BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved that the name of Mr. W. S. Middlebro be substituted for that of Mr. A. C. Boyce on the Joint Committee on the Restaurant.
Motion agreed to.
Bill (No. 107) respecting the Pollution of Navigable Waters.-Air. Bennett. Sirncoe. Bill (No. 108) respecting The Trust and Loan Company of Canada.-Mr. Baker. Bill (No. 109) for the relief of Herbert Horsfall.-Mr. Kay. Bill (No. 110) for the relief of Kenneth Molson.-Mr. Rhodes.
QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
Air. A1ACDONALD (Pictou). Before the orders of the day are called I rise to a question of privilege. Yesterday I asked the right lion, the Prime Minister as to whether or not an appointment had been made to the Supreme Court Bench of the province of Nova Scotia, and as to whether Mr. .1. J. Ritchie had received the appointment. I ventured then to say that I hoped the report was true, but I see that ' Hansard ' reports me as having said I hoped the report was not true. I desire to call the attention of the House to this fact, because the 'Statement is so wholly at variance with my own statement that I do not wish it to go on record. I regard Air. Ritchie as a gentleman of the highest qualifications, and I 'am satisfied that the government made a very wise choice in appointing him.
I distinctly understood my hon. friend to say just what he has intimated, that he hoped the report was true.
GOVERNAIENT WORKS TOLLS ACT AMENDMENT.
Bill (No. 103) to amend the Government Works Tolls Act.-Mr. Monk-read the second time and House went into committee thereon. Mr. A10NK. I explained when introducing this Bill that its object was to correct a clerical error in the Revised Statutes of Canada. Under the Public Works Act (R.S. c. 39, s. 9, para, (b) ) the Alinister of Public Work© has the management Off works for facilitating the transmission of timber, and matters incident thereto. The Government Works Tolls Act (which it is now proposed to amend) gives the Minister of Inland Revenue authority respecting similar works. It is desired that the Alinister of Public Works shall have the authority in both oases. Bill reported.
COLLINGWOOD DRY DOCK.
House in committee to consider the following proposed resolution: Resolved, that it is expedient to ratify and confirm an agreement between the Colling-wood Shipbuilding Company, Limited, and His Majesty, dated the 27th July, 1910, respecting the construction of a dry dock at the town of Collingwood, and to authorize the Governor in Council to pay an annual subsidy of three per cent, per annum , for twenty years upon the sum of $306,965.18, being the cost of construction of the said dry dock.-Mr. Monk. Mr. AlONK. This resolution is presented to -the House under the fallowing circumstances : On November 9, 1909, application was made by the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, Limited, for a subsidy, under the Act of 1908, to encourage the construction of dry docks, and specification and plans were submitted for a dock of the following dimensions: Length over all 420 feetWidth at coping 105 "Width at bottom 100 "Depth on sill, low water 16 "Depth of dock proper 22 " While the plans, specification and estimates for this dock were under consideration by the department, with the object of arriving at the total sum upon which subsidy should he granted, the Dry Docks Subsidies Act, chap. 24, of the Statutes of 1908, was repealed by chap. 17 of the Statutes of 1910, which was assented to on the 4th of Alay, 1910. A recommendation was sent to
*council on the 4th May, and an order in -council passed on the 11th May, 1910, authorizing the department to enter into an agreement with the Co'llingwood Shipbuilding Company, Limited, to grant a subsidy -on Dry Dock No, 2, of 3 per cent on $306,365.18, for twenty years. The Dry Docks Subsidies Act, chap. 17, of the Statutes of 1910, provides for the payment of subsidy on three different classes of docks, of which the third class is limited to a cost of not more than $1,500,000 with a subsidy of 3 per cent for twenty years. A third class dock must be 400 feet in length, 65 feet wide and 18 feet over the sill at ordinary low water when constructed in non-tidal waters. The Collingwood Dry Dock No. 2 possessed the necessary length and width, but was only 16 feet on the sill at low water, so that it did not qualify under the new legislation. As, however, the consideration of this application, made under the 1908 Act, had been completed before the passing of the Act of 1910, containing the new conditions, and as the dock was, in addition, at that time partially constructed, it was considered only fair that the dock should be subsidized and that special legislation should be introduced -at the next session of parliament to enable payment of the subsidy. Accordingly, on the 17th May, 1911, a resolution was moved by the honourable the Minister of Public Works, ns follows: Resolved, that it is expedient to ratify and [DOT]confirm an agreement between the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, Limited, and His Majesty, dated the 27th day of July, 1910, respecting the construction of a dry dock at the town of Collingwood, and to authorize the Governor in Council to pay an annual subsidy of three per cent, per annum for 20 years upon the sum of $306,965.18 being the cost of the construction of the dry dock, &c. A draft Bill was also prepared, but was never introduced; the resolution still remaining on the order paper when parliament dissolved. Under these circumstances the department is submitting the same resolution to the House. I do not think there is any doubt that the company is entitled to The subsidy under the circumstances. Resolution reported, read the first and second time and agreed to. Mr. MONK moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. Ill) to authorize the payment of a subsidy to the Collingwood Shipbuilding Company, Limited. Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
THE GRAIN ACT.
House in Committee on Bill (No. 32) respecting Grain.-Mr. Foster (North Toronto).
On section 96-regulations as to binning and cleaning
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).
I wish to add a clause as subsection 2 of which I gave notice. This, I think, should be changed in the latter half, after the words ' any terminal warehouseman neglecting to comply within thirty days.' That seems a long time to give, and it might be well to strike out the words ' within thirty days ' and insert the words ' within a reasonable time.' Thirty days seems altogether too long, and in some cases would be. In other cases thirty days might be too short if the improvements to be made involve a good deal of altering and changing. I do not see any better way of arranging it, except to say within reasonable time.
I would suggest that it be made: 'within reasonable time not exceeding thirty days ' because in the rush of the grain season, unless the alteration can be made within thirty days there is no use making it at all.
Mr. FOSTER (North Toronto).
I am quite willing to put that in. Then we will insert the word ' comply ', ' within reasonable time not exceeding thirty days '. I move the adoption of the clause as amended.
The term used in the ' Hansard ' report of the previous debate is ' punishable ' not ' liable