REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Supplement to the Annual Report of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, respecting the Indians of Canada.-Mr. Hazen.

Mr. BURNHAM:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), in view of your ruling of yesterday in regard to the report of the Old Age Pensions Committee, has suggested that this report be referred back to the committee. Therefore it is moved by Mr. Macdonald, seconded by myself, that the report of the Old Age Pensions Committee be referred back to the committee.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have been looking into this matter, and I find that the report which was presented to the House has already been dealt with. The only recommendation in the report for which, I think, concurrence was desired, was with regard to printing, which would necessarily require to go to the Printing Committee. After the report was presented to this House, it was submitted to and was dealt with by the Printing Committee; therefore it could not be referred back.


Mr. MACDONALD:: The circumstances
with regard to the report were these:	A
sub-committee of the regular committee was appointed for the purpose of drafting a report. That committee did not meet, and the report as presented to the House, though assented to hurriedly by the different members, was not a full expression of the desires of the Committee. I submit that the opportunity to place properly before the House the findings and recommendations of the committee ought not to be barred by the assumption of authority on the part of any other committee of the House. In order that the matter might come before the House in proper shape, and that the views and opinions of the members of the committee might find proper expression, I suggested that the motion which has been stated by the hon. member for West Peterborough, should be made. In order that everything may be regular, and that the report of the committee may be made in proper shape, I would suggest that the consent of the House be given that the report be referred back to the committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think the House had a right to assume that the report as presented by the chairman of the committee was a correct and regular report. As a portion of the report refers to printing, it
was, by what authority I do not know, referred to the Printing Committee. The Printing Committee having dealt with it, the House assumes that it was a proper report, and, in my judgment, it could not now be referred back.


William John Macdonald: Except by consent of the House. Perhaps I may be permitted again to point out, with all due deference, that the control of the House over the report of any one of its committees is an absolute control, which cannot be abridged at any time by the assumption of authority on the part of any other committee. There is no great principle involved in the matter, except that the record may be proper; there is no political issue involved in it, and I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister, with a view to straightening the matter out, that he would consent to the passing of the motion.


Rt.   H@: I am not thoroughly familiar with the various phases of the situation, and, if the hon. gentleman will let the matter remain until Monday, I will confer with His Honour the Speaker, and members of the committee, and see what can be done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From my knowledge of the situation, as the committee has not yet dissolved, I think that if they desire to give any further consideration to the subject matter which was referred to them, it would be quite in order for them to do so.
Motion stands.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 228, to incorporate the Pointe aux Trembles Terminal Railway Company. -Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Albert Brit-nell.-Mr. Sharpe (North Ontario).
Bill No. 230, respecting certain Patents of Otto R. Barnett.-Mr. Bennett (East Simcoe).

Mr. EMMERSON:: I observed in the
papers last night a despatch to the effect that the Rainbow was being dismantled and the men dismissed. I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Naval Service if there is any truth in that report.


Mr. HAZEN:: I think there is no truth
whatever in the report.



BOUNTY FOR MISS HUTCHINSON.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. T. W. Crothers (Minister of Labour), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to authorize the Minister of the Interior to issue a Military Bounty Land Certificate to Miss Lois B. Hutchinson, as the sole heir and personal
[Stage Direction]
representative of her deceased father, James Hutchinson, entitling her, or her substitute, to obtain, free of charge, an entry for a homestead of two adjoining quarter-sections of Dominion, lands, and to receive letters patent therefor, provided that such entry is made and obtained on or before December 31, 1913.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Explain.


Mr. CROTLIERS:: The facts in connection *with this matter have been pretty fully , set forth in the recital. They are as follows: The father of this young lady, the late James Hutchinson, was killed at Fish Creek in the year 1885. The same year a statute was passed providing for the issue of the military bounty certificate from the Militia Department for the conferring on men who were engaged in that outbreak two quarter-sections; the party in whose favour such warrant issued was entitled to locate two quarter-sections. The original Act provided that these locations should be made not later, I think, than some day in the month of August, 1886. The time for locating was from time to time extended, the last extension being made, I think, in 1906, until the 31st of December of that year. A warrant was issued in favour of the late James Hutchinson, but his daughter never located the scrip. At the time of her father's death she was a child in arms, her mother has since died, and she is the sole representative and heiress of her late father. It is thought well to grant her now what she would have *been entitled to prior to 1908 if she had not overlooked the locating of it. Of course it may be regarded as un undesirable precedent to pass such a Bill, but I am told by one of the officers of my department, Mr. Cote, that there is no other similar case before the department. I understand that when my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) was Minister of the Interior, he considered the circumstances of this case and was in favour of introducing a Bill such as I am proposing to found on this resolution. I think this is a case where we should render this young woman the special privilege that is proposed under this resolution and the accompanying Bill.


Mr. OLIVER:: As my hon. friend has said, this matter was brought to my attention when I was Minister of the Interior, and I was entirely favourably impressed with the righteousness of the claim made by the young woman. I think a Bill was prepared for introduction to Parliament, but the Government changed, and of course the Bill dropped. I know it is objectionable to revive old claims, but, whatever might be said of the general principle, this is such a very exceptional case, that I think Parliament will do itself credit to pass the legislation which is proposed by the minister. As my hon. friend has said, the father of the applicant was killed in battle. He was entitled, or his heirs were entitled, to this consideration. A scrip was issued, but there Mr. CROTHERS.
was no person to take it up at the time. The father was dead, the mother died, the child had not come to years of knowledge, and consequently the right lapsed. Now the young woman, having become of age, desires to assert her claim, which I would consider her right, to the property earned by the sacrifice of her father's life."
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and concurred in.
Mr. CROTHERS thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 232, to make further provision respecting grants of land to members of the Militia Force on active service in the Northwest.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider the Senate amendments to Bill No. 187, to incorporate the National Gallery of Canada. -Mr. Rogers.
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the nature of those amendments?


Mr. ROGERS:: They propose an amendment to clause 4 which clause reads as follows:
The Board, shall be composed of not less than three and not more than seven members.
That was the cla'use as it passed this House. The Senate propose that the Board shall be composed of not less than three members and not more than five. A further amendment is made in the eighth line of clause 3, in which are contained the words ' the custody and preservation of works of art contributed'; they suggest the addition of the words 'and to be contributed,'


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I hope my hon. friend will give way to the desire which has been expressed not only in this Chamber, but, as I see by reading the debates, in the other Chamber, that the museum should be open on Saturday afternoon and Sunday. There is a prevailing feeling in favour of that, at least in the city of Ottawa.


Robert Rogers: That matter has not been considered. As I told my hon. friend the other day, I am entirely in favour of keeping it open on Sunday, and I will do all I can to that end.
Amendments read the second time, and agreed to.



SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to consider the Senate amendment to Bill No. 180, to amend the Supreme Court Act. - Mr, Doherty.
Mir. DOHERTY:: The amendment made by the Senate is to the last clause of the Bill as it passed this House, amending sec. 49 of the Supreme Court Act. That is the sec. dealing with appeals from Ontario. The amendment of the Senate provides that:	,
Where the right to appeal depends upon the amount or value of the matter in controversy, and no specific sum is claimed, the amount or value of the matter in controversy may be proved by affidavit or affidavits.
That amendment was made by the bill as it passed this House to section 49 of the Act which deals with appeals from Ontario. The preceding section, which deals with Quebec, also makes appeals in certain cases dependent upon the amount yi issue and contained precisely the same provision that the amount demanded or the value should be a certain sum to entitle a party to appeal. Amending section 49 made the amending provision applicable only to appeals from Ontario, whereas, the provision, if desirable, should be equally applicable in both cases. The amendment consists in making provision generally that where the right to appeal depends upon the value in controversy and no specific sum is claimed the value may be proved by affidavit or affidavits.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Does that apply to
every appeal in any part of Canada?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Wherever there would be a section providing that the right to appeal depended on the amount in issue and no demand was made of a specific sum so that on the face of the record the value of the matter in issue did not appear, it would apply.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It applies to any of the other provinces?


Charles Joseph Doherty: To any provinces where the Tight of appeal depends on the value in issue and the amount does not appear on the record.
Amendment read the second time and agreed to.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for Committee of Supply:
['The present rights of the company with regard to telegraph poles, electric power, and so on, along the railways, does not contain a limitation as to selling and disposing of them for use within the municipality without the consent expressed by by-law, of such municipality. We have inserted this section in order to make the required provision in this regard.\nBill reported, read the third time, and passed.']
Thomas Simpson Sproule: With regard to this motion to go into Committee of Supply, I am not sure how it stands under the new rules, under which on Thursdays and Fridays the Speaker leaves the Chair without any motion being put; but only those estimates which have been taken up on some other day than Thursday or Friday can be considered, except with the consent of the House. I take it that with the consent of the House we follow the rule, and the Speaker leaves the Chair without motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know whether I understand the rules rightly or not. Mv interpretation of the motion is that on Thursday and Friday the Speaker leaves the Chair without motion, automatically; but on that day no estimates can be taken up except those which have previously been considered.


Mr. BORDEN:: That is quite right.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker can leave the Chair without any motion, but the Government cannot take up any estimates except those which have been taken up already, unless by unanimous consent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not stated which estimates are to be taken up, and I have not a record of what have already been dealt with.


Robert Laird Borden: We intend to take up the estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. For this purpose I am willing to admit that the estimates of that Department have not been taken up before within the meaning of the rule, and I agree that they be taken up with the unanimous consent of the House, which I understand to be given.	-


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know if I understand correctly. Mr. Speaker seems to be under the impression that he must know what estimates are to be taken up. Automatically the Speaker leaves the Chair, but then the Government are required to take up estimates which have been previously considered.


Mr. CARVELL:: It seems to me that this question does not arise at the present time, because the estimates of every department have already been considered during this session. We have passed one-sixth of all the estimates of all the departments. While we may not actually have discussed them, in what you might call a debate, we have certainly considered them.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was before the
new rules.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That makes no difference. It has been done during this session.


Robert Laird Borden: That would be a very strict interpretation of the rule, and I should not insist upon it.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer):: Rules are technical things.
The House then went into Committee of Supply.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-civil-government, $246,200.


John Douglas Hazen: My civil government estimates are practically the same as those of last year, with certain statutory increases.


Mr. KYTE:: Would the hon. minister indicate the promotions that have taken place in his department in the last year and the additions to salaries?


John Douglas Hazen: There are practically no additions to salaries beyond the statutory increases. The salary of the Deputy Minister is the same. In the first division, subdivision A, the salary of the assistant Deputy Minister is the same; of the Chief Engineer, the same; of Professor Prince, Inspector of Fisheries, the same; Mr. Dou-tre, Purchasing Agent, statutory increase: Mr. Fraser, Assistant Chief Engineer, statutory increase; Mr. Boyle, Accountant, statutory increase; Mr. MePhail, statutory increase; Mr. Boyle, Accountant, statutory increase; Mr. Found, statutory increase; Mr. Lindsay, statutory increase. There was a vacancy in the position of Chairman of the Board of 'Steamboat Inspection. The salary of the Chairman is $2,800. That vacancy was caused by the retirement of Mr. Adams and has been filled by the promotion of Mr. Ferguson, who has been stationed at Quebec. Then there is the salary of Mr. Halkett, $2,800.
In the first division, subdivision B, the salaries last year were $41,650; this year they are $45,100, being the same as last year with the statutory additions.
In the second division, subdivision A, the salaries last year were $49,600; this year they are $55,850. There are thirty-two positions provided for, an increase of three over last year. It is proposed to appoint a fog alarm inspector, a mechanical engineer and an inspecting engineer, whose services are found necessary in the work of the department. As regards the salaries paid to the different officials, there is a full list here if any hon. gentleman desires to see it. In reference to the appointment of a mechanical engineer, the department has been without the services of such an engineer since Mr. Macdonnell was transferred some years ago to the Steamboat Inspection branch, which takes up the whole of his time. He used to be able to give us his assistance when the services of a mechanical engineer were required. The mechanical engineering branch is constantly engaged in the design, manufacture and repair of fog alarm and other apparatus of all kinds, including numerous kinds of buoys. The opinion of the head of the branch is that the services of a fully qualified mechanical engineer are absolutely essential. With regard to the Fog Alarm Inspector, Mr. Macdonnell has performed this work for a number of years. Since his transfer, the Commissioner of Lights, Mr. MePhail, has carried on the work as best as he could. He has not found it possible, along with the general work of his office, to give this inspection the attention Mr. HAZEN.
it requires. It is therefore necessary to_ provide for a third position in subdivision A at $1,600.
In the second division, subdivision B, there are thirty-four positions provided for, an increase of seven over last year. The salaries last year were $32,550; this year they are $38,050. These seven new places will be filled by appointing clerks in the various branches, some at $800 and some at $850 a year.
With regard to naval architects at $1,200 a year, the work of designing and preparing plans for all steamers that are constructed by the Government is done by the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The head of the branch, the chief architect, is Mr. Duguid. It is found that we cannot keep up with the work, as Mr. Duguid has to be away from the office so much of his timfr inspecting vessels that are in course of construction. It is nteoessary therefore, to give him assistance in his work.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Does the minister think that we can secure the services of a good naval architect for $1,200 a year?


John Douglas Hazen: These are only draughtsmen and assistants. We have I believe,_ a first-class naval architect in Mr. Duguid, a gentleman who, some years ago, I understand, was recommended by Lord Strath-cona who had been applied to to assist in securing the services of such a man. The assistants will be young men of experience as draughtsmen and who will no doubt develop. They will be in the class whose salaries begin at $1,200, and go on by annual increments to $1,600.


John Howard Sinclair: Will they be subject to examination?


John Douglas Hazen: These men will be chosen through the Civil Service Commission, who no doubt, will advertise for applicants and make the choice in the ordinary way.
M.r. SINCLAIR : This is a matter of very great importance. I have heard it stated by those engaged in ship-building that the Department of Marine and Fisheries has not been able to supply the information on which a tender should be made. I am informed that in many cases the Department ask the builder who is tendering to submit his own plans.


John Douglas Hazen: That has been done.


John Howard Sinclair: That is a very awkward and unbusiness like way to deal with the matter. The department should know what kind of ship they require and should be able to give the builders, especially the builders in Canada who have not yet had great experience, full details to form the basis of a tender.


John Douglas Hazen: That is exactly the reason we are trying to increase this organization. Formerly description was given in a general way of the kind of ship wanted, and the builders were asked to tender submitting their own designs and plans. I do not see how it was possible to come to a fair conclusion as to whom the contract should be given to. I found that state of affairs when I entered the department and discussed the subject with the officials. Hereafter, when we ask for tenders we expect to give plans and full details. When all tenderers base their offers on the same plans, we can then judge whose tender is the lowest and most advantageous. But, until we complete the organization, we cannot follow that method.


John Howard Sinclair: How many officers has
the minister appointed in the inside, and how many in the outside service, since the present Administration came into office?


John Douglas Hazen: Very few in the inside service, in the higher positions; nearly all minor clerkships. There have been some in the outside service in connection with the lighthouse service and that sort of thing. I cannot give figures at the moment, but will be able to give them later on. Passing from that, we come to the third division subdivision (A). Last year the amount was $35,050, and this year $40,800. There is no change in the number of clerks-there are thirty-eight-and the increase is made up of the statutory increases alone.


George William Kyte: Do statutory increases depend upon the recommendation of any officials in the department?


John Douglas Hazen: Upon that of the deputy
Minister. If the Deputy recommends the official as worthy of the increase he gets it, but if the official's work has not been satisfactory and the Deputy-Minister so reports, he does not get it. Coming down to the third division subdivision (B), last year the amount was $20,900, this year it is $17,850. We are providing for twenty-nine positions as against twenty-four. The clerks to be appointed numbered five, at $500 a year each, the very lowest class-they are stenographers. There are but two permanent stenographers for the fisheries correspondence proper. They have been unable to cope with the work and it has been necessary to employ temporary clerks almost continuously throughout the year. There will be an additional one also in the Commissioner of Lights' branch. This was made necessary by the fact that Miss Percival was transferred to the Accountants' branch and to fill the position Miss Hill was employed temporarily. That position must be filled permanently. These are all positions which it is absolutely necessary to fill that the work in the department may be carried on. I am told by men in the department
who have been there for years, that the work in the department increases every year and has increased very rapidly in the last few years. This is due in part to the greater volume of business in connection with the fisheries of British Columbia, where there has been a tremendous development. Then, for messengers, the amount provide^ last year was $5,500, and this year $6,700. This increase provides for the statutory increases and also for two additional messengers. The Department of Marine and Fisheries is scattered almost all over town. There is not only the main office in the western block, but there we have an office on Sparks street, one on Wellington street, and the branch in the Corry building and others. An increase in the staff of messengers is absolutely necessary, as papers have to be constantly carried by messengers from one branch of the department to another. That covers the different items which make up the civil government estimates


John Howard Sinclair: How many dismissals
have been made for political partisanship in the department of the minister since he took charge?
Mr. HAZEN. So far as the inside service is concerned, I do not think there have been any dismissals for political partisanship. In the outside service there have been quite a number of dismissals. I have not a statement before me, but I will have it made out for my hon. friend if he so desires.


John Howard Sinclair: The feeling in my constituency and along the coast of Nova Scotia in regard to the Marine and Fishery Department is that the minister has been very reckless indeed so far as dismissals are concerned. He has resorted to the spoils system, pure and simple, showing very little regard for the rights of the officers and not extending to them an opportunity for a fair and proper investigation of their cases. I would have expected that the minister, coming from the maritime provinces, knowing the hardships endured and the small salaries received by the lighthouse keepers on the coast, would have had some consideration for them, and, at ail events, would have given them a fair trial, but so far as the action of his department in this regard has come under my own observation, I cannot say that he has done so. There have been a very large number of dismissals in my constituency, and in many cases trials have been conducted, in a star-chamber way, in the bedrooms of hotels, garrets and places of that kind. Witnesses have been examined. in some cases in the absence of the person accused. Most of the marine officers on the coast of my constituency have been dismissed, with
106S7

the exception of a few lighthouse keepers. The greatest sinners in this regard are the Postmaster -Genera] (Mr. Pelletier), the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). There is a very striking passage in one of the minor prophets of the Old Testa-.ment in which a scourge of insects or grub3 is described in this way: What the locust left, the canker-worm ate; what the canker-worm left, the caterpiller ate, and when the caterpiller got through there was not anything left. That very fairly indicates the conditions connected with the dismissal of Liberal officials employed on the coast of my constituency. What the Minister of Customs left, the Postmaster General devoured, what the Postmaster General left, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries devoured, and when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries got through there was scarcely a single Liberal officer left in the fish hatcheries and lifeboat stations on the one hundred and fifty miles of the coast of my constituency.
The case to which I wish to refer specially is that of W. L. Munro, who was light-keeper on an island known as Three Top Island in the harbour of Whitehead. He was appointed to the position in 1879 by the Conservative administration, and served in the capacity of lightkeeper for 32 years. The island is an unsheltered rock off Whitehead, exposed to all the storms of the Atlantic; in winter time it is very difficult to reach the shore at all, and the keeper is often imprisoned for weeks at a time. Mr. Munro tvas appointed under the old system under which light keepers, after serving a certain number of years reaching a certain age, were entitled to be retired under pension. Mr. Munro claims that he was entitled to receive a pension after being thirty-two years in the service, but his dismissal has been used as a reason why he should not receive a pension. This man is a sailor, and somewhat excitable, and while a Conservative in his early days, he later acquired an admiration for Sir Wilfrid Laurier. At the close of a meeting in the . schoolhouse in his district he is said to have proposed three cheers for Sir Wilfrid, and I understand that that is one of the . chief reasons why this man, who served for thirty-two years in the capacity of lighthouse keeper, and who was entitled to a pension, was discharged from the service and refused a pension.
The charges against this lighthouse keeper were first made in February, 1912, and there was a lengthy correspondence between him and the Department of Marine and Fisheries, part of which I wish to put on record. The minister delayed action for a long time and finally threw Munro to the wolves and denied him his, position and the pension to which he claimed to be entitled.
Mr. SINCLAIR.
His case is a hard one. He has a family, and is now well up in years. He opened his heart to the minister, approaching him personally by writing a letter of which he sent me a copy. In February, 1912, Mr. Munro wrote the following letter to the minister:
Whitehead, N.-S., February 8, 1912. To the Honourable,
Minister Hazen,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, House of Commons, Ottawa.
My Honourable Sir,^I presume among others, you have me slated for my dismissal. And whether I am right in doing so, I thought I would drop you a line regarding it. I trust, honourable Sir, as I have been keeper of this station for thirty-two years and some months, that if I am dismissed, that you will see that I get a superannuation, as of course, after twenty years of any man's life there is not much strength left in him for hard toil and dragging. I am now sixty years of age past, and sti'l burdened with the care of three grandchildren after raising a family of my own, ten children, and among them only one hoy and what help I had it was always hired help; and the small salary I always got which of course was a help, I always had to work hard in order to make ends meet.
I am not ashamed to say I was appointed in 1879, and up to 1896 I always voted Conservative, hut as the latter Government was good enough to let me hold my job, I thought it my duty to vote for them, and as far as votes goes we are square; however, you will, I trust, honourable Sir, allow me your sincere consideration, and have me granted a superannuation if I am dismissed. I trust you won't have it done this winter while so rough and boisterous.
I am dear honourable Sir,
Your very obedient servant,
(Sgd.) W. L. Munro.
Mr. Munro also wrote a little sketch of his life, setting forth some feats of bravery he had performed while residing on this island. This he handed to the press for publication, sending me a copy as well. It is a very interesting story; it discloses the hardships suffered by and the heroic conduct of this man while he was in the service of the department. I submitted this statement of Munro to the minister prior to his dismissal, so that the minister would not have the excuse that he was not familiar with all the details with regard to this man's service and his merits. In sending this sketch to the minister, I wrote him as follows:
February 13, 1912.
Hon. J. D. Hazen,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa. Re proposed dismissal of IV. L. Munro.
Dear Mr. Hazen-Referring to this case* I am enclosing a letter written by Mr. Munro himself to the press, some time ago, relating some of the feats that he performed in saving life, during his long service as light keeper at White Head.
I submit that these matters ought to he considered in connection with the action of
1C689

the department at present. It would be quite satisfactory to Mr. Munro and his many friends there on both sides of politics, if lie received his pension under the original arrangement in _ force at the time that he entered the service.
You will notice by his answer which you have on your file, when asked to select between his pension and the payment of his *money back, that instead, that he gave a sort of indefinite reply by saying that he would ' vote for this.'
There is not the slightest doubt that Mr. Munro intended to retain his pension. At all events, even if the other view is taken, it is very clear that if the matter was fully explained to him, he would never have selected to take back the money paid in instead of his retiring allowance. I understand that his retiring allowance for two years would amount to more than the cash to ' which he would be entitled.
I trust, therefore, that you can see your way clear either to leave this light in his possession or grant him his pension.
I remain;
Yours truly,
J. H. Sinclair.
I want to read to the Committee the statement given by Mr. Munro to the public and to the minister with regard to the services that he performed. Told in his own simple, sailor fashion, it contains some real touches of nature, and ought to have reached the heart of the minister:
Allow me space please in your valuable
paper to insert a sketch of my past thirty-two years as lighthouse keeper on what is known as or called by mariners, Three Top Island, which lies at west entrance of White Head harbour, one mile from the mainland being W.N.W. from White Head light, distance one mile. The light is called a harbour light by many, but not like many harbour lights on the coast, whereas most such lights are situated on the mainland.
Thi9 island takes its name by having three hills as nature formed it, each hill or peak, as we wish to call it, running eighty to a hundred feet, horizontally, with no real landing place, such as a beach but is iron bound, so to speak, all around, with a boat slip running down a steep embankment where with block and tackle *attached to a capstan that is fixed in a boathouse on the side of the cliff, we haul our boat to safety, which by times, when there is a heavy sea on, is a pretty risky piece of business. Many times I have had my boat filled in effecting a landing.
Well, Mr. Editor, the life of a light keeper is a dreary one, watching the storm tossed seas that I have witnessed time and again caused by heavy winter gales on the southern coast of our province, facing the Atlantic ocean.
I remember one storm in particular about eighteen years ago in February. The sea in one of its fierce rushes burst in our door at ten o'clock at night and flooded our floors to a depth of six inches of water. My wife and the children screamed, thinking they were doomed. I got them gathered to a window, there to make our exit and flee to one of the highest peaks, but in this case Providence favoured us by the gale moderating, and, the
sea falling some, did not cause us to face such an ordeal in a wintr's hurricane on a naked cliff.
Also, Mr. Editor, I could relate several eases in sheltering shipwrecked crews since my abode as lightkeeper, if space could afford. One case in particular I must relate. It was on a Christmas eve about 16 years ago, if I remember right. There was a heavy gale raging from the northeast with enow and the temperature was at zero. My three eldest daughters were on the mainland at the time attending a concert at the Methodist church that they were taking part in. The small children had retired early in the evening as usual. My wife and I went to bed about half past ten o'clock, after seeing that .Santa Claus was to visit the island, and I suppose we had been retired about 20 minutes, I had about fallen to sleep, when my wife aroused me by telling me that she heard a horn blowing. X told her she was dreaming, to go to sleep; but to please her I got up and went to the door to investigate. I found to my horror, that she was right, for there on the reef that extends southeast away from the mainland about two hundred yards, lay a stranded vessel, and they were blowing horns and shouting for their lives for the keeper to save them, as they thought from the way their ship was pounding, she would break up, and certainly they would be doomed under such circumstances. Well, my man being ashore to spend his holidays of course left me alone. I dressed and went to the cliff, as near as I could venture, and shouted as loud as I could not to attempt it until daylight. Well, I do not suppose they could hear me, but their wailings were terrible to hear on such a night. And again I went and shouted to them to take their own boat and I would guide them by a torch. Well, again they could not hear me, as they kept u.p their wailings. I could hear the wind whistling in the wreck, .but I leave that to one's imagination, what it sounded like together with their shouting to save them. Well, I went to the house and told my wife that in God's name I would try and launch a boat and go off to the wreck, and, of course, as usual with women, my wife crying and begging me not to dare such a thing on such an awful night, and the children awakened by the tumult to make matters worse, joined their mother in begging me not to go, and I was pretty near abandoning the idea altogether until daylight. Well, I went out of doors and down to the cliff, and by the way their shouting seemed to me, I imagined there were at least, some of them in the water and perhaps drowning. And then I said to myself, I am going to try it anyway and if I get lost it will be in a good cause trying to save my fellow men. Well, I lit a pine .torch, or flare up, as some call them, ancl my wife following me, I went to the slip and let the boat down, as far a9 I dared, the sea coming up by times half way to the slip. As the gale was blowing fair on it was so much the worse to get clear. Wdll, as I went to run down and after lowering her and did unhook the boat there came a heavy sea and swept the boat clear of me just as 1 was in the act of leaping into her, she turned completely bottom up. Well that pretty near discouraged me. However, I had another boat in store that I had stowed away educe

the past summer not intending to launch her until spring lobster fishing. To tier I Tan and got her on the slip but haring only one pair of oars left it was risky, losing two pairs in the first boat. However, I let the boat down part way this time, put my oars in her, unhooked my tackle and sprung into the boat, taking chances going down the slip equal to ' loop the loop ' and landed safe in the boiling water made by the gale. Well, I grabbed my oars and as skillfully as I could managed my boat until I got out to the wreck, which I found to be the George P. Trigg, from Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, bound to Boston, loaded with several thousand bushels of oats. She was trying to make the harbour to clear the storm when stranded. They had lowered the boat when first she struck the ledge and lost the boat in the sea. I found the men very much frightened. They all wanted to get in my small boat at once, hut I told them to do as I told them and I would try and land them. So 1 took three men at a time getting to the Island. My wife held the torch and that was a great help to me. I backed the boat stern first as near to the surf as I dared, and told the men to leap which they did and landed safe, and then I began another struggle for the wreck, which I gained after a hard fight and got the captain, mate and the remaining one of the crew. Of course I dare not allow any one to touch my oars but myself as I had only one pair and to break one we were doomed. However, I reached the Island and landed safely, thank God, where we were all housed at 3 o'clock in the morning of Christmas day. The wreck presented a gloomy looking sight in the morning. The top of the hull which was above water, was a mass of ice, where no one could go near her for a couple of days. I can vouch also, for keeping five wrecked crew6 for over a week at a time. All for which I have never received one cent. Although I billed parties, I was never recognized after.
My family consists of ten children, seven girls and three boys, of which two died young and one girl died also. After reaching womanhood four reside at Somerville, Mass., the eldest, Mary, marrying Mr. J. D. McLean, a contractor in the steamfitting business, the next, Alice, a music teacher, lives with her sister, also, Edith, lives with her sister, and their next youngest sister i9 attending high school at Somerville.
I want to say Mr. Editor, that my family were all born on this island, and the seven that are living are in good health to-day. The one living son and the baby girl are home yet with us. The fourth girl, M'aud, married at home to Mr. Alden Munro. They reside at White Head. I came here in the year of our Lord, 1879, which year the light was built, after being married two years and am here yet. My salary has been very small. After paying a man a year and feeding him at the high cost of living, three hundred dollars does not go far.
Now, Mr. Editor, I will conclude by saying, To give me justice don't you think that I am worthy of a superannuation fund when I leave this island which I suppose will be very soon
new ?
Well, I will leave that part of the pro-Mr. SINCLAIR.
gramme to be judged by my superior, as it would he a help to us in our older days.
Thanking you kindly Mr. Editor for your space allotted.
Yours truly.
W. L. Munro, Lightkeeper.
The Editor published the above, and added:
Of course Mr. Munro will be superannuated. The Dominion of Canada cannot afford to do its housekeeping by turning off old servants who havq served it 60 gallantly for so many years, without anything to live upon so far as the country is concerned.-Editor, Eastern Chronicle.
The minister promptly replied to that letter which I sent to him, enclosing that statement. He said:
I am in receipt of your favour of 12th instant inclosing a letter from Mr. Munro, of Whitehead, N.S., and wish to assure you that it will have my very careful consideration.
.	Yours very truly,
J. D. Hazen.
I had a reply also from the Deputy Minister to the same effect. You will notice that three months before he took action to dismiss Mr. Munro the minister was familiar with all the details of this case. He was aware of the fact that Mr. Munro was an old and faithful servant appointed by the Conservative government a long time ago. He was aware that he had spent 32 years on the Island, and that there was no legitimate complaint against him. He was aware of the fact that he had served for a mere pittance, receiving only about $300 a year. He was also informed that this man claimed a pension, and that under the law. as it existed at the time of his appointment, there was no doubt at all that he was entitled to a pension. The next letter I have here is an intimation from the department that this man had been dismissed. It is a letter from Mr. Staton:
I have to inform you that by Order in Council of the Ith April, 1912, your services as keeper of the light at Three Top Island, N.S., have been dispensed with owing to political partisanship, and that Mr. Howard IS. Munro has been appointed temporarily keeper of the light, to whom I have to request you to give up possession of the light and of all Government supplies pertaining thereto when required.


Mr CARVELL:: What was the charge of partisanship?


John Howard Sinclair: It appears that there
was an investigation, but it also appears that it was a very one sided and unfair investigation. The commissioner who conducted this sham investigation disregarded the law altogether, and declined to allow Mr. Munro to be represented by counsel.

The committee can understand how helpless a man of this character would be in a court of that kind without any one to assist him, or to place his case before the court.


William John Macdonald: Was Duchemin the examiner?


John Howard Sinclair: He was the examiner.


William John Macdonald: Did he decline to permit Mr. Munro to have counsel?


John Howard Sinclair: Yes. The declaration is as follows:
Dominion of Canada, county of Guysborough.
In the matter of the conduct of H. P. Ducliemin at an investigation in the case of W. L. 'Munro, held at White Head on the 13th of March, A.D. 1912.
I, W. L. Munro, of White Head, in the county of Guysborough, province of Nova Scotia, do solemnly declare:-
That I appeared before H. P. Duchemin, commissioner, on the 13th day of March, 1912, at the hour and place indicated in my notice and asked the said Duchemin if he would be kind enough to allow me to have a counsel to act for me and cross-examine witnesses at the said investigation. The said Duchemin refused to permit me to have a counsel and stated that he himself was all the counsel that I would require in that investigation.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
W. L. Munro.
Declared before me at White Head, in the the county of Guysborough, province of Nova Scotia, this 30th day of December, A.D. 1912.
W. S. Harris.
A justice of the peace in and for the county of Guysborough.
I have already drawn the attention of the House and of the minister to the statute that was passed last year, in which it is distinctly stated that the commissioner may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under the Act, and shall allow any person against whom any charge is made in the course of investigation, to be represented by counsel.


William John Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is aware that the premier, some weeks ago, stated, while discussing that law, that he was clearly of opinion that every man was entitled to counsel and that it would be an injustice if counsel were not permitted to him.


John Howard Sinclair: I am quite well aware
that the Premier took the ground that without a statute at all, every man accused of any irregularity of this kind was entitled to counsel, but there is not much use of statements of that kind being made by the Prime Minister from his place in this House if they are to be disregarded by his
officers throughout the country. This man, Duchemin, has been disregarding this provision for several months and has been doing so with the full knowledge of the Government. It has been drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister and various members of the Government, over and over again, and he is still travelling as a scourge around the coast carrying bn this same kind of work, holding these same sham investigations, dismissing honest men without proper evidence and there is nothing done by the Government, or any department of the Government, to prevent it. A few days ago a return was brought down showing that this man had received a very large sum of money from various departments of the Government. The figure, including his living and travelling expenses, amounts to something over $6,000 at the present time. I do not know whether that brings his salary up to date, but it strikes me that it is a very great farce that we should have a man like that employed at such work, travelling around, disregarding the law, committing acts of injustice day after day and being paid a very large sum of money for doing so.


Mr. MARCIL:: Would it not be better to have a permanent executioner employed?


John Howard Sinclair: It would be much better if the Government would take the repons-ibility of saying: We are going to adopt the spoils system, we are going to dismiss every man who is a Liberal, and are going to put one of - our own men in his place. If they took that ground we could understand it, but sending a man of this character along the coast pretending to hold investigations and refusing the right to be represented by counsel to persons against whom charges are made, is an intolerable thing in a free country. After I had received the facts in reference to the dismissal of Mr. Munroe, I brought the question of his right to superannuation allowance to the attention of the minister in a letter dated the 16th of May, 1912, and which is as follows:
May 16, 1912.
Hon. J. D. Hazen,
Minister of Marine and Eisheries,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Hazen,-
I have been informed by W. L. Munro, lightkeeper at Three Top Island, White Head, N.S., that he has been dismissed from the service.
This man's case has been before your department for some time and if you can find time to deal with it I should be obliged. He appears to me to be entitled to a pension. He has served, I understand, over thirty-two years. At the time of the change in the law he signed some document which was indefinite in language and which he says was misunderstood by him, but which might he construed

to mean that he would accept a Teturn of his money with interest in lieu of his pension, to which he was clearly entitled.
I feel sure he never intended this result, and if you have not the proof at hand I could furnish an affidavit hy himself. The matter has been drifting along without any decision being given, but now, on account of his dismissal, it should be adjusted. I will, therefore, thank you to deal with the matter at your earliest convenience.
You will also note that Mr. Munroe is entitled to a proportional amount of his salary for one month and fourteen days up to the date of his dismissal.	'
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) J. H. Sinclair.
The minister was kind enough to reply to my letter blit the reply was very unsatisfactory to me. He says:
23rd May, 1912.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 16th dust., with respect to the case of Mr. Munro, and his request for superannuation.
In connection with this matter I beg to advise you that inasmuch as Mr. Munro was dismissed from the service, he would not be entitled to superannuation in any case. He will, however, be entitled to a refund of the money which stands to his credit in the retirement fund.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) J. D. Hazen.
These are the facts of the case as briefly as I can give them to you. I thought it was important that I should put the documents on record for reference later on. The case is simply this, that Mr. Munro was dismissed on very slight evidence indeed as far as I can learn. The evident I have not yet received. It is also the custom of this man, Duchemin, not to return the evidence given by witnesses. He returns what he calls a report, and, as far ,as' I can learn, in many cases the report is r.ot borne out by the evidence. We have been unable to get the exact evidence given by witnesses, but from the statement made to me by Mr. Munro himself, there were various trifling charges brought against him. The principal one was the fact that he gave three cheers, or proposed three cheers, for Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the school fhouse at a political meeting. That, he gives me as precisely the reason why a man who had served the country for thirty-two years should be deprived of his position and also deprived of the pension to which he was entitled, You will note that the minister gives no other reason for depriving this man of his life pension except that he has been dismissed from the service. He was dismissed from the service for this partisan reason and dismissed by a commissioner who refused to give him a fair trial and refused to allow him to be represented by counsel. The minister had not , very much at stake in this matter, but Mr. Mr. SINCLAIR.
Munro had a great deal. He had spent his whole lifetime on that island and his future was involved in the decision that the minister gave. I submit that thirty-two years of faithful service ought to have had a better reward. The minister, before he arrived at his decision, ought to have made himself very certain that there was a clear case against Mr. Munro, and that Mr. Munro had obtained a fair trial. That is the least that the Minister ought to have done when we consider the fact that this man had so much at stake. During these 32 years he thought he was earning a retiring allowance, living on that bleak island, keeping the lamps trimmed and the lights burning over those rough waters and performing acts of bravery for which he was never rewarded. This is a case in which it will be very difficult for my hon. friend to satisfy the country, and especially the people who know Mr. Munro, that his action is justifiable.
It is an outiage to my mind that a man charged with a trifling political irregularity should be refused the right to be represented by counsel. A man charged with the vilest crime is represented by counsel, and in our courts, if he does not employ counsel himself, the judge sees that counsel is nominated and appointed so that the man is bound to have a fair trial in every British court. It is only in this court, and at this trial, held by my hon. friend and his colleagues week after week in Nova Scotia, that these common, ordinary rights of a British subject are denied. This is a very serious matter for Mr. Munro. I do not know what recompense the minister can give, but he certainly ought to give some. What he ought to do would be to restore Mr. Munro to his position, to take him back and give him his retiring allowance. That is the only thing I can suggest that would appear to me to do the case justice.


Mr HAZEN:: As I said a few moments ago before my hon. friend commenced to speak, I appreciate very much bis courtesy in telling me that he intended to bring this matter to the attention of the House, and his having notified me of the fact enables me to lay before the committee today all the facts as they appear in connection with this matter from the official files of the department, and, when I say as they appear from the official files of the department, I mean as they appear from the correspondence and the information which the department has, or which I, as minister, have, with regard to the matter. I shall first refer to what my hon. friend said about this gentleman being refused his superannuation.
Mr. Munro was appointed keeper of the light at Three Top Island, Whitehead, by Order in Council of the 31st October, 1879,

his appointment to date from the 1st September of that year.
From the records it does not appear that Mr. Munro's performance of the duties of his office was always satisfactory to the department. In the month of June, 1898, the then member for the constituency, the late Hon. D. C. Fraser, was advised by the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Sir Louis Davies, that it was found necessary to censure Mr. Munro for absenting himself without leave.
This dissatisfaction appears to have continued, for, in a letter addressed by the deputy minister to the agent at Halifax on the 27th September, 1901, the following extract appears:
With reference to the dissatisfaction of Supt. Hutchins with the manner in which this light is attended to, I have to direct you to communicate with the keeper, and intimate that you have been instructed by the department to censure him for inattention to his duties as keeper, and that in future he must see that his station is kept in good order, as in the event of any further complaint reaching the department it will be necessary to take steps to dispense with his services as lightkeeper.
About the same time, Mr. Munro's request that he be supplied with fuel for his light station was answered by the deputy minister of that day, who pointed out that, as all .the reports to the department with respect to the lightkeeper were unfavourable, his request would not be entertained.
On the 29th March, 1906, a letter was received at the department from Mr. J. H. Sinclair, M.P., intimating that Mr. Munro's health was failing and that he desired to be superannuated. Mr. Sinclair asked whether he was entitled to superannuation.
On the 4th April, 1906, Mr. Sinclair was advised that Mr. Munro had contributed to the superannuation tax from the date of his appointment up to the 1st December, 1898, when he elected to come under the Retirement Act from the 1st January, 1899. He was further advised that, if Mr. Munro retired, as he appeared to think of doing on the ground of ill-health, the amount to his credit in the Retirement Fund, with interest, would be paid to him, but that he would not be superannuated.
On the 4th April, 1906, Mr. Sinclair inquired as to the amount that Mr. Munro would be entitled to if he resigned. He was advised on the 24th April that the amount to which Mr. Munro would be entitled on retiring would be $268.84.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the hon. minister reading from?


John Douglas Hazen: I am reading from a letter addressed to you on the 24th April from the department.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the hon. minister read the whole letter?


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be glad to get it
and read it to my hon. friend.
On the 29th January, 1910, Mr. Sinclair again directed the attention of the department to the matter of superannuation for Mr. Munro. On the 7th February, 1910, Mr. Sinclair was advised in reply -that Mr. Munro was not entitled to superannuation. It was pointed out to Mr. Sinclair that Mr. Munro had elected to come under the new Act from the 1st January, 1899.


John Howard Sinclair: If the hon. minister will permit me, the whole of his argument is based on the alleged answer that Mr. Munro gave to the department at the time he was asked to elect. Mr. Munro has never admitted that he made that answer. His case was in dispute under the former minister and is still in dispute under the present minister. Unless the hon. minister can give us the paper under which it is alleged that Mr. Munro elected to come under the new Act, he has no basis on which to found his argument.


John Douglas Hazen: If my hon. friend will have patience I shall come to that later. I am reading this to the House to show that, while the hon. gentleman accused me of being hard-hearted and cruel, he went time and again to his own political friends when they were in office; and the hon. minister, whom he was supporting in this House, would not agree to superannuate Mr. Munro and gave it as the ruling of the department that he was not entitled to superannuation.
On the 26th January, 1911, Mr. Sinclair again brought


John Howard Sinclair: I object to having extracts from letters read; I should like to have the whole letter read.


John Douglas Hazen: On the 26th January, 1911, Mr. Sinclair again brought the question of Mr. Munro's superannuation to the notice of the then minister. Mr. Sinclair pointed out to the minister, Mr. Brodeur, that Mr. Munro alleged that he did not understand that the document which he had signed some years previously was one that precluded him from being eligible for superannuation.
The copy of the circular forwarded to Mr. Munro as'lightkeeper is as follows:
Circular.
Department of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa, July 12, 1898.
Sir,-I enclose herewith copy of the Act passed at last session of Parliament, providing for the abolition of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and as you will observe by reference to the second section that the Act applies to every person now in the Civil Service, who before the 1st of January next, with the consent of the Governor in Council, elects to accept its provisions in lieu of those of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, I have to request you to inform me as soon as possible



as to whether you wish to come under this Act and to avail yourself of its provisions.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) F. Gourdeau, _ Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Mr. Munro's reply is dated 6th September, 1898, and is to the following effect:
The circular sent me concerning the Retirement Fund, I have received and considered it and have to inform you that I will give my vote for it.
Mr. Sinclair was advised, in reply to his letter of the 26th January, 1911, that the situation had not changed since the department's decision was communicated to him on the 7th February of the previous year.
I am just reading the information that was before the department when this decision was given on three or four separate occasions when the attention of the department was called to it by my hon. friend long before the prssent Government came into office, and when the department was under the administration of _ gentlemen who belong to a different political party. My hon. friend, when insinuating that I was hard-hearted, ought, in fairness, to have stated these facts to the House. I do not think it was quite candid and disingenuous of him not to do so. I came into the department and find the case decided.


John Howard Sinclair: It was not settled until the question was raised. This correspondence was preliminary. I admit the decision of the department was not to allow superannuation, but the question could not arise for settlement until the man retired from his position.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think that argument is creditable to the intelligence of my hon. friend. He wrote the department and asked whether, in the event of this man retiring, he could be superannuated; and the reply of the department, which must be regarded as a decision, was that he could not be superannuated, as he had elected to come under the Retirement Fund Act. When I carne into office on the 3rd of February, 1912, my hon. friend wrote me directing my attention to the manner in which Mr. Munro had signed away his right, and alleging that he had done so in ignorance of what it really meant. On the 13th of February, 1912, he addressed a letter to me enclosing a copy of the communication addressed by Mr. Munro to the press. The facts are as I have stated them. M-y hon. friend finds fault because I have not reversed a decision that was given by my predecessor, who was appealed to on the subject on three or four occasions, who, no doubt, gave it ipost careful consideration, and stated most emphatically that this lighthouse keeper was not entitled to the
benefit of the Superannuation Act, as he had elected to come under the Retirement Act. He said: ' I have received and considered it-' evidently according to my hon. friend he is a most intelligent man; he knows what he is doing-' I have to inform you that I will give my vote for it, -that is, for the retirement. However, it is unnecessary to argue that here. It was decided by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries long befoTe I came into office, and now the hon. gentleman wants me to sit as a court of review and to reverse the decision given by the minister whom he supported.


John Howard Sinclair: It could not be decided until it came up for decision.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman can
say that if he chooses, but I submit that there was a decision given. As to the dismissal, I submit the facts to the judgment of the committee. I followed the rule laid down in this House several years ago with regard to officials not taking part in political matters. On the 20th of January, 1912 Mr. G. A. R. Rowlings, the candidate of the Conservative party in the last election against my hon. friend, forwarded to the department a statement addressed to him by Mr. J. S. Wells of Whitehead, a man of ability and standing, a former member. I believe of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia, charging Mr. Munro with political partisanship. The_ charge was referred to Mr. Duchemin for investigation. 1 will read Mr. Duchemin's report:
Sydney, N.S., March 21, 1912.
Re Win N. Munro, lighthouse keeper, Whitehead, Guysborough county.
I conducted an inquiry into the case ot William L. Munro, lighthouse keeper, at Whitehead, N.S. The hearing took place at Whitehead, and the following named witnesses gave evidences under oath:	O. iifCiwaiu
Pietzch, merchant, of Yankee Cove; Arthur L. Munro, Lower Whitehaven, fisherman; Matthew Munro, fisherman; Alfred T. Munro, fisherman; and Usaac Grover.	...
Mr. Pietzch' testified that Mr. William Munro had requested him to act as agentti for Mr J H. Sinclair, the Liberal candidate, in the booth at Whitehead on election day, September 21 last. Mr. Pietzch replied that he would not care to undertake the work of agent, and was then told by Mr. Munro, that if he took the job he would get paid for it. Mr, Munro also instructed Mr. Pietzch as to the kind of work he would be expected to do in the booth, pointing out that it was comparatively easy, consisting mainly of checking off the names of the electors as they came into the booth to vote.
Arthur M. Munro testified that Mr. William L. Munro was not in the lighthouse on elec-day or on the evening of election day.
Matthew Munro gave evidence to the effect that he attended a meeting at Lower Whitehead, held in the interests of the Liberal party and addressed by Mr. J. H. Sinclair, the Liberal candidate for Guysborough. Sir.
Sir. HAZEN.

William L. Munro was present at this meeting, and acted as spokesman in having the meeting constituted. He moved that one Lewi Munro should act as chairman for the evening. The motion was put to the meeting' and carried, and Mr. Levi Munro presided over the meeting during Mr. Sinclair's address. On the conclusion of the speech-making, Mr. William L. Munro proposed that the audience give three cheers for Mr. Sinclair, the Liberal candidate.
My hon. friend was too modest to mention the fact:
The cheers were accordingly given.
I have no doubt they were very hearty cheers indeed, and I have no doubt he deserved them.
Mr. Munro then proposed that cheers be similarly given for Sir Wilfrid Laurier. This was a Liberal meeting, and Mr. William L. Munro was apparently the most active one of the local residents in taking part in it.
Alfred T. Munro, gave testimony to the same effect. He was present at the meeting referred to. It was held in the school house at Lower Whitehead. He testified that Mr. William L. Munro moved the appointment, and on the conclusion of Mr. Sinclair's speech proposed cheers for the candidate and Sir Wilfrid Laurier.
I think Grover is employed by William L. Munro, as assistant lighthouse keeper. Grover is a man who claims to be about sixty years of age, but apears to be very much older. He has been assistant for the last six years, and testified that during these three months William L. Munro, the keeper, had not been in the lighthouse at any time at night.
This indicates why dissatisfaction arose with the way he was discharging the duties of his light.


George William Kyte: Was Wm. L. Munro charged with inattention to duty?


John Douglas Hazen: He was charged with offensive partisanship, and it was proved up to the hilt. But if we had been aware that he had been neglecting his duties as light-keeper, it would have been the duty of the department to have dismissed him for that reason, entirely apart from the matter of political partisanship. The report goes on to say:
The witness said that Wm. L. Munro had been there in the day time-perhaps about twice a month during that time. On these visits he stayed a very short time-sometimes half a day altogether, according to the weather, as witness put it. Witness concluded:	'At present i do all the work in
connection with the lighthouse.' It is evident from the statement made by this, witness that this is a case where the lighthouse keeper is practically farming out his work. Mr. Wm. L. Munro declined to go on the stand, or to make any statement in his own defence.
338J.
My hon. friend says Munro was refused counsel. Without intending to show the slightest disrespect for my hon. friend or questioning his sincerity in making that assertion, permit me to say that I do not believe it.


John Howard Sinclair: I read an affidavit to
that effect.


John Douglas Hazen: No such affidavit or communication was received by the department after this investigation took place. If Munro had been refused counsel, the first thing he would have done would be to make a complaint in that regard. I say I do not believe it for ine further reason that Mr. Duehemin at my direction was instructed by the deputy minister to allow witnesses to be represented by counsel at any time the privilege was requested. We gave that instruction because it was reported to us that there were occasions upon which Mr. Dnchemin had refused to allow counsel to appear on behalf of the accused. My opinion is that it was before the investigation o! the Munro matter that these instructions were given to Mr. Duehemin. Here we have the statement that Munro was present, that he had an opportunity of going cn the stand and contradicting the statements made, but he absolutely declined to do so. I do not feel called upon to defend Mr. Duehemin's conduct, which has been condemned by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House from the province of Nova Scotia. It has been just as warmly commended by hon.' gentleman from Nova Scotia on this side of the House, who speak in the highest terms-


George William Kyte: Who do not know what they are talking about.


John Douglas Hazen: That, of course, is a very cheap remark, and one which is easy to make. Hon. gentlemen on this side of the House,
1 say, speak in the highest terms of Mr. Duchemin's conduct as a professional man.
1 might refer to the fact that Mr. George W. Murray, the chairman of Maintenance and Ways of the Brotherhood of Railway Locomotive Engineers at Truro, has made the statement that he had been present at some investigations conducted by Mr. Duehemin, and that he was entirely satisfied with the fair-minded way in which Mr. Duehemin conducted them. I may say further that Rev. D. L. Macdonald, the parish priest at Ansaig, was present at an investigation held there and expressed himself as being thoroughly satisfied with the fairness and impartiality with which Mr. Duehemin conducted the investigation. In view of the fact that the government which the hon. gentleman supported, although he broached the matter on four different occasions, held to the view that Mr. Munro was not entitled to superannuation and that they regarded him as an unsatisfactory official. I think I am not open to censure because I did not superannuate him.

In view of the evidence submitted to me by Mr. Duchemin, and in view of the fact that Mr. Munro, after the evidence had been taken, declined to go on the stand and say one word in his own defence or in contradiction of the testimony given by the witnesses, I think I cannot be held as having acted improperly because I dismissed Mr. Munro from the position he held.
At one o'clock, House resumed, and then took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock and again went into Committee of Supply. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)


John Howard Sinclair: 
John Douglas Hazen: A large number accepted the other.


John Howard Sinclair: It is a most extraordinary choice for a man to make. If you look at the language used in the letter from which the minister read an extract, he is asked to choose between these two things and he says: I vote for this. It is impossible to say which of the things he voted lor and the man himself says he intended to vote for the superannuation. That is what he says and I believe it; I have no doubt that is what he intended. Is it fair with a doubtful answer like that, in a doubtful document, to decide a question that involves so much for this man? Of course it does not mean very much to the minister. It is easy for the minister to dash off a decision in his cushioned chair, in his- luxurious office, surrounded by electric lights and in the presence of his big salaried officials saying: I beg to advise in reply to the appeal of this man to have his case considered, that, inasmuch as Munro was dismissed from the service, he would not be entitled to superannuation in any case. He d'd not even look into his case or consider it at ah. That is the kind of decision the minister gives, although he , occupies a responsible position and should act as judge between man and man. I say it is not creditable to the department or to the head of the department that he should not have given his serious consideration to a matter of this kind and have had a careful investigation before depriving the man of rights which he had earned during the last thirty years.


Mr. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.):: Does the law provide that lighthouse keepers shall receive superannuation in any case?


John Howard Sinclair: The original law which was in force when this man was appointed provided that if he serves a certain num her of years and paid in a certain amount each year he would be entitled to a retiring allowance for life, but the law was changed fifteen years ago and at that time a letter was written to Munro in which he was asked to make choice as to whether he would take back the cash he had paid in or his pension for life. He said: I vote for this. I say that his answer was so uncertain and so doubtful that the minister should not have taken that as a decision, but should have inquired into it and found out what the man really meant by the language and given a judicial decision as to whether he was entitled to a pension or not.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Did he get the money?


John Howard Sinclair: He took the money because he could not help himself, he had no choice. The minister dismissed him and said: Inasmuch as Munro was dismissed he had no right to superannuation and he took back his money. What else could he do? The minister made a statement that he did not admit that his commissioner, Duchemin, had refused counsel. I read the affidavit of Munro, a respectable man who will be believed in Whitehead, where he is known, much more readily than Mr. Duchemin will, and Mr. Munro swore that he asked the commissioner if he would be entitled to have a solicitor represent him at the trial and the commissioner refused. If the minister has any doubt about that I can prove it from the mouth of Mr. Duchemin. Perhaps that will satisfy him if he will not believe the affidavit of Munro. This question has been up before. Mr. Duchemin made a report to the Post Office Department in regard to the charge made against him that he was not allowing counsel to act for those parties in the investigation. This is an extract from a report of Mr. Duchemin, the commissioner, addressed to the Postmaster General. It is dated April 16, 1912, and relates to the dismissal of one Parker Sangster. This is what he says:
In view of'his own sworn statement at the hearing, it is difficult to understand how he (Sangster) could have bettered his position, if I had changed my position and admitted counsel at this inquiry, while excluding it from every other one.
As a matter of fact, however, Mr. SangsteT is incorrect in saying that Mr. Floyd asked that counsel be allowed to represent him in this case. Mr. Floyd asked that counsel be admitted to represent J. W. Davis, whose inquiry was being conducted under the Marine Department. I declined to allow counsel to appear on either side, therein following the procedure which I had invariably adopted since the beginning of my work.
This man had been working from January to April, holding inquiries all ovct the country, and refusing the parties the right to be represented by counsel. He says so [DOT]himself, and yet the minister comes to this committee and says he does not believe Mr. Munro when he says that Mr. Duchemin denied to him the right to be represented by counsel. Mr. Duchemin goes on to say:
If you think it well to have counsel admit-' red for complainant and accused, at these hearings, and instruct me accordingly, I will be careful to observe your instructions in all cases arising in the future. Thus far but one of the departments has given me such instructions, that of the Marine and Fisheries.


John Douglas Hazen: Hear, hear.


John Howard Sinclair: But this case is in the Marine and Fisheries Department. He goes on:
COMMON w
One department has definitely instructed me not to admit counsel,-that while I have not been specially advised on this point by any of the other ministers, and have excluded counsel to economize time.
I do not know what department that is to which he refers; perhaps my hon. friend will tell me.


John Douglas Hazen: I can only speak for my
own department.


John Howard Sinclair: 
Mr. H. BOULAY (Rimouski):: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, since the beginning of the session our opponents have not ceased complaining about dismissals of public employees, and I see that the member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) is one of the most fervid in raising those questions.
Really, our opponents should keep silent, because whenever such complaints are made, they are dealt with by the newspapers, and the question being brought into light again, our own friends find that, instead of being too severe, we have not been severe enough.
I am particularly surprised to see the hon. member cast his blame upon the bon. Minister of Marine, a man endowed with the truest spirit of justice, a man who has treated our opponents with the most complete impartiality, if not with all the lenience possible.
In my county a great number of our opponents have been active partisans. I could almost say that all the employees of the Department of Marine, in the county of Rimouski, have been avowed opponents of the Conservative party; vet. the hon. minister has dismissed but two, and they had fully deserved it. The others are yet holding the positions which they held under the Liberal regime, and I do not know that we are trying to disturb them. If I had an advice to give my opponents I would say to them: Do not raise that question too often, because it is of such a nature as to hurt you whenever you do raise it.
A discussion went on during two hours and a half, before the committee, to-day, about a charge which the hon. minister has proved to be perfectly ungrounded. He proved that an inquiry had been held, he even established-and the member for Guysborough admits it-that, during the meeting which he held, the famous Munro had acted as an active partisan: that he had gone so far as to invite the audience to cry out cheers in favour of the Liberal party. It follows that a man who takes part in a
political meeting and shows his preference in that way, should be considered as an active partisan; if not, I fail to understand what is an active partisan.
In the second place, the hon. member has [DOT]blamed the Minister of Marine for not settling this question by superannuating [DOT]tnat man Munro, and he admits, himself, that he had tried to have the matter settled by his own party, which refused to do so because it was impossible for them ,so to do. How can he reasonably hope that his opponents will do any more? I know that the Conservative party is actuated by good intentions, and that the hon. member may perhaps expect more justice from this party than from his own friends: but it is rather awkward that what he was not able to get from the Liberal party, he should ask from his opponents, when it is contrary to the present law to grant it, and especially when the man he would like to protect makes an admission to the effect that he has accepted the conditions which were made to him in 1898.
The hon. member for Guysborough has complained of the partiality of the commissioner in charge of those inquiries, and the hon. Minister of Marine has shown clearly, by written documents, that Mr. Duchemin, the commissioner, is impartial and just, and that he has given full satisfaction. The hon. member has, then, no reason to accuse that commissioner and say that he acted unjustly, when it is so easy to prove the contrary. In fact, if I had to reproach the hon. Minister of Marine with anything, I would say that he is too accommodating towards his opponents; this entails very much trouble for us in our counties, because our own friends blame us ourselves for such extreme goodness towards opponents who have never treated us with regard.
Our opponents should not raise that question of dismissals, for the more they shall raise it. the more they shall hurt themselves and their own friends. Let me quote, at this point, the case of a man in my county, who has been a Government employee for thirty-six years and who has admitted, at the minister's own office, that he had always fought against the Conservative party. Notwithstanding that fact, just one-half of his position was taken away from him, the Government being good enough to leave him the other half. Is not this instance sufficient to show with what generosity, with what spirit of justice the Government does treat the Liberal employees who are guilty, while they prove to be relentless opponents? This same man whom I have alluded to had organized almost a riot during the election of 1904, in order to beat to death the then Conservative candidate, who was Mr. Price. That fact is known to everybody, and vet.

this relentless opponent has been left at the Government's service.
The Government, far from being too rigid towards our opponents, should rather be accused of treating them with too much goodness.
There are, in my county, many'employees belonging to the Marine Department, who [DOT]have been left undisturbed. Which shows clearly how obliging the hon. Minister has been.
I hope that our opponents will not th'ink of dealing any further with that question which caused us a useless loss of time. The session has been so protracted, we have been here for such a long time that we should soon put an end to our work. Really it is ridiculous to talk uselessly as did the hon. member for Guyshorough, who has kept sifting that question before us here during two hours and a half.
Department of Militia and Defence- contingencies, $36,000.


John Douglas Hazen: That is exactly the same as it was last year, and it is for printing, sundries, clerical and other assistance.


Mr. LAW:: Has the minister considered
the question that I asked last year in reference to the payment of certain grocers and butchers in Yarmouth, who supplied Dominion Government boats and charged the accounts to the stewards of these boats who decamped and never paid the bills?


John Douglas Hazen: If the hon. gentleman had been in the House at the time the supplementary estimates for last year were under consideration he would have known that the amount was put in the estimates for the purpose of paying these bills, or rather, acting on the advice of the permanent officers of the department, paying seventy-five per cent of the amounts that were contracted for by the stewards of these boats. There was no legal obligation on the Government, but it was thought that these people had sold to the stewards, believing that the Government was responsible. The condition attached is that these persons who supplied the goods will have to make a declaration to the effect that they believed at the time that the Government was liable for the payment of the accounts. These are all being dealt with by the purchasing agent of the department, and I fancy that the greater number of the cases in Yarmouth will have been dealt with.


Bowman Brown Law: No, they have not. *


John Douglas Hazen: Well, they are being dealt with by the purchasing agent, and if my hon. friend will come over to the department, I will get all the information for him with reference to the matter. The Mr. BOTJLAY.
matter was dealt with in the supplementary estimates for last year.


Bowman Brown Law: I did not notice it, and the
people of Yarmouth are not aware of it either, because I had correspondence a little while ago from them, and I was waiting for an opportunity to bring the matter up.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister thought
it proper to launch off upon a side track, and to talk about this official of his. I would like to get a little further information. I would like to ask the minister if these investigating officers are appointed separately for each department, or are they appointed under one Order in Council?


John Douglas Hazen: Each department appoints its own. The man investigating matters in connection with the Marine and Fisheries Department is appointed by the department and a special commission is issued to him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have the Order in Council here:
Certified copy of a Report of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Royal Highness the Governor General on the 3rd June, 1912.
The Committee of the Privy Council have under consideration the question as to the rate of remuneration which would he allowed commissioners appointed or to he appointed to hold inquiries or investigations under the Inquiries Act, chapter KM of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1908.
The committee advise that, except in cases otherwise provided for by Order in Council, the fees allowable to a commissioner appointed under the authority of the above mentioned Act shall not in any case exceed $15 for each full day's attendance or occupation in connection with the work of the commission, exclusive of the reasonable moving and living expenses of the commissioner to be allowed where he has to travel for the purpose of executing the commission; and that the said per diem allowance shall be deemed to cover letters and interviews on other days as well as on the day for which the commissioner is entitled to such per diem allowance; and that no further charge be allowed for such letters and interviews; and that a professional man shall not be entiteld to any fees or allowances as commissioned to which other commissioners are not entitled as aforesaid.
The committee advise that a copy of the minute be sent to every commissioner hereafter to be appointed, with his commission, or the notification of his appointment and that such commissioner be at the same time informed that the provisions of this Order in Council will be strictly followed in ascertaining the amount to which he may be entitled for his services as commissioner.
The committee further advise that thd Order in Council, (P.C. 2648) of the 21st September, 1897, fixing the rate of remuneration

of commissioners appointed to hold inquiries into public matters or departmental business, be cancelled.
All which is respectfully submitted for approval.
(Sgd.) F. K. Bennetts, Assistant clerk of the Privy Council.
I would like to ask the minister if that law, as made by Order in Council,: applies to all the commissioners?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: ' Then I would gather from the meaning of this Order in Council that if the commissioner goes to a certain place and holds an inquiry into two, three or four cases on the one day, he is only entitled to the sum of $15?


John Douglas Hazen: That is entirely a matter
for the Auditor General. When we receive an account we certify that the order was issued for the holding of the inquiry, that the inquiry was held, and it then goes to the department of the Auditor General, who sees that the terms of that resolution are carried out.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the minister
has a duty to discharge to the committee and to all of us as to how he understands this Order in Council.


John Douglas Hazen: That is the way it i,s done. It is more a matter for the Finance Department. I think that the Minister of Finance speaks for the Auditor General in this House. I certainly have no authority to speak for him. I think that the language of the order is pretty plain. We are simply responsible for certifying that the order issued for holding the inquiry, that the inquiry was held and then it is for the Auditor General's Department to see whether the number of days charged for is correct or not. The account is not paid until he certifies to it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The question of the
continuing in office or not of the commissioner is a matter not for the Auditor General but for the minister. The question as to how the commissioner conducts himself and how he comports in his conduct with the order appointing him is a matter for the minister. If the commissioner does not comply with the law I should think that it would, be a matter for the head of the department to enquire into and not the Auditor General.


John Douglas Hazen: The Auditor General could refuse to pay him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He could refuse to
pay him? The minister says that it is the same kind of law for all the departments, that it covers them all.


John Douglas Hazen: I will read the Order in
Council under which my authority comes:
The' Committee of the Privy Council advises that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries be authorized to appoint, in accordance with the provisions of part 2 of the Inquiries Act, a commissioner, or commissioners for the province of New Brunswick-
I am just taking this one, but it is the same for Nova Scotia.
-to enquire into and report upon any charges of political partisanship which may be preferred against any officer, clerk or employee in the outside service of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in that province.
I have nothing to do with the payment. That is a matter that rests entirely with the Department of Finance, subject to the audit of the Auditor General.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I want to know from
the hon. minister if this order which I have just read is the law or regulation governing the Auditor General in making this payment?


John Douglas Hazen: I would say it undoubtedly is.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no authority
which governs him in ascertaining how much is due to any commissioner, except this order?


John Douglas Hazen: Not so far as I know.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not anxious to
go after any personage in particular, but we are told by the hon. minister to-day that he does not believe our statements-


John Douglas Hazen: No, I did not say that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -as against this commissioner. I want to tell the minister that on the 6th day of September, 1912, this commissioner, Mr. Duchemin held six investigations between three o'clock in the afternoon and six o'clock in the evening in a house at New Uampbellton or Big Bras D'Or in my county. He examined six individuals; and for his work he sent in six separate and distinct bills, amounting to something over a hundred dollars for about three hours' work. These bills are on file. They are probably paid, and paid under the terms of this authorization. Unless there is some clear, distinct and satisfactory explanation from this commissioner, I think that moneys are paid out of the funds of this county which are not earned. I submit that any work that a commissioner can do in half an afternoon is paid for by the $15 and other incidentals. I mention this' simply in order to show that the minister should not be so particularly strong in flaunting the word of this gentleman in our face, when I am prepared to prove to the hilt that this is the way in which things are done, so far as the money end of it is concerned. When it comes to a matter of

getting the hard cash of the Government without earning it and in direct violation of the order appointing a commission in the service of the Government, I should hesitate a little, if I were in the position of the hon. minister, to tell hon. gentlemen that I did not believe sworn affidavits which differed from his statements of fact. One irregularity may cause another. If I find a man getting money which he has no business 'to get, and making false returns for the purpose of getting it, I would have some hesitancy in accepting his statement as fact.


John Douglas Hazen: Does the hon. gentleman say that these investigations were all held on the same day?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The same day between three o'clock in the afternoon and six o'clock in the evening.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman knows that of his own knowledge?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The returns show it.


John Douglas Hazen: They are all dated on the same day. Does it follow that they were all held on the same day?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have a letter here
from one of those whose cases were investigated.


John Douglas Hazen: The matter is one that
the Auditor General is responsible for. Is that in the Department of Marine and Fisheries?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, it is in the Department of Customs.
I see my hon. friend from Rimouski (Mr. Boulay) smiling broadly and laughing over the fact that this irregularity was in the Customs Department, and therefore it does not matter at all. There is only one Auditor General in this country, who pays the money. The money comes out of the same fund, the money of the people. My hon. friend from Rimouski need not laugh if he finds irregularity in the Customs Department. I have observed from the returns that his dealings are with the Department of Railways and Canals, for, ties and things of that sort.	[DOT]


Mr. CARROLL:: When a charge of this
nature is made to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, do I understand him to say that the only recourse is that the Auditor General shall not pay the bill? Does he not think it up to him to have had this matter taken up by counsel and had the man dismissed from his position?


John Douglas Hazen: If any charge had been
made to me, I would certainly have had it investigated. No such charge has been made to me, and no such charge would Mr. McKENZIE
be made to me, because it was not in my department that this occurred. It is the duty of the Auditor General, when these accounts come in, to order payment if they are correct. If they are not correct, he should not order payment. If he refused to order payment on the gTound that there was dishonesty, the matter would be brought to the notice of the Government and the facts ascertained. So far as I am concerned, the incident referred to by the hon member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has no relation to my department at all.


John Howard Sinclair: I think we can show
similar instances in the department of my hon. friend. He cannot escape responsibility by any reference to the Auditor General. My hon. friend sends these bills to the Auditor General. It is his duty to send nothing to the Auditor General unless it is right and should be paid. It is for my hon. friend to investigate these matters and to see whether his commissioner is charging too much or not. If he will investigate matters, he will find conditions of this nature. It is impossible for anyone to understand accounts sent in by Mr. Duchemin. It is impossible to say how many days he took in these different places. He does not give the time that he spent in any one particular place, but he rambles from one place to another and combines three or four of these places together, which may be many miles apart. Then he sends in a bill for so marfy days. It is the duty of the hon. minister to get clear and distinct accounts from this commissioner as to how many hours he spent in each particular place and on what particular days he conducted any investigation.
I have a letter on my desk from the department of my hon friend which requires some explanation. I asked the following questions a few days ago, and the following answers were given:
Q. 1. What is the date of the appointment of H P. Duchemin, investigating commissioner for eastern Nova Scotia?-A. So far as the Department of Marine and Fisheries is concerned, 5th January, 1912.
Q. 2. How many days has he been employed by the Government since his appointment?- A. 73} days.
Q. 3. What is gross amount paid to Mr. Duchemin as an allowance for his services, excluding travelling expenses or other outlays?-A. $1,121.25.
Q. 4. How much has been paid to Mr. Duchemin to date for travelling expenses, living expenses, witness fees, and other sundry expenses, respectively?-A. Travelling expenses, $76.28; living expenses, $193.75; witness fees, $26.76; sundry, $273.12.
What is this ' sundries ' of $273.12 made
up of?


John Douglas Hazen: It is a pretty long stateoent including a great irany small items of telegrams, postage, fees for serving witnesses, and one item of $2 for the use of a hall in which to hold an investigation.


John Howard Sinclair: The hon. gentleman
might leave that statement with the clerk.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be glad to do so.
Now, with regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton North (Mr. McKenzie) about the way these accounts are dealt with in the department, I find on the file a memorandum of May 8, 1912, by the deputy minister to the chief accountant, as follows:
I am unable to find on the files any reference to the arrangement concluded between the Auditor General and yourself, respecting the payment of accounts rendered by the various commissioners inquiring into charges of political partisanship against employees of this department.
A. Johnston.
And there is the reply of the accountant to the deputy minister:
Referring to arrangements verbally made, with the Auditor General in regard to accounts rendered by the commissioners appointed to inquire into and report on any charges of political partisanship preferred against civil servants, I beg to report as follows :-
When the Order in Council of the 20th December last approving of appointments of commissioners was received in the department, it was noticed that there was the vote out of which the expenses incurred on account of such investigations were to be paid.
I, therefore, went to see the Deputy Minister of the Finance Department to see wThat arrangements could be made, as commissioner L. C. Beaubien was then pressing for payment of his accounts for investigations. I was informed that these expenses were to be paid out of contingencies (Finance Department), and that the Auditor General would examine the accounts and authorize the issue of the cheques in payment thereof.
Later I interviewed the Auditor General, and it was agreed that, when accounts were rendered by commissioners in connection with investigations, this department would certify that said investigations had been authorized and reported on. The accounts were then to be forwarded to the Auditor General to he examined and checked in accordance with the provisions of the Order in Council of the 3rd January last.
None of these accounts came under my notice; they were dealt with in the department by the accountant and the deputy minister in the usual way.


John Howard Sinclair: How many commissioners has the minister employed in the whole of Canada to investigate?


John Douglas Hazen: In Nova Scotia, there were Mr. Duehemin, Mr. Macdonald and Mr. Lane. I think that Mr. Macdonald has not
done any work for some time. In New Brunswick there were Mr. Knowles and Mr. Legere. In Quebec there were Mr. Bergeron, Mr. Beaubien and Mr. Shurtliff and Mr. Flynn. In Prince Edward Island there was Mr. Heath Strong.
Ocean and river service-maintenance and repairs to Government steamers and icebreakers, $1,000,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the hon. minister please explain this item?


John Douglas Hazen: This is the usual vote
which has been passed for years-and it is the same amount as last year-for the maintenance and repair of government steamers and ice-breakers. I have here the details of expenditure of all the vessels we have in commission, including salaries, fuel, hoard, repairs, etc. The list would be lengthy to read, but if there is any special information desired I shall be glad to give it.


John Howard Sinclair: Are there any new
ships?


John Douglas Hazen: There is the Estevan,
which was under construction at Col-lingwood when I oame into office. She was finished this spring and has gone around to British	Columbia-has arrived there. She will be employed in the buoy service in British Columbia. The Dollard was under construction also at Collingwood, and it is expected that she will he completed and put in commission very soon. The Dollard will take the place of the Shamrock, which was used up. It will be remembered that there was an explosion on board the Shamrock some years ago. We have twenty-seven vessels, of which twelve are in commission during the whole year, and fifteen are in commission during a part of the year. There are all sorts of boats including the Earl Grey and the Minto which run between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, the Lans-downe, the Aberdeen, La Canadienne and the others.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Dollard was the one we saw at Kingston?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, with the Bellechase; they were both there at that time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Princess is still on the Baie des Chaleurs route?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Always under the command of Commander Wakeham?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.
.Mr. LEMIEUX: I am bound to say that Commander Wakeham has always given satisfaction to the people in that district.


John Douglas Hazen: I wish I had more officers like him.


William F. Carroll: Were there any icebreakers in commission in the province of Nova Scotia last year? I have special reference to the service in Sydney harbour.


John Douglas Hazen: We had no ice-breaker
available among our boats to do work in Sydney harbour last year. At the time the ice-breaker was required at that port, the Stanley, which has been doing the work in that district, had met with an accident and was laid up for repairs. There was a requisition made for the services of an icebreaker, and it was a matter of regret to us that we could not comply with it.


Bowman Brown Law: Has the department any boats under construction at the present time?


John Douglas Hazen: In the Marine and Fisheries Department the Dollard is the only boat under construction at the present time. There are two dredges for the St. Lawrence ship channel under construction at Collingwood, and some vessels are under construction for the fishery protection service in British Columbia; these come under the Department of Naval Service. Contracts have also been awarded for the construction of some small gasoline boats for the fishery patrol service on the British Columbia coast.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are these boats equipped with Marconi wireless telegraph system?


John Douglas Hazen: Some of them are. All those that do ocean work are equipped with wireless-boats like the Aberdeen, Stanley, Montcalm and Minto.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think the captains of the Government-boats should have entire control of the selection of officers and men. When I represented the county of Gaspb, I gave Commander Wakeham a free hand in respect of the selection of his men, and I think that accounts for the excellent service we have had. I have often compared the crews on La Canadienne and the Princess, which were under his command, with those of some other boats in the river St. Lawrence upon which the selection of the men was made rather by members of the House than by the captains of the ships. I think, therefore, that the minister should give his captains a free hand in the selection of the ships' crew, for I am sure he would get a better service in that way.


John Douglas Hazen: As far as Commander
Wakeham's boat is concerned, the system to which my hon. friend has referred has been continued. His is the only boat in the service upon which that system has prevailed absolutely. I agree with what my hon. friend says in regard to this matter, but there are certain difficulties in the way of carrying out his suggestion. As far as the officers on all these boats are Mr. HAZEN.
concerned, our endeavour is, when a vacancy occurs, to promote a man already in the service, provided he is competent.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the hon. minister given an increase to the captains this year?
I remember that during the few days I was Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I received a petition signed by nearly all the captains and officers of the various government, steamers, asking for an increase. I had it in mind to give them a legitimate increase, but unfortunately the people of this country deprived me of the opportunity of carrying out my good intentions in that respect. I hope my hon. friend has complied with this iequest which was made by the officers of the staff. The salaries have not been revised for many years, and the officers, of course, like others, feel the burden of the high cost of living.


John Douglas Hazen: There have been certain,
increases made for the purpose of equalizing the salaries, but that does not altogether fill the bill. The officers of the department are at the present time preparing a schedule, so that when a man is appointed to a position in the service he will know what his increase and maximum will be. This schedule, which will certainly give an increase to these officers, will, I think, be ready for my approval in a very short time.


Bowman Brown Law: Does the department intend
to build any new boats within the coming year besides those mentioned by the hon-minister? If so, I would like to say that we have in Yarmouth a ship-building plant that could construct the small steamers necessary for the service of the department.	.


John Douglas Hazen: In the future, so far as my department is concerned-and I hope the same system will be adopted by the Government generally-I think it would te fair, in asking for tenders, to stipulate that the boats shall be constructed in Canada. I may say frankly that one difficulty experienced in the contracts we have made in the past for the building of boats in Canadian shipyards, is that they are never delivered at the time they are undertaken to be completed, and other difficulties are experienced which are not met with when the contracts are taken by firms of established repute on the other side of the water. The tenders offered by firms on the other side are very much lower than those of the Canadian shipbuilder, and it is impossible for the Canadian shipbuilder to compete, but in calling for tenders for these ships I think it would be fair, as a matter of policy, to ask that they be built in Canada. The result of that would be, I think, that the shipbuilders on the other side would establish plants in Canada, and do the

work here, employing the labour of our own people. I may'say in passing that if there is at Yarmouth a ship-building establishment which can compete successfully for the building of vessels, I would be glad indeed to see them get the contract. We have in the estimates a provision for a first-class ice-breaker for the river St. Law-icnce. The ice-breaking on the river St Lawrence is done at the present time by the Montcalm and the Lady Grey. These are boats that do ice breaking in certain portions of the year and at other times are used for general work in the rivers in connection with the Marine and Fisheries Department. That is not found altogether satisfactory. The work of breaking ice is of a very heavy character, and is very hard on the boats. They have to be equipped with a great deal of power, and this makes them very expensive to use in the summer for the general purposes of the department on the river. We are asking in this vote for a sum that will enable us to purchase a modern, up-to-date ice breaker for the St. Lawrence river. I consider the ice-breaking on the river of very great importance. If it is not broken at the proper time there are great floods, with consequent inconvenience and damage, and the result of the breaking of the ice has been to open navigation to Montreal at a very considerably earlier date. That is the one boat which I contemplate asking for this year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will this boat be built in Canada?


John Douglas Hazen: I hope to be able to get it built in Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad that the minister contemplates adding to the flotilla of ice breakers. As my hon. friend knows, there was a great deal of prejudice in and around Quebec city against this ice breaking at Cap a la Roche. When I was a mmister, delegation after delegation from Quebec came to me protesting against the use of those steamers, under the pretext that the ice breaking at Cap a la Roche was jamming the harbour in front of Quebec and preventing the ferries from performing their service. There was a certain element of truth in that; but, as a matter of fact, the floating ice, although it seriously hampered the boats, never actually prevented them from carrying on the service. But, as my hon. friend says, even if we were not to consider the immensity of the service rendered to navigation by opening it at least three weeks before the ordinary time, the presence of those ice breakers and the work performed by them prevents the flooding of immense areas on both sides of the river St. Lawrence from Cap a la Roche up to Three Rivers and lake
St. Peter. My predecessor, Mr. Justice Brodeur, and his predecessor, the late Hon. Mr. Prefontaine, are entitled to great credit for the work they did in that connection. For several winters they had engineers on both sides of the river watching very closely the movements of the ice and tides. It was noted that as soon as the ice breakers began to perform their work at Cap a la Roche, practically all the floods ceased in the upper district. As regards the trade of the country, it is, as my hon. friend says, of immense value commercially, financially and economically, and three boats are not too much for that work. The number of boats plying between Canada and Europe is increasing every year, and the sooner you get the channel open in the spring the better for the trade of this country. I sincerely congratulate the department on acquiring the new boat, and I hope it will be built in Canada. My hon. friend visited with me last year the shipyards at Kingston, where we saw the Dollard and the Bellechasse. The Mont-magny was built in Canada, at Sorel. It may have cost more than it could have been purchased for in England, but if you want to have shipbuilding encouraged in this country you must not be afraid at first to pay a little more than you would have to pay in Great Britain. There is a beginning to everything. I daresay that the first icebreaker built in Russia, the famous Ermaak, cost a considerable amount; but since that time Russia has been building icebreakers for other countries, and, by encouraging that shipbuilding industry, it has created one of the greatest industries in the world. If my hon. friend would take as his motto Canada for the Canadians, and encourage exclusively our shipbuilding yards, he would be entitled to great credit. I read the other day in a paper that a Canadian shipbuilding firm at Collingwood had been awarded the contract for building the largest steam vessel afloat on the great lakes. Surely if a Canadian firm at Collingwood, with its men, equipment and material, can built the largest vessel for the lake service, the Department of Marine and Fisheries can afford to assemble at Sorel or at Kingston or in the maritime provinces the material and the men necessary to build his flotilla of steamers. If I mistake not, a delegation came here during this session and interviewed my hon. friend and the Prime Minister asking that the uovernment encourage shipbuilding in Canada. This is an excellent occasion -for doing this. If we are not able to do all of the work of building those ships, we have only to import from Great Britain the men who are able to direct our own people. Take, for example, what the firm of Vickers, Limited have done in

Montreal. It is true that this immense floating dock has been imported from Great Britain, but Vickers have agreed to have that floating dock in Montreal and to erect immense sheds on both sides of the dock for ships to do the repairing of vessels, general chandlery WQrk; and at the sametime the firm is ready to build in -Canada ships of a certain tonnage. It is a British firm, but it becomes Canadian, and because the firm is Canadian it remains British. If Vickers, Limited, are encouraged at Maisonneuve, I am quite sure that within a very short space of time we shall have an immense shipbuilding industry in the immediate vicinity of the city of Montreal. I would ask my hon. friend not to be too chary in the amount which he will be prepared to pay in Canada fox the building of his steamers. It might be fifteen per cent or twenty per cent more, but the people will not begrudge the payment of that slight increase in the price, as compared with the English price oecause, after all, you are building up a Canadian industry, and are ensuring for the future work which will be to the credit of Canada.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister could
scarcely expect the work to be done with the same speed as it can be done in the better equipped yards of the old country. If you give a Canadian ship-builder the opportunity to build one of those vessels, after he gets a plan and understands what is required, he will have to order a good deal of material from the other side. He has to send his specification over, and it takes sometimes weeks or perhaps months to get it filled. Allowance must be made for that, if the Canadian shipbuilder is to have a chance. The minister must remember that a good many articles which enter into the construction of steamships are heavily taxed. He cannot expect ships to be built at the same price as in a free trade country like England.


John Douglas Hazen: The principal difference is in wages.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think so.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, I have had the figures furnished to me by ship-building firms in this country, and according to them, the principal difference is in regard to wages; it is a difference of forty-five per cent.


John Howard Sinclair: If the minister inquires among the ship-building yards in Canada, he will find that they do not look upon wages as the most important item.


John Douglas Hazen: That is what I inquired of them, and I got that statement.


John Howard Sinclair: It is contended that Canadian workmen can do more work in a day than British workmen, that they can turn Mr. LEMIEUX.
their hands to so many different classes of work that they are more profitable than the workmen employed in the British yards. Then the cost of material is a very important item. Some few years ago I had occasion to investigate this matter, and I visited the yards at Collingwood and Toronto, and collected information which I can give to the minister. From the inquiries I made it appeared that it cost something like six dollars a ton more to build in Canada than to build in England, that is without allowing for any profit. The additional expense was something like six dollars for each ton of the ship that was constructed in Canada. The minister will have to make allowances for these important phases of the business, if he expects the Canadians to have a chance at all. Delays also occur in the department. We are now well on in the Spring, whereas, if the minister had brought down his estimates four or five months ago, had secured his money, and had had his plans ready, the Canadian builders would have had a chance months ago to send their specifications across, and would have had a much better opportunity to do the work, if he expects to get it done this year. However, I am much pleased that the minister assures us that his policy is to build those vessels in Canada if it is possible to do so.


Charles Marcil: I am glad to have the
opportunity of corroborating what has been said by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) so far as Commander Wakeham, of the Princess, is concerned. I have had the pleasure of seeing him at work in the gulf of St. Lawrence for twenty years or more, and no more efficient officer is to be found in the service of the department. It is generally hoped in the district that he will continue long in the service of the department. I was glad to hear that Commander Wakeham had been given a free hand in the choice of his boat. I would like to be informed whether the same principle will apply to the other Government boats in the gulf and river St. Lawrence, or whether the patronage system will be applied.


John Douglas Hazen: We are following practically the same system that has been followed for a number of years. Commander Wakeham is the only one who has an absolutely free hand. We try to promote officers when vacancies occur.


Charles Marcil: I have had complaints'
of men employed on Government boats on the St. Lawrence being summarily dismissed on the change of Government.


John Douglas Hazen: Not on these boats.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister any
idea of the number of men who were dis-

missed from the Government boats on the St. Lawrence?


John Douglas Hazen: No. I think there were
very few. They are men who are shipped for the season. They sign articles for the season, and very frequently do not go back. There are changes going on every year.


Charles Marcil: When vacancies have to be filled are the appointments left to the members of the various constituencies?


John Douglas Hazen: If there are vacancies.


Bowman Brown Law: Are lightships included in
this vote?


John Douglas Hazen: No. They are under a different vote.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In Nova Scotia and
in the maritime provinces, we recognize the great importance of the river St. Lawrence, the great artery of commerce of Canada. But there are seasons of the year when ice-breaking is of no avail in the river St. Lawrence, when it cannot be done, and we have in the harbour of Sydney a place where ice-breaking will be of benefit when it is of no avail on the river St. Lawrence. I have had in view the proposition to utilize the cable boat during the winter time. The cable boat made the harbour of North Sydney her home for a year or so, and the proposition was that it could be converted into an ice-breaker in winter. She has nothing else to do during that season, for she is laid up.


John Douglas Hazen: To whom does it belong?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Department of Public Works. The cable boat has been removed from North Sydney, and it is most desirable that we should have an icebreaker there during the three or four months of the year. The ice-breaker required to do the work there need not necessarily be of a very powerful type, because the ice that comes to the mouth of the Sidney harbour	is	never very heavy.
I wish to point out to the minister the great importance of keeping a track open for about five miles from the mouth of the harbour up to North Sydney, or perhaps four miles farther up to the pier. We have at that harbour that tremendous plant of which we are all so proud, not only in Nova Scotia but in the whole of Canada- the plant of the Dominion Steel and Coal Company representing from $50,000,000 to $60,000,000 of money-coal and steel combined under one control and management. They could send their product out of the harbour all the year round if it were kept open. But, perhaps more important than sending their products out is that their material is brought in from Newfoundland. Their ore is brought in from Newfoundland
and I understand that they are now starting to bring their limestone from there. The bringing in of ore and the taking out of steel are also equally important in connection with the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company. On that account I submit to the minister that this question-if I could get the attention of the minister-


John Douglas Hazen: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I submit that this
question is sufficiently important for my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) to permit the minister to listen to me for a moment. I am talking about two of the biggest industries in Canada, industries in connection with the Dominion Steel and Coal Company and in connection with the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company, I am talking upon a subject that is of vital importance to these two concerns and I am suggesting that something should be done to keep	Sydney harbour open all	the	year
round. The minister and the hon. member for Halton both know the harbour of Sydney.
Mr.	HENDERSON:	I	beg	my	hon.
friend's pardon; I did not just catch what he said.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I said that the minister and my hon. friend from Halton know Sydney harbour well.
Mr.	HENDERSON: Oh,	yes.Mr.	McKENZIE:	And	they	know its
grandeur, its magnificence and its beauty.


Mr. HENDERSON:: I was there once.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They will understand what an important thing it is to provide for keeping it open if it can be done by ordinary expenditure. There is no present means of keeping it open and I was point-ting out to the minister that our coal, our steel rails and all the products of the steel works could go out all the year round if about four miles of ice 'were kept open. Not only would these products go out but the iron ore for the Nova Scotia Steel and Coal Company and for the Dominion Steel and Coal Company, could come in from Newfoundland if they could get in with their steamers. As it is now they have to rush things during the summer and, at great expense, to pile up this ore and store it, whereas, if they had the opportunity of bringing the ore during all the year, it would greatly facilitate the operations of these large concerns. Limestone is now about to be brought in by the Dominion Steel Company from Newfoundland and it is highly important that communication be kept open all the year round for the bringing in of this commodity as well as

the sending out of the coal and the products of the steel companies.
North Sydney is the Atlantic terminus of the Intercolonial railway, and from that terminus we have connection with the island of Newfoundland. The trade has developed enormously during the- last ten years. Ten years ago there was no communication at all. Since that, instead of one boat, there are two boats and instead of a few passengers there is a tremendous traffic, an enormous trade, ten times, aye, one hundred times, greater than it was ten years ago; it is continuously increasing. The Reid Newfoundland Company are battling with the ice and doing the best they can to keep their boat on every day during the winter. They are doing very well, missing only a few trips, and I submit to the minister that in view of the abundance of the surplus and the money which the Government have, and in view of their desire to develop every industry and assist transportation everywhere, it would be a very justifiable and legitimate expenditure to provide for placing in the harbour of Sydney this cable boat that I speak of, convert it into an ice-breaker, or build an ice-breaker for the purpose, which would be kept at Sydney harbour all the time. It would be through with Sydney harbour before it would be required on the St. Lawrence where I understand ice-breaking is required to be done in the early spring and therefore, after the ice-breaker had done all the work necessary at Sydney, it could be taken to the St. Lawrence. I can assure the minister that he could not possibly use the money that would be necessary in a better way in the general interests of the country. I am not talking politics. I am not trying to make votes or trying to deceive him in any way; I am talking about a big proposition with respect to Dominion industries which are of importance to every part of Canada and I am suggesting something that would contribute to the expansion of those great plants.


John Douglas Hazen: I appreciate the importance of the matter to which my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) has referred and the desirability of having Sydney harbour kept open during the winter months so "that vessels could come and go. With the building of the new ice-breaker for the river St. Lawrence I think there will be no difficulty at all in meeting the position of affairs. In the first place, it will relieve the Montcalm, which, I think, can then be brought down during the winter season to Sydney and in addition, with the building of the car ferry across the straits of Northumberland connecting the island system of railways with the mainland, there will be two boats which will be available as ice-breakers-the Earl Grey and the Minto. In the course of a couple of years I think we will have plenty Mr. McKenzie
of ice-breakers to look after the harbours on the Atlantic coast as well as those of the St. Lawrence and others to which our attention has been called. In previous years we were able to do something at Sydney with the Stanley, but unfortunately this year the Stanley met with an accident and she had to be laid up just at the time her services were required.


Charles Marcil: I might call the attention of the minister to the fact that there are ports on the Baie des Chaleurs in which these ice-breakers might be used to advantage. The navigation of the Baie des Chaleurs is held up very often because the ports of Dalhousie and Gaspe are closed with ice. An ice-breaker could be very well employed there.


Bowman Brown Law: How many boats has the
department employed in the buoy service in Nova Scotia?


John Douglas Hazen: There are two in Nova
Scotia, the Lady Laurier and the Stanley; there are two in New Brunswick, the Aberdeen and the Lansdowne. During the winter season the Montmagny is used there.


Bowman Brown Law: It has been thought for some years that the department has not steamers enough to look after the buoy service properly. Of course, the minister knows that the coast of Nova Scotia is the roughest coast, I suppose in the world, and the hardest place to keep buoys in position. I have noticed for several years that during the winter season a large number of these buoys are adrift and, the department not having a boat near Yarmouth, the buoys that go adrift have to wait until the steamer comes from St. John to get them. If the department made an arrangement, at a reasonable price, with a firm in Yarmouth to look after these buoys when they go adrift, I think it would be a good thing for the department and also for the safety of navigation. The boats running between Yarmouth and Boston make better time than the railway trains do. When these buoys are out of position, hundreds of lives may be in danger, and it is very important indeed that they should be replaced as quickly as possible. The hon. minister understands that, when a buoy goes adrift, it probably takes twenty-four or forty-eight hours for the matter to be reported, and a couple of days for the steamer to get from St. John to the vicinity of Yarmouth; or, if tshe engaged in some other business, it may be several days before she can hunt for that buoy and find it. If the hon. minister made an_ arrangement with the regular boat people in Yarmouth or somebody else there, I have no doubt that a lot of time would be saved, and the safety of the mariners, who have to visit that very rough coast during the

winter time, would be much greater than it is at present.


John Howard Sinclair: Can the hon. minister tell us how the supplies for these boats are obtained? Are they offered for tender?


John Douglas Hazen: I suppose the hon. gentleman means the food that is furnished. Contracts are entered into with the stewards on board the boats, at an amount fixed by the department, and the stewards supply the food. That system was adopted a few years ago. Before that, the stewards used to buy the provisions and charge them to the Government. That system was not found satisfactory. The opinion of the department is that the present system is much more in the interests of the department and the public service than the old system was. The stewards enter into a contract to feed the men at so much a day, and the officers at so much a day.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the steward free to go to any merchant?


John Douglas Hazen: Absolutely free.


John Howard Sinclair: There are no parties recommended as people from whom he should purchase?


John Douglas Hazen: None.


Bowman Brown Law: In case the stewards do not
pay the bills, does the minister have them under bond?


John Douglas Hazen: We have them under bond. The bonds are personal bonds, because we could not get a bond company to guarantee the stewards. We have public notices in the press in the different localities to which these ships go, informing the people that the Government are not liable for these stewards. We are holding them as far as we can by these personal bonds, but, no matter what care the purchasing agent may exercise, some of these bonds cannot be recovered. As a matter of fact, some stewards have resigned because they have been unable to furnish any bonds at all. Every effort was made by Mr. Doutre and the deputy minister to get bonds that would be approved of by the Department of Justice.


John Howard Sinclair: How is the coal supplied?


John Douglas Hazen: By tender and contract.


Bowman Brown Law: The arrangement made between the stewards and the department may be a very good one; but it is hardly fair for the butchers, grocers and others who supply these stewards from time to time, when they cannot get their bills paid. These boats go into small places; a steward, with a gold band on his cap, goes into a butcher shop or a grocery
store; the man gives him the goods and charges them, supposing that the Government will pay the bill.


John Douglas Hazen: We are spreading the information as much as possible that the Government is not liable.


Bowman Brown Law: I think some percentage
should be kept back from each man _ so as to guarantee that those who furnish supplies and provisions for the Government boats will be paid.
Examination of master and mates, $16,500.
Mr. LEMIEUX- Where is your board of examiners-at Quebec ?


John Douglas Hazen: The list of examiners is:
Charles Eddy, William Lugar-I see by the newspapers that Mr. Lugar is dead,- Captain H. W. King, Alexander Cameron, John E. Murphy, James Sutherland, A. J. Wolf, James Gaudin, George C. Coles, M. Thodarson, Angus Grant, G. Hallett. The amount was $5,000 for last year; the additional $5,000 is for contemplated extension of the service. Very great complaint has been made to us in regard to the inconvenience masters on the great lakes are put to in attending these examinations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where have they to sit-in Ottawa ?


John Douglas Hazen: No, in different places. Captain King is in Toronto.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Whom have you in Quebec ?


John Douglas Hazen: Captain Lachance. The additional $5,000 is for contemplated extensions of the service as follows: Examiner at Toronto, $1,800; examiner at Quebec, $600; Captain Lachance also receives pay for conducting a marine school; his total salary Is $2,400. Examiner at St. John, $600; office rent, $500; extension of service, Quebec and Ontario, $1,000; examinations in Yukon, $500. In addition to their duties as examiners of masters and mates, the above officers are required to conduct preliminary investigations into wrecks, to deliver lectures in marine schools, and to do other work that the department may assign to them.


Bowman Brown Law: I noticed in the press_ that the department was taking into consideration the changing of the examination centres for masters and mates, and of having one head centre in the maritime provinces. Is this so ?


John Douglas Hazen: We' have had Captain Lugar, who has been chief examiner of masters and mates in Nova Scotia; then there are local examiners in addition to him.


Bowman Brown Law: Masters and mates are still examined at the port of Yarmouth by Captain John E. Murphy ?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Bowman Brown Law: Is it proposed to make any change ?


John Douglas Hazen: No. Rewards for saving life, including life-saving stations, amount to $110,000. There is an increase caused on account of new stations at Long Point, Point Pelee on Lake Erie, Bay View, Digby, Toronto, Cheticamp and Richi-bucto.


Bowman Brown Law: Is there anything in the estimates for a life-saving station at Mud Island ?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


John Howard Sinclair: Objection is taken to
the way in which the minister has dealt with the life-saving stations since he came into office. I was much surprised to learn, m answer to a question asked in the House, of the large number of coxswains and crews of life-saving stations who had been dismissed, many of them without investigation. The life-boat service was always supposed to be free from political bias; this service was not looked upon-at any rate in the part of the country from which I come-as a political matter. It was the custom for one of the best men in the harbour to take charge of the life-boat and he selected his own crew, taking the best oarsmen and the most athletic young fellows in the harbour. It was a great surprise to the House and the country to find that even this service does not escape the spoils system that the minister has established. In answer to the question I have referred to, the statement was made that there are nineteen life-saving stations on the coast, and the officers of twelve of these have been dismissed, seven of them without investigation. One of those dismissed is a man in my own constituency who has done good work in this service in the past.


John Douglas Hazen: How many stations did the hon. gentleman say there were?


John Howard Sinclair: The answer I have here is that there are nineteen. This was when the hon. gentleman became Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes; there are twentyseven now.


John Howard Sinclair: I, for one, enter my
strong protest against dealing with the lifesaving service in the manner I have indicated. The men who have charge of these stations undergo great risk and hardship, and those composing the crew are generally the best oarsmen in the harbour. In my own constituency the Government dismissed Mr. Hugh P. Munro without any Mr HAZEN.
investigation whatever and appointed a man in his place who was away from the district at the time. The whole life-boat service of that coast was demoralized for several weeks on account of the change that took place. This was done without excuse. At least, I have never been able to get any excuse from the minister, and if he has any now to give, I should like to hear what it is. I was surprised to find that a man who had served in the department so well as Mr. Munro for so many years had been dismissed. I think he was in office nearly as long as the other Mr. Munro to whose case I drew attention this session. He was appointed if I remember well, by the Conservative party before the change of Government in 1896. The Liberal Government did not dismiss the life-boat coxswains along the coast so far as I can leam, at all events they did not do so in the part of Nova Scotia from which I come. Mr. Munro as I understand, occupied his position from 1896 and held office all through the regime of the late Administration. He did his work well, and certificates have been filed with the department approving of things done by him and bis crew on more than one occasion. I have on my desk a statement of Lloyd's agent and others stating that they were a very capable and satisfactory crew. Before this man was dismissed, I wrote the minister that certain people were endeavouring to obtain his dismissal and asking him to give Mr. Munro a fair trial if complaints were made against him. I have the reply of the minister dated the 22nd of December 1911, which says:
Before final action is taken in the way of dispensing with Mr. Munro's services, he will be given an opportunity to be heard in his own defence.
But he was not given an opportunity to be heard in his own defence; for the next letter on the file is one from Commander Thompson that his services have been dispensed with and asking him to hand over the key to the boat-house and all the property under his control to the man appointed to take his place. That is a case in my own constituency, and there were in all 12 dismissals along the coast, seven of them being without investigation.


Bowman Brown Law: I would call attention also to the dismissal of the captain of the life-boat service at Yarmouth. I asked the minister some time ago if any dismissals had taken place, and understood him to say that so far as he knew they had not. I bad heard rumours of the dismissal of Captain Albert Caines, but after the minister's answer, I rested easy, until I went home a short time since and found that his dismissal had taken place without investigation, and there was no notice of dismissal until word

came from the department. 1 agree with the hon. member for Guysborough that petty politics have got down in this country to a point where members of life-boat crews are dismissed, because they happen to be Liberals or Tories, and the sooner it is done away with the better for the people whose life, when in danger, these crews are established to save. 'Captain Caines has been a faithful and efficient officer. He was one of our most respected ship officers at Yarmouth for many years, a man of ability and he lived near the life station. To dismiss such a man without investigation, I say, not wishing to use any stronger language, is a very small piece of business.


John Douglas Hazen: Captain Albert Caines was dismissed on the advice of the officers of the department on account of his age, he being over 72 years of age.


Bowman Brown Law: I have seen men of the age
of seventy-two years who are far more active than the hon. member for Annapolis, (Mr. Davidson), who is applauding so loudly. Captain Caines was a capable officer; he was aS' competent to take charge of a life-boat as any man I know, and the assertion that he was dismissed from office because of his age is a very paltry excuse. I would have respected the hon,. minister more if he had said that he turned the man out because he had been a life-long Liberal. I still insist that his dismissal under those conditions is a small business, and does not add to the dignity of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Might I ask the minister whether a new life-saving station has been built at Point Prim, Digby county?


Mr. HA  ZEN@: There is a new station at
Bay View, Digby.


Bowman Brown Law: Was it built by tender and
contract?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Bowman Brown Law: Who were the tenderers?
Mr, HAZEN:	I have not that information before me, but I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend at any time. The files of the Department are always open for his inspection.
Mr, CHISHOLM (Inverness):	Has the
station at Cheticamp been opened?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: Who is the coxswain
there?


John Douglas Hazen: Michael Maillet. He was
appointed on October 15, 1912, when the station was opened.


William Chisholm: Was he the first man recommended for the position?


John Douglas Hazen: So far as I know, he was.


William Chisholm: I recommended for
appointment a man by the name of Doucette. Does my hon. friend know whether his name is in the department?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not his name here.


William Chisholm: He was recommended for the position; I understood that he was appointed.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think that any
appointment was made before the one I have mentioned, although I do not speak positively on the matter, because I have not the information here. I take it for granted that the hon. gentleman wrote a letter to the department recommending for appointment the gentleman mentioned by him, and that letter will be found on the files of the department. I shall be glad to give the hon. gentleman any information he desires on the matter.


Charles Marcil: Are there any life-saving stations in the province of Quebec? I think that enough wrecks take place in the lower St. Lawrence to justify the establishment of a life-saving station.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to corroborate what my hon. friend the member for Bonaventure says. Either at Gaspe _ or Paspebiac there should be a life-saving station. On the portion of the peninsula which faces the Atlantic ocean, the coast is very often swept by terrific storms, especially during the months of September, October and November, and during the last ten or fifteen years great losses have occurred, in vessels as well as lives. I think my hon. friend should consider the advisability of establishing a life-saving station in that neighbourhood.


Charles Marcil: There might be two or
three life-saving stations along the coast of Gaspd.


John Douglas Hazen: It is an extraordinary
thing that there are no life-saving stations in that district, and I will certainly give attention to the matter.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has given us no explanation of the fact that he wrote me stating that Mr. Hugh P. Munro would have an opportunity of being heard before his dismissal, and that he then declined to give him that opportunity, and dismissed him without an investigation. It is an extraordinary thing for the minister to do, and if he has an excuse, I think it would be polite for him to say so.


John Douglas Hazen: When I wrote that letter
I presumed my hon. friend had reference to charges that had been made against Munro in connection with political partisanship. But Commander Thompson reported to the department that Munro was seventy years

of age, and that he was entirely too old to be entrusted with the charge of a life-saving station.


John Howard Sinclair: If Commander Thompson made such a report, I wish to say that the minister will find by reference to his files that he recently made another report contradicting the previous report. Complaint was made against this man prior to the defeat of the late government by certain persons who wished to obtain his position, and Commander Thompson was sent to White Head to investigate the case. After making a very thorough investigation, Commander Thompson reported to the department that Mr. Munro, although seventy years of age, was a very active man and quite able to carry on his work as coxswain of the life-boat crew. If Commander Thompson made a report contradicting his former report it simply shows that Commander Thompson was not allowed to have a free hand in regard to the matter, but that he had to do what he was told.


John Douglas Hazen: Is Munro alive now?


John Howard Sinclair: Certainly. He is a
very energetic man; there is no finer physique to be found on the coast of eastern Canada. He is erect, tall and athletic, and Commander Thompson personally informed me that he was surprised to find a man of seventy years of age so strong and active. He reported to the department that the attempt to have Munro dismissed on account of his age was altogether improper, and that he was well able to carry on his work as coxswain of the life-saving crew. I would ask the minister to produce the second report which is said to have been made by Commander Thompson, so that the committee may see how he has dealt with the matter.


John Douglas Hazen: I have not that information here but I shall be glad to find out what it is. On general principles I think that no man of 70 ought to be a member of a life saving crew. I think it is absurd to say that a man of 70 can go out in the heavy storms and do the work necessary in order to rescue people on a ship in distress.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not admit that at all.


John Douglas Hazen: My right hon. friend, perhaps, is trying to rescue a ship in distress now.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness):: How
many officers are at Cheticamp station?


John Douglas Hazen: A cockswain and a crew of seven. The cockswain receiving $75 a year and the crew smaller amounts.
Investigations into wrecks, $18,400.
Mr. LAW How is this amount expended?
Mr. HAZEN.


John Douglas Hazen: This is exactly the same amount as last year. It is expended as follows: Travelling expenses of the chief wreck commissioner, $3,500; travelling expenses of the wreck commissioner of British Columbia, $1,000; travelling expenses of witnesses, $1,000; salary of the British Columbia wreck commissioner, $1,000; stenographers' fees, $3,000; legal services, $2,000; services of nautical overseers, $1,500; services of interpreters, $200; reporting and typewriting, $200; printing and unforeseen incidentals, $1,000; expenses of preliminary enquiries, $2,000. This does not include fees which may be granted to acting wreck commissioners for which an additional sum of $1,500 may be added.


Bowman Brown Law: Is there a wreck commissioner for the province of Nova Scotia?


John Douglas Hazen: There is no wreck commissioner for Nova Scotia. The chief examiner of masters and mates acts on pre-Jiminary enquiries and also as wreck commissioner at times. When Captain Lindsay cannot act, the chief examiner of masters and mates is called on to act without additional salary.


Bowman Brown Law: It seems to me there should be a commissioner in an important province like Nova Scotia. It is well known to the minister that Nova Scotia has a very rough coast, and there are many wrecks on that coast.


John Douglas Hazen: We do not seem to be crowded at all with the present stag, they are able to take care of it. I suppose that is largely because, owing to the lights and aids to navigation that have been placed there, the coast is so safe to navigation that there are very few wrecks.


Bowman Brown Law: I have no doubt that is the case, that after fifteen years of Liberal administration, owing to the improvements in the buoy service, wrecks have been minimized.
Expenses of schools of navigation, $8,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where have you those schools?


John Douglas Hazen: At present there are
schools at Yarmouth, N.S., North Sydney, Quebec, Collingwood and Victoria. Last year the vote was the same, and our expenditure was only $970. The officer who has charge of this matter recommends that we adopt a different policy from that which has prevailed in the past. Hitherto we have depended largely on a system of lectures. But the officer reports that while that system may have a tendency to stimulate increase among fishermen and seafaring men it is almost worthless as a means of preparing seafaring men to take

their certificates as masters and mates of vessels. The suggestion now is to discontinue the lecturing system and to establish schools of navigation where these men will receive such instruction in seamanship and navigation as will prepare them to qualify for masters and mates. It is also proposed to assist private navigation schools if necessary.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the minister providing for any additional schools?


John Douglas Hazen: We are prepared, whenever it is made apparent to the department that a necessity exists for the establishment of these schools, to assist them.


John Howard Sinclair: But what would have
to be done?


John Douglas Hazen: At Collingwood there is
a gentleman who established a school himself. He says to the people: You want instruction in navigation, I am here for that purpose. He gets some assistance from the department, an annual amount to help him with his school. At Halifax, Captain Lugar, a paid official of the department, who receives a salary nf $1,800, has conducted a school without any additional salary.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax) :: I suppose
no successor has been appointed to Captain Lugar?


John Douglas Hazen: No. I do not think we
have yet received official notice of his death, although we have seen it in the newspapers.


John Howard Sinclair: What steps would need to be taken to secure the establishment of a school in a small town like Canso, where there are some two thousand seafaring and fishermen engaged in the fisheries in the summer, but not very busy for a couple of months in the most severe part of the winter. They could very well attend a school if one were established iai, ;that town. I have no doubt that the minister .could co-operate with the school board and the town authorities in order to get the use of the school room and such facilities. If the people there knew what was necessary to be done I have no doubt there are many places in Nova Scotia where advantage would be taken of this vote. The great trouble would be to find a properly qualified instructor. I would be glad if the department would let it be known in these little towns where they are anxious n to have schools of navigation that assist ance will be given by the department


John Douglas Hazen: We are trying to work out some better system than that which exists at the present time. We have officers directing their attention along that line. If in any of those towns there were a
reasonable number of young men who wished to get instruction sc that they could qualify for masters' or mates' certificates, we would be very glad indeed to give generous assistance. The officers of the department tell me that in the past applications have been made for the establishment of schools, and that the department helped in such cases, but they did not prove successful. A few years ago they were asked to provide an instructor for a school in Montreal. They were told that a large number of students would attend, and an instructor, a very competent man, familiar with both languages, was appointed. A good many students attended the first night, but on the third night there was not a student present, and the results were very disappointing. It is only men who have made up their mind to follow a seafaring life who attend these schools, but if in some of the small towns of Nova Scotia there were eight or ten young men who wanted instruction to enable them to follow a seafaring life, I have no doubt that out of this vote we could give assistance, and if there were co-operation with the school board, if we could get accommodation in the schools, it would help very much. We would be prepared to entertain any application along that line, and give it the most sympathetic consideration.


John Howard Sinclair: Would the technical
school at Halifax be at liberty to apply for some assistance in the way of establishing a branch?


John Douglas Hazen: There has been correspondence with both the Prime Minister and his colleague from Halifax, I think, about the matter. We have had communications from them, and the matter is now receiving the attention of the officers of the department.


John Howard Sinclair: With reference to young men not attending those schools, I may say that my experience is quite different from that of the department. In Canso, a few years ago, a school was established for one winter, the head teacher of the public school being in charge of it. He was a man who knew something about navigation and could teach the theory of navigation, and the school was attended by a large number of young men during the winter months. It was very successful indeed. But the teacher removed from the place, and the instruction ceased. I suppose that the next teacher was not capable, or perhaps he did not care to take up the work. The main trouble I think is to find a suitable man to give the lessons. If the minister could discover some suitable man to go from place to place on the coast and spend a few weeks with the young fellows desirous of getting lessons on navigation

he would assist greatly. Those young men cannot go to Halifax. It is impossible for them to take long journeys and to live in those expensive places, but if the instruction were brought to them it would be of great importance.


Mr. JAMESON:: I entirely agree with my hon. friend from Guysborough when he says that the young men who are interested in the matter should receive some assistance in maritime instruction. As he says, they cannot afford to attend a central school at Halifax. I entirely agree with his views, and I may say that I have made representations to the minister along the same lines. I trust that the department will be able to work out some system that will be more satisfactory than the one heretofore in vogue whereby these young men in the different parts of the maritime provinces would have an opportunity of acquiring an education along the lines suggested.
Registration of skipping, $1,500.


Bowman Brown Law: What is that?


John Douglas Hazen: This is to cover the expense of the registration of shipping. After a careful estimate of the probable items of expenditure, such as the purchase of a new register, books, forms, certificates of registry, the officers are of opinion that $1,500 would be ample for this branch of the service this year.
Removal of obstructions in navigable vvaters, $20,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The removal of an obstruction is at the risk of the party responsible for it, is it not?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that in
some oases where the party has failed to remove the obstruction, the department is in duty bound to clear the channel. I suppose this vote is to provide for such contingencies.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have a case in mind. Last year on the river St. Lawrence, not far from Montreal, there was a wreck of a steamer plying between Montreal and Valleyfield, and I understand that the wreck remained in the channel for some time. Several persons perished, and the captain was practically ruined. I suppose that in a case like that the department would have to remove the obstruction?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. In that case we
were unable to have the wreck removed before the close of navigation. We got into communication with people at Kingston who have a wrecking plant, but they were unable to get the plant into operation Mr SINCLAIR.
in time, and the wreck had to remain until this. year. If the people responsible are not financially able to remove the obstruction, the department undertakes the removal. Twenty thousand dollars is practically the same amount as last year. Last year the total amount expended was about $11,000. There were some cases where the work was very heavy, but in those cases the parties who owned the boats were able to bear the burden.
Winter mail service, $11,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is that?


John Douglas Hazen: It is for the letter mail
service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I think my hon. friend has had the pleasure of crossing over there in an open boat. There are some winters when the ice becomes so heavy that it is impossible even for the ice-breakers to get through, and people have to cross in open boats. This vote is for that service. The boats are kept in repair to convey people across, and to take the mails in the event of that condition prevailing. Of late years the expenditure on the service has been light, because the Earl Grey and the Minto are both very good ice-breakers, and have been able to maintain a service during the winter. During last winter I do not think that these small boats were required at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like the minister to consider the advisability of utilizing one of the boats, say on five or six occasions during the winter season, for the purposes of a mail service to the Magdalen islands. As he knows, the last mail packet from Pictou leaves at the end of November, or the beginning of December. I am informed by people of the Magdalen islands that at least three or four, and sometimes five trips can be made during the_ winter between the mainland and the islands. From December until April they are closed in, and get only such news as can be transmitted by cable, or by the Marconi wireless system. That is not satisfactory at all, when a boat could easily be sent from Georgetown to Sydney. I had occasion some years ago to speak to the captain of the Stanley and, as regards the practicability of it, he saw no item of chance at all; he said that he could make the trip very easily at certain periods of the winter. But there were strong objections taken by the department, although the captain, himself, had none. Of course, he had to obey orders. I think that my hon. friend this year, or last year, overlooked the hesitation of the department and managed to send a boat once or twice, much to the benefit of the islanders, I would like him to consider this as a permanent affair for future years.

I beg to make the same request for the people of Anticosti. I do not think you can make five or six trips, but you can make two trips there during the winter. There is a boat at present subsidized by the Post Office Department which makes one or two trips to Labrador. I would not risk that boat about Anticosti, but your icebreakers could certainly be sent to the island. Anticosti has been settled of late by Mr. Menier, a very wealthy Frenchman, who has acquired that island. There is a population of nearly eight hundred very thrifty and industrious people. The island is like a European park. There is at Ellis bay, a beautiful castle, the residence of Mr. Menier himself. He has established splendid roads all through the island. There is a magnificent lobster and salmon canning industry and he is exploiting the lumber on a scientific basis as they do in France and Germany. The settlers are all Canadians, they are not foreigners. He has built a handsome cottage for each family. There is also a savings bank, a church and an hospital with the most modern equipment, which I visited some years ago. In fact, it is an ideal life for the settlers who are there. Quebec has become quite a feeder for Anticosti. The traffic between Quebec and Anticosti has increased by leaps and bounds during the last ten years. Therefore, Mr. Menier is entitled to fair and generous treatment from our Government. He has established a small Deeauville railway on the island and he has built, at his own expense, large deep-water piers whidh are utilized by the Government steamers free of any charge.


Charles Marcil: One mile long.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He has provided a
number of lighthouses, in fact he is a public benefactor and I am told that he has offered the Government of Canada the opportunity of fortifying some points on the island. There were fears expressed some years ago that such a large portion of our territory might pass to a foreign power, hut Lord Grey, our former Governor General, visited the island, was received by Mr. Menier, and after that he was very well pleased with the genial foreigner. Under these circumstances, I would like my hon. friend to consider the possibility of sending twice during the winter at least one of the Government steamers for the carrying of the mails. It is an important point in the river St. Lawrence and one which has attracted the attention of Europeans of late years. Mr. Menier has brought very many of his friends from Europe and, coming to Anticosti they have been struck with our country-some have already invested a good deal of money in western Canada. As you know, Mr. Menier is the 'chocolate king.' he is one of the
wealthiest men in Europe. A brother of his is one of the most influential public men in France, and the Dominion Government would be doing good business by encouraging him in the work which he is carrying on at Anticosti. Ganada needs such good friends in Europe and France particularly.


Charles Marcil: I am very glad to be able, to substantiate what my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has said regarding the importance of Anticosti island. It is largely peopled by settlers from th* Gaspesian peninsula, Chicoutimi and Saguenay. The Montreal Board of Trade, realizing the importance of the island are to visit it in June next when a large excursion party is going down on one of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company's boats. There is no regular boat calling at the island. There is no difficulty in carrying out the suggestion of my hon. friend from Rouville, as the service could be performed by the ice-breakers which go to Seven islands, only a few miles from Anticosti.	I would be glad if some
measures were taken to bring Anticosti more into touch with the political life of Canada. Mr. Menier is a great Frenchman, he has also big ideas and he is the benefactor of those who come in contact with him. The island, though belonging to the constituency of Chicoutimi and Saguenay, has remained somewhat out of the political life of the province. I understand that a poll is hardly ever opened there. Surely it would be possible for the minister to make an arrangement, either in connection with the lighthouse service or in connection with the subsidized steamers calling on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, for a limited service connecting with the island of Anticosti. One of the most notable things that Mr. Menier did in the early days of his occupation of the island of Anticosti was to abolish the mosquito. Mosquitoes in the earlier days infested the island to a great extent. He drained out the swamps, took the gravel excavated from those drains and built a magnificent system of macadamized roads all over the island, and at the same time did away with the mosquitoes. He erected just next to his magnificent residence, a statute to Gamache, one of the earlier smugglers on the lower St. Lawrence, about whom a great many folk lore stories have been told. The island ,of Anticosti is a very interesting place, and I am sure that the Government would be well advised if they brought the island into closer touch with the people of the St. Lawrence and of Canada generally. Mr. Menier has shown himself well disposed to submit to our laws. There is a customs agent on the island. Mr. Menier has telephone and tele-

graphic services. He has always been glad to entertain the Governor General and ministers who have gone down to see him. No British fleet ever passes without visiting the island. Admiral Blake, some years ago, went there to inquire into the story published by the New York Herald that Anticosti had been acquired by France for the purpose of fortifying it and making it a stronghold to be used for the recovery of Quebec. Admiral Blake went over and found that what was supposed to be the magazine was full of potatoes. On the square that Mr. Menier had opened in the middle of the town, he found one of the old guns which had been put into proper shape. The island is a most interesting place, and I am sure_ that the minister would be doing a public service if he could assist Mr. Menier in bringing the people of the island into more general touch with the people of the St. Lawrence and of Canada generally.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the cellar of the Gouverneur-really the superintendent my hon. friend will find excellent French wines; but, of course, he is not interested in that if he is a teetotaler.


John Douglas Hazen: Last winter we sent the
Montcalm twice to Anticosti. In regard to the Magdalen Islands, during the *winter of 1911-12, we were able to send the Stanley there on two occasions. Last year we were able to send her only once, because she was laid up a long time for repairs. When we have Canadians living under such conditions as they do in Anticosti and the Magdalen Islands, we ought to do all we can to make their lives endurable and to keep them in touch with the outside world. With the boats we have available at present, it is impossible to say whether we can have regular trips during the summer months. As soon as the car ferry is established between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, with the Lady Grey and the Minto, we hope to be able to give better service to Anticosti and the Magdalen Islands than we have been able to do in the past. My hon. friends, the member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and the member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), have drawn such alluring pictures of Anticosti that I think I shall have to take a trip there during the coming summer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall give you the
name of the gouverneur of Anticosti. The word gouverneur has not the same meaning as governor. Gouverneur in the present instance means the superintendent. The name has caused some people to think that Anticosti is held by the French. The name of the gouverneur is Mr. Martin Zede. He is a most charming official; all Mr. MARCIL.
his friends are Canadians, and my hon. friend will enjoy true French hospitality if he goes to Anticosti.
Inspection of live stock shipment, $5,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Does that come under
the Department of Marine and Fisheries?


John Douglas Hazen: The duties of these inspectors are to inspect the cattle ships for the purpose of seeing that they are fit for the shipment of cattle and that the cattle have sufficient accommodation.


John Howard Sinclair: Where is the inspecting done?


John Douglas Hazen: Almost entirely at Montreal. It used to be done at St. John, but there is hardly any necessity for inspection there now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend expect that Canadian cattle will ever pass at Liverpool without the stigma which England has put upon them? I have a motion on the OrdeT Paper which unfortunately has not been reached, asking for the removal of the embargo on Canadian cattle. Now that the Government is generous by voting $35,000,000 to the Admiralty, do you not think, Mr. Chairman, that my good friend should ask the British authorities to remove the embargo on our cattle? It is admitted by everyone-and by no better authority than Sir Charles Tupper-that this is a libel against Canadian cattle.


John Douglas Hazen: I think the embargo is
only a measure of protection. The matter, however, is one which is under the Department of Agriculture. When the estimates of that department are taken up, my hon. friend will get more satisfaction than I am able to give him.
To continue thq subsidy for wrecking plants in Quebec, Maritime provinces and British Columbia, $45,000.


Bowman Brown Law: Would the minister give us
a memorandum of those?


John Douglas Hazen: Up to the past year this
vote was always $30,000-$10,000 for wrecking plants in British Columbia, $10,000 for wrecking plants with headquarters at Quebec, and $10,000 for wrecking plants in the maritime provinces. These wrecking plants have been owned by the Dominion Coal Company at Sydney. Last year Mr. Davy, who had the contract at Quebec, refused to renew it, stating that, even with the subsidy of $10,000, he was losing money, because there had been so few wrecks on the St. Lawrence river for the past three or four years. He had to keep a tug boat equipped with pumps and wrecking apparatus, with its fires constantly banked, a large schooner and men to man them. The shipping interests felt that there must be

a wrecking plant on the St. Lawrence. Therefore a company was formed by the different steamship interests with whom we made a contract. They bound themselves to equip their tug boat with wireless telegraphy, as had not been the case with Davy. In consideration of their doing that, it was agreed that they should be allowed, within a certain limit of space on the river, to do certain work in the way of towing of ships, because, with their wireless apparatus, if a wreck occurred, they could be notified and get to the scene of the wreck almost as quickly as if they were lying at Quebec. They refused to take up the work at $10,000, and we agreed to give them $25,000. There was an agreement in the contract that, after they paid on their equipment a valuation that was fixed-I think it was six per cent-the balance of the profits, if they had any, were to be divided between the Government and the company. Last year, as hon. gentlemen know, there were a number of wrecks; and the result is that, while we paid the company $25,000, there had been paid back into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada about $12,5ui) as the share of the Government in the partnership into which they entered. The arrangement will work out very well. Everyone will admit the necessity of having a wrecking plant, and it seems impossible to have a wrecking plant without aid from the Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is recommended by
the shipping interests?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. They realize they
must have a wrecking plant on the St. Lawrence.


Bowman Brown Law: I have no objection to the
vote, but I think tne western part of Nova Scotia should have one of those plants.


John Douglas Hazen: It has been put forward
every now and then that the wrecking plant ought to be in the Maritime provinces, so far as the winter months are concerned, at some point nearer to the bay of Fundy and the south shore of Nova Scotia.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Somewhere around St.
John.


John Douglas Hazen: No, I think the matter can be met by the arrangement that will be made for this year by having that plant remain at Sydney during the Summer months, and then they are going to have some of their plant at Halifax or some point west of there, where tney will be available near the bay of Fundy during the winter.


Bowman Brown Law: Are the parties having the
contract allowed to charge anything for salvage?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. If they were not
allowed to do that, the amount the department would have to pay would be increased. The rates are of course subject to our approval.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Before my hon. friend
proceeds to another item, I should like to speak about a matter which perhaps is not germane to this. This patrol which was organized in the north Atlantic was with a view to preventing wrecks and accidents?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Could the hon. minister enlighten me? I saw in the London Times and the London Daily Chronicle the statement that something had been deficient about this patrol in the Atlantic. Was the deficiency in the Canadian Government or the British Government?


John Douglas Hazen: In the British Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was it, in two
words?


John Douglas Hazen: The difficulty, I think, was that the boat sent out by the British Board of Trade had aboard a Marconi apparatus whose range was not sufficient.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And so, it could not
communicate with the other vessels?


John Douglas Hazen: That was the trouble.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As I recollect it, there was a tripartite partnership among the Canadian Government, the British Government and the United States Government, each having a boat; was that it?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then, each had a zone to patrol?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The British Government had a zone, and I think the American Government and the Canadian Government each had its zone.


John Douglas Hazen: No. We had no arrangement with the United States Government at all. I know nothing about that except what appeared in the newspapers. We undertook a zone as far as Cape Race. We will get the information from there.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I fully concur in the remarks just made by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), with respect to establishing salvage stations in the region of the gulf, in order to bring efficient relief to ships in peril. Those stations should be established at Gaspe or at Rimouski. Either of those two ports would be a good centre where to establish one of those stations _ which could send out some help to ships in distress.
I think this matter has been too much neglected in the past and that the Government should do something in this direction.
As to the remarks made by the hon. member for Rouville with respect to carry-

ing the mails over to Magdelen Islands, I think that they are very appropriate. Those people are deprived of means to communicate with the mainland during all the winter and the Government would be doing good work by granting them a better service with respect to carrying the mails.
As far as naval schools are concerned, I am glad to hear from the minister himself that he is ready to help some of the students who would like to become conversant with matters pertaining to navigation. In our counties which are located along the sea, like Eimouski, Gaspe and Bonaventure, we have numbers of fishermen, of excellent seamen, and what they lack and what they want in order to improve in their art is naval schools.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have before me now the London Times, which says that the Scotia, the ship selected by the Merchant Shipping Advisory Committee, was too slow, and was not provided with a Marconi apparatus.
Ocean and river service-unforeseen expenses, $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was this for?


John Douglas Hazen: This is always voted. Now and then something arises in the department not covered by any other vote, and this money is to provide in such cases. Last year the total expenditure under this vote was only $175.


George William Kyte: I request the Minister of
Marine and Fisheries to bring this evening the papers in connection with the oases of Michael O'Brien, keeper of light at Bear Island; William A. Duan, keeper of light at Green Island; Marin Burke, keeper of light at River Bourgeois; Bartholomew Boudrot, keeper of light at Poulamand; all in Richmond county. I desire to say a few words with respect to these cases when the committee resumes.


John Douglas Hazen: We will go on with this at eight o'clock.


George William Kyte: The lighthouse service?


John Douglas Hazen: No, we will continue right along down the page taking the items one by one. There are only three items between the one we shall next take up and the one to which my hon. friend refers.


William Chisholm: When
the salaries of fishery officers are under discussion, I wish to have the minister ready if I decide to bring up the case of A. R. McAdam, fishery officer at Malignant Cove. I am not sure, having heard the minister's explanations-or rather refusals of explanations-of dismissals, that I shall go on with this case. I have about come to the conclusion that the political virtue I have ascribed to hon. gentleman, which I Mr. BOULAY.
thought existed in this benevolent-looking man and smooth-talking minister, as a matter of fact does not exist in him. It comes down to this-he has made up his mind that he will be like his associates and will fire any Grit who is in office. On that account, I may not bring the matter up at all.


John Douglas Hazen: I am sorry to have disappointed my hon friend.


Bowman Brown Law: I expect to call the attention of the minister to the dismissal of Captain Norman L. Trefry, shipmaster at Yarmouth, and Dr. Carl A. Webster, Port Physician at Yarmouth.


David Henderson: Before the committee rises for the six o'clock recess, I wish to say a word. I have been absolutely disgusted with the corruption that goes on in Nova Scotia and the call there has been for so many dismissals. What kind of people are they? In my county there has not been a dismissal of an officer for fifteen or twenty years. We observe the law there in election time; we do what is right; there is no cause for dismissals. I cannot but think that if hon. gentlemen would serve their constituents fairly, they would not air their grievances as much as they have been doing. The reputation of the whole province of Nova Scotia is being destroyed. I had the idea that Nova Scotians were respectable people, law-abiding people. But it turns cut, from one thing after another, that there is hardly a man in the province but is guilty of something in connection with elections. I really think that hon. gentlemen would be doing a favour to their province if'they would drop this miserable talk about dismissals and bringing to the notice of the whole country the actions of the people of that province. On the whole, however, I cannot believe the people are half as bad as they are represented. I have too much respect for them to think otherwise. To my mind the time has come when this talk about dismissals can very well be dropped, at anyrate for this session.


John Howard Sinclair: I would suggest to the hon. gentleman that he make that suggestion to tile minister.
At six o'clock, House resumed and then took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 197, tt>
incorporate the Glengarry and Stormont

Railway Company.-Mr. Alguire. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 10-hotels and parks:
Mr. LANCASTER:: There is a slight
amendment to section 10. As the Bill came from the Senate, this section was not the standard clause for the purpose, and we have amended it by inserting a few words to make it the model clause for the purpose intended.
On section 15-agreements with other companies:


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is an amendment to this section which is of no serious significance. It simply allows the company to amalgamate with the two other railway lines mentioned, the Canadian Northern Ontario, and the Canadian Northern Quebec.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


BURRARD, WESTMINSTER BOUNDARY RAILWAY AND NAVIGATION.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 203, respecting the Burrard, Westminster Boundary Railway and Navigation Company.- Mr. Taylor. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-extension of time:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: There are several amendments to the Bill. Section 1 was defective in improperly stating that the company were to commence the construction of railways authorized by three statutes, whilst the last-named statute is merely a renewal of the other two. We struck out of section 1 of the Bill, after the figures 1909, in line 10, the words: ' In chapter 50 of the statutes of 1911,' because that statute does not confer any authority upon the railways; it is simply a formal extension of time.
On section 3-increase of issue of securities.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We insert after clause
3 this section as section 4:
Section 3 of chapter 56 of the statutes of 1909 is amended by inserting after ' 1907 ' in line 2 thereof, the words ' and amendments thereto.'
By section 3, as it came from the Senate, it will be observed that the statute was amended by substituting as a limitation of the issue of securities, the word ' forty ' for the word ' thirty.' We found that the statutes of 1909, applying to an additional part of their road, needed to be amended so as to make the Act uniform throughout. The promoters of the Bill seemed to think
that by keeping the Bill in its original form the words of the section would cover the whole line. That, however, would be a matter of doubtful expression, and to make it clear we added the section I have quoted.
On section 5

chap. 68, statutes of 1907 amended:


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We added section 5 to the Bill, which is in these words:
Paragraph ' e ' of section 12 of chapter 68 of the statutes of 1907 is amended by inserting after ' grounds ' on line 1 thereof the words ' with the approval expressed by bylaw, of the municipality having jurisdiction over the place in which such parks and pleasure grounds are situated and upon terms to be agreed upon with such municipality.'
In 1907 a clause was inserted in the statute which is not the present policy of this Parliament; it did not restrict the company to getting the consent of the municipality to use its parks and pleasure grounds. As they are asking for an extension of time, we have adopted our usual rule this year, providing that they must obtain the consent of the municipalities, as any incorporated company would be obliged to do.
On section 6-electric power:


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is a new section, as follows:
In so far as the company has the right to acquire electric or other power or energy* which may he transmitted and delivered _td any place in the municipalities through which the railway or works have been constructed, and to receive, transform, transmit, distribute and supply such electric power or energy in any form and to dispose of the surplus thereof, and to collect rates and charges therefor, the company may, subject to the provisions of section 247 of the Railway Act,1 continue to so acquire such eleotric power on energy, but not by expropriation; but no such rate or charge shall be demanded or taken for such electric power or energy until the same has been approved of by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, which may also revise such rates and charges.
On section 7-chapter 68, statutes of 1907 amended:


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The present rights of the company with regard to telegraph poles, electric power, and so on, along the railways, does not contain a limitation as to selling and disposing of them for use within the municipality without the consent expressed by by-law, of such municipality. We have inserted this section in order to make the required provision in this regard.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



WINNIPEG WATER SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 220, to enable the city of Winnipeg to get water outside the province of Manitoba.-Mr. Bradbury. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 1-power to get water outside of Manitoba:
["Clause 32 was struck\nout of the Bill:\nThe company may have agencies _ in any places outside of Canada for the registration and transfer of debentures or other stock and for the transaction of any other business of the company.\nAnd the following was substituted:\n32. Tralifers of debenture stock may be left with such agent or agents in the United\n\nKingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or elsewhere, as the company appoints for that purpose, for transmission to the company's head office for registration.\nAmendment read the second time and agreed to."]
Robert Rogers: This is a Bill prepared
by Judge Robson, now Utilities Commissioner for the province of Manitoba, for the purpose of taking the water from Shoal lake, a portion of which is within the province of Manitoba and a portion of which is within the province of Ontario. By reason of the fact that the lake is situated in both provinces it was found necessary to have this Bill. A similar Bill relating to the city of Ottawa was passed by this House the other day. The Bill has been very carefully prepared, it was presented to the Senate by Senator Young and passed by that House. It has passed the Private Bills Committee of this House. The city of Winnipeg has obtained its domestic water supply from artesian wells, but these have not been found sufficient for a great and growing city and it is now desired to bring water from this lake. There is no objection from the Government of Ontario.
On section 7-application of sections of Railway Act:


Frank Oliver: What are these provisions of the Railway Act?
Mr. AIK.INS:	They relate to the expropriation of land through which the conduit may be carried. The purpose is to modify the Railway Act to such an extent as to make it applicable. So instead of Minister of Railways it says Minister of Public Works. The expropriation which is provided for of course calls for compensation.


Frank Oliver: It would seem to me that the legislation of this Parliament would hardly b9 sufficient under the circumstances.


Mr. AIKINS:: Under the British North America Act any work extending from one province into another or connecting twi provinces necessarily comes within the jurisdiction of this Parliament. The works authorized by this Act refer specifically to taking water from Ontario.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is not the kind of work that is contemplated by the British North America Act. I am not objecting to the Bill, but merely pointing out that this is a case where we may be taking the property which belongs to the province of Ontario, or the property of some individual. I submit that the Government of the province of Ontario should be consulted in some way as to this Bill.
Mr. LANCASTER.


Robert Rogers: The province of Ontario had due notice of this Bill, and it has been before the Senate and advertised in a public way for some weeks. I know that the Government of the province of Ontario have had full knowledge of it, and there is no objection from any quarter. This lake is in an outlying district, and the Bill cannot affect or disturb anybody.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister's statement does not cure the point of law I am making. I do not know what view the Government or the people of Ontario may take of it, but the water of that lake is as much the property of Ontario as part of a forest or a deposit of minerals would be.


George Henry Bradbury: There seems to be some misunderstanding. This Bill does not provide for the taking of water from any special place. It provides for getting water from waters that are under the control of the Parliament of Canada. It does not provide for going into Ontario or any other province. If they do go into Ontario and take water, they will certainly have to make an arrangement with the Ontario Government. This Bill is only to give the city of Winnipeg power to take such waters as are under the control of the Parliament of Canada; it does not specify any lake.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does it provide for expropriation ?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 202, respecting the Toronto Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Archie Blaustein.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 205, for the relief of Mary Arabella Young.-Mr. Schaffner.

[Stage Direction]
Consideration of amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 92, to incorporate the Metropolitan Mortgage and Loan Corporation-Mr. Meighen.
Frank Oliver: What is the amendment?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Clause 32 was struck
out of the Bill:
The company may have agencies _ in any places outside of Canada for the registration and transfer of debentures or other stock and for the transaction of any other business of the company.
And the following was substituted:
32. Tralifers of debenture stock may be left with such agent or agents in the United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, or elsewhere, as the company appoints for that purpose, for transmission to the company's head office for registration.
Amendment read the second time and agreed to.


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 214, respecting the Hudson Bay Insurance Company-Mr. Knowles.
Bill No. 215, to incorporate the Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Mackenzie-Mr. Proulx.
Bill No. 216, to incorporate the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Canada-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill No. 218, respecting the Empire Life Insurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.
Bill No. 217, to incorporate The Canadian Northwestern Railway	Company-Mr. McKay.
Bill No. 219, respecting the Casualty Company of Canada-Sir Edmund Osier.
Bill No. 223, to west in the Van Buren Bridge Company the charter rights of the Restigouche and Western Railway Company, to construct and maintain a railway bridge over the St. John river-Mr. Carvell.
Bill No. 227, respecting the Western Canada Accident and Guarantee Insurance Company-Mr. Macdonell.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
River St. Lawrence ship channel, $894,000.
['The hon. member for St.\nJohn called my attention to the matter On inquiry I found that the return will cover over a thousand pages. It is almost ready and probably will be brought down next week.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Hazen, the House adjourned at 1.05 a.m. Saturday.', 'Monday, May 26, 1913.']
Rodolphe Lemieux: Please explain this item.


John Douglas Hazen: This item is for the maintenance and operating of the dredging fleet. It is made up as follows:
6 elevator dredges with tugs at $45,000..$270,000
1 new steel elevator rock dredge or tug 45,000 1 new steel elevator rook dredge with -tug under construction (expected to be ready for next season) .. .. 45,000 1 new self-propelling steel elevator dredge with tug (being built by contract) half	season	 25,000
1	hydraulic dredge with two tugs .. .. 118,000
2	suction hopper dredges, 1 tug and 1
. self-propelling hopper barge	 150,000
2 dipper dredges with tugs at $40,000.. 80,000 2 inspection and sweeping tugs at
$18,000	  36,000
2	stone lifters and 1	floating shop.. .. 15,0001	rock cutter	
10,000
Fleet generally:
Amount for outfitting, docking and providing of extra parts for dredging fleet, including the necessary improvements	-to	fleet	 100,000
The increases over last year art accounted for by the fact that we expect there will be two more tugs in commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this under the direction of the department or of the harbour commission?


John Douglas Hazen: It is under the direction ol the department. The engineer in charge is Mr. Forneret.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I should like my hon.
friend to give me some data as regards the dredging in the sections between Montreal and Quebec and below Quebec.


John Douglas Hazen: It is estimated that the total number of cubic yards to be removed in the north channel below Quebec, to obtain a channel thirty-five feet in depth at extreme low tide and 1,000 feet in width, amounts to 16,153,173 cubic yards. Of this amount 2,211,000 cubic yards have been dredged up to September 28, 1912, there remaining 13,942,173 cubic yards yet to be dredged. With the present plant consisting of the dredges, Beaujeau (No. 8) and Galveston (No. 9), it will take about eight months more to complete the work. As the shipping interests are very anxious that the work should be completed in a shorter time, it will be necessary to acquire an additional powerful dredge to expedite the work. We are asking for an appropriation for one.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As long as my hon.
friend gets the valuable services of Mr. Forneret, the country is safe in his hands. He is well informed and he gives general satisfaction to the public. In connection with this channel below Quebec, do the Government intend to dredge what is called the north channel? There is the usual channel which is followed by the pilots at present, but for many years I have heard from captains and pilots that the north channel along the north coast of the river St. Lawrence is much preferable to the other.


John Douglas Hazen: We intend to dredge that and we are dredging it. We have heard from shipping people, from our engineers and others, that the right thing is to dredge that north channel, because it makes a much safer approach. It is the north channel down to Quebec and along the north shore of Grosse Isle. Some 2,000,000 odd cubic yards have been removed, and about fourteen million cubic yards remain to be dredged. That is what the extra dredge is required for.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about the Traverse? Is there anything new this year?


John Douglas Hazen: We have a new light ship at Traverse, which is one of the most dangerous spots in the river below Quebec.
Lighthouse and coast service- salaries and allowance to lightkeepers, $450,000.


George William Kyte: I desire to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to

certain dismissals in the lighthouse service made in the county of Richmond during the last year. Mr. Duchemin, the gentleman entrusted with making recommendations for dismissals, has become emboldened no doubt by the encouragement he receives from the minister. From time to time during the present session, as well a.:' during the last session the attention of the House has been called to the absolutely unfair and unjustifiable recommendations which have been made by Mr. Duchemin for the dismissal of public officers throughout the province of Nova Scotia. As I have said, owing to the defence made for him on the floor of this House by the ministers and their supporters, he is keeping the even tenor of his way, and is becoming less and less disposed to observe the ordinary rules and principles of fair play which characterizes the lowest and most inferior courts in the land. I have here the papers with regard to the dismissal of Mr. Michael O'Brien, keeper of the light at Bear island. Mr. O'Brien received notice to appear before Mr. Duchemin to answer to the charge of political partisanship, and that notice is as follows:
Mr. Michael O'Brien,
Bear Island, N.S.
I beg to notify you that I have been instructed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to investigate the charge of political partisanship, that has been preferred against you, for acts committed while you were in the employ of the Dominion Government, in the capacity of lightkeeper.
The investigation will be held in Edward Malcolm's house, at Port Malcolm, N.S., on Thursday the 20th day of February, 1912, at two o'clock in the afternoon, when you are t equested to be present, and to have any witnesses there who can testify in your behalf.	,
Dated, Sydney, N.S., the 17th day of February, 1913.
H. P. Duchemin.
Commissioner of Inquiry.
This notice, it will be observed, requested the attendance of Mr. O'Brien at Port Malcolm for the purpose of answering the charge. But instead of Mr. Duchemin holding the court at Port Malcolm upon the day fixed by him, he held court eight miles away in another county, and of the holding of that court Mr. O'Brien had no notice. Yet Mr. Duchemin proceeded to investigate the charges as if Mr. O'Brien had been properly summoned before him. I have here the affidavit of Mr. O'Brien setting forth the facts:
I,	Michael O'Brien, of Bear Island, in the county of Richmond, and province of Nova Scotia, lightkeeper, do solemnly declare that:
1. The paper wriling hereto annexed marked 'A' was not received by me until about the hour of four o'clock in the afternoon of Saturdav the 22nd day of February,

Mr, BYTE.
That is the notice calling upon Mr. O'Brien to appear before the commissioner for investigation:
-and this w,as the first and only notice I ever received that any charge of political partisanship had been preferred against me, or that any investigation would be held in Edward Malcolm's house at Port Malcolm or elsewhere at which I was requested to be present or in which I was interested; but about two o'clock on Saturday afternoon of the 22nd day of February 1913, I heard it rumoured at Port Malcolm that such an investigation -was being held that afternoon at the Farquhar house in Port Hawkeshury, but I had no official notice or information at any time that such investigation was being held at said Farquhar house, it was impossible for	me	to	get	there m
time to defend myself against the charge.
2.	On Saturday	the	first	day	of March,1913, I was told that	there	had	been am investigation held	or	some	evidence taken
against ime hv Mr. Duchemin on the 271th day of February, 19113, at the Farquhar House in Port Hawkesbury; hut II liad no official notice or information at any time previous to said first day of March, 1913, that such investigation would be held or evidence would he taken on said 27th day of February, 1913, or at any time.
3.	Since my appointment as lightkeeper I have mot committed any act of political partisanship; and I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to he true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidenec Act, 1893. '
Michael O'Brien.
Declared before me at Port Hawkesbury, in the county of Inverness and province of Nova Scotia this 12th day of March, A.D.
Ormond Forsyth, a notary public in and for the province of Nova Scotia.
I have here the record of the hearing and dismissal which I obtained from the Marine and Fisheries Department. On the file there are letters as follows:
Port Malcolm,
January 12, 1912.
Hon. F. D. Monk.-
Dear Sir:-	,	, .
As I am an old Tory for the last thirty years and I hav<? stood by the party when they have lost and when they have won, and I think that the party that I have stood by should help me out, so I would like tor you to use your influence in my behalf in procurin'* me the keeping of the lighthouse on Bear Island Point, now kept by a young man by the name of 'Michael O'Brien a strong Liberal as he worked hard for his party at the last election. I applied for the lighthouse when it was under construction some six years ago hut as I was not of the party my application was not looked at. Hoping you will do the best yon can for me, and that you are enjoying good health and that you may enjoy a prosperous New Year I remain,
, Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) W. J. Malcolm, Port Malcolm, Richmond Co., C.B.

Ottawa, January 23, 1913.
Dear Sir:-
Your undated letter addressed to the Hon. Mr. Monk, asking that you be given the office of keeping the lighthouse at Bear Island Point, has been transferred to me by the Minister of Public Works.
In reply I beg to say I am not aware of a vacancy existing at this Point at the present time, nor have any charges been preferred against the present keeper. I will, however, have your name noted for further consideration.

Yours truly, J. Malcolm, Esq.,
Port Malcolm,
Richmond, Co., C.B.
Then follows another letter from Mr Malcolm :
_	Port Malcolm, Jan. 29, 1912
J. D. Hazen.
Honourable Sir,-Your letter of January 23 is at hand, with the thanks for recogniz** mg my application. I beg to say that the present lightkeeper is a young unmarried man and a strong supporter of the Eaurier Government as he worked hard for that party on the 21st of September and, as you are aware, Hon. G. W. Kyte was elected, and it was through his influence that he got the keeping of the tight. And, as I am the oldest lory in this end of the section and have never voted any other way, nor my father before me, and my left arm is disabled, I concluded to make an application to the department for the office, for I feel convinced that the Conservatives will be in power for quite a number of years. Hoping that you may enjoy a properous New Year and many of them.
I remain, Hon. Sir,
Your obedient servant,
W. J. Malcolm,
Port Malcolm, Richmond county, Cape Breton.
Mr. Malcolm is entirely mistaken as to the time Mr. O'Brien was appointed light-keeper. He was not appointed on my recommendation, but was given the light several years before I became the representative of the county. Here is a letter from Mr. Gillies:
Hon. J. D. Hazen,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-A complaint has been lodged with me against Michael O'Brien the keeper of the Bear Island lighthouse for political par-tizanship at the recent election. The complainants are Mr. W. J. Malcolm and Michael Morgan both living near Bear Island and who state that they are prepared to fully prove the charges. Besides themselves they give the names of other witnesses and I would respectfully ask that this matter be immediately referred to Commissioner Duchemin for investigation.
Yours very truly,
J. A. Gillies.
To that letter the following reply was sent:
30th December, 1912.
Sir,-I enclose copy of a letter from Mr. J. A. Gillies, barrister, Sydney, N.S., addressed to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in which charges of political partisanship are preferred against Michael O'Brien, keeper of the light on Bear Island, Richmond county, N.S.
I have to request you to inquire into this matter and report thereon for the information of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) A. Johnston.
This is a letter from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to Mr. Gillies, dated December 30, 1912:
30th December, 1912.
Dear Sir,-I have yours of the 21st instant, in which charges of political partisanship are preferred against Michael O'Brien, keeper of the light on Bear Island, Richmond county, N.S.
This matter has "been referred to commissioner Duchemin for investigation.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) J. D. Hazen.
I pointed out that Mr. O'Brien was summoned to appear before Mr .Duchemin to answer to the charge of political partisanship at Port Malcolm, in the county of Richmond, on February 20, 1913. Mr. O'Brien did not receive his notice until February 22, 1913, and, in addition to his not receiving notice in time to appear before Mr. Duchemin, the extraordinary feature of the matter is that Mr. Duchemin changed the place where the investigation was to have been held, and where O'Brien was notified to appear, to Port Hawkesbury, a point eight miles distant from Port Malcolm, and the investigation was there held by Mr. Duchemin without giving O'Brien an opportunity to appear, because O'Brien received no notice to appear at that place. I have before me the report which was sent by Mr. Duchemin to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, upon which Mr. O'Brien was dismissed. In the earlier period of Mr. Du-chemin's investigation of these charges, he always forwarded a copy of the evidence which was taken before him to the several departments which had instructed him to hold the investigations, and when the papers were moved for, not only Mr. Duchemin's report, but the whole of the evidence was available. It would appear, however, that Mr. Duchemin has profited by experience, and he is not now forwarding copies of the evidence upon which he bases his report for dismissals. It would be perfectly obvious, upon a comparison of Mr. Duchemin's findings with the evidence upon which he based them, that his recommendations had not been justified by the evidence. Mr. Duchemin, therefore, has not recently



an instrument for the purpose of bringing about dismissals which are bound to come anyway.
There is no circumstances in connection with this dismissal of Mr. O'Brien that can be justified for a moment. Mr. O'Brien did not receive a notice of the investigation until two days after the date of the investigation; the investigation was held at a place eight miles distant from the place where he was summoned to appear and therefore he had no opportunity whatever of appearing before the commissioner.
It has been disputed by hon. gentlemen opposite as to whether the statement which has been made by hon. gentlemen on this side is correct that Mr. Duchemin is not allowing counsel to be heard on behalf of persons charged. That is a small matter, grave as it is, compared with the fact that men. are taken unawares, are sent notices which are absolutely deceptive, are given notices which are intended to deceive them and to render it absolutely impossible for them to be present at the inquiry. If Mr. O'Brien had been present at that inquiry, although I submit it would not have availed in the mind of Mt. Duchemin, he would have had the satisfaction of going upon the witness stand and pointing out the respects in .which the evidence adduced against him was absolutely without foundation. As a matter of fact, Mr. O'Brien was not the agent of the Liberal candidate in the last provincial election. He has not been an agent for any candidate either before or since his appointment to office, so far as I am aware. The fact that Mr. O'Brien went into the poll on election day and asked the presiding officer to mark his ballot would no doubt have been explained had an opportunity of appearing before Mr. Duchemin been given him. So I say, in view of all the circumstances, that Mr. O'Brien's dismissal is one of the most dastardly and indefensible dismissals in the province of Nova Scotia in eighteen months-and there has been a record in Nova Scotia of which neither Mr. Duchemin nor the Minister of Marine ought to be proud.
What is my object in bringing this matter before the committee? I certainly do not expect that the minister will reinstate Mr. O'Brien. Should the minister grant another inquiry, and give Mr. O'Brien another opportunity to appear before Mr. Duchemin, the commissioner would no doubt so garble the testimony as to make an apparent justification for his dismissal and the only result would be that another $30 or $40 of Government money would find its way into his pocket. My purpose in bringing this matter before this committee is to give publicity to the infamous manner in which these investigations are being held, For fifteen years the Liberals were in power in this coun-Mr. KYTE.
try and only in two cases were there dismissals for political partisanship^ in the county of Richmond and these dismissals were made after inquiry, not by a political partisan but, as is well remembered, by a commissioner appointed by the late Government to make inquiries into political partisanship in Nova Scotia, a gentleman who held a high position in the public service of this country, who had had very long experience in holding judicial inquiries. I refer to the late Captain Douglas. No one would dare to attempt to influence Captain Douglas as to the decision he ought to give to any inquiry before him and, as a matter of fact, I know many instances where in quiries were held before him and he dismissed the charges of partisanship alleged against the official. Never in the history of Canada have there been so many dismissals as have been made in all the departments of this Government since they came into power. This afternoon the hon.. member for Halton proceeded to read a lecture to members from Nova Scotia for the time they were taking up in discussing the matter of dismissals in that province. He said it was a disgrace to the province of Nova Scotia. I quite concede it is a disgrace to the province of Nova Scotia, a bitter disgrace to the Government which the hon. member supports so loyally. If there is any person disgraced and degraded before the country in respect of these dismissals it is not the unfortunate officeholder who has been hounded to death since the change of Government in order that his position might be given to a partisan; the disgrace lies at the doors of the members of this Government who countenance these unfair dismissals and will resort to the subterfuges to which they do resort in order to bring them about. On another occasion, when discussing the question of dismissals in this House during the present session, I read the declarations of the Prime Minister as to what the rights of an official were with regard to participating in public discussions. The right hon. gentleman stated that public officials had the right not only to attend public meetings but to speak at public meetings provided they did not give offence to any person in the community. But, like every other principle which the right hon. gentleman espoused when he was in office, it has been cast to the winds, and, with every colleague he has in the Government, he has degenerated to the verv lowest depths to accomplish the ruin of officials who have been public servants during the last fifteen vears. On other occasions during this session, we have had cries of sympathy from hon. gentlemen opposite. When complaint was made in this House that a man named Andrew

Landry had been improperly released from jail in order that he might enjoy the emoluments of publio office, the defence was that he had a large family, and that it was a most cruel thing for him to be kept in jail. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Justice both declaimed against hon. gentlemen on this side of the House on the ground of their hard-heartedness in seeking to have this man Landry kept in jail to serve out his sentence, when a family depended on him. But 75 per cent of the men who have been ruthlessly driven from office have large families depending on them. They are men who gave up whatever employment they previously had to accept employment under the Government, and they have been turned out of public office without any means of livelihood. The sympathy and charity of hon. gentlemen opposite are only to be extended to Tories who are seeking office, or who are seeking liberty from the public jails. There is no sympathy to be shown for the official who happens to have been appointed by a Liberal, but if he has been guilty of voting for or has been suspected of voting for a liberal candidate, he must be cast to the winds, and their own heelers must be given the position. I am -anxious to hear what defence the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has for the dismissal of Mr. O'Brien, in view of the circumstances which I have stated, and in order to give the minister an opportunity of making a defence I shall give the floor to him, and continue my remarks later on.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend has worked himself into a fine state of frenzy over this matter. He has used a -wonderful vocabulary of adjectives. 'Gruesome,'
' blood-thirsty,' and other adjectives of the most extraordinary character have been indulged in by the hon. gentleman-adjectives which I think are entirely misplaced. What are the facts in connection with this matter? The facts are that charges were made to the Marine and Fisheries Department to the effect that this man occupying a Government position, had been an active partisan in recent elections in the province of Nova Scotia. Mr. Duchemin, who was the commissioner appointed to investigate charges of that sort in the eastern part of the province of Nova Scotia, had this matter referred to him for inquiry. Mr. Duchemin, after inquiry, submitted his lenort to the denartment, and in that report, which is the only matter we have on record with regard to it, Mr.. Duchemin states that Mr. O'Brien was duly notified of the time and place of examination, hut that he did not appear thereat. That is the only statement we have with regard to
340}
the investigation. It is the statement of the commissioner appointed and sworn to do his doty, and that commissioner states most emphatically that Mr. O'Brien was notified of the time and place of investigation, but that he did not appear thereat. Now, it is a very strange thing to me, if that investigation was held, as it was held away back in the month of February last, thfit no communication of any sort was ever addressed to the department by Mr. O'Brien, or by anybody acting on his behalf, stating that he was not notified of the time and place of examination and had no opportunity of attending, if such were the case.


George William Kyte: Mr. O'Brien immediately
sent me a copy of his declaration, and I moved for the papers, and I got them only a short time ago.


John Douglas Hazen: That is no answer to the statement I made. I say it was a surprising- thing, if my hon. friend is correct in saying that O'Brien was not properly notified of the time and place of investigation, as Mr. Duchemin says he was, that after all these months had elapsed, no communication was addressed to the department stating that he had not been notified.


George William Kyte: Does the minister say that O'Brien committed perjury when he made this declaration ?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend had better not get excited.


George William Kyte: I am not excited at all.


John Douglas Hazen: He is the most excited man I have seen in the House this year ?'
^Mr. KYTE: Nothing of the kind.


John Douglas Hazen: I -repeat to my hon. friend that it is a most- extraordinary thing-I repeat it for the third time-if that statement of Mr. Duchemin's that O'Brien had been notified of the time and place of examination, is not true, and Mr. O'Brien was not notified of the time and place of examination, that all those months should have elapsed without any representation having been made to that effect to the department. My hon. friend says he moved for the papers. That is no answer to what I have said% He moved for the papers which were in the department, and they were brought down. Every paper bearing on the matter was brought down, and there is nothing in those papers showing that any complaint was ever lodged with the department- claiming that Du-c-hemin's statement that he had notified O'Brien of the time and place of examination was an untrue statement, or declaring that O'Brien had not been so notified. I agree at once

that if he was not notified, it was a most improper proceeding, and I further say that if he was not notified, and if in that report, Mr. Duchemin was stating what was untrue, and deceiving the department, it was a most improper proceeding, and one not worthy of an official occupying the position of commissioner under the Act. But all that we have on our official record is that statement of Duchemin that O'Brien was notified of the time and place of the investigation, and until there is satisfactory evidence to show that^ that statement is not correct, I think it is my duty to stand by that statement made by Mr. Duchemin in the official -report which he made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I must accept and stand by this man who was appointed by the department to act as commissioner until the contrary is shown, as I shall stand by any official of the department until it is shown that he is not worthy of confidence. The investigation was held, and it was shown that O'Brien was a lighthouse keeper who was interested in an election, that he attended the nomination _ meeting, that he was away all day and night, and did not return to his lighthouse until the following day. That is stated in the evidence by a man named Morgan, a fisherman-farmer living at Bear Island. It is further shown that Mr. O'Brien was a voter in the provincial election of 1911, and under the rule laid down by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, interference ' in a provincial election is just as much a cause for dismissal as interference in a Dominion election. It is shown that in the provincial election of 1911, after the Dominion election, O'Brien went to vote, and that although he was able to read and write he insisted on having his ballot marked by the returning officer. "What could his purpose be in doing that ? He wanted to show his zeal on behalf of the cause of the party he was supporting, what a keen and active partisan he was, and what a keen part he was taking in the elections. Then we have the further statement, that he also talked in strong language	in	regard to
the Conservatives. According to one witness, he said: ' When the Tories were in power they did us no good, and, if they got in now they will ruin us. Certainly the Liberals will get in.' The one statement may have been correct from a certain standpoint, but he was not a good prophet with regard to the other. If that statement is correct, and Duchemin says that is the evidence before him,- I ask any hon. gentleman if that is not sufficient to justify O'Brien's dismissal on the ground of offensive partisanship. No hon. gentleman will contend that it is not, and having that report made by an official api Mr. HAZEN.
pointed for the purpose of investigating this matter, and no report having been made to the department that there was anything wrong with regard to it, I was amply justified in taking the course I did, in recommending O'Brien's dismissal. My hon. friend has referred to the fact that in the province of Nova Scotia under Liberal rule men were not turned out of office in this way. In the county of Queens and Shelburne, far more Dominion officials were dismissed from office after the election of 1896 than have been dismissed since the election of 1911, although there were not so many officials in the county at that time. My hon. friend from Richmond further referred to the fact that the Liberals appointed an official to hold these investigations-Mr. Bloomfield Douglas. In the province of New Brunswick they did not appoint an official; they appointed a lawyer in the city of St. John, a gentleman, I suppose, having a standing at the bar similar to that of Mr. Duchemin, or Mr. Knowles, or the other gentleman who have been conducting investigations of this kind. Mr. Bloomfield Douglas' may have held some investigations but he was not the only commissioner in the province of Nova Scotia appointed for that purpose. I have been informed that in the province of Nova Scotia two other gentlemen, Mr. Bill and Mr. Ross, lawyers practising in the city of Halifax, were appointed to hold investigations and did hold investigations in the province of Nova Scotia. So, my hon. friend is not correct when he says that these investigations were held by officials of the Government because others were appointed just as Mr. McAlpine was appointed in New Brunswick and as other gentlemen were appointed in other parts of the province. All I can say is that I accept the statement of Mr. Duchemin as a correct report of what occurred until the contrary is shown. The hon. gentleman makes the* statement on the authority of a man who has been removed from office. I do not wish to say that that man is not telling the truth, but I will say that he is not an unprejudiced witness and that my duty is to accept the statement that Mr. Duchemin has made to the department without one word to the contrary until months have intervened and with no statement being made to the effect that the man was not properly notified until it is made by my hon. friend to the committee to-night.


George William Kyte: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is inclined to set aside the statement of Mr. O'Brien as to the facts because he says he is not an unprejudiced witness. Very good, but I will remind him that in nine cases out of ten, where he instituted inquiries into charges of partisanship against officials, the witnesses were the men who were looking for their jobs and

trying to bring about their dismissal. Will the minister say that these were unprejudiced witnesses?


John Douglas Hazen: I will say that the statement that in nine cases out of ten the men who gave evidence were looking for their jobs is without foundation.


George William Kyte: I will say, speaking for my own county, that in nine cases out of ten the men who appeared as witnesses against officials charged with partisanship were the men who were seeking the offices held by these men and who got the offices afterwards. In seventy-five per cent of the cases the only witnesses called to give testimony were the men who were looking for the offices and who got the offices afterwards. If the evidence of Mr. O'Brien ought to be without weight in the opinion of the minister because he was a prejudiced witness, I ask the minister why he and his colleagues have been dismissing men from office on charges of partisanship when the only witnesses to appear against them were the men who were looking for their places?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not the evidence of O'Brien before me. I have no evidence of O'Brien, he gave no evidence and all we have is the ex parte statement which has been made by the hon. gentleman. All the witnesses who appeared before Mr. Duchem-in were examined under oath.


George William Kyte: Why has not the minister the evidence?-because Mr. O'Brien was misled into going to a place eight miles away irom where the inquiry was held, and yet the minister endeavours to make a point that he has not the evidence of O'Brien before him. How could he have the evidence of Mr. O'Brien when this fair-minded, non-partisan and highly-respected commissioner of his sent him off on a fool's errand eight _ miles away from where the court was being held? That is the reason why the evidence is not before the minister. It was absolutely impossible to get the evidence, and Mr. Duchemin well knew that when he sent O'Brien away on a fool's errand. W. J. Malcolm said: 'I have been a Tory for thirty years and I want a public office.' The minister, in view of the report of the dismissal of O'Brien, makes a statement which is tantamount to the well known declaration of the politician in the United States some years ago, that to the victors .belong the spoils. That is the position of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; we might as well understand it and the taxpayers of Canada might as well be saved the cost of paying Mr. Duchemin for any further investigations which he may be making. The minister says to the committee that there was evidence that this man used offensive language on the street to a voter. Who gave the evidence? It was the wife of the man
who is now the lightkeeper. The two points upon which evidence has been given and which the minister seems to think is a justification for the dismissal could no doubt have been explained by O'Brien had he had an opportunity of appearing before the commissioner. Mr. O'Brien having voted openly, could have been explained, no doubt. I am not complaining so much about the dismissal of O'Brien but I am complaining of the farcical character of the investigation. Mr. Duchemin's conduct in holding investigations in Richmond county, and my experience is not limited to this case, has been such as to cast discredit upon any finding which he may make, and before the Minister of Marine and Fisheries gets his estimates through he will have more instances of the character of the inquiries which have been held. Then the minister endeavours to minimize the effect of the statement I made here to-night by stating that he has not the sworn testimony of O'Brien, whereas we have the solemn declaration of O'Brien, deposed to before a commissioner of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, to which is attached the original notice sent by Mr. Duchemin to Mr. O'Brien notifying him to attend for investigation at Port Malcolm on the 20th of February. Yet the minister says there is no evidence that Mr. O'Brien was not summoned to appear before the commissioner at Port Hawkesbury. I have- sometimes admired the ingenuous manner the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has of getting around difficult points in the matter; of the conduct of Mr. Duchemin, but it is apparent to the committee that the minister is driven to the last ditch in his effort to find an explanation for the report which Mr. Duchemin has made in this instance.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte), has been pointing out a case in which a lighthouse keeper was dismissed on very slight evidence and a dispute has been going on between him and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as to whether the evidence was sufficient or not. I can cite a case to my hon. friend where there was no evidence at all excepting a letter from the man who wanted to get the job. It is the case of the dismissal of Stephen C. Richards, of Charles' Cove, in the county of Guysborough. Mr. Richards was a good officer, no complaint against him, and he was not a partisan in so far as I know. A letter was written by Mr. Alex. Richard, who wished to obtain the position held by Mr. Stephen Richards, to Mr. Rowlings, the defeated candidate in Guysborough, and Mr. Rowlings forwarded the letter of Mr. Richard to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The letter is as follows:

Mr. 6. A. Rowlings,
Sydney, N.S.
Sir,-I beg to report that Mr. Stephen C. Richards now holding the office of lightkeeper of range lights ait Clharlos' Cove, county of Guysborough, N.S. has been an active Liberal partisan and was a worker for the Liberal candidate at the recent election in September, 1911, and I hereby request that he be immediately dismissed.
Yours truly,
(Sgd..) Alex. Richard, per W. J. Murphy.
An illiterate man who is not able to sign his own name makes application through another man of the name of Mr. Murphy, and states that Mr. Stephen C. Richards is a partisan. The letter was sent to Mr. Rowlings, and Mr. Rowlings sent the letter to the minister. Mr. Rowlings' letter is as follows:
Hon. J. D. Hazen, M.P.,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Referring to the above I beg to say that I am satisfied from inquiries that I have made that Mr. Stephen C. Richards, the present holder of this position, as stated by Mr. Murphy, is an active Liberal partisan and took an active part in the recent election. I would therefore recommend that the above request be granted and that Mr. Alexander Richard of Charles' Cove, N.S., be appointed to the said position.
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) G. A. R. Rowlings.
The minister will see that the sole evidence on which he dismissed this official was a letter from a man who was expecting to get the appointment, and this letter was forwarded by the defeated candidate. In his letter, Mr. RowliDgs recommends Mr. Alex. Richard, the man who makes the complaint, for the position. Then we have the reply of the minister to Mr. Rowlings as follows:
G. A. R. Rowlings, Esq.,
Sydney, N.S.
Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of yours covering recommendation of Alexander Richard that Stephen C. Richards now holding office of lightkeeper of range lights at Charles' Gove, county of Guysborough, be removed from office.
I note your recommendation that Alexander Richard be appointed to tlie position. In view of your (Statement that you are satisfied from inquiries you have made Itha't iMr. S. C. Richards is an active Liberal partisan, who took an active part in the recent election I will recommend that the cl*inge desired be made.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) J. D. Hazen.
There is no necessity for the committee to listen to disputes as to whether evidence has' been taken or not, because there is no evidence here except a letter written by the man who wants to get the appointment himself. If a man can be dismissed on Mr. SINCLAIR.
evidence like that, I submit to the committee that it is a farce to call these proceedings an investigation. Will the minister explain why he dismissed the lighthouse keeper at Charlos' Cove without any evidence whatever, and appointed in his place the man who complained against him?


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. G. A. R. Rowlings,
who was a candidate in the county of Guysborough at the last election, enclose to the department a communication he had received from Mr. Alex. Richard, stating that Mr. Stephen Richards had been an active partisan and was working for the Liberal candidate during the recent election. Mr. Rowlings stated that he had investigated the matter carefully and was satisfied that the information was correct. On his statement, the order was issued a little later on to rerhove Mr. Stephen Richards from his position. I received a letter from my hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) stating that he thought this was a mistake, and requesting that an investigation be held. At the request of my hon. friend. I ordered that investigation to be held. The investigation was not held as promptly as it should have been. My hon. friend, I think, early in the session, called my attention to the fact that I had given him my promise that an investigation would be held. I looked up the file and found that the department had instructed Mr. Duch-emin to hold an investigation; I think that was towards the end of January Last; but up to that time no report had been received. We instantly communicated with Mr. Duchemin; called his attention to the fact that orders had been issued by the department to hold an investigation, and asked him why he had not done so. We also ordered him to proceed to do so at once, if he had not already done so. I have under my hand the report of Mr. Duche-min which has been handed to me just now by the deputy minister. I did not see it before I came into the House and before two minutes ago, when my hon. friend commenced to speak. The report is as follows:
Sydney, N.8., May 15, 1913. Hon. .T. D. Hazen,
*Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa, Canada.
Re Stephen Richards, formerly lightkeeper,
Ohabios' Cove, 'Guysborough county, NjS. Dear Sir,-	.
On the 13fch instant, I conducted an inquiry into the complaints of political partisanship which resulted in the removal of Stephen Richards from the position of lightkeeper at Charlos' Cove, in the county of Guysborough, N.S.
The inquiry took place at Larry's River, Guysborough county, a short distance from the home of Mr. Richards. Due notice had * been sent to Mr. Richards, of the date and

place of the hearing, and he was present throughout the hearing.
Alexander Richard, of Charles' Cove, testified that he had been a voter in that place for 30 or 35 years, and had known iStephen Richard ever since he was a child. This witness described Stephen Richard as having been a strong party man and a worker on his side of politics, for many years past. Witness stated that he remembered the last Dominion election, and that on that occasion Stephen Richard spent a very considerable part of the day around about the polling booth at Charles' Cove. He spent the day- or a considerable part of it-meeting and talking with voters as they came up to the poll to vote. Witness estimated that Mr. Richard was at least two or three hours outside the booth, occupied in the manner described. Witness was there for two or three hours himself, and saw Mr. Richard so occupied, and stated that when he (witness) left the poll, Stephen Richard was still on the ground, occupied in the same manner. Witness further went on to say that on provincial election day, he had known Stephen Richard to spend the day in the same manner outside the polling booth, interviewing and talking with voters, as they came up to poll their votes. He explained that on every election day for years past, it has been the practice of the workers on both 6ides of politics to station themselves outside and near the polling booth. Last election day, for instance, witness was present among the Conservative workers, a.nd he stated that Stephen Richard was associated with the Liberal workers outside the booth. Witness further alleged that it was the custom for Stephen Richard to spend election day in the manner described-either at the poll ait Charlos' Cove, or the poll at Larry's River-some two or three miles distant. Witness also stated that it is a custom in this district for both political parties to endeavour to .have as many as possible of their supporters stationed outside the booth on election day, for election purposes.
On the conclusion of this witness' testimony, I asked Stephen Richard, who was present, if he wished to submit or suggest questions by way of cross-examination. He then asked witness if he knew of his having paid moneys for votes on any occasion. Witness replied that he did not.
Stephen Richard then gave testimony in his own behalf. After having been duly sworn as a witness, he admitted that he was around the poll at Charles' Cove, but was inclined to question the statement of the witness that he had been there for upwards of three hours. In this connection, Mr. Richard said: I admit that I was around the poll at C'harllos' Cove, but I don't think I was there for three hours. I don't think I was there more than two hours. Joe Hatch Richard gave me a drink of rum outside the booth- about a quarter of a mile from the booth, the afternoon of election day, I don't know {whether that was election rum or not.
While witness claimed that he had not done any definite canvassing outside the booth on the occasion referred to, he did acknowledge that he had participated in political discussion outside the door of the booth, and that he had spoken up in the interests of the
Liberals. As witness put it:	J talked up
my. side outside the booth, but did not ask anyone ito vote Grit last election day. Witness also admitted that he was outside the same booth last local election day, and that he had ' talked up his side,' outside the booth on that occasion. He would not state definitely that he did not canvass anyone, but stated that he ' did not remember asking anyone to vote for the Grit side.' Witness did not question the statement of Alexander Richard that it has been his custom for years past, to spend election day outside the booth in the manner described.
In the circumstances I do not think that there can he any question that Mr. Richard violated the rule of the department, prohibiting employees from taking part in elections. It has evidently been his custom for years past to leave the light and spend all, or a considerable part of election day, outside the polling booth at either Charlos' Cove or Larry's River, discussing politics and arguing from the point of view of the Liberal party. This is certainly improper conduct on the part of a public official, and in the circumstances I think amply warranted the action of the department in dispensing with Mr. Richard's services as keeper of the light, at Charlos' Cove.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) H. P. Duchemin, Commissioner of Inquiry.
I may say to my hon. friend that I would have sent to him a copy of this at once, but I only received it now for the first time.


John Howard Sinclair: What does the hon.
minister think of it?


John Douglas Hazen: It seems to me, if he admitted himself that his habit was to stand outside the polling booth on election day, discussing the elections and 'talking up,' as he put it, the Liberal party, that he must have been there for the purpose of helping the Liberal party and that 'he is a partisan.


John Howard Sinclair: Not at all. In a little village of that kind they all sit outside the polling booth on election day. My hon. friend knows very well how these elections are conducted. Surely it is not a political crime for a man to chat with his neighbours about the elections, when sitting outside the poll on a fine day. It is a little fishing village, and the day is a holiday for the people. Mr. Richards is an honest man; he tells the truth; he says they are talking about the election. He also says that he was not canvassing anybody.


John Douglas Hazen: He does not say that. He says: ' I talked up my side outside _the poll.' What does that mean? I suppose that ' talking up my side ' meant giving arguments why one should vote for * my side.'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. minister is not so innocent that he does not know what ' talking up my side ' means. He has been long enough around polling booths to know all about it. In a country village, you have fifty or sixty neighbours who have come to the poll. Of course, they are talking election-what are they there for if not' for that? And because an official goes to the poll and meets his neighbours, and they get into discussion about an election and the official says:	I believe my side is
right, is that any reason why the man should be dismissed? We are getting some light on this question to-night. I am very glad indeed to have the Minister of Marine and Fisheries give his answers as plainly as he has done. I have never taken a hand in this question of dismissals except a little talk with the Postmaster Generali very early in the last session. I am safe in saying that three-quarters of the officials in my constituency have been removed from office. I believe that every postmaster of an office with a salary of more than $100 a year has been dismissed, and I am safe in saying that all the customs officers except two or three have suffered the same fate. In one particular case, I got the evidence. I would like to say to the credit of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries-because he has been getting so many hard truths to-night that it would not do him any harm to give him a word of commendation-that in our province he has appointed a gentleman to hold these investigations. In my judgment his principal trouble in Nova Scotia comes from the character of the man-I will not call him a gentleman-who has been carrying on these investigations. If he had appointed a gentleman of the qualifications of Mr. Knowles who acted in New Bruswick he would not have had these difficulties, he would not have had member after member standing up and giving him statements which must shame him until he does not know what to do. I do not think the minister would want to justify such conduct as he has been compelled to justify here to-day. He has not been compelled to justify such conduct in his own province. There' is not an instance brought up within the last two sessions in which we have been compelled to put my hon. friend in a position which he has been obliged, as he has been to-night, to defend conduct of this kind. I have referred to one case in which a man in my own constituency was removed from office. But the man had counsel; he was treated like a British sub-tish; every opportunity was given him to defend himself. The principal evidence against the man was that he was at the polling booth on election day. He was collector of customs, and his office was Mr. ITAZTjN.
not more than five or six rods from the polling booth-just across the street. He was on the street and was seen speaking to myself.


John Douglas Hazen: That was suspicious.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Evidently it was regarded as worse than that-it was sufficient to remove him from office. But I want to say for Mr. Knowles, that he did not recommend the dismissal; he simply took the evidence and referred it to the department and the department made the dismissal. But in Nova Scotia, Mr. Duchemin seems to be the whole department, and not only the whole department but the whole Government. * When they want a man dismissed they simply hand him over to Mr. Duchemin, and he does the job. If he cannot succeed by a fair trial, why he changes the trial place to ten miles away-anyhow, certainly, Mr. Duchemin does the job. I am not going to take any further part in this discussion of dismissals, but I would like to say to the minister that if he wants to play the man, and if he wants the people to believe that he is playing the man-get rid of Duchemin.


Mr. FOSTER (Kings, N.S.):: I want to
say just a word in reply to the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell). There is very little to reply to in what has been submitted by the hon. member for Richmond and the hon. member for Guysborough.


George William Kyte: Well, well.


George Eulas Foster: I think the judgment of
the House will support me in that statement. The hon. member for Richmond is even louder in his exclamations than the Toronto Globe described me as being on an occasion when I spoke, certainly very moderately, the other evening. All we hear from the hon. member is a loud, round and echoing noise.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: And sensible, too.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know what the remark of my hon. friend from Temiscouata may mean; I ignore his statement. With regard to Mr. Duchemin, the hon. member for Carleton said he would call him a man, but not a gentleman. In the province of Nova Scotia, and especially in the eastern part of it where he is best known, among the members of the Bar and the people generally, Mr. Duchemin stands as high in respect of all classes as does the hon. mem ber for Carleton among any people in New Brunswick or elsewhere. When a member of Parliament rises in this House and, behind a man's back, makes an assertion of that kind that he is not a gentleman, it is a pretty small piece of business and shows better than any argument the character of

the member who makes it. We have heard of members of Parliament making statements across the floor of this house, and when given the opportunity to repeat them outside where the honourable laws of this Chamber do not interfere with the due appreciation of a statement of that kind, we have found them shirking the responsibility of their words. I need not refer to any particular hon. gentleman; the House is in possession of the facts in this regard. The hon. member for Richmond says that the witnesses were interested parties, and therefore their evidence should not be taken.


George William Kyte: The minister says that.


George Eulas Foster: The minister stated that
O'Brien was an interested witness. The member for Richmond said that O'Brien gave an affidavit that he was not a partisan. Did anybody ever hear of an investigation in any part of this Dominion where a man came up and admitted that he was a partisan? Did anyone ever hear of an investigation in which the man did not deny it and try to get round it in every way? In my own county, a man insulted me right on the street with regard to the elections, yet he pretended he was not a partisan. He attended a meeting, joined in it, cursed everybody almost on the other side of politics-yet he is not a partisan. In the name of common sense, it would be enlightening to the House to know what definition these gentlemen have of partisanship. A man goes to the poll -and stands outside and talks up his own side, tells the people to vote for a certain candidate. Do you suppose he is asking the people to vote Tory? What the law requires an office holder to do, if he wishes to vote, is to go to the poll, cast his vote and go home and mind his business. But in the counties of Guysborough, Richmond and Pictou-and I will not confine it to these counties-the whole political	machinery	of	the Grit	partywas in	the hands	of	people in	thereceipt of emoluments either from the provincial or Dominion Government. And that statement stands true to-day. The result is that when an investigation is ordered or a charge preferred against a man	in	office,	it	is a safe	bet,that if	he	was appointed to	office
under the late Government, Dominion or provincial, he is a partisan, and a safe bet also that he will deny it immediately the charge is preferred. Hon. gentlemen have raised a great howl with regard to dismissals, but I venture to say they have not won a single vote on the discussion of dismissals, because public opinion knows well the effect of evidence that has been brought to light in Guysborough county for example. It is realized that the men who were there holding office, held office on
condition that they worked for the hon. member for Guysborough and his party. That has been shown from evidence time and time again. The hon. member travels around with an employee of the Government, the employee of the Government solicits support from men whom he meets and the member for Guysborough is there. Yet according to the hon. member for Guysborough that man is not a partisan. The hon. member for Guysborough is personally a very honest and reputable man when he is not engaged in political conversations and arguments, then he loses all the fairness and honesty of which he has an appreciation in private conversation, and immediately discards the whole evidence except that which will help to substantiate his cause. We had evidence here that a man goes to a public meeting in Guysborough and speaks at it, and then proposes three cheers for the member and three cheers for the then Prime Minister, now the right hon. leader of the Opposition; and yet he is not a partisan. In the name of common sense will somebody say what a partisan is in the conception of hon. gentlemen opposite ? The country is entitled to know. But that is not all that took place in the county of Guysborough. A man comes up and gives his evidence under oath that such and such a man, we will say, promised him a pair of boots if he would vote for the hon. member for Guysborough, and the case results in the dismissal of the officer making the canvass. Immediately after, whether on the advice of the hon. member for Guysborough I will not assume the responsibility of saying, but in one case at least a charge of perjury is brought against the witness who testifies as to what he knows and was promised, namely this pair of boots for voting for the hon. member for Guysborough. The charge of perjury is brought in an attempt to intimidate witnesses, to look them up and put them in jail in order to keep them from testifying in investigations. That actually liap-pened in Guysborough. When the case was submitted to the jury, the jury very promptly acquitted the man of perjury, and it was established beyond peradven-ture that not only was he offered the boots, but that he went to the neighbour's house and got the boots and got a drink besides. It reminds me of the fellow in the prayer service who was promised a pair of boots if he would keep from saying ' amen.' He got so worked up, like the hon. member for Richmond this afternoon, that he said: ' Boots or no boots, I will say amen.'


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Where is the wit in it?


Mr FOSTER:: I cannot find wit, humour and brains too for the honorable mem-

ber for Temiscouata. I might go on and point out a great many cases in which the evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of the reports that have been made by Mr. Duchemin. In this particular instance the hon. member for Richmond said that he preferred to believe the ex parte statement of Mr. O'Brien as against the report of a commissioner of Mr. Duchemin's standing and, without casting any serious reflections, let me say that the standing of Mr. Duchemin at' the bar of Nova Scotia is every bit as good as the standing of the hon. member for Richmond at the bar of Nova Scotia. That question is not debatable at all. I think the hon. member will agree in that himself and when, under the privilege of this House, he casts insinuations and slurs and denunciations and says that this man is unworthy of the respect of people, I will venture this remark that he would not dare say that to Mr. Duchemin outside of this House. You may search the records of Nova Scotia, but I do not think that you will find that Mr. Duchemin was ever haled before a Supreme Court and judgment given against him disfranchising him for seven years as has been alleged in the case of the hon. gentleman from Richmond. I do not think you will find Mr. Duchemin in that position. Yet we have the hon. member foT Richmond denouncing him in the strongest terms and taking the affidavit of a man who when notified that the court was to be held at a certain place does not appear to give evidence in his own behalf, but gets hold of the hon. member for Richmond, who is his father confessor in every particular with regard to politics and says: Here, I will give you my affidavit-and as far as we on this side of the House are concerned we do not know whether the affidavit was ever sworn to before a commissioner or not. We presume it was because the hon. member has read it in the House and we are bound to take his statement, but the fact remains that the House has to judge between a reputable man at the bar who has given his testimony which is on fide here as against an ex iparte statement of an interested party, Mr. O'Brien, who is, from the evidence submitted, at least a partisan in the estimation of this House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I thought there might have been some doubt and some hesitancy on both sides of the House as to the real facts, commonsense and law on this question before the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Foster) spoke, but I knew when I saw him get on his feet that a Daniel had come to judgment and that the whole thing would be cleared up and that we would know all about it. I invite hon. gentlemen from both sides of the House to notice the striking searchlight that he has brought to Mr. FOSTER (Kings, N.S.)
bear on this question. You could pick up pins on the street, on the floor, anywhere from the light that emanated from this thing that he calls brain. When he talks about brain he reminds me of the little boy who was asked to make a picture - of a horse on a slate. He made the picture and brought it back to the teacher and wrote the word ' horse ' under it. Of course were it not for the word ' horse ' under the picture on the slate it would never have suggested to anybody that it was a horse. In the same way about the brains of my hon. friend, he must be telling us that it is brains or we would forget that it is the product of that most useful commodity. I invite the hon. member for Kings te devote himself to a night school or somewhere where they might give him some instruction as to brains and not be misleading himself into the idea that he is talking the product of brains when he might as well be talking about the shelling of lobsters or something else. He has an idea, wherever on earth he got an idea, that talking around, beating about the bush and never coming to the point, if he is capable of conceiving a point, is clever. Let him talk as much as possible, let him keep away from the subject, let him say nothing but take up the time and play the cuttlefish, that is the idea my friend from Kings has of playing the -smart man and answering an argument. The serious question before you, Mr. Chairman, is whether O'Brien was properly tried or not. I cannot hope to retain or hold the attention of the minister but I hope that possibly somebody in the country may take notice of this O'Brien case. For that reason I propose to inquire into it a little closely. The Minister of Marine is a minister of the Crown and I am not going to read a lecture to him or to any other minister, but I submit to this Parliament that the man who occupies that position of minister of the Crown represents the Crown to subjects in this country and that it is not a light matter, in dealing with the rights of the individual, for a minister of the Crown to act carelessly and ruthlessly and indifferently. I submit to the minister and to you that this election on the 21st of September, 1911, according to the present Prime Minister, was not a party victory. What did he say at the great civic reception which was given to him in the city of Ottawa? He spoke with his laurels fresh from victory and he thanked the hundreds of thousands of Liberals of Canada who had come to his rescue and to the rescue of the country. He said that this was not a party victory but a national victory. That is the position he took on that occasion, the Liberals were to rejoice with him as well as

the Conservatives on this national victory. A few weeks afterwards he was banquetted at Halifax. The Minister of Marine was present at the banquet. The Prime Minister repeated the sentiments he had expressed at Ottawa. I would think that the results of a national victory would be treated as a national question, in keeping with the conduct we would expect, from a man who had won a national victory. In view of that position I would draw the attention of the minister to the fact that the treatment of this man O'Brien has been simply scandalous if we are_ to believe the facts as pre* sented, and I submit that I must believe O'Brien's statement where there is nothing to the contrary. The Minister of Marine has been Attorney General for many years of the province of New Brunswick and he knows "the law. He knows that this Commissioner Duchemin derived his authority from and must act in accordance with the statute passed by this House, a statute passed not by the late Government but by the present Government. It is well-known that in any court of justice the court does not become seized of jurisdiction over an individual until it is proven to the court that the notice was properly served. The first thing that the minister should look for when he gets a report from a commissioner is to see if the commissioner became seized of jurisdiction and if the notice was served. The last chapter of this statute says:
No report shall be made against any person, until reasonable notice shall have been given to him of the charge of misconduct alleged against him and he shall have been allowed! full opportunity to be heard in person or by counsel.	I
Where is the proof that O'Brien was served with notice? There is not any. Where is the proof that the charge was served upon him? There is not any, and we have the oath of Mr. O'Brien that not only was he not served but he was served at a false date and put upon a false scent. He was served with notice after the inquiry, and for a day, not the day on which the investigation was to be held at all. He received the notice two days after the investigation was held.


George Eulas Foster: Where is the proof of
that?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The notice itself is here. If my friend from Kings can put this and that together, if he is capable of adding two and two together, and I take .it for granted that he is, we have the notice of Mr. Duchemin with his signature attached to it, naming a day on which the investigation was to take place at Port Malcolm. We have the report of Mr. Duchemin over his own signature saying that he held the investigation on a different day altogether and in a different place.
Surely it is clear even to the intellect of my hon. friend that there was no notice at all for the day on which the investigation was held, and no notice for the place in which it was held. That being the case, I think my hon. friend, while be would possibly have dismissed this man in any case, in view of the statute which he passed himself and which is binding on himself and his officials, will see that it is up to him to put this man O'Brien back in the lighthouse and dismiss the man who was put falsely in that position. Let him begin this thing over again for the credit of the King whom he represents, for the credit of the department over which he presides, for the credit of the people of this country and of the investigations which are being held under the statute. Begin over again and i'f Mr. O'Brien is found to deserve dismissal after having been properly dealt with and the law complied with, dismiss him. Do not let us have this disgrace upon the King. Do not let us have a commissioner of the King throwing men and their children on the street without giving the slightest semblance of defence. I ask_ the Prime Minister, or any other lawyer, if this had been a proceeding in which Mr. Duchemin was a court, and he had given a decision, as he gave here, which would infringe upon the liberties of this man O'Brien, and the man had been arrested and put in jail by virtue of this trial, what would have happened if habeas corpus or certiorari proceedings had been taken? The moment it was shown that there had been no service, away would go the decision, and the incarceration would cease, and there would be an action in the civil courts for false imprisonment. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the Minister of Justice, and everyone concerned in this matter are sheltering themselves behind a proceeding taken in the name of the King and under the King's commission, and in every step the commissioner has falsified the authority and power given to him to deal with the matter. I submit that there is no defence for the action of the commissioner. If the facts, as set forth by Mr. Duchemin himself in his report are correct, there is nothing left, if we are to be decent and respectable and are to maintain the dignity of this Government and of this Parliament, but to begin de novo, and have the matter sifted to the bottom. If Mr. O'Brien is guilty of partisanship let him be dismissed, but when the name of the King is introduced into the proceedings, let us see that the subject gets fair-play and justice, and let us have no mock investigations.


George Eulas Foster: I would like to say a word or two with regard to what my hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has said in reference to myself. He referred in a slighting manner

to my lack of brains. As a matter of fact, I never laid very great stress upon the brains I may possess, and I have never endeavoured to advertise the claim that I had abnormal qualifications in that respect. But this House has been treated on more than one occasion to what the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria would be pleased to call the product of the brains in that wonderful dome of thought of his, and when a remark that does not seem to suit him is addressed to him across the floor of this House by any hon. gentleman on this side, he comes across the floor and begs that the remark be not placed on ' Hansard' in order that the people may not know of it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rise to a question of privilege.


Mr. FOWLER:: Take your medicine.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am quite willing to
take anything that is coming to me properly; I do not make statements behind covers. I ask my hon. friend to name the occasion when I. asked for any favours in matters of that kind, and the party from whom I asked them.


George Eulas Foster: I am delighted to respond to the hon. gentleman's request. On the occasion of a debate in this House between the hon. member for North Cape Breton and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) and the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes), my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) asked by what kind of reckoning the hon. member for Cumberland with the brains he had, had arrived at the conclusion he was submitting to the House. The hon. member for Cumberland replied and used words I have quoted with regard to the hon. gentleman's polished dome of thought, and forthwith my hon. friend begged the hon. member for Cumberland not to have the remark inserted in ' Hansard.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did nothing of the kind. I notice that the hon. member for Cumberland is not here; I should be very glad to leave him to tell the House what took place. I can assure my hon. friend that he would not be backed up by the hon. member for Cumberland in the reflections he is trying to make. The occasion referred to when there was a somewhat heated discussion in which the hon. member for Cumberland and the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy) and myself took part. The hon. member for Cumberland is a friend of mine, and I did not think it was creditable to either of us that the remarks should appear, and we quietly agreed that they should not appear on the record. That is all there was to it. My hon. friend's statement shows the measure of the man.
Mr. FOOTER (Kings, NjS.)


The CHAIRMAN:: I am afraid the discussion is drifting on to personal matters.


George Eulas Foster: I am perfectly willing to come back to the item, but I take notice that the hon. member does not deny what I said. I am perfectly willing to leave it to the hon. member for Cumberland or to the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens who will substantiate what I have said.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Let us hear about
Duchemin.


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend would like to hear from Mr. Duchemin, we might arrange a meeting with my hon. friend. My hon. friend from North Cape Breton accused me of wandering around the subject, and yet for ten minutes he talked of a national victory in the last election. I would like to know what that has to do with the item under discussion. He went round that point for four or five minutes and finally came to the question of the statute. I have already pointed out that on every occasion when the hon. gentleman addresses this House, he proceeds to divulge the little he learned when he was a county court judge in the province of Nova Scotia. He must always rise and interpret what is plain to the ordinary layman, and what are fundamental principles of law. My hon. friend has a wonderful capacity. When he was upon the bench he was noted for his fairness, for the consideration he gave to lawyers and clients on both sides, but in the eastern part of the province of Nova Scotia it was almost impossible to get a case for a Conservative lawyer when the hon. gentleman was upon the bench. Perhaps the hon. member will deny that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Absolutely.


George Eulas Foster: That is the feeling that prevails in the eastern part of the province of Nova Scotia with regard to the hon. gentleman, and more than one lawyer could substantiate what I have said. He assumes an attitude of fairness in this House, but when he gets where the people cannot see him, he can say the meanest and most despicable things.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


George Eulas Foster: I am pleased to withdraw the remark.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let him chew his
potatoes.


George Eulas Foster: With regard to chewing potatoes, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and the hon. member for North Cape Breton can chew, not only potatoes, but buckwheat.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: What about the estimates?


George Eulas Foster: Hon. gentleman have not been so very anxious about getting the estimates through when they have spent three or four hours this afternoon in discussing dismissals. But when an hon. member on this side of the House tries to say something which is not what they want to hear, they become very eager to have the estimates go through. I am perfectly willing to stay here all summer if necessary.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman
has nothing else to do, but some of us have.


George Eulas Foster: More evidence of the
smartness of my hon. friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: He has something to do; he has to go down home and pay that two hundred dollar bill which his partner incurred for rum at the last election., I have no doubt it will take him some little time to earn money enough to pay the election bills that he ran last time. If the hon. gentleman wants to prolong-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That was paid for
long ago.


George Eulas Foster: Of course, but he denied it the other day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, he says that it is
paid for.


George Eulas Foster: No, he does not deny it
and it worries him a little. He is a man of the style of Dr. Rhindress and Mr. N.
A.	McMillan, both pure-minded men, men who are not partisans'! He has no partisans in hiis riding, every person is perfectly righteous and fair-minded and I suppose that all belong to the same church as he does.


George William Kyte: I desire to make an observation or two inasmuch as the hon. member for Kings said something that was probably intended to have reference to myself. The hon. gentleman speaks of the high standing of Mr. Duchemin at the Bar of Nova Scotia. As the hon. gentleman is not a member of the professional Bar, I presume he had reference to the other bar, and before his judgment in that regard I bow without the slightest hesitation.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Chairman, I rise to
a question of privilege. The hon. gentleman insinuates something with reference to my judgment and experience concerning a bar other than the professional Bar. Of course, I know exactly what he is driving at, and I will tell him that, in regard to any other bar other than the legal Bar, I am not in the habit of frequenting places of that sort, and therefore, the hon. gentleman is absolutely wrong. When he insinuates anything with regard to a bar, not meaning the legal Bar, I wish to tell
him that I have no interest in, and am not in the habit of frequenting a bar, saloon, or anything of that sort.


George William Kyte: If any misunderstanding
has arisen the hon. gentleman must concede that he is entirely to blame for it, because he 'is not a member of the professional Bar and therefore not in a position to pass judgment upon the standing of a gentleman occupying a position in tihat very distinguished and honourable profession. The hon. gentleman endeavoured to make some comparison between Mr. Duchemin and myself as regards our relative standing at the professional Bar. I am not like the hon. member for Kings who does not appear to suffer from any undue depreciation of his own talents. Therefore, I hesitate before expressing any opinion as to the standing I enjoy in the profession in the province of Nova Scotia. Suffice it to say that I am well content with the success that has come to me in the practice of my profession in Nova Scotia, and I hope that the hon. member for Kings will have similar satisfaction when he is as old as I am.
There is one other matter that I wish to refer to, and it is a personal reflection which the hon. member for Kings made I am not like the hon. member for Kings referred to the fact that some person was disqualified in Nova Scotia and deprived of the right of voting. If the hon. gentleman referred to me I think it is only right to myself and to hon. members that I should place the facts before the committee. Away back in 1894, nearly twenty years, ago, the Conservative party in my county was particularly active, as it has always been within my recollection. I was then a young man just starting out to enjoy the advantages of my profession. As I was attached to the Liberal party, the Conservatives in the county did me the honour of paying some attention to me. They thought I was a young man that they ought to watch, and if there was any way by which my character could be besmirched so that I would become less useful to the Liberal party, they were willing to resort to any means to bring that about. As base and diabolical a conspiracy as was ever conceived in the corrupted and perverted mind of man was hatched by the Conservative party to that end. The provincial elections took place in 1894, and after the elections were over prosecutions were instituted against several prominent Liberals in the county for violations of the election law, and I was singled out for their attention. A prosecution was instituted against me, different forms of corrupt acts were charged, but when the matter came to a trial every charge was dismissed by the judge. There was one

case, however, in which another species oi infraction of the law was involved. There is a canal in iny county upon which there are employed several men. In 1874 the provincial legislature passed a law which disfranchised all employees of the Department of Railways and Canals and prevented them from voting in provincial elections. In the local election of 1894 I was the agent for the Liberal candidate at the poll when one of these men presented himself and asked for a ballot. I pointed out that employees of the Department of Railways were not entitled to vote in provincial elections and that, inasmuch as canals was a branch of the Department of Railways, employees on these canals were not entitled to vote. The argument I addressed to the presiding officer resulted in the employee of the canal refusing to take the ballot and he did not vote. That matter came up in the court. The judge held that, inasmuch as at the time the provincial statute was passed in 1874 there was no subdepartment of canals, the statute could not have applied to the men employed upon this canal and that I had committed a technical offense in having addressed an argument to the presiding officer which resulted in the employee not taking the ballot and not exercising his franchise, and in that respect I had been guilty of intimidation. That was in 1894. nearly twenty years ago. If the hon. member for Kings were a member of the profession, of which he speaks and of which he professes to be a judge, he would have known that there is a statute of limitations which ought to prevent him making any reference to a matter that occurred so long ago. But in 1895 the Legislature of Nova Scotia elected me to a responsible position in that body. I was elected to the responsible position of clerk assistant of the Legislature of Nova Scotia by the unanimous vote of both parties. One would think that if the offence that I am alleged to have committed was any reflection upon my character or standing as a man and a citizen, the Conservative "Opposition in the Legislature would have protested against my appointment. But, almost immediately after the trial, with all ihe facts known to both political parties, they elected me to the responsible position of assistant clerk of the legislature, and in that election I received the support of every Conservative in the House. I was re-appointed in 1898, re-appointed again in 1901, and in 1903 I was elected to the position of chief clerk of the legislature, a .responsible and dignified position, -which I enjoyed up to the time I resigned for the purpose of becoming a candidate for the House of Mr. KYTE.
Commons in the county of Richmond, on which occasion I was elected.
Needless to say, I offered myself to the electors of the county of Richmond in the election of 1911, and I was re-elected.
In order further to show to the House the manner in which this particular matter referred to by the hon. member for Kings, (Mr. Foster)-, has been regarded in the county of Richmond, I shall refer to one more circumstance. There was a newspaper owned by the Conservative party, published in my town in 1897. On one occasion, a Conservative enthusiast, who had about the same breadth of view that the hon. member for Kings possesses, thought the time was opportune to make a charge against my character in respect of that election. As soon as the charge was made, I notified the owners of the paper that, unless they withdrew the charge and apologized to me, an action would be brought against them for damages. This is the result. In a copy of that paper dated July 7, 1897, there is the following editorial reference.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What- is the name of
the paper?


George William Kyte: The Bras d'Or Gazette,
now the Sydney Post. It is headed:
We would do justice to Mr. Kyte
The article is as follows:
In the December, February and May issues of the Bras d'Or Gazette, there appeared several articles that reflected on Mr. G. W. Kyte, barrister, of this town, as regards his character boibh as a professional man, as well as a private citizen. That these unprovoked and unjustifiable attacks, should have been made upon Mr. Kyte, we deeply regret. We know him to be an upright, honourable and progressive citizen, and in the practice of Iris profession, he has earned for himself a reputation for honesty and industry that any young man would do well to emulate. In making this apology, we do so in order to do justice to this gentleman, as well as to assure the public that we deprecate the spirit and tone of the articles above referred to; and -we desire to give the further assurance that these articles are not attributable in any manner to those whose money and enterprise started this paper.
That was the apology made to me in respect to the same insinuations on January 7, 1897. From that hour to this, not a single suggestion has ever been made by any Conservative, be he prominent or not in the county of Richmond, or in the province of Nova Scotia, so far as I am aware, having reference to the particular matter to which my hon. friend from Kings refers. If he wants to dive into the private history of men connected with infractions of the election law, I would

ask him to look around him, and, usually occupying a seat not far removed from the hon. member for Kings, he can find a member of the Conservative party of the province of Ontario, who not only committed a criminal act, in respect of the election law, but was convicted of it and for which he served a sentence. I know it is not regarded as being to his discredit, because I understand at this moment he is designated by his leader for high judicial honours. I trust the committee will pardon me for having made this reference to a personal matter.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Make him withdraw.


Mr. DAVIDSON :: Mr. Chairman,-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Give the hon. member
for Kings a chance to apologize.


Avard Longley Davidson: Mr. Chairman, I am very reluctant to prolong this debate. I am deeply devoted to my constituents, and I am anxious to get home. Sometimes I think that the other side stands in terror of their constituents, and resort to these tactics in order to delay the time when they have to meet them, and that they are deliberately occupying the time of the House in order to postpone the time when they will have to go back to their constituents and give an account of the most remarkable conduct of which they have been guilty during this session of parliament.
It is not agreeable to me to go into the personal conduct of members of this House. I must admit that I hardly approved of the reference which the hon. member for Kings made to the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie), for I know how sensitive the hon. member for North Cape Breton is in reference to his personal appearance. I know that the hon. gentleman at election time, when he wants to represent himself to his constituents, does not use a photograph of recent times, but brings into commission an old photograph taken "when he wore the locks of an Absalom. I thought under the circumstances the hon. gentleman's remarks were a trifle unkind.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Where would my hon. friend go for a good-looking picture?


Avard Longley Davidson: I hope my hon. friend did not think I intended to state that the picture of himself which appeared was a good-looking one. If the House has got that impression, I wish to set hon. members right in that regard.
The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) referred to a matter in his own history, where the courts of his native province decreed him guilty of a certain offence. He seemed to take it amiss that the hon. member for Kings should have
brought this matter up after twenty years. He reminded the hon. member for Kings that the offence of which he was guilty at that time was beyond the statutes, and therefore that technically he should not be blamed. Perhaps we might be inclined to look upon it in that way if the hon. gentleman showed any indication of having repented of the sins of his former days. It seems to me, from the speech which the hon. gentleman has made this evening, that he does not appreciate the enormity of his offence. It is perhaps only right that this House should be advised as to the facts in this particular case. I would not have brought this matter up except that the hon. member himself saw fit to bring these facts before the House, and to make it appear that his record in the past was absolutely clean and straight, and that he was in a perfectly suitable position to criticise such gentlemen as Mr. Duche-min. Inasmuch as he has done this, perhaps I may read certain extracts from the decision of the trial judge on that occasion. The trial judge, who handed out that decision, was one who has a reputation in the province of Nova Scotia for very great leniency. A few weeks ago, the hon. member (Mr. Kyte), in diseusssing the case of one of his constituents who had been convicted of an offence, dwelt on the fact that the judge, who had convicted him was one who was particularly charitable in his judgments, who was very lenient, and who probably had a reputation for greater leniency than any other judge of the province of Nova Scotia. The fact is that it was the same 'judge that found the hon. gentleman guilty. There were four distinct charges against the hon. gentleman on this occasion-three of having deliberately bought the electors of Richmond county, and one of having intimidated an elector of that county. In three cases there did not appear to be any corroboration. Witnesses swore positively that the hon. gentleman had given them money for their votes. Unfortunately for the prosecution, in each case there was only one witness and this gvidence was not corroborated in any one of these cases. The hon. gentleman'went on the stand and gave his denial in each case, and Mr. Justice Graham, being a very lenient and moderate judge, acquitted the hon. gentleman on that evidence. But, in respect of the charge of intimidation, the judge, in his ruling, after going elaborately into the facts, used these words:
I cannot believe that the defendant has a bona fide belief that perjury would be committed if the man took the' oath. It seems to me no argument can be made about the matter.
The defendant is not only a barrister but says he studied three years in a college, and
he could not help knowing thait his contention which I have already quoted had not even

the appearence of an argument. I cannot give him credit for good faith the moment he states what his contention was.
Now this gentleman to whom the very lenient judge in the province of Nova Scotia could not attribute good faith is the hon. gentleman who comes into tnis .House to-night and upon his bare statement wishes us to condemn a very reputable member of the Bar of Nova Scotia The hon. gentleman contends that he has been acquitted of these crimes because the legislature of Nova Scotia appointed him to an important position. I would point out to the House and to the non. member that the reason for giving up this office, which I understand is not a very important or very remunerative one, was on account of the services he had rendered to his party by just such acts as that for which his lordship Justice Graham had taken away his right to vote. Eor five years in Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Bichmond did not -enjoy the privileges of a British citizen.


George William Kyte: That is untrue.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would remind hon.
members that the discussion is wandering from the subject into personal matters that are not relevant.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am quite aware of
that, Mr. Chairman, but I think that-


Charles Marcil: I rise to a point of order, though I am sorry to do so. We want to get through this session some time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must rule, as the
hon. member is aware, that the discussion is out of order.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am willing to abide
by your ruling. As I understand, the hon. gentleman opposite introduced this matter.


George William Kyte: The hon. member for Kings introduced it.


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. member for
Richmond, as I understand, introduced the matter, and I thought it was only right that this House should be possessed of the facts. I have only a word or two more. The point which I wish to make is that this House should not attach too much importance to the statement of an hon. gentleman who, as he admits himself, was placed in a position where he could be deprived of his rights of citizenship.


George William Kyte: That is untrue.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am bound to accept the statement of my hon. friend, but I cannot forget what the law of the province of Nova Scotia said.


George William Kyte: You don't know the law. Mr. DAVIDSON.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I cannot allow the
hon. member to go into this subject.


Avard Longley Davidson: I just wish to point
out that according to the laws of the province of Nova Scotia, when a person is convicted of an offence, against the provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act, he is liable to he disfranchised merely upon an order which could be obtained ex parte from a judge.


George William Kyte: The order never was obtained; they knew they could not get it.
Mr. ifAVIDSON:	It could have been
obtained, and it was only on account of leniency that it was not taken out, a leniency the hon. gentleman does not seem willing to show to his political opponents in the county of Richmond.


George William Kyte: Judge Graham said the
order could not be granted because the charge did not involve disqualification.


Avard Longley Davidson: I have the decision
here. If I were permitted to place it on ' Hansard,' it would show that my hon. friend is absolutely in error in that regard. But I do not propose further to take up the time of the House more than to say that on several occasions when charges against officials have been inquired into in the county of Richmond before Duchemin, the hon. 'member for Richmond has insisted on appearing before the commissioner and acting in behalf of the accused person. On one or two occasions Mr. Duchemin has asked the person accused if the hon. member for Richmond acted for him, and the person so accused repudiated the hon. member.


George William Kyte: That is absolutely false. I
am not much concerned about what the hon. gentleman says generally, but I will not allow such a statement to pass, and I insist on his withdrawing it. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to insist on the hon. member withdrawing his statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I hope the hon. gentleman will accept the word of the hon. member foT Richmond.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am bound to accept
the statement of my hon. friend, being perhaps a little more free in that regard than the judges of the- Supreme Court of Nova Scotia. I would like to read an extract from the evidence taken, not in one of the cases under consideration, but in another case.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I rise to a point of
order. Are we ever to get to an end of this?


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. gentleman
knows how comfortable it is for hon. members on this side to listen to his own tiresome repetition.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have risen to a
point of order, and if the hon. gentleman knows his place he will wait until we get a ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that
the item under discussion is, lighthouses, salaries and allowances of lightkeepers. I am afraid that both sides have wandered from the subject of discussion. It is hard for me to restrain hon. members from wandering when a discussion has been opened. But, I hope that hon. members will agree that the discussion has continued long enough.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member for Annapolis does not seem to have any terminal facilities at all.


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. member for Cape Breton North has a very polished terminal. In the few further remarks I have to make, I will apply myself absolutely to the question under discussion. I understand that the conduct of Mr. Du-chemin as commissioner is the matter under discussion by the committee. I wish to show the kind of commissioner Mr. Du-chemin is, and, for that purpose, to read a few words from the report he has made which bears upon what I said a few minutes ago:
I now want to refer ;to an experience that I had with Mr. G. W. Kyte, the opposition member for Richmond county. On the 26th of September, I took two investigations at) St. Peters; the accused parties were two postmasters, Chas. J. Lafford, Grand Greve, and Ewan P. McLeod, Louis Cove Road. Mr. Kyte presented himself with the accused the morning of the hearing, and stated that he was going to act as counsel for them. I advised him that in view of the fact that there was: no counsel on the other side, I would manage the investigation without the assistance of counsel. He then declared: 'Oh, but you must admit counsel.' To which I replied as before-That I would not admit counsel, but would conduct the investigation without any such asnistance. Mr. Kyte then became ex-J tremely offensive, and turbulent, interrupting! the investigation at different stages. I was obliged to tell him that unless he would maintain order, he would have to leave. He replied that I was not able to put him out, &c., &c. When he became extremely objectionable, I asked Mr. Lafford, the accused, if he was responsible for Mr. Kyte's presence at the investigation, and he replied that he was not. I accordingly went on with the investigation, and ignored Mr. Kyte.
Considering the fact that Dr. Bissett, a very reputable gentleman, a member of the local legislature and of the party to which my hon. friend belongs, spoke in this way; and the fact that the hon. member for Cape Breton North, when I appealed to him some weeks ago for an opinion on the character of Mr. Duchemin, was not prepared to state that he was in any way
biased or unfair, this committee must realize that the charges which have been made here to-night in a violent and irresponsible manner are very unsubstantial indeed. In 1896, when the Liberal Government sent a commissioner to the part of Nova Scotia in which I live to investigate these charges, it was a very exceptional matter when that commissioner found an accused person innocent, hut I am aware that Mr. Duchemin on very many occasions has found Liberal office holders who were accused of offensive conduct not guilty and they have been allowed to retain their positions by reason of his decision. I think that, considering these facts, it ill becomes gentlemen who do not occupy positions at the Bar comparable at all with that of Mr. Duchemin to come here, twelve hundred miles away from Mr. Duchemin, and make these absolutely groundless charges and aspersions against his character.


George William Kyte: There is not much that requires an answer from me in the speech of the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson), but I would say to him that when his own political friends pay him as high a compliment as my political opponents paid me in the apology which I have ijust read from their own newspaper, he may then consider himself worthy to associate with an assembly of gentlemen. With , regard to the statement made in respect to Dr. Bissett, it happens that I am beginning to know my hon. friend, so I am usually prepared for him. I have here an affidavit from Dr. Bissett in which he refers to the circumstances dealt with in the statement of Mr. Duchemin. That affidavit is as follows:
I,	Charles P. Bissett, of St. Peter's in the county of Richmond, medical doctor, do solemnly declare that I was not present at the investigation held by H. P. Duchemin, commissioner into charges of political partizan-ship against Ewan McLeod, postmaster at Lewis Cove Road, in the county of Richmond, held at St. Peter's in the month of September last, except for a few moments; nor was I present at the investigation of the charges against Charles J. Lafford, postmaster at Grand Greve, before Mr. Duchemin at the same place and on the same date, except for a short time.
I entered the room where the investigations were being held, shortly before they were closed, but the evidence had practically been all taken. I stated to Mr. Duchemin .that so far as I saw I was satisfied with the fairness with which he conducted the investigation. At the time I made this statement to Mr. Duchemin I was not aware that at the beginning of the investigation Mr. G. W. Kyte, M.P., had asked Mr. Duchemin for the privilege of representing Mr. McLeod at the investigation. I had not been informed of the insolent and offensive language used by Mr. Duchemin towards Mr. Kyte and his refusal



to permit Mr. Kyte to examine the witnesses and his threat to remove Mr. Kyte from the room.
I learned these facte afterwards, and the next day I met Mr. Duchemin and I told him wlhait 1 thought of his conduct. 1 make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same ho be true and knowing it to he of the same effect as if taken under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
C. P. Bissett,
Nova Scotia.
Taken and declared at St. Peters in the county of Richmond, N.S., this 14th day of December, A.D. 1912. Before me.
Angus J. iMaoCuish,
A commissioner for taking affidavits, in the county of Richmond.
It goes to show how necessary it is to be fortified for the- hon. member for Annapolis who reads the reckless statement placed in his hand by Mr. Duchemin. This proves how reckless a character Mr. Duchemin is and I think there has been evidence adduced to-day to show how unreliable is any ex parte statement from that quarter. The hon. member for Annapolis in December and again about a month ago in this House, stated over and over that Mr. Duchemin never refused counsel at his investigations.


Avard Longley Davidson: Excuse me, I never
made any such' statement.


George William Kyte: The hon. gentleman's statements are on record.


Avard Longley Davidson: I desire to state in the most emphatic way that the hon. gentleman is absolutely in error.
Mr._CHAIRMAN: The hon. member must accept the statement.


George William Kyte: The hon. member for Cumberland made reference to the same thing.


Avard Longley Davidson: I ask a ruling.


George William Kyte: If the hon. member states
that he did not say so, I accept his statement, and refer hon. gentlemen to the report of the debates.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am not satisfied with that retraction. I did not make any such statement, and I ask the hon. gentleman to take it back unequivocally.


George William Kyte: I accept the denial and refer hon. members to the report of debates.


Avard Longley Davidson: That is absolutely satisfactory.


George William Kyte: Here is a statement of Mr. Duchemin in which in at least two instances he admits he did not permit counsel. He says inasmuch as the prosecution had no counsel, he would not permit me to represent the accused. Therefore, all the furore raised about the Mr. KYTE.
fairness of Mr. Duchemin and his conforming to the provisions of the Act falls to the ground and we have from his own mouth, as re-echoed by the hon. member for Annapolis, that the charges are true, that he has violated the Inquiries Act and has not permitted counsel to be heard. There is one statement which I have to make further, that as that the (hon. member for Annapolis seems to have special interest in the county of Richmond and to represent to this House certain matters relating to that county. There was a time when the hon. member for Annapolis did visit Richmond ; there was a time when he did spend some days in the town in which I live.. The last time he visited there, so far as I know, his removal from the town synchronized with the unexpected arrival of an irate husband.


John Douglas Hazen: I suggest to the members of the committee that it is getting late in the evening, and as we want to make some progress we might go on and take up the items, and then, if hon. gentlemen wish to resume the question of dismissals afterwards, we will hold one irem with the understanding that any matter can be discussed on it that has any relation whatever to the Marine and Fisheries Department. By that means we shall get ahead and no man will be shut off.


Bowman Brown Law: I do not think the request is fair. This whole discussion was brought on by the hon. member for Kings, and we have wasted some hours on the subject. I would say to the hon. member for Kings that whenever he rises to address the House he reminds me of the little boy who got into his neighbour's orchard and had eaten more green apples than were good for him-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Of course the hon.
member is aware that nothing offensive is in order.


Bowman Brown Law: I was stating a fact, and I submit that if this House does not prorogue by the middle of June hon. members opposite cannot blame members on this side. That is sure. I have one or two complaints of which I gave notice, there is one to which I would call attention of the minister if he has the papers here, but if he insists on not hearing it to-night I will bring it up some other time.


John Douglas Hazen: Go on, if you want to sit all night, go on.


Bowman Brown Law: I would like to bring up the dismissal of the port physician at Yarmouth. This is a matter which will reflect no credit on the minister. The dismissal of Dr. 0. A. Webster will certainly not add lustre to the minister, but place him before the committee and the people

in a most unenviable position. I put two questions on the Older Paper some little time ago in reference to this dismissal.
Mr. Webster had been acting in the position of port physician for a number of years to the entire satisfaction of the department, and of the mariners who were confined in the marine hospital in Yarmouth, and gave every satisfaction to all parties concerned. He was going away to take a post graduate course in London. Dr. Webster wrote to the Minister of Marine, and Fisheries on the 22nd of January and asked him for three months' leave of absence to go to London, in order to take a post graduate course. I have before me a letter from the Department of Marine and Fisheries, dated January 30, 1912, as follows:
30th January, 1912.
Sir,-I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 22nd instant, applying for three months' leave of absence in order to attend a post-graduate course in England.
In reply, I have to inform you that the desired leave has been granted.
Please report when you return to duty.
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) C. Stanton, Assistant Deputy Minister. Dr. C. A. Webster,
Medical Superintendent Marine Hospital, Yarmouth, N.S.
On receipt of this document, Dr. Webster proceeded to London to take his post graduate course, taking it for granted that when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or the officials of his department gave him leave of absence for three months he could depend upon their word. But what do we find? On March 9 a letter was sent to Dr. Webster which he did not receive until sometime after his arrival in London, and you will note that March 9 was only ten days after the Department of Marine and Fisheries had given him leave of absence. Mr. Stanton, the assistant deputy minister, wrote to Dr. Webster at Yarmouth this letter:
Sir, I have to inform you that as it is your intention to be absent from Yarmouth for some time.
And I wish to draw attention to the way that letter is worded.
As it is your intention to he absent from Yarmouth for somje time, the department has decided to discontinue your services as Port Physician at that port to attend to sick seamen entitled to relief undeT the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, and to appoint in your room and stead Dr. S. W. Williamson. The Collector of Customs at Yarmouth has been so advised, and directed to send all sick seamen to Dr. Williamson entitled to the relief above mentioned.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(iSgd.) C. Stanton.
Dr. C. A. Webster,
Yarmouth, N.S.,
341}
I asked some questions in the House on February 24, which were answered as follows:
Monday, February, 21, 1913.
Mr. Law:-
No. 14.
1.	Why was Dr. C. A. Webster dismissed from the position of Port Physician at Yarmouth, N.S.?
2.	Where any requests made for his dismissal? If so, by whom?
3.	If any requests were made, were they verbal or in wrting?
4.	If any charges were made against Dr. Webster, were said charges investigated? If not why not?
Mr. Hazen:-
1.	The services of Dr. Webster were discontinued in the interest of the public service.
2.	Yes, by persons enjoying the confidence of the minister.
3.	Verbal.
4.	The facts were sufficiently established not to warrant the expense of an investigation.
I criticize the action of the minister in connection with the discharge of Dr. Webster as one of the meanest and most contemptible acts that was ever performed by any minister occupying a seat in this House. Dr. Webster went away with the distinct understanding, with a letter from the Department of Marine, giving him three months' leave of absence; but ten days after he left to go to London the department coolly dismissed him and the minister cannot say he had nothing to do with it because on the 9th of February, only eighteen days' after Dr. Webster had asked for leave of absence, and only ten days after he had been granted leave this letter was sent to Mr. Knowles E. Crosby:
February 9, 1912. My Dear Sir,-	-
With reference to the matter of appointing a Port Physician at Yarmouth, will yon please forward to me a recommendation for this position, such recommendation to be signed by yourself and three members of the committee.
Your early attention to this matter will oblige.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) J. D. Hazen. Knowles E. Crosby, K.C.
Hebron, N.S.
In the documents which were presented to the House in answer to the motion which I made, there is not one single word of complaint against Dr. Webster. In fact I am confident that no word of complaint could be made against him. He is one of the most successful and most respected physicians in the town of Yarmouth, a man who is absolutely non-partisan. In order to prove that assertion I will state that during the last summer a gentleman who has been doing business in the near vicinity of Dr. Webster's office asked me whether Dr. Webster was a Liberal or a Conservative. I do not think a man could have any better

1080D
recommendation as to his non-partisan feelings than this statement. I understand, of course, that the gentleman who now occupies the position was given it on account of having run in the election in Yarmouth in 1908. Of course he was defeated, and I suppose that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries felt very kindly towards him for allowing himself to be made a sacrifice for the party and desired to give him some important position, for this position is worth $400 per year. I wish to refer to a letter which Mr. Crosby sent to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries:
Hebron, N.S., February 13th, 1912. Hon J. D. Hazen, K.C., M.P.,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Ottawa.
Dear Sir.-
X have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your favour of the 9th inst regarding the appointment of Port Physician at Yarmouth, and that I forward you *at once a recommendation for this office.
In compliance with your request and with the wish of the conservative party in this county, I beg to place before you the name of S. W. Williamson, M.D., who will fill the duties of that office to Itihe entire satisfaction of your department.
I am, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) Knowles E. Crosby.
But there seems to have been some little hitch in connection with the matter. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not seem to be inclined to take the word of Knowles E. Crosby, and he was asked to send another letter signed by the whole patronage committee in the town of Yarmouth. That letter is dated February 26th, 1912:
Hebron, N.,S., Feb. 26, 1912. Hon. J. D. Hazen, K.C., M.P.,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Owing to the fact that my request that S. W. Williamson, M.D., receive the appointment to the position of port physician for Yarmouth, went forward without the signatures of my advisory committee, through error, several days since, and as we here are very anxious that this appointment should be made at once, I am inclosing herewith another request, signed by said committee.
I trust you will be able to accede to our request and fill this apointment as soon as possible.
I am, yours most respectfully,
(Sgd.) Knowles E. Crosby,
Howard W. Corning, M.L.A., Robert Binguy,
R. S. Bakins.
I just wish to say that when Dr. Webster left Yarmouth for London, he recommended Dr. Perrin for the position, a gentleman respected in the town of Yarmouth who occupies a high position in his profession, and who has been a strong tory all his life. I do not think he was ever guilty of giving a liberal vote. However, he is none Mr. LAW.
the worse for that; I respect him for it. Dr. Perrin was appointed, and if rumours are true, and I think I am not far astray, a couple of conservative doctors met in some office in the Department of Marine and Fisheries in Ottawa, and almost came to blows. However, Dr. Williamson was _ a lucky man to get the plunder. I desire to say again that the position in which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has placed himself before the House and the country in connection with this matter is a very poor one. When an hon. gentleman occupying the position that he does gives his word to an official of his department that he is entitled to three months' leave of absence, and in an underhand way appoints another man to the position within ten days of leave of absence being granted, the hon. minister is entitled in my .mind to the censure of this committee and of the House. Dr. Webster was a valuable man in the position which he occupied, and if there ever was a man who "could be said to be non-partisan, he is that man. I desire to place upon record my entire disapproval of the whole proceeding. If Dr. Webster had been a partisan and had attended political meetings, if he had ever spoken at a political meeting, or had acted as agent at any ipolling place for any Liberal candidate, even then I would have expected that he would be granted an investigation. I have no regard for the man who, without any provocation whatever, endeavours to rob another man of the position, which he has filled to the satisfaction of the department and of the public. I say it is a mean and contemptible action.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend says that
this does not meet with his approval. I am afraid it would be rather difficult to say or do anything on this side of the House that would not meet with his disapproval. I am not at all astonished at the violent and extraordinary language which the hon. gentleman has used. Let me point out the facts in regard to this matter. I think Dr. Webster is the last man in the world who has any right to find fault because he has been removed from office. My hon. friend speaks of the contempt he has for the man who seeks to deprive another man of his position. Let us see whether he will lhave the same contempt for" the man who took office from another man who had been removed without the slightest justification. What are the facts? The facts are that Dr. Perrin was appointed port physician in 1879. The appointment is not a permanent one, it is not made by Order in Council, it is of a temporary character, and is made by departmental letter. On the 13th of December, 1896, seventeen years after Dr. Perrin had been appointed, and shortly after the elcetions of 1896 when the liberal

party came into power, Dr. Perrin wrote to the department stating that he had heard he was to be removed from office and asking to be given a fair hearing. On the 22nd of January, 1897, not more than three weeks afterwards, the then minister in a letter to Mr. Flint, the member for Yarmouth, stated that he deemed it advisable in the public interest to dispense with the office of port physician at Yarmouth, and asked for the name of a suitable, doctor to attend sick seamen when required. He dismissed the port physician and got the name of another doctor to attend to sick seamen when required, the other physician to be paid for the work he did. That was a very easy way of getting rid of Dr. Perrin, against whom no charge was made, and of appointing Dr. Webster to the position. That is how it was done. They did not dismiss Dr. Perrin. They said they did not need his services, and they dispensed with his services and appointed Dr. Charles A. Webster to do exactly the same work. Not a single charge of partisanship or of anything else is on record against Dr. Perrin. He was advised in January, 1897, that his services were no longer required.
. The collector of customs was instructed to employ Dr. Webster, and in about a year and a half, in November, 1899, the department which had said there was no need for a port physician, appointed by departmental letter Dr. Webster at a salary of $260 and on the 1st of July, 1898, they increased that amount to $400. When my hon. friend has such a contempt for the man who will take another's position, what does he think of Dr. Webster taking that position away from Dr. Perrin, when there was not a single charge against Dr. Perrin, and when the department had to resort to the subterfuge of pretending that they were going to abolish the office. These are the facts. Dr. Webster has no ground of complaint. The appointment is not permanent, it is not made by Order in Council, and in the circumstances the Government were justified in making the appointment of Dr. Williamson.


Bowman Brown Law: What has the hon. minister to
say as to the granting of leave of absence to Dr. Webster.


John Douglas Hazen: What has that got to do with it? What difference would it have made if leave of absence had not been granted. It does not affect the merits of the case one way or the other. If hon. members have a contempt for Dr. Williamson, what do they think of the man who took the position in the circumstances under which Dr. Webster took it from Dr. Perrin in 1897?		!


Bowman Brown Law: The two cases are not anala-gous. Dr. Perrin is a strong conservative and I respect him for it.


John Douglas Hazen: And so you got rid of
him.


Bowman Brown Law: I had nothing to do with it. Dr. Perrin was a strong partisan, a strong worker for his party while he held that office, and when the change of government took place he deserved to be dismissed for his connection with the elections that had just taken place. Dr. Perrin was not disappointed in that connection. On the other hand, I do not believe that Dr. Webster ever attended a political meeting in his life, and I doubt whether nine-tenths of the people of Yarmouth know which side of politics Dr. Webster is on. The minister may shirk the'proposition as much as he likes, but when he pledges the word of his department that he should have three months' leave of absence, and, within ten days, writes to the tory patronage committee asking them to name his successor- if he can defend an action like that, then any criminal can defend his action if he breaks into a man's henyard and steals hia. bans.
Agencies, rents and contingencies, $125,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is an increase.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, there is an increase of $8,000. This is the vote for the purpose of carrying on the work of the agencies throughout the country. We have agencies at Halifax, St. John, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Montreal, Parry Sound, Victoria, British Columbia, and Prince Rupert and sub-agencies at Sydney and Pictou. The increases are in these offices: Nova Scotia, $3.,GOO; New Brunswick, $560; Prince Edward Island. $450; Montreal, $360; Parry Sound, $450; Victoria, $500; Quebec, $2,050.
Mr. LEMIEUX. I would like to ask my hon. friend if he is satisfied with the way in which the agency at Quebec is run. I understand that Mr. Beland, who was appointed some years ago as agent there, is giving his whole time and attention to the agency, and that the public is very well satisfied with his work. I would like to know if what I hear is true that Mr. Beland gives general satisfaction to the department.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know whether it was said he gave general satisfaction or not. Of course at the time he was appointed, he was absolutely inexperienced. There has been some very serious-I would lather tell my hon. Iriend privately than put it cn ' Hansard.'
. Mr LEMIEUX: What about the agency in Montreal?

1C801


John Douglas Hazen: There were some charges
made against the gentleman who is the agent there and who was previously^ my hon. friend's private secretary or the private secretary for Mr. Brodeur. We have had the charges investigated and in so far as the investigation has gone the charges have not been sustained. The investigation has not been completed, but I do not know that the charges will be sustained.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that you
have moved the agency from the building where it used to be located to the Montreal Post Office?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes


Rodolphe Lemieux: You occupy one of the upper storeys?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


William F. Carroll: What is the salary of
the sub-agent at Sydney and what are his duties?


John Douglas Hazen: His salary is $1,500 and
in addition to doing the work that the marine agent usually has to do, in so far as buoys and matters of that kind are concerned, the agent inspects the coal that is purchased at Sydney for the department. My report from the deputy minister is that we have saved the salary of the agent several times over in connection with the work that he does in connection with the inspection of coal.
Maintenance and repairs to lighthouses, $700,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this the same
amount?


John Douglas Hazen: The same as last year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Repairs are carried on at the various agencies and you have a steamer which goes to the lighthouses with workmen on board?


John Douglas Hazen: That is so where the lighthouses are out on islands and place's like that. There are some cases where lighthouses are on shore and it is more convenient to have the supplies conveyed by vehicles. With regard to building lighthouses, we ask for tenders in every case where it is possible to do so. We have asked for tenders in some cases and have had no tenders submitted for the reason that the isolated position of the site is such that no contractor cares to go there and do the work. Then we build the lighthouse under the direction of one of our inspectors


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where do you get your
lights now?
at Prescott and manufacture them there. Our advices are that we cannot only give employment to many of our people but that we can make a considerable saving.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see a report in the press that it is the intention to move the Sorel yards to Prescott.


John Douglas Hazen: There is not the slightest
foundation for that. On the contrary, we are making arrangements to do more work at Sorel than ever before. We now have three tug boats under construction to be used in connection, with the dredges on the St. Lawrence. Some months ago the department asked for tenders for a boat to be used on lake Winnipeg to take the place of the steamer Lady of the Lake which has been condemned. We did not get a tender from any shipbuilding firm in Canada. We were told that it was an out of the way place and that the boat would practically have to be constructed here, taken up there and put together. We decided to build the boat at Sorel under the direction of the foreman of the .shipyard. We sent him up to lake Winnipeg to inspect the conditions there and we are going to have the boat built during this summer, which will also give considerable employment.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the character
of the factory that the Minister is establishing at Prescott? It is to manufacture lights, I understand?


John Douglas Hazen: It cannot he spoken of as "establishing"; it is the enlargement of what is going on at Prescott now. We have a depot at Prescott where we do a lot of work in connection with the lights. We have lights constructed and repaired there and it is found that we can, by enlarging the plant, manufacture the lights of a high grade description which we are now compelled to buy in England.


John Howard Sinclair: You mean that you can make, the lens?


John Douglas Hazen: We cannot make the lens.


John Howard Sinclair: What do you make?


John Douglas Hazen: We get the lens, manufacture the frame and put the lens in.


Alexander William Chisholm: Who is
the lighthouse keeper at Port Hood?


John Douglas Hazen: Ronald Macdonald.


William Chisholm: Why was his predecessor dismissed? His predecessor is a very strong supporter of the party in power. He is a brother of the Hon. Senator Macdonald in the other House.


John Douglas Hazen: What is his name?


John Douglas Hazen: We get them still in En- Mr. CHISHOLM:	Macdonald-I have
gland but we intend to enlarge the depot forgotten his first name.
Mr. LEMIEUX.


John Douglas Hazen: I have no information, on
the subject here.


William Chisholm: Will the minister be
good enough to bring me some information about the matter? He is the lighthouse keeper at PoTt Hood. I am very anxious to know why this gentleman was dismissed, inasmuch as * the liberal party never saw fit to dismiss him. He was a very efficient officer. He is a ibrother of .Senator Macdonald. I would like to know what the qualifications are of the man who succeeded him.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be glad to get all
the information for my hon. friend.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has now
got into the habit of dismissing, and he is consenting to dismiss his own friends.


John Douglas Hazen: I suppose if I did, there
would be no objection on the part of my hon. friends opposite.
Construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation, $1,000,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When this item was under discussion last year, the hon. minister will remember that I brought to his attention the necessity of having two small lighthouses on the Bras d'Or lakes, one at Ellis Point and the other at Big Harbour. The minister was good enough to tell me that the matter would receive consideration.


John Douglas Hazen: My recollection of the
matter is that I referred it to the lighthouse board. The hon. gentleman knows that all matters in regard to the erection of lighthouses or placing of buoys are referred to that board. I invariably act on their recommendation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it the same board?


John Douglas Hazen: Well, there are certain officials on it. The president of the Marine Association is on the board, the president of the Shipping Federation. The deputy minister, the chief engineer and the superintendent of lighthouses of the department are on the board. Therefore, the personnel changes as the officials change. I think the lighthouse board were not favourably disposed to it. If my hon. friend believes that they are necessary, I would be very glad if he would attend a meeting of the lighthouse board. We shall probably have one in a few days and he can place before them the reasons why these lighthouses are desirable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As regards buoys,
acetylene gas buoys have been quite successful on the Tiver St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec. What number of buoys have you now?


John Douglas Hazen: The total number of gas
buoys here is 281. Of that there would be 181 acetylene gas buoys. This is the last report of the department.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister inform me if there is any land to place a signal station on at a point called White Point on the coast of my constituency? It is a very dangerous point, where a number of wrecks have taken place. The late Administration had laid plans to place a signal station of some kind at that point.


John Douglas Hazen: If it is White Head the
hon. member means, the work is under construction now. We are speaking of it as White Head.


John Howard Sinclair: Probably it i3 the same place.


Alexander William Chisholm: The minister has in his possession a couple of petitions from the fishermen's union of Port Hood asking for the placing of buoys at the northern entrance of Port Hood harbour. I cannot emphasize too strongly the necessity for the placing of buoys there. I know personally that a large number of wrecks have occurred'there, and I would ask the minister to consider the matter.


John Douglas Hazen: As I pointed out to my hon. friend, that is a matter entirely to be dealt with by the lighthouse board - and those petitions have been referred to them for consideration. I shall draw their attention to what my hon. friend has said about the matter.
' Mr. LAW:	I understand' there was a
delegation from Yarmouth representing the board of trade and the town council. Among other matters they asked for some buoys or lights near the entrance of Yarmouth harbour. Is it the intention of the minister to grant their request?


John Douglas Hazen: The matter was referred to the lighthouse board. I believe they did not grant all the delegates asked for, but they granted a portion of their requests. I do not know what portion.
To provide for breaking dee in Thunder bay and lake Superior and other points deemed advisable for the good of navigation, $30,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is in order to
facilitate the shipping of grain by tender.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. We make a contract, but up in that district we have found that there is only one gentleman who really is equipped to do the work. That is, Mr. James Whalen.


William F. Carroll: I would like to say a word with reference to ice-breaking in the harbour of Sydney. I understand from parties there, who are interested in having

that harbour opened up early in the spring, that requisitions were made last year for ice-breakers. Those requisitions could not be granted owing to the shortage in the icebreaking boats. It is just as important to have the ice broken early in Sydney harbour as it is to keep the river St. Lawrence open, because perhaps there are no other two points where there is so much coal carrying trade as between Sydney and Montreal. Last spring the Stanley was in Sydney and did very good work there in the way of ice-breaking between the mouth of the harbour and the shipping pier of the Dominion Coal Company. It is true she became disabled there, but she became disabled at other points also. I have it from the Dominion Coal Company's engineers that it is quite practicable to have the harbour of Sydney open very early in the month of March. It is proved that it is possible to keep the harbour open practically all winter between the shipping pier of the Dominion Coal Company and the mouth of the harbour. I am only too glad to give my support to the passing of this item, provided that other places besides the S,t. Lawrence river, and Thunder bay are given some consideration. I maintain that it is just as important to the whole of Canada to have Sydney harbour open early in the year as any other point; for, if a shortage of coal takes place in Montreal in the spring, it is quite practicable to ship coal from Sydney harbour to Montreal in March, provided proper attention is given to icebreaking in Sydney harbour. Many imagine that Sydney harbour is frozen over for seven months in the year. As a matter of fact, there are some winter seasons when it is open all through. It is open all year round between the mouth of the harbour and North Sydney, and it is only a matter, I should say, of a little ice breaking to have navigation open all the year round to the Atlantic, and so to the Atlantic ports. I take it that it is important to Canada that the great centres, Montreal and Quebec, should have coal. I would like to impress on the minister that next spring he should have icebreaking apparatus in Sydney harbour.


John Douglas Hazen: We had a little discussion on this subject this afternoon, when it was referred to by the hon. member for North Cape Breton. We have done all we could do with the equipment at our command, and will do what we can in the future. In the spring of 1912, we were able to do a great deal more than we did this year, when the Stanley met with an accident and was laid up for repairs. We have no icebreakers down there except the Stanley and the boats that run across the Northumberland straits. In about a Mr. CARROLL.
year and a half we shall have icebreakers available, as we are going to have new icebreakers in the St. Lawrence, which will free the Montcalm for work along the gulf; and when the car ferry is put on between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, there will be no further use on that route for the Earl Grey and the Minto, both icebreakers. There are demands from other places, such as Dalhousie and Gaspe.	No doubt icebreakers will open the harbours earlier, and so will help the Dominion generally.


Mr. NESBITT:: How long were the Government able to keep the harbour open at Thunder Bay ?


John Douglas Hazen: Until the 10th of January, and this year we got it open earlier than usual. The result was to prevent the congestion of grain on the railway in the Northwest. The grain people tell us that it was of the greatest possible advantage. Probably from 13,000,000 to 14,000,000 bushels of grain were taken off the railway and put into ships, and the congestion of the winter before last did not exist last winter.
To provide for the administration of pilotage and the maintenance and repair of the steamer Eureka, $36,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Where is the Eureka?


John Douglas Hazen: At Father Point. She
takes the pilots to and from the vessels as they come up the St. Lawrence.


William F. Carroll: Has the minister any control over pilotage commissions such as we have in Cape Breton ?


John Douglas Hazen: There is a pilotage commission who have direct control; they are appointed by Order in Council. If the pilots do not discharge their duty satisfactorily they can be removed by Order in Council.


William F. Carroll: Old and reliable pilots have been dismissed from the service at Sydney harbour and others have been suspended. They tell me it was for political reasons. As to that, I do not know. I know the minister or the department is not responsible for that, but the commission is responsible. One of the most reliable pilots we have on the coast of Sydney harbour, resident at Low Point, was dismissed a year and a half ago, and his place was filled with an inexperienced man. Many of the mariners who come there have complained to the Pilotage Commission of the appointment of an inexperineced man. It may be that these gentlemen do not see eye to eye with the commission in the matter of politics. But if there is one thing more than another in which a man's politics should not interfere with his job, it is pilotage. A pilot must be an experienced man. He does not get his position, nor his

pay from the Government; his pay comes out of the fees the pilots themselves earn. It seems to me unfair to dismiss a man from such a position even for partisanship. I am not finding fault with the minister, because I know he has no control over that. But I suggest that he point out to the commission that it is more important to have reliable and experienced men to look after the ships coming into our harbours than to have men belonging to one particular party. I know that political friends of the minister of Marine and Fisheries have regretted the dismissal of these men without his knowledge and authority. Steps should be taken so that men who have been engaged in the pilotage business for years should not be disturbed.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I brought this matter
to the notice of the commission before, but there is a little history about it that the minister should know. I have known Sydney harbour intimately for thirty years. For the first ten years of that time there was no such thing as the board of commissioners, and a man went piloting as he went fishing. If he got a steamer to bring in, he got his fee. There was very often a battle royal as to who should reach the vessel first. So the men got together and organized-grit and tory. There was no talk of politics; they were simply a body of men engaged in business. Everybody joined the organization, and, so far as I know, no politics entered into it until this Government came into power. In the fifteen years of liberal rule only one was suspended, and that was on 'the ground that he sold liquor while a pilot, and the board themselves agreed to his dismissal. But twenty-five per cent, perhaps thirty per cent of the pilots have been dismissed since this Government came into power. A man is given to understand that if he is not a tory he is not needed in the pilot business. That is high-handed, it may have been a miner or fisherman who gave up all his time to pilotage twenty-five years ago.


John Douglas Hazen: Do they want apprentices there?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, and everyone of
the apprentices have been dismissed as well as the pilots and the authorities had to go out to the ordinary rank and file to get men to put in their places. Five years of apprenticeship is supposed to qualify a man to be a pilot. They had to go out to the farmers and miners and people along the shore and pick up pilots and put them 'in charge of ships of enormous value to bring them into that harbour. That is not business and there is no justification for it.


John Douglas Hazen: We have no knowledge of the matter in the department; I shall make inquiry about it. Speaking without having
the facts all before me it seems to me a most unwise thing to dismiss the apprentices who would be pilots in the future. Of course, it may be that there are men acting as pilots who from infirmity of hearing or 'eyesight are no longer fit for the position.
In Quebec they have to undergo an examination in this respect every year and usually a certain number have to drop out.
Pensions of $300 each to pilots, $6,300.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I should like to know
if the department intends to act on the report of the Pilotage Commission?


John Douglas Hazen: We are already acting on it so far as the recommendations for the Montreal district are concerned. We are practically able ,to act on the recommendations without legislation. In the Montreal district, one of the recommendations is to give larger remuneration to the pilots. We are doing that. Another is that the Montreal office in Quebec should be placed in a different position. There are some regulations about the employment of pilots for special lines. If a man is employed for a special line of ships his name is taken off the tour de role. It was recommended that' a pilot would not have to be taken off the tour de role if a line had a vessel coming up only once a month. There is a provision that two lines having two ships coming once a month will get the services ~ of the same pilot. There are a number of regulations of that sort. The pilotage service of the Montreal district seems to the commission to be very satisfactory and the changes are not drastic or important. With regard to the Quebec district, the changes recommended are more important and it may be that we shall have to have some legislation at another session with regard to that. While the Minister of Marine. has nominally authority over the pilotage, as a matter of fact, he has little authority over the Quebec pilots, what is called the corporation of pilots has power to appoint pilots and arrange everything. The recommendation is that that corporation shall be abolished and the control placed directly in the minister. Then there is a recommendation that the present system of pooling the earnings of all the pilots shall be abolished.
It is thought that this system discourages individual effort on the part of the pilots. They also recommend a change with regard to the system at Father Point by which pilots are placed upon the ships. In the old days the pilots had sailing boats that used to sail up and down the river and they made their farthest point down the river west of Father Point. By arrangement with the Marine Department they agreed to give up the sailing boats and the Department of Marine and Fisheries provided a steamer that would always be

at Father Point to take a pilot out to the vessel. This steamer is the Eureka. The pilots go down	and lives in
boarding houses and wait until the ship comes, and they are taken on the Eureka to the ship. They say\ that it is a bad system, that these men are loafing about boarding houses for hours at a time, and they practically put it that there is a danger of their drinking, and that a pilot in this condition is not fit to pilot a ship. They recommend that a steamer be purchased that will be large enough to afford accommodation for the pilots so that they can go down and remain on the ship, under the supervision of an official of the department who will preserve order, and stay on the boat until their services are required.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thank the minister for his clear explanation. Too much care cannot be taken in connection with the organization on a sound basis of the pilotage system. My hon. friend knows that the St. Lawrence, especially last year, has been most unfortunate in view of the numerous accidents that have taken place. We speak very often about the high insurance rates. The rates have gone up of late years on account of such accidents and certainly any action of my right hon. friend to place matters in a proper position is to be highly commended. The Shipping Federation in Montreal and the business community are waiting with anxiety the outcome of this pilotage question which has been a vexeLT question for many years.
Telephonic reporting stations along the St. Lawrence between Montreal and Quebec, $30,000.


John Douglas Hazen: The increase of $6,000 includes $3,000 for the salaries of additional clerks, one extra clerk for the Montreal office, a temporary clerk for the Quebec office when occasion demands and an extra night operator on the river will probably be required. It makes allowance also for certain increases of salary to some officers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a very useful
organization in case of fogs.


John Douglas Hazen: We could not give it up.
The shipping people would rebel if we proposed to do so. As a matter of fact, I think it should be extended.
Marine hospitals, $68,000.


Bowman Brown Law: Is it the intention of the department to close the marine hospital at Yarmouth?


John Douglas Hazen: The policy of the government has been to close these marine hospitals in towns where there are public hospitals. For instance in St. John there was a very fine marine hospital. Some I Mr. HAZBN.
years ago it was closed and an arrangement was made with the commissioners of the public hospital to take all sailors. We paid so much per day or per week, and it lias been found much cheaper for the country and also, with a really good and well equipped hospital, the men got better treatment and care than in a marine hospital. The sailors prefer it. If there is in the town of Yarmouth a thoroughly equipped hospital of that sort to which sailors could be sent it would be in the public interest that an arrangement should be made in Yarmouth similar to that in other cities.


Bowman Brown Law: The Government owns a
nice property there, the hospital was built only a few years ago and it seems too bad too throw the whole thing away._ Does the port physician attend to sick sailors in the public hospital if they are sent there?


John Douglas Hazen: I believe in some cases he does and in others he does not. In some cases they are attended by the regular physician at the hospital. Then the Government pays a larger fee than where their own physician attends the sailors. My hen. friend referred to the building. There was a very nice building in St. John, which was abandoned fifteen or sixteen years ago. The Government leased it at a nominal rent to a public institution, a home .for incurables, and if a similar step were taken in Yarmouth there is probably some public purpose for which the building could be used and the Government, I am sure, would be willing to rent it for such a purpose on almost nominal terms.


Bowman Brown Law: I understand that it has been decided to abandon the hospital?


John Douglas Hazen: It is under consideration,
it has not been decided.


John Howard Sinclair: I have on a number
of occasions brought to the attention of the department the question of establishing a marine hospital at Canso.


John Douglas Hazen: Is there no public hospital there to which the sailors could be conveniently sent?


John Howard Sinclair: No, there is no public hospital at Canso, and a great many ships come there during the run of the season, especially fishing vessels. It is a port of call for sailing vessels and sometimes there is quite a fleet in the harbour. Sailors become sick and have to be sent to some boarding house and the chances of recovery are very poor indeed with the attendance that they can get in one of these sailors' boarding houses. A great many ships from Lunenburg call at Canso for bait and shelter and are there occasionally while fishing on the banks. A former member for Lunenburg joined with me the request

that something be done in regard to the matter. I regard it as very important, j


John Douglas Hazen: I think there is merit in what the bon. gentleman says. The matter was discussed at the last meeting of the Fisheries Board, and the officials of the department are getting information together now as to the number of sailors to be treated and so on.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister given any further consideration to my proposal
of last year to have a ship cruise around the hanks among the fishery vessels and
give the flishermen medical aid in cases of illness?


John Douglas Hazen: That question of medical
aid to the fishermen has been engaging the attention of the department. I hope to have a scheme to lay before Parliament before the close of the session.


Alexander William Chisholm: It appears
to me rather strange that seamen must leave the province before they are entitled to treatment under the law. If a ship goes from Margaree to the Magdalen islands, i the sailors on board are entitled to participate in the Sick Mariners' Fund, but if the ship goes to Halifax, they are not qualified to participate in the fund.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman is correct in stating what the law is. It has been the law for a number of years.


William Chisholm: I would expect that
the sailors on board a ship going to the the port of Halifax, would be entitled to the same privileges as the sailors on board a ship that goes ten miles. I do not regard it as a just law.


John Douglas Hazen: It is the law, but perhaps some scheme might be worked out interprovincially.


Mr. LOGGIE:: Might I draw the minister's attention to the salary paid to the keepers at the marine hospitals? We have a keeper in charge of the marine hospital at Douglastown, who is alleged to be receiving starvation wages. His wage has not been increased for the last fifteen or twenty years. I have no authority to speak on behalf of the keeper of this hospital; I take it upon myself to draw the attention of the minister to his case, and I know he will give it the consideration it deserves.


John Douglas Hazen: I will certainly pay as
great attention to this suggestion as I would to any that comes from my hon. friend. But would it not be a better policy to close the hospital at Douglastown, and to send the sailors to Chatham, only a few miles away, mere is a wonderfully good hospital which is managed by the Sisters of Charity there, and which gets a grant from
the province. It might be more in the interests of the sailors to do that.


William Stewart Loggie: That suggestion was placed before the public four or five years ago, and the people on the Miramichi resented very much the idea of- closing that old institution. The sailors that go there are well attended, and the keeper is a good man, while the hospital is centrally situated. The shipping interests and timber merchants are very strongly in favour of retaining the old hospital.
Salaries an-d imbursements of fishery officers, $230,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We will leave the first item, and pass the other. I understand that some hon. members would Like to discuss some matters.
Mr. HAeeN:	Very good, let the first
item stand.


William F. Carroll: Have the fishery officers for eastern Nova Scotia been appointed?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


William F. Carroll: Has there been any increase in the number?


John Douglas Hazen: Practically no increase
this year.


Alexander William Chisholm: Any decrease?


John Douglas Hazen: No, I think the number
is the same.


Bowman Brown Law: Has the minister increased
the salaries of all the fisheries inspectors?


John Douglas Hazen: No.
Oyster culture, $6,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: What is
being done in regard to oyster culture?


John Douglas Hazen: Oyster culture to-day,
under the agreement that we have made, is largely being carried on by the provinces. In Prince Edward Island the Government have gone to work on a most extensive and progressive scale. They have granted leases for 5,000 acres of barren oyster beds, the people who have leased the beds are planting them with new oysters and it is expected that the oyster industry in a few years in Prince Edward Island will be restored to what it was before it was depleted, and will be a valuable asset to the province. I understand that a similar course is being adopted in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. I do not think that in New Brunswick they have .gone ahead as fast as they have in Prince Edward Island. In Nova Scotia we have also entered into the same arrangement with the provincial government which practically gives them the control. Following the amendment of

the Fisheries Act of last session enabling agreements to be entered into with the provincial governments whereby they would take up the leasing of areas on which to carry on artificial culture and cultivation of oysters, agreements ere entered into with the Maritime provinces and British Columbia. The work carried on by the federal government will be limited. An experimental oyster bed was, two years ago, laid out in Richmond bay, Prince Edward Island, and the following year in Caribou harbour, Pictou county. Last year an experimental bed was started in Bay du Vin, but was not finished. It will be completed during the coming year and the oyster expert will therefore devote his time to the cleaning and improving of the public beds.


John Howard Sinclair: How long does it take an oyster to grow up?


John Douglas Hazen: It takes him from three to four years. If my hon. friend wants to hear about oysters he will learn all about them if he runs up against the Premier of Prince Edward Island.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thought that Prince
Edward Island was taken up with foxes just now.	_


John Douglas Hazen: Oysters and foxes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The best advertisement of Canadian oysters is that which they have received from Lord Strathcona. He has planted a bed of Prince Edward Island oysters about the island at the north of Scotland where he has his castle. The plantation has been a great success.
Fisheries patrol service, $120,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: What is the explanation of the increase of $45,000?


John Douglas Hazen: The reason of that is that we have five new patrol boats on the Atlantic coast in commission this year as compared with last year and also an extra one on the Pacific coast.


William Chisholm: Are these boats built by tender and contract?
Mr. HAZEN- In all cases by tender and contract.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A few days
ago I asked for a return relative to the production of the dog fish plant at Clarke's harbour. Possibly that cannot be brought down while Parliament is in session and if not, I would request that the minister when it is completed, send it to me at Halifax.


John Douglas Hazen: Certainly.
Mr. HAZEN. '
To provide for an exhibit of fresh and cured food fish at the Toronto annual exhibition, $10,000,


William Stewart Loggie: I would like to ask the minister on what terms the dog fish plant at Shippegan is to be operated this year?


John Douglas Hazen: I regret to say that we have been unable to make a lease there. We thought we had one made but the gentleman with whom we were dealing backed out.


John Howard Sinclair: This seems to be a new item in regard to the exhibit of fresh fish at Toronto. I suggest to the minister that they establish a fish kitchen at the exhibition, have some fresh fish cooked in a nice w'ay, sold cheaply and served to the people of Ontario so that they will get a taste of the good fish we have on the Atlantic coast. I am quite sure that if you once give them a taste of it they will not eat any more lake fish but will want our fish all the time. I think if that is carried out it will be a very good idea.


John Douglas Hazen: I am glad to hear my hon. friend say that because that is exactly what the department is arranging to do in addition to making the exhibit. We were approached over a year ago by the -directors of the exhibition. They wanted us to make an exhibit at the fair last year. We felt that we could not, in the time at our disposal, make an exhibit that would be a credit to the department, so declined to undertake it. After talking it over we came to the conclusion that it would be good for the exhibition and a good advertisement of our good fish as well if we had at the Toronto exhibition, which is the largest annual exhibition held on the continent of North America, a first-class exhibition of the food fishes of the country arranged in an attractive manner. It would also introduce Atlantic food fishes into the West. The officials of the department who are working out the plan have made a recommendation along the line- which has been suggested by my hon. friend from Guysborough.
Salaries, building and maintenance of fishbreeding establishments, $400,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: There is a large amount of money expended on this particular work, not too large, I admit, and I would like to ask if careful attention is paid to the appointment of officers in charge of these establishments. I have in mind a particular hatchery in Nova Scotia where the department appointed a man as superintendent two years ago. I cannot conceive of this man being a proper person for the position inasmuch as he is seventy years old. I would expect a man filling a position of such importance to have at least reasonable youth to his credit.


John Douglas Hazen: My officials tell me they pay as careful attention as they can, but no doubt mistakes are made at times. A trouble does exist, I think, with regard to fish hatcheries in the fact that we have not in Canada enough men trained in that branch of science. Within the last few months the departmental officers have arranged-and I have approved of a schedule that has been prepared, arranging for the officers in the different fish hatcheries, what pay they shall receive when appointed, what the increases, and what the maximum shall be. We are trying to work out a system under which we can get better-trained officials than we have at the present time. The work has gone on very rapidly in the past two years, almost too rapidly. There have been splendid results from the salmon hatcheries, but it is doubtful if there have been any results at all from the lobster hatcheries. There are white-fish, pickerel, and salmon hatcheries which have given good results. The demand for these hatcheries is becoming greater all the time in places where streams and lakes are getting less full of fish. On Lake Erie, where there are hatcheries, there is no doubt that the supply of white-fish has been pretty well kept up; whereas in some of the other great lakes where there are no hatcheries the supply of whiteflsh has very largely decreased.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The salmon hatchery at Gaspe is quite a success.


John Douglas Hazen: The salmon fishers around that coast tell me there are more salmon there than there were ten or fifteen years ago. They attribute it to that hatchery. Some of it may be due to the protection being better than it was twenty or twenty-five years ago. The number of shad was becoming less, and last year we established shad hatcheries. A shad hatchery cannot be made like other hatcheries in a fixed place; it has to be removed from place to place because the shad is such a delicate fish. You cannot take it out like a salmon, and strip it; you have to get it oyer the spawning bed when it is quite ripe. If you do not do that, you loose the shads and spawn and everything else. At the first hatchery of the kind in the Dominion last year, they got about 5,000,000 eggs that were deposited. This year they expect to do very much better. As to what the result will be, we cannot tell for perhaps three or four years. I have great hopes that it will increase the number of shads.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is the hon. ministei going to ask for tenders for a boat on Lake Winnipeg?


John Douglas Hazen: We asked for tenders. It is to take the place of a boat called the Lady of the Lake, which has been the Marine and Fisheries boat there. Not a single firm tendered. They considered that Lake Winnipeg was an out-of-the-way place, and they would have to build the boat largely here and set it up when they got it to the lake. Therefore we decided to build the boat ourselves in the Government yards at Sorel.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Whilst I was reading the Star to-night I found what I wanted to quote this afternoon about ship construction in Canada. It is as follows:
Collingwood, Out., May 23.-The steel freighter, James Carruthers, claimed to he the largest of its kind ever constructed in the British Empire, was successfully launched yesterday at the yards of the Collingwood Ship-building Company.
The new vessel was christened by Miss Lillian A. Wright, daughter of Mr. A. A. Wright, general manager of the St. Lawrence and Chicago Navigation Company, under whose colours the James Carruthers will ply on the upper lakes.
The vessel is 550 feet long, 38 feet beam, and 30 feet deep, and has a carrying capacity of 375,000 bushels of wheat, or 600,000 bushels of oats, and about 11,000 tons of coal.
I submit that to my hon. friend for his consideration.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How is the
Advisory Fishery Board getting on?


John Douglas Hazen: We have it organized this year. There are three divisions, an eastern division, a Pacific division and a prairie division, the prairie division being the (provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta where conditions are different. There have been two meetings of the Atlantic division here, and one meeting of the Pacific division. I think there is to be a meeting of the prairie division in June. The officials of the department believe it will be a great help.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend suggests that lobster hatcheries are not doing good work. There is evidence to the contrary in some places. The hatchery that was established in Pictou a number of years ago has increased the crop of lobsters in that vicinity. The same thing prevails at Canso, but the Canso hatchery has not been operated so long as the one at Pictou. After his experts have been experimenting for some ten or fifteen years it is humiliating that the minister has to come before the committee and say he does not know. If his experts on this question were as they ought to be, they would follow up the spawn they put in the isea and be able to tell the minister whether any of them thrive or not.


Bowman Brown Law: Are any new lobster ponds to Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax): Have the lob-to be bought this year?	sters'been placed in the pond in Digby?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Bowman Brown Law: There is a natural lobster
pond at West Pubnico, Yarmouth county. An official of the department has inspected that pond three times, and I understand he had made a favourable report. The pond can be got for a very reasonable price. There is an increase in this vote of $77,700. That pond, I imagine could be bought for $1,000. I see that last year the minister purchased a lot in Digby for $10,000, which has been assessed for the last three or four years for $300 to $350. If the money is as plentiful as that with the Marine and Fisheries Department it is only fair they should purchase this pond at West Pubnico which will be of benefit to the fisherman of that county as well as of Shelbourne. It is a natural pond and the water flows into it and out of it as the tide moves, and no fresh water goes into it.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman
knows that the value of a property cannot be determined by the assessment. I am prepared to justify the purchase of that property and amount paid. It was reported upon by the officers of the department and every precaution taken. The matter of Pubnico has been before the department and I believe that the officers think it a good site, but we have decided not to extend the lobster ponds this year.


John Howard Sinclair: What did the minister get in this purchase?


John Douglas Hazen: The area is nineteen acres. A dam has been built and a pond constructed. To go back to the other matter, what strikes me as a non-expert is that more information ought to be had along the line referred to by the hon. member for Guysboro. We do not know whether the lobsters which are hatched out and put in the ocean are devoured by the other fish or what becomes of them. I do not think anything is known to prove that the lobster hatchery has been productive of very good results. I am glad to heaT what the hon. gentleman says about Pictou and Canso. But should not we keep the lobsters after they are hatched out in the pond, place them in favourable locations where they could not be preyed upon, and so make sure that a fair proportion of them reach maturity. I think the investigation should take place, and the proper body to make it would be the biological board. This is without casting reflections on the officers of the department who are capable and zealous men. But we have not at this time such information as I speak of.	.
Mr. SINCLAIR


John Douglas Hazen: They are being placed
there.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have heard it stated
that fresh water flows into this pond.


John Douglas Hazen: No, that has been diverted.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Have we one Fishery
Board for the whole of Canada?


John Douglas Hazen: One board divided into
three sections; Atlantic, Pacific and prairie sections.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who composes the
Atlantic section?


John Douglas Hazen: It is composed of three
members from Nova Scotia, three from New Brunswick, one from Prince Edward Island, and a representative from the Gulf of St. Lawrence-from the Magdalen Islands.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The hon. member for
Yarmouth asked for a return. Will the hon minister expedite that?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: And will he expedite
the return respecting the expenses of Commissioner Duchemin which I asked for two months ago-the expenses of Commissioner Duchemin in connection with investigations in Guysborough county, giving the names. A large number of people were beheaded in that county.


John Douglas Hazen: Does that refer to the
Department of Marine alone?


John Howard Sinclair: To all the departments.


John Douglas Hazen: Then that will be in the
hands of the Secretary of State.


William Stewart Loggie: I would draw the attention of the minister to the fact that Mira-miobi is a district in Which a large quantity of shad are caught, and perhaps he would consider adding to the hatchery on the North West Miramichi, a branch of the shad hatchery in connection with the salmon hatchery.


John Douglas Hazen: I was under the impression that the shad fishery of Miramichi was a small one.


William Stewart Loggie: No, it is a large fishery.


John Douglas Hazen: I have been resting under a mistake.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: A moment before the
committee rises-I mentioned earlier in the afternoon about the licenses in the Bay of Fundy-I think a return was moved for by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) regarding the correspondence. If the min-



[Stage Direction]
ister would have it brought down when the committee meets next time, I should like it.
John Douglas Hazen: The hon. member for St.
John called my attention to the matter On inquiry I found that the return will cover over a thousand pages. It is almost ready and probably will be brought down next week.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Hazen, the House adjourned at 1.05 a.m. Saturday.

Monday, May 26, 1913.