July 17, 1908


George Eulas Foster

Conservative (1867-1942)


I do not understand that the ruling of the chair is that any except certain privileged persons shall not be mentioned in this House. It is a mere matter of the convenience or necessity, or taste of the member who makes use of the name ; but there is no point of order involved. No member of this House must go away with the idea that Mr. Speaker can arbitrarily rule a man down.


Wilfrid Laurier (Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)



My contention is, subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that no member of this House has the right to make insinuations against any man. If he has charges to make, let him make them. But to make insinuations of that kind with ' It is rumoured,' ' I am informed,' ' I have heard,' is absolutely out of order.


Thomas Simpson Sproule

Conservative (1867-1942)


That is very strange doctrine to preach in this House. Any member of this House is himself the judge of the propriety of the way in which he shall speak of any person to whom the miles do not apply. He is within his privileges, and there is no rule that I know of under which he can be called to order.


Robert Franklin Sutherland (Speaker of the House of Commons)



The only rule applicable to such a question is Rule No. 19, which says :

No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, -nor of any of the Royal Family; nor of the Governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House


And so on. As this rule does not apply there is nothing in the rules or practice pro-Mr. SPEAKER.

vlding that what the hon. gentleman is saying is out of order.


William Alfred Galliher



Is there not a rule under which there must be some relevancy in discussion ? Are not members required to discuss the subject before the chair ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland (Speaker of the House of Commons)



That is quite another point. If that rule be invoked, I believe the statement of the hon. member (Mr. Robitaille) is not relevant.


Lorenzo Robitaille

Independent Liberal


To satisfy the scruples of hon. members, I will not go further on that line. 1 will give positive facts. Probably it would interest the members of this House to consider for a moment : Who is this Mr. Parent ? He was a very poor man in Quebec not many years ago ; to-day he has a three thousand-dollar piano, and his house is fitted accordingly. He became mayor of the city of Quebec at a time when the finances of the city were in good shape. To-day, Quebec is one of the most heavily taxed cities in the Dominion. He became Minister of Crown Lands of the province of Quebec, and in ten years sold a larger area of public lands than -had been sold in the province of Ontario in thirty years.

Mi'. SPEAKER. Of course, the hon. member (Mr. Robitaille) will observe that the point of order was taken of relevancy. The hon. member's present observations are hardly relevant.


Lorenzo Robitaille

Independent Liberal


Then, let us consider this point : What is the effect of Mr. Parent's friendship with Mr. Davis ? A part of it can be summarized in this form :

Discount on bonds, $188,721.

Unpaid shares (unaccepted cheque), $119,900.

Excess on bill as established by affidavit, $105,000.

Certifying of Davis' bills by engineer incompetent and uncontrolled.

Obtaining the contract for 150 miles of construction on the Transcontinental, Quebec to New Brunswick.

It is useless to say that every one knows how estimates are made. No one can make an estimate exact to the dollar. I have done some contracting work myself, and I have seen cases where the estimate has been made at $7,500 for a certain piece of railway work, two-thirds of a mile, when we did it for $3,000 odd. We know that contractors work at less than cost and yet, somehow, they make piles of money.

It is useless to say what effect all this has upon Parent's standing in the district of Quebec, this acceptance of little favours which can be used for electoral purposes. If I were good friends with Mr. Davis I would go round with my bag. But I understand the other man would have it. Well, we shall have a chance to meet him.

Well, Mr. Speaker, -the bridge is down. Some tell us that we should not cry over

spilt milk. What is to be done for the future ? If the government desires to stand in a logical and honest position before this country, its duty is to appoint a committee of independent engineers to study the most advisable site for the future bridge. In this resolution there ought to be a sum of $25,000 or $30,000 appropriated to defray the expenses. This committee of experts should make comparative estimates between the present bridge site and railway terminals in the city of Quebec and the site and terminals if the bridge is built by the island of Orleans.

I may say that several prominent engineers who have no political influence admit that the latter plan is the most practicable for the development, not only of Quebec city, but also of that portion of Montmorency county which is known as the Island of Orleans. If the government is going to pursue the present plans for terminal facilities they will have to do it on ground artificially made. When these estimates have been made up, let them be reported to parliament with the plans suggested, not leaving every tenderer to make his own plans. Further, I would suggest that there should be a committee to superintend and control the work during the whole period of construction. When plans are finally adopted, call for tenders. I claim that the latter suggestion should receive some attention from the government; as to the rest, they can do as they see fit.


William Alfred Galliher


Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Kootenay).

I shall take up little time in discussing this matter. I shall not follow the wanderings of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Robitaille), nor do more than refer to the questionable taste he has exhibited in reading private correspondence and in attacking the private character of individuals. If he is satisfied that is his mission in parliament and his duty to his constituents, then I am not going to question it. He certainly has not confined himself to matters within the purview of the resolution under which this report was brought down and is now before the House. He has gone beyond it to the extent of discussing matters entirely irrelevant and extraneous to it. Furthermore, he has made statements that are not at all facts, but have no other source than his imagination. The hon. gentleman made a speech in this House some time ago, and I had the pleasure of examining him in this committee on that subject, and as a sample of the weight that may be attached to many of his statements I will read one of his answers to my question. In his speech he stated that by reason of certain affiliations and associations of some of the officers of the Quebec Bridge Company, we might expect all sorts of calamities to occur. He hedged on that when it was brought to him directly, and said that he did not say that as a matter of fact. Then I asked him :

Then your speech has really no relation whatever except in the sense that such and such things might happen?-A. Yes.

Q. Now to your knowledge, or so far as you know, they never did occur?-A. Yes, that is why I was asking the government to take the thing under its control, because I was foreshadowing the result.

The hon. gentleman's speeches in this House on that occasion and on this occasion are largely imaginings. Now he tries to convey to this House the idea that one of the reasons why this bridge collapsed was because of the weak financial standing of the company, in other words, they were not strong enough to put such a project through as was necessary for the purpose. I would point out to the hon. gentleman that such is not the case. The Royal Commission, when they went into that matter, found that the financial status of the company had nothing whatever to do with the accident to the bridge. On that point I will read their finding from paragraph (e) :

The failure cannot be attributed directly to any cause other than errors in judgment on the part of these two engineers.

(f) These errors of judgment cannot be attributed either to lack of common professional knowledge, to neglect of duty, or to a desire to economize.

If you refer to the appendix to the report of the Royal Commission where they deal with the financial situation, you will find that the conclusion they arrived at was that in no respect whatever had the financial Condition of the company anything to do with the lamentable accident that occurred. My hon. friend from Quebec county has also made this an occasion to vent his spleen upon the Hon. Mr. Parent. Now, whatever information may have been furnished to the hon. gentleman for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), and whatever the object of that information may have been upon which he felt bound, rightly so I admit, to move in this House for an order of reference that these matters he inquired into, whatever be the object of that information, and whether it was furnished by the hon. member who has just taken his seat or some outside party. I do not know. Evidently, if it was furnished by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, one of his objects at all events was if possible to procure evidence that would discredit in some way the Hon. Mr. Parent. Now, I am not here as sponsor for Mr. Parent or any other man. But having had this matter under consideration, being one of the commissioners who sat on this inquiry, when I hear these statements made regarding that hon. gentleman as chairman of the Quebec Bridge Company, I would refer hon. members to the evidence of the co-directors of Mr. Parent on that company, Mr. Price, Mr. Sharpies and Mr. Dumoulin, and others who were examined before us, and they will

see what confidence is reposed in Mr. Parent by his associates. These are the only two points in the hon. gentleman's remarks that I propose to deal with. I am sure that when he reads his remarks and the Insinuations and imaginings that [DOT] he has caused to be spread on ' Hansard,' he will find a great difficulty in understanding really what he has been talking about for the past hour.

The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mi*. Monk) in speaking upon this report, seemed to think that the report of the committee as presented was not full enough, and had not dealt with the matter with sufficient completeness. There were, under the order of reference, three matters which the committee were asked to take into consideration. The first matter was to investigate ' the conditions and guarantees under which this government paid moneys to the Quebec Bridge Company, and indorsed or guaranteed the bonds of the said company.' That, we have set out in the report brought down to-day by the committee. We have not gone into detail or made comments upon it but we have taken the essential parts of the evidence that has been produced in connection with it so that they may be read to the House and the country. In that respect I think we have complied fully with the first branch of this inquiry. The third branch of the inquiry is in regard to, ' what security the government at present possess for the sums already received by and guarantees given to the company.'

As to that my hon. friends who have joined in the minority report differ from those of my colleagues who have joined with the chairman in the report of the committee. There may be an honest difference of opinion as to what the value of these securities is. We, in our judgment, have set out what in our opinion the security is that is held by the government for the money they have expended, so that it becomes a matter of opinion as to what the actual value of this security is. We know what the cost of the substructure, the terminals, the connections with these terminals and the roadbed that has been built was and we know that all these are in existence to-day. We know that there is a quantity of structural material delivered on the ground. All these things are assets that are available and will be available to the government in taking this work over. With regard to the second portion of the inquiry as to what measures were adopted by the government to ensure the preparation of suitable plans of construction and the proper execution of the same,' very little, if any evidence, was adduced before the committee that was not adduced before the Royal Commission. A considerable part of the inquiry in that particular necessarily had reference to matters of a technical nature which no member of the committee is really able to cope with in an intelligent manner, or with sufficient


William Alfred Galliher



intelligence to enable him to speak authoritatively on the subject. The Royal Commission made their findings upon that point and we refer to them in the report that we present to the House. We say that inasmuch as a portion of the inquiry was of a technical nature and has been dealt with by men competent to deal with it we deem it inadvisable to express any opinion upon that point. So that I think we cannot be charged by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) with not having brought down a full report within the purview of the resolution under which we were acting. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier also mentioned the fact that we had made no reference whatever in this report to the deplorable loss of life. I do not know exactly what reason my friend had for making that re,mark but I am sure that he will hot accuse any other hon. gentleman on that committee with feeling any less keenly the regret which every one must have felt at the deplorable loss of life that took place in that accident. We all deplore the fact. But, I do not think it will do any good now to refer to it. I do not think that was within the purview of the committee. We might, of course, have mentioned it, but I cannot see what would have been accomplished by our having done so. My hon. friend rather plumed himself on the fact that he and his colleagues had come to the same conclusions as had the members of the Royal Commission. I have no objection to my hon friend's statement in that connection, but I would point out that if they came to the same conclusions and justify their conclusions by saying that they agreed with those of the Royal Commission some of the conclusions which were embodied in the report of the Royal Commission that toy hon. friend refers to might very well in fairness have been placed in the minority report. My hon. friend sought to convey the impression that the Phoenix Bridge Company were trying to build this bridge as lightly and as cheaply as possible; in other words, that they were skimping their work. That is what I would infer from the expressions made use of by the hon. gentleman. I would refer the hon. gentleman and the House to paragraph L of the report of the Royal Commission which says :

The work done by the Phoenix Bridge Company in making the detail drawings and in planning and carrying out the erection, and by the Phoenix Iron Company in fabricating the /material was good, and the steel used was of good quality. The serious defects were fundamental errors in design.

If my hon. friend agrees with the findings of the Royal Commissioners does not this statement convey to his mind, as it conveys to my mind, the impression that in so far as the material furnished by the Phoenix Bridge Company, the construction under the direction of the Phoenix Bridge

Company and the materials manufactured by the Phoenix Iron Company were concerned, they were good. The statement or inference of the hon. gentleman that the work was being skimped, that it was not being done as thoroughly as it ought to have been, or that the material supplied was lighter than it should have been, in the face of this paragraph from the report of the Royal Commission, falls to the ground.


Samuel Barker

Conservative (1867-1942)


Do they not say the design of the bridge was bad, and was it not the design the government were to approve of?


William Alfred Galliher



They said the error was in the design, but I was pointing out that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier conveyed the impression that the Phoenix Bridge Company were not supplying proper material and were trying to work upon a cheap scale, and I was proving to him by the report of the Royal Commission, with which he says he agrees, that such is not the case. There is a section of this report of the Royal Commission which has reference to Mr. Cooper himself and which I fail to find included in the minority report. The report of the Royal Commission says:

The professional record of Mr. Cooper was such that his selection for the authoritative position that he occupied was warranted and the complete confidence that was placed in his judgment by the officials of the Dominion gov-'ernment the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company and the Phoenix Bridge Company was deserved.

There is a high tribute to Mr. Cooper, and if as my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) says the minority report contains practically all the findings in the report of the commission, in all fairness that should have been included. The evidence deduced before this committee shows that the directors of the Quebec Bridge Company were capable business men; men of varied experience in business life. It appears also that the affairs of the company were conducted honestly and economically and that the sole aim in view of the company was the building of one of the greatest bridges in the world. The evidence, and the finding of the Royal Commission go to show that it was the desire of the Phcenix Bridge Company and the desire of the iron works to supply the best material, and further, that it was the desire of Mr. Cooper to make the Quebec bridge the crowning work of his life as an engineer. The desire of all parties concerned was centred in bringing to .a successful conclusion the completion of this great bridge over the St. Lawrence river at Quebec. As to the manner in which the bridge company conducted its business I would refer to the report of Mr. Bell, who was sent from the Railway Department to audit the accounts. He says:

After careful examination of every voucher since the 14th October, 1903, I find nothing

which had not been properly authorized and which might not be considered as legitimate expenditure of a joint stock company.

That report of the auditor puts it beyond all question that the affairs of the Quebec Bridge Company-whatever their financial standing .may have been-were managed economically and in the best interests of the company and of the country. As to the certificate that was given to the government I shall not refer to it further than to quote some evidence that was taken before the commission. At page 71 of the report Mr. Bell says:

Q. Do I understand you to say that the proceeds of the $200,000 of the new stock was used for the purposes of the company ? Is that what you say?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. But they were not used for the purposes of fulfilling the agreement which required that the money should be used to pay off the discount on the interim bonds?-A. The Act, as I stated in my report, was not strictly complied with in that respect.

Q. You stated that in your report?-A. I stated that in my report; the Act was not strictly complied with.

Q. It was not complied with at all?-A. In that respect it was not complied with at all.

Q. There is no limit. You say ' strictly complied with'?-A. I mean speaking of the whole Act. It is admitted that particular part was not complied with, but the $200,000 was subsequently used and paid out, and if that had not been there the $200,000 would have been taken out of bond account for the 9ame purpose; so that one replaced the other. The net result iu the end is the same. That 13, if the Act had been strictly complied with the company would have been in exactly the same position to-day.

Q. The company used the $6,800,000 guaranteed bonds to raise money for their purposes. If they had got the cash from Mr. Davis and applied it there would have been so much less necessary from the bonds at the moment?- A. At the moment, but they would have had later to take from bond account a similar amount to meet the accounts which were paid by the money secured from the stock.

Therefore, although It is true that the Act was not strictly complied with in that respect yet the result in the end was the same. The reasons have been already given and commented on as to why this cheque was not immediately cashed, but as Mr. Bell deposes the net result in the end was the same as if it had been cashed in the first instance. One other point I wish to draw attention to, and that is with reference to the appointment of a commission of engineers. When Mr. Holgate was giving evidence before our committee, Mr. Monk questioned him as to his views on how a structure of this kind should be initiated, and he gave it as his view that there should be a commission of engineers who would go into all the details of design and of drawing plans. The questions and the answers being general in their nature I wanted to know if he was speaking with reference to what he

would have done in the first instance before it was known an accident would occur, and Mr. Holgate frankly acknowledged that he was speaking simply in the light of facts and information he had acquired during the investigation. Therefore, on the principle that hind sight is better than foresight, Mr. Holgate would not go s'O far as to say that if in the first instance he had been undertaking this work he would have done what, in the light of the knowledge he afterwards obtained, he would consider necessary. He gave it to be understood that if he were undertaking this work in the first instance he would not say that a commission of engi-ners should have been appointed. I do not desire to detain the House at any greater length.


Georges Parent


Mr. GEORGE PARENT (Montmorency).

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at any length on this matter, on account of the lateness of the hour ; but I wish to make a few remarks in answer to the hon. member for Quebec county (Mr. Robitaille). I notice that when that hon. member speaks under oath he speaks very differently from what he does when he speaks in the House of Commons. That hon. member a few days ago was called before the committee appointed to investigate this Quebec bridge matter and was asked by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Galliher) certain questions in regard to a speech which he made in this House last session. X wish to read this evidence in order that the House and the country may know that when the hon. member for Quebec county speaks under oath he speaks in a different way altogether from what he does in the House of Commons. I remember well the words that the hon. member uttered last session, [DOT]when he made statements that at the time we were not in a position to answer ; and that is the reason why we thought it proper to bring him before the committee in order that he might have the opportunity of repeating those statements under oath. I will not read the whole of his evidence but simply the more striking portions of it. One statement made by the hon. member for Quebec county in his speech in the House last session was that the premier of the province of Quebec, at the time the subsidies were granted for the Quebec bridge, happened to be the president of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. The hon. member is supposed to have certain instruction if not education ; but he did not know that the president of the bridge company was not at the time the subsidies were granted the actual president of the Transcontinental Railway Commission. The following is his evidence before the committee in regard to another statement:

Q. Do you know whan that subsidy was obtained?-A. No.

Q. Now, a little further on in the same speech you stated i(reads): ' In 1901, after Mr. GALLIHER.

having secured this subsidy, a company was formed called the Quebec Terminal and Railway Company. Associated with Mr. Parent were Hon. John Sharpies, E. Taschereau and Gaspard Lemoine.' Do you know as a matter of fact that Mr. Parent was ever a member of that terminal company?-A. I must say, in passing, that there are a few statements in that speech that were mot correctly taken by the stenographers. In reading it up this summer I found, for example, that certain figures do not corroborate certain statements. I corrected some of .these with the original that I had when I gave them out, and I think personally that Hon. Mr. Parent's name was not mentioned in the House by me at the time. I read from the ,statute-book the names of the parties who had registered themselves when they asked for letters patent. Mr. Parent's was not, if I remember right, hut there was Mr. Edmond Taschereau, who is a notary in Mr. Parent's office.

Anybody who has the slightest knowledge of legal matters In the province of Quebec knows that a notary is altogether different from a lawyer ; but when the hon. member for Quebec county speaks of Mr. Edmond Taschereau as if be were a lawyer, he shows how much he knows about matters of that kind. As to the personal attacks made upon persons who are dear to me. I will not refer to them ; the hon. member's condemnation will come later. He lias given us only an exhibition of the last kick of a dying ass.


Georges Parent



I withdraw the expression, Mr. Speaker. I intended to say a few words on this subject, but as it has been so fully discussed, I do not think it Is necessary for me to go further into the affairs of the bridge company. I wish to refer to one statement in the minority report to the effect that the Quebec Bridge Company was not in a proper financial condition, that it had too small a capital, to undertake such a work. If there is anybody who ought to know something about that, it is the people of the city of Quebec themselves ; and both sides of politics in that city took one view of the question, and everybody there is perfectly satisfied with what has been done by the company and the government. On this point, instead of attempting to make any argument myself, I will read an appreciation contained in the only Tory English paper that we have in the city of Quebec. This is taken from the Quebec ' Chronicle ' of December 14, 1907:

The company was taunted with the smallness of its capital in comparison^ with the magnitude of the work to be achieved, aud was represented as a gang of exploiters, whose only object was to make' a good thing out of the government. Now iu order to properly value the justice of these accusations it will be well to recall the circumstances previous to .and at the time of the company's organization. The want of a bridge over the St. Lawrence had long been felt, and, as the years

progressed, became stronger and stronger. There was a bridge over the St. Lawrence at Montreal, it is true, but that bridge was, and still is, the means of oonveying Canadian produce to American seaports to the manifest detriment of our own ports and shipping. When the Conservatives held power, Sir Charles Tupper came down to Quebec and promised the government's support towards the construction of a bridge, but he made it a condition that the Quebecers should show the genuineness of the interest they professed to feel by initiating the- enterprise, and investing capital in it. Either there was a misunderstanding about this condition, or the Quebec men of means in those days were unwilling to comply with it and the project dropped. As time went on the need for the bridge became more apparent; the Quebec and Lake St. John Railway Company were opening out a new and immensely fertile region in the Hinterland of the province; the wheat fields of the Northwest had grown to such an extent that the government of the day considered it necessary to provide another outlet for their products, in suoh a manner as to find a vent for them in Canadian, and not American seaports. Then the government of Sir Wilfrid Lanrier did practically what that of Sir Charles Tupper had done. It promised effectual co-operation in the building of the bridge, but it was still co-operation only. Then, mindful of what had happened in the past, Quebec gentlemen formed the present bridge company, lest the opportunity should again be lost. It is probable that they were inspired by motives of self interest as well as of patriotism, but they can scarcely be blamed for that, had they not acted as they did, the bridge would not have been commenced.

As for -the smallness of the oa/pital invested, it must be remembered in the first place that there are no onulti-mdlliona-i res here, and in the second place that the company was required as the necessary impetus to set the work going, and not to carry it on ito its completion. Nobody expected that a company could he formed in Quebec that would build the bridge out of its own resources, and scanty subsidies from the Dominion, provincial and municipal governments. This was well understood from the outset, and it was well understood also that the work being one of national importance the government would sooner or later intervene, and practically, if not actually provide for its completion itself. What was required was an initiative taken by Quebecers, and that was afforded by the company that is now blamed for doing so, and reproached for the small amount invested. But, if it had not oome forward, what then?

I quote this to show the sentiment prevailing in Quebec. In conclusion I would say that the people of Quebec feel, and I as a member from the district of Quebec feel that we should be thankful to the government, thankful to the ministers who have helped towards building this bridge which will result in making Quebec a great city and in giving to the harbour of Quebec the place it should have under the sun of our Dominion.

House divided on amendment Mr. Monk.










Borden (Carleton), Boyce,




Chisholm (Huron), Christie,









Hughes (Victoria), Jackson (Elgin), Kemp,







Maclean (York S.), McCarthy (Calgary), Monk,







Reid (Grenville), Robitaille,

Roche (Marquette), Sproule,




Walsh (Huntingdon), White,

Wilson (Lennox & Addington), Worthington,

Wright (Mnskoka)-52.

NAYS : Messieurs




(Sir Frederick), Bourbonnais, Brodenr,


































(Kings, P.E.I.),




Maclean (Lunenburg), Macpherson,

McCarthy (Simcoe), McCool,

McIntyre (Perth), McIntyre (Strathcona), McKenzie,


Marcile (Bagot), Marcil (Bonaventure), Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),

Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,












Reid (Restigouche), Roche (Halifax),

Ross (Cape Breton), Ross (Rimouski),

Ross (Yale-Cariboo), Rousseau,


Schell (Glengarry), Schell (Oxford),

Hunt, Sinclair,

Jackson (Selkirk), Smith (Oxford),

J ohnston, Stewart,

Kennedy, Talbot,

Knowles, Telford,

Lachance, Templeman,

Lanctot (Laprairie- Tobin,

Napierville), Tolmie,

Lanctot (Richelieu), Turootte,

Lapointe, Verville,

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Walsh (Montreal, St. Laurier Anne),

(L'Assomption), Watson,

Lavergne, Wright (Renfrew),

LeBlanc, Zimmerman.-103.


Ministerial. PAIRS : Messieurs Opposition.

Burrows, W ilmot,

Turriff, Seagram,

Law, Osier,

Sloan, Bennett,

Carvell, Ward,

Conmee, Elson,

Crawford, Ganong,

Devlin, McLean

German, (Queens, P.E.I.), Martin

Grant, (Queens, P.E.I.), Cockshutt,

Greenway, Armstrong,

Guthrie, Smith (Wentworth).

Hall, Marshall,

McColl, Lalor,

Smith (Nanaimo), Clements,

Boyer, Forget,

Sifton, Mafcdonell,

Black, Ames,

Beland, Paquet,

Fortier, Lewis,

Ratz, Thompson,

McCraney, Schaffner,

Turgeon. Stanfield.

Amendment negatived.

Motion agreed to on division.


calling of the orders of the day, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether it is the intention of the government to facilitate the passage of the Senate Bill relating to the water carriage of goods. This is on the Order Paper under ' Public Bills and Orders '. There is a strong demand in favour of the measure-almost unanimous support X believe. I would like to know the intention of the government.


William Stevens Fielding (Minister of Finance and Receiver General)



There is that Bill and also another Bill from the Senate, the two being in the same position. In answers to the hon. member's suggestion, I may say that, some time to-morrow, or to-night if time will allow, we shall be glad to have them called up.



' Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I have received from Mr. Sifton the following telegram: Winnipeg, Manitoba, July 16, 1908. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Ottawa. Please read following to House: Mr. Boyce's statement that improprieties exist in sale Indian lands unfounded, statement that application put in under name different from real applicant at my suggestion or request or with my knowledge absolutely untrue. I do not know that Mr. Philp has or ever had any interest, did not know Messrs. Wilson and Ree-sor had acquired these lands until a year after sale took place, sale made by officials ix ordinary way and under ordinary rules given so far as I know, no privilege whatever to purchasers except what were open to any applicant, I unqualifiedly deny the existence of any improprieties or irregularity whatever.



July 17, 1908