1917-07-27

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Superintendent of Insurance for the Dominion of Canada for the year ending December 31,	1916.-Sir Thomas
White.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK COCHRANE (Minister of Railways) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 118, to amend the Government Railways Act.
Mr. GRAHAM:: Explain.


Mr. COCHRANE:: This is to put the Government railways under the railway commission, just the same as any other railways, with the exception of claims against the railway and the expropriation clauses of the Railway Act.


Mr. MACDONALD:: The minister's statement is rather indefinite. Does that mean that the operation of the Government railways will be placed under the board, or simply the freight and passenger tariffs?


Francis Cochrane: It includes everything except expropriation clauses and claims against the Government railways


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The railways will be operated by the Government?


Francis Cochrane: Oh, yes.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Sir SAM HUGHES:: I desire to ask the Government or the Minister of Militia for information regarding the publication of the answer of Colonel Bruce to the so-called Babtie report. I should also like to know whether the Babtie who is at the head of the commission inquiring into Dr. Bruce's report is the same Dr. Babtie who was involved in the notorious scandal in connection with the British Medical Service in Mesopotamia, and who has been practically relegated from the service.


Sir EDWARD KEMP:: I speak subject to correction, but I think the last time this question was asked in the House the Prime Minister stated that he proposed sending Dr.
244*
Bruce's report to the minister of the overseas forces for consideration, 'before laying it on the Table, and he gave certain reasons for that. I know nothing more about the matter than what was stated by the Prime Minister at the time. With regard to my hon. friend's other question about General Babtie, I have heard nothing about the matter to which he refers.
Sir SAM HUG-HES: Surely the Government would not let a valuable document like that pass out of their hands without keeping a copy. I might say that it would be possible for me to furnish the Government with a copy if they have not got one. I think in the interests of the country the report .should be laid on the Table and printed for distribution.


Albert Edward Kemp: I will draw the
Prime Minister's attention to the matter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is the report of Dr. Bruce being witheld until some answer to it can be prepared?


Albert Edward Kemp: I have no more
information on the subject than was given to the House by the Prime Minister, but I shall be glad to direct his attention to my hon. friend's question.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As this matter comes under the Militia Department, and as there is no Minister of Militia except my hon. friend and the so-called acting minister in England, how is it that my hon. friend comes to this Parliament and says, as Minister of Militia, that he knows nothing whatever about this matter? If he does not know, who does? Why has not Dr. Bruce's report been laid on the Table?


Albert Edward Kemp: The Prime Minister gave what I presume was a satisfactory answer to the House a short time ago, since then no further information on the subject has come before me. The matter was one which the minister of the overseas forces has to do. He is a colleague of mine, in control of the overseas forces in Great Britain. He is subject to the Prime Minister's direction, and not to that of the Minister of Militia, as my hon. friend seems to think.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are we to understand that there are two Ministers of Militia, one here -and one on the other side, although there is no constitutional authority for the appointment of that other one?


Albert Edward Kemp: The order in council creating the position of minister of over-

seas forces was laid on the Table. It states exactly what his position is and what his duties are. He reports to the Prime Minister.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. A. DESCARRIES (Jacques Cartier) (translation):: Mr. Speaker, when the vote was taken on the third reading of Bill No. 75, Military Service Act, 1917, I was not in my seat in the House. I was under the impression that the vote would be only taken during the night, so that I was aboard the train on my way to Ottawa -when the vote was taken. I wish to state that, if I had been here, I would have registered my vote against the measure.



EMPLOYMENT OF RETURNED SOLDIERS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY St. John City):	I should like to ask a question of
the Minister of Militia-
An hon. MEMBER:: Which one?
iSir EDWfARD KEMP:	I am the one
here.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: We have two Ministers of Militia, and it is sometimes rather confusing. The question I wish to ask is of very great importance as affecting recruiting, if the opportunity for voluntary enlistment has not been entirely cut off. I am informed that the Veterans' Association in the city of St. John, composed of nearly 300 returned soldiers, has recently passed a very strong resolution protesting against the employment in New Brunswick of men and officers-and some of the officers are employed at very high salaries- who have not been to the front. The opinion expressed by the veterans is that these positions ought to be given to men and officers who have been to the front. I understand that a copy of the resolution has been forwarded to my hon. friend the Minister of Miutia. I would like to- ask him if he has received the resolution, and what 'action he purposes taking with regard to it.


Hon.   S@: The resolution to which my hon. friend refers has not yet reached me. There is a good deal to be said in respect of the opinion expressed by the

Veteran's Association, as set out by my hon. friend from St. John. There are a certain number of surplus officers in Canada, and we are having the matter investigated by a competent board, with a view to seeing which officers should be retained, and which can be dispensed with, so that they may revert to civil life, particularly at this time when there are better opportunities for employment than there may be when the war closes. The matter is actually under investigation.



PREVENTIVE OFFICERS-INLAND REVENUE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. LAPOINTE:: When the estimates of the Minister of Inland Revenue were under discussion last night, the minister promised that a list of the temporary preventive officers of his department would be placed on Hansard. This list does not appear in Hansard. I do not think that is treating the IjTousa fairly. The estimates were passed with the understanding that this list would be furnished, and I ask that it be placed on Hansard tomorrow.


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: The Minister of Inland Revenue is not present at the moment, but I may say that a member of the Hansard staff spoke to me last night when I was leaving the Chamber, and stated it would be irregular to place such a list upon Hansard unless it had been read in the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Except by consent.


William Thomas White: That is probably the explanation of the fact that the statement does not appear in Hansard. However, I shall bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Inland Revenue.


Ernest Lapointe: The Minister of Inland Revenue was quite ready to read the list last night, and it was only by unanimous consent of the committee that its reading was dispensed with, with the understanding that it would he given to Hansard.


William Thomas White: I will direct the attention of the minister to the point. Hansard, of course, would have no objection of embodying such a list in the report, if it is regular to do so. I should think it could be done with the unanimous consent of the House, but not otherwise. I assume the House is unanimous in consenting to it.
And consent being given.



INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT PREVENTIVE SERVICE, 1917-18.

[Stage Direction]
Proposed
Names.	Divisions.	Date	of First	Present	Salary forAppointment.	Salary.	1917-18.Carson, J. F.	Brantford 1	Mch.	1. 1914	$ 900 00	$ 900 00Hanham, J. H.	Hamilton	Jun.	12, 1916	900 00	900 00Smith, J. F.	"	Jun.	12, 1916	1,0-00 0-0	1,000 00Duffy, M.	Kingston	Jun.	1, 1915	900 00	900 00Miller, C. W.	London	Sep.	1, 1915	900 00	900 00McCort, J.	. .«	Mch.	9, 1912	900 00	900 00Baron, J. H.	Ottawa	Nov.	6, 1914	1,000 00	1,000 00Cryne, J.	Nov.	16, 1914	900 00	900 00Dennison, F.	««	Jan.	14, 1909	900 00	900 00Harty, M. J.	Feb.	5, 1914	900 00	900 00Goulet, A.	Jul.	2, 1915	900 00	900 00Laverdure, E.	*«	Oct.	28, 1915	900 00	900 00Labelle, V.	Oct.	1, 1913	900 00	900 00Boudreault, J. H. L.	Oct.	25, 1915	900 00	900 00Roy, E.	"	Jun.	22, 1916	900 00	900 00Corbeil, A.	Jan.	1, 1917	660 00	650 00Dugal, G. A.	Jan.	1, 1912	900 00	900 00Barbeau,	Aug.	1, 1915	900 00	900 00Charbonneau, J. A.	"	Jun.	28, 1915	900 00	900 00Ruel, A.	"	Jul.	2-6, 1916	900 00	900 00Kelso, J. P.	Prescott	Feb.	10, 1915	900 O'O	900 00Floody, E.	Toronto.	Apl.	16/1900	1,000 00	1,000 00Wickens, A.	Windsor	Feb.	13, 1912	900 00	900 00Lamont, S.	"	Jul.	11, 1916	900 00	900 00Quesnel, G. A.	Three Rivers	Jul.	25, 1914	900 00	900 00Trudel, A.	"	Aug.	12, 1914	900 00	900 00Thivierge, P.	"	May	20, 1915	900 00	900 00Kelly, J. T.	St. John, N.B.	Apl.	15, 1S89	1,000 00	1,000 00Healey, T. J.	Halifax, N.S.	Mch.	9, 1915	900 00	900 00Bowles, H. W.	"	Aug.	1, 1915	900 00	900 00Arsenault, J. F.	Charlottetown	Oct.	23, 1916	800 00	800 00Walker, M. W. W.	"	Mch.	22, 1916	900 00	900 00Cosgrove, J. B.	Winnipeg	Jul.	2, 1915	900 00	900 00Belanger, A.	"	Jan.	2, 1913	900 00	900 00Ashton, H.	"	Feb.	1, 1910	900 00	900 00Davis, T. J.	"	Nov.	1, 1910	900 00	900 00Sparling, E. J.	**	Jul.	5, 1916	900 00	900 00Fidler, E.	Calgary	Jan.	2, 1912	900 00	J'09 00Joughin, W. J. C.	Calgary	May	19, 1913	900 00	900 00Richards, D. H.	"	Nov.	5, 1913	900 00	900 00Green, W.	"	Nov.	1, 1916	900 00	900 00Farrell, W. J.	Edmonton	Jun.	1, 1914	900 00	900 00McLeod, J.	"	Jul.	10, 1916	900 00	900 00Danis, J. M.	Moose jaw	Mch.	22, 1917	1,200 00	1,200 00Greig, J. T.	Saskatoon	Jan.	19, 1914	900 00	900 00Warren, G. S.	Montreal	Mch.	9, 1891	900 00	900 00Brossard, W.	"	May	29, 1915	1,200 00	1,200 00Dansereau, G. A.	[DOT]*	Jul.	17, 1911	900 00	900 00Barnes, F.	*«	Oct.	17, 1907	900 00	900 00Bessette, H.	"	Oct.	12, 1909	900 00	900 00Lanthier, E. *	" '	Dec.	28, 1914	900 00	900 00Boudet, E.	"	Nov.	1, 1916	200 00	200 00Cot6, F. X.	Quebec	Nov.	18, 1915	900 00	900 00Fortin, J.	"	Feb.	8, 1916	900 00	900 00Duggan, E.	"	Sep.	1, 1897	900 00	900 00Robitaille, L. P.	"	Jan.	22, 1913	900 00	900 00Bolduc, L.'	"	Oct.	23, 1915	900 00	900 00Paquet, L.	"	Nov.	27, 1915	900 00	900 00Fiset, A.	"	May	25, 1915	900 00	900 00Traversy, F. X.	"	Nov.	7, 1893	900 00	900 00Bouchard, J. M. A.	"	Jun.	11, 1906	900 00	900 00Gagnon, J. D.	«	Oct.	27, 1915	900 00	900 00Somers, T. S.	Sherbrooke	Mch.	11, 1915	900 00	900 00Cadotte, J. A.	St. Hyacinthe	Jul.	3, 1915	900 00	900 00Raymond, J. C.	Oct.	21, 1913	900 00	900 00Surprenant, J.	May	20, 1912	900 00	900 00Labont§, F. X.	Nov.	15, 1915	1,200 00	1,200 00Chaput, N. J.	<(	Jun.	1, 1913	900 00	900 00Lamoureux, H.	««	Jul.	19, 1901	900 00	900 00Richard, J.	<<	Feb.	1, 1917	900 00	900 00Desilets, J. A.	Feb.	8, 1916	900 00	900 00Landry, W.	Nov.	IS, 1914	900 00	900 00
INLAND EEVBNUE DEPARTMENT PREVENTIVE SERVICE, 1917-18 (.Concluded).
Names.
Pauz6, C. .E.
Coutu, E. C. Champagne, J. O.
Roy, A.
Poirier, W.
Brabant, J. B. G. N., Vice Brabant Ledoux, H.
Rainville, J. E. Cousineau, H.
Hughes, M.
Lafleur, G. B.,
Vice Lafleur Do ranger, G. A. Houde, J. A. D. Deschambault, E.
COtd, B.
Guilbaiilt, A.
Smith, D. J.
Gauthier, W.
Ouimet, J. A. P. Therien, E. E. C. Navert, C.
Babelle, J. D. Laurence, E.
Ross, W. L.
Lefebvre, S.
Pageau, J. G. McDonagh, J. A.
Shaw, A. I.
Eadie, J.
Grantham, J. A. Brown, R. H.
Quinn, T.
Divisions.
Date of First Appointment.
Present
Salary.
Proposed Salary for 1917-18.
Joliette	May	i,	1916	$ 300	00	$ 300	00Nov.	8,	1915	900	00	900	00"	Nov.	2,	1915	900	00	900	00Jun.	1,	1912	900	00	900	00Montreal	Oct.	1,	1916	1,200	00	1,200	00"	Nov.	1.	1916	500	00	500	00it	Aug.	2,	1915	1,200 1,200	00	1,200	00ii	Sep.	16,	1915	00	1,200	00ii	May	22,	1914	1,000	00	1,000	00ii	Sep.	28,	1916	1,000	00	1,000	00ii	Oct.	31,	1914	1,000	00	1,000	00ii	Feb.	23,	1915	1,000	00	1,000 1,000	00Mch.	20,	1915	1,000	00	00ii	Oct.	14,	1914	900	00	900	00ii	Mch.	1,	1915	900	00	900	00ii	May	21,	1915	900	00	900	00Sep.	15,	1915	900	00	900	00May	28,	1912	900	00	900	00Oct.	1,	1912	900	00	900	00Jul.	2,	1913	900	00	900	00Jul.	2,	1913	900	00	900	00Jan.	16,	1914	900	00	900	00May	20,	1914	900	00	900	00Aug.	1,	1900	900	00	900	00May	7,	1915	900	00	900	00Feb.	20,	1911	900	00	900	00Regina	Apl.	11,	1916	900	00	900	00Dec.	8,	1913	900	00	900	00**	Dec.	IS,	1915	900	00	900	00Vancouver	May	26,	1915	900	00	900	00"	Jun.	1,	1915	900	00	900	00"	Nov.	4,	1913	900	00	900	00


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. 53, an Act respecting insurance.-Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
William Thomas White: Since this Bill
was betore the House it has been carefully considered toy the Banking and Commerce Committee. I explained upon its introduction that I was extremely reluctant to take up so important, and so extensive a measure of legislation at this session of the House, but that the insurance business was, by reason of a decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council which challenged the constitutionality of the Dominion Insurance Act, in such a condition that this legislation is deemed absolutely necessary in order that the Department of Insurance may exercise proper control over that business throughout the Dominion.
On section 3-Application of Act:


William Thomas White: The Bill with the amendments made by the Banking and

$94,250 00	$94,250 00
Commerce Committee has not been reprinted. The Banking and Commerce Committee made an amendment to subsection 2 of section 3 of the Bill, as follows:
(2a) To any contract entered into or any certificate of membership or policy of insurance issued before the twentieth day of July, eighteen hundred and eighty-five by any assessment life insurance company.
This is sim.ply a transfer of an existing section 75 from another part of the Act to this section, where it would appear to be more appropriately placed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-Licenses:
William Thomas White: I have an amendment to subsection 3 of section 4-[DOT]


William Pugsley: Was section 3 passed?


William Thomas White: Yes, but we
would be glad to consider anything my hon. friend may have to suggest.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Section 3 refers to the application of the Act, and states the cases to which it shall not apply. For instance:

To any contract of marine or inland marine insurance effected in Canada by any company authorized to carry on within Canada the said business.
What was the reason of this exception? If the Act applies to all Canada, why does it not apply to a contract of this kind?


William Thomas White: The reason is that it is not possible for any one country to control marine insurance, which may be effected anywhere. That is the explanation given me by the Superintendent of Insurance. I have not a personal knowledge of it myself, any more than my right hon. friend has, but it seems to me a reasonable explanation.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would hardly think because a contract of marine insurance is universal, it applies to all countries. Neither this country nor any other country can have any legislative control over it. If you make a contract of insurance in London, or Paris, or any other part of the world, it must be subject to the law of some country.


William Thomas White: The superintendent informs me that the risk is upon the high seas and consequently it is not possible, in his opinion, for the Government of any country to effectually control marine insurance.


William Pugsley: That would apply to
marine insurance on the high seas but the Bill also excepts inland marine insurance, which would cover insurance on the great lakes and on rivers and insurance in the different provinces, which would be entirely within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. My hon. friend must get a better reason than that.


William Thomas White: The reason I have given is a very good one. The exception applies to ocean marine insurance as well as inland marine insurance. I was addressing myself first to the question of marine insurance, that is to the question of marine insurance, and the answer which the Superintendent of Insurance gives seems to me to be a very reasonable one. At all events, 1 believe his opinion is entitled to weight in the matter. As far as inland marine insurance companies are concerned, I am informed that a change was made in 1910, when my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was Prime Minister. It was made by reason of representations, which would seem to me to be well founded, that it would not be fair to subject the agents of inland marine insurance companies to the
provisions of this Act in competition as they are for business with companies not subject to the jurisdiction of the Dominion of Canada. I can understand that there is a real difference between marine insurance and other kinds of insurance as far as this Parliament is concerned. At all events I would point out to my hon. friend that if there is any objection to it there was the same objection to it in 1910 when my right hon. friend made an exception of this kind of insurance.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon.
friend would always be as careful to respect the laws passed by the former regime it would be all the better for him. In the meantime, I am not satisfied with the reason given us why, as a general proposition, we cannot legislate on this question, because of the universal form of the contract, applying as it does to the high seas. I am satisfied that they have a law in Great Britain on the matter. If my memory serves me aright, in my time we had some correspondence with the British authorities on the subject. They claimed that they could legislate on these matters as against the colonies. For the reason that their shipping is much more important than ours, they claimed jurisdiction. We did not always agree with them but still we did not contest the point. There must be some law somewhere and if they can legislate on the subject, why can 'we not legislate here?


William Thomas White: I think there is no doubt that we can legislate, that we - have the power to legislate, but it is not regarded as expedient that we should legislate upon this question because the companies subject to our legislation would be in competition with companies outside and they would not get the insurance business.


William Pugsley: Does not that argument lose force when you come to consider that there is the same competition in regard to fire insurance? One of the greatest competitors of the fire insurance companies established in Canada arises from the operations of the mutual companies of the United States. They insure properties in Canada, and although they have never made a deposit with the Government, they do a very large business. It is true that the contract cannot be enforced in Canada. A party sustaining a loss caused by the destruction of, or damage to, his property cannot recover against these mutual companies in Canada but must go to the country in which they are located for the pur-

pose of enforcing his rights. They are very large competitors of the legalized insurance companies having their offices in Canada. The same argument, in so far as fire insurance is concerned, would apply to the case of marine insurance. As my right hon. friend has stated, marine insurance companies are incorporated in Canada. Some companies are incorporated in Canada and other companies are licensed to do business in Canada. I do not see why the law should not he made to apply to marine insurance companies just as well as to fire and life insurance companies. The Minister of Finance has stated that some years ago, under certain legislation, marine insurance companies were excepted. I understand the object of the present law is to get over difficulties in regard to insurance which have arisen by reason of the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The minister apparently is urging the passage of this Bill, which is of enormous importance at the- present time, because of an intimation that decisions of the Privy Council have thrown the insurance business into a state of confusion. If they have it seems to me that their judgment would affect the position of marine insurance companies. If it is desirable to pass a general Act which would relieve the insurance companies from the difficulties caused by the decisions of the court, I think it ought to be applied to all insurance companies doing business in Canada as well as to fire and life insurance companies.


William Thomas White: No question has been raised as to this exception which was inserted in the Act. The case is not at all on all fours with that of the fire insurance companies which are licensed to do business here, which have to conform to the conditions of this Act and which are in competition with the mutuals outside of Canada. There are no marine insurance companies complaining of this legislation. In 1910, I find representations were made by the transportation companies that unless these companies were exempted from the provisions of this Insurance Act there would be discrimination against the St. Lawrence route and Canadian ports generally in so far as insurance was concerned, which would mean an increase in insurance rates and an increase in freight rates upon the St. Lawrence route. If my hon. friend desires that these inland marine insurance companies should be subjected to the provisions of this Act, and if we should meet his request, it would only mean that ocean freight rates to his own port of St.

John and on the St. Lawrence route would be injuriously affected. My hon. friend does not want to bring that about. It seems to me that his objection is ill founded.
, It is true that we are bringing this measure down by reason of the decision of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council raised no objection to inland marine insurance companies being exempted from the privisions of this Act, nor did they advert to the status of these companies in their decision. By reason of that decision, because it is so far reaching, it is unfortunately necessary that we should re-enact the entire Insurance Bill, and that is why we are now considering this section with all the other sections, although it was not touched by the decision of the law lords of the Privy Council.


Mr. NESBITT:: X .spent a good deal of time in the committee when the Insurance Act was enacted in 1910, and the reason given by the minister is the reason why we exempted these marine insurance companies. Besides that, there has since been no trouble over it, so far as I know. I do [DOT]a good deal of marine insurance when I am at home, and I have never experienced any difficulty since that time.


Wilfrid Laurier: By what law is it regulated, the British Act?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The British Act. So far *as concerns any companies doing business in Canada that I know of, they are regulated by the British Act, and we have not interfered with them. We did not interfere with them then because it was represented to us that this might make a difference to the St. Lawrence route insurance, and also to the inland waters insurance. That is why we exempted -this marine insurance at that time, and this Bill makes no change from the Act of 1910.
On section 4-Licenses may be granted to Canadian and foreign companies:


Mr. SINCLAIR:: In -section 4 there is a claus-e providing for Lloyd's Association to be licensed to do. bu-si-ness in Canada. Would that include the right to carry on -marine insurance? Provision is -m-ade in -section 3 that such an association may be licensed.


William Thomas White: Permissive:
-Mr. SINCLAIR:	That wo-uld mean that
they can carry on marine insurance in -Canada if licensed?


William Thomas White: They may apply for ,a license, but they would not do so because they are exempt undeT section 3, which we have been discussing. It is open to a marine insurance company to take out a license under the Act, but as that entails a certain deposit and a fulfilment of the requirements of the Act, it is not at all probable that any marine company would take out a license, as they are exempted from doing so under section 3.


William Pugsley: Subsection 2 of this section provides that a foreign company incorporated outside Canada, the moment it becomes licensed to do business in Canada, shall be deemed to be a company incorporated under the laws of Canada; in other words, shall be deemed to be a company incorporated under the Canadian company law.


William Thomas White: No.


William Pugsley: Why not? How on earth can it be deemed to be a company if incorporated under the laws of Canada unless it is deemed to be a company incorporated under the laws which provide for the incorporation of Canadian companies.


William Thomas White: I quite appreciate the point raised. It attracted my own attention, and it has been carefully considered by the Deputy Minister of Justice. If my hon. friend will turn to the interpretation section and look at the definition of " Canadian company" he will find that that definition excludes any British or foreign company " which becomes incorporated under the provisions of this Act by reason merely of obtaining a license from the minister .as herein .authorized." That, therefore, excludes from the meaning of the words " Canadian company " any British or foreign company which becomes incorporated under the provisions of this Act by reason of obtaining a license under the Act.
To come back to subsection 1, which is under immediate consideration, my hon. friend's point is, will the effect of this legislation be to make, let us say, a New York incorporation a Canadian corporation? I need not say to my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley), as .a good lawyer, that it is not within the power of this Parliament to make a New York corporation into a Canadian corporation.


William Pugsley: You attempt to do if.


William Thomas White: I .am sound in my law as to that. In .the first place, the Dominion Government has not jurisdiction to
do it. There is nothing clearer than this: that a company incorporated under the laws of any country remains subject to the laws of that country; that is to say, its domicile is that country. It is open to this Parliament to say that a foreign company shall be deemed to be a (Canadian company for the purposes of this Act, but that does not make it a Canadian company in the same *sense 'as a Canadian company incorporated under .the Dominion Companies Act.


William Pugsley: The minister does not limit it to the word "deemed;" it says it shall thereupon .and thereby become and be a company incorporated under the laws of Canada; not merely " deemed to be," but " shall be."


William Thomas White: Then let us say still I .am correct, because, in the first place, this Parliament, no matter what words are *used, cannot make .a New York insurance company into ia Canadian corporation. That is the .starting point.


William Pugsley: Then why attempt to do it?


William Thomas White: Because, for the purposes of this Act, it is necessary to put it in precisely the same position as a Canadian company. I made a suggestion myself, which the Deputy Minister of Justice ruled against, that it should be made clear that, by the insertion of the words "for the purposes of this Act," we were not trying to make a foreign corporation a Dominion corporation. The Deputy Minister of Justice, however, upon a full consideration of the purposes and effect of the Bill, by this section confirmed these words that my hon. friend now takes exception to, and did not regard it as expedient that the words "for the purposes of this Act" should be inserted after the word "be." All I can say to my hon. friend is that we are trying now to make the Act constitutional. The constitutionality of the Act has often been impugned, and recently so in a rather vague way, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council has declared it so. In that decision it was suggested that it would be possible for the Dominion Parliament to frame legislation, providing the wording was apt, which would give it the jurisdiction which we now seek to regulate the insurance business in. Canada. These sections which we now have under consideration have received the most painstaking attention on the part of the Deputy Minister of Justice and outside counsel.


William Pugsley: What outside counsel?


William Thomas White: I think Christopher Eobinson of Toronto. I hesitate, therefore, to make any change in this wording, which has been so carefully considered and deemed essential, in order that this Act may be held to be constitutional, should its constitutionality be challenged, as it has been in the past.


William Pugsley: I have the greatest possible respect for the Deputy Minister of Justice, for his legal standing and great knowledge, and for the ability of Mr. Christopher Eobinson. He is a young man of great ability doubtless, but these men are not legislators here. The responsibility is upon us, the members of this Parliament, and notwithstanding what my hon. friend says as to their opinion, it strikes me as a most anomalous and extraordinary thing to use the language which is contained in this section. There have been	two or	three occasions on
which Parliament has given to foreign companies incorporated outside, the status of companies incorporated in Canada. I remember one occasion when a telegraph company, incorporated in France, I think, was given the status and powers of a company incorporated in Canada. I think a company incorporated in the state of New York was given power toy the New Brunswick legislature to operate a street railway in New Brunswick, when I was a member of the Government of that province, or at all events, a member of the legislature. It was given power to operate in New Brunswick, the same as if it were incorporated in that province. But there are very rare instances where such a power has been given. It has always been the poliey of this Parliament, and the policy of the legislatures, when people seek to get the status of a company to operate in Canada, to tell them to go to the Parliament, or to the legislatures of the provinces, and receive their corporate powers. By this section it is proposed to make a foreign company a corporation under the laws of Canada, not merely for the purpose of this Act, which I might be able to understand, but with this extraordinary section, for which there is no precedent in the legislation of this Parliament, or, I venture to say, in the legislation of any legislature of any province in Canada. I declare most positively there is no precedent for this extraordinary language. It is provided that a foreign company incorporated by a foreign legislature shall, the moment the license is granted, 
become a corporation under the laws of Canada. The section reads:
Any company other than a Canadian company which may obtain from the minister a license or a renewal of a license shall thereupon and thereby become and be deemed to be a company incorporated under the laws of Canada with power to carry on throughout Canada, or in such part or parts of Canada as may be specified in the license, the various branches or kinds of insurance which the license may authorize.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why does the hon. gentleman object to it?


William Pugsley: Because it is unnecessary, and if you are going to incorporate a foreign company under the laws of Canada, you must know what powers you are giving to that company.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We give them all the powers a Canadian company would have, as long as they take out a license.


William Pugsley: Let us do that, but dc not let us make them a corporate body.


William Thomas White: W)e do not have to.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is wrong when he says: We do not have to. If a company is incorporated in Canada, and becomes a Canadian company, in order to become such, it must be incorporated, either by this Parliament ot under the Companies' Act of Canada. If it is incorporated by Parliament, certain restrictions and limitations are thrown round its incorporation. If it is incorporated under the Companies Act, it becomes liable to all the obligations imposed by the Companies Act. It has the powers which are conferred by the Companies Act, but here we propose, in vague and general terms, to create that foreign company a company under the laws of Canada. Under what laws? Under the Companies Act?	-


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Under this law.


William Pugsley: No, not under this law.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The moment we license them they become a company.


William Pugsley: They become a company under the laws of Canada. Are they under the Companies Act? Will the provisions of the Companies Act apply to them and govern their meetings, if they have meetings in Canada? Will it govern their obligations in Canada? Will the Companies Act apply generally to such a company, so far as applicable? The hon. gentleman will see they are not to become a company merely under this law and for the purposes of this law. If that were so, I could under-

stand it, and I do not know that I would have any objection to it, but they are to become a company under the laws of Canada, and every law which applies to companies in Canada would necessarily apply to these companies which take out licenses. The Minister of Finance says that this is controlled or regulated by paragraph (d) which reads:
"Company" means any corporation incorporated under the laws of Canada or under the laws of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or of any British possession other than a province of Canada, or of any foreign country for the purpose of carrying on the business of insurance.
That does not affect it at all. That^ simply gives the definition of the word "company." Why could the minister not say that this section applies to any company incorporated in a foreign country, obtaining a license to carry on business in Canada? Why is it necessary to transform a foreign company into a company incorporated under the laws of Canada? Why state a falsehood in the statute? Why put in the statute a provision which is a farce, not a reality? My hon. friend has stated that we cannot make a foreign company a Canadian incorporated company, no matter what language we use. Why, then, use language which cannot effect the contemplated result?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Can we not make a foreign company come under the laws of Canada, so far as Canadian business is concerned?	-


William Pugsley: Undoubtedly we can.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is all we are doing here.	.


William Pugsley: We are doing much more than that. We are declaring by section 2 that any foreign company obtaining a license shall thereby become and be deemed to be a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, with power to carry on throughout Canada the business of insurance.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: What would be the objection to a foreign company becoming a company incorporated under the laws of Canada?	[DOT]


William Pugsley: The objection is manifest. The law of Canada governing companies is the Companies Act. There are a hundred provisions of that Act to which a foreign company would not want to be amenable. Is it intended to make all the provisions of the Companies Act applicable
to foreign companies, or is it not? Does my hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) think that we can do that? Does he think that we intend to do that?


William Sora Middlebro: I do not think that we can make a foreign company a Canadian company against its will.


William Pugsley: But we are going to do that.


William Sora Middlebro: We are not going to do that, because we cannot.


William Pugsley: Then if we cannot do it, why attempt to do it?


William Sora Middlebro: For the purposes of this Act.


William Pugsley: It is not for the purposes of this Act. The minister wanted the words:
" for the purposes of this Act " put in, but the, Deputy Minister of Justice advised against that; therefore the provision is not designed only for the purposes of this Act. Any company which comes under this provision will be deemed an incorporation under the laws of Canada for all purposes. If this section passes, the moment a foreign company obtains a license under this Act, it thereby, under the clear language of the section, becomes a company incorporated under the laws of Canada.


William Thomas White: To the extent of Dominion jurisdiction only.


William Pugsley: If it becomes a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, surely it becomes a Canadian corporation; surely the company laws of Canada then apply to it.


William Thomas White: No.


William Pugsley: Then what laws of Canada do apply to it?


William Thomas White: This Act.


William Pugsley: It does not say this Act. Sir THOMAS WHITE: No other Act.
Mr. PUGSLEY. Then why not say, under this Act? I see no objection to providing that foreign eompanies should become and be deemed to be incorporated for the purposes of this Act.


William Thomas White: I did not, either.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is right in his view, and I think that if he had had his way he would have been doing the sensible thing. If Parliament passes this section in its present form, it will be doing

something unparalleled in legislation., and for which no good reason has been stated.
Sir THOM1AS WHITE: I am very much more modest than my hon. friend. I put forward the same suggestion, but when it was pointed out to me by the Superintendent of Insurance that the Deputy Minister of Justice, who had argued this case up to and before the Privy Council, was of opinion that those words should not be inserted, I bowed in deference to his opinion.


William Pugsley: Will the minister state the reasons for his opinion?


William Thomas White: I do not know
what reasons the Deputy Minister of Justice had for his opinion, but I am quite satisfied that although the words are not inserted the effect is practically the same as if the words were in. My hon. friend seems to think that the Parliament of Canada or the legislatures of the provinces cannot legislate with respect to foreign corporations.


William Pugsley: I did not Say that.


William Thomas White: I agree that my hon. friend did not say that they could not legislate, but he rather indicated that they did so very rarely-indeed, that it was an improper thing for them to do. But it is a very common thing to do. Take the case of a company incorporated under the laws of Ontario which desires to carry on business in Manitoba. Application is made on its behalf to the legislature of Manitoba and an Act is'passed which makes the company, for the purpose of that Act, a Manitoba incorporation. It proceeds,
4 p.m. therefore, to carry on business in Manitoba under the authority of that legislation; otherwise it could not lawfully carry on business in that province. There is no doubt that this Parliament cannot make an American corporation into a Canadian corporation; that is to say, it cannot give it any wider powers; it cannot cut down its original powers. But it can limit the exercise of those powers within Canada; it can determine the conditions under which that company shall carry on business in Canada, and it may declare that that company ie deemed to be a 'Canadian corporation in the carrying on of the business which if is authorized to carry on. We desire to make if perfectly clear that this Parliament has authority to require a foreign corporation to take out a license and to conform to the provisions of this Act before carrying on business in Canada. That is a point that might be con-

tested. In order to make that absolutely beyond legal question, we enact here that a foreign corporation-I shall quote the language of the section:
Any company other than a Canadian company which may obtain from the minister a license or a renewal of a license shall thereupon and thereby become and be and be deemed to he a company incorporated under the laws . of Canada with power to carry on throughout Canada, or in such part or parts of Canada as may be specified in the license, the various branches or kinds of insurance which the license may authorize.
The purpose of that subsection is perfectly clear to me, and I think it is to my hon. friend. In order to give .the Dominion Government plenary authority over this company in carrying on the business of insurance within Canada, it is to be deemed to be, .and by this legislation becomes, for the purposes of this Act, a company incorporated under the laws of Canada. The *question might be raised before the courts or before the Privy Council as to the constitutionality of this law; as to whether the Dominion Government had the right to require a foreign corporation to take out a license before it could do business in Canada, or make provision as to how it should carry on its business after obtaining the license. A sufficient answer to that would be: by this legislation, within the clear limits of its constitutional authority, the Dominion Parliament declares this foreign corporation to be a Canadian company, with power to carry on business as permitted by the license which it has taken out.
At first blush I had the same view -that my -hon. friend now has, that we-should insert .the words " for the purposes of this Act. ' I used almost the same language as my hon. friend. But when the responsible legal advisor of the Government, who has lived on this case, took an opposite view, and with much greater modesty than is possessed by my .hon. friend from St. John,
I thought his opinion and not mine should govern, and gave way; because we .axe enacting here a measure that has to .stand the test of the law courts, and with .all due deference to. the hon. member for St. John, no matter what respect I may have for him as a legislator-and I shall make no statement on that to-day-I would rather have the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice on a strictly legal point in a case with which he has been identified for so long a period.	*


William Pugsley: The extraordinary
nature of this legislation is my excuse for taking up a little more of the time of the

House. The difference between the minister and imys-elf with regard to modesty is that mine is normal and his abnormal; the modesty he has shown to-day is certainly abnormal. Surely when the minister comes to us with a piece of legislation in regard to the terms of which he is surrendering bis own judgment to the judgment of the legal advisor of the Government, he ought to be in a .position to tell us why the legal advisor insists upon this extraordinary language being used, language which did not commend itself to the judgment of the Minister of Finance in the first place. The Minister of Finance has studied law. L would say that he is a good lawyer. He has had a long business training, and I would regard his judgment upon a matter of business legislation as exceedingly good. He comes here to-day and tells us that his judgment has been overruled, and he asks Parliament to adopt this extraordinary piece of legislation-legislation which creates a foreign company, the moment it obtains a license, a corporation under .the laws of 'Canada, not merely for the purposes of this Act, but for all purposes. The foreign company is thus created a Canadian corporation under the laws of Canada, not under this Act merely, but under any law which relates to companies incorporated ini Canada. I think the minister ought to tell us why that change was made. Why would'-it not be sufficient simply to declare that no company other than a Canadian company shall be allowed to do- business in Canada without first obtaining a license therefor f-rom the Minister of Finance, and on obtaining said license such company shall become -subject to the provisions of this Act. That surely would be sufficient. Why it is necessary to -make this radical departure from what is recognized as good legislation, and to declare a foreign company a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, I fail to understand. I do not think the minister believes for a single moment that this is good legislation. I think he realizes that his own view was the correct one. The company might properly be named a corporation for the purposes of this Act. I think that is the minister's own view, and yet he yields to the view of someone else. Whether the deputy minister has personally given his opinion, or whether it was simply some official under him, I do not know, but the minister asks this Parliament, as if we had no sense or intelligence, to pass this extraordinary legislation against what was his own view when he was first considering the Act, and
against what I believe is his own view today. He is not able to give us a single reason why this language should be used.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I do not know anything about the law and I have no right to discuss a legal point, but it looks to me that section 2 simply intends to make these companies Canadian companies in so far as doing business in Canada under this Act is concerned. I do not see that it affects the companies under any other Act. It seems to me the section will accomplish what we are trying to dor


William Pugsley: Let us insert the words "for the purpose of this Act." I beg to move that the after the word " Canada " in line 7, the words " for. the purpose of this Act " be inserted. That would avoid the absurdity which would otherwise be in the -statute. It would do no harm, and would clearly carry out what I believe is the intention of th^ committee.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: All the big companies
have copies of this Act and they have not complained so far as I know.


William Thomas White: I do not think it would be wise to adopt this amendment. It was considered by the Banking and Commerce Committee and the Deputy Minister of Justice advised against it. My hon. friend asks for a reason why it should not be inserted. The onus is on him to show that it should be inserted, but I will give him one reason why it should not be inserted. Its tendency would be to qualify and cut down the effect of the language as it now stands. By this legislation which is thought to be necessary in ordeT to make this Insurance Act constitutional, it is provided that:
Any company other than a Canadian company which may obtain from the minister a license or a renewal of a license shall thereupon and thereby become and be and he deemed to be a company incorporated under the laws of Canada with power to carry on throughout Canada, or in such part or parts of Canada as may he specified in the license, the various branches or kinds of insurance which the license may authorize.
That imquestionably brings that foreign company under the jurisdiction of this Parliament. Now if the amendment of my hon. friend were accepted-and I have stated that it had occurred to me that such an amendment might be inserted-the effect would be to diminish the strength of the section as it now stands, by qualifying it. How qualifying it? For the purposes of this Act. I have no doubt in my mind that the effect of the section as it now stands is that

for the purposes of this Act the foreign company becomes a Canadian corporation, but as the matter is so important from a constitutional standpoint, and as the Department of Justice has specially advised against our qualifying it


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Was it the deputy minister? ,


William Thomas White: Yes, so I am informed by the Superintendent of Insurance, who took this matter up with him. Therefore I am unwilling to consent to the amendment, although I suggested the same amendment to the Banking and Commerce Committee myself. Our object is to make the provision constitutionally valid beyond all question.
With all due deference to the hon. .member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), a constitutional question is a legal question, and I do not see how members of this House can override the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice and change language which has been considered for the definite purpose of making the constitutionality of the provision beyond question.


William Pugsley: I move:
That the words "for the purposes of this Act" be inserted after the word "Canada" in line 7 of subsection 2 of section 4.
How can that injuriously affect the constitutionality of this section? The minister must bear in mind that we are charged with some responsibility, and if we are not going to express our opinion and decide according to our judgment there is no object in consulting this committee, and we might as well remain outside and let the chairman and the minister pass the Bill through without us.


William Thomas White: I should not like the hon. member for St. John to hold the view that I object to taking his opinion, or to considering the amendment. I am only answering what he said.


William Pugsley: If the Minister of Justice, in his place and with the responsibility that rests upon him as a minister, says it is better to leave these words out, I am quite willing to yield to his view, but to ask us to put through a clause absurd and nonsensical upon its face-and I do not hesitate to say it-incorporating a foreign company as a corporation under the general laws of Canada, strikes me as something the minister should not do without having the assurance of the committee that those words will in some way affect the constitu-

tionality of the section, or prevent the carrying out of its purpose.	[DOT]


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why not allow the clause to stand until my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) satisfies himself in regard to the point he raises?


William Thomas White: If this is voted upon I shall direct the attention of the Deputy Minister of Justice to the debate which has taken place on this section, and if he sees fit to' change his view, I will bring the matter before the House again at a later stage. I do not like to be put in the position of passing upon the opinion of Deputy Minister of Justice, or having it overridden by the hon. member for St. John. I would rather have it voted upon here, and afterwards if the Deputy Minister of Justice feels that the views of the hon. member for St. John can be met without in any -way weakening the effect of the section, I si all be agreeable to meet his views.


William Pugsley: That only shows the
minister is determined to put the section through just as it is, without being able to tell the committee that there is any reason for it, and even going the length of telling the committee that it is against his own judgment, and that it is put through because an official of the department, for whom we all have great respect, thinks it is desirable. The Minister of Justice is the responsible minister of this House, so far as legal questions are concerned. I do not think the Minister of Finance should hesitate to yield to such a reasonable request as I have made. I can assure him that by doing so he will not lose any time in the consideration of the measure. I do not wish to overrule the view of the Deputy Minister of Justice; possibly he is right and I am wrong. I have often been wrong, but sometimes I am right. It is just possible I may have hit upon the right interpretation of this section. I am constrained to-believe the Deputy Minister of Justice is wrong in the view he has taken. This is a very important matter. We are establishing a precedent in legislation, when we declare that foreign companies shall become companies incorporated under the laws of' Canada. We are establishing for all time,, precedents, which I do not believe exist in any other country in the civilized world. That being so, we should not hesitate for a moment to take the advice and guidances of the Minister of Justice.
Amendment negatived on division.


William Thomas White: I stated to the House that this question was raised by the Banking and Commerce Committee, and an amendment suggested substantially in the terms of the amendment made by my hon. friend from St. John. That amendment was submitted to the Deputy Minister of Justice, who stated it was unnecessary and objectionable. The reason I have asked that my hon. friend's amendment should be voted down is because he seemed to impugn my word with respect to what had been done. I will say to my hon. friend, because I am just as anxious-


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will permit me, I did not impugn his word at all.


William Thomas White: That was the effect of what my hon. friend said. He said we should get the opinion of the Department of Justice. As a matter of fact, we have the opinion of the Department of Justice. The Deputy Minister of Justice has been connected with this insurance case from the beginning to the end. I will submit the amendment to him, and if in his opinion it can be adopted, without weakening the effect of the section, I will see it is included.


William Pugsley: Let me say again to my hon. friend that I did not impugn his word at all.


William Thomas White: Not in so many words.


William Pugsley: 
William Thomas White: I have to insert after the word " or," in the 16th line, the words " any association of persons." The reason is to more accurately describe the
system of inter-insurance, which is not. confined to individuals, but applies to corporations as well. The use of the word " persons " would cover both cases.


John Howard Sinclair: Is this a new section?


William Thomas White: It is practically the same as in the old Act.


John Howard Sinclair: I see that it authorizes a number of individuals to be licensed to carry on insurance business. Is there any limit to the subjects that this association would insure? In Lloyds you can take out a wager policy. You can get a policy, for example, that the war will terminate before the end of the present year by paying a sufficient premium. Perhaps you could get a policy that the present Government would win the next election, ibut in that case it would require an enormous rate of premium. Does this mean that when an association is licensed to do business it can do *any kind of business it wishes?


William Thomas White: No; it can only do the business it is authorized to do under the license. We have authority to license a company to carry on the class of wagering business referred to by my hon. friend, but in .the exercise of our discretion I think it probable we would not do it. There is power to do it. They might apply for such a license and we -would have to consider the question whether we should issue it or not. So far we have not granted licenses for so-called freak insurance.


John Howard Sinclair: The license itself will indicate the kind of business that is permitted.


William Thomas White: Yes.


William Pugsley: Why is the word "individuals " used in reference to the word " association " on line 3, and in the amendment you use the word "persons?" Is there a different interpretation for the word. " persons " from that of the word " individuals?" " Persons " would include a corporation, while " individuals " would not. Is it intended in one case to exclude corporations and in the other to admit them?


Six THOMAS WHITE:: The word "individuals " -would not include " corporations," but it is the correct word to use in. respect ito Lloyds, because Lloyds is not a. corporation, but an association of .individuals. I think there is no question, about the propriety of this definition of Lloyds. Now we come down to .the amendment " or to any association of persons." That word.

" persons " is wide enough, to embrace corporations as well ias individuals.
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On section 4, subsection 4-provincial companies:


William Pugsley: What is meant by
"faculty?"


William Thomas White: I am informed
by the superintendent that the word "faculty" is used by the Privy Council in its judgment. It is not a usual word, but the idea is to make this legislation constitutional having regard to that decision.


William Pugsley: This is a very important section. If it passes in its present form the effect will be that a company incorporated and under the control of a pro-vinieal legislature upon obtaining a license from the Minister of Finance becomes a company incorporated undeT the laws of Canada. Therefore, it would, ipso facto, 'be in the future entirely amenable to the laws of Parliament and would be taken wholly out of the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature which gave it life.


William Thomas White: That is the same question we were discussing a few moments ago.


William Pugsley: It is a little broader
here.


William Thomas White: The judgement of the Privy Council was to the effect that the Dominion Parliament has no jurisdiction over a provinoially incorporated insurance company which not only does business in its own province but outside of that province. In other words, a provincially incorporated insurance company, no matter whether confining its business to the province of its incorporation or carrying on business under proper legislative authority in other provinces of Canada, is not within the jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament unless it submits itself to such jurisdiction. The effect of this subsection is to permit provincially incorporated companies to submit themselves to Dominion jurisdiction, as many of them will. It is necessary that we should make them Dominion companies so as to have jurisdiction over them once they take out a license, and it is necessary in the opinion of the Deputy Minister of Justice that we should make a provincial corporation a Canadian company so as to give us jurisdiction over it.


William Pugsley: Could that not be worked out in some way without removing them

*wholly from the jurisdiction of the .provincial legislature?


William Thomas White: I do not think we have wholly removed them.


William Pugsley: It says:
4. The minister may grant to a provincial company which has the faculty or capacity to carry on its business throughout Canada and to obtain the license hereinafter mentioned, and has complied with the provisions of this Act in that behalf applicable to a Canadian company, a license authorizing the company to carry bn its said business or any part thereof throughout Canada or in any part or parts of Canada comprising more than one province which may be specified in the license, and the company shall thereupon and thereby become and he and he deemed to he a company incorporated under the laws of Canada.
I venture to say that the moment that license is taken out, although that is the object of it, the effect will be to remove these provincial companies, incorporated by the provincial legislatures, having certain restrictions which the legislatures have thought wise to impose upon them, ipso facto from the jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. They will become Dominion corporations incorporated under the laws of Canada, which means this Parliament, and it seems to me they then become subject only to the jurisdiction of this Parliament. Have the governments of the different provinces been communicated with about this clause?


William Thomas White: The Bill has been sent to all the provincial departments of insurance many weeks ago. I do not agree that these provincial companies become by this legislation Dominion companies in the sense that my hon. friend has in mind. I do not believe their charters are repealed or that this Government has authority to repeal their charters. Their capitalization and powers', and any statutory provisions applicable to them as provincial incorporations, all remain in full force and effect. If a company obtains a license and wants to oarry on business in Canada under that license, then it becomes a Dominion company subject -to this Act. My hon. friend knows' as a lawyer that very nice constitutional questions may arise. It is said that there is no legislation through which you cannot drive a coach and four. It may be that they will try to drive one through this, but this is the language which has been recommended by the Justice Department and by special counsel to meet the situation created by the Privy Council's decision.


John Howard Sinclair: For example, take a
company incorporated in Nova Scotia, with a provision in its Act of incorporation that the head office of the company shall be 'in Nova Scotia. By section 51 the shareholders may change the head office from one province to another. If they should move the head office from Halifax to Toronto, which Act will govern, the Act under which the company was incorporated in Nova Scotia or this Act?


William Thomas White: I think that what the public should do in this case is to call in a lawyer and take his advice. That is a hard one.
Mr. PiUGSLEY: That is going to be the effect of this Act, if it is not the intention.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
will realize that we are confronted with a condition and not a theory. The condition is that the Privy 'Council has said that the Dominion Parliament has no jurisdiction to regulate the business of an insurance company incorporated by a provincial legislature carrying on business, in its own province, or even outside its province. If we had this Act, many provincially incorporated insurance companies would desire, for the sake of their standing if nothing else, to be subject to Dominion jurisdiction. One way in which they could bring themselves within the Dominion jurisdiction, although difficulties might arise, would be to take out Dominion incorporation and have the assets and liabilities of the old company assigned* to the new. This provision has been inserted to give such companies the right to make application to take out an insurance license and subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the Dominion Insurance Act. It is pointed out to me by the Superintendent of Insurance that this provision has been in the Act for many years, that the principle of licensing provincial companies is not a new one, but one of many years' standing.


William Pugsley: These words axe entire ly new.


William Thomas White: Some of them.


William Pugsley: Are not the words " and the company shall thereupon and 'thereby become and be deemed to be a company incorporated under the laws of Canada " entirely new?


William Thomas White: Yes.


William Pugsley: And they are the vital words of the section of which I am complaining.


William Thomas White: They are the
vital words, and the words intended to give the Dominion jurisdiction.


William Pugsley: And to take the jurisdiction out of the provinces.


William Thomas White: For the purposes of this Act.


William Pugsley: Why not say so. I urge that after the word " Canada " in line 18, the words " for the purposes of this Act " should he inserted. If you do not do that you are sure to have litigation. The minister speaks of getting rid of litigation. But he is opening a wide door, and for years in the future the lawyers will rise up and call him blessed and say what a great man he has been for the profession, and how many trips he has given them across to the Privy Council.


William Thomas White: Well, they are
a good lot.


William Pugsley: Yes, they are good fellows. How is it possible to argue that this is not going to take jurisdiction out of the provincial legislatures? Here is a provincial company which comes and gets a license. There would be no objection to declaring that it is to become, for the purposes of this Aot, subject to the jurisdiction of the Department of Finance and is not to be permitted to carry on business except under the terms of this license. That would be quite reasonable and possible, but for some occult reason hidden in the minds of the officers of the Justice Department that has not yet penetrated the mind of the Minister of Finance, this Parliament is declaring that the moment the company obtains its license it, ipso facto, becomes what it is not, and what nobody can pretend it is- in the words of the Act it " shall thereupon and thereby become and be deemed to be a company incorporated 'under the laws of Canada." I have asked the minister to put in the words " for the purpose of this Act." It appears he will not do it, because, for some mysterious reason, it may impair the validity of the section.


William Thomas White: I will say the same thing as I said before: if the sense of the House is that these words should be inserted, or if the Minister of Justice, after looking into the matter, is of the opinion that these words may be inserted without weakening the effqct of the section, I will see that they are inserted.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stands.


William Thomas White: No; I want it carried.


William Pugsley: It strikes the minister's pride. He wants it carried.


William Thomas White: No. I told the hon. gentleman from St. John that this amendment had been inserted at my request in the Banking and Commerce Committee. I told him that after the words had been inserted, the deputy minister advised that they should be left out, and they were left out. It seems to me the onus, so to speak, is not upon me to insert those words, and then have them taken out afterwards, but I think we should pass the section as it stands, on the understanding that I will again consult the Minister of Justice, and draw his attention to the observations of the hon. gentleman from St. John, and, if necessary, the section can be amended at a later stage.


Mr. MONDOU:: I have listened to the debate and the explanations given by the Minister of Finance in regard to these incorporated companies. A company incorporated in Quebec can go into Ontario and make a deposit and do business. -A company incorporated in Ontario can go into the province of Quebec and make a deposit there. These companies, by taking out licenses,-can operate in the different provinces of the Dominion. Supposing these companies want to take a Dominion license under this Bill, - and apply to the Department of Insurance, will this legislation effect the companies which take out licenses from the Dominion, as far as inspection and everything provided in this Bill, or will it be done according to the local charter of that company? My opinion is that it will, and that it will not be affected by this Act, and I should like to know if my opinion is shared by the Department of Insurance. I take advantage of the presence of the Superintendent of Insurance to make the inquiry. I think that the companies that I have referred to will be governed by their charter, and their status will not be changed.


William Thomas White: I agree with my hon. friend.


Albéric Archie Mondou: As regards the interna) laws of the administration of the department, they will be administered according to this Act, and those laws will govern. These companies will, have to make their returns to the Department of Insurance in Ottawa, but that is the only matter in which

the company will be interfered with by the department. Is that the opinion of the department?


William Thomas White: I would not like to express a definite opinion as to the precise effect of this provision, but that is my view.


Albéric Archie Mondou: That is the interpretation given by the department?


William Thomas White: Returns, assets and inspections.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-Deposit for license:
William Thomas White: In this section the word "may" is substituted for "shall." It is' thought that the minister should not be under an absolute obligation, and that it should be made permissive. The word "may" has a well understood meaning, and it is practically the same thing.


William Pugsley: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-License not granted to same company for life combined with other insurance:
William Thomas White: This section is the same as the old section, except in the 33rd line the words "in full settlement of the policy and as a substitute for all other benefits and privileges thereunder" are struck out.


William Pugsley: They are not struck out in my copy.	-


William Thomas White: The Bill has not been reprinted. Therefore the hon. gentleman has not the amendment before him, and I am calling attention to the amendments as we proceed.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On subsection 2 of section 8-Six classes:
John Howard Sinclair: What is weather insurance?


William Thomas White: Insurance against hail and tornado, carried on to a large extent in the West. It is a very important branch.


John Howard Sinclair: The various other kinds of insurance are defined, but this is not.


William Thomas White: It is defined in the charter of the company carrying on the business.
On section 9-license not granted where charter authorizes excess of classes:


William Thomas White: I beg to move
that the words "incorporated elsewhere than in. Canada" in line 16 of this section be struck out, and that the words "British or foreign company" be inserted before the word "company." The provision will then read: "Provided, however, that any British or foreign company which has," etc. That is for the sake of uniformity. British and foreign companies are defined in the interpretation clause.


William Pugsley: After foreign companies take out a license in Canada they cease to be incorporated elsewhere than in Canada; they are incorporated here.


William Thomas White: A company that is incorporated elsewhere than in Canada is either a British or a foreign company. It is thought 'better to substitute the words "British or foreign company" for "incorporated elsewhere than in Canada."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 31-Life companies:
John Howard Sinclair: I see in the margin on page 15, opposite line 38, "Fire and inland marine companies," but there is no reference to inland marine companies in the section.


William Thomas White: I beg to move that the words "and inland marine" in the margin be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 41 (a), subsection 4r-Winding-up Act:
William Pugsley: Will the minister explain?


William Thomas White: The reason is' that if the provisions of the Dominion Winding-up Act are applied, a great deal of unnecessary expense is incurred in the event of re-insurance being effected as provided in this section. My hon. friend will observe the declaration that any section or sections of the winding-up Act shall not apply is to be made by the court. That is the safeguard upon the section.
On subsection 6-Deposits outside of Canada:


William Pugsley: Why should not the provisions of this subsection apply to a provincial company licensed under this Act, as well as to a company incorporated by Parliament under the Companies Act?


William Thomas White: It would include a provincial company, because a Canadian company by the definition contained in section 2 (e) means a company incorporated under the laws of Canada.


William Pugsley: Subsection 2 (e1) defines a provincial company in an entirely different way.


William Thomas White: The point my hon. friend raised when we were discussing subsection 4 of section 4 is important here. A provincial company which makes application for and obtains a license becomes a company incorporated under the laws of Canada. If my hon. friend will look at section 2 (e) he will find a "Canadian Company" means a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, therefore a provincial company becoming by this statute a company incorporated under the laws of Canada, it becomes a Canadian company.


William Pugsley: Does it?


William Thomas White: Within the meaning of the Act, yes.


William Pugsley: What is meant by the words "provincial company" then? Section 2 (e1) states:
"provincial company" means a company incorporated under the laws of any province of Canada for the purpose of carrying on the business of insurance.


William Thomas White: Before it takes the license.


William Pugsley: Then it becomes a
Canadian company, and is a company incorporated under the laws of Canada?


William Thomas White: Within the definition.


William Pugsley: I asked iny hon. friend as to why certain provisions should not *apply to provincial companies .as well. I understood the minister to admit that there was .a distinction between a company incorporated undeT the laws of Canada and a provincial company which became licensed under this Act. It seems to me that you axe going to have confusion. The courts will bold that a company incorporated by a province, and which is a provincial company, the moment it gets the license under this Act, becomes a Canadian company because you have given a special definition *to " Canadian company " and " provincial company," as follows:
"Canadian Company" means a company incorporated under the laws of Canada for the purpose of carrying on the business of in-

surance, excluding however any British or foreign company which becomes incorporated under the provisions of this Act by reason merely of obtaining a license from the minister as herein authorized;
"Provincial company" means a company incorporated under the laws of any province of Canada for the purpose of carrying on the business of insurance.
Under these definitions, I should think the courts would consider the expression " provincial company " to mean a company incorporated under provincial legislation. However, if the minister is satisfied that the term " Canadian company " is broad enough to apply to a provincial company, I (Shall not pursue the matter.


William Thomas White: There is no doubt that in this insurance legislation, which purports to deal with provincially incorporated companies, there is room for a difference of opinion. That is inherent in the subject matter.


William Pugsley: Why not have another definition to this effect: A Canadian company shall .also include a provincial company after it obtains, 'and while it continues to hold, a license under this Act? Then there will be no doubt.


[Stage Direction]
Subsection agreed to.
On section 42-Valuation of policies of life insurance in Canada.
William Pugsley: The minister will see that a provincial company ceases to be a provincial company the moment it gets its license, and ,a foreign company ceases to be a foreign company.


William Thomas White: No, they become Canadian companies for the purposes of this Act. I do not believe that anything we can do will change the powers given .them by the legislatures that incorporated them, nor change .their provincial or foreign status -except to this extent, that they become subject to this Act as Canadian .corporations while they are carrying on business in this country under license.


William Pugsley: The minister has put forward the view that a provincial company, the moment it obtains a license, ceases to be 'a provincial company because, *in the words of the section, it .shall become and be deemed to be a company incorporated under the laws of Canada." If the words " Canadian co-mipany " .applied to a provincial company then equally would a foreign company, the moment it has taken out a license, be .and become a Canadian company. The same reason applies in. one 
case as in .the other. And yet, 'all .the way through .the statute apparently it is intended that the words " 'Canadian company " shall include provincial companies by reason of their obtaining a Dominion license while British and foreign companies shall still have a distinctive name and not be included under the words " Canadian company ". I think there is going to be confusion in the interpretation of the Act.


William Thomas White: I think it is
clear that for the purposes of .this Act a foreign company taking out a license here, and a provincial company taking out a license, 'become Canadian companies subject to the definition as contained in paragraph (e) of section 2.
"Canadian Company" means a company incorporated under the laws of Canada for the purpose of carrying on the business of insurance, excluding however any British or foreign company which becomes incorporated under the provisions of this Act by reason merely of obtaining a license from the minister as herein authorized.
I will modify what I said to this extent that, while .a provincial company taking out a license would become a Canadian company as defined, a British or foreign company would, not.
On Section 53-Commissions to agents:


John Howard Sinclair: Does the Bill place no restriction on the amount of commission?


William Thomas White: We have not
thought it necessary to restrict the amount. The time may come when we shall feel obliged to do so.	-


John Howard Sinclair: Why say at the end
"unless it is determined in advance?"


William Thomas White: I do not see any object in these words. The superintendent informs me that the object of the section is to have an established rato of commission so that the rate will not vary unless determined in advance. This requires the company and its agents to enter into a contract.


Mr. MARCIL:: Has any move been made to bring about uniformity in insurance legislation between the Dominion and the provinces in order to protect policyholders, so that, for instance, a company before undertaking business would be required to make a deposit sufficiently high to guarantee its policyholders?


William Thomas White: By the Act of
1910, the Dominion Parliament assumed to regulate provincially-incorporated fire and other insurance companies doing business



JULl 27, 1917

[Stage Direction]
outside their own provinces. It has been held that the Dominion has no 6uch power. We are now proposing to enable any pro-viincially-incorporated insurance company to take out a lieen.se and subject itself to the provisions of this Act. But many companies will not do that, and they will still remain subject to provincial legislation and will carry on business subject only to the safeguard provided by the several provinces. We could not assume authority over such companies unless the British North America Act was amended or unless we could get the provinces to enact legislation similar to ours so as to bring about uniformity in insurance laws in the Dominion. Personally, I think that would be a highly desirable thing to do. We would be delighted if that were done, because protection would be afforded to the public, and that is what my hon. friend wants. Unfortunately, all the provinces would not take the same view of this matter as we do, and a considerable feeling of jealousy in regard to provincial rights enters into the question. A good way of dealing with it would be-if the time were opportune-for the Dominion to take the initiative-and get representatives of the several provinces to meet and take up the whole situation frankly. Public men generally look at public questions in the same way at a public conference, and I think a good deal might be done along that line. In the midst of the war it is difficult to find time for things like that, but I think my hon. friend's idea is a good one, and we might be able, at a conference, to agree upon uniform legislation, the object of which would be to protect the public. Of course, provincial legislatures are just as desirous, and the provinces are as anxious to protect the public as we are.
Section agreed to.
On section 56-Salary agreement for not more than five years:
John Howard Sinclair: I intended to ask the minister in regard to the policy of allowing directors to take commissions. The first provision of section 56 appears to imply that the directors of the company may be allowed to make a contract to secure business, and obtain a commission from the company on the business secured. Is it not rather unusual that that right should be extended to the directors who are representing the shareholders as well as the policyholders? If a director is allowed to decide the question of commissions for himself, he might be liberal. I want to know what the minister thinks of that section.


William Thomas White: I think my hon. friend has misread the section. I direct his attention to section 55, which says:
No salary, compensation or emolument shall be paid to any director of a Canadian company carrying on the business of life insurance for his services as such director unless authorized by a vote of the members in the case of a mutual company, and by a vote of the shareholders and other members, if any, in the case of a company having capital stock.
Section 56 reads as follows:
No such company shall make any agreement with any of its directors, trustees, officers or agents, to pay for any services rendered or to be rendered, any salary, compensation or emolument, extending beyond a period of five years.
That would prohibit a company making an arrangement with a director for emolument for a period of ten years. The principal reason for this is that it was drawn to our attention that some most improvident contracts had been entered into, notably one in the case of the Union Life. There was a company called the National Agency Company which acted as agent for the Union Life and had an agreement with the Union Life extending over three years, whereby the National Agency Company was to receive a commission upon all business obtained for the Union Life. When we threw the Union Life into liquidation the claim of the National Agency Company became a very heavy one, for they were prepared to set up this as a contract worth several hundred thousand or a million dollars, because for thirty years they would be entitled to take commission upon all the business of this company. A claim like that, of course, is not allowed by the courts, but no doubt the sum that would be allowed, if the contract were held to be valid, would be a serious matter, as far as the rights of policyholders and also of other creditors were concerned. It was a most improvident contract, and we have inserted a provision in the Insurance Act, which limits the contract to a period of five years, with this limitation:
That the restriction shall not apply to agreements with agents in respect of insurance secured or to be secured by such agents, such insurance amounting in any year to less than twenty per cent of the total insurance secured in that year by the company.
That is the explanation of that provision.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
On section 59-Investment of company's funds:
William Thomas White: There is an important feature introduced into section 59, lines 16 to 20, as follows:
Debentures secured by rates or taxes levied under the authority of the Government of any province of Canada on property situated in any such province and collectable by the municipalities in which such property is situated.
The object of that is to make available, a3 investments for insurance companies, debentures in the municipally owned telephone systems in Saskatchewan and the West. That matter has been before me for some time, and I promised at the first convenient opportunity to introduce the necessary legislation.


William Pugsley: It seems very reasonable. This section reads, beginning at line 25:
(ii) The debentures or other evidences of indebtedness of any company which has paid regular dividends on its preferred or on its common stock for a term of at least five years immediately preceding the date of investment in such debentures or other evidences of indebtedness.
Sir THOMAS WfHITE: That is a change. That also arose out of our experience with the Union Life. That company had at one time among its assets the debentures of its own agent, the National Agency company. We have made the eligibility of the debenture depend upon the standing of the company, which seems a sensible thing to do.


William Pugsley: It is a question in my mind, whether, with regard to life insurance policies which are held for the benefit of widows and orphans, provision should be made for investing the money in the debentures of any private corporation or whether it should not be limited to Government and municipal debentures.
I am inclined to think it should be so limited. The regular payment of dividends for five years upon common or preferred stock is no assurance of the permanent success or prosperity of a private corporation. -It is risky to allow the moneys of insurance companies or savings banks to be invested in any other public securities, municipal or government debentures. This is apparently a new provision; I have grave doubts as to its wisdom.


William Thomas White: The range of investment is greatly narrowed under this provision; it is a step towards what my hon. friend has in mind. Formerly they could invest in debentures; now we limit

their powers of investment in debentures to debentures of the kind here described; that is to say, debentures that are more likely to be permanently good than those authorized under' the existing Act as investments. I am disposed to agree with my hon. friend; I would narrow very considerably the powers of insurance companies to invest their funds. This, however, is the answer that has always been made to me when I have raised the question or when I have been considering it with the Superintendent of Insurance. >
Our companies are in competition with British and foreign companies carrying on business in Canada. My hon. friend knows that the extent of the advantage given under an insurance policy depends upon the rate of interest earned by the company. If we confine our insurance companies to Government and municipal securities yielding lower rates of interest than are obtained by other insurance companies upon another range of investment, we put our companies at a disadvantage in the matter of offering attractive policies and obtaining business. By reason of the war, the yield rate is so high upon the kind of securities that my hon. friend has in mind-^Govemment and municipal securities-that	there is not the
same objection to the course which he	has	suggested as has obtainedin	the	past. However,	I should
not be at .all surprised if on the next revision of the Insurance Act, some few years from now, this question should be very carefully considered; it might be practicable to confine insurance companies to a range of investments which would be absolutely safe.
I should be glad if the committee would oblige me by rising and reporting progress. At eight o'clock we will take up the Public Works estimates, and, if there is no objection, the estimates of the Militia Department. I have to leave town at seven o'clock. We will allow this important section to stand.


William Pugsley: Some members 'are away who desire to be present when the Militia estimates are taken up. There is no objection, however, to the Public Works estimates being taken up.
Section stands.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Has my hon. friend considered the suggestion I made the other day with reference to insurance policies held by men who are subject to the military service law?


William Thomas White: I do not believe that my bon. friend's suggestion is practicable. In the first place, hundreds of thousands of men have already enlisted and gone overseas; a question -would rise at once with regard to their policies. Then you have some men who may be called to the colours under the Military Service Act who are insured for $10,000, $20,000, $50,000, even $100,000, while others have no insurance at all. There would be no means of establishing uniformity. The Superintendent of Insurance has been looking into the question of policies; in most cases I understand that the insurance involving war risk is allowed to run at an increased rate. If that rate is not paid, the face of the policy is, in some cases, cut down to the amount of the .reserve.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: To the extent that the amount of premium paid will permit, and in proportion to the increased rate demanded by the insurance company.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend
referred me to the proposed action of the United States. I may point out that that action is proposed in lieu of pensions. The feature of our military service which has a *bearing on this question is the pension system. When this Bill is under consideration further my hon. friend will raise the question and I shall be prepared to diiscuss *it further with him. It does not appear to us, however, that his suggestions are practicable. It -would not be fair to ask the insurance companies, as pointed out by 'the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) to assume heavily increased risks without heavily increased premiums. When you consider whether the additional premium should be assumed, you are confronted with all the difficulties that I have mentioned, not only with regard to the men who are now to be called, but in regard also to the men who have already gone overseas.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Nearly all the policies
provide that after two years no sudh ques-' tion can be raised.


William Thomas White: I think that
is true with regard to many policies. Policies taken out 'since the outbreak of the war contain ia special clause with reference to military service. When you come to deal with the question of arranging to take care of the life insurance of thousands of men, 'having different amounts of insurance, some having no insurance at all, you are confronted with a very difficult question. One man puts his savings in life insurance; another man pays off the
mortgage on his house; another places his savings in a bank. The only way to deal with them -all uniformly is under a pension system, as we are now doing. That is all I can usefully say on the subject at this stage.
Progress reported.
*



REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the reports of Mr. Justice Galt of Manitoba.-Mr. Doherty.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
Tire House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.
TORONTO, HAMILTON & BUFFALO RY. CO.
House again in committee on Bill No. 39, respecting the Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo Railway Company .-Mr. Thomas J. Stewart.
Mr. Rainville in the Chair.
Mr. T. J. STEWART:: When this Bill
was before the Committee of the Whole it was referred to the Department of Justice for a report. I have the report now before me. It is a very lengthy document, and the greater part of it is a citation of the statutes, etc. I do not think it necessary that I should delay the House 'by reading -it. If there is no objection I will simply have it published in Hansard.
The -committee consenting:
July 16, 1917.
Sir,-I have the honour to reply to your letter of oth instant submitting a draft Bill respecting the Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Railway Company, with a request for my opinion upon the question whether Parliament has power to amend or vary the agreement exhibited in the schedule to the Bill.
The parties to this agreement, which is dated November 15, 1897, are the Hamilton & Dun-das Street Railway Company, a provincial company incorporated under a special Act of the Legislature of Ontario, Statutes of 1876, chapter 87, and the Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Railway Company, which, though originally incorporated by a special Act of the Legislature of Ontario, Statutes of 1847, chapter 75, became a Dominion corporation under chapter 86, Statutes of Canada, 1891, which declared its undertaking to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, and the company to be a company subject to the jurisdiction of Parliament.
By clause 8 of the agreement it is provided that the contract shall continue in force for the period of twenty-one years, and for a further period of twenty-nine years if the sane-

tion of Parliament and the Legislature be obtained to legalize this extension. This provision, ex facie, suggests that neither of the contracting corporations had the capacity or power to bind itself by such an agreement for a period exceeding twenty-one years, and the railway legislation in force at the time the agreement was entered into (Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1S97, chapter 207, section 77, and Statutes of Canada, 1888, chapter 29, section 238) indicates this to be the fact. The Legislature of Ontario, on the petition of the Hamilton & Dundas Street Railway Company and the town of Dundas, appears to have ratified the agreement by chapter 60, Statutes of Ontario, 1898, and now Parliament is asked to do likewise on behalf of the Toronto, Hamilton & Buffalo Railway Company.
I observe that upon representations made on behalf of the town of Dundas, the railway Committee of the House of Commons has recommended an amendment to the Bill which will have the effect of extending the agreement merely for four years, i.e., until 1922, instead of the period of twenty-nine years contemplated by the agreement; that the authority of Parliament to make such an alteration in the terms of the agreement has been questioned in the House, and that it is under these circumstances that the matter is referred.
The proposed amendment to the Bill obviously would effect a material change in the terms of the original agreement, and in my opinion this is incompetent to Parliament, seeing that the Hamilton & Dundas Street Railway company is a provincial corporation and consequently that its contract rights and obligations are not within the legislative authority of Parliament.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Deputy Minister of Justice. E. P. Hartney, Esq.,
Examiner of Private Bills,
Room 308, House of Commons,
Ottawa,
I am pleased to inform the committee that since the Bill was up 'before the parties have come to an understanding, and I therefore move that sections 1 and 2 be stricken from the Bill. Sections 3 and 4 have already been struck out, which leaves the Bill composed of sections 5 and 6. Those two sections have already been passed by the committee and recommended to the House. I have been asked by the promoters of the Bill to correct a statement made by the bon, member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle) who said that the tracks of this railway ran on the main street of the town of Dundas. The main street runs north and south, and when it reaches King street, which is really the main street, it runs east and west. The railway crosses Main street about a quarter of a mile from King street, and runs art right angles to Main street. The promoters of the Bill thought it was unfair to have it understood that they were trying to run a railroad

through one of the main streets of the town, when it is not so.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rainvilie in the Chair
Public Works-chargeable to income-Annapolis Royal-repairs to pier, $2,000.
['No objection at all. I quite appreciate the opportunity given me to-night of proceedings, with my estimates instead of waiting till a later date.\nProgress reported.\nOn the motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.\nSaturday, July 28, 1917.']
William Pugsley: There was $2,300 in the
estimates last year and only $300 expended. Why was this kept in the estimates? I would suggest that this might very well be reduced.


Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of Public Works):: It is the re-vote of the
balance pecessary for repairs, consisting of new covering, stringers and guards.


Mr. MURPHY:: How comes it that only $300 was expended out of a vote of $2,300?
'Mr. ROGERS: We did not get the covering and that is the principal item.


Charles Murphy: Timber?


Robert Rogers: Timber for covering.
Canning-repairs to wharf, $2,500.


Mr. KYTE:: I would like to call attention of thS hon. Minister of Public Works to the wharf at Port Malcolm in the county of Richmond. That wharf was purchased six or seven years ago, and it was put into a state of repair suitable for all public purposes. I am informed that during the last three or four years it has been very much neglected so that at the present time it is absolutely useless and as things now are the money that has been expended on it is wasted. Port Malcolm: is the centre of a very important community in the county of Richmond. Several vessels are owned there and there are a number of fishermen's boats. Complaints have been made to me that owing to the way the wharf has been allowed to get into disrepair it is absolutely useless. Would the minister be good enough to look up his files in the department and ascertain whether there has been a report from the resident engineer asking that repairs he made to that wharf this year.


Robert Rogers: I have not in my mind any report that has reached the department but possibly there might be one. I shall be very glad to take note of the matter and supply the report to my hon. friend.
I will also give attention to what he has

*said respecting the necessity for some improvements.
East River-improvements, $140,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Will that finish the East river improvements? When will the work be completed?


Robert Rogers: We will have it completed
this year, the chief engineer informs me.


George William Kyte: What is the total amount
expended upon that work?


Robert Rogers: The contract was $398,000 and. there have been expended on gates $124,000.


George William Kyte: Has the work been done by contract?


Robert Rogers: Yes.	,


George William Kyte: Who were the contractors?


Robert Rogers: Roger Miller & Sons were the contractors for the gates, and MoDougall Bros, for the other part.


George William Kyte: Is any dredging being done
there at the present time?	[DOT]


Robert Rogers: No.
Margaree-repairs to breakwater, $900.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: For some time I have been trying to get some dredging done at Margaree harbour. Tenders have been asked for temporary dredging. The harbour is in a very bad state. Ie it the intention of the department to have the dredging done this season r


Robert Rogers: Have tenders been asked for recently?


Alexander William Chisholm: Yes. I was
assured early in the season by the department that the dredging would ibe done before now, and I noticed the advertisement in some of the local papers down there a short time ago.


Robert Rogers: If we are asking for tenders we must be proposing to go ahead with it.


Alexander William Chisholm: I am glad to
know that it is the intention to go ahead.


Robert Rogers: I will be glad to have it looked up and give my hon. friend a memorandum of what we propose to do.


Alexander William Chisholm: I do not know what can ibe done at Margaree harbour with this vote of $800, because the condition of the public works there is really .a scandal. For the last five years the Government have
absolutely neglected this place. I suppose that an expenditure of $20,000 would not properly repair the works that have been destroyed. If this $800 had been spent five years ago, and spent at a season of the year when work could be done successfully and the greatest amount of work possible done for the money spent, and if $200 had been spent every year since then, it might have saved the public works there, but $30,000 would not repair the works at Margaree Harbour now. All this destruction went on with the knowledge of the department, because at least every month brought an engineer down to Margaree Harbour to make a report. I have endeavoured to get the department to spend a little way to preserve the old piers, but they have disregarded my representations and nothing has been done. Last year there was a small amount in the estimates and I call the attention of the minister to the fact that these small amounts of $300 or $400 spent in the fall of the year, in September, October and November could not be of very much service in preserving the piers in view of the stormy weather conditions. Anybody acquainted with conditions on that coast must know that it is impossible to get a dollar's worth of work for a dollar during those months. That is just what occurred last fall. About a dozen men were at work putting in two or three hours a day and, I suppose, getting full pay for it. I do not find fault with them, for the reason that the men were doing the best they could because they had to fight the conditions on that stormy coast, but this Government seems to regard this as the proper season to spend the public moneys-the clearest evidence of business incompetence and dishonest handling of public funds. I protest against the absolute neglect of public works at Margaree Harbour. These works in their present condition stand as a monument to the utter incapacity of this Government; and are a scandal and a crime, and the minister should blush in shame for the way in which his department has treated the matter. When an effort is made to replace these works the country will have to pay sorely for this neglect. If ever there was a necessity for immediate action in this case, I want to put myself on record as protesting against the indefensible neglect of the public works at Margaree Harbour as well as all the public works in the county.


Robert Rogers: The harbour at Margaree is so situated that it suffers a great deal from storms and I quite agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Chisholm) that probably it

would have been much better to have, in the first place, spent a sufficient amount of money to have made it a permanency rather than to have gone on temporizing and spending small sums each year. But, my hon. friend can understand that it is necessary for me to follow the advice of the engineers. I will take it up and see if the engineers can bear out the statement my hon. friend has made in respect to the matter, because I can assure him that I shall be very glad indeed to correct it if it is possible to do so.


Alexander William Chisholm: The engineers, of
course, made their reports honestly, representing -the conditions as they were. This is not the first time I have had occasion to bring this up. Five years ago a very small expenditure would have saved all the work now required, which will cost-$20,000. The destruction is going on yearly and each time the work was damaged an engineer was sent down and made a report, but nothing was done, and the whole industrial conditions in a large portion of the county served by this harbour has been seriously wrecked and the lives of our fishermen greatly jeopardized. The neglect is almost criminal.
As to dredging, the present condition at Margaree Harbour, is the result, in part, of xthe destruction of the piers which protect the channel from the sand flow. The mouth of the harbour is being filled with sand, and no effort has been made to stop the drift. Formerly small vessels could enter with ease, but to-day fishing boats can hardly enter at any time, but particularly is this so when we have a north or northwest breeze, all on account of the shoal water. This is an important fishing station where the fishing establishments enjoy a prosperous business; and, besides, a population of 8,000 to 10,000 depend upon this post for transportation. It is therefore important to make the channel passable for boats, or else these large industries will be paralyzed. I wish the minister would rush the dredge there as rapidly as possible, as no company will undertake this work after September 15. The work should really have been done in June or July. The minister was good enough to promise me early this season- that this work would be undertaken with as little delay as possible. Needless to say, I am disappointed.


Robert Rogers: We have already called for tenders for this work. I will see about the tenders at once, and see that the work is gone on with.

McKay's Point, repairs to breakwater, $600.


Alexander William Chisholm: What repairs are being made there?


Robert Rogers: Raising the stone on the seaward side of the outer end of the breakwater for 300 feet up to high water. It is estimated that 420 cubic yards of stone will be required, costing $525, and superintendence, etc., $75.
McMair's Cove, repairs to breakwater, $900.


John Howard Sinclair: What is being done there?


Robert Rogers: The work consists of sheeting, re-balasting and protecting by stone a portion of the seaward basin and strengthening about 70 ft. to the inner basin.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it intended to go on with the work this year?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Two or three other items in the county of An-tigonish which were put in the estimates at the time of the byelection a few years -ago, when it w-as important that the people there would be i-n a good humour, and which have appeared in the estimates each year since, have disappeared. Are they being labandon-ed altogether?


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend will find that we have -abandoned practically all capital expenditure for new work in connection with public works of this kind that have been voted for one or two years -and the work not carried out.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister .intend to keep his full staff in An-tigonish for the future? I understand there are quite a large number -of men in his office at Antigonish. I should be obliged if the minister would read -the names and state -the -salaries of the employees in that office.


Robert Rogers: I have not -the names before me, but I can get them for rbo-morrow;
I do no.t know exactly what staff we have there. We are cutting down in every place possible, and if we have the office at Antigonish over-manne-d we will reduce it immediately.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister made any reduction in Nova Scotia? Has h-e cut down -the staff?


Robert Rogers: Of course, a number of our staff in Nova Scotia hav-e gone to the war. There h-ais been a reduction of thirty per cent on that account alone, and we propose,

if possible, to further reduce. My hon. friend will have seen by the press that we are trying to pare down as much as possible during the war.


John Howard Sinclair: There is another item which appeared in the estimates for a number of years, for a wharf at Cole Harbour in the county of Guysborough. The minister purchased the site, and has had several surveys since he took charge of the department, and I do not find any item in the estimates in the present year. Will the minister say what his plans are in regard to that wharf?


Robert Rogers: It is like many other items we were proposing to go on with when the war broke out, and we were delayed for the first year and second year, and now we have removed these items from the estimates, until war conditions have improved, at all events, and as soon as they improve we hope to restore these items, and carry out the work as quickly as possible. The hon. gentleman will agree with me that it is wise to take all those items out of the estimates, so that we may know exactly what our expenses are going to be.
Port Hillford-repairs to breakwater, $1,800.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister intend to go on with this work?


Robert Rogers: The district engineer there asks for $1,800, covering renewal and new stringers for the entire breakwater, and we propose doing the work this year.


John Howard Sinclair: The work will be done this season?


Robert Rogers: Yes, that is the report of the engineer.


John Howard Sinclair: There is very great need of some dredging at that point. There was a report from there a few days ago that the steamer which serves that coast was unable to call at Port Hilford, on account of the fact that the sand had filled up around the wharf. The steamer can only land at the outside of the wharf, and on stormy days it is found impossible to call there at all. It is an important fishing station, and this steamer service is the only communication with the outside world. As the fishermen are being asked now to produce all they can, and they are doing everything in their power in that direction, it is very disheartening for them not to be able to ship their fish. The main trouble is the want of a small amount of dredging. It has been required for a number of years, but the condition has now become so bad
that the steamer cannot get inside of the wharf where the shelter is, so that on stormy days she has to pass Port Hillford without calling. If this dredging were done the steamer could make her call even in stormy weather. I wish the minister would have the matter looked into, and do something if possible in the way of dredging that harbour.


Robert Rogers: The engineer says that
this matter has come to his notice, and there is apparently a necessity for some dredging there. We have the dredging facilities, and we hope to be able, in the very near future, to make the necessary repairs.
Shubenacadie River-To pay the Dominion Atlantic Railway Co. for the enlargement of draw span on railway bridge and construction of warping piers, $23,000.


William Pugsley: What does the hon. minister say to that item?


Robert Rogers: The sum of $23,000 is required to pay the Dominion Atlantic Railway company a contribution for substituting a swing span for the lift span in the railway bridge over the Shubenacadie river, in accordance with the provisions of order in council dated January 15, 1917. The work consisted in the removal of the old western piers and replacing them by a pivot pier that supports a swing arch bridge, which gives a clear opening of 45 feet, to enable vessels to pass through without being lightened. An order in council was passed on 16th August, 1899, approving of the plans submitted by the Midland Railway company for the construction of a bridge having a lift span of 29 feet over the Shubenacadie river. This span was found to be too small, and an order in council was passed on the 14th March, 1911, authorizing that an agreement be entered into with the Dominion Atlantic Railway company and the Dominion Government for the substitution of a larger lift span having a length of 45 feet, and it was stipulated that an amount not to exceed $23,000 was to be paid the company on the satisfactory completion of the work.
West Arichat-repairs to wharf, $700.


George William Kyte: What repairs are to be
effected by this vote?


Robert Rogers: Covering, three-inch
plank, $196; stringers, $75.60; fenders, $42.24; sheathing, $52.80; guard rail, $40.32; round timber, $25; mooring (posts, $60; labour. $140; stone for approach, $56.25.



George William Kyte: 
Robert Rogers: No, not the work I have described. Where was some other work done last year.
Yarmouth Harbour-repairs and improvements, $4,500.


William Pugsley: Some years ago, when I was a minister, there wias a well thought out plan for the improvement of Yarmouth harbour. We thought certain improvements were necessary to make it safe for the very considerable amount of shipping which was going through there. I should like to ask the minister if that work has been completed, and what aTe the plans, and what is to be done with this $4,500.


Robert Rogers: In 1916-17 we did have in the estimates an item of $64,000 for work in Yarmouth harbour. In view of the conditions, this item has been dropped for the present; the vote now asked for is simply to provide for the necessary repairs to keep the harbour in as good condition as possible until such time as we shall be able to restore the item. The harbour of Yarmouth is a very important one, upon which a considerable amount of money has been spent during the last few years. The expenditure of a large sum of money will be required in order properly to complete it.


George William Kyte: Is it intended to provide in the supplementary estimates for any further works of a similar character in Nova Scotia?


Robert Rogers: We have not anything in particular in mind. There may he some, but they will be very small.


George William Kyte: I understand, then, that it is not in contemplation to provide in the supplementary estimates for the construction of new wharves. The reason why I ask is that during the election in Nova Scotia last fall the Government engineers were very busy spying out sites for wharves and breakwaters, and the expectations of the public in many localities were aroused by the activities of the minister. I have in mind four or five sites for wharves that were located in the county of Richmond during the elections in November last, and I am sure that it will be a great disappointment to the friends of the minister in that constituency when they are told that no provision is to be made for the construction of those wharves. If our expectations are not altogether disappointed, there will be renewed activity on the part of the officers

of the minister's department in Nova Scotia and elsewhere throughout Canada during the next few months. The minister ought to give an earnest of his good intentions by placing an amount in the supplementary estimates to make good the promises made during those elections in Nova Scotia.


Alexander William Chisholm: What work is being done at Inverness harbour, and what work is in contemplation?


Robert Rogers: The chief engineer advises me that only work that is urgently necessary is being done. It does not amount to more than two or three hundred dollars.


Alexander William Chisholm: The work is of urgent necessity; it is the opening up of a new harbour, upon which a large amount of money was spent five years ago. I cannot understand what work could be accomplished with two or three hundred dollars in the opening up of a new harbour.


Robert Rogers: I will look it up and let my hon. friend know to-morrow.


John Howard Sinclair: It is difficult for members on this side to understand how the minister spends so much money when he does so little work. For the last two or three years we have been told that it is only in cases of urgency that any work at all is done in his department. But I find upon looking at the public accounts for the last fiscal year, page 73, in a comparative statement of the expenditures in the Department of Public Works for a number of years past, it is set forth that in 1910-11, when the minister took office, the expenditure of his department was $8,621,431, while last year the expenditure was $12,039,252, an increase of $4,000,000. That is an extraordinary increase, especially in view of the fact that so. little work is being done. I suppose there never was a time in the history of the Dominion when there was less activity in the Department of Public Works than there has been during the last two or three years ; yet the expenditures of the department last year were over $12,000,000. I would like the minister to give some explanation of this increase.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend is including in this amount very large works that we are carrying on in St. John and Halifax and at other points, in, connection with which the expenditure has been very large for some years. I did not know that my estimates w*i'- coming up to-night, or I

*would have had with me a statement giving the figures of the expenditure during the past few years. [DOT]


John Howard Sinclair: I am not referring to
the expenditures in St. John harbour or anywhere else in Canada; it is the expense of running the department that I am talking about. This item covers departmental expenses; it does not cover the expense of building wharves and opening up harbours.


Robert Rogers: I am afraid my bon.
friend has not looked very closely into the figures. I do not know where he arrives at the amount of $12,000. However, I shall be glad to have it looked up and to supply him with any information that he may desire. He is mistaken in his statement regarding the increased expenditure. The general expenditure of the department has been reduced from year to year and will be further reduced this year. I will supply the figures when my estimates come up again.	.


William Pugsley: May I make a slight
correction in my right hon. friend's statement? In attempting to justify the large expenditure of his department, he refers to the expenditure in St. John and Halifax. My hon. friend has forgotten that all the expenditures on account of harbour improvements at Halifax are charged to the Department of Railways, and not to his department; so my hon. friend cannot account for the enormous increase in the expenditure in his department since he became minister, on that ground.


Robert Rogers: I quite agree that the large expenditures come under the Railway Department, but a considerable number of items in connection with the work at Halifax come under my department. For instance, we have purchased a dry dock site, and there are several other items running into a large sum of money.


Mr. COPP:: What repairs are being made to the wharf at Amherst Point?


Robert Rogers: Sheathing comer of wharf, t-en feet each way, $150; rebuilding corner, 5,600 cubic feet cribwork, at 8 cents a foot, $448; raising portion of the side 600 feet, at 8 cents a foot, $48; contingencies, $54; total of $700.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This wharf is just a few miles from my home. There is a tidal river there, and I understand that the river bed has become filled in to such an extent that it is impossible for vessels to get to the wharf. Has the department any report on that?


Robert Rogers: The chief engineer informs me that no such report has been received, so far as he remembers.
Prince Edward Island-Little Sands-wharf improvements, $1,600.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: What improvements are to be made there?


Robert Rogers: The estimated cost is as follows: Sheathing, $1,050; ballast, $300; iron,' $250; total, $1,600.
Souris-repairs to breakwater, $1,000.	.


James Joseph Hughes: What improvements are to be made to this breakwater?


Robert Rogers: The amount is made up as follows: Timber, $150; ballast, $600; plank, $90; iron, $60; contingencies, $100; total, $1,000.


James Joseph Hughes: What part of the breakwater needs repairing?


Robert Rogers: The chief engineer says that several very severe storms occurring between 13th and 16th December, 1916, displaced the four top tires of face timbers on the seaward side of the breakwater for a distance of 40 feet immediately inward of the outer block, together with a small portion of the covering, as also the sheathing on the sloping face of the old block.


James Joseph Hughes: Does the engineer state that $1,000 will be sufficient to make all the necessary repairs?


Robert Rogers: That is the estimate.


James Joseph Hughes: Will there be anything further in the supplementaries?


Robert Rogers: Not that I am aware of.


James Joseph Hughes: Notwithstanding the engineer's report, I know that $1,000 will not be sufficient to make the Tepairs that are necessary, as the damage done was very much greater than that. When w.as the addition to the breakwater made, and what was the cost?


Robert Rogers: I have not the details here, but the total expenditure on the Souris breakwater since 1875 amounts to $489,000. I could get the figures for my hon. friend if he requires them.


James Joseph Hughes: I should be glad to have them. I think the extension, which was built in 1913 or 1914, cost in the neighbourhood of $70,000. The work must have been very poorly done, because almost as soon as it was completed repairs had to he made, and repairs have had to be made

continually every year since.
9	p.m. The old breakwater, which was completed many years ago, needs but very little repairing, which would look as if the extension had not 'been properly built. I think it would be very much cheaper to have the work done thoroughly at once, naither than to 'have these temporary repairs made from year to year. If the Government would spend enough money to put the breakwater in proper shape to stand the storms they would save money.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend is better acquainted with, the local conditions than I am, but I understand that the chief damage to the Souris breakwater occurred during its construction, when very severe storms were experienced in that locality. In regard to the old breakwater, I am afraid my hon. friend is in error. We have to spend some money there almost every year,


James Joseph Hughes: That is natural, but they are only small repairs.


Robert Rogers: The principal damage to
the new breakwater occurred as the result of heavy storms between the 13th and 16th December, 1916.


James Joseph Hughes: 
Robert Rogers: I quite agree with my
hon. friend.


James Joseph Hughes: The money will
largely ibe wasted, and next year we will probably have to spend a much larger sum because of the repairs being of such a temporary character.
New Brunswick-Bathurst - Harbour improvements, $85,000.


Mr. TURGEON:: Are the contractors still at work in Bathurst?


Robert Rogers: We are now calling for
tenders. We thought we could continue the old contract, but found we could not do it without calling for tenders.


William Pugsley: When I was Minister of Public Works I initiated the work in Bathurst harbour, and had some of the Government dredges employed there, as I thought that was the better way of doing it. I would like to know wihy the operations of the Government dredges were abandoned, and tenders called to have the work done by private parties.


Robert Rogers: W'e have Government
dredges there now working in the outside

harbour, but we let the contract for the work in the inner harbour. It was considered better that we should adopt that course, and it has worked out very satisfactorily. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Tnrgeon) will bear me out in the statement that we have done very good work and that satisfactory results have been accomplished.


William Pugsley: What were the prices
paid for dredging during the past year.


Robert Rogers: Thirty cents per cubic
foot.


William Pugsley: That is for work in the inner harbour


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Pugsley: Who were the contractors for that work?


Robert Rogers: The Northern Dredging
company.


William Pugsley: Who compose the Northern Dredging company?


Robert Rogers: I really could not say.


William Pugsley: Who are the officers?


Robert Rogers: A man named Nagle.


William Pugsley: 'The Well-known Mr. Nagle? To say "a man named Nagle " would imply he is just an ordinary man, mot very well known. I can assure my hon. friend that Mr. Nagle is a very prominent citizen of New Brunswick. Is Mr. Richard O Leary also an officer of the company?


Robert Rogers: We have nothing to show that he is. We do not know.


William Pugsley: Then, I judge Mr. Nagle is president of .-the company? The contract must be signed by the officers of the company?


Robert Rogers: The work has been carried out at the request of Mr. McLean, who is building a large pulp-mill -there.


William Pugsley: I was not asking my
hon. friend as to the reason for carrying out the work. I am quite -satisfied the work is very meritorious, -and Bathurst harbour is- deserving of development to -any reasonable extent. That I believe this and that my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) believes it is evidenced, by the fact that this work w-a-s undertaken several years ago when- the Liberal Government was in power. The fact that the -improvements were requested by Mr. McLean does not give us any information as to who the contractors are. I presume Mr. Nagl-e is president of the company?


Robert Rogers: J have not any idea.


William Pugsley: Perhaps the deputy
minister would kno-w.


Robert Rogers: The deputy minister informs me that he has no definite knowledge as to whether Mr. Nagle is president, or secretary, of the. company.


William Pugsley: Then it is either one way or the other? Mr. Nagle is either president, or secretary, and Mr. O'Leary is either secretary, or president.


Robert Rogers: I do not know Mr. O'Leary in the matter.
Mr. PiUGSLEY:	Mr. O'Leary is a very
respectable and 'a very prominent citizen.


Robert Rogers: I am glad to hear it. I *must cultivate his acquaintance.


William Pugsley: I do not think my hon. friend would have any difficulty in becoming acquainted with him. He is very prominent citizen. What amazes me is that the minister should have so little information as to those prominent gentlemen who are doing this work-gentlemen who are not in any way connected with Bathurst harbour, and who had nothing to do with dredging work, so far as I ever understood, until my hon. friend's Government came into office, when they apparently developed suddenly into dredging contractors. I should be under the impression that my hon. friend might have heard something in regard to those gentlemen. Perhaps the minister could tell me how much has been paid to this company already for dredging?


Robert Rogers: For 400,000 cubic yards
at 25 cents per cubic yard, $100,000; 1,181,403 cubic yards at 30 cents, overtow one cent; and surveys and inspections, $20,000; total, $504,000.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Is the Government
dredge still working on the outside harbour?'


Robert Rogers: It is working in Bathurst harbour, I am not sure whether it is in the inside or the outside harbour.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Is it the suction dredge " Restigouche" ?


Robert Rogers: No, it is a ladder dredge.


Arthur Bliss Copp: My hon. friend from St.
John (Mr. Pugsley) has been trying to get some information with regard to the dredging company engaged on this work. He referred to two of the prominent gentlemen connected with the organization, but
he overlooked one, Mr. W. B. Tenant of St. John, a very prominent gentleman, who occupied a very important position in the Methodist church, and who has since given up that admirable calling and become a stockbroker, and a promoter in different organizations. Probably the minister does not remember the gentleman. I would like to ask him whether this gentleman had anything to do with this organization?


Robert Rogers: This is a very large contract for dredging. It was let by public tender to the Northern Dredging company, and they have evidently carried on their work satisfactorily in view of the fact that they have not become better acquainted with the head of the department and are not making any trouble for the department. I have not had the pleasure of seeing the gentleman whom my hon. friend introduced as being a member of the church in good standing. I am sure that my hon. friend from Gloucester will bear me out in saying that good work has been done by the contractors there. I know of no complaint in respect to the way in which the work has been carried on there. I am very glad to know that we have had such satisfactory work from this firm who were the lowest tenderers.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I am very glad to know that in connection with a work of this kind the minister thought it necessary to have a chaplain in charge.
Cape Bald-repairs to breakwater, $1,500.
Dorchester-wharf improvement, $1,500.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Would my hon. friend explain what it is proposed to do at Cape Bald and Dorchester?


Robert Rogers: This re-vote of $1,500 for Cape Bald is asked for by the district engineer to continue construction of protective work along the outer face of approach and pier head, composed of reinforced concrete caissons filled with ballast and meagre concrete, and for general repairs. The estimated cost is as follows: 10 caissons at $40, $400; forms, labour and services of diver in placing, $200; concrete and stone filling in caissons and breakwater, $400; general repairs, $500. Total, $1,500.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Are those repairs necessary because of some damage to the pier during last year, or are there some additions that are being made?


Robert Rogers: This work is asked for by the district engineer, and it is to continue

the construction of protective work along the outer face of approach and pier head.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I see by the Auditor General's Report that last year some $4,000 was expended on the sam'e work. This breakwater was built some years ago, and I was wondering whether it required these extra repairs because of damage by ice.


Robert Rogers: During the fiscal year
1915-16 the work done consisted of building 11 large and 26 small caissons, of which the large, together with four from the previous year, were placed in a length of 55 feet at the outer end of the approach and across the outside face of the pier head; also placing 22 of the smaller caissons on top of the large ones to protect the face of the work up to the level of low water, and building a scow 18 x 10 feet, and re-filling a section of the breakwater with ballast. That is what was done with the money spent last year.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Now, as to the Dorchester wharf.


Robert Rogers: This amount of $1,500 is asked for by the district engineer to rebuild a short section about 30 feet long and 10 feet wide at upper end of old railway wharf, so called, to remove the yearly accumulation of mud from vessel beds in front of both wharves, to continue. the filling and surfacing of the departmental or lower wharf with mud and gravel, and to replace the old worn and decayed plank covering, as follow?: To rebuild upper end of railway wharf, $600; to remove accumulation of mud from beds, $300; filling and surfacing departmental wharf, $600; total, $1,500.


Arthur Bliss Copp: This is also a new wharf completed in 1915-16 at a cost of $11,600 or thereabouts, and I presume that these repairs are also necessary because of some damage to the wharf.


Robert Rogers: During the present year the mud was excavated from the beds in a length of 150 feet, 14 feet wide and 2 feet in average depth, and a considerable section of the departmental wharf is being filled and surfaced with mud and gravel, in the course of which the old stringers are being removed for use in rebuilding the end of the old railway wharf. The expenditure will be about $800.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Of course, this work will be done this season, I presume? Does the minister know that the railway tracks and siding running down to the Intercolonial wharf have been removed and that this

wharf is of no value to the people at the present time? The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) is here and I aim very glad that he is because his department took up the rails last spring. I have no objection to this proposed expenditure, as it is necessary, but the wharf is really of no use to the people unless the track is replaced so that they can get their freight to and from the wharf. I hope the Minister of Public Works will confer with the Minister of Railways and and Canals and see if it is not possible to get rails down again.


Robert Rogers: We have nothing to do with railways.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I know the minister has nothing to do with railways, but the Minister of Railways has and it is absolutely impossible for the people to get along with any degree of satisfaction in that locality because they cannot use this wharf for freight coming in and going out-coal, for instance. This wharf cost between $40,000 and $50,000, it is an important shipping point and I sincerely trust that the Minister of Railways will arrange to replace these rails. I think the Minister of Public Works will require the use of the rails to get his material down to the wharf.
Great Salmon River-Repairs and Improvements to breakwater, $1,100.


William Pugsley: Will the minister state what repairs are being made to this breakwater?


Robert Rogers: This amount of $1,100 is asked for to renew the covering on the western breakwater, and to construct an extension 240 feet long and 18 feet 6 inches, wide to this breakwater. The estimated cost is as follows: 20,400 ft. B.M. covering 3-inch at $32, $652.80; 10,200 ft. B.M. break timbers at $35, $357; contingencies, $90.20; total, $1,100.


William Pugsley: Is it intended to go on with the work this year?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister should give some explanation of the large items for harbours and rivers generally. This vote is $60,000 for Nova Scotia, $14,000 for Prince Edward Island, and $50,000 for New Brunswick, making $114,000 altogether. What use does the minister intend to make of this vote?


Robert Rogers: This vote has been customary for many years. It is for the maintenance and repairs of wharves generally

all over the province for which the vote is taken. This enables the department to make repairs in case of damage by storms, and so on. I do not think my hon. friend can suggest that the wte is being abused.


William Pugsley: I think it is regrettable that the minister has omitted from the items for New Brunswick the vote for the St. John river and its tributaries. Many years ago the entire burden of constructing wharves upon non-tidal waters was borne by the provinces, the Dominion Government refusing to contribute anything. Of recent years that policy has been departed from and wharves have been built on inland waters by this Government. About 20 years ago this Government adopted the policy in a number of cases of assisting the provincial governments in the construction of wharves. In more recent years still there has been a special vote for the building of these wharves. These have all been omitted from the present estimates. Upon the St. John river and other non-tidal waters in New Brunswick, there are a number of wharves in need of repairs and these repairs have been made from the vote to which I refer.


Robert Rogers: The policy of co-operating \\ ith the provincial governments was evidently found1 unsatisfactory. The provincial governments desired to withdraw from the arrangement and claimed that it was the duty of the Dominion to look after all wharves of this description. So, in place of this vote to cover this work by co-operation with the various provinces, we have adopted the usual practice of having a specific vote wherever there is necessity for a wharf on the St. John river or any place else. That plan has been adopted by the department and has worked satisfactorily. Then there is the general item in the estimates for general repairs of wharves throughout the province. My hon. friend will agree that the new plan will work as well as the old one, because, wherever a wharf is found to be necessary, we provide it and carry out its construction just as is done on tidal waters.


William Pugsley: I cannot agree with my hon. friend). In last year's estimates he will find the same vote for harbours and Tivers generally and then a vote of $10,000, not for any specific wharf, but for the river St. John and tributaries. This is the first year that item has been dropped. The vote to which I refer was $10,000 last year and $34,000 in the preceding year. There appears to have been $24,000 spent in the years 1915-16 on the general vote for the river St.
John and tributaries. I am sorry that a course which was adopted after full consideration has been departed from, because it is always difficult to resume such a practice.
Could my hon. friend give me some information in regard to matters which I know would be of very great interest to the people of St. John, in regard to the work being done upon the western side of the harbour? I would like to know just what work is now being done. I do not want to go into past work, or the expenditure-because that would take considerable time, and he might not be prepared for such a discussion this evening-but only to refer to the work now under way. The wharf on the western side of the harbour, which was constructed by the 'Government, has sagged over sideways and I believe is in 'a very unsatisfactory condition. Under the original contract, foT which tenders were called when I was minister, it was provided that the wharf 'and crib should be filled with stone, instead of being allowed to be filled with earth or mud excavated from the harbour, which my hon. friend will understand would not form nearly as good >a support ais stone, the tides might affect the construction, whereas stone would remain absolutely solid. The wharf has not exactly tumbled over, but very nearly. I do not know whether the filling caused the wharf to sag or not. It would slave a great deal of difficulty if means were taken to restore it to its proper position, and keep it from tumbling over further into the river. I should like, also, to ask my hon. friend whether it is intended to proceed without delay with the extension of the breakwater to Partridge Island. That is a work which has been in contemplation for a considerable time. It is rumoured in St. John that the contract awarded some three years ago has been abandoned, and a new plan has been devised for the work, iand tenders are to be called for.


Robert Rogers: In connection with the St. John River, the vote of $10,000, which was in contemplation, was in connection largely with the work carried on by the Government on the other end of the river, and now I understand the lumbermen are taking care of that, and it is not necessary for us to provide for it. However, there may toe some reason why that matter should toe further considered, and I will look it up. As to the work at West St. John, I may say that there has been some difficulty in regard to berth 16, owing to the fact that



we did not ihave very good bottom. The water was very deep and some difficulty was experienced, but nothing serious at all, and it is entirely satisfactory now. We built upon that particular wharf a large shed, which I understand turned out to be entirely satisfactory, and, in adition to that, we have a Teport from our engineers that there is immediate necessity for the completion of 'berth 17. The engineer says that it will cost about $150,000 to complete that berth, and there is necessity for it by reason of the fact that the shipping by way of St. John is growing very rapidly. An item will be brought down in the estimates to complete berth 17. With respect to the breakwater at Negro Point, we called for tenders some two or three years ago, but the tender price at that time seemed very high. I think it was something like $600,-DOO or $700,000; but the work they proposed was to be carried out by the use of granite instead of the ordinary stone, and a further plan has been prepared for the use of stone from Partridge Island, and we expect to be able to get the work done much cheaper by the use of. granite. We are going to call for tenders in a few days. This work is absolutely necessary to protect the harbour on the west side of St. John, and I am going to propose, before Parliament closes, that we vote an amount sufficient to carry out the work of building the breakwater, on the recommendation of the engineers that it is necessary to preserve the berths that have already been constructed in the west harbour of St. John.
Mr. PUiGSLEY: I suppose those estimates will be ready in a few days?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


William Pugsley: With regard to the depth of the water at the berths, I noticed in the papers-, either to-day or yesterday, that the United States authorities have been informed that if they would dredge out Portland harbour to a depth of 35 feet for the larger vessels, the Canadian Government, during the war at all events, would be very glad to avail themselves of Portland harbour in connection with the Canadian export trade. That is a matter in regard to which the people of the Maritime Provinces are naturally very jealous. After a long struggle, commencing thirty years ago, the people of the Maritime Provinces succeeded in getting St. John and Halifax recognized as the winter ports of Canada. I should be very sorry indeed to see any change in the policy in that regard. Of course the ques-fMr. Rogers ]	.
tion which is raised as to deepening the harbour of Portland to 35 feet is an important one, if that depth is required for the safety of the largest vessels which come to Atlantic ports, and if St. John harbour is not deepened. Is it proposed to make the depth of water at the berths in St. John harbour 35 feet at low water?


Robert Rogers: The dredging of the harbour of Portland is, of course, entirely in the hands of the United States Government. I had no knowledge that there was any proposal to adopt Portland harbour as against the harbours of St. John or Halifax. No Canadian who has a knowledge of our harbours and of the amount that has been expended in their improvement and development would think of doing anything to disturb our programme of developing our own harbours and carrying our traffic through our own ports. That is the policy of the Government; everything will be done to develop the harbour of St. John, where a great increase of trade has taken place during the last couple of years. That policy, so far as I am aware, will be continued in the future, in order that we may develop these harbours as rapidly as possible to keep pace with the increasing trade.


William Pugsley: In the very interesting statement which he has made-a statement which, I am sure, will be appreciated by the people of St, John, my hon. friend has omitted to answer my question whether it is proposed to have a depth of 35 feet at low water so as to afford sufficient accommodation for the larger ships. My hon. friend says that he has not seen any suggestion with regard to the use of Portland harbour for Canadian trade. If he will look at to-morrow morning's papers he will see that a very interesting situation has arisen in Congress in consequence of a letter which the British Ambassador wrote a few days ago to a member of the United States Senate approving of the proposed deepening of Portland harbour in order to accommodate Canadian export trade. A question has been raised in Congress as to the interference with the internal affairs of the United States by the ambassador of a foreign Government. Some senators have suggested that the British Ambassador ought not to express any opinion whatever as to the expenditure of any money in Portland harbour. In his letter, the British Ambassador -he is authorized by the Canadian Government to say so-says that if the harbour is deepened to 35 feet, the Canadian Government will use it for a large part of its

trade during the winter. It would be unfortunate if the Government by reason of stopping short of the depth which is necessary for the accommodation of the largest ocean vessels, should lose the trade which legitimately belongs to Canadian ports. I trust that my hon. friend will take that into his careful consideration in connection with the deepening of the present berths and also with regard to any new berths that may be constructed.


Robert Rogers: We are dredging to a
depth of 32 feet at low tide at St. John. I did not know that there was any necessity for going deeper. Of course, if it is necessary to go deeper, we will have to make provision for it and dredge the other three feet. It has not been brought prominently to the notice of the department that the depth of 35 feet was necessary. As to the statement of the British Ambassador, I confess that I had not heard of it. I am glad, however, to be able to inform my hon. friend that the British Ambassador has not interfered with our programme of deepening and developing the harbour of St. John. My hon. friend can rest assured that all our energies will be bent to the development of our own harbours and to preventing the trade of out country from being diverted to any other than our own ports. When I was in England it was suggested that in the case of rush orders it might be more convenient that some of the trade of this country should be shipped through other ports than St. John and Halifax, especially in the winter months. I at once registered a strong objection to any such proposal, and I have not heard of it since. I believe the course that I adopted on that occasion had the effect of changing the minds of those who had that course in view. That is the only time that I ever heard any such proposal. As I have said, the country can depend upon it that the Government will do everything in their power to develop as rapidly as possible our own harbours in order that they may 'be able to take care of all Canadian trade.


William Pugsley: The minister states that the matter of going below 32 feet had not been brought to his notice. I regret to leam that, because in 1911 when I was minister I determined upon sinking the crib sites to a depth of 40 feet. The object of that was to allow for the depth of water in the berths being 35 feet, my idea being that the crib sites should be at least five feet below the level of the berths. I did that because I was aware that the
246J
harbour of New York is dredged to a depth of either 40 or 45 feet-to 40 feet at least. Ships are getting bigger every year, and there are a large number of ships crossing the Atlantic to-day which would not come into a harbour where there was not 32 feet of water at the berths; it would not be safe for them to come, they want 35 feet to avoid the danger of the ship scraping along the bottom. There is always more or less filling in from the surrounding water; that is going on all the time at St. John harbour. S(f I concluded six years ago that in order to bring St. John harbour up to first-class standing it was necessary to provide in the very near future for a berth of 35 feet, and that is why I made provision for sinking the crib sites to a depth of 40 feet. I would like very much if the minister would consider making provision for a depth of 35 feet at the new berths. The very fact that the British Ambassador has put himself in writing in reference to the proposed deepening of the Portland harbour to a depth of 35 feet, stating that if that were done the Canadian Government would use that harbour for purposes of transport during the war, shows that the big shipping companies -demand that depth of water for the safety of their large vessels. It is all' very well to have an open harbour like St. John; it is all very well to have a large number of berths, which we are striving for, but unless we have them to the proper depth the big ships will not come, and our Maritime Province harbours will not be regarded as first class harbours to which the most important trade of the world can come. In my judgment-and I am speaking from information received from those most qualified to speak on the subject-we shall not be able to attract to our harbours the big ships trading on the Atlantic unless we have a depth of at least 35 feet at the berths.


Robert Rogers: There may be some force in what my hon. friend has said, but it is hardly likely that within the next few years there will be any larger ships on the Atlantic than there are to-day. It is probable that the ships will he smaller and more numerous. My hon. friend's remarks remind me that a couple of years ago, when we were considering the construction of a dry dock at Esquimalt and Halifax, the Admiralty stoutly stuck to their request that we have a depth of something like 40 feet. So I am inclined to think there may be some force in what my hon. friend has said, and the department will give his sug-

gestion careful consideration, and see whether it is necessary to have a depth of 35 feet of water at berths 16 and 17 at St. J ohn.


Arthur Bliss Copp: May I impose on the good nature of the minister for a few moments io draw his attention to the unfortunate position in which the town of Sackville is placed through lack of wharf accommodation. A few years ago when
10	p.m. my hon. friend from St.
John (Mr. Pugsley) was Minister of Public Works, we impressed upon him the necessity of giving us very much improved wharf accommodation, with the result that an appropriation was made and a contract let for a new wharf a little removed from the old location. This wharf, which cost something like $40,000, was partly completed when the present Minister of Public Works took office, and has been finally completed since. We had hoped, of course, that when- the new wharf was completed the railway would run a spur dowij to it, which would give the people of Sackville proper wharf facilities. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane), however, for some reason or another,-if anybody in that locality advised him to act as he did, it was bad advice-refused to build the spur, and the people in that portion of the county of Westmorland are now in the unfortunate position of having no wharf accommodation at all. Those who do not know the Minister of Railways as well as I do, might think that this had been done purposely, but I would not for a moment charge the minister with discrimination against the people of Sackville. At all events the spur line was not constructed. Since then the Minister of Public Works has made a reasonably large expenditure for repairing the old wharf, where we had rail connection. I do not know the exact cost of that work, but the wharf was repaired, and while the accommodation was not sufficient it was better than none at all. Last spring, however, the Minister of Railways, apparently learning that the people of Sackville were getting some accommodation, tore up the rails from the old wharf and we are now absolutely without any rail connection to the public wharf at all. I am just in receipt of a letter today from Sackville which says that the ice has carried some portion of the old bed away, and a vessel which arrived there within the past week to discharge a cargo put out to sea again without discharging her cargo, because at that point there is a tidal river and when the tide dropped the

vessel slid because of the condition of the bed. I think the minister should see to it that immediate attention is paid to the river bed near the wharf so that vessels may discharge their cargo in safety. It would need only a small appropriation, and could be made under the general heading of improvements to harbours and rivers, I suppose. It would hardly be necessary for the minister to send the engineer down there, because the caretaker of the wharf would be able to have the bed of the wharf attended to so that vessels could discharge their cargo. I think the new wharf was completed in 1912, at an expenditure of $40,000. I do not believe a vessel has ever tied up to it yet, and it would seem to me that unless the minister puts some one in charge of the wharf it will be falling into disrepair. I would therefore urge him to have his engineer in that section of the country keep his eye on the wharf, because I still have hopes that we may get rail communication with it yet.
I hope when that is done we shall have our new wharf in a proper -state of repair, and will be able to use it. I only -make the latter reference and suggestion in the interest of the department, because after that amount of money has been spent there the wharf should not be allowed to go into decay, or to get out of repair, for the sake of the small expenditure necessary to keep it in good condition.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend will quite appreciate the fact that I am not very well acquainted with -the local conditions of the two wharves he deals with, but I shall be very glad -to have the matter looked into by the engineers and see if anything can be done tending to an improvement.
Harbours and Rivers-Maritime provinces generally, $5,000.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Some years ago there were certain improvements made by dredging -at a place -called Li-ttle Bras d'Or, in the county of North Cape Breton. I would .like to ask the minister if the work was completed? Little Bras d'Or is an arm of the sea, and was rather shallow for vessels to enter. A considerable amount of money w-as expended during the years 1909, 1910, 1911 and 1912, but I am informed the work was never really carried to completion, and a danger to navigation existed because of its unfinished condition. Can the minister say whether it has been fully carried out or not? At some places it was cut down to a depth of about twenty-two feet or more, but I am told some parts were left unfinished. Of

course, the capacity of an entrance of that kind is limited by the shallowest part. Was the original plan of dredging carried out, and if not has the minister any intention of finishing it? What is left undone would be comparatively small, but while it is left undone it spoils the effect of what has been finished.


Robert Rogers: I regret I have nothing before me that supplies the information my hon. friend asks for, but I have asked the deputy minister to take ia note of it, *and I will be glad to answer my hon. friend's question to-morrow.
Rivers and Harbours-Quebec-Cape Cove, repairs to pier, $1,200.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to offer the same criticism as was offered by my hon. friend from Inverness (Mr. A. W. Chisholm). Last summer I spent some time in the counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure, and I travelled from one harbour to another. To my great surprise I found that practically all the piers and wharves which were solidly built years ago had been partially destroyed by the heavy seas of the Baie de Chaleur. The wharf at Cape Cove is no exception to the general rule. One of the wharves in that section which is especially interesting to me is the wharf at Perce, because Perce is a stopping place for the various steamers which ply between New Brunswick and Quebec and the Gaspe coast. That wharf there was built at a cost of about $80,000, and last year I saw it was cut in two, due to the lack of repairs. I would urge upon my hon. friend to give special instructions to his local engineer, and have a report made to the department giving an outline of what expenditure is necessary to put those piers and wharves in good condition. Having spent so much money it is a great pity that we should be now confronted with the situation that they are absolutely useless.
Mr.. ROGERS: It is quite true the heavy seas down there do a great deal of damage to some of our smaller wharves. This is especially the case in regard to the Perc6 wharf mentioned by my hon. friend. The matter is under the consideration of the department, and a report is being made on it. It is very probable it will receive some attention in the supplementary estimates. In the opinion of the department there is a pressing need for improvement.
Rivers and Harbours-Clarke City-Recon. struction of wharf, $4,500.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the paper industry, which made Clarke City and gave it its
name, still operating? I understand this wharf was built for the company which was carrying on business there. I believe it was a big concern, and employed a large nurm her of hands.


Robert Rogers: The information before the deputy minister is that it is still operating.
I understand it is the company which is pressing for these repairs.
Rivers and Harbours-Gaspe deep water wharf-Repairs, $17,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the nature of. those repairs? That is the terminus of the Atlantic Quebec and Western railway.


Robert Rogers: This amount of $1,700 is required to effect necessary repairs , to the wharf, and is made up as follows:
Removal and replacing of 12,750
cubic yards ballast inside of pier $ 7,650.00 Iron rods and plates at $6 per 100
pounds	 5,684.58
Timber-76,183' B.M. at $40 per M.
14,500' B.M. spruce at $30
per M	 3,842.32
Total	$16,816.90


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understood that the
wharf was completed.


Robert Rogers: The district engineer has this to say:
From three feet below low water level to high water level the outside ereosoted timber is bulging out and will have to be secured into place by a system of tie rods and fenders so as to prevent the same thing occurring in the future, and to prevent the bulging out of the double set of cribs which form the sides of the pier.
He adds that a double set of tie rods will have to be placed-utilizing the rods already placed by contractors-every 8 feet and held [DOT] at each end by an iron strap over four pieces of hardwood. The iron straps will also be held in place by screw bolts and supported against the ereosoted face work by four channel irons.
Harbours and rivers generally-Repairs and improvements, $75,000.


Mr. BUREAU:: I see nothing here for
the St. Maurice river. Dredging generally in rivers, I understand, is done by the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I have reference to the part of the St. Maurice which lies within the harbour of Three Rivers. This rivier' is in a peculiar position. It has always been maintained and improved by the Department of Public Works because it is not used so much for navigation generally as for industrial purposes. There are big industries located on the St. Maurice. At the mouth of the river the Canada Foundries Limited have established

u plant, and they desire to bring in their iron, ore by boat and up the mouth of the river for a short distance. It has become necessary,. in the interest of these industries, that there 6hall be some dredging and some small improvements made. I do not think that the amount involved is very considerable, and I would ask the minister if out of this amount which is now being voted a certain sum could be appropriated to this purpose. I think an application has been made by these people and that they have explained the conditions and circumstances to the department. It is in the public interest that the work should be done.


Robert Rogers: If there is an urgent
necessity for the work I suppose that an amount oould be taken out of the general vote for dredging which applies to Quebec and Ontario. There is an amount covering work of this kind. We have not reached the estimate yet but work of this character would come under that head. I have not in mind the particular work that my hon. friend refers to, at least it has not been brought to my notice in such a way that I could explain the details of it, but I shall be very glad to have it looked into and see if a certain portion of the dredging money that is voted can be applied to that particular work.


Jacques Bureau: My reason for asking
the question is that, this being within the limits of the harbour of Three Rivers as defined by the Act, I was anxious to know whether the Department of Public Works would take charge of it. Part of the harbour is not used in any way foT navigation purposes. There are no docks, except private docks which are used by barges that haul pulpwood and the produce of the mills. If it remains for the Department of Marine and Fisheries to do this work, I do not think there is much hope of having it done.
iMr, ROGERS: I understand that the harbour of Three Rivers comes under the commission. The Department of Public Works has been doing the dredging there and I presume if there is necessity for further dredging, we will have to carry it out.


Ernest Lapointe: How much of the
$75,000 voted last year under the same general head has been expended?


Robert Rogers: Forty-seven thousand
dollars was expended last year.
I.aprairie-Protection works, $85,000.


Mr. MARTIN:: What is the nature of the work at Laprairie?


Robert Rogers: Building a roadway.


William Melville Martin: Last spring I went across Victoria bridge and I found four or five feet of water on that road. In the early spring we find about fifty feet of ice on the road and it stops traffic there for six or seven days. It is the only way of reaching Montreal from the south side of the St. Lawrence. Is it the intention to spend this money during next summer?


Robert Rogers: We have had a good deal of trouble with this particular work. The work acts as a dyke and a protection and also as a road. A contract was recently let for its completion and the contractors are at work. They have promised to have 100 or 200 men at work every day from Monday next in order that they may get it completed as soon as possible.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who are the contractors?


Robert Rogers: The Carleton Construction Company.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the amount of the contract?


Robert Rogers: Seventy-nine thousand
dollars.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The minister expects
the work will soon be through?


Robert Rogers: We want to try and get it through this fall.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is an eyesore. People travelling out of Montreal are stopped immediately at the outlet of the city. I have been over that route on several occasions. If the minister completes that work at the earliest possible date he will render great service to the travelling public.


Robert Rogers: Last year we built a temporary length of road which gave good service for a time. We are pressing the contractors and urging them to get the work completed as rapidly as possible. A few days ago we made further representations to the contractors and they gave us very strong assurances that they were endeavouring to carry out the contract and to have it completed within the next three months. We me giving them this opportunity to go on on condition that they keep a certain number of men at work every day.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Is this the Montreal end of King Edward island?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. The ice washes
away the land on this point on the river and it is work which properly appertains to the Federal Government.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not wish to raise any objection, and I should like the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and other hon. gentlemen from Quebec to remember that, if in the future I ask the Government to give some assistance towards building another piece of road that properly appertains to the Federal Government, and happens to be in the county of Frontenac.
Murray Bay-Repairs and improvements to wharf, $3,500.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much was spent there last year?


Robert Rogers: The amount was $4,200.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a very creditable work. The wharf was too narrow.
Rimouski harbour improvements, $170,000.


Ernest Lapointe: How much was spent last year at Rimouski?


Robert Rogers: Eighty-five thousand dollars.
RiviOre Ouelle-Repairs and improvements to wharf, $5,400.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the minister give instructions to his wharfinger at Riviere Ouelle to see that the railing on the wharf is strengthened? This is the terminus of a branch line from Riviere Ouelle station to Quaie St. Denis. The wharf is frequented by many people, and for the protection of the public the railing should be strengthened. I happen to pass there often, and I am surprised that there are not more accidents.
Ste. Anne des Monts-Banding pier, $6,650.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was any work done here last year?


Robert Rogers: Yes. We spent $34,000. That is to complete the landing pier.


Mr. ROBB:: I notice the minister has
dropped from these estimates the item of $15,000 for deepening La Guerre river.


Robert Rogers: This was included in a large number of items dropped from the estimates this year, that is items that had been revoted a number of times.
Ontario public works, harbours and rivers, $333,850.


William Pugsley: I do not think that Ontario members expected that Ontario public works would go on to-night. It is nearly 11 o'clock, and perhaps the minister would consent to the committee rising.


Robert Rogers: No objection at all. I quite appreciate the opportunity given me to-night of proceedings, with my estimates instead of waiting till a later date.
Progress reported.
On the motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Saturday, July 28, 1917.