Mr. GLEN. CAMPBELL (Dauphin).: Before the orders of the day are called there is a matter I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. In the territories northwest of Manitoba, leases of the lakes for a term of years have been granted to certain interests. Those leases, in some cases, have been transferred to an American company called the Northw-est Fish Company. No fisherman was allowed to fish unless he agreed to sell his catch to that American firm and he had to take from 1 cent to 1J cents less than the price he could get elsewhere.
I have here an affidavit from a gentleman who was a fisherman in those waters, and I wish to bring to the attention of

the government this affidavit which shows that he was not paid by this company for the fish he produced:
This is to certify that I, Isaac Bradbury, fished during the winter of 1907-8 in the waters that are covered by Captain E. D. Coffey and F. L. Merritt's leases in the Northwest Territory, and was forced to sell my catch by the government officials to the Northwest Fish Company, which is represented by Captain E. D. Coffey and F. L. Merritt, and that the Northwest Fish Company went into bankruptcy and owe me $810 from my winter's labour. And I make this solemn declaration knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act of 1903.
(Signed) ISAAC BRADBURY.
Declared before me at Winnepegosis, in the province of Manitoba, this 22nd day of April. 1909.
(Signed) George O. Bellamy.
I have taken the time to make this explanation so that the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) may be seized of the situation. I would like to know if there is any possibility of the government holding up the lease and preventing this company continuing its fishing operations unless it pays the men who produce the fish. This is only one case, but there are many cases of the same nature.


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: I suppose my hon. friend (Mr Campbell) will be kind enough to let me have the affidavit he has read, for, I may inform him, a commission has been appointed to inquire into the whole question of fisheries in Manitoba and the Northwest, and I should be very glad to refer this affidavit to the commission for investigation. Some complaints reached the department some time ago that our officers were working in the interest of the fishing companies. I can hardly think that such a charge can be true, but, as the statement was made, I gave the commission instructions to investigate that point. I shall be glad to communicate to the commissioners at once the affidavit that my hon. friend has read.



PRIVILEGE-MR. GLEN CAMPBELL.

Glenlyon Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. An article was published on May 4 in a newspaper, published in Manitoba, called the * Free Press.' It is a long article, too long for me to delay the House with reading. It refers to me personally in somewhat melodramatic terms. I feel that, perhaps, the reason this paper ascribes to me the character it does is that last fall, as this paper well knows, I took part in the timber wolf hunt and managed to bring in the scalp. However, there is no reason why they should, at this late day, show a
grudge against me on this account. I think it is due to myself to say that, since I have had the honour of a seat in this House, I have had the same motto that has guided me through life in my every day meeting with others, to show the courtesy that one gentleman should show to another; and I certainly have tried to act up to that motto in this House whether in the case of a page or of the Prime Minister. This article gives credit to a physician for having practically brought to an end my political life, at the same time I was under the care of a physician trying to extend my natural life as long as I could. But, not satisfied with that, this paper had to call in a horse doctor or ' vet.' to aid in that work. The charge is made in this paper that I had acknowledged that I was guilty of bribing some one in some department of this government. I want to say that any paper that makes that statement, or any hon. member, or any minister of the Crown, who makes that statement, makes a statement that is absolutely without any foundation. I think the hon. gentleman who is quoted on the subject, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), never made the statement attributed to him, or if he did it was under a complete misapprehension. And I stand here to correct any misapprehension of that kind. The only thing concerning me that can be distorted to mean anything of the kind attributed to me by this paper is that when discussing on the public platform the Department of the Interior as it was before my friend (Mr. Oliver), who now manages it, had it in charge, I stated that things had got to such a stage in the management of that department that, even in the matter of a mere homestead, or other right that the law allowed the people, there was a holdup, that intermediaries had to be employed to negotiate for the people the granting of that which was their right under the law. I stated on the platform, and I have stated there, that I knew of a case, the case of the Brown-Bedingfield Company, in which application had been made for years for that which was the absolute right of the company under the law, and that they could not get their right, for some reason or other, until a mutual friend told them that there was a way to approach the government, that of employing intermediaries. And they had to take that way, and it cost them $2,000 to get what was their right under the Canadian law. That is what I have stated, and I state it now. This Brown-Bedingfield Company was composed of none but stockmen, men who had been in the country for over twenty years, whose business life absolutely depended on their getting a lease in a country which was fast being taken up by others who were obtaining leases under the same law under which these men ought to have been able to obtain theirs. Fault is found with

me by my oppnoent that I will not give information with, regard to the names of the men employed as intermediaries. That, Sir, is a matter of my own conscience and my loyalty to them,-for this reason that it is not the business of the people of Canada, at all, for no injustice was done to the people, the only injustice done being to the company. A greater reason why I could not mention the names of these intermediaries is the fact that one of them was a very good personal friend of my own, a Liberal member of this House and now dead. And many of the Liberals who now gibe at me on account of this matter know who these men were. They try to force my hand to make me do what I think would be disloyal to the memory of my friend. This paper refers to a so-called challenge made by the Minister of the Interior to me during my campaign. As I have already said, I believe that these statements were made by my friend the Minister of the Interior under a misconception. I do not think he would have said what he is reported to have said had he known the facts of the case. But I want to say this, that this challenge as reported was made to me at a point 1,200 miles away from where I was. and made during the height of a heated campaign, and I never saw it and knew nothing about it until long after. This article in the 'Free Press ' of May 4th also goes on to refer to me in terms very severe with regard to what I said about the Hon. Walter Scott, the premier of Saskatchewan. What I said about the Hon. Walter Scott stands, every word of it, because I know it is true, and as a proof of my veracity I will refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the Morning ' News 1 of Moosejaw, Saskatchewan, of the date October 8, 1908, an article headed ' Scott backs out ' :
The ' News ' received noti6cation yesterday that Premier Scott had withdrawn his suit against it to recover $25,000 for alleged libel. It will be remembered that the actions arose from a news item published in these columns during August, in which it was stated that there had been issued to the premier $10,000 worth of stock in the Saskatchewan Valley and Manitoba Land Company.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Is the hon. gentleman not entering on new ground in reading this article? This is not the question that is being debated now.


Glenlyon Campbell: I am on a question of privilege, speaking to this newspaper article.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: But it is another newspaper article he is reading. The hon. gentleman complained of a different newspaper article.


Glenlyon Campbell: No, but because my veracity is questioned I want to establish it before this House by reading this article.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: By reading another newspaper article. That would be a new discussion.


Glenlyon Campbell: It is all on the same subject.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman must limit himself to the article that he complains of.


Glenlyon Campbell: Well, if I am not permitted to read it-it is much better written than I could describe it. This article goes on to say-and I refer any hon. gentleman to it who wishes to see it-that instead of the newspaper withdrawing the charge, which was practically identical to the charge that I made, it was, the premier, Mr. Scott, himself, who withdrew from the charge by *withdrawing his suit for defamation of his character, when he was haled before the courts to give evidence in the matter. He withdrew the charge himself, the newspaper did not, and that is the point I wish to bring to the attention of the House. Another article that would be amusing reading for some of the hon. members, appears in the same paper, the Moosejaw 'News,' on the 4th day of this month. I regret taking up the time of the House at this late date in the session, and I also regret that I did not bring it up earlier but could not owing to physical disabilities.



EXPORTATION OF AMERICAN SILVER.

Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia).: Before you leave the Chair, I would like to ask a question of the hon. the Minister of Finance with reference to getting rid of American silver coinage in Canada. Some time ago an effort was made to that end by giving the banks a small bonus, a small percentage to gather up the American coinage and ship it back to the United States. In the United States they gather our silver coinage and send it back to us, they do not allow it to circulate there. I understand that if the American silver was got rid of in Canada, we would make a profit of somewhere about half a millionk dollars, at the present prices of silver, in coining. Canadian silver and putting it into circulation. I would ask the Minister of Finance if any steps are being taken, or proposed to be taken, to get rid of this American silver.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: We have an appropriation for the purpose of repeating the operation of several years ago to which my hon. friend has referred. At this moment I am in negotiation with the banks with a view of making an arrangement, which I trust will be completed in a few days.


Mr. HUGHES.: Is the minister going to keep American silver out?


Glenlyon Campbell: 


William Stevens Fielding: How would my hon. friend keep it out? If an American comes into Canada with $50 of silver in his pocket, will you keep him out?



VENTILATION AND FIRE ESCAPE IN NEW WING.

Samuel Hughes: I desire to direct the attention of the government to the manner in which this new wing has been constructed. I think I am safe in saying that there is not one solitary ventilating aperture in the entire wing. The worst thing is the dining room up stairs. The rooms where the members usually congregate are entirely cut off from egress except by the elevator; in other words, there is no stairway excepting away out at the south end of the wing. Ini the case of fire out there, and when fires break out it is very often the electrical apparatus that is/ cut off, there is no means of escape except towards where the fire might be. Whoever conceived it must have been certainly an apprentice. I venture to say that buildings constructed centuries before the Christian era were much more sanitary and much more safe than this wing. All the minister has to do is to look at it-not a solitary provision for ventilation, not a solitary provision for escape in case of fire, every, one shut in at one end and like rats in a trap. I trust that during recess something will be done by the government about this, and put it in decent shape. At the present time it is scandalous.


Mr. D. HENDERSON (Halton).: I do not think the hon. member has much reason to complain on behalf of members of this side of the House, because, so far as I know, with the exception of the washroom, these new rooms are all occupied by hon. members on the other side of the House. If there is anything wrong with the ventilation or with the fire escape, the hon. gentlemen who sit to the right of the Speaker will suffer from it, and we will escape without a fire escape.


Samuel Hughes: What about the dining room ?


David Henderson: We can do without the dining room; and I know the Colonel does not patronize the other.



SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 188) respecting the Prudential Life Insurance Company of Canada, and to change its name to 'The Security Life Insurance Company of Canada.'-Mr. Proulx.
On section 2, license.
Mr. DOHERTY.: Before the clause is carried I would like to represent to the committee a fact which has an important bearing upon the provision fixing the period of time during which the minister may grant the license necessary for the carrying on of the business of this company. The original Bill fixed the time as the 27th April, 1911, but the Private Bills Committee of this House reduced that time so as to give the company only to the 10th April, 1910, that is less than a year from the passage, of this Bill to obtain its license. I think that in connection with this change it is fair to call the attention of the committee to the fact that this particular company has had obstacles put in its way for which it is in no way responsible, by reason of the fact that before the expiry of the period during which it was entitled to obtain its license, by some accident, a charter was issued to another company under the same name, the Prudential Insurance Company, with the result that it has become necessary for this company which by its charter, obtained the right to the name of 'Prudential,' to change its name and take the name which is being given to it by this Bill. The granting of a charter to another company under the name of 'Prudential,' -whether by accident or intention, puts this company in the position of a new company when it seeks to place its stock. Under these circumstances I think it would be only equitable that this company should be allowed two years in which to perfect its organization and I fail to see that any interest would be prejudiced by giving it that right. I would therefore move that the section be amended by the substitution of the year 1911 for 1910, in other words that the time be replaced as it -was in the Bill when presented to and passed by the Senate.


William Stevens Fielding: The only objection which could be raised to the motion of my hon. friend is the question whether, if we grant this to this company, other companies will not ask for the same thing. Under the general rule a company is allowed two years to complete its organization and take out its license. In this case we have extended the time allowed and we are making it three years for the completion of the organization of the company. I do not complain of anything that my hon. friend has said, but I think it would be an inconvenient precedent to establish.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In regard to what might happen with other companies I would only say that the same accident which happened in this case may not happen again. This unfortunate accident placed this company in a peculiar position and it is for that rea-

son that I am asking that an exception be made. I am not saying that it was due to the fault of the department, but the fact remains that while this company had the right to the name 'Prudential,' before the expiry of the two years, the department issued a charter to another company giving it the name of 'Prudential.' When this company came to exercise its rights it found itself under the necessity of changing its name because the other company got the name of this one. The circumstances place this company in a position where it is subjected to a disadvantage, consisting in the fact that whatever work has been done in the direction of impressing people favourably with the idea of taking stock in this company has largely to be done over again because they are now being asked to subscribe to the stock of a company with a different name. Even, if it be desirable not to create a precedent by the granting of further time the fact should not be lost sight of that this company has been placed at a disadvantage by an unfortunate accident for which the company is not responsible, and which I imagine would not have happened in the department if attention had been called to it. If the matter had been looked into I fancy the department would not have given the same name to another company. This seems to put this company in an exceptional position and, therefore, in view of the circumstances of this particular case, it does not seem to me to place us in the position where it might be taken that we have made a precedent for application in all cases.


Mr. FOSTER.: It is practically putting this company in the position of a new company.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) is mistaken when he says that we gave a charter to another company. What happened was that a well established American company of the same name came in to do business in Canada but we Rid not grant a charter to any company under the name of 'Prudential.' The transaction was that a well established American company under that name came into Canada to do business and when thi3 Bill came before the Senate committee, the committee suggested this change. Therefore, I do not think that the case which my hon. friend has made out is as strong jis he puts it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Even were it so, the American company obtained a license since the granting of this charter. I was under the impression that it was a case of granting a charter, but no doubt the minister is correct in that, exceot that this American company came in to do business and was Mr. DOHERTY.
licensed under this name, since this name had been granted to the company dealt with in this Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think the point is of sufficient importance to make it necessary for me to differ from my hon. friend in regard to it. I only wish to guard against it being taken as a precedent, but perhaps what I have said will serve as a notice that it shall not be so regarded. I will not object to my hon. friend's motion.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. MADDIN asked:: 1.	When was Hector McRae, late keeper of Plaster Mines lighthouse, Victoria county, N.S., dismissed, and what was the cause of his dismissal?
2.	Was there any charge against him? If so, who was the complainant and was there any investigation?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	(a) By order in council dated 6th May, 1909; (b) offensive political partisanship.
2.	(a) Yes; (b) Hon. D. D. McKenzie, M.P.; (c) No.


ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
Mr. SPROULE asked:: 1.	Have any complaints been preferred to the district officer commanding at Ottawa against any officer or officers of the Army Service Corps in respect of their padding the pay lists, thus drawing money from the public exchequer for services not rendered or supplies not delivered?
2.	If any such complaints have been made have they been communicated by the district officer commanding to the Militia Department?
3.	If so, what action, if any, has that department been providing for the investigation of such complaints?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence).: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	A court of inquiry has been ordered to investigate the complaints.


BLOOD INDIAN RESERVE, ALBERTA.
Mr. WALLACE asked:: 1.	Who has the lease for Blood Indian reserve in Alberta ?
2.	When was this lease obtained and what were the circumstances in this connection?
3.	Will the minister give full particulars to date?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1, 2 and 3. Donald McEwen & Co., of Brandon, Manitoba,. An agreement was entered into between the Blood Indians in the presence of the Indian agent and Messrs. Donald McEwen & Co. on the 16th of May, 1903, covering the grazing privileges on the eastern and southern portions of the Blood reserve, upon the following conditions :
1.	That the company put on a herd of cattle known as a breeding one, and that only thoroughbred bulls be used on the range:
2.	That the company plough fireguards upon the reserve where needed, and construct dams for storing water on portions of the reserve distant from the river:
3.	That the company put down at least three artesian wells on the lower part of the reserve, hut should they fail to find water at a reasonable distance in the first well sunk, this clause not to be insisted upon:
4.	That the company purchase from the Indians annually not less than (700) seven hundred tons of hay at ($4) four dollars per ton, properly stacked at places designed by the manager of the company: the Indians to be under no obligation to supply it:
5.	That the company keep in repair the fences along the southern boundary of the reserve, and also keep in good repair the dams, as well as any artesian wells put down; so that when the (10) ten years have expired, these will pass to the Indians as improvements to the reserve:
6.	That the company shall put on line riders to hold their stock from mixing with the Indian cattle, should it at any time be found necessary:
7.	That the company agree that any rights granted to them on the reserve, whether for grazing or for any other purposes. shall in no way be understood as depriving the Indians of the right to use the reserve for grazing as many of their own stock as they desire, or limiting the number they may so graze:
8.	That the company shall use every endeavour to keep off trespassers from the reserve, and the Indian Agent shall lend them every assistance at this work:
9.	Rounding up and branding stock shall be done at such times only as shall he arranged by the company's manager and the Indian Agent:
10.	That the company shall have the privilege of erecting corrals for hay, and handling stock and any sheds that may be required for the proper handling of their stock and conducting their business; the same to become the property of the Indians at expiry of lease:
11.	And the parties of the first part agree that the company shall be allowed to graze (7,000) seven thousand head of cattle, on the Blood Reserve for a period of (10) ten years at an annual rental of ($5,000) five thousand dollars payable halfyearly :
12.	That the company shall advance three years' rent at any time after five years from date of ratification of this agreement should the same be required for the use of the Indians; of this the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs is to be the judge:
13.	That the Indians (or parties _ of the first part) agree that no grazing privileges shall be extended to any other person or company, and the party of the second part agree not to sublet their privileges herein set forth, without the authority of the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs:
14.	That this agreement shall come into force immediately upon its being ratified by the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs:
15.	The Superintendent General of Indian Affairs shall be the final judge as to the fulfilment of the foregoing conditions.
The above agreement was ratified by the Department on the 6th of June, 1903, on the following conditions,-
(1)	. That the half-yearly rental shall be paid in advance on the 1st of July and January in each and every year.
(2)	. That this license is not intended to confer any authority to obstruct trails or roads now open to the public, which now or may be hereafter under the control of the government of the North West Territories.
The rental under the above lease has been paid to the 1st of July, 1909.


FISH ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE.
Mr. FRASER asked:: 1.	Who is the lightkeeper at Fish island, entrance to Malpeque harbour, Prince Edward Island?
2.	Is he holding the office permanently, when was he appointed, and what is his salary?
3.	Is there any age limit for lightkeepers when they are appointed?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Mr. Patrick Gould.
2.	(a) Appointed temporarily by order-incouncil, December 7, 1906. (b) Appointment confirmed by- order-in-council, July 10, 1907.	(c) Salary, $250.
3.	The age limit is not determined by law nor by order-in-council, but the department as a rule endeavours to obtain keepers between the ages of 19 and 40 years.



ELMIRA BRANCH RAILWAY.

Mr. FRASER asked:: Has a contract for the construction of the Elmira Branch Railway, Prince Edward island be$n awarded? If so, to whom, and tor what amount?
2. Is it the intention to build the said branch from Harmony station?



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 189) to incorporate the Commerce Insurance Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 190) respecting the Fidelity Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Mc-Craney.
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) Messrs. Whitehead Brothers, at schedule prices.
2.	While in supply, it was stated that no final decision would be arrived at until the chief engineer of the department had an opportunity of visiting the place, and going over the route of the pfoposed branch railway.



MARITIME DREDGING COMPANY.

Mr. DANIEL asked:: 1. Was the tender of the Maritime Dredges of t Construction Companv for dredging m St. John harbour and Courtenay bay for which tenders were asked last year, accepted, and has .a contract been entered into? If so at what date?
2. Has any work been done under such contract? If so, what work and by what dredge?
J. Is it intended to resume this work? If so, when and with what dredge or dredges?
4.	Has the dredge 'Iroquois'" done any work under this tender or contract?
[DOT] 5\Wh^ is Eer capacity, and at what depth is she able to dredge effectively?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1. (a) Yes, for dredging to be done on western side of St. John harbour, at or near Beacon Bar. (b) Yes, contract signed May 10, 1909.
,2- (a) Yes. (b) Dredging on western side ot bt. John harbour, at or near Beacon Bar. (c) Dredge 'Iroquois.'
3.	As above stated, company is under contract to do the work mentioned and is the owner of dredges 'Saugus' and 'Iroquois ' The company also state that it has made arrangements to place on this work, without delay, an additional dredging plant of large capacity.
4.	Yes.
5.	(a) 250 cubic yards per hour, (b) 27 feet.


Mr. DANIEL.: I forgot to ask the rate for dredging ordinary material.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: 394 cents per cubic yard. I think it is the cheapest dredging that has ever been done in St. John harbour.


John Waterhouse Daniel: There was some done at 30 cents.
Mr. PUGSLEY, That was for some special work.


Mr. BRODEUR  .@: 



ROYAL CANADIAN ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY..

[Stage Direction]
House proceeded to the consideration of amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 63) to incorporate the Royal Canadian Accident Insurance Company.-Mr. Ames.
Mr. LENNOX.: What are the amendments?


William Stevens Fielding: The amendments in this case are as respects the name of the company and the title of the Bill. The Bill as introduced was to incorporate the Royal Canadian Accident Insurance Company and the Senate has amended it to read: British Canadian Accident Insurance Company. It would be well that the attention of the House should be called to the fact that although we have in times past permitted several companies to take the name of ' Royal ' it is regarded especially in the mother country, as an objectionable proceeding. A company would not be permitted to take that name in England, and it is a well established rule that the use of the word ' Royal ' can only be granted by permission of the imperial authorities. Attention has not been drawn in the past to that in Canada and we have incorporated a number of companies with the name ' Royal.' Now that attention is drawn to the matter, in this case by the Senate, it is well promoters of Bills should know they are not permitted to use the name * Royal.'
Amendments concurred in.



INSURANCE ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 97) respecting Insurance.-Mr. Fielding.
William Stevens Fielding: This Bill was disposed of in committee except as to two clauses both of which, however, deal with the same point. Section 70 imposes penalties in certain cases for the doing of what is deemed to be improper business. Section 139 provides that these penalties shall not apply in cases where the tax which has been suggested is imposed and where certain simple returns are made. These are the points which remain for the consideration of the committee.
On section 79,
79. Except as provided in section 139 of this Act, every person who-
(c) inspects any risk or adjusts any loss or carries on any business of insurance on be-

half of any individual underwriter or underwriters or any insurance company, without the license provided for hy this Act in that behalf or after such license has been revoked or suspended.


William Stevens Fielding: This is the existing law except that subsection ' c ' was inserted as being necessary to make the machinery more effective. It was the insertion of that clause which brought up the question and section 139 is the section which imposes the tax.	*[DOT]


George Eulas Foster: Has the government decided to adopt the principle of taxing insurance, because that really is the new principle which is introduced into this Bill. We have taxed almost everything but this seems to be 'somewhat a new departure. With reference to the Bill I have received a good many communications. I am bound to say that the strongest and most numerous are with reference to this clause. Some who write and telegraph are very strongly opposed to the new method of taxing insurance. They have been heard by the committee time and time again, but I think I am justified now in voicing their strong protest against this clause.


William Stevens Fielding: Would my hon. friend read one as a specimen; I have got many myself.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, I suppose the Minister of Finance has a sheaf of them as well as many other members in the House. I will read a paragraph or two from one or two of these letters which show the main point. One says:
In the first place the very foundation of the success of every life insurance office is in the hands of the medical practitioners through the country.


William Stevens Fielding: That is another question.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, but I want to get this off first:
In the first place the very foundation of success of every life insurance office is in the hands of the medical practitioners of the country. It is they who advise on the acceptance and rejection of applicants for insurance, and it is they who must file the papers which justify the payment of claims. The relationship of th,e medical profession is, therefore, a very close and vital one to all insurance companies.
In the second place the members of the medical profession have a deep interest in the insurance companies of the country, because it is through these that most doctors make provision for their families by carrying policies for their own and their families' protection.
For these reasons most members of the medical profession of this country have been watching, with much interest, the progress of insurance legislation during the past two 2154
years, and especially during the present session.
It is with much regret that it has been observed that there is a desire to place on the
statute-book of this country an Act that debars the medical referee of a company from holding a seat on the board of directors.
The latest proposed amendment allows the general manager, the president and one vicepresident to hold seats on the boards of the various companies, and be in receipt of remuneration for their services. These gentlemen may be financiers, business men, lawyers, capitalists, &o. But when one comes to the case of the medical officer of the company, he cannot be trusted to hold a seat on a board because he receives some remuneration for his special services, which saves so much money for all the companies.
This lays down the reasons against the prohibition of medical men from being on the board of directors. This does seem rather against the freedom which the shareholders of an insurance company ought to have in the selection . of their directors. The medical profession is a very wide spreading, respectable, useful and competent profession, and I have no doubt that the experience of a trained medical adviser would be invaluable to a board of directors. It may be argued that that one can be had by appointing a medical referee whom the directors can consult, but I know that many of the medical profession look upon this prohibition as a discrimination against medical men. I was away when this provision passed the House and so could not state my objections to it.


William Stevens Fielding: I did.


George Eulas Foster: But my hon. friend the Minister of Finance did and was unable to carry his point. I do not suppose therefore there is any use in my striving to have it carried. I am very glad to know that the Finance Minister was in sympathy with the protest of the medical man whose letter I have read. I join with the Minister of Finance very heartily in his opposition to this clause. The medical fraternity have just as good a right to be on a board of directors as lawyers or business men, or any other profession, if the shareholders see fit to elect them. I understand that my hon. friend was not able to have that exclusion removed.


William Stevens Fielding: I merely put the facts before the House.


George Eulas Foster: On the second point I have two or three letters. Here is one dated Toronto, May 11:
We have to-day learned that the Insurance Bill has been amended by the sub-committee by inserting provision for a duty to be placed on unlicensed insurance at the rate of 15 per cent, and as soon as we received this information we wired you as follows:-
' We strongly object to proposed provision for duty on unlicensed insurance. Please

persuade government to grant us hearing before passing Bill; which we now wish to con-firw.'
That telegram was received on May 11. Since that time have the insurance people had an opportunity of being heard on this clause?


William Stevens Fielding: No.


George Eulas Foster: Or is it the intention that they will before it passes the Senate?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot answer for the Senate. I have no objection if the Senate so desires. That matter was fully considered and discussed in the Committee of Banking and Commerce several weeks ago.


George Eulas Foster: I understand the rule of the Senate is to give a hearing before any committee to which they refer Bills of that kind.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no desire on the part of the government to press the Bill unduly. We leave the matter in the hands of the Senate.


George Eulas Foster: The firm of Eckardt and Company, from whose letter I have just quoted, continues as follows:
In opposing this Bill we agree with the Manufacturers' Association in their contentions which they have already advanced aganst this measure, and further wish to add that we are subscribers to the individual underwriters of New York, and if this amendment goes into force, we will be compelled to withdraw from this association, and thereby would lose a considerable amount each year by being forced to give our insurance to the Stock Fire Insurance Company, whose rates are now very much higher than the rate we are paying.
The individual underwriters have for twenty-five years operated reciprocal insurance without feeling or demonstrating in any way the necessity of governmental interference or supervision, and we believe this Bill is a device of the stock insurance agency interests to destroy our usage of inter-insurance, and we, therefore, believe that this measure should either be taken out of the Bill or the sting removed by inserting the following clause in the Act:-
Nothing in this Act shall be construed as applying to the operations and transactions of individuals, co-partnerships and corporations who reciprocally insure the property of each other against loss or damage by fire or lightning under the plan known as inter-insurance, whereby the participants reciprocally and specifically exchange contracts of insurance with each other, either directly or through the intermediary of a duly authorized attorney-in-fact.
H. P. ECKARDT & CO.
Then the Finance Minister has recently received a letter from the Montreal Board of Trade with resolutions which ran largely on the same line. Another gentleman, writing me from Toronto, says:


George Eulas Foster: The 15 per cent tax on insurance costs is excessive. Insurance is non-productive and the premium is annual. To unnecessarily increase costs to producers without giving some compensatory equivalent will be an unfair advantage against Canadians in favour of foreigners in onr home and other markets. Another feature is, that many firms, for protection and to reduce the cost of insurance, have made heavy outlay in equipping their premises with fire appliances and on which they have paid full duty to the government. This means an * annual interest charge and an annual debit for depreciations, all chargeable to insurance. To enforce a higher cost of insurance will tend to check expansion of home industry and to keep out manufacturers intending to establish in Canada.



JAMBS P. MURRAY,

[Stage Direction]
The Toronto Carpet'Manufacturing Company.
These are samples of the protests which I have received, and I thought it my duty to bring them before the House. I was not able to he present when the Bill was going through the House and had not had the advantage of hearing the discussion which took place, although I paid particular attention to the matter in the special committee. As far as I am personally concerned, the question presents itself on two sides. With regard to individual mutual insurance companies, it seems too bad to cut out these gentlemen. On the other hand, my view is that, so far as possible, our own companies should have the business, if they can overtake it. But I understood in the committee that they are not at present able to over take that kind of insurance and do it as reasonably and thoroughly as it is now done. As to the exact burden, I understand that the fifteen per cent is on the net cost of the insurance. The Finance Minister has probably worked that out.
William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: It would be useful to know how much it amounts to. Some say it is so heavy as to be prohibitive. Others contend that, when worked out, it is not very heavy.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend, having been absent, could not hear the discussion we had in this House on Saturday last, which, while it did not last very long, was fairly comprehensive. We have not before us at this moment the question of the medical men. Mjr hon. friend has read a letter from a distinguished medical petitioner which says the Bill apparently discriminates against his profession. That is entirely a mistake. It would be just as reasonable for the solicitor, the treasurer, chief accountant, or the actuary or any other official of a company to say that he is discriminated against. There is no

discrimination against an individual. The principle upon which this section was accepted and approved by the committee was, as I said on Saturday-if I may use the words in no offensive sense-the ordinary question of the relation of master and servant. The board is the master, the officials are the servants; it is not desirable that the servant should be master. Some said to us: ' While that is a fair, general principle, if you carry it too far you will prevent the administration of the company. Surely the president ought to be a member of the board, and you cannot expect him to work for nothing; the president must be away at times, and his place must be taken by a vice-president; surely you will not prevent him from being a member of the board; the managing director does the real work of the company; surely you will allow him to be a member of the board.' In each of these cases, an exception to the general rule is made, because it seems necessary to the efficient administration of the company. It has been strongly represented that it is necessary that the medical referee should be a member of the board. It is necessary that there should be a medical referee, it is necessary that there should be a solicitor, it is necessary that there should be an actuary. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the appointment of these officers, nor to prevent every one of them receiving whatever compensation the company wishes to give him. One gentleman who wrote to me treated this as an attempt to interfere with the _ emoluments of the medical men. There is nothing to prevent the board allowing whatever fees or compensation they like to the medical referee; there is nothing to prevent them having a medical referee .sitting at the table to advise them just as they have their solicitor. They may have the benefit of the experience, knowledge and advice of all these officials. But it does seem to me lacking in symmetry, in harmony with the general purpose of the Bill, that the servant should be at the same time the master -and again I say that I use that word in a proper sense, for we are all servants, each in his own way-that is a principle laid down, and we except the president, the vice-president and the managing director, because to that extent, exceptions seemed necessary to the management of the company.
Now, I pass from the question of compensation to deal with another point. When this Bill was introduced in the House, it did not contain any clause respecting taxation. This clause is the result of the deliberations of the committee. It was adopted in the sub-committee, I think I may say, unanimously. One hon. member has rather intimated since that, personally, that he
would rather have preferred not to have it, but if it were right in principle, he did not object to the amount. Subject to that reservation, I can speak of the committee as having been unanimous on this question. And, the committee having reported in that way, the government naturally accept the responsibility of having this provision in the Bill. At the same time, I do not think it a vital part of the Bill. I think there is a fair reason in support of it. I put the proposition on Saturday, but perhaps it will not be out of place if I repeat it now. If it is deemed proper, as a matter of public policy-and it has been deemed proper for many years-that there should be restrictions and obligations imposed upon our Canadian companies, and upon such established foreign companies as open offices in Canada, if it is a proper thing that in such cases we shall demand deposits, the taking out of licenses, the making of returns, with penalties imposed when they are not made in the right way and in the right time-if all this be necessary as a matter of public policy and public interest, it is hardly reasonable that other companies should be allowed to come in, directly or indirectly, and do business without any of these limitations. If it is right and proper that these companies shall be allowed to come in, or to send their policies in across the line, the whole theory and operation of our insurance law is wrong; what we ought to have is free trade in insurance. But it does not seem unreasonable that we should take a Canadian company, with Canadian capital, and impose these restrictions 'and burdens upon it, or take one of the great English companies that have done business here for half a century and compel it to take out a license, to put up a deposit, and submit to the discipline of the Insurance Act, and then allow a company in Detroit to do ten times the business and snap its fingers at the Canadian insurance law. I say, I do not think that is reasonable. If we continue to impose these limitations and restrictions, as the companies call them, upon the home companies and upon the old-established companies doing business here, if we say that they shall establish offices, pay taxes and share the burdens of citizenship, it does not seem reasonable that we should allow an American company to send in agents who will do the business and do it altogether beyond the limitations of the insurance law. Believing that to be a reasonable presentation of the case, we approached the question to see what reasonable Temedy we could apply. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) read a letter from somebody who said that he entirely agreed with the position taken by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. The chief opposition to our Bill in its original form, so far as that clause

was concerned, came from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. But, after the question had been discussed, after it had been threshed out for several hours in the committee, and after the view which I have endeavoured very imperfectly to present here to-day had been presented very forcibly [DOT]by the insurance men, the delegation of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association came back and said: ' We want to make a further statement; we admit the reasonableness of the statement of the insurance men; at the same time, we point out that your Bill will make this business practically prohibitory; you must impose penalties in such a way that these New England Mutuals and other companies will not be able to do business here at all; do not prohibit them, do not shut them out, do not place upon us that burden, for we cannot always get the amount of insurance that we want or, sometimes, when we can, we have to pay too high a rate; we admit the reasonableness of the case and that the Canadian companies and these licensed companies ought to have some measure of protection; and, if you want to put a moderate tax on this class of business, we think it reasonable and are willing to submit to it.' That is the source of this clause; the suggestion came from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.


George Eulas Foster: >
Was there a practical agreement on this rate?


William Stevens Fielding: No, the rate was not discussed. Some hon. gentlemen think the rate should be higher. As to the rate there is a difference of opinion. Several hon. gentlemen, including some on the other side of the House, have spoken to me personally about the matter and said that while they agree with the principle, the tax proposed is so small that it will be ineffective. I do not wish to give any names, because this Bill has been received with the utmost consideration by the hon. members on both sides, and I have talked freely with hon members on both sides' about it. I know there is a strong feeling on the part of hon. members on both sides that the tax ought to be higher. Still, there is the opinion among others that the tax should be lower. I do not regard this as a vital point. It is a fair subject for debate. If the committee vote that the tax should be lower, I will accept their decision, but I think that the rate proposed is not unreasonable. As to the application of the rate, there is a misapprehension on that point. I gave an illustration on Saturday which showed that conclusively. A letter came to me from* a gentleman who is the manager of an important manufacturing concern stating that his insurance cost him about $400 a year,


William Stevens Fielding: and that he understood the proposal was to impose a tax of 15 cents on every $100 of insurance. The effect in his case, he said, would be that where he now paid $400, he would be obliged to pay $900. I had to point out to the writer that he was mistaken, that under the tax imposed by the Bill, 15 per cent on the amount of his net premium, the addition to the cost of his insurance would be not $500 but $60.


George Eulas Foster: About how much insurance did that $400 carry?


William Stevens Fielding: The rate was about 121 cents on the $100 on the average-a very low rate. In the case of these low rates, the tax will be a mere trifle. The man who is now paying 12J cents on the $100 will pay about 14 to 14i cents. There will be 15 per cent on whatever rate he pays up to a; certain point. It may be that I am almost imposing upon the House by repeating what was said on Saturday, but my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) was not present, and perhaps he and the House will pardon me. Our attention was drawn to a class of insurance where the rates are not low, but are as high as four or nve per cent-some hon. members on baturday said the rates sometimes go as high as six and seven per cent. Take the case of lumber mills in situations particularly hazardous; it was represented that these mills often paid four or five per cent, and m cases even higher rates. Take 5 per cent as an illustration. Where a man already pays $5 per $100 for protection, if you add 15 per cent or 75 cents per $100 you are making a rate which is already very burdensome more burdensome still. So it means that $5 in the hundred would become $5.75. In the case of a $4 premium it would be $4.60. We felt that in such cases the rate imposed on the property owner was_ already high enough, and we do not wish to impose additional taxes. So we have provided that in no case shall the tax be more than 15 cents on $100 of insurance. If a man pays one per cent, and for ordinary business that is quite a high rate for the manufacturing elass^I am not speaking of a lumber risk", which is extra hazardous-but for ordinary manufacturing purposes, one per cent would be a high rate; and if he pays one per cent by the effect of this Bill he will pay $1.15 per $100. If he pays 4 per cent, he will still pay only 15 cents, because this tax will not apply to the premium in excess of one per cent. I think it will be found that the committee gave great consideration to the matter, and endeavoured to make a Bill which was not burdensome. It is an unusual thing; but I think there is force in

the contention of the insurance men, that if they are to be subjected to this discipline and these regulations and restrictions, some effort should he made to protect them against the outsider.


Mr. LALOR.: Is the tax to he levied upon the note or upon the net insurance?


William Stevens Fielding: The net insurance at the end of the year. The New England Mutual business, I am advised, is managed this way. There is a nominal premium at the beginning of the transaction, say one cent. At the end of the year, he receives a rebate of whatver part of the premium was found to be unnecessary for the carrying of the risk. One hon. gentleman said playfully: ' This is a pratectionist measure/ There is something in that. But let me give him an illustration. Suppose to-day that we were imposing an excise duty, as we do, a very heavy one, on the manufacturers of spirits in Canada, and that we allowed foreign spirits to come in free; that would not be free trade, that would be a very lop-sided arrangement. You would be imposing a burden on the home industry while allowing the foreigner to come in free. That is about what we would be doing under the Insurance Act; if this clause is not put in we would be imposing an excise duty om the home company and letting the foreign company come in free. That is something we do not want to do. So, I do not think that it is protectionist in that sense, it is only an attempt to allow some compensation for the burdens, and restrictions, and disadvantages to which the home companies are obliged to submit.


Mr. RHODES.: It has been the custom on the part of insurance companies doing business in Canada to reinsure a large portion of their risks in unlicensed companies in the United States, and in other countries. As I understand the meaning of section 129, as at present drafted, an individual desirous of going outside to the United States to do business with an unlicensed company will have to pay 15 per cent, or 15 cents on a hundred dollars, as the case may be; but the insurance companies which will have the advantage of protection by this clause will be able _ to go to the United States and reinsure without paying the duty. The effect will be that you are giving a two-fold protection to the Canadian companies under this clause, as I understand these words:
Notwithstanding anything herein any person may insure.
In looking at the interpretation clause I cannot find ' person ' is defined at all.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman is correct, the company can reinsure.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That being the case, you are giving to the Canadian company that advantage of 15 per cent protection, and Canadian insurers to that extent will insure in Canadian companies, and these in turn may go to the New England companies and place that very insurance which the individual himself is forbidden to do here.


William Stevens Fielding: That is correct.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: To my mind that is an unfair clause. I think there should be an alteration made in the clause to meet such a case. I am a protectionist, I believe in the principle of protection, and for that reason I cannot properly object to the principle of protection as it appears in this Bill. But in the case I have cited I think it works out unfairly as against the individual who wishes to insure in Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think my hon. friend will be able to suggest a change in that respect that will be acceptable to the House.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If that word ' person ' were defined to include companies, I think the case could be met.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: This question was a very contentious one in the committee and I would strongly urge upon the minister to drop it, because there seems a great deal of uncertainty among business people of this country where this class of legislation is going to end. This is the thin end of the wedge to direct taxation along insurance lines. Take the proposition as it stands. This clause is aimed at a certain specific class of insurance known as mutual companies. Now what constitutes a mutual company. The New England Mutual Companies are a joint adventme in insurance. If a man wishes to join that association he has first to put in a certain sprinkler plant, and in these companies he has to expend anything from $3,000 to $5,000 in order to enable him to qualify as a member of that association. Now there is a very large difference between a company of that kind carrying on a joint adventure and a company carrying on the business of insurance with a capital stock. Behind the risk of the person who is carrying on this business with capital stock there remains nothing hut an actual subscribed capital and the cash in the treasury as a guarantee to the insured, and it is the right of the government to demand that a certain portion of that capital shall be placed with the Receiver General, or somebody else, as) a guarantee that people who insure in this company will have something to fall back upon in case the com-

pany is wound up. But in a, joint adventure of this kind a man has to expend $3,000 to $5,000, before he is permitted t-o join those New England mutuals, and behind his risk is the joint guarantee of sometimes forty millions or fifty millions worth of property, far more capital behind his risk than any other insurance company has; and if he makes a loss his contract calls on all these corporations with enormous capital to see that his risk is paid. Now it sometimes happens that these people who have gone into that class of insurance have found that after they have expended four or five thousand dollars in a tank system, and their rates of insurance, where they had been paying one cent or two cents, have fallen down to twelve per cent of what they were paying, their insurance is one-eighth of what it had been previously. But bear in mind that they had paid for that in hard cash in order to enable them to come under that class of insurance. Now it is very unjust that these people, manufacturers, wholesale dealers of various kinds, and other people all over the country, should have gone to the trouble and expense of installing their sprinkler systems in OTder that they may join a mutual insurance company and secure insurance which in many cases they could not receive in this country-because nobody in Canada can take out more than $150,000 in Canadian Mutual Companies- it does seem unjust that they should be singled out for a tax, as it were, by this government, and called on to pay a special tax which is to my mind contrary to the principles on which the government has endeavoured to collect taxation hitherto in this country. It is the thin end of direct taxation. If this thing continues it is only a matter of a few years when there win be a proposition to say that not only outside companies but inside companies shall pay 15 per cent on their premiums to the government. In a few years you will have established this outrageous principle of taxation, which is nothing else than farming out taxation. It is on that principle and for that reason that I strongly urge the minister not to hand out the farming of taxes in this country to the corporations^ as he is doing here, but to avoid that principle. I strongly urge that a clause that discriminates against one class which the people as a whole are opposed to should be dropped. The only class of people who are calling for that clause are the insurance companies. Are they calling for it to protect the public? Not a hit of it, but to protect themselves, as a matter of fact the large insurance companies do not care a straw whether we insert that in the Act or not It is only the small companies, those which are narrow-minded and narrow spirited, and they are sending circulars to Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
agents all over Canada asking them to send wires to members of parliament to see that this clause goes through. I am utterly opposed to this principle of taxation. I must tell the right hon. leader of the government that this is only a system of farming taxation, a system that is adopted in Turkey where the government says to a man: ' You must pay a certain percentage of what you collect in a town over to us.' You are saying here: ' You must pay a certain percentage of this premium oyer to the government.' It is unfair and I think the best thing the committee can do is to strike out this clause, let the Bill go through and give it a trial.


Mr. MILLER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. J. A. Currie) has pointed out that there is a difference between a stock company and a mutual company and that it is not fair to deal with mutual companies as we do deal with stock companies. I would point out that, I think, two sessions ago,
I two Canadian Mutual Companies endeavoured to obtain incorporation from our government without putting. up the usual deposit or taking out a license. This government and the Banking and Commerce Committee refused to give to these two Canadian Mutual Companies a license to do business unless they complied with the Canadian law, put up their deposits and took out their licenses. So, we are not making any distinction as between stock and mutual companies. The hon. gentleman pointed out that people are now enabled to obtain from the New England Mutual Companies insurance for one-eighth of one per cent and that they have to pay Canadian companies two per cent, but he frankly admitted that in order to obtain this low rate from American companies, these gentlemen have had to spend large amounts of money to improve their risks, to induce these insurance companies to accept them. If they expended that large amount of money in the improvement of their risks the Canadian manufacturers could obtain from the Canadian companies
I will not say two or three years ago

all the insurance they desired to have at a rate little, if any, in excess of that which is charged by the American companies.


Mr. SPROULE.: That is denied.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I speak from absolute knowledge when I say that that statement is not true. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Miller) has been misinformed. I have in my mind one corporation in my constituency that placed half a million, dollars of insurance, and I am advised that they could not get more than half of that placed with the Canadian line companies, and that the other half is carried by companies mostly in the United States and in some cases in Germany. They were at one

time placing their insurance in Canadian companies, but the rate became so exorbitant that for a time they had to do without insurance or until they were able to place it with outside companies:	I know that the claim
is made by the insurance companies of Canada that the manufacturers do not have to go outside of Canada. But no satisfactory reply was given to the statement of the manager of the E. B. Eddy Company that they could not get their insurance in Canada.


Henry Horton Miller: If the hon. gentleman listened to the evidence given before the committee he will remember that Mr. Laid-law, one of the leading insurance men of Toronto, stated that the Canadian companies are able and willing to carry all the business that might be offered to them.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Laidlaw made no answer to the evidence given by Mr. Rowley of the E. B. Eddy Company. He made a general denial but he did not make a specific answer to the statements of that -gentleman.


Henry Horton Miller: Mr. Morrisey of Montreal did deny that and stated that the Canadian companies were able and willing to carry at reasonable rates all the insurance that the E. B. Eddy Company might desire to place with them. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has read a letter, the writer of which appeared to think that the suggestion of this tax, if we might call it a tax, had come from the insurance companies. That was not the position taken by the insurance companies before the committee. They said: ' We do not want the tax; we want you to put us on the same level with other companies and, if you are going to permit these American companies to come in without putting up a deposit and without taking out a license, permit us to do the same thing. Throw the doors wide open and we will be satisfied. We will be willing to compete with those people on equal ground.' I think the House generally recognizes^., as was pointed out by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), that the suggestion of the tax came from the maunfacturers who were before the committee. They said: We are willing to be protected and we are willing that others shall be protected. It was on that suggestion that the tax was proposed. It originated not with the insurance men but with the manufacturers. As to the question whether 15 per cent up to $100, this rate being reduced to 10, 5, 4 or 3 per cent, according to the rate of premium


John Allister Currie: Before the hon. gentleman wanders away from the point I
would ask him to point out one single instance of a similar tax being imposed on business.


Henry Horton Miller: That is getting away from the point altogether.


John Allister Currie: I think that is very much to the point.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: Every item in the customs tariff is the same kind of tax.


John Allister Currie: If the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) cannot distinguish between, a tax under the customs tariff and a tax on business I am very sorry for his mental qualities.


Henry Horton Miller: If the hon. gentleman desires a parallel let me refer him to the business tax imposed by the Ontario legislature within recent years. As to the amount of the tax let me say that it costs the Canadian companies about 18 per cent of the premiums to conduct their business. I leave out of the calculation the commission paid to agents. Salaries, rents, municipal taxes, and buildings cost the Canadian insurance companies about 18 per cent of their receipts. This is altogether saved to the American companies whom we have permitted to come in here and do business.


John Allister Currie: How much does it cost for insurance commissions?


Henry Horton Miller: About 15 per cent.


John Allister Currie: 25 per cent is the
average insurance commission.


Mr. NESBITT.: You do not know anything about it.


John Allister Currie: I do.


Henry Horton Miller: If it costs the Canadian insurance companies 18 per cent to do business, and if this is a cost which is not incurred by the American companies I should think we were not unfair in imposing a tax equal to the cost of conducting their business.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You must take into account the additional charge which the ordinary insurance companies impose upon the party who takes out a risk ovdr that imposed by the mutual companies. For instance, I pay on an ordinary building li per cent, whereas, if I were insured in a mutual company, I would get my insurance for about 60 mills on the dollar.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. gentleman and every body who places insurance knows that any one can go into a mutual company and sign a premium note thereby making himself a member of the company and liable for all the losses that the company may sustain. He knows very well that in some years, and may be for a number of years, he will get his insurance

cheaper than he would if he goes into a stock company, but he knows too that it may sometimes happen that having made himself a member of the company he will have to pay a great deal more for his insurance than had he remained in the stock company.


John Allister Currie: It is the people who pay the insurance who have to pay this tax and not the company. My hon. friend (Mr. Miller) is treating it as if it came out of the pockets of the insurance companies.


Henry Horton Miller: I admit that the 18 per cent which the Canadian companies pay comes out of the pockets of the people who pay insurance and our proposal is to take this 15 per cent from exactly the same source. The hon. member (Mr. Foster) has asked for some illustration to show what might be the burden of the 15 per cent. On Saturday I had a conversation with the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty) who told me that he is carrying with the New England companies a risk of about $1,000,000 and he pays for that a premium of 15 of one per cent and the 15 per cent taxation to him on $1,000,000 insurance will be $225 per year. I am sure that no one will think this an excessive tax upon a business capable of being insured for $1,000,000.


William Stevens Fielding: I might perhaps give some information as to the history of this proposed tax. When I introduced the Insurance Bill the government did not contemplate such a tax, 'but it was resolved upon by the committee, reported to the House, and on behalf of the government I accepted it. In the report of the proceedings before the committee I find a statement made by Mr. A. T. Russell, one of the representatives of the Canadian Manufacturers1 Association who appeared to oppose the Bill. He had opposed it very forcibly and had made a very strong statement from his point of view. He retired and the debate went on, and at a later stage Mr. Russell came back and said:
Mr. chairman and gentlemen: I have not come to make a second speech on this subject, hut am acting on the suggestion thrown out by a member of the House yesterday, that we should try to get together and see if it was not possible to solve this apparent difficulty. The manufacturers particularly have tried to do so, and we have discussed the subject with some of the insurance men. Perhaps I put it too forcibly in saying that the insurance men will not object to what I have to suggest. Some of them, however, have intimated they will not.
He went on to discuss the proposal made by the insurance companies that outside insurance should be permitted when an affidavit was filed that you could not get the insurance in Canada, and he argued that Mr. MILLER.
that was not workable, and that it was not a solution. He said:
If you decide that insurance is one of the industries that should be protected, if you think it right and proper that we should pay to the government of this country a fee or a tax levied upon the money we are paying out of this country for the commodity of insurance we are willing to pay it. I think that is a proper solution of the problem. It prevents the soliciting of business in Canada by companies that are not licensed, and it prevents wild-oatting, which should be prevented; and it increases the cost of outside insurance, even of New England insurance, and to that extent it is going to help the gradual turning over of that insurance to the members of the Canadian Fire Underwriters' Association, and it will result in turning it all over to the Canadian companies just about as rapidly as they are conveniently able to handle it. That is our position, and I think it is a sound position from the standpoint of the Canadian people. On behalf of the manufacturers, I have discussed it with Mr. Kemp, with Mr. Candee of the Gutta Percha Company with Mr. Rowley (the Eddy Company), and with Senator " Jones {the Miassey-Harris Company); we will pay whatever fee the Governor in Council thinks should be levied on any premiums which we pay out of Canada for this insurance that we buy. I think that is a fair position, and I think it is all that the Fire Underwriters' Association, as they are at present organized, are entitled to ask.
The committee accepted that section and introduced this clause.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he would not approve of some amendment to this Bill which would meet the case I indicated to him a short time ago. I think I have already shown that I do not object to the principle of taxation as provided here, but I think I have shown a case where it works unfairly as against the individual. If the minister agrees that the Bill should be amended in that regard I think there is no doubt that we would agree upon wording which would meet the case.


William Stevens Fielding: That would be a clear interference with the present condition; under the present condition the company has the right to reinsure.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Under the present condition the individual is allowed.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend may be right in thaL but if he will read the insurance law as it stands to-day, without this amendment, he will come to the conclusion that the doing of outside insurance without some penalty is contrary to the intention of the Act, although the machinery for enforcing penalties seems to be defective. The existing companies have the right to reinsure, and I do not think it would be wise to prevent them. If the busi-

ness passes through the office of a Canadian company, or the established companies-because it is not the Canadian companies only; it is the old established foreign companies we license here-I for one would be willing to give them that privilege. Let there be no misunderstanding:	Any
company in the wide world can come in and escape this tax by taking out a license in Canada, subject to the provisions of the Insurance Act, and if any company wants to get business in Canada they can escape the tax in that way. It is only in the case of those companies who do not want to come in, which do not want to establish any agencies here, which do not want to pay one cent of contribution towards anything in Canada; it is only that class of business which is going to be affected by this amendment.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: I regret that I cannot agree with the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes). I think it is quite proper that the insurance companies should have the right to insure outside of Canada if they desire so long as the insurance passes through the channels of the Canadian companies. If we impose a tax on these companies reinsuring outside of Canada, that tax will only come out of the pockets of the insured in Canada. Much as I regret it I cannot agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Rhodes).


Mr. A. HAGGART.: With reference to the rate, 1 have received a telegram from one of the largest mercantile houses in Winnipeg in relation to this 15 per cent taxation. During the earlier part of the discussion they objected to this principle altogether on the ground that they could not get insurance at any price from the Canadian companies. Since the last meeting of this committee I have received a telegram which says:
Have sometimes had to write $200,000 outside. This makes tax heavy.
That $200,000 is over and above what they give to the local companies. We have to consider also that this is not the only tax, because the responsibility entered into by them on these premium notes is as much a tax as the actual money paid for the premium. The opinion I have expressed here is the opinion of the mercantile community of that western city, where the insurance premiums are high.


William Stevens Fielding: Has my hon. friend any information to enable him to say what rate of premium is paid on that $200,000 insured outside?


Alexander Haggart: No.


William Stevens Fielding: I was trying to find out how much of a burden this would be. Whenever you take a given case and apply
the tax you discover, except in the case of a very large sum, that the tax is not excessive.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I do not propose to enter into an academic discussion with my hon. friend from Haldimand as to where the money comes from which buys insurance premiums. I think we can all agree that it comes from the people who insure. What I say is that if you tax an individual for getting insurance in the United States, you must in equity, in fairness, and in justice, tax the company which does the same thing. I think that is a fair principle. I would respectfully suggest to the minister that he should have an amendment made to this Bill which would meet the cases I have pointed out. The Minister of Finance referred to the fact that these outside companies refused to come in and pay the tax. That may be true so far as certain individual companies are -concerned, but in the case of these New England Mutuals, for example, you are not dealing with a company but with an association of individuals, and their business has arisen in Canada not because of any action on their part but because individuals in Canada have felt compelled to go abroad to seek for this insurance. There is no desire on their part to do business here, they do not seek for it or canvass for it, but individuals go outside and associate themselves with individuals in the United States and form these mutual companies. I would respectfully suggest to the minister that some amendment be inserted to meet the case I' [DOT] have suggested, because I do not believe there is any defence for the position now taken. I have no doubt that the hon. member for South Urey, who stands sponsor for this Bill and who has argued for it in season and out, can not suggest a reason why the Bill should stand as it is.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There seems to be a good deal of antagonism with regard to this proposal, and in my opinion the best solution is to force every -company doing business in Canada to take out a license. That is what the companies say. They said to the Manufacturers' Association: ' We don't want
any	protection,	all	we	want is	anopen	field, but	if	you	are going	toput	protection	on	and	if you	aregoing	to make	one	company	take
out a license you have no right to select certain companies and license them and not license the others. License them all or license none.' The easiest way to settle this thing is to license them all. If you are going to have regulations, put them all on the same basis and that will stop the discussion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are not taxing the company because the company does not come in; what you are doing is taxing the

Canadian individual who wants insurance which he cannot get at home. It is he who has to pay the tax and not the company, for the company does not canvass for insurance in Canada and does not care whether it gets it or not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why do they take it?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Canadian who cannot get insurance at home, or only at an exorbitant price, desires to get it where he can at a reasonable price. The case stated before the committee was this: ' Our financial obligations, which are very large, require us to have a large amount of money in the banks, and the banks demand certain insurance as collateral in order that we may keep our credit, and that insurance we have to provide in a short time; not one of the Canadian companies will give us that insurance and we are face to face with financial ruin if we do not get it on short notice; failing to get it in Canada we applied to the New England companies, who gave it to us and enable us to maintain our financial standing with the banks.' It is the individual who pays this tax and not the companies, because these companies are not stock companies looking for profit; they are mutual companies whose only need of money is for expenses to cover the clerical woTk involved, and whatever tax is put on for that purpose is put on the Canadian individual who insures.
At one o'clock committee took recess.
Committee resumed at three o'clock.
On section 139,
Notwithstanding anything herein, any person may insure any commercial or manufacturing property situated within Canada with any foreign unlicensed mutual fire insurance company or reciprocal underwriters, and may cause or procure the inspection of the risk and adjustment of any loss incurred in respect thereof,-
1.	If, prior to the inspection of the risk and his effecting such insurance, he gives notice in writing to the superintendent of his intention to effect such insurance, describing briefly the property to be insured, and naming the proposed insurer;
. hf, for each year in which he holds a policy of any such foreign unlicensed insurer covering property in Canada, he makes a return to the superintendent setting forth the names of all such unlicensed insurers whose policies covering property in Canada he has held during the period covered by the return, the location and description of the property covered, the amounts of such policies respectively, the net cost to him of the insurance represented by the said policies for the policy year or other shorter term of each policy terminated during the calendar year covered by the return, and the amount received by him from the said insurers in respect of losses under the said policies,-such return Mr. SPROULE.
to be made by delivering or mailing it in a registered letter addressed to the superintendent not later than the first day of March in each year, for the year ending on the preceding thirty-first day of December;
If he pays to the minister a sum equal to fifteen per cent of the total net cost to him of all the insurance mentioned in the return referred to in paragraph (2) hereof, but not to exceed in any case fifteen cents for each one hundred dollars of insurance for one year, or a proportionate sum for any longer or shorter period, and
If each of such unlicensed insurers furnishes to the superintendent, at his request, not later than the day named in paragraph (2) hereof, a statement duly verified in such manner as the superintendent directs, showing as at the end of the last financial year of such insurer the total assets and total liabilities of such insurer, and the total amount at risk and also the liabilities and amount at risk in Canada, the total income, total expenses and total amount paid for losses during its last preceding financial year, distinguishing between Canada and elsewhere.
2.	Default in compliance with the requirements of paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) of subsection 1 hereof, or any of them, by the insured shall render this section, as to such insured person and his agents and representatives, inoperative, and as if it had not been enacted.
3.	Default in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (f) of subsection 1 hereof by such unlicensed insurer shall render this section, as to such unlicensed insurer and his agents, representatives, inspectors or adjusters, wholly inoperative, and as if it had not been enacted.	,
4.	The minister shall pay and apply towards the expenses of the office of the superintendent such portion of the sum received by him under paragraph (3) of subsection 1 hereof as he deems expedient, and shall apply the balance thereof for the use of Canada.
5.	The superintendent shall embody in his annual report to the minister the returns and statements mentioned in this section, or a synopsis thereof.


John Allister Currie: I move that subsection 3 be amended by changing the tax from 15 cents to 5 cents.


Mr. H. H. McLEAN.: I second that motion. I think that some hon. members do not understand the nature of these mutual companies and seem to think that they are desirous of doing business in Canada. That is not the case. They are formejjl of, say, some 20 cotton mill companies combining to insure each other, and the only officers they have are a secretary and an inspector. We have not in Canada sufficient cotton mill companies to form such a circuit, and therefore it is necessary to apply to some of the New England Mutuals to get into the circle with them. Before these mutuals will insure, very strict regulations have to be complied with. Each establishment must have its own water supply and sprinkling system and other

appliances, all of which add to the cost of the property, but on the other hand the cost of insurance is very cheap, one-eighth or one-tenth of one per cent. It has been said that the stock companies in Canada are anxious to get that class of insurance; but I know that in the past, before we could go to the New England Mutuals, our stock companies would not take such risks under one or one and a quarter per cent. Now, these companies are willing to take that insurance cheaper, but not at anything like the rates charged by the New England Mutuals. Then our stock companies have not that system of inspectors and consequently cannot provide the same inspection. Another advantage about the inspection is this. A cotton mill is a hazardous risk unless equipped according to the regulations of these mutual associations, and besides if a mill takes fire, which is not fitted up with; this equipment, there is greater danger to the adjacent properties. But the mills which are properly equipped and subject to this inspection are practically very seldom burnt and there is nothing like the same danger to adjoining property. As regards the principle stated by the Minister of Finance, it would seem right and proper that there should be a small tax imposed, starting with say 5 per cent. Then there are the woollen mills, which are a hazardous risk, which the New England Mutuals will insure, and there are also the saw mills. In New Brunswick a saw mill operated by steam would pay up to seven per cent premium, whereas they may be able to get their insurance from the mutuals at four or five per cent. This additional tax of 15 cents on every hundred dollars of the premium would therefore be a large increase. It would amount to $100 or $150 according to the amount oi insurance carried. These mutual companies are incorrectly described as companies. They are really associations, or a partnership, so to speak, among say 20 companies, which agree to mutually insure each other, and each association has only, as I have said, two officers. Again take Lloyds, that does a great deal of inland marine insurance, and this Bill does not interfere with Lloyds taking risks of that class. If we establish the principle of imposing a tax, we should begin with a small tax of say five per cent, then see how that works out, and if found necessary to make any change, that could be made later on.


Henry Horton Miller: The bon. gentleman says that insurance can be had in the New England companies at one-tenth jr on * eighth of one per cent. If that be the case, the insurers in those companies would still have very cheap insurance with this tax of 15 per cent not to exceed 15 cents per hundred dollars on the
premiums. He says, that Canadian companies are not willing to carry insurance at anything like the rates charged by the New England companies on those mills which are fitted up with sprinklers. On Saturday I pointed out that a number of Canadian insurers have voluntarily taken their risks from the New England Mutuals and placed them with Canadian companies because they find that they can now place that business with the latter at nearly the same rates. I would point out further, as I did on Saturday last, that a larger volume of business will enable the Canadian companies to charge cheaper rates, because the chief cost of these companies is in the employment of expert inspectors, and the larger the volume of business the less will be the percentage of cost. My hon. friend says that the Canadian companies have not such inspectors as the New England companies.
I would reply that they have just as competent inspectors and that the very inspectors employed by the Canadian companies are those they obtained from the New England states and who were previously employed by the mutuals. I was told by the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty) that he carried insurance of a million dollars. Well, this tax of 15 cents per hundred" dollars on the premiums would amount in that case to about $225 per year. He is a rather poor Canadian who does business to the amount of a million dollars and is not willing to pay $225 to Canadian companies rather than to American especially when in Canadian companies he gets a better insurance than he can in the American companies. He does in this way and because of this reason -if there is any litigation between the person insured and the foreign concern carrying the insurance, he must go to the foreign country with his litigation and light out his lawsuit there, but, in the case of Canadian companies, any litigation is carried on in our own Dominion. The hon. member for Sunbury and Queens (H. H. McLean) spoke of a sawmill in New Brunswick carrying $50,000 of insurance. Let me point out to the hon. member that if that risk now pays 7 per cent as he says, the rate with this tax added will be 7-15 per cent. A business that is able to pay 7 per cent is not going to be very much crippled or its profits very much reduced by having to pay 7-15 per cent. We have heard many arguments from hon. members opposite in favour of protecting Canadian industry. I do not see how they can regard themselves as verv consistent when they ask to have the very moderate protection of 15 per cent upon insurance reduced to 5 per cent.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: The hon. member (Mr. Miller) has several times made the statement that Canadian companies will carry

risks at about as cheap rates as the New England Mutuals. I am sure he does not speak with knowledge of the facts, and I believe he is entirely mistaken. The Canadian companies cannot afford to carry the risks at the same rate as the New England Mutuals, and I do not think they attempt or profess to do it. Where a New England Mutual will carry a risk at one-eighth of one per cent the Canadian company will demand half of one per cent. I know from experience that there is no comparison in the rates. If the Canadian companies would carry the risks at anything like the same rates, there would be no cause of complaint. We would all prefer to insure in Canadian companies. The hon. gentleman says that it is a poor Canadian who would insure in an American company in preference to a Canadian company. But where the difference in the rate is so very great as between the New England Mutuals and the Canadian companies, I think it is greatly in the interest of the Canadian manufacturer to insure in the New England Mutual. I am not objecting very much to the tax imposed by the Finance Minister. I do not think it is a very heavy tax, but still it is a tax upon the Canadian manufacturer, and it is unfortunate that the minister should not see his way clear to reduce that tax somewhat.


William Stevens Fielding: I desire to say just one word. This Bill, I am glad to know, has been considered in the very best spirit and without regard to party lines. I hope the debate will so continue. I think a tax of 15 per^ cent is reasonable, and for that reason I intend to vote against the amendment of my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie). But if the judgment of the committee is the other way, I shall be prepared to accept it without the slightest feeling on the subject.


Mr. BOBB.: In this debate, the question concerning the mutuals seems to be confined to the New England Mutuals. I do not oppose the tax on New England Mutuals, but I would like to say that a very small percentage of the mutual business in Canada is done in these companies. As I understand it, as a member of the Banking and Commerce Committee, this tax was not placed here by the committee until it had been recommended to them from the Manufacturers' Association. We know that our friends the manufacturers are always in favour of a policy of protection. I want to point out to the committee that outside of the cotton mills, the woollen mills and the sawmills, there is a very large mutual insurance done in Canada by a commerce that cannot afford much of an increase, that is the grain business-the flour mill business. In the western part of our country we have possibly $30,000,000 of insurance on the elevators held by mutual insurance companies Mr. LALOR.
of the United States. The National Mutual Insurance Company of Chicago carries a grain business of over $46,000,000, the Ohio Mutual has over $13,000,000, the Michigan Mutual, the Mill Owners' Mutual, the Indiana Mutual, the Western Millers' Mutual and others are all doing business in Canada. The bulk of the Canadian grain is sold at a profit of about one-quarter cent per bushel. On this basis and on the basis of the value of the wheat to-day, the nr^nosed tax would cut out about one-eighth of that profit. I submit to the minister and the committee that we must go very carefully in increasing the expense of handling this business, because it is a business that cannot stand much of an increase. I am disposed to favour the idea submitted by the hon. member for North Simcoe.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J/ A. Currie) who inveighed against the proposition of this alleged tax this morning is now prepared to accept it, but he wants to have the tax reduced a little. I may be permitted to remark that my hon. friend, in his metaphysical way of dealing with subjects, made statements which sounded rather odd, as to this being the first business tax. Holding this view and having such great objection to taxes of that character, the hon. gentleman might desire for instance to reduce the tax on repairs of vessels made in foreign countries. His theories about taxation ought to carry him so far as to absolutely condemn that tax. But it appears to me that, unless you refine your theories to a very great extent indeed, there is no very great difference between the protection afforded to the Canadian insurance companies by this tax and the protection afforded to any producer or manufacturer in Canada by the Customs tariff. If you cross the line and purchase $50,000 of insurance and are met with this tax of 15 cents at the boundary line, it is surely the same as if you went across the line and spent $50,000 in remaking a vessel and had to pay a tax on those repairs when you bring a vessel into Canada, or as if you purchased goods of any kind and were expected to pay the Customs tax at the boundary. But this does not seem to rest on the ground of protecting a Canadian industry as in the case of other taxes. Are we going to have absolute free trade in insurance? We say, there should not be a free trade in insurance. We provide for licenses, deposits and so on in the case of our companies carrying on insurance in Canada. If vfe say that nobody in Canada should issue an insurance policy without observing all these commands of the law, are we to say also that any company coming in here from the United States should be free to do business without coming under this law? Nobody

will agree to that. And if a concern comes into Canada to do business on a mutual or Lloyds system, and we say that it ought to pay so much by virtue of writing policies instead of the license fee, surely that is a reasonable proposition.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. member permit me to ask him a question? Would he like to see this 15 per cent tax applied to Lloyds?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There is nothing in the Lloyds system to confine it to marine insurance; you could have the Lloyds system applied to fire or life risks.


John Allister Currie: How is Lloyds limited in this Bill?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: So far as this section is concerned, we are dealing with fire and life insurance and not with marine. It seems to me that even aside from these reasons, there is another very strong reason why this section should be maintained. We are told that certain interests in this country cannot obtain insurance in Canada, and therefore they must go to the United States, and that we should permit them to go there, but by reason of our permitting them to go there we are, by this imposition, increasing the rates which the ordinary man in Canada has to pay upon his small risk to the companies in this country. It is said that these people with large risks are compelled to conform to the restrictions we place upon them by going abroad, they will have to come to our Canadian companies, and if that is the case, I think that the business sagacity of our Canadian companies will soon find a way of giving that insurance. The greater amount of insurance that is carried is for ordinarily small amounts. It seems to me to be a logical result of the argument of the hon. member for North Simcoe that we should find him moving to increase this rate to 25 per cent instead of reducing it to 15 per cent. It is not a policy of Canada for Canadians, it means that we are going to send all the money we can to the United States to buy this insurance which ought to be bought in Canada. I think it is a fair proposal that in the interest of the small insurer in Canada, and in the business interests of this country who have to pay a license fee, there should be a reasonable license fee imposed on foreign corporations who do business in this country.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Macdonald) apparently has not attended the meetings of the Insurance Committee, because his ideas of insurance seem rather vague. Let me tell him that 80 per cent of the insurance in Canada is effected by foreign companies now. The most of those companies are stock companies. The New England Mutual Companies came inito this country, they imposed certain restrictions on people who wished to insure in them and they made insurance rates so low that the stock companies have reduced their premiums 10 or 15 per cent all round on manufacturing and wholesale risks which they would not have done but for these mutual companies. The reason I have suggested a reduction in this fee is this: I feel satisfied that if this Bill passes this House there will be so much opposition to this feature of it that it will not go through the other branch of parliament this session; and I feel that if that small sum was accepted and placed there it is sufficient to meet the requirements of this committee, and it would expedite the Bill as a whole. There are many excellent clauses in the Bill which are well worth adopting, and the only contentious clause I can see is this one. Therefore, I would suggest to those genetlemen who are so anxious to place this at 15 per cent, that they seem to me to be desirous of creating a monopoly in this country for Canadian insurance companies. I would be quite whiling to give all the insurance in this country to Canadian companies if Canadian companies could take it; but nobody who knows anything about the insurance business is ignorant of the fact that there are not more than 20 per cent of Canadian insurance is effected in purely Canadian companies. They are not large enough, they are not sufficiently strong, and foreign companies, the great English companies that are stock companies, do most of the business. This has been my experience, and I think it is the experience of most of those who insure. Another point I wish to make is this: I do not hold a brief for the insurance companies; in all that I say I speak as an insured person. I am not an insurance agent, and if I were, I would be the last man to open my mouth in this House on behalf of any company of mine who wished to put 15 per cent additional tax on other people. I think it ill becomes any professional man who is a member of this House to argue against the convictions of the people as represented here, and try to force his own views through and create a monopoly of the interests that he represents. I would strongly suggest that this clause be accepted as the five per cent; it is a concession. I do not agree with the remarks made in this House that the Manufacturers' Association and business interests of this country promoted this amendment. They did not. Mr. Russell is a very nice young man; but they were confronted in the committee with a clause drawn up which prevented tlhem from doing any business of this kind, and they found out that they had hundreds of thousands of dollars expended on these tanks and sprinkler systems which would

be virtually useless had the committee accepted the first proposals made to prevent these companies from coming in and doing business in this country* They came here with that argument. This young man was unused to the way of handling matters before the committee, and finally as a compromise, he accepted a tax of 15 per cent rather than have his companies wiped out altogether. That is the position they were in. They were driven to the wall. It is the great mass of the people in this country who are effecting insurance, for instance, the small farmer, the storekeeper, the manufacturer, the wholesale dealer, and only a small section of the people are the insuring section. I think that this House should stand by the people, and see that a monopoly is not made of the insurance business for the sake of two or three companies.


Mr. D. A. GORDON.: 'As a manufacturer I would say that this clause is a fairly reasonable one. Recently I had some occasion to go through risks that were placed with companies on the other side, and they were in no way as favourable as our own. For that reason I think that we would be protecting not only the manufacturers but farmers and others as well, by imposing slight restrictions on companies doing business in Canada whose head offices are in the United States.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: It is moved that where the word ' fifteen ' occurs in the first line of subsection 3, it be changed to the word ' five,' and also in the fourth line.
Amendment negatived.


William Stevens Fielding: I move that subsection 4 be struck out. It reads:
The minister shall pay and apply towards the expenses of the office of the superintendent such portion of the sum received by him under paragraph 3 of subsection 1 hereof, as he deems expedient, and shall apply the balance thereof for the use of Canada.


John Allister Currie: Why is that?


William Stevens Fielding: We think this is covered by another clause which allows the companies to be taxed to the extent of the cost of the office of the superintendent. We think the general clause covers it. If it were necessary to deal with that separately, we would need to proceed by way of resolution, because it is an appropriation of public money.


John Allister Currie: I understand that all moneys received on this account have to go to the Receiver General, to the Consolidated Fund, and that any expenditure made has to pass this House as a Bill of Supply.


John Allister Currie: 


William Stevens Fielding: That is exactly the point. We would have to vote any sum that we desire to pay.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What will happen if a person insured in a New England Mutual sees fit to disregard the statute and does not pay the tax?


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will turn to section 70 he will see that it imposes certain penalties for the doing of business by unlicensed companies, and then section 139 says that parties will not be subject to these penalties if they' pay these fees. If the parties do not pay these fees then the penalties of section 70 will apply.


Robert Laird Borden: It will be practically putting it up to the insurance companies to see that the insurance is paid?


William Stevens Fielding: Quite so, or else they run the risk of prosecution.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Before this legislation is finally disposed of I would like to get a little light with regard to one or two points. I do not want to go into a discussion of the principle of the legislation enacted in these two section nor to go back to the taxation feature of it. While the gentlemen appearing for the Manufacturers' Association, no doubt, have acted in perfect good faith and within their right in representing a particular class of persons connected with their association, I have to say that there is a .very large number of manufacturers who do not consider that these gentlemen had any authority to speak for them and who, by letter and telegram addressed to myself, as well as to many others have protested against this legislation. But, the minister having declared that the principle having been adopted unanimously by the sub-committee was accepted by the government I do not want to take up any time in a discussion of it which under these circumstances, wmuld be useless. This is the question that I would like to ask: Are we to understand that it is intended to give foreign mutual and reciprocal companies a right that is not to be given to Canadian mutual or reciprocal companies? If I understand these two sections they produce this result, that, if our manufacturers were in a position to organize a mutual on the system of the New England Mutuals or to organize a reciprocal on the basis of a New York reciprocal, for the protection of Canadian merchants and Canadian manufacturers, they would have no right at all under this Act to do business.


William Stevens Fielding: They would have to take out a license.


Charles Joseph Doherty: You will then make them take out a license which you do not make the foreigner take out, you put them in the position where they are bound to take out a license. They will not have the

option which the foreigner has of insuring and paying the 15 per cent. Moreover, a Mutual" or Reciprocal is non-existant as a company-there is no company to take out a license. And yet this Act says to Canadians in this country: You will have to take out a license before you can do any business at all, whereas, if I want to go into a combination with a number of New York merchants I am permitted to do that on paying the 15 per cent fee. Furthermore, ii I understand the taking out of a license it implies also the making of a deposit. If I understand this system of reciprocals not only is there not any company but there is not any capital and there are no funds out of which a deposit could be made; so that, in the nature of things these reciprocals are combinations of individual insurers and there is no company to be licensed, no capital or funds or investments which could form the object of the deposit. In the transaction of this business, if I go to get insured I go also to insure; that is to say, I become the insurer of the other persons who are insured and they undertake to insure me and it is the individuals who sign the policies that are taken out between them. That being so I do not see how this result can be avoided that you are going to preclude our manufacturers, our merchants, any class of our people who may desire to avail themselves of this system of _ insurance-and I am saying in parenthesis that it seems to be pretty generally admitted that it is a system of insurance which has great advantages-from availing themselves of the providing of insuring by means of the creation of mutuals or reciprocals among Canadians exclusively. If that is true the result of this legislation, .which purports to be based upon the principle of affording protection to Canadians and Canadian companies or to foreign companies having agents in Canada, is that outside reciprocals and mutuals can do business, but we preclude the possibility of _ having any such company as that formed in Canada. .


William Stevens Fielding: Not quite that. The statement of my hon. friend would be correct that it puts an unlicensed foreign company of this class in the position of doing business but not an unlicensed home company. I will admit that that is correct.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know whether I entirely misunderstand the situation, but I have' been at some pains to listen to the explanation of the Bill and also at some pains to study its provisions and I think I am correct in saying that under the reciprocal system there is no company. There can be no Canadian company or foreign^ company. It is a group of people who agree between themselves ,to insure each other. If I insure I do not get a policy from any company. I get a document signed by I 216
every other man who has gone into it agreeing to insure me, and, at the same time, I sign every other man's policy and I undertake to insure him. There is neither a company nor the means of making a deposit. With an organization of that kind under this Act it is an impossibility to fulfil the conditions under the license and that being true it will only be possible to insure in companies of this character outside of Canada by paying 15 per cent. If it is proposed to organize a company of this kind composed exclusively of Canadians this Act will prevent it from doing business at all.


William Stevens Fielding: In framing the Insurance Bill we endeavoured to adapt it to the particular conditions that were presented to us. It was suggested that these outside companies were necessary in view of the fact that our own companies could only carry a limited volume of the insurance. Naturally we did not want to shut these companies out. We wanted to let them come in and do business. We said, let them come in and take the license. At first blush it would seem that we had a good answer to that argument.
On further consideration gentlemen interested and better informed said: That is no argument after all. These New England Mutuals will not come in and take out a license; they are not looking after the business, the business must follow them, and if you say you give them the means where they may take out a license you are not meeting the difficulty at all; they will not take out the license and our people will be prevented from getting insurance in these companies. We said: If that is^ the condition we will adapt our legislation to the special state of facts presented to us, and we are therefore allowing these companies, although they are unlicensed, special advantages in that respect. But my hon. friend will find that by section ^ 12 of the Act provision is made for the licensing of mutual companies and of groups of underwriters formed on what is for convenience described as the principle of Lloyds. It is recognized that their methods of doing business differed from those of ordinary companies and we have inserted a clause which provides that the superintendent may grant a license to a group of underwriters formed under such conditions. As a matter of fact we have mutual companies to-day formed in Canada without any capital, without any stock, but nevertheless they comply with our laws and they take out a license. I think it will be found that there is ample machinery in the Act to enable such companies to take out licenses and if they can take out licenses and if we are told that the New England mutuals by their system of business cannot and will not take out licenses, then it seems to me we are adapt-



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 191) to authorize the raising by way of loan of certain sums of money for the public service.-Mr. Fielding.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture) moved third reading of Bill (No. 187) to authorize certain increases of salaries to members of the Civil Service, inside service.
George Eulas Foster: Has the Senate schedule been included?


Mr. FISHER.: Yes, the Bill is complete.


George Eulas Foster: When we were discussing the Civil Service resolutions a few days ago, I pointed out what I thought were certain injustices. They were of three kinds. In the first place, under the Act, as it is now intended to work out, a certain class of civil servants-those belonging to the old inside service-will receive in some cases no benefit from the $150 flat increase. Then there is a large number who while they may receive some benefit do not receive all of that increase, inasmuch as a certain amount may be deducted on account of their not being able to get more than the maximum of the class to which they belong. Therefore, it turns but that a number of the old clerks will receive no benefit at all from the flat increase of $150, some others will receive $50 and some $100. I do not know the exact number in each of these classes because I have not been able to figure it out, nor do I think the minister has done so. That seems to me unjust, taken in connection with the fact that persons from the outside service, a large number of whom were transferred to the inside service on the 1st of September, 1908-and out of which persons so transferred, a considerable number, some 400 more or less, received arbitrary increases, either by order in council or by the will of the minister, running all the way from $50 or $100 to $400, $500, $600, and $700-will be placed in many instances, in the matter of salaries, above their superior officers and above those who have passed a longer time in the service and have consequently been subject to the deprivation acknowledged of what the Act recognizes as fair salaries, considering the scale of living expenses. I have discussed that matter very fully several times, and what I wish to do is to ask the minister whether he is willing to do anything or whether he has been able to find any way by which these anomalies and injustices may be repressed. The minister argues that if a civil servant be at the maximum of his class, you cannot increase his salary by $150 because that would bring him into another class and disturb the symmetry of the new Act. But, as I have said before, I think it is better that we should do justice under the Act even though, to a certain extent, its theoretical symmetry be somewhat disturbed. I would like to see the same rule applied to those who received their increases arbitrarily, before being transferred on the 1st September, 1908, as applies to those who, being close up or at their maximum, and not having received any increase or any considerable increase, are now deprived of the $150 flat increase or of a part of it. It seems an injustice that a clerk who was in the outside service and who received an increase of $400 before the 1st of September, 1908, should receive the $150 ad-Mr. FISHER.
ditional, while those who were always on the inside service should receive nothing or but a small part of that increase. That is an injustice which ought to be remedied in either one of two ways. Then there is another class who were appointed to the outside service, commencing the 1st of January, 1908. Up to that time they were not members of the Civil Service and had therefore performed no service under the conditions of insufficient pay and increased living expenses, and who come in at what was considered a good wage, taking into account the cost of living and the work they do. These will now receive also the $150. Then there are those who received large increases after the first of January, most of them shortly after the 1st of September, given by the minister or order in council, not being under the regulations of the previous Act. These also will receive in addition the $150. If the minister has come to the conclusion, as I understand he has, that he cannot make any provision in the Act for remedying these differences and injustices, I feel like moving an amendment for asserting the principle for which I have been contending. I do not know that it is any use for me to move an amendment that those who receive the arbitrary increases shall receive none of the $150. It seems to be the determination of the minister that the extra $150 should be given those; but if that is the intention of the government the least they can do is take away the disability from the Civil Service in the regular inside service and give to each other, who has not by classification received more than the $150, the full $150 flat increase. I beg to move:
That the Bill be not now read the third time but be referred back to the Committee of the Whole to provide that no clerk in good standing in the inside Civil Service on the 1st January, 1908, who has not received since that date more than the statutory increase of $50, shall be deprived of the full flat increase of $150.
That makes provision for giving to the civil servant in the regular service, of whom I have been talking, the $150 increase the same as you give it to the others. It does not put him under the disability because of long service and the fact that, owing to no fault of his own, but to .long and efficient service, he is now at, or nearly at, the maximum of his class, of not being allowed the full $150 increase, which increase I submit again, was solely granted as compensation for services under conditions of insufficient salary and increased cost of living.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not think it worth while to go over the discussion of the points brought out by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). He has argued that the increases, which he says were arbitrarily given to officers and employees who were

formerly in the outside service in Ottawa and are now brought into the inside service on September 1 last, ought to be counted-against them and balanced against the increase of $150. He has dropped that, and has not moved any amendment in regard to it. I need not discuss that matter, as he has acquiesced, though under protest, in the action of the government. I would say, however, in regard to those who were brought into the inside service on September 1, that they were brought in on a scale of salaries which had obtained before without any reference at all to the Act of last session or this Act, and that they therefore deserve just the same increase as those who have been longer in the service. I take exception to the argument that is founded on the idea that this increase is a recognition of long service or a recompense for employees who have been in the public service before at a salary which was considered to be not high enough. This increase is an increase for the purpose of raising the general scale of salaries of the inside service as now constituted, to meet the increased cost of living under the conditions of the present day. It should be given whether a man was in the service a few days or weeks or months, or whether he had been there ten years or twenty years, because it is to meet a present-day condition, it is given to people who had old salaries on a scale which was made to fit different conditions, it is a recognition of the fact that the.old standard was not high enough to meet the conditions of to-day. A man who may have enjoyed a salary under the old standard for a few months suffers just the same as a man who is enjoying a salary under the old standard for ten years. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) tried to give as a reason why we did not wish this increase to carry the clerk or employee beyond the maximum of the class in which he is that we did not wish to destroy the symmetry of the Act. I do not think that is a fair expression or interpretation of my argument. The symmetry of the Act, pure and simple, would be of very little moment, and I would not like such a trifle to interfere with justice being given. The Act fixing the maximum of the different classes was based on the fact that these classes were classes for certain kinds of work, and that the people who are doing a given kind of work should never go beyond the maximum of that class. If they were going to do a different class of work, which was properly allotted to a higher division or subdivision, they would go into that division or subdivision, and would be eligible for the increase of the new class. But, while they remain in a given, class, they should not go above the maximum fixed for that class. That is not a question of symmetry; it is a question of the classification of the
work. I think the principle I have laid down is just and fair, and that any disturbance of it would be unfortunate. Carrying these people beyond the maximum of their class, without giving them promotion -and they should hardly be given promotion when there is no reason for it-would not be a disturbance of the symmetry of the Act, but would be a disturbance of the principle of the Act. Therefore, I cannot concede it, and the government has decided not to accept this amendment. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) went into detail as to those who will reap the benefit of this whole thing. The whole number affected is 2,599. Of these 1,887 will receive the full $150; three will receive $140; one will receive $138


George Eulas Foster: Is the minister referring now to the members of. the old inside service or to the members of the reconstituted service?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am referring to those who were, on the 1st of September last, in the inside service.


George Eulas Foster: Can the minister distinguish in his figures between those who were already in and those brought in from the outside service?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I have not those figures.


George Eulas Foster: That is the chief point, of course.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is 1 civil servant who will receive $125; 11 will receive $120;
1 will receive $112.50; 513 will get $100; 6 $96; 16, $80; 4, $70; 1 $68; 153, $50; 1, $42; 1, $33.50. There will be only two in the whole service to get less than $50. There will be, in round figures, 180 who get less than $100; 513 get $100; and there are 17 between $100 and $150. The total in round figures is about 700 who get less than $150, and 1,887 who get the whole $150.


George Eulas Foster: If the minister was able to supplement that by telling us how many there are of those who belong to the old inside service, and those who were transferred on the 1st of September we would be able to get closer at the data and see how this thing works. The minister will find that the great majority of these are newly in the inside service.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Nothing of the kind. I think there are only 1,000 or 1,100 who came in from the outside.


George Eulas Foster: I think there were over 1,500 who came in. But as there were no bars of maximum with reference to those coming in from the outside, except as they might be placed when they were given the increase, does the minister not think that the larger part of that 1,700 are those who

have already received increases from the outside, and they are transterred on the 1st of September?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: On the contrary, I should come to the conclusion that the great majority of those who came in from the outside are not amongst those. I do not think my hon. friend understands the situation. The men who were in the outside service came in with the new classification at whatever their salary was on the 31st of August last. I know that with regard to my own department the hon. gentleman is entirely astTay. So far as those were concerned who came in on the salary which they had, and that salary might be anything between the minimum and the maximum of the class into which they came, I venture to say there was quite a large number of them who came in close to the maximum of the class which they entered, and if they did, they get so much less of the $150. Some of them I dare say came in at the maximum. I can give an instance of that. I know there were a large number of men in the outside service who had $1,200 a year, and a good many of them came into subdivision A of the third division, the limit of which is $1,200. These men would not get anything at all under this Act. If they were in the outside, they came in wherever their salary happened to place them, and a large number of them no doubt did come in close to the maximum of the class they entered, and if they did come into that, possibly they would not get the whole of the $150. My hon. friend is jumping to conclusions which the facts do not justify, as he has done on one or two occasions before.
We have decided not to accept the amendment, we have decided to put the Bill through in the form in which it came from the committee. We look upon this Bill as a recognition of the fact that the scale of living here in Ottawa has increased beyond the old scale of living, and the old standard of salaries of the inside service, those who work for the government in Ottawa. We think that because of that increased cost of living it is just and fair that the salaries should be increased. We discussed how that could be done. We examined the report and the recommendations of the Civil Service Commission of three years ago, and we tried to meet the spirit of their recommendations. After many attempts to see how that could best be done, we thought it best to adopt the flat scale, or an increase of so much on every salary. By reason of this flat scale those who get the highest salaries do not get as much percentage of that increase as the ones lower down. But it was evident to us that the men who were in the lower part of the Mr. FOSTER.
service suffered most by reason of the increased cost of living, and therefore we wished to give them better increase than those who were at the larger salaries. Therefore, we adopted the flat increase for everybody. We decided on this $150 after a good deal of discussion with the Civil Service Association. The proposition which is now before the House was accepted by the officers of the Civil Service Association and the deputation which met the government. We feel therefore that we have done what is reasonable and fair, and what is in a general way acceptable to the largest number of the civil servants. We realize fully, nobody more than myself, that if we do not give everything to everybody there will be some who feel that they have not been treated as well as some of their neighbours.


George Eulas Foster: The same thing may occur if we give too much to somebody.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The same thing will occur under all circumstances. I deny absolutely that it-is a fair and proper thing to give to one man because another man i3 given something. An increase of salary should be given only because the individual deserves it. Whether somebody else deserves more and gets more, does not matter at all, and is no reason for complaint on the part of the man who does not get as much as somebody else. I say emphatically that the increases to the outside service which were given between the 1st of January and the 1st of September last, were given for cause, and that the cause was sufficient to justify them.


George Eulas Foster: I take issue with my hon. friend.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: He can take issue as much as he likes. I have taken issue with him, and I have fought that out with him, and I here take issue with him again. That is the reason why I refuse absolutely to consider the question of what the salaries of individuals were before the 1st of September last. This Act is the supplement of the Act of last session. The Act of last session came into force on the 1st of September last, it was reasonable and just; therefore we took the salaries as they existed after the new Act came into force, and dealt with them accordingly. My hon. friend can cavil, others can cavil. But because one man happens to get a little greater increase in his salary than another man is no reason for grumbling. Each man must be dealt with and given whatever is given on his own merits and in accordance with the needs of the service. Under these circumstances, I must ask that the amendment of the hon. member for North Toronto be rejected, and that the Bill be read a third time.	.


Robert Laird Borden: I have a great deal of difficulty in following the argument of the Minister of Agriculture. In the first place, he says that he absolutely refuses to consider what the salary of any person was before September 1, 1908. That is a remarkable statement to be made by an hon. gentleman who is introducing a Bill to provide for increases of salaries. One would naturally suppose that any person proposing an increase of salaries in this House would direct his attention in the very first instance to a consideration of what the salaries are which he proposes to raise. The Minister of Agriculture says not, that that is a subject absolutely unworthy of consideration and one to which he will give no attention at all. I do not suppose that he really meant that. Probably it was a slip of the tongue. But, if he did mean that, I take issue with him most absolutely and direcly upon that point. It is so perfectly obvious that it is really not necessary to argue it, because that position would put to one side every matter which is relevant to the subject under consideration. In another part of his speech he says that_ he does take these salaries into consideration, because, as he declares, the increased cost of living has proved the inadequacy of these very salaries which he has not taken into consideration. He has stated also that the members of the Civil Service are not to receive any advance in salaries on the ground of length of service but purely upon the consideration of merit and efficiency. This seems to me to be destructive of his further argument that a flat increase should be adopted. If a flat increase is to be adopted and if the civil servants are to have their salaries increased purely upon the basis of efficiency and merit, how are you to reconcile these two absolutely inconsistent propositions of the Minister of Agriculture? The government have adopted the flat increase and they have adopted the flat increase under such conditions that it does not work out as a flat increase at all. It gives to some men $150, to some $135, to some $112.50, to some $100, to some $50 and to some nothing at all. These changes, where there are changes and this lack of change, where there is no change, are justified by the minister on one ground, namely, that the cost of living has increased during the past twelve, or fifteen or twenty years in Ottawa and elsewhere in this country. I do not see very much good business sense in that. If the conditions are such that the cost of living has increased why should you give 500 men $150 200 more $135, 200 or 300 more $100, 300 or 400, $50, and 100 nothing at all? How does that work out on any reasonable basis as to what is right, or what ought to be done in regard to these particulars?
My hon. friend justifies the lack of any increase at all in some cases and he justifies the giving of a very small increase indeed
in various other cases upon the ground, as I understand him, that certain men, having come to the limit of their class, cannot receive consideration by the government at this time. Does the fact that a man came to the limit of his class two or three years ago make the cost of living any less; and yet upon what basis has my hon. friend argued save that the cost of living has increased? My hon. friend says that the men of yesterday are entitled to this increase just as much as are the men appointed twelve or thirteen years ago. For what reason? For the Teason that the men of yesterday came in upon the old scale and the old basis.
I do not pretend to quote his language accurately, but I think that is the idea which he expressed. Is it not true that these men appointed yesterday, or two years ago, or four years ago, have been appointed to classes where there is a certain elasticity of salary, where there is a maximum and a minimum? Does the minister mean to tell me, that, in appointing these men to that class in which the salaries may be so regulated, he has not taken into consideration the increased cost of living? I do not think that my hon. friend meant to place himself in that position and yet he must put himself in that position to make good the argument which he has placed before the House this afternoon. I do not agree with the principle of a flat increase. It may be a convenient way of dealing with it, but I do not think it is the best, the wisest or the fairest way of dealing with a problem of this kind. As I intend to make a few observations upon that question upon the motion for the third reading of the Bill, which will not be very relevant to this particular amendment, I will defer my remarks until the Bill reaches that stage, saying only in the meantime that I do not think my hon. friend has presented any good argument in opposition to the amendment, but rather an argument which cannot very well commend itself to the sober judgment of any hon. member of this House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the weakness of the minister's argument is simply this: He makes the statement that on account of the increased cost of living they have adopted a flat increase of $150 to each. Then he arranges that they do not all get the $150. Now, if it is due to the increased cost of living it must apply to all because all must live. What becomes of the increased cost of living to the man who only gets $100 of an increase? Must he eat less? His living will be the same as that of the other man who gets the full increase. It was to be a flat increase for the purpose of covering the increased cost of living, and if it was to cover the increased cost of living it must apply to all equally whether they come in last fall, recently, or fifteen years ago, but

because of the system which the minister has adopted it does not apply to all alike and therefore it must be unfair. The basis upon which he spikes the salary-merit and length of service-has nothing to do with the $150. That $150 is for a specific purpose, it is provided for the reason that all require it because of the increased cost of living. If they require it because of the increased cost of living and if it was provided for that purpose then all ought to get the full benefit of the $150 regardless of any other consideration.
Amendment (Mr. Foster) negatived on division.


Robert Laird Borden: Before the motion is passed I desire to present a few consider-aions to the House in regard to the Bill. In the first place, the genesis of this proposition seems to be wrapped in a good deal of mystery. During the debate upon the resolution which introduced this proposal the Prime Minister, at page 324 of ' Hansard/ declared that last session the government proposed to bring down this measure and that the resolutions were then in course of preparation. He added that there was then no time to carry it through and that this consideration was the only reason for postponing it. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher), at the bottom of page 310 and also on pages 311, 312 and 316, gave us an entirely different view. The Minister of Agriculture said that he believed last year that the advantages of the Civil Service Act then passed would satisfy the Civil Service, and that he did not discover the contrary until the classification was worked out, which was in last December, and after certain promises had been made to the Civil Service during the course of the last election campaign. Again on. page 312 the Minister of Agriculture stated:
We believed that the arrangement of salaries and reorganization of the service would
bring such a measure of relief to so large a number of individuals in the service that it would be sufficient to meet that demand. But we have found since we had our classification completed that that expectation was not borne out, and we now propose to remedy that defect.
That statement is practically repeated on page 316 of ' Hansard '; so in effect there are absolutely inconsistent statements by the Prime Minister and the Minister
-^Sricnlture. The Prime Minister says that the measure was intended last year ; the Minister of Agriculture says it was not intended last year. The Prime Minister says it was postponed for want of time ; the Minister of Agriculture says it was not introduced last session because the government thought it would not be necessary. The Prime Minister says the resolutions were partially prepared last


Thomas Simpson Sproule: session; the Minister of Agriculture says the government only decided to introduce them in December last. So I say the genesis of this proposal is more or less wrapped in mystery, and this mystery has not been explained.
I do not believe very strongly in the principle of a flat increase. That principle was not recommended by the Civil Service Commission of 1907. There was a recommendation of a percentage increase upon the salaries of those in the lower ranks of the service, and a larger increase to certain officials in the west. Further than that the Civil Service Commission of 1907 had in mind not only the members of the inside service but the members of the outside service as well. I do not believe that it is wise to act upon the principle of a flat increase in salaries, without regard to efficiency or value or length of service; I believe that such a principle is not in the public interest and ought not to be adopted. I believe further that in providing for any necessary increase in salaries the legitimate claims of the outside service should not be overlooked. The considerations which were set forth in the report of the Civil Service Commission of 1907 applied as fully to the outside service as to the inside service. That is perfectly apparent to any one who will refresh his memory by reading that report. Mr. Justice Oassels, in making his report, also dealt to some extent with the question of salaries, and the illustrations which Mr. Justice Cassels brought forward were illustrations not from the inside service but from the outside service. I would have been glad if the government at this session had brought into force the provisions of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908. with such further amendments as might be necessary with respect to the outside service. It seems to me that if that is a principle -which ought to be applied to the inside service it ought also, with any necessary amendments, to be applied to the outside service, and I regret that there has been delay in that regard. Further than that, I believe that there should be provision for a thorough system of inspection for all public departments with a view to correct the present unnecessary multiplication of officials and in order to encourage and promote faithful and efficient service.
I have no doubt whatever from my own experience of the past twelve years in this House, from what I have seen and from what I have heard from members of the Civil Service themselves, that there is a great and unnecessary multiplication of officials, especially in some departments of government, and I believe that that can only be corrected and will only be corrected by some thorough system of inspection applicable to every department of the government. So I do not feel that I am thorough-

ly in accord .with the proposals of the gov-eminent. I sin fully of the opinion that there is a considerable body of men in the inside service at Ottawa whose salaries have not been in recent years as large as they ought to be. But I am of the opinion also that there are a goodly number of the officials at Ottawa who perhaps do not perform an amount of work which in the service of any person or corporation in this country would be regarded as adequate to the salaries they now receive, and I say again, inasmuch as this proposal of the government is based entirely upon the increased cost of living, which prevails not in Ottawa alone but throughout Canada, that the legitimate claims of men in the outside service have as ample a right to consideration in a. general increase in salaries as the claims of any men in the inside service. Increases of salary in the whole service should be based not upon the principle of a flat rate but upon the principle of efficiency and value and to some extent length of service, and this consideration has been absolutely and entirelv wanting in the framing of the proposal which is now submitted to us. However, at this stage of the session, I do not feel inclined to call the action of the government in question by any formal vote, but I shall repeat once more the principles upon which I think the government should act. Briefly summarized my contentions are:
The principle of a flat increase in salaries without regard to efficiency or value or length of service is not in the public interest and ought not to be adopted.
In providing foT any necessary increase of salaries the legitimate claims of the outside service should not be overlooked. _
The provisions of the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, with certain necessary amendments, should be applied to the outside service with the least possible delay.
A thorough system of inspection should be provided for all public departments with a view to correct and prevent unnecessary multiplication of officials and in order to encourage and promote faithful and efficient service.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time (on division!, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['We will resume Supply.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I had intended on this motion to speak_ on the question of cold storage and agriculture, but owing to the absence of some of the hon. gentlemen who desire to offer remarks on the subject, and the fact that it would interfere with the prorogation of parliament at the time anticipated we have desided not to bring the matter up at the present time.



Mr. CLARENCE JAMESON (Digby).: 
WILLIAM PUGSLEY.
[Stage Direction]
I must say that, coming on the heels of a report of an officer of the department recommending that, having regard to the present and future commercial interests of . the community of Weymouth and surround- " ing country, a width of 55 feet is required, that declaration of the minister was a little

strange to me, all the more so considering that it is in direct opposition to the statement made with regard to the necessity for a wider span in the report of the assistant Deputy Minister of Public Works up(^n the same subject to the Chairman of the Board of Kailway Commissioners at Ottawa, which 1 have already read. It will be remembered that the assistant deputy minister says that the department is willing to approve plans for a swing span at that place with a clear opening of 55 feet which is considered necessary to meet the present and future requirements of navigation. That is a clear, unequivocal statement on the part of a gentleman who was qualified to speak authoritatively, and who, ho doubt, was authorized to make that statement. And his statement, as I have said, is borne out by the opinions of those who reside in the district and are familiar with the circumstances and the situation as well as with the present business requirements and the future possibilities of the town.
Now, the government is expending very large sums of money yearly for the purpose of improving the different ports of Canada, and very properly so. If the country is to develop and prosper, navigation improvements in our water-ways are of the first necessity. I would point out, however, that if this proposed new structure is allowed to be built across this river with a span of 40 feet, it will mean that a permanent obstruction will be placed across one of the principal water-ways of Nova Scotia, that that district will be shut off, as it were, from its proper and legitimate share of that trade of the province, that the pulp and lumber industries, which are great and growing industries there, and the agricultural industry will be seriously crippled and handicapped.
Now, Sir, some time ago, in Supply, there was an item in the estimates which provoked a good deal of discussion; it was a sum of $45,000 for the construction of three ice piers in the Annapolis river. The minister explained at that time that these piers were being built for the purpose of arresting the ice, for the purpose of assisting to create a harbour during the winter season. I have nothing to say against that vote, I think everything should be done to promote the shipping interests of the maritime provinces. But I do say that if, merely for the purpose of making an experiment, the large sum of $45,000 is to be voted by this parliament, with a total estimated expenditure in view, as the minister stated, of $123,500 for the ten piers which he said he intended to place there, if that expenditure is justifiable as an experiment, certainly any expense which the government might be called upon to make to widen the span of the bridge over this river,
which is navigable almost the year round, is not only justifiable but is urgently required. I may say that there was a case somewhat similar to this in which the government granted assistance some years ago. In 1906 there was an item of expenditure on harbours and rivers in British Columbia:
Pitt river-substitution of a 230-foot through truss for original 132-foot truss of draw-span on C.P.K. bridge, inclusive of accessory works. $55,085.
The Hon. Mr. Hyman, then Minister of of Public Works, stated in explanation:
The Canadian Pacific Railway built a bridge across the river there a number of years ago. They got the permission of the Department of Public Works to build this bridge. The Canadian Pacific Railway are renewing the bridge; they were building a new bridge last year, and it was then found necessary in the interests of navigation to widen the span. We asked them to do so, and they took the ground that having received permission to build according to their original plans, the government should pay for any widening of the spans; the J ustice Department gave its decision that under the circumstances the government should be liable. Therefore, we were in the position of having either to accept the old span or to pay our share of the cost. This is the amount found by the engineers to be due to the Canadian Pacifio Railway by the government.
Now, according to the report of Mr. Dowdell, engineer, the additional cost of widening this span from 40 feet to 55 feet would be roundly $48,000. I have to say that rather than have this magnificent waterway obstructed for all time, and the prosperity of the town of Weymouth and surrounding districts interfered with, and their commercial interests embarrased, it would be, in my opinion, a fair and reasonable thing for the government to do in this case what they did in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's bridge across the Pitt river in British Columbia. I think the waterways of Nova Scotia are too important to have obstructions of this character placed across them, and the future prosperity and progress of the people embarrased through such causes. The shipping interests of Weymouth are very much embarrased by this narrow draw; it means that the additional cost of shipping lumbeT from below the bridge is no less than 50 cents per thousand feet; it means further that in order to get vessels to pass through that narrow draw, they are obliged to charter old and inferior tonnage, because the old vessels were made narrower than the new class of ships, and they have to pay a considerable advance in the way of insurance. Furthermore, as time goes on this expenditure will necessarily increase. Now, Sir, late in October, 1908, the Board of Railway Commissioners wrote to the Do-
[Stage Direction]
minion Atlantic Kailway Company saying that the permission to proceed under the board's order was temporarily withheld. To this the railway company replied, stating that they would take no further steps under said order. The Minister of Public Works has completed his estimates and has not made any provision for widening the span in this bridge. I will say that if, for the present year, the government is unable to do anything in this matter-for according to the decision of the Department of Justice, as I am informed, the company cannot be compelled to build a wider span than 40 feet on this bridge-I would urge upon them to withhold consent to the rebuilding of the bridge for the present, and next year make provision for the payment of the increased cost to be occasioned through widening the span. This obstruction should not be allowed to be placed across that river. It would be a monstrous thing if the government, which is expending millions of dollars in improving the waterways of Canada, should close their eyes to the fact that this navigable river is going to be permanently obstructed by the erection of this bridge.
Mr. K. L. BOKDEN.: I would like to say, with reference to the matter that my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) has brought before the House, that I think it is very well worthy of the consideration of the government. The town of Weymouth is an important town and it has large commercial interests, with respect to the industries which have been referred to by my hon. friend who represents the constituency in which this town is situated. So far as I have gathered the facts from my hon. friend's speech and from the report which he has read of the proper officer of this government, it would appear to be desirable that a span of not less than 55 feet should be adopted. It appears, on the other hand, that the railway company received many years ago, in 1878, I think, permission by order in council to erect a bridge there with a span of not more than 40 feet. The conditions of to-day are not the conditions of 1876. Vessels which ordinarily go to that port for the purposes mentioned by my hon. friend, I suppose, are of very much larger tonnage and broader of beam now than then. I would not for a moment suggest that any unfair course should be taken as far as the railway is concerned. If the railway company had its position defined by reason of an order in council granted some thirty or thirty-five years ago, due consideration must be given to that circumstance. We must deal with absolute fairness with the company which is to construct the bridge, but, on the other hand, if navigation would be seriously handicapped or obstructed by the construction of too narrow a span, as seems to be the case according Mr. JAMESON.
to the report of the proper officer of the government, it would be the part of wisdom that the government should enter into immediate negotiations with the railway company and should undertake to make g*od, if necessary, any additional cost which may be involved in giving to the town of Weymouth, the country surrounding and the industries which are flourishing now and which will flourish more in the future in that part of the country, ample opportunity to use this navigation for every purpose which may be required, and I am very glad indeed to support the proposition which the hon. member for Digby has brought to the attention of the government and of the House.


William Stevens Fielding: I presume that my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) did not give notice to my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) of his intention to bring this matter up; otherwise my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works would have been in his place. I have not sufficient knowledge of the details of the matter to speak of it with any degree of authority. I gather most of my information from the statements of the hon. member although I had heard something of it before. It would appear that this bridge, although originally designed to be of a wider span, was subsequently reduced and a span of 35 feet was adopted, and has been there for years. I confess I have never had the matter brought sufficiently to my personal attention to know that there has been a serious embarrassment to traffic in past years owing to the size of the bridge. It is only reasonable that the railway company, having acquired the right to erect a bridge of a given size some years ago, should now object to building it with a larger or greater span. So I suppose that in order to widen the bridge some one will have to provide an additional sum of $48,000. There are a good many cases in which hon. members of this House would be able to suggest the expenditure of $48,000 for purposes which we would regard as very commendable, but in the present state of financial matters I have felt it my duty, not in reference to this particular work but generally, to urge upon my colleagues not to engage in large expenditures at the present time. I am sure there is no member of the House but would have been able to have selected some work in his constituency where an expenditure of $48,000 might be very desirable and where perhaps in many cases we might be able to expend the money to good purpose. I frankly confess that I have not sufficient details of this case to express a decided opinion upon it. I shall bring the matter to the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works and he may have the benefit of reading what my hon. friend has said with regard to it.


Robert Laird Borden: There is just one consideration, that seems to distinguish this a little from others. If this work is going on with now we cannot remedy it in the future until the bridge shall again be reconstructed. There are other works which might be postponed for two, three or four years without similar or equally serious consequences.


William Stevens Fielding: My experience is that every member who wishes work constructed in his country regards the case as extremely exceptional.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like to support the request of my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson). The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) said that there was no evidence that at the present time there had been any embarrassment to navigation.	t


William Stevens Fielding: I did not quite say that. I said that I was not sufficiently familiar with the details to enable me to determine that. I have not studied it closely.


John Waterhouse Daniel: My hon. friend from Digby gave a statement of the number of vessels in the last few years that had been unable to enter the port at Weymouth on account of the extreme narrowness of the draw to this bridge.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not understand him to say that they were not able to enter the port at Weymouth.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Yes, they could not get through the bridge.


William Stevens Fielding: That is another question.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I understand that you have to go through the bridge to get to the port of Weymouth. The draw is very narrow. It is* not even 35 feet. As I understand, the hon. gentleman said that it is only 34 feet 6 inches. He also made the statement that just inside of the bridge there is a very sharp bend in the river, almost at right angles, making it still more necessary that there should be plenty of room going through the bridge. This being a tidal river to a large extent there must necessarily be a considerable current and in order to'have safe navigation through this bridge you require plenty of room. It appears to me that my hon. friend has made out a very good case, more especially when you take into consideration the fact that if the bridge is allowed to be put up now, being steel, it will remain for the next forty or fifty years probably. That being the fact it would require far more expense than would be involved now if the company intends to go on with the bridge and put in new spans. It appears to me that this is one of those which, if it is to be done at all, ought to be done now wThile there is an opportunity of ^
attending to it. Of course, I quite appreciate the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance with regard to the necessity of curtailing expenses At the same time we have put through some very large items this session and I suppose there are more to come.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I can assure my hon. friend that there are no more estimates.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are the estimates all through?


William Stevens Fielding: There are no more to come. The House is in possession of all the estimates.


John Waterhouse Daniel: But they are not all passed yet?


William Stevens Fielding: No.	[DOT]


John Waterhouse Daniel: The argument that my hon. friend from Digby has brought forward is certainly one which should receive the favourable consideration of the government and if it is necessary for the government to assist the company in completing the bridge to a proper width, a width which your own officers have said is absolutely necessary^-and I do not see how the government can go back on the report of its own qualified officers-I think that the government would only be doing justice in this case by acceding to the request of the members and in, seeing that the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company put up such a bridge there as will be no obstruction to the business of the port as the present one is and that the one which they intend to put there will have a draw wider than forty feet.


WATER CARRIAGE OF GOODS.
Mr. PERLEY.: I noticed that Bill (No. 105), letter A of the Senate, respecting the water carriage of goods, has been taken over by the government and put on the Order Paper as a government measure. I understand that the Bill was practically an arrangement between the shippers and the owners of ocean steamers. Such legislation has long been required owing to the conditions on bills of lading which shippers have been obliged to sign absolving the owners of vessels from any liability, even for their own negligence. All the other items have been gone on with today and I would like to know the government's intention as to this Bill.


William Stevens Fielding: I have some difficulty in answering my hon. friend's question, as on Saturday night it was represented to me that there was not likely to be any opposition to this measure and I agreed that it might be placed on government orders. The gentleman who asked me to take this course, to-day informed me that several hon. gentlemen had spoken to him against the passage of the Bill.

at least during this session, and he doubted whether the Bill could be got through. We put it on the Order Paper on the representation that there was likely to be no objection to it, and if there be objection from any source now the Bill will not go through. My own information is that the Bill is a very meritorious one and I would be glad to see it pass.


Robert Laird Borden: I stated on Saturday night that as it was then very late we might have the Bill go into the committee stage and postpone final action until there is a larger attendance. I do,not want it to be understood that I was interposing any opposition to the Bill.
Mr! FIELDING. No. I am in this position that the very gentleman who asked me to put it on the order paper to-daj' said that he was sorry to find several gentlemen opposed to the Bill. I shall make further inquiry and reply to my hon. friend later on. '


DISMISSAL OF SOURIS POSTMASTER.
Mr F L. SCHAFFNER (Souris, Manitoba).: Mr. Speaker, I wish briefly to refer to a matter which I endeavoured to bring before the House on a previous occasion. The Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) then asked me to postpone this discussion because the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) was not in his seat. I delayed bringing up the matter, but I think I will have to be very alert to catch the member for Brandon in his seat because I am absolutely positive that half an hour a week would be more than his average. I wish to refer to the dismissals of postmasters m the constituency of Brandon as it now exists, and the constituency of Souris which 'I have the honour to represent, which was formerly in the constituency of Brandon. I do not for a moment subscribe to the doctrine that the head of a department is not responsible for all actions in connection with his department, but still I do not hold the present Postmaster General exactly responsible for this, although he is legally and constitutionally responsible; he has allowed himself to be governed by an exceedingly hard-hearted man in connection -with these matters. The dismissal of postmasters who have been faithful and efficient for a good many years has been more of an abuse in Brandon and Souris than in any other constituency in Canada. I wish particularly to speak of the case of a postmaster recently dismissed at Souris, in the constituency of Brandon. This is an exceedingly unfair and unjust dismissal; I do not believe that the Postmaster General looked into this matter fully or he would certainly not have dismissed this man. The dismissed postmaster has written me several communica-


William Stevens Fielding: 

the interests of that district ever since the location of the town. Mr. Robinson is, we understand, already commencing an aggressive campaign, and expects to visit Cart-wr'ght shortly in this connection.
I do not wish to detain the House at this late stage of the session but I think this is a matter which the Postmaster General should consider. I leave it to the Postmaster General to decide whether he should dismiss a postmaster who is merely suspected of being a Conservative, and retain in office a man who has accepted the Liberal nomination and has aggressively entered into a political campaign.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House know full well that I generally act with reluctance in cases of this kind, but in the present instance I could not see my way to adopt any other course than the one I took, as the complaint against the postmaster of Souris, county of Brandon, was made by the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) himself. I have no personal acquaintance with the former postmaster at Souris. It is true that on diffierent occasions the department received complaints about the manner in which the postoffice at Souris was kept, but they were of a very trifling nature and not strong enough to justify dismissal. After the last general elections the hon. gentleman who represents the county of Brandon (Mr. Sifton) made a formal charge against the postmaster of Souris and requested, on his own responsibility as the member representing that constituency, that the postmaster at Souris had taken a very active part in the last campaign against him. Under such circumstances, in view of the fact that the complaint or the charge was made by the member himself, on his own personal responsibility, I had no other course to follow but to accept his word and to take action against that postmaster. The policy upon this matter was laid down by my predecessor Sir William Mulock, and by the right hon. the leader of the House, in 1896. During that session a debate occurred in this House in relation to the dismissal of a postmaster in the county of Lincoln, Ontario. The policy was then laid down by Sir William that if a charge was made against an official of the government (in that, case it n as Mit: postmaster) on the personal responsibility of the member representing the county, he as PostmasteT General, and the other ministers would have taken action. Sir William's statement is to be found in 'Hansard' of 1897, at page 1853. It is as follows:


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The hon. gentleman is misinformed. When the hon. member for Lincoln gave me his assurance, whether in writing or verbally it would make no difference, that a postmaster in the vilage of Beamsville had to his own knowledge committed the offences in question, further inquiry would in my opinion be unnecessary. It would prolong action, and would result in considerable expense, but would accomplish no other purpose. No government will question the absolute accuracy of the statement of my hon. friend. When a member in the position of my hon. friend from Lincoln makes a statement of the kind, there is the best guarantee that his statement is absolutely within the facts. He is bound to make good that statement before his electors and before the country. As a public man, he cannot afford to make a statement to me of something within his own knowledge if that statement is not literally true; and, with evidence of that kind, a minister would be derelict in his duty if he did not accept it as a full statement of the fact s-. At all events, in the future as in the past, I accept the words of my colleagues on matters within their own knowledge, and I consider that those statements are incapable of disproof, and that further inquiry under the circumstances would he an idle sham.
At page 506 of 'Hansard' 1896 (second session) Sir Wilfrid Laurier made the following statement upon [DOT] the same subject of dismissals:	[DOT]
Now, when we find an officer in the Civil Service, however good a servant he may have been, however faithfully he may have discharged his duties, hut who has been an active politician, who has taken part in the election, offensively and actively, and before the eyes of the whole community, that official has become a scandal in the eyes of the community, and I have no hesitation in saying that he cannot be trusted to render faithful service to this government. Where there is a government officer, he may hold his opinions, I do not care what they are; they may be Liberal or Conservative, I do not care; he may go and vote, and I will not inquire how he voted-hut when he is seen on a public platform, when he takes part in party processions and is actively and offensively prominent as regards party candidates, that man has taken his life in his hands, and no one oan have a word to say if he is dismissed from the service. But he should not be dismissed summarily. There is a difference in cases, I admit. Take the case stated a few days ago by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. My hon. friend was addressing a public meeting, and at that meeting, he saw a man who is an official of the service, an active partisan. My hon. friend says to himself: That official is before me. Does the minister need any more evidence than the evidence of his own eyes?
=mch circumstances, I say that my hon friend is perfectly justified in acting as he thd. My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) on the other side of the House asked me, a moment ago, how I could reconcile the doctrine enunciated by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the doctrine stated by the Controller of Inland Revenue. I see no difference between those two doctrines. They were ex-

pressed differently, but they amounted to the same thing, namely, that no official should be dismissed except for cause, but any man who was an active partisan gave cause for removal; and that is the position in whioh we stand to day.
This is the statement I have to make regarding the postmaster at Souris. When the statement is made to me by an hon. gentleman, occupying a very prominent position in this House, and who formerly was a member of the cabinet, such as the hon. member for Brandon, that a certain officer had taken a leading part in the contest against him, my duty is to accept his word and take action against that officer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the hon. gentleman regard that rule, which he has adopted, as applicable if the charge were made by one of the members of the opposition, of equally good standing, that an official had acted against him, in his election campaign, as an offensive partisan?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I speak of the cases as they come to my knowledge.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But I am not citing any particular case, but asking the hon. minister if he would apply the same rule in all cases?


Haughton Lennox: Suppose a charge of the same kind should be made against an official by a member of the opposition, on his personal knowledge, would the hon. minister consider that sufficient ground for his dismissal?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not dismiss postmasters unless there are very grave charges against them. Last year the hon. member for York, New Brunswick (Mr. Crocket) took me to task in the House because some postmasters there were helping their friends, or their supposed friends, in the local election. I said then that I had given orders to all postmasters not to take any offensive part in elections. That is my policy. An officer of the government who takes part in the elections does so at his own risk. To-day he has his friends' in power, but another day he may have another party in office.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Take the Miami case, in which a postmaster has been nominated as a Liberal candidate in the local elections and actively engages in the campaign, what has the minister to say about that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: A Liberal postmaster probably ran as a candidate and was defeated.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I can only repeat what was said by the right hon. the leader of the House on a former occasion, when he declared that a government official who openly takes part in an election against the government takes his own official life in his hands. In the present instance, the fact that the present member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) took upon himself personally the responsibility of a charge against that official, left me no other course to follow than to accept his word.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that it is the policy of this government to dismiss an official who has held office a long time and proved himself efficient and faithful, without giving him an opportunity of defence or investigation?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have just said that the policy laid down, as far back as 1896 and 1897, is this, that when an officer takes part in an election against the government, he takes his official life in his hands, and if an hon. member makes the charge of offensive partisanship against him, the statement of that hon. member is accepted by the government.
Mr. SCHAFFNER, But the official in question absolutely denies that he took any part in the election except to vote.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Against that I have the statement of the hon. member for Brandon.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: No, but he has been nominated to run in the next election and is now engaged in the campaign.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would the hon. gentleman allow me to answer in the Irish fashion by putting another question? There is a postmaster in the province of Saskatchewan, who is a Conservative member in the local legislature, an opponent of the present government, yet I have not proceeded against him. Does my hon, friend want me to do so? The one case can offset the other.


Haughton Lennox: As we cannot get a definite answer from the Postmaster General, I propose to say a few words about this, matter, even though we are in the dying hours of the session. This is not a matter which should be passed over lightly. The hon. minister has taken on himself to adopt a certain doctrine. I understood him to say distinctly that he acted on that doctrine in the case of this postmaster whose dismissal is now under review, and that doctrine is that if a member of this House, who is a supporter of the government, alleges that any official has taken an active part in a
thTofficffiI%m rtS&s&S statement of that member, without being given the opportunity of an investigation. He lays down the doctrine that in such a matter the ' ipse dixit ' of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) or any other hon. member on the government side, shall be
217*

taken as absolutely conclusive and the mouth of the accused postmaster absolutely closed, even though he be prepared to bring any amount of evidence to the contrary. The word of any supporter of the government, be he back bencher or front, big or little, the member for Brandon or anybody else, will be taken as sufficient evidence on which to dismiss a postmaster, and the Postmaster General, who lays down this doctrine is a lawyer. I think that no more astonishing ot dangerous proposition could be made and none more contrary to the spirit of out laws.
The Postmaster General has been asked if an hon. member on this side of the House alleges that one of his postmasters has actively and offensively interfered in a political contest against the opposition candidate, will he take the statement of the hon. member of the opposition, and the Postmaster General refuses to answer. Does the Postmaster General, who wants to pose as an honest man, as a fair man, think that the people of Canada can stand for a position of that kind? I give him an opportunity now of reply-[DOT] ing. I ask him again, if an honourable and respected member of the opposition comes to you to-morrow, or says in his place here to-night that he knows of his own knowledge-putting it in the Postmaster General's own language-of a case which happened in his own riding where the postmaster offensively interfered in an election contest and opposed him upon the public platform-will the Postmaster General give his word now that he will dismiss that postmaster? What is sauce for the goose ought to be sauce for the gander. The Postmaster General dare not say so. And does the Postmaster General want it to go forth to the people of Canada that there shall be one rule for a postmaster that opposes the government, and another rule for the Postmaster who supports the government? I think every hon. gentleman will agree that it is neither right in the one case nor in the other. Every man has a right to a fair British trial, to a fair British investigation, and it is an absolute denial of justice to say that any one may be dismissed upon the word of a man, high or low, upon the word of a cabinet minister even, without being confronted with the charge and allowed to put in such a defence as he can. I know nothing about the merits of this case hnt t	manefige
me position of the Postmaster General.


PILOTAGE BOARD IN VICTORIA, B.C.
Mr. G. H. BARNARD (Victoria, B.C.).: Before the motion is put, I would like, to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to a case in Mr. LENNOX.
which I can prove that a cruel injustice has been done to a member of the pilotage board of the city of Victoria. I may say that this is not a case involving political partisanship, but I must say that I do not think the minister has given the matter full consideration, or that he realizes the injustice that has been done to the individual in question. I will briefly state the facts of the case. In the port of Victoria we have what is known as the compulsory pilotage system. There is a local pilotage authority which has control of the pilots of the port. Until the occurrences of which I am about to speak, the number of pilots was 5. An agitation had been started by the people connected with the shipping interests in that port to dq away with the system of compulsory pilotage altogether. Whether that system should be abolished, I do not propose to discuss to-night. But I wish to bring to the attention of this House the circumstances which have resulted in a cruel injustice being done. Some time back I moved for a return in connection with this matter, and I propose to deal with the papers which were brought down at that time. The man in question is named Thomas Bebbington. On the 23rd February 1907, he was written to by the secretary of the local pilotage authority as follows:
Thos. Bebbington, Esq.,
Pilot under V. & E. Pilotage Authority.
Dear Sir,-I am directed by the Board of Commissioners of the Authority to inform you that you are suspended from duty for one month from this date noon, pending inquiry into complaints regarding your physical condition.
You are therefore relieved from duty till further notice.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) ANGUS B. MoNEILL.
Secretary-treasurer.
On the 23rd of March, one month later, he was written to again:
Dear Sir,-I am instruced by the Commissioners of the Authority to inform you that your suspension is to be continued till such time as the investigation into your case is completed. You will kindly present yourself at my office on Monday, the 25th inst., at 10 o'clock in the morning for further examination.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) ANGUS B. MoNEILL.
Secretary-treasurer.
On the 28th of March, after he had been medically examined by no less than four doctors, all, I may say, good friends of the government, and men who stand as high in their profession as any medical men in British Columbia, he was written to again by the secretary of the board as follows:

Tlios. Bebbington, Esq.,
Pilot, V. & E. Pilotage Authority,
Victoria, B.C.
I >ear Sir,-I am instructed by the Board of Commissioners to inform you that in view of the investigation just closed, and in view of the professional and other reports laid before the board, your suspension is cancelled and you have been reinstated in your position as pilot of the above Authority.
I am, yours truly,
(Sgd.) ANGUS B. McNEILL.
Secretary-treasurer.
That was on the 28th of March, and after he had undergone an examination as to his mental and physical capacity bv four of the leading men of the city of Victoria. The pilotage local authority however apparently was not satisfied, and matters were allowed to drift on until the 24th of October, 1907, when a letter was written by the same secretary of the board to the Hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries which reads aiS follows:


Hon.  L. P.@: I am reading merely an extract from the letter.
-although the doctors would not certify that he was incapable of doing the work of pilot.
Further on comes a paragraph which shows what the actual reason was of this man being subsequently suspended.
As you are aware, there has been for a year or two strong pressure from the board of trade for the abolition of compulsory pilotage, with the view of removing what is claimed to he a heavy charge on shipping. The demand has something to do with the proposed retirement of Bebbington.
It was evidently intended to remove Bebbington, whether it was done agreeably or not. On receipt of that letter the Minister of Marine and Fisheries writes back to the Minister of Inland Revenue, saying that:
I may say that I do not think it would be wise to continue Mr. Bebbington as a pilot if he is not thoroughly capable of discharging the important duties. The fact that the pilotage authority at Victoria thinks he is physically unfit, together with the letter of the general agent or one of the steamship lines refusing to employ Mr. Bebbington, and the fact that four pilots will be sufficient leads me to suppose that the pilot service will not suffer by retiring Mr. Bebbington.
What is the position? The Minister of Marine thinks the fact that the pilotage authority at Victoria says he is disabled, absolutely ignoring the fact that four medical men had already pronounced him physically capable, and the additional fact that four pilots are sufficient to do the business will justify him in retiring Mr. Bebbington. Then the Minister of Marine and Fisheries proceeds to write to the pilotage authority as follows:
In reply to your letter of 24th October, inquiring if yoii have the power to dismiss Mr. TY,	 n gton. who is considered Dhvsically unfit for the position if i PiiOV
Victoria and Esquimalt district, I have to inform you that the by-laws provide that you can fix a number of pilots from time to time. There does not appear to be anything in the by-laws stating that you could have five pilots. The department, after making inquiry, has come to the conclusion that Mr. Bebbington is hardly capable of discharging

all the duties of a pilot, owing to the fact that his right side is somewhat palsied, and that some ships and companies have refused his services.
The inquiry that the minister speaks of is apparently the inquirv which he made from the Minister of Inland Revenue, as a result of which he takes the opinion of the Minister of Inland Revenue and disregards that of the medical men who examined this man. He goes on to say:
It is not possible for the department, as you are aware, to make any allowance, and this can only be done if it is done at all by the pilots.
This I submit shows conclusively that the whole idea in the suspension of this man was to satisfy to some extent the agitation for the abolition of compulsory pilotage. He goes on to say:
The department is of opinion that the number of pilots could be fixed at four, and that a reduction could be made in the tax on shipping. The earnings of the pilot will not be reduced under these circumstances, and the reduction of the tax on shipping will be the result.
As a result of that the board met at Victoria and passed the following resolution: That owing to the constant complaints that are laid against Pilot Bebbington, and in view of his well-known physicial disability, and also in view of the opinions and conclu-[DOT]ions of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, based on inquiry


George Henry Barnard: Provide for the compulsory retirement of
licensed _ pilots who have now attained the age of sixty-five years, proved on oath before the pilotage authority to be incapacitated by mental or bodily infirmity or by habits of drunkenness.
I have returns here showing that the earnings of this man Bebbington in the month of October, when he was suspended, were higher than those of any man in the service, that he earned in October, 1907, $310, that the next highest were $273 and they vary from that down to $144. I have also a return from him showing that for the five years from 1903 to 1907, inclusive, he earned $13,487, which is higher by over a thousand lollars than the earnings of any other pilot during that period. These fees are all paid into the pilotage authority, ten per cent is deducted for the expenses of the management of the authority and after that is done the fees are repaid to the pilots. Whether or not some one has been interested because this man was earning more than the others in making charges against him I do not know, but I do know that he was earning more and was employed more at the time of his retirement than any other man in the service. In addition to that I have the medical certificates here. One is from Dr. Frank Hall, whom the Minister of Inland Revenue knows personally as a man of very high standing in his profession. It is dated May, 1908, or shortly before this man was retired.
Victoria, B.C., May 29, 1908.
This is to certify that Mr. Captain Thos. Bebbington is in good health and free from all organic diseases; and I consider him as regards health capable of following his usual occupation.
(Sgd.) FRANCIS W. HALL, M.D.
I have another from Dr. Hermann M. Robertson, who is the medical health officer of the city of Victoria, and a physician of high standing, in which, he states that, in his opinion, Bebbington 'is in good health and capable of performing his duty as a pilot'. I have, in addition, certificates, from Mr. Fullerton, the ship's husband for the Canadian Pacific Railway Steamship Line, and from R. P. Rithet & Company from Dowdell & Company and from practically every shipping man of any importance in the city of Victoria, and from the commanders of a great many steamers which call at that port, all of whom say that he is perfectly well able to carry on the duties of his office.
Now, what has the department done?- I am willing to say they have done it unwittingly and without realizing what it means. If this man, who is retired from the Pilotage Board, and whose means of livelihood is taken away, applies for a position as captain of a merchant ship or in

any other capacity, he will be asked why he retired from the Pilotage Board, and he can only point to the order in council declaring that he has been dismissed under subsection (j) of section 433 of the Merchant Shipping Act, which provides that the pilotage authority can dismiss a man who is proven on oath to be incapacitated by reason of mental or bodily infirmity or by habits of drunkenness. As to the ' proven incapacity, it is absolutely contrary to the admitted facts, and as to the habits of drunkenness, there is not a tittle of evidence in support of such a statement. Under the circumstances, I would ask the Minister oi Marine and Fisheries-he has already been asked unofficially by correspondence-to make full inquiry into the capacity of this man and give him a fighting chance for his life, for his whole occupation is taken away, and, so far as I can see from the documents on file in the department, it has been taken away absolutely without any cause.


Hon.   L P. BRODEUR@Minister of Marine and Fisheries: I must thank my hon. friend (Mr. Barnard) for having been kind enough to notify me that he would bring up this question to-night. Unfortunately, I have not been able to have the papers relating to the facts brought from the department, but the facts are shown, I suppose fairly, in the speech of the hon. member.
We have in different parts of the country pilotage authorities appointed sometimes by order in council, sometimes by boards of trade or city councils, which are obliged to make reports to the government of their operations. These pilotage authorities have the management and control of the pilots. Licenses have to be issued to give the pilots the right to exercise their profession, and these are given after examination by the pilotage authorities. In two cases only the Minister of Marine is _ the pilotage authority-with regard to the pilots on the St. Lawrence below Quebec, and with regard to those above Quebec. So far as the organization of the pilotage authority of Victoria is concerned, I am reminded by my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman) that all the members are appointed by order in council. At all events, it is the policy of the department once these men have been entrusted with the administration of these laws in their city, to hold them absolutely responsible for the action which they take. In this case, it appears, a man was reported to them as unfit to carry on his duties as pilot. I suppose the matter was inquired into by themselves. Judging from the papers read by my hon. friend (Mr. Barnard) they seem to have taken a great deal of trouble in the matter. They made
a personal inquiry. They did not dismiss lim, but suspended him. Then further inquiry was made, and they found he was not absolutely unfit and removed the suspension. Later on, they suspended him under the authority of the Merchant Shipping Act.


George Henry Barnard: The minister will pardon me: Why was the order in council necessary? And why was it necessary to state that he was proven incapable, when the medical certificates are to the direct contrary?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is the report of the pilotage authority themselves. I do not say that it is absolutely necessary to have an order in council. Perhaps it was not necessary at all.


George Henry Barnard: The section of the Act says that they can only suspend a man by by-law which is confirmed by order in council.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The by-laws are confirmed by order in council.


George Henry Barnard: I refer to section 433, which says:
Subject to the provisions of this part, or of any Act for the time being in force in its pilotage district, every pilotage authority shall, within its district, have power, from time to time, by by-law confirmed by the Governor in Council, to-
(j) provide for the compulsory retirement of licensed pilots who have not attained the age of sixty-five years, proved on oath before the pilotage authority to be incapacitated by mental or bodily infirmity.
There is certainly no proof here of that; the proof is all the other way.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think the hon. member is wrong in his interpretation of the law.


George Henry Barnard: I have read the statute.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
George Henry Barnard: Does not the minister see that the power to make by-laws is expressly given to the pilotage authority by section 433, and that the same section expressly deals with the question of suspension of pilots. Surely, the result of that simply is that they may dismiss them in no other way. The result of that simply is that you cannot dismiss them in any other way. That is not what I complain of so much as that they did not pass a by-law, but that they merely passed a resolution and they did not state in the resolution that this man was proved guilty of drunkenness. They simply stated that they thought he was disabled; they did not sqy it had been proved that there was disability; they simply said there were complaints. Then, by that order in council which you passed gratuitously on that resolution, you brand this man as either being incapable or being a drunkard, and you cannot get away from that. That is where the injustice comes in. If the man is incapable no one wants him there, but according to your own statute it must be proved and proved properly.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am sorry to have to differ with my hon. friend (Mr. Barnard) on the interpretation of section 433. He claims that in every case where a man is to be dismissed by the pilotage authority, the pilotage authority has to come before council for action. Now, I maintain that under article 433 the pilotage authority have the right to make certain regulations; let us read the section:
Subject to the provisions of this part, or of any Act for the time being in force in its pilotage district, every pilotage authority shall, within its district, have power, from time to time, by by-law confirmed by the Governor in Council to

I quote the marginal notes:
Determine qualification of pilots.
Regulations as to pilot boats.
Licenses and certificates.
Regulations for government of pilots.
Punishment for breach of regulations.
Compulsory retirement of aged pilots.
And of infirm or intemperate pilots.
The meaning of that article is that the pilotage authority has the Tight to make by-laws under these headings. They have the right to say on what condition a man should be dismissed and they pass a by-law determining for what bodily infirmity a pilot can be dismissed. They are the judge of that, and then these by-laws are confirmed ndo, :council, xne procedure generally adopted with regard to these bylaws is that after they are received by the Marine Department they are submitted to the Department of Justice to determine whether these by-laws are according to law or not, and if the Department of Justice reports that they are according to law they are generally approved by the Governor in Mr. BRODEUR,
Council. We adopt that procedure because the pilotage authorities are supposed to be more familiar with the local conditions than any person in Ottawa, and we want to give them absolute liberty as to the action they should take.


George Henry Barnard: If this matter is referred to the Department of Justice for an opinion would not the recommendation of the minister for the order in council be placed before the Department of Justice and does not that recommendation state that this man should be dismissed owing to his well known physical disability? If the Minister of Marine and the Department of Justice assume that the man has been proved to be physically incapable then the by-law and the order in council are right, but your statute says it must be proved on oath-and your medical evidence, which is the only evidence you can go on says that the man is capable-so that you are clearly in the wrong in that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I was about to explain how these by-laws come into force and after they come into action may be taken by the pilotage authority.


Charles Joseph Doherty: In this particular case, does it appear that that pilotage authority ever passed any general by-law providing, as they were authorized to do, that for the causes mentioned in the section a man could be dismissed. Did they try that man under a by-law of that kind. According to what the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Barnard) says they passed a resolution on the subject, but they did not pass a by-law. I am not saying they would have to make a special by-law for the case of each man, but the procedure laid down is that they must first pass a general by-law providing that when the man was proved under oath to come within the class of persons mentioned in that section, then he could be dismissed. Having done that they ought to try him under the by-law and find him guilty under that by-law if he were guilty. According to the statement of the hon. member for Victoria no such by-law was passed and no trial was had under that by-law.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not yet had an opportunity of explaining the facts. I do not know whether any by-law was passed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is the whole gist of the case.


George Henry Barnard: It required a special resolution and an order in council approving of that resolution.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend (Mr. Barnard) has not all the by-laws of the pilotage authority before him. Perhaps there was such a by-law passed and perhaps there was not, and if there was no by-law I suppose they could not proceed under that subsection. But, I may call the attention

of my hon. friend to article 492 which is absolutely different from the section which has been quoted, and which gives the Pilotage authority the right to deal with the case. Here is what it says:
If at any time it appears to any pilotage authority that any master or mate to whom a pilotage certificate has been granted by such authority has been guilty of drunkenness or misconduct, or has shown himself incompetent to pilot his ship, the pilotage authority may withdraw his certificate; and such certificate shall thenceforth cease to be of any effect whatever and such master or mate shall forthwith produce and deliver up such certificate to such pilotage authority.
My hon. friend will see that there are two ways in which the pilotage authority can proceed. First, under section 433 which provides for the making of by-laws and then under section 492 which says that a man can be dismissed if he has shown himself incompetent.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Does not the order in council say he was dismissed under subsection (j) of article 433. In other words it says: this is a man who has been proved under oath to be incapable of doing his work. Apart from everything else there is a serious injustice done the man when you do not specify which of the things you dismiss him for, because you send him out on the world branded as being dismissed for being physically incapable or for being a drunkard' That is the document he goes out to the world with.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: All the documents show he was dismissed because he was bodily infirm.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The order in council says he was dismissed under subsection _(j) of section 433 of the Merchants Shipping Act, and, according to that, he may have been dismissed for physical infirmity or for drunkenness.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It seems to me that there is a reference to physical incompetence in the documents produced.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He cannot carry all the documents around with him.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The pilotage authorities have absolute power to do what they have done. It was not even necessary that his dismissal should have been confirmed by order in council. Under section 492, the pilotage authority have absolute po-wer to dismiss. They have the right to declare that he is inoonvpoto-nt, or not fit to conduct bis shin and consequently -hppld be dismissed What was done in this case.- * report was made by the pilotage authority stating that this man was absolutely infirm and incapable of doing his work and they asked our opinion. We iepl _ thought they would be justified, under
circumstances, in withdrawing his license. That is what they did. The department did more. They made a recommendation to council approving of the action-I do not know whether that was in my time or not-and they asked the council to confirm this action of the pilotage authority. I go further and say that the department has no discretion in the matter.


George Henry Barnard: Why did the minister, after hearing from the Minister of Inland Revenue that
There had been for a year or two strong pressure from the board of trade for the abolition of compulsory pilotage, with tho view of removing what is claimed to be a heavy charge on shipping-the demand has something to do with the proposed retirement of Bebbington.
and if his department had no responsibility write to the pilotage authorities pointing out that the number can be fixed at four instead of five, and recommending them to pass a by-law to that effect?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: take part on either side, that the official who took an offensive part rendered him-ship owners and the pilotage authorities with incompetency, and a wreck had occurred later, while he was in control of the vessel, the whole city would have risen in arms against the government for not having dismissed him. Who are the pilotage authorities? My hon. friend knows those men and I do not; but I am informed that they are the most reliable men to be found in Victoria, and when I have their report in a case of this kind, I should hesitate very much going against it. If my hon. friend will consult the English Merchants Shipping Act he will see that there the pilotage authorities are absolute masters of the situation, that the only recourse a man has against their decision is in appeal to certain tribunals described in section 610 in the Merchants Act of 1894. In a case such as this the appeal would lie with the Board of Trade, which corresponds with our Department of Marine and Fisheries, and that board never interferes with the decision of the pilotage authorities.


George Henry Barnard: In reply to the hon. minister I would say-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman has already spoken.


INTERFERENCE OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AT ELECTIONS.
Mr. R. S. LAKE (Qu'Appelle).: Before you leave the Chair, Sir, I wish to make my strongest protest against the outrageous doctrine laid down by the hon. the Postmaster General this evening. That hon. gentleman said that if an official of the government were charged with having taken an active part against the government in an election, he would dismiss him simply on the personal statement to that effect of any member supporting the government. The Postmaster General laid the very strongest emphasis upon the word ' against.' I think we may fairly draw the inference from the way in which he said it, that he intended that any official of the government who took an offensive part in elections on behalf of the government would be immune from any such penalty as would be imposed upon those who took part against the government. That is a doctrine which, I think, should not be allowed to pass in this House, without the most vigorous protest, and I desire to record my most vigorous protest against it. The Prime Minister, only a few years ago, endorsed, and the whole House endorsed, a resolution prnnnoo/t h*-	me
pffpri.	''ftnonu of the government
-wcilu be allowed to take an offensive part in elections, either Dominion or provincial. The Prime Minister went further; he made the statement that no official should


Mr.   BRODEDR@: take part on either side, that the official who took an offensive part rendered himself a scandal in the country, placed himself at variance with a large portion of the community who contribute towards the payment of his salary, and minimized his usefulness to that extent. The House adopted the resolutions proposed to the effect that no official should take any part in elections. It is the most extraordinary doctrine I have yet heard in this House, that an official may take part in an election, provided always that he takes part in behalf of the government. That is a doctrine to which, I believe, the country will not subscribe, and I am surprised to hear it from the mouth of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux).


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey).: I do not apologize to the House for speaking on this question, for I think it is one of the most important that has come before the House, especially in view of the attitude of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux). We on this side are not a little surprised at the principle the hon. minister has adopted. I hope he will not adhere to it. As I understand him, he enunciated as the doctrine of his department that, if the man who has received the confidence of the electorate in a certain riding and who supports the government, makes the charge that a certain official has taken an active part in the election, that is not only prima facie evidence, but irrebuttable evidence of the fact. In other words, there is no opportunity for an official thus accused to defend himself. I can only say that if the^ minister is to be sustained in this, then it is just as true, and the argument is just as forcible, and he is just as much bound to accept the statement of the man who has received the confidence of the electors and who happens to sit on this side of the House. Therefore, I would have as much right as any other member of this House, to go to the Postmaster General to-morrow and say: I have been elected by the electors of North Riding of Grey, and have their confidence; I inform you that a certain postmaster has been guilty of taking an active part in the election against me, and I have the right to ask you to take my statement as irrebuttable evidence of that fact and to dismiss this official. I hope the Postmaster General will qualify his statement in some way. For there are members on this side of the House

I know this perfectly-who, in the provincial government, where we happen to be in control, have stood up against the or our own friends who seek dismissal of our opponents. I know that in many cases Conservative members have stood against the dismissal of men unjustly accused of having taken part in the elections. I do hope the Postmaster General will not adhere to the principle that he is
justified in accepting as conclusive evidence the statement of the member elected for the riding that a certain official has taken an offensive part in the election.


Mr. A. B. CROSBY (Halifax).: 
Mr. J. D. REID.: I listened to the speech of the Postmaster General on this matter, and I must say that I was greatly surprised, because, like the hon. gentleman 'who has just taken his seat (Mr. Crosby), I had the greatest confidence in anything the Postmaster General might do, and I expected that he would try and be honourable in any transaction taking place m nis department. An hon. member supporting the government made a charge that a certain postmaster in the county of Brandon had taken an active part in the last political campaign, and the hon. member tor Souris states that this postmaster has asked for an investigation, and is able to prove that he never took any other part in the election than to vote. If that is all the postmaster did, I believe the Postmaster General will admit that his official did not take an offensive part in the campaign. Now in this country every man is entitled to British fair play, I do not care what nis creed or what his colour may be. Another statement the Postmaster General made was this, that he was willing to dismiss any postmaster provided a charge was made by a supporter of the government that such postmaster opposed the government. Now as an honourable man, as a servant of the people of Canada, can it be possible that the Postmaster General will accept the statement of a member on his side of the House against an official who has taken an active part in an election campaign against a candidate of the government, and that he will not accept a similar statement by a member of the opposition that a postmaster has taken an active part against an opposition candidate in an election. This is an exceedingly grave matter, and the Postmaster General owes it to himself to clear it up. If it is a fact that the Postmaster General will accept the statement of one of his own supporters and will reject the statement of a member of the opposition in a Precisely similar case, then it is time that the people	ii,;= country should know it. I would
be sorry indeed 11 n	an on record
that the Postmaster General would make ~ mistake of this kind.


James Alexander Robb: It is not to defend the principle laid down by the hon. the Postmaster


James Alexander Robb: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Speaker


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman can only speak with the consent of the House, because I have already applied the rule.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Agreed, agreed.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I refused the hon. member for Victoria the right to speak.


Samuel Hughes: but he is a minister.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It can only be done by the consent of the House.


George Eulas Foster: There is nobody dissenting. _


Rodolphe Lemieux: wexs, one of which I read in the House. As the others were marked private and contained rather harsh words against a name sake of the hon. gentleman, I passed the letter to the hon. member for York. The hon. gentleman was satisfied, I suppose, that he had been misinformed because he did not again bring the matter up in the Hpuse. I have given a general notice to postmasters that they must not take part in politics.


William Sora Middlebro: Following the principle which he has enunciated to-night, would the minister not have been justified, upon the complaint of the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket), in immediately dismissing the official without further inquiry?


Rodolphe Lemieux: First of all it was not a federal election. Second I notified postmasters that they must not interfere in party politics, and my hon. friend knows that I am too human to judge any hypothetical case, I will judge every case as it presents itself.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the hon. gentleman

Mr. SPEAKER, I cannot allow this discussion to go on much longer.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I was rather amused by the remarks of the Postmaster General. The doctrine he enunciated struck me as rather a new one to come from that side of the House. During the last campaign, if I remember, circular letter was sent out by the government-


Rodolphe Lemieux: May I finish my statement?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: We are drifting away from the rules of the House entirely. It shows the importance of adhering to the rules in every case. The minister has spoken repeatedly and may have to speak again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I should complete my statement for the information of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as he did not hear it. I was asked by the hon. gentleman for Souris if I would not dismiss [DOT]a postmaster who had been a candidate in the last election.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: 


George Henry Bradbury: During the last campaign a circular letter was sent out by the government, as I understand, warning the government -officials that they were supposed not to take any active part in the election. The hon. Postmaster General has said here to-night that he warned the officials of his department that any of them who took part against the government were subject to dismissal. How did the Postmaster General know during the election who would compose the government, how could he apply that doctrine? The leader of the opposition might have been administering the government and it is a very weak doctrine indeed that does not apply both ways. In my own county I have two or three specific cases of the interference of government officials, and I think perhaps that every member on this side could quote numbers of them. I have an Indian agent drawing $1,800 a year who locked his office and acted as an organizer for my opponent during the whole campaign. I have another gentleman, clerk of a large public work, drawing public money, who appeared on the platform on two or three different occasions, championing the cause of the government. I have the inspector of fish hatcheries in Selkirk, a member of the Liberal organization, who also took a very active part in the campaign. If I made a complaint from my place in the House with reference to these gentlemen, would they be treated in the same manner as the postmaster in Souris was treated? Surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. However, I am not going to ask for the removal of these officials." The policy adopted by the government, viz.: To the victors belong the spoils, is good enough for me.


Samuel Hughes: 
George Halsey Perley: The minister said that when the member for York (Mr. Crocket) made a complaint regarding this man in New Brunswick, he investigated the complaint and found that the member for York (Mr. Crocket) had been misinformed. I would ask the Postmaster General whether when the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) made a complaint regarding the postmaster at Souris, he made inquiries from that official to ascertain whether the member for Brandon had been misinformed, and if not, why he should have taken the word of the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) more readily than the word of the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket)?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
St. Lawrence ship canal, $800,000.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This vote is to make provision for the work on the ship channel and for the maintenance of additional plant. The increase of $40,000 is for the construction of a new dredge and the operation of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have a separate item for the construction of dredges, and this vote is for the ship channel.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman is right. This vote is only for the operation of the dredge.


Mr. PRICE.: Are the operating expenses of this new dredge so much greater than those of the dredges used previously that you want $40,000 extra.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It will not cost more to operate than the others.


William Price: Will there be more dredges working this year than last year?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There will be one more.


George Eulas Foster: How many dredges in operation?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Six elevator dredges, one hydraulic dredge, two suction hoppers, two inspection and sweeping tugs, and two stone elevators.


Adam Brown Crosby: This work is all being done by the government and none is let by contract


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The work on the St. Lawrence ship channel is done by us.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister ever had any examination made as to the cost per onViie yard to the American government for dreugi^B different materials, say on the Panama canal, ana uau v*~ '>nrri. pare the prices we pay with the prices paid by the United States government for similar work?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have never had a comparison made with the cost of the work
on the Panama canal. The cost of our dredging is very low.


Samuel Hughes: I will not admit that. We were able to show that the cost of dredging at Fort William and Port Arthur was very high, and since we agitated that matter the price has been reduced year after year. I do not know about the cost on the St. Lawrence ship canal but I do know that the cost of this work when done by the United States government is small compared with anything in Canada.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will give my hon. friend the work of each dredge grade.
The ' Laval ' 19-55 cents.


Samuel Hughes: What depth?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Thirty to thirty-five feet. ' The Laurier ' 27 cents, the ' Lady
Aberdeen,' 36 cents, ' No. 4,' 13 cents, ' No. 5', 21 cents, ' No. 6,' 8 cents ' No. 7,' 4 cents.


George Eulas Foster: Is that a suction grade?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: ' No. 7 ' is a hydraulic dredge. It is worked in blue clay. 'No 6 '
is an elevator dredge. It worked in clay, stones and sand.


Samuel Hughes: Where is the material dumped?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In the river.


Samuel Hughes: So it will have to be dredged out again


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, in the St. Lawrence no filling has taken place except last yeaT, in a very short space, near Cham-bly or Batiscan. There was on the bank of the river some sand which was caused, by the action of the ice in the spring, to flow down into the river, and some of it went into the channel itself, but it took only a few weeks to excavate the sand. Outside of that, the material in the St. Lawrence does not fill up again. Every spring we sweep the channel, and the report is that there is no filling at all. That is due to the fact that we have those upper lakes, which are reservoirs or basins, and the ordinary flow of the river does not cause a filling in, on account of those reservoirs, as in the case of other rivers or as would take place for example, in the Mississippi river.


George Eulas Foster: How far away is the material dumped?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This hydraulic dredge is equipped with tubes which carry it about half a mile.


John Dowsley Reid: According to the statement oi mjo ...Snictpr. the highest price was 36 cents per yard. But tnere was little business done at Quebec when a contract was given to Mr Dussault for 75 cents per yard.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not by my department.


John Dowsley Reid: That does not come under Public Works. I wish I had known that because I wanted to draw the attention of the minister to it. The facts in that case were that the Public Works Department let a contract for 75 cents a yard to a man who had not a dredge of any kind- and theie was no dredge capable of doing the work except a government dredge on account of the great depth-get a contract from the Public Works Department at 75 cents and immediately sublet the contract to the government at 15 cents, so that all he had to do was to collect 60 cents a yard from the government. It was-a little difficult to do but Mr. Dussault managed to do it to his entire satisfaction. I hope the minister will see that his own dredges do the work and not let it out to men who have no dredges of their own, and who will then sublet the work to his department at one-fifth the price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In what locality is the dredging to be done this year.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We are going to continue at Cap a la Roche, and at Lake St. Peter we are going to -complete the widening of the channel to 450 feet in the straight part and 800 feet in the curves. We are going also to do some work between Varen-nes and Vercheres, which will not be so extensive. It is for the purpose of reducing the curves. We will have work to do in the Montreal harbour, and the most important part will be at Cape a la Roche in order to -complete the channel at 30 feet in extreme low water. Then the two suction dredges are going to work at St. Thomas flats below Quebec, where at the low extreme tide, there is only 22 or 23 feet of water.


George Eulas Foster: What is the width at Cap ft la Roche?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is 450 feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I make the inquiry I have done because of the statement made earlier in the session by the minister himself that he had succeeded in so improving that channel that boats drawing 29 and 30 feet of water could pass along it, night or day, almost as readily as in mid ocean. If the work has been made so complete, the question naturally arises, why do we need $800,000 to continue the work? I thought that below Quebec there might be places requiring improvements, but that between Quebec and Montreal, judging- from tnc statement of the minister, nothing remained to be done. Another question is this: Does the hon. minister consider the harbour of Montreal part of the ship channel of Quebec?


John Dowsley Reid: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Under the law passed recently, the harbour of Montreal covers a certain space-a length of about twelve miles.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We placed at the disposal of the Harbour Commissioners so much money to improve the harbour. Does that enable them to do dredging and deepening of the harbour as well as building the breakwaters and docks needed? for, if so, no part of the present vote need go to provide for the harbour of Montreal, and so all would go, as it says, for the ship channel, which, I take it, is a different thing altogether from the harbour of Montreal.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, and so stated in the law. That part of the river extending from Montreal to the end of Longue Pointe, for a width of three or four hundred feet, which is dredged to the depth of 30 feet, is properly a part of the St. Lawrence ship channel and is part of the work carried on by the department under this vote.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Harbour Commissioners have no power to do work there?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. The harbour covers about twelve miles of shore, and outside of that there is the channel through which all boats pass and in which we are doing the work.


Samuel Hughes: What method of inspection is the minister employing in this dredging to see that the number of cubic yards returned have been actually done? We have shown pretty conclusively, I think, that in Port Arthur and in the Midland region there is no system of inspection, but the barges often go off with so much water only. Another point is this:	I think it
would pay the minister to send one of his able officials-he has a number of them in his department-to see how the work is done on the Panama canal. I think that they are doing rock work there cheaper than we are doing work in sand or clay. -It seems to me that the mode of dredging on the St. Lawrence is extremely expensive.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The part we are excavating is rock and is necessarily expensive. I have not here the figures showing the cost in the Panama canal. But I shall be glad to make inquiries as to that point. I think that on the Panama canal they are working in the water.


Samuel Hughes: Part of the way in wator.
Mr. BROnu'vru. nu( r understand that ot the work is on the land, and it is not nearly so difficult excavating on land as in the river.


George Eulas Foster: What is the minister aiming at in the present work-what width and
what depth-from Montreal to Quebec?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have a depth of 30 feet at extreme low water from Montreal to Cap a la Roche, with a width of 450 feet in the straight part of the channel and 600 feet in the curves. Besides that, we have anchorages.


George Eulas Foster: Does the hon. minister propose to go deeper than 30 feet, or wider than 450 feet and 800 feet in the straight parts and curves respectively?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have not considered yet the advisability of making the channel wider than it is either in straight parts or in the curves. As to deepening, I may inform the committee that when dredge ' No.
8 ' had almost finished its work on Lake St. Peter, they began to dredge to 35 feet. In view of the vessels that are coming to the St. Lawrence, we should certainly have to go deeper than 30 feet. My idea is that when we are through with work at 30 feet, we should go on and get a depth of 35 feet.


George Eulas Foster: That is the point I am leading up to. How much more is there necessary to do to get down to 30 feet?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: At Cap a la Roche, we have 27i feet at extreme low water, and we are making 30 feet there.


George Eulas Foster: What length of section is that? It seems to me we have been stuck at Cap a la Roche for a long time.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I cannot say exactly how much is left to be done.


George Eulas Foster: Perhaps the minister can give it approximately?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Perhaps five miles. But the work is far advanced, and we expect to finish it next year. When that is done, we should have 30 feet at extreme low water from Montreal to Quebec.


William Price: Is there anything in these estimates for dredging St. Thomas flats and below?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


William Price: Does the St. Lawrence channel include that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, the St. Lawrence channel includes to the sea. We are working at St. Thomas flats to make a depth at extreme low water of 30 feet.


William Price: Will that be finished this year?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, it will take two years, I am informed.


Adam Brown Crosby: I desire to say something on the ship-building matter which I mentioned the other night, but which I did not discuss at length, as I did not wish then to detain the House at length. I suppose there 21S
will be an item before the committee that will afford an opportunity to, deal with that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. .


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister a division of that $800,000 for repairs, wages and coal? For instance, give me the total for repairs.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: About $100,000, total for repairs of dredges last year.


William Price: That seems to me absolutely ridiculous.


George Eulas Foster: What aTe the wages, coal and supplies?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Coal, $125,000; wages, $136,000; board, $50,000; repairs, $122,000.


George Eulas Foster: By board you mean food supplies?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


William Price: That means $13,500 per dredge. It is absolutely ridiculous. Surely there must be some mistake. I guarantee that no contractor would have to_ pay that; the government may, but no private individual would pay that, he would look too sharply after his own interests.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We do the repairs ourselves, and I think the wages we are paying our men are no higher than the hon. gentleman himself is paying for ordinary repairs.


George Eulas Foster: That only amounts to $433,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Stores and materials, $53,000, that is, supplies for the dredges.


George Eulas Foster: The supplies are comprised in the $50,000 for board, are they not?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Everything which peT-tains to the equipment of the dredge outside of the fuel. The board is simply what is paid for the men. The repairs are a separate item. Then the expenditure for new plant and rebuilding the shipyard is $103,000.


George Eulas Foster: How much for the new plant?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Boiler shop, new tools and machinery, $1,375; machine shop, new tools and machinery, $4,655; sawmill, new tools and machinery, $3,936; pipe and asbestos shop, new tools and machinery, $1,409; carpenter's shop, $73; air and steam plant, $669; telephone installation, $1,020; ship way winch and diving outfit, $5,144; spare floats and scow, $2,301; shipyard, railways, $673; alteration to offices, $2,802; store shed No. 5, $908; wharf No. 4, $22,873; building No. 18, $15,347; building No. 19, patterns, $5,977.


George Eulas Foster: Where was the new wharf built?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: At Sorel.


George Eulas Foster: The old wharf fell down, did it not?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not that wharf. The wharf the hon. gentleman alludes to was on the southern side of the river. This is on the north side.


George Eulas Foster: _ The expenditure on the new plant, the wharf building and the store shed amounts to $103,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. The proportion of general office expenses, $29,700.


George Eulas Foster: What does that mean?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have an office there which controls the work in our yard, that is the work of our engineers and inspection.


George Eulas Foster: They are engineers from Ottawa?	*
Mr. BRODEUR, No, the engineers are on the ship channel.
Mr. FOSTER, You have engineers here and you pay a portion of their expenses out of your ship channel vote. Why do you call that a proportion of office expenses?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These officers are in Sorel and are working on the St. Lawrence ship channel.


George Eulas Foster: Well, then, they have their office expenses there. Why do you call it a proportion of office expenses?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There are other expenses in that office which have to be apportioned to other works. We are not simply repairing ships at Sorel for the St. Lawrence ship channel but we are also doing other work.	.


George Eulas Foster: What other work?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have built two vessels this year, one for the lower part of the St. Lawrence.


George Eulas Foster: That would be ship channel work?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, it would not be ship channel work. This ship is for the buoy or lighthouse service, which is not charged to this vote but which is paid for out of some other vote.


George Eulas Foster: This is the proportion of the office expenses that go to the ship channel ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Well that is $29,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Now, the expenditure of each vessel I have given has been $522,000. Then for stone lifter service there is $5,453.43.


George Eulas Foster: The minister cannot mean $522,000 for each vessel?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: For all the vessels.


George Eulas Foster: Repairs cost $122,000, wages, $136,000, coal, $125,000, supplies, $50,000, that makes $433,000. Then there is, for working stores, $58,000 and plant, wharfs, and buildings $103,000. That brings it up to $594,000. Now the proportion of office expenses is $29,000. We have now got up to $623,000. I want to know where the rest of the $800,000 ought to go.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Tug service, inspection, towing and sweeping of the channel, $42,000.


George Eulas Foster: There is is $135,000 to be accounted for yet.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The expenditure for the stone lifter service and tug service was $92,000. Towing and sweeping cost $42,000.


William Price: How many tugs?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Fourteen.


George Eulas Foster: Fourteen tugs at a cost of $92,000? That is about $7,000 each.


William Price: $92,000 includes the running expenses?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


William Price: Are they large or small tugs?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They are fairly large.


William Price: How many would form the crew of a tug?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Sixteen on a small one and 44 on a large one.


William Price: Well, they must be huge tugs. I have a large tug and I never put more than 11 men on it. It takes a government tug to require sixteen men.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: You must not forget that these tugs are working day and night, so that I have a less number of men than my hon. friend, because, while he has 11 working during the daytime only, I have 16 working day and night.


George Eulas Foster: Does that mean that _ 8 would form a shift?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Well, there is $43,000 more to account for.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What amount is my
hon. friend trying to make up?


George Eulas Foster: I am trying to make up the $800,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am giving the expenditure of last year and there is an extra dredge which will cost $40,000.


George Eulas Foster: You judge that the extra dredge is going to cost $40,000?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.
Purchase of yard property at Sorel (revote), $30,000.


William Price: Will the minister explain this?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have at Sorel near our property a piece of property which does not belong to us. It belongs to the *estate McCarthy. . We have been trying to purchase that part of the property because I am afraid the more we delay the more we will have to pay. My deputy minister has been in negotiation with the estate McCarthy in an effort to settle the matter, but we have not been able to reach a settlement and this sum is to provide for the purchase of this piece of land.


George Eulas Foster: Who is the chief boss of the ship channel part of the work?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Cowie had charge of the work of the channel proper and Mr. Desbarats of the ship-yard at Sorel. Since Mr. Cowie entered the service of the Montreal Harbour Commission, Mr. Forncret has had charge of the channel proper, and since Mr. Desbarats has been transferred to Ottawa. Mr. Papineau has been in charge at Sorel.


George Eulas Foster: What experience has Mr. Papineau?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He has been in the public service for about 30 years. He was in the Railways and Canals Department and Department of Public Works. With the consent of the Minister , of Public Works he has been transferred to that branch of the service of the Marine Department.


George Eulas Foster: How old is he?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A little over 50.
Completion and construction of dredging plant, River St. Lawrence, from Montreal to Father Point, $250,000.


George Eulas Foster: What is the minister going to do with that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: To provide one steel elevator rock dredge which will cost, it is estimated $200,000; an additional spoon dredge for Cap a la Roche to cost $175,000; another dredge of the same character $125,000; and a new stone elevator, $150,000. This ameunt of $250,000 is to complete the construction of these dredges.
218i


William Price: Where are they being built?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: At Sorel.


William Price: Has the government asked for tenders to see what these dredges could be built for outside the government yard?
Mr. BRODEUR, We prefer to make them ourselves under our own control.


William Price: I understand that, but I am not sure that the country would if they knew the enormous expenditure that is being made; I doubt very much if they would. This extravagant expenditure must end some time, it cannot go on forever.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think my hon. friend is somewhat astray in stating that this is an extravagant expenditure. .


William Price: Not in the least.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On the contrary, I think that no money has been so well invested as the money invested in the deepening and improving of the St. Lawrence ship channel.


William Price: I am not saying that the money spent in improving the St. Lawrence ship channel has not been well invested, but I do say that the cost of dredges is too great, the cost of repairs is too great, and is thoroughly unbusinesslike. I do not hesitate to say that.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: Would the hon. member give the committee some reason for saying that? The hon. member from Quebec has repeated several times that the cost of repairs on these 14 tow boats and 9 dredges, amounting to $120,000, is excessive. If he speaks from experience or knowledge, let us have it.


William Price: I may say that I know something about running tugs. I do not know much about dredges. I have seen these government dredges on the Saguenay day in and day out doing nothing because repairs were being made to them. I know how these repairs are made. The work is done so badly that they break down the next day.


Adam Brown Crosby: Why should all these dredges be built at Sorel? Could they not be built at Halifax?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have not the equipment at Halifax to make these dredges, but at Sorel we have a staff of men who have been doing that work for many years, some of them for 30 or 40 years. The construction of dredges is not a simple matter and they must be made of strong material. This dredge for rock excavation, for instance, must be very strongly made and my hon. friend will realize that if it is made by experienced men with material which we control ourselves we are sure to have better service than we will obtain ' by calling for tenders. I am satisfied that

in that way we make the dredges much more cheaply, despite the statement of the hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Price), in which I am not able to agree because I think I have already shown him with regard to the tugs that we employ fewer men than he does.


William Price: I do not think you proved that.


Adam Brown Crosby: The minister has an appropriation here for the purchase of more property in Sorel. He knows very well that the imperial dockyards in Halifax have been handed over to this government and that they have sufficient property there to build a dozen dredges. Not a third of that property is in use. Why should we acquire more property in Sorel when we have this property lying idle in Halifax? I do not object to building some of the boats and dredges in Sorel but why not build some in Halifax, even if you have to take some men down there from Sorel.


George Eulas Foster: It is a dangerous place to send them to Halifax.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Expensive.


Adam Brown Crosby: If my hon. friend is going to talk about the expense I will have to say something, because, while I believe it is in the interest of this country that the St. Lawrence channel should be dredged and kept in good condition, to 40 feet or 50 feet if necessary, at the same time care should be taken as to the manner in which we spend the money used in that work. I have heard enough evidence in the Public Accounts Committee to make me very suspicious as to the manner in which dredging is done in the St. Lawrence. You have every convenience at Halifax for the building of these dredges. If you sent down trained men our workmen in Halifax could soon learn how to carry on this work, and it would be a relief to have more than one place for the construction of these dredges. You should have two strings to your bow.


George Eulas Foster: What is the lifetime of an elevator dredge?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Our oldest dredge was built in 1886.


George Eulas Foster: When you get this channel done what will you do with all these dredges?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: When we have deepened to 30 feet, then, as suggested by my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Crosby), we may have to go to 35 feet. With the improvement of the St. Lawrence trade I do not know when we will be able to stop.
Amount required for piers in Lake St. Peter and other places in the ship channel, River St. Lawrence, $90,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A new pier is to be constructed at Pointe du Lac and also we expect that progress will be made with the new pier at the Lower Traverse. These piers are built with concrete. The pier at Lower Traverse has -been asked for many years by the shipping federation. This is probably the most dangerous part of the channel and as the current is strong it is almost impossible to locate a light ship there.


William Price: What happened to the pier you hadi there before?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was carried off by the ice. Colonel Anderson advises me that if the new pier is built outside of the former site there will be no danger.


George Eulas Foster: What is the pier for?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A light will be erected on it.


George Eulas Foster: Did not the former pier go to pieces because the concrete was bad?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I cannot say as to that.


George Eulas Foster: You mean you don't like to say that? I will tell you how it occurs : The minister gets his engineer to draw the plan and after he does that something else comes in, you give a contract for the work and then you appoint an overseer and the overseer's appointment is a matter of patronage and you consequently get an incompetent overseer and bad concrete is put in, and in a yeaT or so the whole thing goes. Does the minister think that is the reason that this work gives way?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. I have two cases in mind where the piers were carried away, and where they were erected by the engineer and supervised by the officers of the department.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, but under your patronage system the superviser is not appointed by the engineer, but by the member for the county.	v


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not in cases where we do the work ourselves.	*


Clarence Jameson: How long was this pier standing before it was carried away, and was an investigation made as to the cause?
Mr. BRODEUR Col. Anderson reported on these two piers that were carried away. In the Sorel case the soil was bad and the huge mass of ice pressing against it caused the accident. The pier was standing for three or four years.


George Eulas Foster: Was not one of them carried away 18 months after it was built?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. I could show my hon. friend photographs which would en-

able him to see the immense mass of ice that presses against these piers.
Salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $360,000.


William Price: Why this increase of $40,000? ' [DOT]


Mr BRODEUR.: I have classified all these light houses and this is to give the men a small increase.


Samuel Hughes: What is the basis of
classification?


Mr BRODEUR.: The amount of work to be done, the extent of the machinery to be attended to, and the inacessibility of the light houses. For instance the Bird Rock lighthouses are in a special class.


George Eulas Foster: Who makes the classification?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The chief engineer.


George Eulas Foster: What do you pay the Bird Rock man?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If there is a fog alarm and special machinery we give them as high as $1,400.
Agencies, rents and contingencies-lighthouse and coast service, $33,000.


William Price: What is the salary paid Captain Johnson?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


William Price: Has he had an increase lately?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


William Price: Has he paid back the money he got from the 'Hestia?'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, I am advised that he and the crew are entitled to it.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would ask the minister to bring down the papers. Did not his department ask the money back?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, but when we wanted to take action we were advised by the Department of Justice that we had no right to. recover. I will bring down the papers.


Adam Brown Crosby: When did you get that
advice?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Some two months ago.


William Price: In his report1, Mr. Justice Cassels said that the money should be returned, and it seems rather strange that Mr. Justice Cassels, who is Chief Admiralty Judge, should decide that the money should be returned, and then that the Department of Justice should give a contrary ruling.


George Eulas Foster: Captain Johnson said he would not give it back.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is a. question of law, on which there may be differences of opinion. The law provides that the master and crew of every vessel which saves another vessel are entitled to salvage. Then comes the question whether our vessels should not be under the same rule.


William Price: Was not our vessel a cruiser?
* Mr. BRODEUR. No.


Adam Brown Crosby: If the minister states that any vessel on the high seas, which does any towing, should get that money and that money be divided among the captain and the crew, he is stating what is absurd.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I never said that.


Adam Brown Crosby: If the minister will bring down the papers we shall have an opportunity of dealing with the matter.


Haughton Lennox: Do I understand the minister to say that at one time he thought he had the right to get the money back?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, so I was advised by the officers of my department. But when we came to take action to recover we were advised by the Department of Justice that the action would not hold.


Haughton Lennox: But the minister thought he ought to get the money back and took some steps to get it back.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, and they Tefused to give it back.


Haughton Lennox: As a matter of law, he thinks now he could not get it back, and that is why he did not take action.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: If the minister thinks that, as a matter of right, he ought to have the money hack and was only prevented by a legal technicality, why does he not dismiss that officer who will not do what is right?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Chairman


Haughton Lennox: I insist on having a reply from the minister.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the hon. gentleman has concluded his remarks, it is open to any one to address the Chair.


Haughton Lennox: Will the minister answer the question?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Before he does, I would like to say a word or two. The hon. gentleman inquires why the department does not take steps to recover the money from Captain Johnson or dismiss him. But there is no money to be got back from Captain Johnson. He never held one cent in connection with the 'Hestia' which the department could get back. The finding of Mr. Justice Cassels was clearly in error.


William Price: Who says it was in error?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do. The steamer 'Hestia' was overtaken by the Dominion government steamer, the 'Lady Laurier,' and towed to Shelburne Roads. That was all the service performed by the government steamer. The ' Hestia's ' agents made application for the services of the ' Lady Laurier ' to tow her to Halifax, but the Halifax Towboat Association objected to the intervention of a government boat. In the meantime the agent of the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Halifax agreed- at least Mr. Justice Cassels so found and in that respect he was correct-that if the ' Lady Laurier 5 should go to Shelburne and tow the 'Hestia' to Halifax, the government should receive $400 per day; but the evidence clearly shows that the 'Lady Laurier' never assisted in the towing, never performed the contract, and consequently did not earn one cent. There was no excuse for the findings of Mr. Justice Cassels in that respect, because many witnesses, who were competent to give accurate testimony, showed that, while there had been possibly a contract, that contract was never per-performed and no service rendered. And, you will find in the printed evidence that Mr. Justice Cassels acknowledges that his idea of the facts in this respect were at one stage of the proceedings in error. Consequently, the ' Hestia ' or the agents of the ' Hestia ' never were indebted to the Dominion government for services rendered under the contract by the steamer ' Lady Laurier ' and therefore no money was due by Captain Johnson to the government.


Adam Brown Crosby: Why did Captain Johnson make this claim?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is true that, at a certain stage, Captain Johnson insisted on behalf of himself and crew that a claim for salvage should be made. But the government, I think, objected to Captain Johnson taking any action. Later on; the equivalent of $1,000 was transmitted from some underwriter's association of Liverpool to Cunard & Company, Halifax and by them distributed to the captain and crew, $500 to Captain Johnson, $250 to the officers and $250 to the crew, with direction by the underwriters' association referred to that this presentation should be made publicly, unless Captain Johnson and the officers and crew objected.


William Price: Had he a right to claim that?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Haughton Lennox: If the minister (Mr. Bro-deur) is desirous of getting his estimates through-and I assume he is-I do not think it is unreasonable, when I ask him a question in a civil way to expect that he should answer it. And' I do not think it facilitates the business for the minister to put up some one else to dTaw the discussion Mr. PRICE.
away from the point it has reached. Either the minister is competent to answer the question asked by the committee or he is not. If he is not, it may be all right for the hon. member (Mr. A. K. Maclean) who has just spoken to come to the rescue and wander off into a speech utterly irrelevant.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The question is, was I correct?


Haughton Lennox: The minister, I suppose, was groping in the dark when he determined to have this money recovered. I assume-and I have a right to assume- that he knew something of the affairs of his department. With his knowledge of the facts, he came to the conclusion that the people had a right to this money. Can he say now that he knows of any facts that teach him that they have not a right to that money? I do not care anything about the arguments of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean). The minister came to the conclusion that the people had a right to that money. He has not intimated that he has changed his mind, but says that technically he finds he cannot recover it as a matter of law. If he has a right to it and his officer will not give it back the officer is dishonest and the minister has no right to keep him in the service of the people. What I ask is why the minister, having that power, did not dismiss that officer or insist that he do what is honest by the people? I think that I have a right to press for an answer, and I do not think it is treating the committee fairly for any hon. gentleman, however prominent in the party, however useful- and the hon. member has been very useful at times in blocking inquiry-to be told to ' get up now ' as the hon. member for Lunenburg was told in a voice that could be heard on this side, while the minister kept his seat.


William Stevens Fielding: I take exception to the assumption of right on the part of the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) to stand up here and say, * I insist on the minister answering that question.' It was to that I took exception. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has the same right to address the House as has the hon. member for South Simcoe. That may seem an extraordinary proposition to advance, but I humbly and respectfully do advance it. And when the hon. member for Lunenburg desired to speak, it was objectionable for the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) to say ' I insist on the minister answering.'


Haughton Lennox: There are occasions when other people become arbitrary as well as the member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox).
If there is one hon. member of this House who gave a signal exhibition of arbitrary conduct-and I am sorry I have to remind ' hon. gentleman of the fact-it was the hon.

Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), when, last session, he dealt with the rights of members of this committee and told us that our rights on this side were just what he saw fit to give us-that the minority had no rights except what he, controlling the majority, saw fit to concede. I said, very respectfully, that I desired an answer.
I did not say ' I insist.'


William Stevens Fielding: I beg the hon. member's pardon; he did say, ' I insist.'


Haughton Lennox: Then, I will not contradict the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fielding).
I think that every hon. member of this committee has a right to insist. He has to represent the people, and has as good a right to insist, and it as much his duty to insist at the right time as it is for him to attend in his place here at the opening of the sittings of the House. I have nothing to retract, no apologies to offer for the attitude I take. Though the Minister of Finance may say that I acted in a domineering way or something of that kind,
I stand in the judgment of members of this committee, whether on the right or on the left of the Chair, as to whether I did anything other than my duty as a member of this House. Therefore, I do not feel as badly as I might be supposed to feel even under the castigation of the Minister of Finance.


William Stevens Fielding: I thought it was very mild.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. minister is always mild, except when he gets excited; but when he gets excited, I am sorry to say he loses the judgment which usually characterizes him, and he loses the sense of proportion, as he did significantly on the occasion to which I have referred.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would like to ask the member for Lunenburg, with your permission, Mr. Chairman, two questions. Where did he get the information that S. Cunard and Company had divided $1,000 between the captain, officers and crew


Some hon. MEMBERS: Louder.


Adam Brown Crosby: I will put it loud enough for you. Where did you get the' information-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mr.	DEPUTY	SPEAKER.	The	hon.
member (Mr. Crosby) must not address himself directly to a member of the committee.
Mr.	CROSBY.	I addressed	the	Chair
when I got up.
Mr.	DEPUTY	SPEAKER.	The	hon.member has been repeatedly	out of	order
in saying * you ' to members of the House.
The hon. member must always address the Chair, and speak of other members in the third person.


Adam Brown Crosby: I want to ask the hon. member for Lunenburg


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do not be angry about it.


Adam Brown Crosby: I think that is the way I spoke when I rose before-I want to ask the hon. member if he will tell me how he got the information that Cunard and Company had distributed $1,000 among the crew of the ' Lady Laurier? '


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do you want an answer now?


Adam Brown Crosby: Right now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I got it from the evidence given before Mr. Justice Cassels and it was given by Mr. W. A. Black, of Pickford & Black, Halifax.


Adam Brown Crosby: He said that


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I gave you my answer.


Adam Brown Crosby: Then, how much money did the crew of the vessel get-how did they get it?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: They got $250 out of the $1,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am asking the hon. member for Lunenburg how much money Captain Johnson got, because I do not think the evidence shows that anybody else got it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I tpld the hon. gentleman once before that Captain Johnson received $500, and the evidence proves that.


Adam Brown Crosby: I read the evidence over, and I never saw anything like that. I want to ask the member for Lunenburg now: Did not Mr. Black state that he gave $500 to Captain Johnson?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is true that a sum of $1,800 was disbursed altogether, but $1,000 of it came from the Underwriters Association in England. A hawser belonging to the ' Lady Laurier ' was destroyed while towing the vessel from the ocean into Shelburne roads, where she was beached, and Pickford & Black refunded the cost of it. They paid the crew of the ' Lady Laurier ' certain wages for services performed.


Adam Brown Crosby: Will the hon. gentleman tell us how much Pickford & Black paid to the Marine and Fisheries Department?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Nothing.


Adam Brown Crosby: Will the hon. member tell me how Captain Johnson came to keep

the $400 that he got from Mr. Beazley for taking the 'Aberdeen3 from Halifax down to the ' Mount Temple '?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I never heard of Captain Johnston taking the 'Aberdleen' down to the ' Mount Temple,' and I do not believe he did.


Adam Brown Crosby: I made a mistake, it was the 'Lady Laurier' that he took down to the ' Mount Temple.'


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I never understood that Captain Johnson was paid any money for taking the 'Lady Laurier' down to the ' Mount Temple.' The 'Lady Laurier' went to the rescue of the 'Mount Temple', a Canadian Pacific Railway boat, which went ashore in my own constituency. I remember the occasion when I read the news in a morning paper, on my way to the House of Commons, that one of the first things I did was to go to the Marine and Fisheries Department and request that any of the government boats near that vicinity should be sent to the rescue of that boat and the 700 or 800 people who were on board.


Adam Brown Crosby: When Captain Johnson got $400 from Mr. Beazley, did he have a right to retain that money, seeing that it was money paid to Captain Johnson for going down to the ' Mount Temple '?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I understand that Captain Johnson claims that that $400 paid was for another service altogether.


Adam Brown Crosby: The hon. gentleman does not seem to know. I say that Pickford & Black paid $1,500 to Captain Johnson.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You have no authority for that.


Adam Brown Crosby: If the member for Lunenburg will produce the evidence from the Cassel's report, I will apologize.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not carry these five or six volumes of evidence of the Cassel's inquiry in my pocket, but I will make it my business to-morrow morning to show the hon. gentleman the evidence that will show my statement is correct.


Adam Brown Crosby: And, while he is at it, will he keep in his mind that $400?


Haughton Lennox: Now I would ask the minister if he will be good enough to reply?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say that this matter of the ' Hestia ' is somewhat complicated Some two years ago when the case happened, it was brought to my attention by the officers of the department, who thought we were entitled to claim the amount of money which had been paid to Captain Johnson as a reward for salvage: $500 for him, $250 for the crew, and $250 for the officers. They thought also that we had a claim against Mr. CROSBY.
the owners of the vessel for the use of the government ship, the 'Lady Laurier,' and I immediately gave instructions to make a claim against the owners of the vessel. They answered us that we had no claim against them; they said that government vessels generally were not in the habit of making any claim of that sort, and that it was contrary to all the rules in England for government vessels to claim any money for salvage. Now with regard to the salvage paid to the officers and crew, I thought at first we might have a right to claim that money back from them. I would ask my hon. friend, who is a lawyer of experience, whether there is not a very serious doubt as to whether we can claim from a master of a government vessel that he should deposit in the treasury a sum of money which he has received as salvage. My hon. friend will realize himself that there is a great deal of doubt about it. Perhaps I gave too hasty an opinion on that question, perhaps the officers upon whose advice I was acting were in error in stating that we had a claim for reimbursement of the money. That money did not belong to the country, that money belonged to somebody else, it belonged to the ship's crew, and it was a question whether the crew were entitled to it. I must inform the committee that since then we have given positive instructions that in future nobody shall make any such claim. In the past the policy of the department has been somewhat indefinite on that question. In some cases the money was claimed by the officers through the department, in some other cases it was claimed directly by officers of the department. Captain Johnson was of the opinion that as master of the vessel he was guided by the ordinary rules of the Merchants' Shipping Act, and was entitled to get that salvage. At all events, the main question is as to the reimbursement of the money, I think it is not free from doubt. I think my hon. friend would admit with me that if we were taking action against him we could not succeed. My hon. friend says, Why don't you dismiss" him? Well, is it even a technical offence? Here are men who, in the ordinary discharge of their duties, claim that they are entitled, under the Merchant's Shipping Act, to a sum of money. The only thing that they might have done perhaps, would have been to have transmitted the claim through the department. The owners of the 'Hestia' simply handed over the reward to that man. I do not think we have a claim against him for the reimbursement of that money and I think my hon. friend will agree with me in that respect. There was at least such an element of doubt that it would not have been worth while to have made such a claim. It was a question as to the interpretation of a statute. When an officer is claiming from us a thing which he is entitled to, and

when there is a serious element of doubt in our contention, I am sure my hon. friend will agree with me that it is not sufficient reason for dismissing him.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Would the minister state that he really thinks that the government vessels belong to the Merchant Marine and that masters of government vessels am under the Merchants' Shipping Act? While I do not profess to know very much about those things from a legal point of view, it is, to my mind, a most outrageous claim. The only claims that I ever heard of government vessels making were for prize-money in case of war where vessels were captured. For captains of government vessels who are sent under the orders of the department to claim prize money or salvage is something that I never heard of.
I would like the minister to state whether the government vessels are considered merchant vessels or whether they are not. The whole case, it appears to me, rests exactly on that point.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend is probably aware that government ships are liable to be registered as any other ship under the Merchants' Shipping Act. I am afraid that perhaps I did not convey to my hon. friend the exact idea that was in my mind. We have no intention to claim salvage for the use of government vessels, but we will follow the course which is followed in England where government vessels never claim salvage when they go to the rescue of another vessel. That is the policy I have adopted. With regard to the question as to the men themselves the policy we are going to follow in future is this: Let the men apprise the department if they think thev should be entitled in the ordinal course of business to salvage and that claim will be forwarded through the department. That is the rule that is being followed in England. Not only lighthouse and ordinary vessels under the control of the board of trade but war vessels themselves, when they are used for that special purpose-and one of the purposes they have in view is to protect trade-never claim any thing for the use of the vessels themselves in going to the relief of a merchant ship but they allow their officers and crew to claim salvage. We are going to follow the same rule in this country.


Adam Brown Crosby: Do I understand the minister to say that about two months ago the Department of Justice decided that they had no right to collect this money from Captain Johnson?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Since the report was brought down.


Adam Brown Crosby: I understand the Department of Marine and Fisheries demanded $1,900 previous to that from Captain Johnson?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, of the $1,000 which was received $500 was given to him.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it was more than that.


Adam Brown Crosby: I am dealing with the $1,900 which the Department of Marine and Fisheries demanded from Captain Johnson. I want to ask the minister if Captain Johnson was not elev.ated from the position of Captain of the 'Lady Laur-ier' to be superintendent of lighthouses after they had made that demand upon him?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes. Captain Johnson is a good officer, a man of wide experience who has given general satisfaction to the department. He had this difference of opinion, which I have just explained, with the department as to whether this money should be given or not. But that is no reason for dismissing him. We do not want to exercise any dictatorial powers.


Samuel Hughes: You dismissed a postmaster for nothing.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We want to give justice to every man. Captain Johnson was a very good officer, he was appointed superintendent of lights and he is discharging his duties in a way that is a credit to him and to the department.


Adam Brown Crosby: While the department had demanded the return of the $1,900 and while he had told the department that he | would not pay it he was elevated to the position of superintendent of lights.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I say that I was Tight in doing it. I do not think my hon. friend is fair to Captain Johnson. He is a capable and deserving officer and because a man has a difference of opinion with his department, that is no reason why we should dismiss him. We must be guided by the principle of justice and fair play and that is the way I have been discharging my duty in regard to Mr. Johnson.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I might add to the statement of the minister the fact the Captain Johnson had a perfect right to receive that money. It has been laid down as a matter of common law for the last five hundred years in England that the masters and officers of the vessels of His Majesty's navy are entitled to recover salvage from the vessels which they gave assistance to. That principle has been recognized in the matter of common law and practice right through the history of England. Some question was raised and the moment it was looked into it was seen that Captain Johnson was perfectly right.


Mr. MADDIN.: It may be right that in common law and for 500. years past captains and masters of British vessels of war had the right to claim salvage, but it was


at a time when Captain Drake was on the high seas and when most of the English admirals were nothing more or less than buccaneers. At that time they could hold up vessels and levy toll, they could go beyond their ordinary routes, could bring about salvage and claim salvage, but within the last 50 years I am doubtful if the hon. member for Pictou could cite from the reported cases of the admiralty courts in England a single instance in which a government-owned ship, a ship of war, a battle ship or a cruiser has either laid claim to or has been paid salvage.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Dominion government steamer ' Neufield ' in 1886 received salvage money. By order in council the government paid the captain of the steamer and Mr. Johnston, who was superintendent of lights in Nova Scotia, $500, although Mr. Johnston had performed no service in connection with the salvage.


James William Maddin: That is not such a case as I referred to. The hon. member referred to the practice at common law in the old country and I doubt if there is an instance. The member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean) cites an instance in which by order in council a sum of money was paid. I have no doubt this government would be willing to pass an order in council and reward the officers of the * Lady Laurier ' had they been deserving of anything of the kind, but instead of appreciating that they were entitled to salvage and their claim legitimate a demand was made on Captain Johnson to pay over this money to the government. The Minister of Marine made a demand for this sum of money, and he has since been advised ' that for some technical reason he could ' not recover it. After the explanation offered by the hon. member for Lunenburg, who so luminously explained the whole testimony so disclosed in the Cassel's re- * port,^ I think the captain of the * Lady ] Laurier' has been very much sinned against ' and that an apology is due to him" from 1 the Minister of Marine for having asked this sum of money. I can remember an ! instance where John McKinnon opened the draw at Grand Narrows bridge in Cape ; Breton and tied up the trains on the Inter- \ colonial Railway. It was not thought ad- r visable to dismiss that man who held the f draw open until he got what he wanted, s an increase in wages, but it may be that , the matter had some political significance. ] I notice this morning that the Marine and ^ Fisheries Department has been pleased to t dismiss one McRae, light keeper at Plaster <= Cove in the Bras d'Or Lakes, at the instance of the member for Cape Breton (Mr. Me- , Kenzie) because of political partisanship. \ I have no doubt that while it was the -


James William Maddin: damnation of the man at Plaster Cove it was the salvation of Mr. Johnson. If the captains or skippers or officers of government boats and fishery protection vessels . are entitled to salvage they have a right ; to claim it through our courts of law, where . they can prove those claims, and I submit if it was necessary in 1886 to pass an order in council to give legal colour and right to the parties to recover, then this government could do the same thing if the captain of the 'Lady Laurier' was deserving,of such recognition.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Do I understand my hon. friend to state that in England the war vessels of the admiralty never make claims for salvage for the officer and crew?


James William Maddin: I state that the hon. member for Pictou can hardly cite an instance in fifty years.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If I had time to hunt up references in the library I could cite instances within less than twenty-five years.


Mr. CONGDON.: The difficulty is not in finding precedents for payment of salvage but in finding any precedent for the Crown endeavouring to recover from the officers and crew receiving such salvage the amount they received, because it is in the interest of public property that officers and crews on public vessels as well as on private vessels should be encouraged to render services of this kind and I think it would be an unfortunate thing if they were deprived of that incentive which is extended to all services throughout the civilized world.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think it very unfair that hon. gentlemen opposite should take the position they do respecting this matter and respecting this government official, Captain Johnson. I do not say that anybody deliberately wishes to misrepresent Captain Johnson or to do him an injustice. I suppose I can hardly find fault with hon gentlemen opposite for not knowing the facts of this particular matter when the deputy minister of Marine and Fisheries was shockingly stupid about the whole matter, and was making demands on Captain Johnson and other people for a claim for services that were never rendered. Even some officials in the agency of the Marine Department in Halifax were equally stupid. The following telegram which appears in the evidence will render more clear what I said a moment ago. It is from the deputy minister to the agent at Halifax. The ' Lady Laurier ' was at Halifax and the ' Hestia ' was in Shelburne harbour and they sought the services of a tug boat to raise the sunken vessel. The telegram reads :
With reference to ' Hestia,' if no other steamer available, ' Lady Lanrier ' is to render all possible assistance in getting her to Halifax. It is to be understood that owners

of ' Hestia ' are to pay for work done. You will make an arrangement with them to that effect. Communicate with Pickford & Black.
Mr. Tremaine, on behalf of the department went to Pickford & Black's office and there agreed that if the ' Laurier ' towed the ' Hestia ' to Halifax she would receive $400 a day. The Halifax Towboat Company protested to the department against government boats engaging in that work, and the Halifax Towboat Company entered into a contract with Pickford & Black, the ' Hestia ' agents, to tow the ' Hestia ' to Halifax and they did tow her. The ' Lady Laurier ' never rendered any service whatever under this contract. The money paid to Captain Johnson was a gratuity; he did not render assistance under the instructions contained in that telegram. Salvage is always divisible into that which goes to the vessel and that which goes to the officers and crew. The government would have no more claim to this $1,000 than to money in my own pocket. When they heard that Captain Johnson had received this money they received the impression that it had been paid on account of that contract which was entered into but never performed, that it was paid for the towage of the ' Hestia ' to Halifax whereas, as a matter of fact, there was no towage at all.


James William Maddin: It is as clear as noon day that he was paid $1,000 not to render any service.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the hon. member (Mr. Maclean) state what it was paid for?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 
James William Maddin: Who buys the coal for the light houses and fog signal stations on the Cape Breton coast?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is purchased through the purchasing agent at Ottawa. Tenders are called for and the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer.


James William Maddin: Would the minister explain why the Cape Breton Mining Company are paid $7.85 per ton for coal delivered at Cape Race, $6 per ton for coal delivered at Low Point, $6 for coal delivered at Cranberry island and $6.50 for coal delivered at Scatterie island, whilst the Dominion Coal Company has been paid only $3 per ton for coal delivered at Louisbourg. Is the same quality of coal used at all these places?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is easy to explain. We stipulate that the tenders shall be for coal delivered at these different places and some are more difficult to reach than others. There is quite a difference between delivering coal at Cape Raoe and at Louisburg.


James William Maddin: I can appreciate that there may be difficulty at Cape Race and at Scatterie island during certain seasons of the year, but I can see no good reason why the coal should cost any more at Low Point than it does at the city of Sydney. Does the minister know who supplied coal to the I,ow Point light house during September, October, November and December, 1908?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have not the information here but I can get it. We stipulate that the coal shall come from the old Sydney mine or the Reserve mine or be of equal quality, and that it shall be delivered at the different points of consumption. The contract in all cases has been awarded to the lowest tenderer.


James William Maddin: I am instructed that Thomas O'Neil of Waterford), near Low Point lighthouse and fog alarm, supplied coal to the Low Point lighthouse last fall. I know as a matter of fact that in opening up No. 12 and No. 14 collieries of the Dominion Coal Company, in starting their slopes they took a great deal of coal from near the surface which was not of marketable quality. It was such that the Dominion Coal Company did not attempt to market it at all. They left it in a heap and they sold it to any Tom, Dick or Harry, that came around at $1 per ton. Some of the poorer people in the neighbourhood and some of the farmers who could mix it with hardwood were buying it at that price. In November last, the balance of it, about 100 tens, was bought in one sale by this man Thomas O'Neil and was carted by him and delivered at the Low Point fog alarm and lighthouse. If I am not properly

informed I will be doing the department and perhaps Mr. O'Neil an injustice, but 1 can hardly question my authority. I have verified the fact that Mr. O'Neil bought the goal. That he carted it and dumped it at the lighthouse. I am assured by a number of people who have made it their business to inquire. If this be so it is an injustice to the department and it is grossly unfair to the man who has to do the firing at Low Point. I am also instructed that the fog alarm and lighthouse at Flint Island is being supplied through two persons, one a Dr. Bissett and the other the municipal councillor for Port Morien. In the earlier sittings. of the House I endeavoured to point out that' the coal mining industry of Nova Scotia was not in such a flourishing condition as it might be; and I submit that if these gentlemen are supplying coal for these lighthouses, they are not doing it for their health. It is not a legitimate or a fair transaction. I have no objection to the government paying $5 or $6 per ton or $10 per ton, if it is getting good value, but the coal proprietors should get the contracts in order that those who earn their living by mining the coal might be benefited. It is unfair that Mr. O'Neil of Low Point or Mr. Macaulay and Dr. Bisset at Port Morien should be getting, as middlemen, the contracts for supplying coal to the government lighthouses along the coasts of Cape Breton. If my instructions are wrong I shall willingly, when next these estimates are before the House, make the necessary retractions, but I have creditable assurances that what I have stated is founded on facts, and I draw the matter to the attention of the minister in the hope that he will put a stop to the small graft and peculation which is going on in some of the departments. There is one other item I want to speak about. Am I right in presuming, from the minister's remarks, that all supplies are bought through the purchasing agent at Ottawa?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, even in the case of the coal contracts you have just mentioned, tenders are called for by public advertisement, and I would be greatly surprised to find that my hon. friend's remarks are well founded.


James William Maddin: If that be the course followed by the department it is one I heartily commend, but I have every assurance that the other method is being followed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Would the hon. gentleman be kind enough to give me the source of his information, because I am going to make some inquiries?


James William Maddin: Certainly, if satisfactory to the minister I will give it privately or give him part of the information now.


James William Maddin: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Just as the hon. gentleman prefers.


James William Maddin: Mr. R. V. Hall of ward 5, Sydney, is my authority for Mr. O'Neil getting the contract at Low Point. I could not give my authority for the contract for the Port Morien transaction at present. There is an entry on page 0-101 which indicates that Mr. Robert Musgrave of North Sydney was selling barrel beef at $18 per barrel. On the same page, I find that H. W. Wentzell & Company of Halifax sold three barrels of beef at $12 per barrel. I would also draw attention to the fact that Mr. Musgrave supplied flour at $6.25 per barrel while Wentzell and Company were paid $5.20 per barrel. The latter also sold some flour to be delivered at Cape Race, 10 barrels at $5.25 and 4 barrels of beef at $12. There is a difference of 25 per cent on the flour between these two concerns and 50 per cent on the beef. I submit that we should have some explanation of these discrepancies.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will have my officials look into the accounts and report; and if I can get that report to-morrow, I will give it to my hon. friend.
Construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation, including apparatus, submarine signals, and providing suitable boats for carrying on construction work, $800,600.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that in connection with the establishment at Prescott?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Prescott is included in this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are you still purchasing from the same firms in which grave abuses occurred?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman is referring to Irwin and Brooks, I suppose?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not to them more than to the others that were connected with the change from the old system to the present, and the purchase of gas buoys and other supplies. Take the Willson firm, which has been perpetrating serious frauds on the department for years.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think the words the hon. gentleman uses are hardly well founded with regard to the purchases of gas buoys. The gas buoys we have to-day are a new patent which has given a great deal of satisfaction. Those buoys are now being used in a number of countries where they have been tested. Formerly the government buoys -were high pressure and some serious accidents occurred. We had to pay a large sum of money for an accident at Kingston and another at Parry Sound. But now -we have a new system of automatic gas buoys which has greatly lessened the danger of accidents. Instead of being high pressure, they are at extreme-

ly low pressure, and instead of putting the gas into the buoy ourselves, we put the carbide into the buoy and the carbide supplies the gas automatically. It is a very extraordinary invention which has surprised the world. The American lighthouse board, after experimenting, came to the conclusion to purchase some, thus following the example set by the Canadian government. The same thing was done by Brazil, the Argentine Republic and Great Britain. Some of those buoys are in use on the Mersey, which shows that this invention is a credit to Canada. And, instead of calling 'fraud,' we should be glad that one of our Canadian citizens has been able to complete an invention which is now being used in most of the countries of the -world.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister has talked a good deal and has tried to give information of a certain kind, but has sedulously avoided answering a single question I put to him. I asked whether the government were buying from the same parties who perpetrated such frauds on the country before and buying on the same principle; because, if they are, I think the country will have little confidence in the honesty of the Crown or in the government for a fair return for the money expended.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. member (Mr. Sproule) is certainly confusing this question with some others. As to the buoys, I do not remember any suggestion being made that the International Marine Signal Company, or Mr. Willson, have been connected with any fraud. Nor do I recollect any investigation before the Public Accounts or elsewhere that would justify such a suggestion. On the contrary, these gas buoys have been very useful and have been a credit to the country.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some years ago I brought this question to the attention of the government and asked who recommended that the lighting system be changed. I was told that it was recommended by one Fraser, who had no authority to make a recommendation or the department to accept it until they divided the department and put him at the head of one branch, when their own engineer refused to recommend him. Will the minister tell me why this same Fraser was dismissed afterwards, if there was nothing wrong, and what the exposure of so many irregularities in the Marine Department meant if there was nothing wrong? Parties close up to the government were members of the company that were applying to the government, and had power to recommend these purchases. I asked the minister if the department were purchasing from the same parties and on the same principle, for, if they did my judgment is that the country will have no confidence in their purchases.


William Stevens Fielding: The question is not whether there was anything wrong, but whether there is any basis of the charge for fraud against Mr. Willson. I have not given close attention to this matter, but it is the first time I have ever heard of a suggestion of fraud made against Mr. Willson, who is a prominent and respected citizen of Ottawa, carrying on a a great enterprise. I remember when matters connected with the Marine Department were being inquired into by the Committee on Public Accounts, Mr. Willson haunted the corridors day after day thinking that he might be called upon to testify. He told me that he had gone to a leading member of the opposition and asked if he would be wanted as a witness, and was told to go home that they did not want him and had no fault to find with him.
I cannot but think that the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) has in mind some other case. I certainly should be surprised to hear that any charge of fraud had ever been made against Mr. Willson. It may be that some fault has been found with his lighting system, but this is the first time we have heard of any suggestion of fraud against that gentleman.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am sure the hon. member (Mr. Sproule) is confusing some other case with this. As to lighting, there was a question as to the use of acetylene instead of the Pintsch light or ordinary light in the lighthouses. This was investigated and the chief engineer reported that he was against the use of acetylene. The divergence of opinion, if any existed, was with regard to the lighting of the lighthouses. At last, the two engineers, Mr. Fraser and Col. Anderson, came to the same opinion that we should use the ordinary light or with a change to the use of what is called the vapour light. That must be the question the hon. member has in mind. But Col. Anderson and Mr. Fraser were absolutely at one on the use of acetylene for the gas buoys. The hon. member asked why Mr. Fraser was dismissed. The reason was that he failed to carry out instructions with regard to the purchase of lighting apparatus. I had given him instructions to ask for public tenders; he did not do it, and -when I discovered that I suspended him, and later he was dismissed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Some years ago, I asked some questions on this subject. The first was, What will it cost to make the change in this system of lighting? The predecessor of the present minister told me that it would cost between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000. The next question was, if the department thought they were justified in making a change involving such a heavy outlay, when the thing

was, at Dest, only -an experiment ? And	I	asked who recommended it.
That question was parried for a time, and an effort made to talk-as the minister is doing to a considerable extent to-night- without giving the information that I desired. Finally, the statement was made that the recommendation was made by Mr. Fraser. The question naturally was, had Mr. Fraser the authority to make that recommendation? Yes. Why? Because the dividing of the department had put him at the head of a branch. Now, had Mr. Fraser been left in his subordinate position, his recommendation could not have been acted upon. Why did not the engineer of the department make the recommendation? He had refused to do so. Why? Because he said the system was only an experiment yet and he would not recommend it until he was satisfied that it was a more valuable system than that in use at the time. Then, let us go a little farther. Who was the party who was able to recommend giving the contracts? A member of the government, who, I think, was acting minister for the time, then the hon. member for North Oxford. And who was he? He was the partner of Mr. Willson, who was applying to the government and from whom the purchases were made. The hon. minister (Mr. Brodeur) asks what was wrong in the purchases from Mr. Willson? Does he remember nothing of the extravagant prices given to him, and of the number of gas buoys purchased that could not be used, which facts were brought out in the inquiry by the commission? And does the minister say there was nothing wrong about that? I say the whole thing was a mixed up job with which some members of the government of that time were very closely allied, and I think I am justified in making that statement. I referred to it a few years ago, and I asked then that an inquiry be made, and a good deal of information could have been brought out then that was brought out by the government's own commission last year if it had been made then.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman has no right to say that. The hon. gentleman has no right to charge that any member of the government is interested in that concern.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I said I had reason to believe that some member of the government was then, I did not say now. I say that I am in order if I wanted to go further. I could go back and unearth the will made by the Hon. James Sutherland, who came into this government a poor man.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And when that will was probated it showed he was worth $365,000. I am referring to what I drew attention to Mr. SPROULE
many years ago, and I am asking to-night if you are dealing with the same men and on the same principle, because if the minister is, I am afraid the country will still think there is something wrong in connection with the way the business is done in that department.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: So far as acetylene gas and carbide are concerned, we call for public tenders, and every one has a right to tender.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who controls all the corporations in the country that furnish the -supplies for this purpose ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They are controlled by different people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One company controls them all so I am told.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no article purchased by the department in which there is more serious competition than there is in carbide. There is the Shawinigan Company, the Ottawa Company and the St. Catherines Company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Are not the same men in the St. Catharines Company and in the Ottawa Company?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, they are different people, and competing in the most strenuous manner. I am informed, and know it positively, because I have been in the department for some years, and I know how it has been done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the statement was made by the hon. gentleman's predecessor that the same men were stockholders in the two companies. As for the Shawinigan Company, I am not aware that the same men are stockholders in it who are in the other companies, but practically the three companies were managed by a general understanding between them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman is absolutely wrong. Mr. Willson, or the company in which he is interested, does not control this contract, it is in the hands of the Shawinigan Company to-day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of all the facts which were brought out and which the government denied. I am justified in inquiring if the business is done with the same men and on the same principle, because if it is, we have a right to expect a change.


William Stevens Fielding: If this system of lighting is a good one we ought to have it; and if anybody is prepared to give it to us for less money we should look them up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question is whether this government is doing the business of the country on business principles and on honest lines and with men that they

believe to be honest. We know there was a great deal of crookedness before.


William Stevens Fielding: If there are only a few people supplying this lighting system, and if the system is a good one, and if we need it, if there is any one prepared to supply it for less money, we should get hold of them.


Clarence Jameson: Does the minister propose to add to the facilities for taking care of these aids to navigation? Sometimes along the Nova Scotia coast some of these buoys get adrift, and there is considerable delay in replacing them. I am informed that the cause of the delay is that the department has not at its disposal a sufficient number of vessels properly equipped to replace these buoys. I would ask the minister if it is proposed to increase those facilities in order that less loss of time may intervene between the shifting of a buoy and its being replaced?
That is the reason why I asked this ques-I presume, from what the minister said, that it is not contemplated this vear to increase the facilities there.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The question my hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) has mentioned was referred to the Lighthouse Board and has received careful study but they have not been able to recommend that it be complied with, especially in view of the small vote we have this year with which to make the expenditure.
Further amount required for the completion of a lighthouse and buoy steamer for the great lakes and Georgian bay, $25,000.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is building that
vessel?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is being built in England.


John Dowsley Reid: What is the total
cost?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend has complained to me that some buoys were not replaced immediately. I made inquiries, and ascertained that it was after a very heavy gale on the western coast of Nova Scotia that some buoys were shifted. We have_ two boats in that section now, which I think are quite sufficient. As soon as that gale was over these boats went down and replaced all the buoys, with scarcely any delay.


Clarence Jameson: My information has been that some weeks elapsed between the time when the buoys referred to went adrift, and the date of their being replaced. Lack of facilities was given as a reason for the delay. Does the minister contemplate using any part of this vote for increasing the facilities, and seeing that the aids to navigation are kept in good order?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If it is absolutely needed, there is an amount of money for providing additional shipping facilities.


Clarence Jameson: Some time ago there was an application made to place an automatic gas buoy, a fair-way buoy, off the entrance to Grand Passage. Grand Passage is between Brier Island and Long Island, on Digby Neck. It is a very excellent harbour. A great many vessels are obliged to go there and the need of a fairway buoy is very great for the protection of vessels passing through the straits and up the harbour. I was informed that one of the main reasons which have prevented the department from acceding to the request was that the department did not possess sufficient facilities for the care of these gas buoys. I think where it is recognized upon all sides that these gas buoys are of very great assistance to mariners there should be ample allowance made for the care of a number of these buoys.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


John Dowsley Reid: What is the length?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 180 feet.


John Dowsley Reid: This is another case that is pretty hard on ship-building firms like the Poison Iron Works and Colling-wood Shipbuilding Company. There is also a shipyard on the Niagara river. I cannot understand how it is that all these contracts for steamers should go outside of our own country.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We asked for public
tenders and we received four as follows: Swan & Hunter, $160,000; Vickers Sons & Maxim, $219,000; Collingwood Shipbuilding, $217,000; and the Poison Iron WoTks Company, $249,000. One was $57,000 more than the lowest tenderer and the other was nearly $100,000 more.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think the minister means that there is $57,000 difference. Do I understand that the steamer was accepted in England?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No; delivered here.


John Dowsley Reid: Any duty paid on it?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no duty on British ships.


John Dowsley Reid: Is that the reason you bought over there?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No. We gave the contract to the lowest tenderer. If there had been a small difference I would certainly have given it to a Canadian firm, but my hon. friend must realize that we could not give it to a Canadian firm when there was a difference in one case of nearly $100,000 on a vessel costing $160,000.


John Allister Currie: The minister knows that in nearly every case where ships have

been purchased in the old country it has cost anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 after they were brought over. I asked for a return at the beginning of the session and it showed that repairs had to be made on ships purchased over there to the extent of $50,000 to $100,000. I would like to know if ships that are purchased in the old country are built on the department's plan or on a plan prepared by the contracting firms.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On a plan prepared by ourselves.


John Allister Currie: 
John Allister Currie: building yards in Canada cannot get contracts. I would strongly urge the minister and the members of the government in future to bear in mind that the money they are paying for ships built in Canada is being paid to our own people and that it does not go to a foreign country, and that it is necessarv for this country to do its own ship building, to own its own ships and to do everything in that way_ along proper Canadian lines. That might involve a little more expense but I think the people of this country would justify the government in paying a little more to a Canadian than to a foreign ship builder.


William Stevens Fielding: I should be in favour of paying a little more but I do not agree that $57,000 of the people's money is a little bit ; it is a very large sum. If the amount involved were a little sum I would concur in\the view, but I do not think the public would justify us in paying in a transaction of this kind $50,000 more for the pleasure of having the work done in Canada, and I venture to say that if the government had accepted a tender to do this work in Canada for $57,000 more than we could get it for in England, hon. gentlemen opposite would have discovered that there was something in the charges they sometimes make of graft, and they would be ready to say that that was a clear case of graft and waste of the people's money. To a moderate degree I concur in the view that we should pay more for things made at home, but I do not agree in the doctrine that we should have things made at home no matter what they cost.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the report of the Civil Service Commission, 1908, the conmissioners, speaking of the Lighthouse Board which consists of six members and the irresponsible positions which many of them occupy, say:
Between Tune, 1905, and June, 1907, this board approved of and passed applications for new and improved aids to navigation amounting to $1,091,813. With the voting away of this vast amount of money the responsible minister had nothing to do. He was simply asked to initial the minutes of the different meetings of this most powerful but irresponsible board. The effect of this state of things is disastrous. It means practically the removing of all responsibility from those to whom extensive powers of administration and expenditure are granted.
When one realizes the enormous pressure being constantly brought to bear on the government of the day in favour of grants and bounties of all kinds, from one end of the country to the other, it would surely seem to be a most unwise thing to create a board with extensive powers, which can be and are used in sympathy with this universal outside pressure, and without being accountable to anybody.
The two outside members of this hoard simply represent the shipping interest, which is their own. They cannot serve the country

and themselves equally well in the same matter. The other members of the board are government officials, who, whatever their standing may be, personally or officially, are not independent of political influence or departmental pressure. They are in no proper sense qualified to fill such a position of trust as a seat on this Lighthouse Board should mean-where the most absolute sense of justice, with complete independence, is called forwith a keen desire to administer the people's money with the utmost economy and good judgment, and with all personal considerations sunk.
If the board is intended to be a permanent institution it should be organized; and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should be a member of it, as being chiefly responsible for the finding of its expenditures.
There can be very little question that the Lighthouse Board has been the means of greatly increasing the expenditure of. the department, and that much of the increase has been wasted.
Will the government follow the same principle and continue making advances in the same way? The minister did not seem to think it worth while to answer as to whether there was any departure from that policy.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The points my hon. friend has mentioned have been fully investigated by Mr. Justice Cassels and he says in his report that all those remarks made by the Civil Service Commission are without foundation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have not read his report. I know some of the men on the first commission and I know Mr. Justice Cassels by reputation. I have nothing to say about any of them because I believe that they are honest and capable business men and would never have made these observations unless they thought they had good grounds for making them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Some purchases have been made in connection with the lighthouse board at too high prices. Mr. Justice Cassels drew the attention of the government to that and we have remedied it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would have been the easiest matter for the minister to say: 'We have changed the system, we believe we were being imposed on in the past and we have changed the principle,' but he does not do that, it would be infra dig, for him to give such a reply to a member. It would be only common courtesy and the duty of the minister to satisfy the House that this system had been changed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It may be the fault of my imperfect English, but I tried to convey that impression before. We have not made any change so far as the Lighthouse Board is concerned. Mr. Justice Cassels said that the strictures put upon the Lighthouse Board by the Civil Service Commissioners were not justified by the facts. We had oc-1 219
casion to investigate the two sides of the case and he says that if he had taken the opportunity to look into the whole question he would have found there was nothing harmful in this Lighthouse Board. With regard to purchases, I have said that we have changed the system.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has just stated that for the first time now.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, I have stated it time and again.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did he state it to-night when I asked him specifically if he had changed the system?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: More than that, the hon. member will find in Mr. Justice Cassel's report that I am commended for having made the change I made. I am extremely sorry my hon. friend has not read that report. He is entirely mistaken in thinking I am anxious to be discourteous and must have misunderstood me owing to my imperfect English speech.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that is the minister's intention, I am sorry to have said what I did, but it seemed to me there could be nothing but design in the way the questions were evaded.


James William Maddin: The Finance Minister, replying to the member for Simeoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) said that the Canadian ship-builders can construct a vessel for a little more than it can be manufactured for in the old country he would be in favour of giving the work to them, but he Considered $57,000 a very large sum of the money of the people of Canada. He said that people might properly complain that it savoured of graft or would be treated as grafting operations. Not long ago some grafting operations in connection with the government of this country were exposed to criticism in the province of Nova Scotia and one matter that received a good deal of condemnation was the operations by which the Hon. B. F. Pearson got possession of $27,400 of public money to which he had no right. During the election campaign last fall the Finance Minister visited Nova Scotia and speaking at Glace Bay, not at Sydney, but again at Amherst, in referring fo these operations and criticisms of the Conservatives, said there was no doubt that irregularities would creep into the administration of a government department and they might sometimes pay 25 cents too much for a barrel of flour, but- such a transaction was a drop in the bucket. The 'Morning Chronicle' reported him as having used the same expression at Amherst. If a transaction representing such a large amount in connection with the roundhouse at Halifax is hut a drop in the bucket, surely $57,000 in connection with the purchase of a steamboat would not he such
^REVISED EDITION

a dreadful thing in view of the fact that a good deal of the material, if the boat were built in Canada, would pay duty which would be an offset as against the difference in price between the Canadian firm and the English firm.
Breaking ice in Thunder bay and Lake Superior and at other points, $30,060.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this to be done by the same boat as in the past and in the same rate?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was any effort made to get competition?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is only one boat available for that purpose.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you pay?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have asked for public tenders and pay $30,000 a year on a three year contract.
To provide for the purchase of land at St. John, New Brunswick, $37,500.


George Eulas Foster: What is this for?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It has been suggested for many years that we should have a property in St. John.


George Eulas Foster: What for?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: For the purposes of our agency and also to make the necessary repairs to our vessels and the storing of our equipment, as in Halifax, Quebec and Montreal.


George Eulas Foster: Has anything been done towards getting the property?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Nothing has been done, but we are negotiating.
Meteorological service, $100,000.


James William Maddin: I draw the attention of the minister to the case of a young man named R. L. Baffin, who is engaged in the meterological department in the city of Sydney. He has spoken to me several times and he has also written to me, and I understand he also spoke to Mr. Johnston, my predecessor, with regard to this matter. He says that at the Sydney observatory they have the latest appliances and that he receives only $400 per year which has not been increased during his three years of service relieving the former officer and 13 years as permanent appointee. Some years ago a storm signal was placed in the park at Sydney and he got additional pay for looking after the signal, but his salary is still utterly inadequate. I can tell the Minister of Marine that this young man is most efficient, most faithful, and very devoted to the service. I have come in contact with him on two or three occasions as an expert witness in giving testimony with regard to temperatures, snow-


James William Maddin: falls and rainfalls, &c., and in view of 'the)^ fact that he is required to hoist 'storm signals late at night and that the 'distance of the storm signals from his home at the observatory is about half a mile, I submit his case as one which the minister might very well consider with the view of giving him some substantial increase. His time is absolutely taken up at this work, he looks after his aged parents, and in a city like Sydney he cannot very well turn his hand to any other employment than looking after his own department. To other officers, for instance in the city of Halifax, increases have been given from time to time, also in St. John and other meteorological surveys, but he has not had any increase.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The salaries of all these men, in charge of these small stations, are on the same footing, and you could not consider one case without at the same time considering all the others, who would require a large expenditure as we have many stations. However, I shall look into the case mentioned.


James William Maddin: There are not many of these observatories. The one at Sydney is the only one, I think, on the island of Cape Breton.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, but there are many in the whole country. -


James William Maddin: I am informed that increases have been given from time to time to other officers who have really lesser duties to discharge. This man does not complain that he has been unfairly dealt with, but wants his case to come before the minister. He does not write direct to [DOT] the minister, and I do not know who is in authority over him, but his aggregate salary for looking after the storm signals and the meteorological department aggregates only $600 a year, which is positively not enough, and I submit a man should not be expected to be honest and live on $600 and do what he is obliged to do| in a city where it costs so much to live as in Sydney.
Hydrographic surveys, $170,000.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These are in the following places: On the great lakes, on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, at Lake of Two Mountains, on the River St. Lawrence and the Lake St. Francis.


Clarence Jameson: No provision has been made for the survey of Digby harbour or basin or the Annapolis basin. Some time ago application was made by the various boards of trade for a survey of that basin and channel because the present survey is very old and the chart not at all accurate. I think the minister said he would consider the matter, and that after consideration he decided it was a case in which

a survey ought to be made and held out hope that it would' be within a very short time. That was about a year ago, and I hoped that this year the minister would find the means to do the work.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have a party there out of the vote for the Atlantic coast and have made provision for the purpose of sending it to the Bay of Fundy. I will draw the attention of my officers to the remarks of my hon. friend regarding Digby harbour.
Further amount for the construction of a steamer for hydrographic survey of Gulf and River St. Lawrence to replace ' La Cana-dienne,' $150,060.


George Eulas Foster: Where is that vessel being built?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We have called for public tenders and have not yet decided.
Some resolutions reported.


MONTREAL BRIDGE AND TERMINAL COMPANY.
William Stevens Fielding: I beg to move:
That a message be sent to the Senate requesting their honours to give leave to the clerk to add certain amendments passed by the Commons to Bill (No. 180) letter TT of the Senate, respecting the Montreal Bridge and Terminal Company.
It appears that this House made certain amendments, but through an omission, the Bill was sent to the Senate without it. The effect of this amendment will be that the clerk of this House will carry them to the Senate so that they may be included in the Bill.
' Motion agreed to.


RELIEF OF ANNIE BOWDEN.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have a Bill here from the Senate, but unless the rule be suspended it cannot be got through at all. It is a Divorce Bill and the applicant has no means. The money required by law was paid to the Senate but afterwards refunded by that body. The Bill was stopped for want of means to provide witnesses, but after the money was got back, the applicant was able to provide the witnesses and the Bill passed the Senate. But it is so late in the session now that it could not be passed unless by suspension of the rules. Therefore I move:
That Bill (No. 194) for the relief of Annie Bowden be read the first time, and that all the rules of the House including rule 88-
That is, the rule providing for an additional charge for the Bill being late.
-be suspended in relation to the said Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
219J
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I should explain that it will be impossible to send this Bill to the Private Bills Committee, as there- will be no time. Therefore, I intended that the next motion shall be that the Bill be read a second time so that it might go to ,t,he' Committee of the Whole and be finished to morrow.


William Stevens Fielding: I know nothing of the merits of the Bill, but in a general way this seems rather hasty legislation. However, I am ready to accept the hon. member's motion. We can go into committee on the Bill, and if there is any objection by any hon. member it can be raised to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second -time, and House went into committee thereon.
Progress reported.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has the leader of the House decided whether he will or will not take up what has been called the Campbell Bill with reference to Bills of Lading ? He said he would give us some infor-I am told there is very little opposition to the Bill and that it would probably go through quickly if taken up.


William Stevens Fielding: I would not like to take the responsibility of calling the Bill to-night. Information was given to me that the Bill would be opposed, but the hon. member who gave that intimation is not here now. He might think it hardly fair to call up the Bill in his absence. It might be called to-morrow.


Haughton Lennox: I understand that one hon. member opposes this Bill, but I have heard from a number of people that the measure is much needed and ought to be put through this session.


William Stevens Fielding: If it were a new Bill there might be a possibility of delay, but, as it has passed the Senate, we can deal with it here at any moment.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is the additional fact that the shipping interests have practically agreed to the Bill. I have here the minutes of the Senate which shows that their representatives were before the committee and practically agreed and were satisfied. Therefore, those who, above all others, might be regarded as not desiring to have the Bill pass unless in reasonably satisfactory form have agreed to the Bill. The representatives of all the shipping lines from Montreal were represented, I believe.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not express any opinion in opposition to the Bill. There *will be an opportunity to consider it.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What busines3 will be taken up to-morrow ?


William Stevens Fielding: We will resume Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.20 a.m. Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 18, 1909