Mr. SCHAFFNER.

I have a matter to which I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Labour (Mr. King). I received a letter from Boissevain concerning men coming across the line to work on the Great Northern railway. The employers are dismissing all the Canadians along that line from the boundary to Brandon and substituting for them Greeks imported from the other side. This has been giving us trouble for some time, and I would like the Minister of Labour to look into the matter.

Mr. KING.

If the hon. member (Mr. Schaffner) will send me the communication to which he refers, I will make the necessary inquiry.

Mr. SCHAFFNER.

I wish to put on ' Hansard,' for the benefit of the Department of Trade and Commerce, a letter I received this morning. It is from Mr. R. McKenzie, secretary of the Grain Growers' Association of Manitoba, and is as follows:

Winnipeg, Can.,

April 28th, 1910.

Dr. Schaffner, M.P.,

Ottawa, Ont.

My dear sir,-

In further reference to the subject matter of my telegram to you, as you will no doubt know, the stock of the different grades in store in the terminal elevators was weighed in August of last year, and immediately on the close of navigation Inspector Gibbs made an estimate of the quantity in store of each grade by measurement. There is a report current that this estimate showed that the amount of high grade wheat shipped out far exceeded the amount received and as a consequence the Department of Trade and Commerce ordered the warehouse commissioner to institute an investigation. This investigation has been going on for some time and culminated in three of the terminal elevator companies being fined on information sworn out by Mr. Castle on the 22nd inst. Report has it that the solicitor representing the elevator company and the solicitor representing the department and Mr. Castle had arranged that the charge should be that of making false statements rather than the more serious charge of mixing grain. Be that report true or not, the fact remains that in place of the former being tried in open court, the solicitor for the terminal elevator companies met Mr. Daly in Mr. Hudson's office (Mr. Hudson being Mr. Castle's solicitor), and pleaded guilty, and was fined, the object apparently being to prevent the matter from coming before the public.

We think that this ' star chamber ' method of holding court should not be tolerated. If these terminal elevators are offenders against the law they should be treated as other offenders. It is a matter of common knowledge that practices in contravention of the law and against the best interests of the country were indulged in in these elevators for many years, and when the offenders were once brought to justice there should be no effort to endeavour to minimize the effect it would have. A simple fine is no punishment to these people. Publicity is what they are afraid of.

In the few days you have at your disposal before the House prorogues, will you, in the interests of the farmers, do what you can to get Mr. Castle's report and all correspondence brought down so that the public may know what has been done. I do not think at all that the Department of Trade and Commerce want to conceal anything, and there should be no disposition on the part of anyone to protect those who are accused of tampering with our grades. Our government undertakes to deliver our grain on the world's market according to specifications defined by statutes. Their inspectors compel the farmers to meet the requirements of the specifications and they should see that their inspectors should also compel those who handle our grain to comply with the require-

meats of those specifications in the handling of our grain.

Yours very truly,

r. McKenzie,

Secretary.

Mr. OLIVER.

Following up the subject which my hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner) has just laid before the House, I may say that Mr. Castle's report on this case was laid on the table on Friday.

Mr. OLIVER.

I would like to read a report from the superintendent of immigration on the subject brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) some days ago:

With regard to the letter read in parliament on the 26th instant, by Mr. Lennox, M.P., I beg to state that full inquiry had been made into the question of the delay of passengers ex SS. ' Corsican ' before the matter was brought up in the House.

Under date of April 4, M. J. V. Lanta-lum, our agent at St. John, wrote giving his reasons for the action he took. According to his report the ' Corsican ' entered the dock at ten minutes to six o'clock, having on board 16 saloon, 364 2nd cabin and 250 steerage passengers. Mr. Lantalum's contention is that had the passengers been landed it would have been very late in the night before their baggage could be checked and passengers started on their railway journey. In support of his contention that it would be very late before the passengers would be able to get away from St. John, Mr. Lantalum mentions the fact that although landed at 9.05 a.m. Sunday morning, it was 3.30 in the afternoon before they got the first train away, and 4,15 when the second train left, seven hours and ten minutes from the time of landing until the last train left. Mr. Lantalum points out that if it required seven hours and ten minutes to check the luggage, &c,, during daylight on Sunday, it is only reasonable to suppose that it would have required a much longer time at night when the passengers were tired and other circumstances not so favourable. He also contends it would have been a hardship for the women and children to remain awake while the preparations were being made. It is evident there was a difference of opinion among the passengers as to what should be done, many being of the same opinion as Mr. Lennox's correspondent, that they were undergoing a hardship by being delayed. On the other hand Mr. Lantalum says in his report:

* Many of the passengers were very much pleased at being kept on the ship all night as they said they had a good night's rest which would enable them to stand the long rail journey. One head of a family thanked the immigration authorities warmly for it.'

It is quite evident that Mr. Lantalum's action was taken solely in the interests of the passengers, and while I personally think it would have been wiser to have landed them,

I do not think Mr. Lantalum is open to any censure for the action he took. I am, how-

Mr. SCHAFFNER.

ever, notifying him in future that when boats whose passengers had been examined at Halifax reach St. John before 8 p.m., he is to allow them to land, providing the steamship and railway companies desire him to do so.

Mr. LENNOX.

I understand that this is not likely to occur again.

Mr. OLIVER.

Not at St. John.

Mr. FOSTER.

I desire to ask the government for three returns as follows: One

ordered by the House on December 1 with reference to the British and United States agreement on the great lakes; the second ordered by the House on January 17 with reference to the commissions issued by this government, and the third ordered by the House on February 28 showing the employees in the civil service. I would like very much to get these returns.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

With regard to the last named, I think it has been brought down. I will make inquiries. As to the agreement on the great lakes, I suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) refers to the Waterways Treaty?

Mr. FOSTER.

No, to the agreement con-cering naval armaments on the great lakes, the Rush-Bagot arrangement.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

I will inquire into that.

Mr. CROCKET.

I call again the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the returns in connection with the survey in the channel of the St. John river. I am anxious to have that brought down before prorogation.