Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-No. The chart says there are three fathoms, but Mr. Perley states that a vessel drawing 14 feet might get in when the water is still, and not otherwise. Mr. McDONALD (Cape Breton) also claimed that after the Govern there were 4 fathoms, from 25 to 28 feet of water. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-That is an error. field's chart the depth was marked in Mr. MACKAY knew that on Bayment had placed a vote in the estivessels drawing over 15 feet could some places as 31 fathoms, 20 feet mates based on Mr. Perley's report, enter St. Peters' Bay, and the canal they were not warranted in changing should be at least the same depth. Reefs and rocks were in the way, it was true, but these could be buoyed to discover that in any channel used and made generally known. He failed the depth at low tide was less than 4 fathoms; inside Bras D'Or Lake, close to the shore it was eight, and it immediately deepened to about 18 fathoms,Capt Bayfield's soundings were always under the mark. the character of the work. He understood that the original contract would only have cost about $36,000 more to execute than the one which had lately been given out. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE—No. Mr. McDONALD-I am sorry we had not the plans and specifications connected with the work so that we could ascertain. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I will give the hon. gentleman the figures. The lowest tender based on the first plan was $250,000, while the lowest tender on the last plan was $203,000, being a difference of $47,000. Mr. McDONALD thought the difference being so small the Government might have proceeded with the work in accordance with the first plan. They were to have a canal 14 feet in depth and 36 feet in width of a cost of $220,000, a difference of $47,000 compared with the estimates for the increased dimensions that had been proposed. He regretted the Government's action, and expressed his belief that the canal would cost at least $250,000. He understood that the contractor, Mr. Tuck, had been for several months on the ground, and very likely he would demand extra compensation. The St. Lawrence canals were to be 45 feet in width at the locks; and under these circumstances surely in connection with this canalonly half a mile in length, the same consideration should be extended by the Administration to the interests of the Lower Provinces. The member for Richmond had done his duty, and thrown the responsibility on the Government; and if the latter did not do its duty in this regard for a great many years to come, it would not obtain supporters from Cape Breton. Mr. MACKAY thought the Premier must be mistaken in one point; outside remark which had fallen from the PreMr. MASSON, with reference to a mier, contended that the Government could not arrogate to itself the right of changing the plans of their engineers and architects when they thought fit and proper to do so. The First Minister in this regard was entirely wrong. This might be done by the Adminis tration before they were submitted to Parliament and a vote taken for the expenditure of money; but afterwards this was not the case. The Government could not of its free will increase the expenditure; and at most could only reduce it. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I never said anything else. Mr. MASSON urged that even as to the reduction of expenditure in such relation, circumstances might occur when Parliament would not have approved of it. For instance, a vote might be taken in favour of the deepening of a canal to 14 feet, the Government might afterwards change the plans to 12-when if such had been the proposition presented to Parliament it would have been promptly rejected. Mr. MACDONNELL (Inverness) could see no force in the argument of the hon. member for Terrebonne, as the plans and specifications of this canal were not on the table. Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE never were. They case. Hon. Mr. BLAKE hoped the mover of the Bill would not press it to a division. If adopted it would entirely destroy the efficacy of the insolvency law of last year, because if only a certain class of the trader's liabilities were to be affected by it, he would be no better off than before. Under the existing Act, the non-trader who risked his money in trade knew the consequences of a failure. Mr. MACDONNELL observed that | Nothing had yet occurred to justify the House had voted without know- the House in changing that decision, ledge of the plans. He regretted that and he hoped the Bill would be withthe dimensions of the canal had been | drawn. lessened, as in the near future this might serve to the great detriment of trade. He was glad to have from the First Minister an assurance that if, upon re-examination, it would be found in the public interest to alter the specifications, this would be done. He felt confident that this would be the He had not had a high opinion of the report of the Canal Commission presented some years ago to the House, but it was known that this contained a recommendation in favour of the extension of the dimensions of this canal. The Lower Provinces had magnanimously resigned all claim to the making of the Baie Verte Canal, which involved the expenditure of eight or ten millions of dollars, and he thought, that this being the case, their other public works should receive very generous consideration and treatment. The motion was then agreed to. THE INSOLVENCY ACT. Mr. BECHARD explained that the object of this measure was to protect farmers, professional men and labourers, all who were classed as "non-traders in the Act of 1875, from the effects of that law which was passed to suit the convenience of traders and to meet the exigencies of trade. If traders required an Insolvency Law it should be limited to those for whose benefit it was enacted. Under the operation of this Act the trader after he has given up for the benefit of his creditors all that he possesses is discharged of the balance of his debts provided he can pay thirtythree cents on the dollar, while the non-trader cannot by the same proceeding be discharged from his liabilities after he has been ruined, too often by the acts of traders. Mr. MACDOUGALL (Elgin) said the Act of 1875 had only come into oper ation in September, and had been tried but a few months. The amendment now proposed had been submitted to Parliament last Session and rejected. A more practical solution of the grievance complained of under the existing law was for the non-trader to be careful to whom he gave credit, and to remember there was a risk of the person trusted going into insolvency. He hoped they would not attempt to alter the law in any principle so important as that. The members were then called in, the House divided, and the motion was lost on the following vote: MacKay (Cape Breton), Mackenzie, McDougall (Three-Riv) | Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1874, and to declare ineligible for election to the House of Commons all persons disqualified for election to the Local Legislatures during the period of such disqualification. 'Brooks, Brown, Buell, McKay (Colchester), Burk, Burpee (St. John), McGreevy, Cameron (Victoria), McIntyre, Carmichael, McIsaac, 4. Cartwright, McLeod, Mr. BABY moved the second reading of the Bill to amend the Criminal Law relating to offences against the person. He stated that the object of the Bill was to assimilate to a certain extent the Criminal Law of Canada to the English law, 23 and 24 Vict. Chap. 100, in which the death penalty had been established. As it was, it was impossible to get a verdict against any persons accused of some crimes against the person because the only penalty was the death penalty. He hoped the Bill would commend itself to to the the members generally, as he was sure it would to the gentlemen who had any experience in our criminal courts. Hon. Mr. BLAKE said he would consent to the second reading of the Bill, upon the understanding that it should then be referred to the Select Committee, having similiar Bills under consideration. He might afterwards ask that the Bill might not be proceeded with, in view of the probability of a general reconsideration of the Criminal Law in reference to capital sentences, before the next Session of Par liament. The Bill was read the second time. THE DOMINION ELECTIONS ACT. Mr. TASCHEREAU moved the second reading of a Bill entitled an He explained that it only contained one clause to the above effect; providing, moreover, that during that period such persons could not hold any office under the nomination of the Crown or Government of Canada. The Election Law would not be complete without such a clause. Hon. Mr. TUPPER renewed his suggestion that when the disqualification was removed by Local Legislatures, the decisions of the Courts should still hold good with regard to this Parliament. Mr. TASCHEREAU considered that this suggestion was against the very principle of the Bill, which related purely to the action of the Local Legis latures. Hon. Mr. TUPPER thought that as Parliament had wisely entrusted the trial of election cases to the Courts, their decisions should be respected in their entirety. He agreed otherwise with the principle of the Bill. Hon. Mr. BLAKE stated that the hon. member for Cumberland would experience a great deal of difficulty in drawing up the intricate clauses which would be necessary in order to secure the object the hon. gentleman had in view. The law as it existed might, moreover, be changed. His hon. friend from Montmagny proposed to redress a grievance in a practical and able manner, and as it seemed to him to the only practicable extent. The hon. member for Cumberland might embody his suggestion into an amendment, which he had no doubt would receive fair consideration. Mr. CAMERON (Victoria) asked whether it was proper to leave to Local Legislatures the establishment of what should be considered disqualification for this Parliament. In one Statute it had been enacted that if a candidate took a drink, though with no corrupt intention, in a tavern on polling day, it should be cause of disqualification. This was absurd, and gave rise to cases of the greatest possible hardship. Now, if this Bill should become law, the result would be to depute to the Local Legislatures the power of defining what class of offences shall be disqualifying for this House. If the Local Legislatures thought fit to pass absurd laws he did not know that it was right for this House to bind itself to them. Mr. BABY suggested that there ought to be a provision that this Bill should not apply to cases now pending before the tribunals of the country. The Bill was read the second time. SUPPLY. The House went into Committee of Supply-Mr. Mills in the Chair. On the item $276,281.67 for Ocean and River service, Hon. Mr. TUPPER asked why the appropriation for steam communication from St. John, New Brunswick, to ports in the Basin of Minas had been dropped? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE replied that the mails were now carried by rail. The subsidy for steam communication on Lake Superior had also been dropped, and in every case tenders were asked instead of granting subsidies. Hon. Mr. ROBITAILLE asked why the subsidy to the Gulf Ports steamers had been dropped? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE replied that it was in accordance with an arrangement by which the mails were to be carried by the Intercolonial Railway as soon as it was in operation. Mr. BUNSTER suggested that a similar arrangement should be made for carrying the mails to British Columbia,and he hoped the Pacific Railway would soon do the work that was now being done by steamers plying between San Francisco and Victoria. The service was not efficiently performed. The reason why the steamers did not get coal at Nanaimo was not because the contractor could not supply it, but because it was impossible to put it on board on the time specified in the contract for want of hatchways. He trusted that when the next contract of a similar character was made, the interest of British Columbians would be consulted, and that the Postmaster General would give these matters his Mr. DECOSMOS pronounced the steamer to be unseaworthy. Her boats were not sufficiently numerous for the passengers she carried, nor had she sufficient accommodation. Another disadvantage she possessed was, that she was not suited to the carrying of coal. The item was carried. Item No. 124, appropriating $4,200for steam communication with the Magdalen Islands, was adopted without discussion. On item 125, appropriating $15,000 for winter service by steamer between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, Mr. TUPPER asked what was proposed to be done in regard to that ser vice? Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE said they were endeavouring to make some arrangements for a steamer. They had not absolutely decided whether to purchase or construct a vessel, but the indications at present were that they would purchase a steamer. On item 133 appropriating $21,700 for the Quebec River Police, Mr. LANGEVIN asked for the details of the reduction of $6,500 on this service. He wanted to know what change was to be made in the personnel of the force? Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT said the Minister of Marine considered a smaller force would be sufficient, but as the hon. gentleman was absent he could not give any particulars as to the reduction. The item was carried. Item 134, providing $500 for the removal of obstructions in navigable rivers being taken up, The item was carried. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT explained, | debate of Friday last, during which the that it was intended to remove wrecks, veracity of a member had been called &c., one or two such cases having in question while absent from the already occurred. House. The Premier, alluding to a remark made by the hon. member for Bagot that the Liberals wished to coalesce with the hon. member for Terrebone, denied the statement. The hon. member for Bagot was now present, and perhaps the Premier would repeat the denial in order that the hon. gentleman might put himself right. Item 135, providing $142,917.50 for salaries and allowances of lighthouse keepers was passed without discussion. Item 136, providing $213,000 for maintenance and repairs being taken up, Mr. McDONALD (Cape Breton) remarked that he noticed in the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the sum of $117 had been paid for a sand bank, near Cape Bar, which was not in reality worth more than $10. Hon. Mr. CARTWRIGHT made a note the of matter, and promised to look into it. Hon. Mr. BLAKE-Being in Cape Breton, it ought to be worth $117. Mr. McDONALD-Yes; I have no doubt that it was worth $117 to the Government, at the last election. The item was passed. Item 137, providing $30,000 for the completion of light-houses in course of construction being taken up, Mr. SCHULTZ called the attention of the Government to the pressing necessity existing for the erection of a light-house at the mouth of Red River. The consequent expense would not be serious, and the shipping on the lake, which was becoming very consider able, would be greatly advantaged. The lake was larger than Ontario, and navigation at the mouth of Red River was difficult even in daytime. In order that the Cabinet might not plead want of knowledge in this respect, he drew their attention to it, and he hoped that action would be taken. The item passed; and the Committee rose, reported, and asked leave to sit again. The House adjourned at Thirty-five minutes past Twelve a. m. HOUSE OF COMMONS. THURSDAY, March 23, 1876. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three c'clock. QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. DESJARDINS drew attention to an incident which occurred in the Hon. Mr. MACKENZIE-I have no personal knowledge of what the hon. gentleman said, further than what was told me. I have only to say again, as I said the other night, I never made any offer to the hon. member for Terrebonne directly or indirectly of a seat in the Cabinet. On the was Mr. MOUSSEAU said he was glad of this opportunity to set himself right, because it was a serious matter to a young member to have his veracity questioned by one in so high a position as the Premier. occasion when the statement made, he (Mr. Mousseau) was speaking in French. He had been referring exclusively to the Liberals of Quebec at the time, and showing their inconsistency on many public questions. He had pointed out that after condemning the hon. member for Terrebonne they wished to coalesce with him. That speech had been accurately reported and translated, and the statement could be found in the Hansard and the Montreal Gaz tte. If it was contradicted he would give to the House the reason which had prompted him to make the assertion. The matter was dropped. Mr. GREENWAY called attention to the following paragraph which appeared in the Ottawa correspondence of the Toronto Mail, the day after the vote on Sir John Macdonald's amendment to the motion to go into Committee of Supply: "I would take the earliest opportunity of pointing out to the Conservative electors of South Huron, that Mr. Greenway has proved a traitor to all the professions made to them by him when he was elected by acclamation, and that he sits in the House a mere chattel of the Administration, deserving the contempt of all honourable men." |