BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 48) to amend the Montreal Harbour Commissioners Act, 1894. He said: The object of the Bill is to correct an error in the description of the boundaries of the harbour. Two years ago, when the change was made in these boundaries, it was stated that a certain line would Teach the southern boundary. This was a mistake; it should have- been the eastern boundary. The object is simply to correct this clerical error.
MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS.
Will the minister please state whether the provisions of this Bill affect in any way certain litigation now pending before the courts?
It has no reference to that at all; it is merely to correct the clerical error of which I have spoken.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
CANADIAN NAVAL SERVICE-THE ' RAINBOW.' PRIVATE BILLS. FIRST READINGS.
Bill (No. 42) respecting the Collingwood Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Pardee. Bill (No. 43) respecting a patent of Conduits Company, Limited.-Mr. Clarke (Essex.) Bill (No. 44) respecting the Laehine, Jacques Cartier and Maisonneuve Railway Company.-Mr. Geoffrion. Bill (No. 45) respecting the Montreal Park and Island Railway Company.-Mr. Ecrement. Bill (No. 46) respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.- Mr. McGiverin.
IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT.
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 47) to amend the Immigration Act. He said: The Act passed last session has been in operation during the past year. But there are certain passages which have been found to bear a meaning not according to the intent. The purpose of this amending Bill is to provide that the reading in such cases shall be according to the intent. There is no change proposed in any parti-
Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I desire to call the attention of the government and of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) to the answer given by that hon. gentleman the other day regarding the ss. ' Rainbow ' and to ask my hon. friend if he will correct that answer. I find that the ' Rainbow ' is mentioned in the Navy List for 1905, at page 410, in the special list of vessels available for subsidiary services, hulks and vessels for sale; also in Navy List for 1908, page 414, in the list of vessels available for subsidiary services, hulks and vessels for sale; also in the Royal Naval List and Naval Recorder for 1909, page 244, in the list of vessels available for subsidiary service, hulks and vessels for sale; and, finally, in 1910, in the Royal Navy List and Naval Recorder, page 218, under No. 396, as proceeding to Canada for transfer to the Canadian government. My hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) surely knows that vessels mentioned in these lists for sale are not mentioned in the list of effective vessels, but are considered to have been removed from the effective list and to be scrapped. Does my hon. friend agree that his answer, in that respect, is erroneous?
It does not mean, I think, that these vessels are scrapped; quite the reverse. But I have an answer to my hon. friend's (Mr. Monk's) question, which will be given later and which tells the whole story. He will see, from that answer, that this naval list from which he is quoting is not an official document.
It is the Royal Navy List, an official document.
The Naval Annual, I suppose, is Brassey's Naval Annual.
No, the official list. [DOT]
Mr. BROpEUR. No, my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is mistaken.
GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY TRAINMEN'S STRIKE.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
I desire to ask the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) what is the present position of matters with respect to the employees of the Grand Trunk railway who have not been reinstated? Several questions have been asked in the House upon the subject, and I gather from an answer of the Minister of Labour (Mr. King) that it was understood that the words ' as soon as possible ' in section 1 of the agreement of settlement means within a period not exceeding three months from the date of the settlement. I would like to know how many men have not been reinstated and how many have been reinstated since the opening of the present session. Also, I would like to know whether the government has made any investigation as to who were guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct. I ask that because the Minister of Labour, on December 1, said that an answer of the company had set forth this contention:
In the opinion of the officers of this company our undertaking to re-employ all who were not found guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct has been complied with.
My question is directed to this point as to whether or not the government themselves have made any investigation to learn who were guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct. I would like also to know, if the government have not made any such investigation, whether they propose to make one.
I ask this for the reason that, as the settlement I understood, was brought about through some intervention of ministers of the Crown, it would seem that there is an especial duty cast upon the government to see that the terms of the settlement are fairly carried out.
The situation in regard to the present position of the men on the Grand Trunk railway who have not as yet been restored to the company's service, is as given in the answers to the questions which the leader of the opposition has just referred to. As the hon. gentleman has mentioned the understanding at the time the settlement was reached was that all the men, other than those who had been guilty of acts of violence or disorderly conduct, should be restored to the company's service within a period not exceeding three months. The agreement was made between the two parties, between the Grand Trunk Railway Company on the one side and the representatives of the employees on the other.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
What was the date of that agreement?