfaction to any one of the hundreds of persons who have applications pending before those agents for homesteads, on many of which they have been living but who find themselves now without any warrant that they will at any time secure the patents to these lands. The subject is not one which calls for any lengthy remarks, but I do submit that it calls for the attention of the House in view of the extraordinary condition revealed that by the arbitrary act of one minister the settlement of a whole province can be retarded for a season, and a most active season at that.


Mr. OLIVER.: Before the motion passes, I would like to draw the attention of the mover (Mr. Taylor, New Westminster) to a difficulty in meeting the request contained in the motion. The motion asks for a return showing all applications for homestead or pre-emption in the railway belt in the district of New Westminster, with names of applicants and description of proposed locations, &c. There may be record in the departments of applications which have been made, but my hon. friend will be aware that there is a great possibility of very many applications having been made of -which we have no record, and, therefore, we are not able to give him the information. In the ordinary course of the transaction of business at the land offices an application would be made verbally and there would toe no record of its having been made ; so that, while we are willing and anxious to give the hon. member all information in this connection, I desire to point out the difficulty that there is in giving him a large amount of information on the point that he particularly asks about.
In regard to his remarks on the subject in general, I would like to point out that he has rather misunderstood the question when he says that there has been no dealing with homestead entries in the railway belt for the past year. There has been no suspension of the regulations, and no suspension of activity in dealing with homestead lands in that part of the railway belt known as the dry section, that is to say, in the section of which Kamloops is the centre. In that area there has been a continuous movement in the way of dealing in homestead rights and my hon. friend, I think has been certainly quite misinformed when he gave us to understand that there had been no issuing of homestead rights during the year. "	[DOT]


James Davis Taylor: May I ask the minister whether these dealings were under the old regulations or under the new regulations?


Frank Oliver: Under the old regulations. To explain to the House fully, if I may take
the time, the reason for the condition of which my hon. friend complains in other sections of the railway toelt, the difficulties that have to be met in the administration are these : In the district of New Westminster, as well as in the district eastward of the dry belt, owing to the activity of investors in lumber, not absolutely all, but practically all the land that is suitable for homesteading in those sections of the railway toelt has been covered by licenses to cut timber. The general condition in those sections of the railway belt is that in order to give a homestead entry the land has to be withdrawn from the timber berth. There are exceptions to the rule, but my hon. friend is well aware that the exceptions are only exceptions, and do not cover any important section of the conditions existing. As the House is aware, the timber in the railway belt is of very great value, partly because of the great size of the trees, and partly because of the nearness to transportation facilities by reason of the existence of the railway, and for other reasons. When we have to deal with the question of settlers' rights in that way we have to deal with it very cautiously and carefully. While we are anxious that the lumberman shall not hold his license for lands that are proper to be settled upon, at the same time we desire to be careful not to withdraw from him, or to aid anybody else in any action that would result in causing to be withdrawn from him, those rights to the timber for which he has paid, and thereby cause the undue destruction of timber which is a most valuable asset of this country. The difficulties of the situation are such that they have been engaging the attention of the Department of the Interior for several years and, as the result of this consideration, some time in the early part of last summer, certain regulations were issued for the information of the public looking to the adjustment of these difficulties between settlegs and limit holders that, it was hoped, would be at any rate, moderately satisfactory, and would "tend to the further development of the country without undue *trespass upon the rights of any one. These regulations were issued early in the summer time, and were to go into effect, I think, on the 1st July, so that there should toe ample notice to everybody before they would come into effect as to what their character was. Not at all unexpectedly, objections were offered to these regulations, and in view of the objections that were made and of the very complicated and difficult character of the question that had to be dealt with it was thought advisable to give the matter further consideration, and to suspend the regulations until that still further consideration had been given and until all interests concerned had been further consulted. That is the matter as it

stands up to the present time. It is not correct to say that the suspension of these regulations has 'been any serious deterrent to settlement in the railway belt because there cannot in the nature of things be any serious accession to settlement in the railway belt until the question of timber rights, the respective rights of the lumber holders, and of the (prospective homesteaders, have been properly adjusted. As long as the limits stay as they are there cannot be any serious amount of homesteading in the sections of the railway belt which have been held under reservation. It may be said that entries might have been given in the small portions of those sections which are not covered by timber berths. It seemed to the government that it was advisable-for it seemed to be necessary to make a radical change in the method of the disposition of rights to settlers-that there should be no distinction drawn between the small area outside of the timber berths, and the large area inside the timber berths ; that is to say if it was sound public policy to enter upon a new system in dealing with homesteads in the railway belt it was right and proper that all should be put upon the same basis. So the matter has had to await further consideration with reference to all the interests affected. My hon. friend is aware, I presume, that we expect to have the opportunity of consulting a very representative delegation of one of those interests in a short time, and we hope after that consultation to be able to take such action as will relieve the present situation of which my hon. friend complains.


James Davis Taylor: If the new regulations were to be proclaimed tomorrow what would be the fate of the persons whose applications for homesteads are now pending? Would they be dealt with under the old regulations or under the new regulations?


Frank Oliver: That is a matter that is the subject of consideration at the present time. If the regulations which were promulgated in the early part of last summer to take effect on the 1st July as they stand were to go into effect to-morrow ali applications not already dealt with would be dealt with under those new regulations.


James Davis Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if nobody else wishes to discuss the motion I would like to point out to the minister one or two defects in his answer. In the first place, what he has said just now in reply to my question touches the crux of the whole situation, that there are in the district of New Westminster alone a great many applications for homesteads pending, and they have been pending for not a few months, but for many years, through no fault of the applicants, but simply because of Mr. OLIVER.
the dilatoriness which characterizes the conduct of business in the Department of the Interior so far as the Canadian Pacific railway is concerned. Some of these applicants for homesteads have been pushing their claims for from 10 to 15 years to my knowledge. The minister's flies are stacked with correspondence from me (luring the last few months, calling -his attention to case after case of this nature, where men have been trying for years to get their papers, where they know of no obstacle except the dilatoriness of the department, and where they are left in this state of uncertainty now; that if the regulations are proclaimed their last chance of securing these homesteads disappears, according to the statement just made by the minister, a statement which confirms the worse fears of these homesteaders and their apprehensions which have been the basis of the many protests delivered to the minister during the last few months. I would like to point out to the minister also that he misjudges the quantity of land available for settlement in the railway belt in the district of New Westminster. In one breath he tells us that the applications are so numerous that he cannot bring down a complete return because there are so many made by word of mouth as well as in writing. I think he will admit that when a man goes into the land office in New Westminster and makes an application for land, that he applies for a definite piece of land. I know of any number of cases where men have gone in with a definite application for a piece of land only to be told that there is nothing doing at all, that the agent will not receive the application for that or for any other land, and that the agent will not give any idea as to when the applicant may come back. I know also that the minister, only last year, gave away by private treaty to a quartette of favourites in Vancouver no less than 6,800 acres in one block in the district of New Westminster; gave away these 6,800 acres available for settlement upon which applicants for homesteads would gladly have gone; gave them away at the ridiculous price of $1.50 per acre, land which could be sold at an instant's notice to-day for $150 an acre or more; and gave those lands away .on the sole promise that there was some great dyking scheme in connection with it. I do not know what information the minister had upon which to base that transaction. I made some inquiries last year and was told that the department had no information at all as to the value of land in that vicinity. A short time before that a small parcel of land in the same neighbourhood was handed out to a political favourite at a price much below the market value and inquiry was made in this House as to whether or not there were" any more

lands available in that district at less than the schedule price named by the department. The answer was that there was no other land available at any reduced price, which was a warning' to all persons concerned to make no application for snaps of that kind. And yet, hard on the heels of that statement that no other land was available at anything less than the regular price, we fipd this transaction (at a still lower price) with an organization in Vancouver closely identified with the famous Bob Kelly whose name as the head of the British Columbia Tammany is now being heralded in the press of the continent. Now, I ask why the minister tells us today that there is no considerable quantity of land available in the railway belt for settlement for the small man who wants 160 acres, or, the 20 acres or 40 acres to be allowed under the new regulations, when onl" a year ago he was handing it out in 6,800 acre blocks to the associates of Bob Kelly.


An hon. MEMBER.: At how much per acre?


James Davis Taylor: I have already told the House at $1.50 per acre, subiect to conditions of dyking, conditions similar to those observed without any order in council or any Act of parliament by every farmer on the delta land in British Columbia; conditions which will bring to this aggregation of favourites from Vancouver a profit which may be moderately estimated at $1,000,000. One million dollars, Mr. Speaker, to be handed out without notice, without competition to a few favourites from Vancouver, speculators in land; while the department does not know of any more lands available there as to which it is worth while to give their attention to satisfy the demands of men who wish to become bona fide settlers.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the date of the grant?


James Davis Taylor: The date of the information about no other land being available would be about 1907, the date of the grant was in 1909, barely two years afterwards, and the lands in question are almost adjoining although the answer given to this House was that there was no other land in the vicinity to be obtained at anything less than the price laid down by the department. Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the minister should revise his answers and should find some other reason for tieing up' settlement in the district of New Westminster; I submit that he should take the House into his confidence and tell who are these fortunate people in the dry belt in British Columbia who had influence enough to cause the suspension of these regulations that were proclaimed
early in 1910. He might give us some shadow of reason why conspicious friends of the government in the dry belt should be able to have regulations suspended while their special cases are being dealt with, while at the same time people in the lower mainland of British Columbia, who have no other claim than that they are honest citizens and intending homesteaders, are turned away from his land offices with the statement that this government will not give any attention to their requests.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend asks how it is that, having said to the House that we had no land to sell in the lower railway belt, we afterwards sold some.


James Davis Taylor: Not quite' that. The question asked in the House was whether there was any other land in the vicinity of this land on Pitt Meadows, for sale at less than the prices laid down by law or by regulation of the department. The answer was, no, but hard upon the heels of that answer came a sale of 6,800 acres to the quartette of political favourites.


Frank Oliver: The question of my hon. friend sounds like an echo of the cele^ brated Robins Irrigation debate that occurred in this House. My hon. friend asks in regard to the sale of certain marsh lands at a price. We are not selling marsh lands at a price any more than we are selling irrigation lands at a price. It is true that an amount is paid, but that is not the price that we sell the land at. The price is the money that is paid plus the cost of the reclamation of the land. We sold some at the price my hon. friend mentions plus the cost of reclamation. We were asked if vve had any more to sell. We had not any more to sell; we have no land to sell for money in the lower railway belt. But we had land to sell for reclamation, and we sold it for reclamation. It is being reclaimed, I believe, and my hon. friend will not deny that the reclamation of that land means a very great increase in the value of thi; land in his constituency, and is for the benefit of the country as well. If my hon. friend is horrified at the idea of our selling marsh lands at $1.50 an acre plus the cost of reclamation, I will tell him that there is still other marsh land in his constituency, of which he knows very well, a very large area of it, which four years a'go we offered for sale-if he likes to put it that way, although I do not put it that way-not at $1.50 an acre, but several thousand acres for one dollar plus the cost of reclamation.


James Davis Taylor: Not to political favourites That was towards a public undertaking.


Frank Oliver: Precisely. It was an offer to constituents of my hon. friend or of his colleague for purposes of reclamation; and if he finds fault with us for having sold this other land at $1.50 an acre, in what position must we stand in his estimation [DOT] for having offered several thousand acres at the price of a single dollar plus the cost of reclamation? And the land, has not yet been sold nor the reclamation made.


James Davis Taylor: The conditions were entirely different.


Frank Oliver: I will admit that the conditions were somewhat different, but not entirely different. In the one case the land was marsh, in the other case it was partly _ marsh and partly lake. In both cases it was not land capable of cultivation without reclamation; in both cases large expenditures to secure reclamation were necessary. Because a less cost would be incurred in reclaiming the land in the one case than in the other, we charged $1.50 an acre, in the one case and only one dollar for several thousand acres in the other case. The reclamation in the one case is going forward, and I believe will be successful, while in the other case, although the land was offered practically for nothing, it appears not to be worth the cost of reclamation.
_ Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster). My information about a month ago on the spot was that the reclamation was going forward.


Frank Oliver: The bargain was made four years ago, and the last I heard of it was that the reclamation was not going forward. If the hon. gentleman has knowledge that it is, no one will be more pleased than I.


James Davis Taylor: The minister refers to Sumas lake?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


James Davis Taylor: The minister must know that he renewed that last year.	.


Frank Oliver: Under such an arrangement as I speak of the land was for a time in the hands of the strongest financial company in British Columbia, unless the Canadian Pacific railway itself, and yet it has not been reclaimed unless it has been done recently.	G	.


James Davis Taylor: The minister knows why that company gave it up?


Frank Oliver: I only know they gave it up. But if the company fulfil the conditions required and reclaim that land, I am prepared to defend the transaction in this House or anywhere else, and I am sat-Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).
isfied the House would uphold the action l took.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would ask what progress has been made in the printing of the proceedings of the farmers delegation which met here on the 16th of December last.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will take a note of my hon. friends request and ask the Secretary of State.


HOURS OF LABOUR ON PUBLIC WORKS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. VERVILLE moved third reading of Bill (No. 3), respecting the hours of labour on public works.
James Davis Taylor: I had not the privilege of being present when the amended Bill was discussed a couple of weeks ago, not having returned from the Pacific coast after our adjournment; but on reading the report of the debate on that occasion, I saw some remarks which I think ought not to pass unchallenged. I read for instance, the statement by the hon. gentleman in whose name this Bill stands (Mr. Verville)., that he had received from several labour organizations, particularly in Montreal,. petitions or memorials or other documentary evidence in favour of the Bill in its present form. At the outset I wish to say, in order to remove any apprehension, that I am not opposing this Bill; because the very smallest movement in the direction of recognizing an eight hour day, is better than no progress at all; but I noticed that the hon. gentleman did not specify what labour organizations had petitioned in favour of his amended Bill and what workmen there were who preferred this amended measure to the sturdy effort made by him in the first place. A great many members in this House have received petitions in connection with this Bill, but, so far as I am aware, these petitions relate solely to the Bill introduced last fall and not to its substitute. I do think that it would have been only just to this House for any representative of labour, who had a mandate from any labour organization to accept this substituted Bill, to have given us the address of the people for whom he spoke. I do not think that it is right that an hon. member should come here speaking as a representative of labour and leave us in any doubt as to the position of the great labour organizations in this country with respect to legislation of this kind; and you must realize that the bare statement by any hon. gentleman that he had received petitions from labour organizations does not carry nearly so much

weight as if he stood up here with the documents in his hand and read them to the House., spread them on the pages of * Hansard ', and allowed us to jee hy whom they were signed and what class of labouring imen were content with so small a measure of justice. I have a number of petitions with respect to this Bill \yhich 1 shall not present to the House in an anonymous way, but will either read or give the addresses of the organizations which have sent them. In the case of a very few, I shall read the petitions themselves because they are rather important in their nature. I have first one, from the Trades and Labour Council at Vancouver, dated the 2nd of January, which reads as follows :
J. D. Taylor, M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir :-I am instructed by the Vancouver Trades and Labour Council to again draw your attention to the fact that this central labour union has repeatedly placed itself upon record as being unequivocally in favor of the enactment of a federal eight-hour day, along the lines of the Bill introduced by Alphonse Ver-ville, M.P. Having this in mind, we will not burden you with further resolutions upon the subject, but desire to impress upon your mind that wage workers of western Canada are deeply concerned in the passage of such a measure. We heartily endorse the expressions and position taken by the members of the executive committee of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada wbo appeared before this special committee dealing with the subject some months ago. We further believe that the tendency of this day and age is towards a shorter work day; this, because the workers rightly feeL. that they should participate in some of the benefits accruing from the introduction of modern machinery. In fact, there are so few arguments against the enactment of such a measure that it seems needless for us to go any further into the question at this time. Trusting that we may have the pleasure of a hearing from you at the earliest possible date, -with regard to your attitude on this question.
(Signed) R. P. PETTIPIECE, Secretary.
I have a similar petition froxnLocal Union No. 16, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners -of British America, dated Vancouver. I have also one from Lethbridge, Alberta, -dated December 30th., from the Brotherhood of Painters and Decorators and Paper Hangers of America; also one from Labroquerie, Manitoba, date! December 19th. I have others from Toronto Typographical Union No. 91; the Journeymen Tailors Union of America, dated from Toronto; the Hamilton District Trades and Labour Council; the Hamilton Branch of the Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local Union No. 18; the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, Niagara Falls, Ont.; the Brotherhood of Painters, Decorators and Paper Hangers, of America. This last is as follows:
Montreal, Dec. 24, 1910. Mr. J. D. Taylor, M.P.
Dear Sir,-Through a unanimous vote of my local, I have been instructed to ask for your moral support on the eight-hour Bill presented by Mr. A. Verville, M.P. Hoping you will condescend to back this most needed legislation.


J. CORDOVA,
[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
Here is another from the Montreal Union of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 178; and still another from the Montreal International Association of Machinists, as follows:
Labour Temple, 303 St. Dominique St. Hon. Member.
Dear Sir,-The Bill No. 3 entitled ' An Act concerning the hours of labour on public works/ presented by Mr. Alphonse Verville, will soon come before the House for discussion.
We wish to inform you that our union, after carefully studying this Bill, has decided to support it and respectfully ask you to approve of it by giving it your vote.
You probably know that for a number of years the labour movement, not only in the province of Quebec but in the whole Dominion, has demanded this humanitarian and indispensable measure under the existing situation.	.
The investigation made by your special committee on this important question has proved without a doubt -that the objections raised affected principally the contracts for transportation by land or water, on the other hand the evidence given in favour of the Bill were well founded.
Hoping you will accede to our request and we may count you amongst the supporters of the Bill No. 3.
We remain yours,

[Stage Direction]
I have here another from the Journeymen Tailors' Union of America, Local 137 Montreal. The Montreal Trades and Labour Council-speaking, I presume, for the body of labour .generally in the ' citv of Montreal-sends the following;
Montreal, January 3, 1911. To Hou. Members of Parliament,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-At the last meeting of the Trades and Labour Council held on Thursday, Decern-ber 15, 1910, a resolution was adopted asking your support on behalf of the 8-hour Bill presented by Mr. Alphonse Verville, M.P.
As this measure is of great interest for the public in general, we hope you will give it your hearty support.
Thanking you in advance for your help.
I remain,

[Stage Direction]
Sec. Trades Council.
The communication from the Journeyman Stonecutters' Association of North America. Montreal branch, is as follows:
[Stage Direction]


Montreal, Dec. 24, 1910.
Dear Sir,-At a meeting of the Montreal Branch of the Journeymen Stone Cutters' Association of North America, held at. Montreal, December 21, the 8-hours Bill introduced in the House of Commons by Alphonse Verville, M.P., was read. By unanimous vote, the branch adopted a resolution approving every clause of said Bill and wishing for its enactment.
Respectfully submitted,
The Montreal Branch of the J. S. C. A. of N.A.
GEO. DURANT A YE, Secretary.
There is another from the International Union of Working Barbers, Montreal Local. The National Trades and Labour Council of Quebec writes as follows:
Quebec, January 21, 1911.
To J.   D.@: 
George Gerald King: Would the hon. member telL the House what- has been the effect in practice of having those words in that legislation, and to what extent the courts have found it possible to enforce the Act owing to those words?


James Davis Taylor: I am sorry if the minister, having such valuable information in his possession, has neglected the many opportunities he has had of presenting it to me and to this House, so as to enlighten our ignorance on this most important subject.


George Gerald King: The hon. member is trying to evade my question. The information is there, and if he has read the report he will see that the effect of those words has been practically to nullify the legislation. The courts found it so, and I call upon him to deny it, if it is not true.


James Davis Taylor: I am making an address now on Mr. Skelton's evidence before a special committee of this House; I am not denying or affirming any proposition put forward by the Minister of Labour, but I do say he has been distinctly derelict in his duty if, having information of this kind in his possession, he has been so careless, so indifferent and so absolutely sure that he can get a majority of this House to do whatever any ministers of the Crown tell them they are to do, that it is not necessary for him to give any reasonable excuse for any course he suggests to them. Section 2 reads:-

That any officer or agent of the government of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or any contractor, or sub-contractor, whose duty it shall be to employ, direct, or control any labourer or mechanic employed upon any of the public works of the United States or of the District of Columbia who shall intentionally violate any provision of this Act shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour and for each and every offence, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both, such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court having Jurisdiction thereof.
The third section provides that the Act does not apply to pending contracts. _ Mr. Macdonell, a member of the committee, then asks:-
Is there any other exception than the emei gency exception.
Professor Skelton-No exception.
The United States, having had experience for some time 'with this Act, and not having recognized the calamity that the use of the words ' or permit ' had brought upon them, according to the Minister of Labour to-day, proceeded to pass supplementary legislation nine years afterwards. But these Americans are slow; it takes them a long time to recognize that this is a misfortune to them. Prof. Skelton, at page 24, reports:
Letter carriers may be required to work as nearly as practicable only eight hours on each working day, but not in any event exceeding forty-eight hours during the six working days of each week; and such number of hours, on Sunday, not exceeding eight, as may be required by the needs of the service- and if a legal holiday shall occur on auy working day the service performed on such day, if less than eight hours, shall be counted as eight hours without regard to the time actually employed.	.
This Act was passed m 1901. The following year, that is in the session of 1901-2, the eight-hour law was explicitly declared to apply to all irrigation works undertaken by the secretary of the Interior.
So well satisfied was the congress of the United States with the operation of this Act after it had been in force nine years that instead of weakening it, instead of withdrawing it, instead of whittling it down until it meant nothing whatever it deliberately proceeded to extend it. The report proceeds :
In 1905-1906 when the Panama canal was being planned it was enacted that the provisions of the Act of 1892, the long one which I read, should not apply to unskilled alien labcurers and to the foremen and superintendents of such labourers employed in the construction of the Isthmian canal. . . To summarize, the federal government has provided that eight hours shall constitute the limit that may be required or permitted of any workman, mechanic or labourer in its own immediate employment whether engaged in erecting public buildings or fortifications-public works Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).
in the ordinary sense-constructing the vast irrigation works which are now being undertaken in the semi-arid west, or if they are citizens or skilled aliens, employed on the Panama canal; they are all in direct government employ. If they are employed in the government navy yards, arsenals or ordnance factories, or in the public printing bureau or engaged as letter carriers-I should omit letter carriers, that is a special .provision-they ail have the obligatory eight-hour day.
The proceedings of this special committee were carried on during very many weeks and such a mass of evidence was presented by persons for or against the Bill that it was suggested that the committee should call upon Professor Skelton again to help them to come to a conclusion. Mr. Skelton was examined as to the result of the studies which he had carried on independently during the period of the committee's activities. He was examined by a former labour member in this House in the person of Mr. Smith. He was asked about a specific law in Australia, and he said that :
The nearest approach in New Zealand to the legislation contemplated by the Bui before us is the Public Contracts Act of 1900, which provides that in all contracts above 20 pounds in value, for the construction or repair of public works or for any public service in which manual labour is needed, .current fair wages shall be paid and an eight-hour day observed. The discussion in the House when this Act was passed showed that it was designed to force on all contractors, particularly in outlying districts, where roads, bridges and culverts were being built, the hours customary in better organized districts. The eight-hour specified was, in view of the prevalence of the eight-hour standard, practically a fair hours provision. Overtime, more-ovpt is allowed.
That is on 'page 367. Then, on page 373, Professor Skelton hazards this suggestion :
If it is felt desirable that the Dominion shculd use the means at its disposal

I would call the attention of the Minister of Labour to this. This is his own witness.


George Gerald King: I think the hon. member is utterly mistaken when he speaks of Professor Skelton as my own witness. Professor Skelton was brought before the committee at the request of the committee itself. The committee was composed of gentlemen opposite as well as gentlemen on this side of the House. He was not in any way the witness of any one particular member of the committee.


James Davis Taylor: That opens another subject upon which I willingly would not have entered. That opens the subject of the procuring of Professor Skelton, and what I claim to Ibe double * dealing in this House in connection with

the procuring. 1 have the evidence in this book in my hand, and if I wanted to take up the time of the House I could read it, that Professor Skelton was retained three weeks before the Minister of Labour came into this House to ask permission to retain an expert from outside to assist the committee. I have 'the statement in this book that he was retained in consequence, and as a result of a conference between the Minister of Labour and the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and that the clerk of the House was consulted, presumably by the Minister of Labour, as to whether or not the committee had authority to engage this professor without referring to the House. I have the professor's own statement that he was communicated with by telephone. I would ask whether the members of the committee had a specially arranged telephone with one horn to the ear of each member of the committee, one speaking piece for each member, or whether they jointly spoke to this professor two days before he was engaged, or whether it was some responsible minister, some person with some show of authority, who engaged the professor, who talked with him over the 'phone two days before he was actually engaged, and told him to get busy and prepare for a formal call from this committee. I say it is trifling with the intelligence of this House, it is presuming too much upon the carelessness of the members of this House, this action having been taken in the hope of members not having read the contents of this book for the minister to attempt to lead us to believe that he was not personally concerned in the retaining of Professor Skelton.


George Gerald King: I am sure the hon. member does not intend to be other than'fair or that he would not like to have the House feel that he did not intend to be fair. Every statement which he has made may be quite correct, but the implication which he has tried to make, is not an accurate one. I can state the facts to the hon. member, and if I am in error hon. gentlemen who were members of this committee can correct me. Some of them are present and are sitting opposite. It was suggested in the committee before the Christmas recess, that some one should be engaged to compile the legislation of different countries, and advise us as to how this legislation had worked out in practice. An officer of the Department of Labour was not called in, not because there were not men in the department, officers who could do the work, but because it was thought that it might be considered that evidence given by an officer of the department was ex parte evidence in favour of one class. That the subject was one affecting all classes and that exception might be taken by manufacturers or farmers to evidence from such a source. The committee thought, and rightly, I think, that there should be an impartial third person engaged, and a university professor who was interested neither one way nor the other, and who was well qualified for the work, was selected. The situation when the "House adjourned for the Xmas recess was that we had either to delay until the House resumed after the recess, or retain his services forthwith so that he might have an opportunity during the recess of parliament, which was also his recess, of dealing with the matter. It was impossible for me as a member oi the committee to, on my own responsibility, appoint this gentleman or on behalf of the committee without making sure that his appointment would be confirmed later on. When the committee suggested, so that there might be no delay in a full and complete investigation, that I should try and arrange to have Professor Skelton do that work during the Christmas vacation, I consulted the Prime Minister and the clerk of the House to ascertain whether such would be a proper course, and whether if I acceded to the wishes oi the committee I might feel sure that the. House would support me. Having consulted the Prime Minister, that right hon. gentleman said, that if anything could be done to expedite the Tyork, and carry out the wishes of the committee it should be done. With that authority I told Professor Skelton that I had assurances which I considered satisfactory to guarantee he would be retained, and that it would meet the wishes of the committee if he would agree to undertake the work forthwith. If the hon. gentleman can find anything not in accordance with the facts in that statement I challenge him to |do so. But, the hon. gentleman is acting unfairly when he makes insinuation after insinuation, with the view of misleading every member in this House


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Minister of Labour had better withdraw that statement.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The last statement made by the minister should be modified.


George Gerald King: If I used language I should not have used I certainly withdraw it immediately.


James Davis Taylor: To avoid misunderstanding I wish to repeat inferentially everything I have said in this House, and. to challenge the Minister oi Labour to point to one sentence which I cannot make absolutely good from the records. I have listened patiently to the oration from the Minister of Labour, and I am not surprised that he shows heat; if I were in his position I think I would


show even more heat. But I would like to * ask him why he took up so much time to combat the statement I hazarded, that 'Professor Skelton was his witness, while the result of his effort was only to corroborate that statement in every detail. There is no doubt whatever in my mind that the Minister of Labour was the member of that 'committee who named Professor Skelton.
I	think I am entitled to assume that Professor Skelton was his witness, and the Minister of Labour has no right to refer ~to that as an insinuation. I say it is a fair assumption from all the circumstances.
II	have no direct knowledge as to whether Professor Skelton was his witness or the -witness of the Prime Minister, but I think a fair assumption from this report is that lie was the choice of the Minister of La->l>our, and the Minister of Labour having
[DOT]i" i bin, to offer his advice has a right to take that advice. However, this is what Professor Skelton says:
Tf it is felt desirable that the Dominion should use the means at its disposal, however limited, to set the pace, the path of least resistance it is generally recognized lies along the adoption of the eight-hour day in government employment

Not mark you only on public buildings under contract, but in government employment.
-and the insertion of an eight-hour clause for contracts on public works. Possibly the adoption of a fair hour's supplement to the fair wages clause might be discussed in thai connection.
To that extent, the professor bears out The contention put forward from this side [DOT] of the House, that if the government really [DOT]desired to secure an eight-hour day for ; government employment they could have [DOT]d-one it themselves without any of this :meaningless parade. Now, then, this witness called by the Minister of Labour proceeds :
If the committee decide to make the application of this Bill-
He was stopped short there. This processor having studied the question, having thoroughly mastered 400 pages of in-'.forination, being under the impression that he was called in to enable the committee to do something, proceeded to give his ad-wice whatever it might be worth, as to what they might most advantageously do, -when he was stopped by the Minister of I.abour, the very man who asked this House to submit the Bill to the committee so that the committee might perfect the Bill, and remove the disadvantages which would have arisen. I challenged the Minister of Labour to say whether he would [DOT]cause that committee to report back the Bill or whether he would not, and he answered me at that time in the most arro-Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).
gant way that it was an improper assumption on my part that he or any other member of the committee had any other idea than to report back the Bill to the House; and yet, this very man, being offered by his own witness a suggestion as to the kind of Bill he should report, stops him with this remark:
The Chairman. The committee has'nt any decision to make on that point.
Prof. Skelton. You meau as to the interpretation of the term 'public works'?
The professor could not believe his ears; he could not believe he was in the presence of the assassin of the Bill. The Minister of Labour said:
The committee, of course, is simply concerned with this Bill of Mr. Verville's; we have nothing to do with the framing of the law itself, but if you are dealing with anything other than what is included in that Bill

The meaning of the Minister of Labour was: For goodness sake, Mr. Professor, we are getting along very nicely now, we have got this thing so beclouded that nobody but yourself can make such a summary of all this evidence as you are making; if you present this summary to us, and tell us all what it means it will be incumbent upon us to report this Bill this session, so for goodness sake don't do it, and he did not do it. Mr. Speaker, he was not permitted to do it. Then Professor Skelton sa id:
"Well, would it be

He only got this far when he was stopped again by the Minister of Labour so anxious was 'he that this professor should not give that committee too much enlightenment. Of course the shorthand reporter did not get down the whole dramatic scene; you would need a moving picture machine to do that in detail, but something happened between the pauses, and so the Minister of Labour1 said:
The Chairman.-I beg your pardon, I interrupted you, perhaps I may have misunderstood what you were going to say.
A. I was going to make some suggestions in the event of the Bill applying to public works, hut perhaps that is not needed at this stage.
The Chairman.-That is quite proper; if your observations have led you to believe there are certain features which should be considered in connection with our public works, you certainly should give them.
This professor had been invited to make a recommendation. Not spontaneously invited. This thing did not occur all of itself. The committee were very coy about receiving advice from the professor; but finally they prevailed upon themselves to receive some information from him, and this is what they got:

A. Well, quite aside from the question, whether it is feasible to adopt an eight-hour day even on public works, I would like to say, if it were adopted there are some considerations which a study particularly of the American conditions have suggested. So that without prejudice to the question of the advisability of any such law at all I think it is clear that it would be better in framing such a measure to make a positive enumeration of the trades to which it should apply rather than to make a sweeping statement and then to insert exception after exception as to the trades to which it should apply. Again, if it were applied to public buildings I think some such provision should be inserted as that embodied in the Wisconsin law which provides that the provisions of the Act should be confined to work done on the spot, not to the preparation of materials necessary. It would have to be considered, too, whether an eight-hour day meant a 48-hour week or a 44-hour week, that is, the question of the short hours on Saturday might come in. The question of overtime is also a difficult matter. It might be possible to penalize overtime by requiring higher pay for extra hours, but the danger of this, of course, is that "with such a provision in the Bill, it becomes not an Act to enforce shorter hours, but an Act to enforce higher wages by beginning the overtime sooner. Possibly the prohibition of overtime except in emergencies would meet the necessity of the case from the viewpoint of its advocates. However, I am taking a very hypothetical case at present, and perhaps there is no need of going further into what might be done if the committee took certain action.
As it turned out, the perhaps was fully justified. There was no need of going further as to what might be done, because the committee made no decision at all, and did not report any Bill last session. At this stage, however, the committee were very well satisfied with themselves. Perhaps I should have said the chairman rather than the committee, because the committee as a whole, do not speak here. However, there are some members other than the chairman who do speak. There is one member whom I used to know as a most enthusiastic advocate of the rights of labour in the part of Canada where I live. At one time he was simply a splendid fellow as a labour advocate. No trouble was too great for him to take, no distance was too far for him to go. So it was only natural on this occasion, when all this mass of evidence, so entirely favourable to the principle of shorter hours of labour had been presented, that the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith), should have been the first to express his appreciation of it. This is what I read on page 380:
Mr. Smith.-I desire to say, Mr. Chairman, that the splendid address which Professor Skelton has given ns this morning has been of the utmost assistance to the committee.
The Chairman.-Yes, indeed.
Mr. Smith.-His address to-day was simply
splendid, and I know from experience that his conclusions about England are absolutely correct. We can rely upon his address, and it will assist the committee very materially. _
The Chairman.-Professor Skelton, I think that the members of the committee are very much indebted to you for the thorough and systematic way in which you have investigated the legislation of the different countries on the subject of hours of labour, and given us the benefit of your researches.
Professor Skelton.-It is very good of you to say so. I have enjoyed my brief experience of parliamentary life behind the scenes. It has been indeed a great pleasure for me to assist in the committee's investigations.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Was all that printed at the expense of the country ?


James Davis Taylor: Surely -a cord of it. Parliamenary life behind the scenes! Why, Mr. Speaker, he was not behind the scenes. He was only behind the first curtain. He had no idea of the operations which the scene shifters would set vigorously in motion the moment they got him off the premises. This recital would not be complete if we did not bring in the testimonial to Prof. Skelton, given by the father of the Bill:
Mr. Verville.-I must say that I consider Professor Skelton's report to be one of the best of the kind I ever heard in my life.
Although these explanations were the best which he, as an advocate of the cause of labour, had ever heard in his life, he asks us to adopt, not the magnificent programme which I have read to you, but something which he knows himself, is utterly meaningless, except as an affirmation of the principle, which has its sole value as an academic affirmation. Here is the valedictory of the chairman:
The Chairman.-I think you will see, Professor Skelton, that the members of tlie committee are unanimous in their appreciation of your work.
Now, it seems to -me that the Minister of Labour has another think coming, because I am satisfied that Prof. Skelton must now realize that the committee have no proper appreciation of his work, or, if they have, that these three gentlemen who heaped this deserved praise upon his last utterance there, would be standing up here vying with each other in urging upon the House that we too should show our appreciation of Prof. Skelton's services by enacting legislation which the experience of all other countries who have dealt with this subject shows to be wise legislation to adopt.
I am sorry to have taken up so much time, but I thought it due to myself, as a supporter of the Bill, to make some answer to the slighting remarks directed against me in my absence, impugning my conduct in common with that of other mem

bers on this side of the House as not being sincere. I think that, even at this late stage of the proceedings, we ought to have, from the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) some reason why he has thought fit to entirely ignore the recommendation of this professor who was called in by himself as an expert witness. When the hon. Minister of Labour and the hon. gentleman who has moved this Bill admitted that the conclusions of this professor were well founded and wise, and were a proper deduction from the experience of other countries, we ought to have some explanation why these conclusions and recommendations were dismissed so ignominiously as they were by the failure of both these hon. gentlemen to even refer to them in this House, and we ought to have some explanation why we are asked to read for a third time a Bill which falls so far short of the recommendations of that committee to which we referred the original measure.


Mr. BARNABD.: I am sorry to say that I was away on the last two occasions when this Bill came up for discussion; and while I do not wish to detain the House at any length, I desire to take this opportunity of saying that I was in favour of the Bill as originally introduced. I have followed with very considerable interest, as a new member, the checkered career of this measure. I saw it on the Order Paper the first session I was here and found it quietly shelved; and I saw it again on the Order Paper last year and had a lesson in parliamentary juggling on the part of the government by referring it to an expert, whose opinion they evidently had not the slightest intention of following, and in this manner they succeeded in shelving it another year. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) has quoted the resolution of the Trades and Labour Council of the city of Victoria, in which they declare that the present mutilated measure is wholly ineffective and that the amendments introduced by the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) on compulsion-because I leave it to the judgment of any fair member of this House if those amendments were not the price given for the support of the government-utterly destroyed whatever merits the Bill in its original form possessed. I noticed an article in the Victoria ' Daily Times ' a few days ago to the effect that the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville), when this Bill was in committee, said that he was perfectly willing to withdraw his amendments, and that thereupon those members of the Conservative party, who said they supported the Bill in its original form, became immediately frightened and receded from the position they had taken.


James Davis Taylor: I would like now to ask the Minister of Labour if he would allow the Bill to go through the House in its original Form, if the hon. member for Maisonneuve will withdraw his amendments? I have no reply but the answer is obvious. There was no doubt a bargain between the hon. . member for Maisonneuve and the government. The hon. gentleman took his Bill to the Minister of Labour (Mr. King), and I have not much doubt, although it does not appear in evidence, that the Minister of Labour drew up the amendments, and that the hon. member for Maisonneuve accepted them. I have nothing further to add except that I regret the Bill has been so mutilated and should be quite ready to support the measure as originally introduced.


Mr. THOBURN.: I have listened with a good deal of interest to the discussion; and the question which has puzzled me is why there should be the discrimination we see in the Bill as it is now before the House. Why should the government allow a man working upon a government building have shorter hours of work than upon a canal or railway? Is one man not as good as the other? By this Bill, in its amended form, he is not. But if one man be as good as another, why not give the man working on the government canal or railway the same hours of labour as when working on a government building.
I have never yet heard a good reason why the Bill was amended. Has the originator of this Bill received any communications from the workingmen of Canada to the effect that they were not in favour of the Bill in its original form? If he has not, why has he attempted to amend it? Is there any opposition to the Bill? Why was the Bill not presented in its original form? I would like to ask the hon. gentleman to what extent does his amended Bill benefit the workingman? In its present shape would it benefit say 5 per cent of the workingmen of Canada? Would it benefit 2 per cent of our work-I ingmen, or even 1 per cent? I would like the hon. gentleman to answer that question.


Mr. VERVILLE.: If the Bill be accepted as it is and the principle adopted, probably my hon. friend will have reason to change his mind in five or six years.


William Thoburn: That is not the answer I expected to get. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman still another question. As the hon. member has introduced this Bill in its present emasculated form, I would like to ask if he has received protests from any workingmen's organizations in Canada


Alphonse Verville: Yes-from two cities out of the whole Dominion.


Mr. BOYCE.: What cities?


Alphonse Verville: Victoria and Vancouver.


William Thoburn: My question to the hon. member who has introduced this Bill in its present emasculated form is : Has he received any protest from any of the labour organizations of Canada? If he has, why does he persist in bringing forward such a Bill in this House.


Alphonse Verville: When the hon. member (Mr. Thoburn) has finished speaking, I will answer him if there is time. But I am not going to answer questions as he chooses to put them.


William Thoburn: Will the Minister of Labour please answer that question? For, I can tell both these gentlemen that if they have not received such petitions, there are plenty of them in circulation. In addition to the petitions presented by the hon. member for New Westminster, I would like to present some that have been sent me from the labour organizations of the county I have the honour to represent and others, line first to Ibe called to my attention was the decision ibv the executive of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada in session in Montreal. The following is the account of the matter given in the public press :
That it cannot give fits approval to the proposed amendments in the eight-hour Bill to be introduced in parliament by Alphonse Verville, M.P., is the gist of a statement made public at 1.30 to-day by. the executive of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada after a session at the Windsor hotel last evening, which was attended by the Minister of Labour, and another this morning.
The statement is in part as follows:
'With reference to the eight-hour Bill and the proposed amendments now before parliament, the executive of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, after full and very serious consideration of the whole matter, has determined that it cannot give its approval to the" proposed amendments. Thh amendments, it is true, mean the recognition of the principle of the eight-hour day, but they are but a shadow of what the workers of this country are asking for. The proposed amendments give some benefit to the building trades, but will leave neglected most of those whom we represent. The principle of the eight-hour day has already been recognized by the government in numerous schedules enforced by it. That, , impliedly, is a recognition of the principle by parliament which has never protested or objected to those schedules.
'The executive feel that the proposed amendments do not fairly meet the enlightened sentiment of progressive Canada and are but a hesitating and faltering step towards the goal so generally sought in this country. Without further detail at the moment, the Trades and Labour Congress, through its executive, cannot, therefore, approve of the
proposed amendments and must stand by the Bill first introduced this session by Mr. Ver-ville.'
I have received a petition from the Trades and Labour Council of the county which I have the honour to represent which reads as follows :
Carleton Place, Ont., Jan. 30, 1911.
At a joint meeting of the trades unions held in Carleton Place on Thursday evening last, comprising representatives of the metal trades council, machinists, boilermakers, carmen, moulders, stove-mounters, polishers, blacksmiths and trackmen's locals, a committee was struck oft to draw up this letter to you defining our views on the eight-hour Bill and the amendments thereto.
We ask you as our representative to use your every effort to have Mr. Verville's Bill in it's original form. We consider that the manner in which this Bill has been mutilated by the Minister of Labour, who is supposed to be working in the interests of the workers of Canada, is a direct insult to us as a whole, and to Mr. Verville in particular as our representative labour member of parliament.
It appears to us as if the government wanted to get their caricature of a Bill through the House, in Mr. Verville's name, to be handed down as a specimen of labour legislature by a labour member.
Such legislation as the amended Bill promises to be is disgusting the workers here, and if there is a three-cornered fight at the next election we can thank the politicians who persist in ignoring the rights of the workers, who are beginning fast to realize they are the majority.
Committee, D. A. Bain, Wm. Simpson, John McPhail, George Humphrey.
(Sgd.) W. J. HAMMOND.


George Gerald King: Will the hon. member say who drafted that communication?


William Thoburn: It is drafted by the Trades and Labour Council of Carleton Place.


George Gerald King: I understand that they passed it, but can the hon. gentleman say who wrote out the resolution?


William Thoburn: The names of the committee appear upon the resolution as I have read it. Now, in the face of such evidence as this, I can only say that if the hon. member for Maisonnenve will introduce his original Bill, I shall have great pleasure in voting for it ; but I am bound to vote against the Bill in its present emasculated form.
Mr. COWAN moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock, the House adjourned.
*2883
[Stage Direction]


Thursday, February 2, 1911.