OP THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA FIRST SESSION-TWELFTH PARLIAMENT 2 GEORGE V., 1911-12 VOL. CIV.


[Stage Direction]
Douse of (Commons Debates

[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 2G, 1912.
Tlie SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

Mr. BORDEN moved:: That the recommendation of the Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons for the appointment of Mr-. Charles E. Duckett to the position of translator on the permanent translation staff of the House of Commons, laid on the table of tlie House with other papers on the subject on the 23rd of January, 1912, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Robert Laird Borden: That on Wednesday the 31st of January, and all subsequent Wednesdays to the end of the session, the House will meet at three o'clock p.m., and that the sitting on such days shall in every respect Ire under the same rules provided for other days, and that on said Wednesdays government orders will have precedence immediately after notices of motions for production of papers.
He said: The usual practice has been to give Government Orders precedence immediately after Questions. Last year I suggested to my right hon. friend that it might be better to permit Notices of Motion for the Production of Papers to have precedence, and I thought it well to follow the same practice this year.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I am not disposed to object to this motion, but it has been represented to me that private members should be given another opportunity to be heard on the motions coming under Public Bills and Orders. Therefore I would suggest to my right hon. friemu that the (motion be made to take effect, not next Wednesday, but the Wednesday following, that is, the 7th of February.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend is urgent, I would be glad to accept his suggestion ; but at the same time he knows as well as I do that there is not a motion on the G3
order paper that has not been called already six or eight times. "Under the circumstances, unless my right hon. friend' is urgent, I would prefer to hasten our work as much :as possible.


Wilfrid Laurier: I agree with my right hon. friend that every opportunity has been given to every member to be heard; but for some reason or other, they have not been heard1, and therefore I would ask hiim to have the motion take effect on the 7th of February. May I ask my right hon. friend .if he is prepared to say to-day what new' legislation we may expect during this session, or have we about all the programme of the government, with the exception of the supplementary estimates and the measure regarding the extension of the Manitoba boundaries?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not prepared to-day to give my right hon. friend the .information in that regard, but I think it probable that before the completion of next week I shall be in a position to do so.


Wilfrid Laurier: May I ask (lie hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce if he will take up the Grain Bill on Tuesday?


Mr. FOSTER.: Yes.
Motion, amended by striking out ' the 31st day of January ' and inserting in lieu thereof * the 7th day of February,' agreed to.



THE GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.

Mr. DEVLIN.: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to call the attention of the right hon. the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General to a report which appears in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' purporting to contain statements made iby the hon. the Postmaster General at a public meeting in Eganville in South Renfrew on the 25th instant, in which report the Postmaster General, referring to the new transportation policy of the government, is represented as indicating that the Georgian Bay canal will be built, that it wias a part of the new government's programme. I would like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if he can give any information to the House as to when that article of the government's nrogramme



will be brought before the House for consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: I have already informed the right bon. leader of the opposition that within a week from to-day we will give full information of the government's programme.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: May I ask the Prime Minister if the government have agreed on a policy in regard to the building of the Georgian Bay carnal?


Mr. PELLETIER.: I may inform my
bon. friend that I did not open my mouth last night on the Georgian Bay canal.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a very sad commentary on the ministerial press.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: They have been badly educated by the Grit press.



THE WRIT FOR SOUTH RENFREW.

Wilfrid Laurier: I see that the Postmaster General and the Minister of Agriculture have been enlightening the electors of South Renfrew; so I assume that the writ for South Renfrew has been issued.


Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend must not assume too much. As a matter of fact, I expect to take up that matter tomorrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: Then I will renew my question on Monday.



SUPPLY-INTERCOLONIAL TRADE,

[Stage Direction]
Mr. WHITE (Leeds) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["I think if would be more satisfactory if the hon. gentleman would put the question to the Postmaster General himself. We have had an illustration already to-day of the inadvisability of tieing ourselves up completely to items in newspapers. While trying to be as correct as possible, they are tinged with human frailty, I fear. '"]
Mr. EMMERSON.: As I notice that the Minister of Agriculture is not in his seat, I would like to call the attention of my right hon. friend the leader of the government to the matter of the payment of the balances due the census enumerators. I have a letter received to-day stating that the enumerators in the .county of Westmorland have not yet received the balance due them.
Mr. BORDEN I am very glad that my hon. friend has brought the matter to my attention. It is apparently a departmental matter and consequently it is impossible for me to give any opinion, but I will take the earliest opportunity to bring it to the attention of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and I am sure he will attend to it at once. I agree in what my hon. friend has said about the desirability of having payments made at the earliest possible moment.



Hon.   WM@: 
George Eulas Foster: The matter remains exactly where it was left by the old minister.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: It is unfortunate that the whole of this winter shall be allowed to pass away without anything being done

towards improving the service. I regret that I cannot find in, the estimates for the coming year any increase in the steamship subsidy to the West Indies, and I, therefore, suppose-and it will be with great reluctance-that we may take it for granted that there will be no improvement in the coming year.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think my hon. friend should take too much for granted.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman hold out to me the hope that in the supplementary estimates', which I presume will appear >a little later, there may be, a vote for improvement in the service?


George Eulas Foster: To a man so optimistic as my hon. friend it should be scarcely necessary to hold out any hope.


William Pugsley: I was optimistic when I had good ground for being so. If I had been Minister of Trade and Commerce during the past three months, I think I would have had an amount in the main estimates for the improvement of the service to the West Indies, and I think that before this, that service would have been improved. There are two ways of improving the trade conditions between Canada and other countries. There are two barriers to trade. One is the tariff. The other is no communication at all or inadequate or expensive communication; and the trade between Canada and the West Indies may be hampered by the nonimprovement of the service as well as by the tariff remaining as it is, and trade relations can, be improved by giving a better steamship service as well as by a reduction of the tariff between the two countries. And I do think that my hon. friend, instead of giving attention simply to the one question of getting improved trade relations so far as the tariff between Canada and the West Indies is concerned, should have devoted his attention earnestly to the improvement of the steamship communication and if possible the reducing of the rates of freight. The commissioners appointed by the Canadian and British and by some of the West Indian governments as well to consider the -question of improved trade relations and better steam communication made a very strong recommendation in favour of an improved steamship service. They recommended that there should be two services between Canada and the Windward Islands -one being a direct service from Halifax all the year round, and the other a service between Montreal and the West Indies but calling at St. John during the summer months, and a direct and exclusive service between St. John and the West Indies during the winter months. I had the opportunity' of conferring with the representatives of the Board of Trade of St. John 63i
to whom was 'entrusted1 the matter of considering the West Indies service, and I had reason to believe that the people of St. John would be entirely satisfied with that. I believe also it will be satisfactory to the people of the province of Quebec, Ontario and the western provinces, because in summer we would have a steamship service starting at Montreal and calling at St. John and in the winter an exclusive and direct service to the port of St. John.
With the very excellent railway accommodation we have now between St. John and the west, it was felt that that service would be very satisfactory to the people of the upper provinces and of western Canada in both summer and winter. Of course, it will cost Canada something more than it is now paying in order to secure this important service. I understand the British government has not expressed its willingness to give the aid that was recommended by the Royal Commission; but it does seem to me that if the government is-as I am glad to believe it to he-desirous of improving the trade relations between Canada and the British West Indies and of enlarging the trade between the two countries, it should not allow $50,000 or even $100,000 to stand in the way of securing frequent, rapid and satisfactory steamship service. Therefore, I hope that when my hon. friend comes to consider what aid he will ask his colleague the Minister of Finance to provide in the supplementary estimates for steamship services, he will not forget to put in an additional amount in order to secure, at as early a day as possible, better communication between Canada and the West Indies. The country will, I am sure, approve of the expenditure, and I have no doubt that the results will justify such action on the part of the government.
I observe that the Minister of Trade and Commerce has laid on the table a report relating to this subject of trade between Canada and the West Indies. That report recites the appointment of the Royal Commission, reports the action which was taken by representatives of the late Canadian government, as well as representatives of the British government and the representatives of the several West Indian islands. In concluding the committee state the willingness of this government to meet the representatives of the several West Indian colonies, at the earliest convenient opportunity, if possible, during the month of March, 1912. That, I presume, will be for the purpose of endeavouring, if possible, to carry into effect the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners. I hope that the result will be, if not a reduction in

tariff between the two countries, at all events, an improvement of the means of communication; for, as I have said, improved communication will probably go as far in improving the trade between the two countries as a reduction in the tariff.
Now, I have observed, from the returns laid upon the table, that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce <Mr. Foster) is following along the lines laid down by his predecessor in endeavouring to improve the trade relations between Canada and Australia. The returns show that ever since 1900, at all events, the late government has been continually urging, so far as properly could be urged, upon the consideration of the Australian government the desirability of making some preferential trade arrangement between the two countries. So far, their efforts have not been successful. I shall not take up the time of the House by reading the returns, 'but will very briefly state the nature of the last communication on this subject by the late government and will also read the latest communication from the present government. Mr. Ross represents the Canadian government in Australia. I find that on November 7, 1910-just ten years after the late government entered upon negotiations -the Department of Trade and Commerce communicated with Mr. Ross as follows:
Instructed by Minister of Trade and Commerce direct you should inquire Australian government will they make any concession to the Canadian government if the duty is abolished on Australian mutton. Will they make any concession if duty is reduced l') cents? Instruction- to observe -that in either case such action would be opposed here.
And on February 9,	1910, Mr. Ross
cabled:
In reply to your telegram of the 7th, have had an interview with Minister of Customs. In their opinion, -think it a better course to pursue to exchange present preferential tariff early next session parliament in June without	reference to	mutton.	Better postpone more extended preferential arrangement owing to the political situation. Our private opinion Australian government will not oommi-t themselves definitely oil account of the elections in April.On the 6th August, 1910, the leader of the opposition, then the leader of the government-, cabled	Premier	Fisher	atMelbourne:	*
It has long been the wish of the Canadian government to have better trade relations with Australia. Ross, our agent, is authorized to negotiate, and I express hope that results satisfactory to both parties may be reached.
On the 8th August, 1910, Premier Fisher cabled	the right	hon. gentleman,	SirWilfrid	Laurier, as	follows:


William Pugsley: In reply to your cable of the 7th, every effort will be made to facilitate the discussion of this matter with Rose, as I heartily reciprocate your "wish that results satisfactory to our respective governments may be reached.
Nothing .more was done during that year. We find that on the 16th December, 1910; Mr. Ross advised the department tiba-t there had -been no further developments in reference to reciprocal trade between Canada and Australia, 'but stated that he understood it was the intention of the Prime Minister of Australia to discuss the matter with the Prime Minister of Canada when they met at the Colonial Conference in London in the May following. I am not aware whether there was any discussion at the Colonial Conference or not; but we know that no results were attained, for the return which brings the facts down to the 15th of the present month makes reference to the negotiations, but does not state that anything was accomplished. Then the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) '.ikes the matter up, and on the 28th of December last, writes the following letter 'o the Hon Mr. Tudor, Minister of Trade and Commerce for Australia. I think it would be well that the letter of my hon. fiend should be placed cn * Hansard ' as flowing the action taken:
Since 1898 our two countries have been -ndeavouring from to time to time to arrive vt an agreement for better mutual trade re-'ations but so far without success.
In the meantime, Canada has admitted he British Colonies), including the West indies as also the Dominions of South Africa -nd New Zealand, to the advantages of her British preferential reduction over non-pre-'erred countries, and which amounts to *bout 30 per cent, of tlie duty. A return has been accorded by South Africa and New Zealand, and negotiations are now going on 'or preferential return from the West 'ndies, and with fair prospects of success.
It seems to me too bad that with our great sister Dominion in -the Pacific we ave not been long since able to arrange our trade on a preferential basis, and I can as-ure you that Canada is very desirous both on sentimental grounds and for reasons of -mtual advantage, that this anomaly shall be removed as speedily as possible.
We give you already a considerable free 'ist for some of your staple products, although we got no very great return from you :n that respect for any of our great staples. SVe stand ready to give you a substantial preference upon all articles of export in re

:rn for a substantial preference to our ex-*o*rts to your country and a free entrance for some of our natural products.
Proposals have been made to exchange your limited preference for a limited preference of entry into our country, but it scarcely seems adequate that we should proceed on so restricted a basis.

Can we not at least approach the matter with a sincere desire and a determination to come to some fair agreement, and thus hind our two countries closer together on the lines of commercial intercourse and exchange? If your government will make a proposition, I shall be very much pleased to take it up with my colleagues, and to pursue the negotiations with you to a finish, and I do not see why we should not come to conclusions which would be mutually advantageous. Once preferential inducements are added, our steamship communications can be bettered, and by this means our two kindred peoples will become more intimately acquainted with and interested in each other.
If, on the other hand, you wish Canada to make a proposition to you with the assurance that you desire to follow it to a completion, I shall be glad to place a proposal before you for consideration.
May I hope to hear from you in good time? Our Mr. Ross will give you any desired information as to our products, our exports and imports.
I desire to say that in my opinion the action of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in sending this communication to the Australian government is worthy of all commendation; but may I point out what I think is one objection, from the Canadian standpoint, to my hon. friend's letters? 'My hon. friend rather puts it that the improvement of the tariff relations is to precede the establishment of better steamship communication between the two countries. He suggests that if we can get a preferential tariff satisfactory to Canada then the steamship communication might be improved. In my judgment this country should move ahead irrespective of any improvement in tariff relations between Canada and other countries, and wherever there is an opportunity to develop trade, Canada should encourage the establishment of proper steamship communication in order to give facilities for trade. As I said before, high freight rates and inadequate steamship accommodation are just as much a barrier to improved trade between any two countries as the raising or maintaining of a tariff wall. The late government has shown an example which my hon. friend might well imitate. I find that for the encouragement of foreign trade between Canada and other (Countries, including Great Britain anldl tire Dominions beyond the seas, Canada gave, last year, the very large sum of $1,440,000. It seems to me that everyone must recognize that the improved steamship accommodation which has been secured by means of these very handsome subsidies has been a Very great factor in developing the toreign trade of Canada to the enormous proportions which it has now attained, and of which every Canadian is so proud.
But, Sir, in considering whether or not my hon. friend has good ground for hoping that he will be able to accomplish anything
by his negotiations as Minister of Trade and Commerce, I am constrained to say that the past record of the right hon. the leader of the government (Mr. Borden), not only in his actions, but in his speeches, does not give very strong ground for the-hope that my hon. friend will receive encouragement in the work which he has undertaken of endeavouring to improve the trade relations between Canada and these respective countries by diplomatic action. My hon. friend, I know, is ai times enthusiastic in favour of enlarging the foreign trade of Canada. We know that as long ago as 1891, my hon. friend, in a most admirable speech which he made in this House, declared that he and the government of which he was a member were in favour of widening the bounds of commerce on every side amd then, as if some one were aisikiing the question, he said: "With the United States? Yes," but we find, Mr. Speaker, that when the opportunity came for my hon. friend to lend the force of his great power, and his surpassing eloquence towards widening the bounds of commerce with the great republic to the south, after some consideration, when about to plunge into the late political campaign, my hon. friend was one of the very strongest in denouncing the proposal which had been made by the late government to widen the bounds of commerce with the United States. Then I find that no longer ago than the 8th day of December last, my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Mr. Borden), who, when he speaks, must be taken as speaking for the party which he leads, was the guest of the Canadian Society of New York, and made a speech upon that occasion. He, I suppose, felt called upon to give to the people he was addressing some explanation of the action of the party of which he is the leader in turning down or seeking to have turned down the best-I say it advisedly-the best trade arrangement which was ever offered to the people of Canada. He felt called upon to explain the extraordinary course which the Conservative party had pursued with reference to that question. He was addressing a number of intelligent gentlemen who were familiar with the history of the negotiations which had taken place between Canada and the United States for many years past. He was addressing gentlemen who knew that all parties in Canada had been for years endeavouring to obtain better trade relations between these two great countries, and who would naturally be surprised at the action of the Conservative party, and would expect to hear some reason for the extraordinary position which the Conservative party, under the leadership of my right hon. friend, had taken. What was the language of my right hon. friend on that occasion? And remember,

Mr. Speaker, that what 1 propose to read is not apparently a mere newspaper report made upon the spot; the whole report of the speech bears evidence that my right hon. friend had, in accordance with the practice of many eminent statesmen, both in the mother country and in America, furnished typewritten copies of his speech in advance to the newspapers, with the understanding that it was to be printed when it had actually been delivered. I shall quote from the report as published in the St. John ' Standard,' the leading Conservative paper in the province of New Brunswick, although I saw the same report, word for word, in the other Conservative papers in Canada.
The right hon. gentleman said that:
For thirty years and more we have followed certain national ideas and policies which we firmly intend to pursue and continue in the future. We reached the conclusion that the recent proposals were inconsistent with those ideals and policies.
Now, I come to the language to which I invite the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The right hon. gentleman proceeded:
Moreover, we entirely disbelieve in the framing of tariffs by diplomatic methods. That system has been tested between different states under the British flag, notably in South Africa, and the results have been far from satisfactory.
Is my hon. friend aware that the right hon. leader of the government has made that declaration as to what would be the policy of the Conservative party in the future, and as to the principles for which they stand in so far as trade between Canada and other countries is concerned? Remember, the right hon. gentleman was not stating what was and what would be the policy of the Conservative party simply as between Canada and foreign countries, but he was laying down the general principle that, so far as relations between Canada and foreign countries were con-.cerned and so far as relations between Canada and sister colonies of the empire were concerned, he and his party entirely disproved of any attempt to make tariffs as the result of diplomatic action. Yet, my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce is, apparently with a light heart and hopeful spirit, moving ahead just as if his leader had not made that declaration. Would it be unfair for the governments of the British West Indies and the government of Australia, when they read this declaration of the right hon. leader of the government, to have a slight suspicion that my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not sincere in these negotiations but was simply playing with the governments of these important British possessions?
Mr. PUGSLEV
It may be that my right hon. friend has been misreported. I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when I saw this statement I was surprised at it, but it was explaining the course of the Conservative party in reference to the arrangement with the United States.
The language of my right hon. friend the leader of the government is in harmony with statements whi-ch have been made by members of the Conservative party in this House and throughout the country and, giving to the language of my right hon. friend the meaning which must necessarily be given to the words which he uttered, he appears to have deliberately made the declaration that in so far as Canada is concerned she is going to act independently in her tariff legislation, she is not going to have any negotiations in relation to tariff matters either with foreign countries or British possessions, she is going to act independently in the framing of her own tariff, to enter into no negotiation in future and to leave other countries, foreign as well as British, to do as they please in so far as their tariffs are concerned.
I do not wish to take up any more of the time of the House. I thought it weld to call attention to this statement of my right hon. friend, not, as I have said, a casual statement, but a statement made as embodying the well settled views and policy of the Conservative party in so far as the arrangement of tariffs is concerned. It seems to me that the course of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce is entirely out of harmony with the statement of his leader. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, and I am sure in so far as the Liberal party throughout the country is concerned, we believe in doing everything possible to enlarge the bounds of Canadian trade. We believe in giving to our people facilities and encouragement for the exportation of their produce and manufactures to all the countries of the world, whether it is to the United States, whether it is to British possessions, whether it is to France, or to any other country of the world, and we believe there is no more effective way of doing this than in connection with the improvement of transportation, negotiating with the governments of those countries with the view of having improved trade relations with them. That has been the policy of the Liberal party in the past; that will be its policy in the future. It will be satisfactory to me, and, I am sure, it will be satisfactory to the members of this House to learn that the right hon. leader of the government has been misreported by the newspapers of his party, but, as the same verbatim report appeared in different newspapers, I assume that the hon. gentleman was correctly reported and that in that speech he

laid down the policy of the Conservative party, and gave a clear declaration as to what would be its course in the future in so far as tariff relations between Canada and other countries are concerned.


Mr. H. B. AMES (Montreal St. Antoine).: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention at the last session of parliament to bring this matter of Australian-Canadian reciprocal trade relations to the attention of the House because it seemed to me that it was a matter of very considerable importance. But, the Reciprocity Bill which was brought down by the former government so altered our entire situation that I felt it inopportune to go on with the discussion. I, however, am very glad, at this time when the matter has been raised by the hon. member for St. John, (Mr. Pugsley) to take occasion to make a few_ observations to the House in connection with Canadian-Australian trade. When that Reciprocity Bill was brought in last session, as I said a moment ago, our status in so far as our power of negotiation was concerned was completely altered from what it hitherto had been. We were practically inviting all the other sister dominions throughout the British Empire to come in as an incident of the bargain that we were making with a foreign nation, sending them, so to speak, around to the back door and lettmg them in with a stranger's ticket when we should take them in at the front door and deal with them as sisters in the same great nation. Now that the reciprocity question is settled, and let us believe it is settled for many years to come, and we are back where we were before, prepared to negotiate with other parts of the empire, I think we can well spend an afternoon in discussing wherein our trade relationships can be improved. I believe that the present government. even in the short time it has been in office, has given ample proof that it is extremely anxious to enlarge our trade relationships. Because we did not accept the late government's proposition as regards reciprocity with the United States, we have been accused of unwillingness to enlarge the opportunities of Canadian trade with other parts of the empire. That accusation, I believe, Mr. Chairman, is entirely unjust. The reason the reciprocity arrangement was opposed by members on this side of the House and was rejected by the country, in my opinion, was that it involved an entangling alliance in the matter of tariffs and made it possible, or even probable, that we should lose our liberty of independent action.	.
Now, the very condition of affairs which throws on this side of the House the responsibility on account of the rejection of reciprocity with the United States is a condition of affairs which we would welcome if it related to an arrangement which we
might make with other parts of the British Empire. The more we can get entangled and bound together with the other parts of the empire, the better it will be for us all. We were the first self governing Dominion to adopt the principle of preferential trade. It is now 13 years ago since we made our famous offer to Great Britain and since that time we have kept that offer in force although our friends in the motherland have not reciprocated. It appears to me that we have gone as far as we can in that direction; the next step is that when the motherland is prepared to place her children upon a better basis than strangers in her market we shall be prepared to make still further concessions than those we have already made. But for the time being while Great Britain is unable to give any advantages to us it seems to me that we cannot be called upon to make any larger opportunity for her. But with the other members of the empire that have a fiscal policy similar to that under which we live, which have tariffs that can be reduced towards favoured nations, with them we can make preferential treaties and along that line of least resistance it seems to me it would be wise for us to go. Both Canada and Australia have already adopted the principle of reciprocal arrangements with other parts of the empire. Canada has made an arrangement of that kind with New Zealand and with South Africa. She has offered concessions to the West Indies which they have not yet reciprocated and she has also offered concessions to many other parts of the empire. Australia on her part has reciprocal trade arrangements with South Africa, and with New Zealand, and she grants a preference on British goods going in to that country, so that both Canada and Australia have established the precedent that they are prepared to make arrangements of this kind. But, although these two countries are the two leading British possessions they have as yet no mutual arrangement the one with the other, and each towards the other is a stranger in the matter of tariffs. Canada and Australia, although they are both countries carrying on large commercial operations throughout the world have comparatively small dealings the one with the other. We find that Australia imports annually goods to the amount of about $300,000,000 and yet
Iall that we Canadians send hex is about one and one-third per cent of that. We find - that Australian exports annually goods valued at $360,000,000 and yet of these exports we take but one nineteenth part. So that the trade as it at pressent exists between Canada and Australia is very much less than we in both countries would wish it to be. That may be partially due to defective steamship service, as

the hon. gentleman from St-. John (Mr. Pugsley) has alleged, but yet we must not forget that we have two steamship lines heavily subsidized from Canada, one from the Atlantic ports and one from the Pacific ports, and that we are annually contributing about $300,000 towards the expense of these two services. It is quite probable that a third service is desirable and necessary directly between Vancouver via Hawaii, and the ports of Australia, and I would even be prepared to urge upon the government that if Australia shows herself willing to contribute liberally towards such a third service that service might be created inasmuch as I think there would be traffic enough for these three services between the two countries.
But, for the present, the matter I want to specially discuss is the question of tariff concessions on the part of the two countries with a view of increasing their mutual >traJde(. (There are many strong reasons it seems to me that should appeal to this House and to the thinking people of this country why such an arrangement should be consummated. These reasons are both sentimental and economic and as such we know they have force with British peoples. In the first place Australians and Canadians are people of kindred races. There is a common language, there is a common historic back-ground, there is a common method of doing business and it should not be at all difficult for these two countries to deal with one another. The difficulties which exist in the way of our dealing with the Latin people of South America for example, do not exist between Canada and Australia. In the second place be it remembered that both these countries face on the Pacific ocean and that there is a smooth and tranquil highway of trade which can be traversed every succeeding year in a lesser period than before by reason of faster vessels, and which really brings the two countries in point of expense of transportation very close the one to the other. Then it is to be borne in mind that Canada lies in the northern hemisphere whereas Australia lies in the southern hemisphere and that there is an alternation of seasons-when it is winter here it is summer with them, when our agricultural .products are in such abundance that we are glad to export them theirs are most scarce, and vice versa; and that it would be quite possible to imagine a condition under which we could profitably in certain seasons of the year each send to the other what the other lacked. Let me point out also that to a very considerable extent Canada and Australia produce complementary products We have no sub-tropical sections of Canada but a very considerable portion of Australia, almost all of Queensland, is subtropical and the relationship between Cana-


Herbert Brown Ames: da and Queensland is practically the same in so far as products are concerned as exists between Canada and the West Indies. In the exchange of the products of the northern zone for the products of the sub-tropical zone there ought certainly to be ample opportunity for trade. Further let me point out that there are no complications by way of outside trade arrangements that should hinder each of these two countries from dealing just as they saw fit with each other. That was the most embarrassing feature of the America-Canadian reciprocity proposal; that if we were to give the United States certain advantages in our market we would necessarily have to give these same advantages to 12 other foreign nations who had no claim upon us and who would give us absolutely nothing in return. But in this ease we can make just such arrangements as we wish with the other parts of the British Empire and niot 'feel that? we have to concede one single item to any outsider, it being purely a domestic and family affair. I do not need to point out to the House that if our trade relations with Australia and other parts of the empire can be increased and enlarged it will mean the strengthening of the empire, it will mean the keeping of our money and resources within the empire in mutual building up each with the other one common consolidated whole. Notwithstanding the reasons that exist for greater trade between Canada and Australia, I have pointed out how small our mutual trade is:	The United States are sending
to Australia eight times as much as we are, Germany is sending five times as much, Belgium and Switzerland, little countries m Europe, are sending to Australia more than Canada does. I think that is due to the fact largely that we have not as yet been able to mutually give to this question that consideration which it naturallv deserves.
There are precedents that can be cited, why a preferential treaty should be made! Take for example some of the preferential treaties we are now working under with other parts of the empire. We have a treaty with New Zealand. In 1903, New Zealand granted Canada a preference in return for that which Canada granted her. That preferential Act, which imposed extra duties on goods from foreign countries, was extended in 1907. Under it, the general tariff on dutiable goods from foreign countries is 30:55 per cent, but goods entering New Zealand from the United Kingdom or British possessions come in on an average tariff of twenty and three-fourths per cent, so that you will see that fully one-third of the duty to strangers is rebated towards members of the same imperial household. Now, that has had a very marked effect upon our trade with New Zealand. In 1902-the year before New

Zealand granted us a preference-the total trade between Canada and New Zealand was $357,873; in 1906 it was $1,036,129; and in 1911 it was $1,917,978, showing that within ten years it has increased between five and six times the amount formerly exchanged between the two countries, and one of the best features of that exchange is that the imports and exports bear an almost equal relation to each other. For example we send to New Zealand goods to the extent of $1,004,370, and we take goods from New Zealand to the extent of $913,608, the balance of trade being almost equal, which is an evidence that the most healthy kind of interchange exists between these two parts of the empire.
We have also an arrangement with South Africa, an arrangement that lias proved profitable and that we are glad to continue. Foreign goods entering South Africa are taxed on an average of 17.38 per cent, but goods that come into South Africa from the United Kingdom or British possessions, like Canada, are taxed at the rate of 14:38 per cent. You will notice that the tariff of South Africa is comparatively low. We get a three per cent advantage, not very much, but it certainly has been enough to stimulate the trade in Canadian flour and some other articles with that country.
I do not wish to allege that the government, which passed out of power so recently, has in any way been neglectful or derelict in its duty in dealing with this Australian-Canadian preferential question. One has only to look through the files of the correspondence brought down to see that for the last 11 years that question has been constantly a subject of negotiation between the two countries, and that on more than one occasion it seemed as though a mutually satisfactory arrangement had been arrived at. But, political conditions in Australia have been, since the establishment of the commonwealth there, uncertain until up to a comparatively recent date. There have been in Australia three political parties, namely, the free traders, the protectionists, and tne labour party. None of these was able to control a majority in the legislature, and consequently it was only by a series of combinations that any party could rule. These combinations were made and broken with great frequency, with the result that during ten years unstable conditions were the rule in Australia. When I was in Australia two years ago I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with some of their leading statesmen, among others the Prime Minister of to-day. I found they were unwilling indeed to deal with anything that affected the tariff, because the government of Mr. Deakin was a fusicmist government, and his ministry contained free traders and protectionists in nearly
equal number and consequently did not wish to raise any question that would involve a discussion of the tariff. They feared that if they did so the Cabinet might fall to pieces. They were kept in power merely by common dread of the outside enemy, namely, the Labour party, and that was practically the only cement that then held the government together.
Since I was in Australia the government existing then has passed from power and a Labour government-.frankly labour-has come in and now controls both Houses. And it would seem as though the time had arrived when we Canadians might deal with a stable government. I may add here that the Labour government of Australia is avowedly protectionist-protectionist from a somewhat different point of view from that on which the question is usually discussed in this country, but nevertheless they are protectionist. They are protectionist from the point of view of the workingman himself. Consequently it seems that we will have protection as a settled policy in Australia, and with a settled government in that country there should be no difficulty in our making some progress.
I maiy further say that I believe that our case has been repeatedly placed before the successive governments that have come one after another in Australia, with a good deal of ability and a good deal of discretion, by our Canadian representative, Mr. D. H. Ross. Mr. Ross is persona grata with both sides of the Australian House; he seems to have friends quite as many in one party as in the other, and he is particularly au fait with the matter and has frequently presented memorials to the government which have been seriously considered by them. I do not think there is much difficulty in respect of information, for I believe that the Australian government have had from Mr. Ross all that they could desire. It seems to me that now an opportune time has come for us-when there is a settled government in Australia, a government which is frankly protectionist- to open up and carry on negotiations with good hopes of getting them carried through.
You will notice by the returns brought down this year that the latest proposition is that we should give our minimum tariff for their minimum tariff. I sincerely hope that our government will not adopt that rough-and-ready method of arriving at 'an agreement with Australia. The question involved is one that requires more delicate handling than that. It is a question that should take into consideration the conditions 'as they exist in both countries 'and the mutual relationship that obtains between the two. Let me point out, in the lirst place, that both Canada and Australia, in providing a maximum and a minimum tariff that should extend the maximum to

the stranger and the minimum to the other members of the great British family, always had their eyes upon Great Britain. The ex-Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will admit that that is what was mainly in his mind when his preferential tariff was submitted to this House. If you examine the Australian returns, you will find -that one-half the -imports come tram Great Britain and that of that one-half, 64 per cent -are on the preferential list. But, if you examine the list of th-e goods that Australia imports from other parts of the empire exclusive of Great Britain, you will find that 95 per cent of them are affected in no way by Australia's preferential trade tariff. Further than that, if you examine the Australian tariff you will find that while it -contains 711 items, 294 of them carry preferential .reductions and the remainder are exactly the same in the maximum as in the minimum. It would seem to me therefore that for us to offer them our minimum tariff or for them to offer us their minimum tariff, would simply mean giving a very slight reduction upon a large number of items, the great majority of which could under no circumstances be exported from one country to the other. It would seem to me, that a far better method of arriving at a really valuable increase of trade would be a list-for-list arrangement, in which we would endeavour to make such concessions as w-e might on the surplus products which Australia exports, and they in their turn, would endeavour to let into Australia on favoured treatment these things which we are already sending them or which are being sent to them toy competitors similarly .situated to ourselves. We send about $4,000,000 worth of goods annually to Australia and of that $4,000,000 worth, 80 per cent are covered 'b>
five items of the tariff. There you will see that the range of articles is comparatively small, and that it wiou-ld he far -more beneficial to our mutual trade if important reductions -could be made on a few items rather than very slight reductions on a large number.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: What are the five items.


Herbert Brown Ames: Fish, lumber, agricultural implements, motor vehicles and paper. It is possible perhaps by correspondence to say, we will give you our minimum tariff if you give us yours; but when it comes t-o making a list-for-list arrangement, that cannot be done toy two countries six thousand miles apart, either by mail or by cable. The parties must get together, and I believe the time has now arrived when this matter is of sufficient importance to make it obligatory upon a member of the Australian government and a member of the Canadian government to 1 Mr. AMES.
meet at some common point and take it up in conference, with a view to arriving at a mutually satisfactory arrangement. If it were possible for our Minister of Trade and Commerce to visit Australia, I think I can assure him, from what I know of the men whose names figure in this correspondence, not only that he would have -a hearty welcome, but that they would meet him as far as possible in arranging a mutually beneficial basis of trade; or if the Australian Minister of Finance came to Canada, I am sure that we would find him to be a man with whom we could discuss this matter to our mutual satisfaction. Even if the ministers could not come together a competent commission might meet; for I am satisfied that a satisfactory arrangement cannot be made unless the parties sit down together with the determination to stay until something is really accomplished. In an arrangement of that kind I think we Canadians can afford to be pretty generous, because at the present time the balance of trade is largely in our favour. We to-day send to Australia eight times as much as Australia sends to us. Last year we sent to them $3,900,000 worth of goods, while they -sent to us in return only $480,000 worth. It is obvious that it is not profitable to have trade going all one way. Freight rates, if nothing else, could be very much improved if the quantity of freight coming back were equivalent to the quantity going out. We see what has happened in New Zealand, where a really equitable arrangement has been made: the imports and exports are nearly equal; and a similar arrangement made -between Australia and Canada might make the balance of trade pretty nearly equal between the two countries. Our trade with Australia has grown 75 per cent in the last four years, and yet Australia sent us last year less than in 1907. Bo that it appears to me that we could afford to be generous in our dealings with Australia, inasmuch as at the present time the benefit seems to toe on our side.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: What are the chief imports into Canada from Australia now?


Herbert Brown Ames: I will give them in a moment. If you make a comparative examination of the Australian and Canadian tariffs, you will find that on goods sent from Australia to Canada, taking dutiable goods only, our tariff wall amounts to 31 -29 per cent. I have not the figures at my disposal to show what was paid in the same year on Canadian goods going from Australia, but as we pay the maximum rate, I was able to get the figures of the total foreign imports going into Australia, and find that

the average rate on them is 24-06 per cent. So that our rate against them is 7-23 per cent, higher than their rate against us. However, our importations from Australia are in large measure admitted free; so that if we take the figures of the total trade from Australia to Canada, we find that the average rate of duty upon it is 16-9 per cent., while the average rate of duty on the total foreign trade to Australia is 21 -5 per cent. Therefore on dutiable goods alone we have * higher wall against them than they have against us; but if all classes of goods are taken into account, they have a higher wall against us than we have .against them. This is due to the fact that fully half of the four or five classes of goods that we take from them are on the free list. Now, as I have pointed out, we grant a wider margin of preference. For example, if the initial Australian duty were 24 per cent., the preferential rebate of i would bring it down to 18 per cent. If the Canadian initial duty were 31 per cent., & off that would bring it down to about 21 per cent. We give a greater preferential reduction than they do, but we start with a higher tariff wall against them than they have against us, and in the end, if minimum were given for minimum, ours would still be higheT against them than theirs against us.
When we came to the question of a list-for-list arrangement, we shall have to consider what we can send them and what they can send us. Perhaps the best way to find out what we can send them is to see what the United States are sending, because the United States are sending them from $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 a year, while we are sending them only one-sixth to one-eighth as much; and yet the great bulk of the goods which the United States are sending to Australia, on exactly the same terms as we are sending, are goods which we can produce and on which we could compete with the United States in the Australian market. My contention is that if we are able to secure in the Australian market a slight advantage over our American competitor, we shall be able to divert a considerable portion of that trade from the United States to Canada, which I think is a very justifiable object. Looking, then, over the list of .goods shipped by the United States to Australia, we find the principal ones to be:	boots and
shoes, of which in 1909 they sent $263,000 worth; ammunition and explosives, of which they sent $279,000 worth. I may say that on boots and shoes, the duty against both the United States and ourselves is 35 per cent; the preferential rate is 30 per cent, on ammunition the duty is 5s. 6d. maximum, and 5s. minimum. On explosives the duty is 20 per cent, maximum, 15 per cent, minimum. Had we the 5 per cent.
advantage on explosives I think we could do a considerable business in that line. Some of the other goods are fish, furniture, india-rubber, manufactures, metal manufactures, paper, timber, wood manufactures, vehicles, bicycles and motors. Of furniture the United States sends them $222,000 worth a year. On that the duty is 35 per cent, maximum, 30 per cent, minimum. A 5 per cent, advantage would, I think, help us to do a considerable business in that line. Of india-rubber manufactures the United States sends them $135,856 worth a year; the duty is 25 per cent, maximum, 20 per cent, minimum. Of metal manufactures, the amount sent by the United States is very large-over $1,000,000 worth of wire, over $3,000,000 worth of machinery, over $1,000,000 worth of other metal manufactures, $6,810,000 worth of railway iron, over $400,000 worth of plates and sheets. On these goods there is a varying tariff, but in most cases the difference between the maximum and the minimum is about 5 per cent, on the cost of the articles, and if we had that advantage, I am quite certain we could do a large trade with Australia in metal manufactures. With Tegard to paper, ordinary news print paper is free. The United States sent $799,000 worth in 1909. Of timber the United States sent $2,887,000 worth. Of wood manufactures they sent $389,000 worth. Of vehicles, bicycles, motors and parts they sent $487,000 worth.


Mr EMMERSON.: What is the nature of the timber shipped from the United States? Is it mainly southern pine?
Mr. AME3. No, the timber shipped from the United States is almost all Douglas fir and Oregon pine from the American Pacific coast-Oregon and Washington. We claimed there that our Canadian product is better than the American, and we urged that if we were able to secure a slight advantage we could supply their wants very largely from our British Columbia forests. Now, taking these articles a little more in detail, let me show some of the main items of our present exports:
Exports of some Canadian Products to Australia for the year ending March 31, 1910. Class of goods-	Amount.
Tinned fish	$ 475,000
Agricultural implements and machinery	 1,260,000
Printing paper (mostly news
print	 800,000
Undressed lumber	 340,000
Bicycles, motor cars, &c	 300,000
Our total exports to Australia are $3,900,000. So it will be seen that these five items make up fully 80 per cent of all we send to Australia. In 1909, we shipped $650,000 worth of rails and fishplates. They were trying them out on

the Victorian railway when I was there, and I understood from Sir Thomas Tait that they were satisfactory. It is easy to see what an advantage a slight reduction on these six items would be to Canada.. Take, for instance, fish in tins. These imports into Australia consist almost wholly of salmon, the total imports of fish in tins being about $2,285,000 annually. As I have shown, we send about $471,000 worth. That is, we supply about 21 per cent, or one-fifth of what Australia imports, the other four-fifths coming 'from the United States., The duty on tinned salmon going into Australia, wherever it may come Torn, is Id. per pound. But if we could get a slight reduction, we could certainly largely increase our exportation at the expense of the Americans. Australia already gives South Africa a rebate of id. per pound on fish from that country. Thus the precedent has been established, and there is no reason why Australia should not give to Canada a rebate on the duty on fish. Take the case of timber:	Australia	in	1910 imported
$10,278,900 worth of timber, of which $4,500,000 worth was from the United States, $2,600,000 from Norway and Sweden, and $375,000 worth from Canada. It will be seen that the United States sends to Australia twelve times as much timber as we do-practically the same kinds of timber and if anything not quite so good. The tariff upon that timber is 2s. 6d. per 100 superficial feet. We feel that if Australia would make a slight reduction, we could get a much larger quantity of British Columbia timber into Australia than we do. They allow white pine from New Zealand to come in at only 6d. per 100 feet. If they would give us anything like the same rate, we should be in a very much better position than we are. Anottoefi. product of which we could send very considerable quantities at certain times of the year is apples. I had the opportunity of going through seme of the most magnificent apple orchards in' Tasmania, where apple culture is brought^ perhaps, to the highest * stage known in the civilized world. But as everybody knows, Canada and Australia have alternating seasons. I was in Tasmania in November, and the apple trees were in full bloom-it was the beginning of spring. The apple crop would be harvested in February and March. But they have practically no apples of then-own in October and November and December, the very months when our apples aTe at their best. New Zealand has gone so far as to recognize this by reducing her tariff from Id. per poind to id. per pound during November and December, thus permitting apples from the north to come m, though she is a large exporting coun-Mr. AMES.
ty in the right time of the year. It does not seem to me altogether an unreasonable ^proposition that we should admit Tasmanian apples into Canada at a time when our apples are practically exhausted and that they should allow our apples in when their native supplies are low. There are quite a number of other fruits that could be exchanged on the same basis.
The same is true of eggs-these could be admitted on favourable terms at the time when the importing country has least and the exporting country has most. Another item in which our export to Australia is large, is newsprint paper. It is admitted free into Australia no matter where it comes from. If the Australians could be persuaded to put a slight duty against newsprint from foreign countries, and allow ours to go in free, it would give us a tremendous advantage; and I do not think it would raise the price of paper to them, because we can offer far more for export than they can consume. And if they would reduce slightly their duty on wrapping paper made by the Kraft process-the general tariff is 5s. and the United Kingdom tariff 4s.	6d.-if they could give
us this slight advantage we could compete with Sweden and Norway on a basis that would largely help some ol our mills in the province of Quebec. New Zealand gives an advantage of $12.21 per ton on Canadian wrapping paper over that produced in Norway and Sweden, and the result is that our Canadian mills are sending quantities of wrapping paper to New Zealand. Were we permitted some slight preference in the Australian market, it would be a great advantage to the mills in Quebec that use the Kraft process in-the manufacture of paper. There is quite a range of articles which I have referred to, on which the Australians have a double tariff, with a slight difference between them. If we could gain the advantage of the minimum tariff we could replace to a large extent the goods manufactured by the United States. Among them are agricultural machinery, rubber goods, boots and shoes, metal manufactureries, textiles, vehicles, bicycles and motors. If an arrangement could be made by which we could get our lumber, our fish, our fruit (at certain times of the year), and our1 paper free into their markets; and if they will be prepared to put on a slight tax on the paper produced elsewhere, and give us their preferential rates on a number of manufactured articles,
I think we should be content, and we should have the means of considerably increasing our trade.
But, of course, if we ask these boons, we must be very generous in dealing with Australia. We can hardly expect her to give ue further advantages, particularly as trade stands eight to one in our favour, unless we are prepared to make concessions

to them. Now, what commodities does Australia produce? Australia does not produce as large a variety of exportable goods as Canada." We get the best indication of her surplus by looking over her list of exports to Great Britain, for nearly everything that Australia produces in greater quantity than she requires for home consumption she sends to the English market. The British consumption of Australian goods amounts to $150,000,000 a year. Certain articles which Australia sends to Great Britain come into direct competition with our exports. We could hardly expect to send wheat or flour to Australia, nor could we send cattle, for our cattle meet their chilled beef in the British market. They compete also in sending large quantities of minerals-gold, silver, copper and lead.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is Australia's export of wheat?


Herbert Brown Ames: About $25,000,000 a year. There are a number of articles that we already admit free from Australia-we could hardly do better than that.
We allow all skins, hides, rabbit skins, sheep skins and other skins to come in free. We allow wool in free, we allow tin in free and we allow their unmanufactured timber, many beautiful hardwoods that can be used in the manufacture of furniture, and special timber that will resist the tor-redo, and can be used in wharf construction, and also paving block timber. All of that timber is of most excellent quality and it is all admitted free. But, on the other hand, there are certain lines which Australia would be extremely glad to put on the Canadian market more extensively, lines on which we have a distinct maximum, intermediate and minimum tariff.
Some of these	articles are:	
Article.	Maximum.	Minimum
Butter			3c.
Apples			25c. bbl.
Leather	
15%	124%Chilled mutton	
3c.	2c.Meat ini tins ..	'	
274%	174%Tallow	
20% .	15%
If we should give to Australia our minimum tariff on these items we would undoubtedly considerably increase our importations of them from that country. We might even do better than our minimum tariff, inasmuch as the number of articles Australia can send us is so limited compared with the very large variety we can send them. Then, as I said, a list-for-list arrangement can only be dealt with when commissioners sit beside each other and concession is given for concession. The New Zealand principle that the computed loss of revenue on each article should be balanced might toe applied and in that way the concessions made to measure up by some rule mutually agreed upon.
Australia produces a great deal of very excellent light wine. I can speak from knowledge for I have been there, I have seen the actual making of the wine, and have tasted it as well. Hocks and Chablis and wines of that character. The Australians would toe very glad if they could get from us the same preferential treatment as we give to France on light wines and I think our Pacific coast people would find that the Australian wine would supplant the Californian if such an arrangement was made. There are other items which we include under the French treaty such as lime-juice, prunes, raisins, currants, &c. If we could give to Australia the preference we give under the French treaty it would help them very much in these lines.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Apart from natural products, are there any manufactured goods in which we might give them a preference?


Herbert Brown Ames: I have pointed out that there are a number of manufactured goods vve can send to Australia, but that there are very few manufactured goods that Australia could send to us.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: And in these manufactured goods that we might send them according to the list enumerated by the hon. member could we compete with the Americans in Australia?


Herbert Brown Ames: My contention is that at present the Americans get the advantage of Canada because we are both treated as strangers, but if we were given a slight preference in Australia of even 5 per cent or 10 per cent on the selling price over the American manufacturer we could, in many items displace the American manufacturer. In fact the point I mainly have in mind and am endeavouring to persuade the House to consider, is that it is of primal importance that these two great parts of the British Empire should be linked together as closely as can be and there are a great many advantages that would accrue if we had a mutually satisfactory preferential trade arrangement.
I believe that the trade now carried on between the two countries is a mere bagatelle compared with what might be effected if there were proper facilities for transportation and mutual concessions made under the tariffs of the two countries. That would be of great advantage. It would help us to build up our shipping on the Pacific and to build up the empire gener

! 1 ly, it would strengthen us in dealing with the great problem that we must some day Eace, the defence of British interests on the Pacific ocean. But, I feel that the proposal of minimum for minimum, a rough-and-ready system of giving 400 items that neither country could possibly send and

omitting to give substantial reductions on the few items on which they might trade, would never enable us to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. My contention is that it would be advisable if the government should consider this matter of sufficient importance to request the Minister of Trade and Commerce or some other party deputed by the government to meet the Australian government representatives, to sit down with them to consider an arrangement, concession for concession, and to endeavour, in that way, to arrive at some mutual sacrifices by which the volume of our trade would be increased.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. member said that, under certain circumstances, our manufacturers could compete in the Australian market with American manufacturers. If we could do that in Australia why is it that we could not do it in our own market? My hon. friend said that, with a very slight reduction, I think he even specified 5 per cent on boots and shoes and several other articles, we could compete against the United States In the Australian market, and yet the contention of my hon. friend, as I understand, would be that we cannot in our own market compete against the manufacturers of the United States with respect to these particular articles. Then my hon. friend argues that we should have participated in such a policy because it would tend to build up our shipping trade on the Pacific. I presume the same argument would apply with respect to enlarging our trade with the United States, that it would have the effect of building up our shipping and coasting trade on the Atlantic seacoast.


Herbert Brown Ames: The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) will admit that the first requisite, if a country is to export manufactured articles, is that it should be able to retain its home market. Unless we can be sure of our home market it is not probable that we will have very much to export. I am a strong auvocate of retaining our home market and if, after our home market is supplied, we can get, in other portions of the globe, preferential terms, we shall probably be able to cheapen the very articles here as well, through the fact that a larger quantity of articles permits a less cost of production.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What about the shipping?


George Eulas Foster: We have had a very nice, sociable discussion, undertaken and carried out in good spirit* and I believe that the speeches which have been made, particularly the one just made by my hon. friend (Mr. Ames), will be of very great value not only to members of this House, but also


Herbert Brown Ames: generally as exposing, in a very frank, plain and comprehensive way, the groundwork for possible trade between ourselves and the Commonwealth of Australia. Looked at in one way there is a sameness of production between Canada and Australia which does not augur very well for a mutual interchange on a preferential or reciprocity basis. Looked at in another way, taking into account the two considerations of which we sometimes lose sight, that in the first place there is a reciprocity of seasons between Canada and Australia and in the second place a reciprocity of certain productions along quite an extended plane, we see that, outside of the great bulk which is common to both countries, there is a very wide margin for successful and remunerative exchanges between Canada and Australia.
If we add to that certain preferences which might be given by each and which will enable each in the markets of the other to meet competition from outside countries that have not that preference, I do not think we arre entering upon a hopeless quest when we endeavour to carry out from this time forward what my hon. friends formerly in their government attempted to carry out in their time with the purpose of bettering the trade relations between the two governments. Frankly speaking, I have no fault to find in this respect with the administration of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). T think the ten years which have passed and which have now been succeeded by another regime, were particularly unfavourable to the consummation of a trade arrangement between Canada and Australia mainly from the fact, which has been alluded to by my hon. friend, that matters political were always strenuous in Australia, and there was no very decided certainty of the tenure of office of any government which happened to be in power. Looking over and studying carefully all the negotiations which have taken place during the last ten years, we see that they have proceeded upon the plane of endeavouring to get some arrangement and to link that arrangement up on as wide a basis as possible, but at the same time willing to take the initial step upon a distinctly narrower basis in the hope that there would be an eventual widening of it. There is a point for difference of opinion as to whether it was wise to make a proposal looking to preference for preference under the conditions which exist rather than to take a little longer time and try and secure a trade arrangement upon a more mutually profitable and commercially extended basis. Taking the 294 items upon which they give the British trade preference ; it looks large when it is put down in columns on paper, it would seem

as though Canada would actually get a preference on each of the 294 items in the list and that the arrangement would work out very advantageously. But upon scanning the list you find that there is an almost infinitessimal number from which Canada could reap any benefit at all. So that, I think the argument of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat is a very good argument, that it would be better to sit down together and frame a list of really serviceable exchanges between the two countries leaving in what would be mutually advantageous and leaving out what would be barren and unfruitful. It seemed a few weeks ago to Mr. Boss, our agent in Australia, that it might be possible for the Australian government to put upon its statute-book, at the session just past, a British preference in favour of Canada, and the question was asked as to whether this government would advise that an effort be made to bring that about. Looking at the matter as carefully as I could, I came to the conclusion not to make that effort and it was for the reason that I thought it, would be better, instead of tieing ourselves up to an exchange of preference for preference, to try and come to an arrangement which would be less expansive in the matter of items but moTe fruitful in the matter of actual results. The proposition that I have made in writing to the Minister of Trade and Commerce of Australia is one which I hope will result in a conference, if possible, between members of the governments and if it is not possible between members of the governments, at least between special commissioners who shall be empowered to act by the two governments in that line. To my mind it is far better that members of the government shall be brought together where they can exchange views, can authoritatively dispose of item after item under discussion and can give and take in the way of coming to a favourable conclusion. I hope that idea may be carried out and I hope it may be carried out just as soon as posible.
My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) thought that we were rather putting the cart before the horse when we favoured preferential trade arrangements as a precursor to improved steamship arrangements. Well, that is a matter of opinion. My hon. friend is of the opinion that the improvement in trade communications should precede the other, at least that it should not be retarded in the least because the other does not exist and that it serves as an incentive to preferential rates. My own opinion is, and I hold it pretty strongly, that it is a great assistance to the betterment of steamship communications to have the inducement of favourable tariff rates between two countries. That holds as well with reference to our trade relations with
the West Indies as it does with Australia, in fact, I think a little more so; I have made these few remarks with reference to our relations with Australia. It is not my part to indicate what I think will be the course of negotiations. My hon. friend who has just taken his seat has given us his views very extensively and very pertinently, but if it so happens that I am to be one of the negotiators, it would probably be better that I should not have gone too largely into the matter prior to my meeting our friends from the other side.
With regard to our relations with the West Indies, I laid on the table of the House the return to which my hon. friend has alluded. The matters in hand at the present time sprang out of and are based upon preceding negotiations and examinations the most important and .comprehensive of which was that which was gone into by the British West Indian commission (of which twio Canadian Ministers were members. The three things which are under consideration now between ourselves and the West Indies are improved telegraphic or cable communications, improved steamship communication and improved trade relations. For a number of years Canada has given to the West Indian Islands a large and generous preference which has met with generous appreciation by the West Indian Islands and which, they acknowledge, has been a help to the West Indies in various ways and particularly in reference to the encouragement of their sugar industries. I am not going to take up the time of the House to dilate upon the conditions which seem to me to favour a reciprocal arrangement between ourselves and -countries situated as the West Indies are. Suffice it to say at the present time that all of these three points that I have mentioned are very important. Improved cable and telegraphic communications contribute to quickness in the transaction of (business and the increase of trade. The same is true, but in a still larger sense, of improved steamship communications.
I am not very enthusiastic and I have (not been for a number of years over the steamship communications which have been existing between ourselves and the West Indies. I do not think they have been up-to-date, as modern and as enterprising as they should have been and as I think it is necessary for them to be in order that they shall adequately promote trade and commerce. We have not had as quick, as rapid, or as punctual communication 'as it is possible to have consistent with the conditions there and which it is necessary to have in order to promote trade to its greatest extent. I would not consider it a mattetr for very much doubt or hesitation if it comes to be a question 1 between a larger amount of good e-s com-

pared with a smaller amount of money if the first will bring you an adequate service and the second will only keep you halting along with an inadequate service. I think that hon. members on both sides of the House would favour an idea like that. It is better economy to spend well and get good returns than to spend poorly and to get equally poo<r or worse returns. What measure of help we may get from the West Indian Islands we do not yet know.
However, the proposition that was made by this government on my report to the Colonial Secretary was this:	That the
Canadian government was ready at any time to meet the representatives of the West Indies so that we might go into the matter face to face with each other in order to carry out what seems to be pretty well in train for being accomplished. Already nine legislatures in the West Indies, including British Guiana, have passed resolutions in favour of carrying out the conclusions of the West Indian commission. I may say that since that return was prepared, I notified the Colonial Secretary to intimate to the West Indian Islands that. if they would send their representatives to Ottawa for a conference, we would be very happy to welcome them here, but that if they would rather that the conference should be held in the West Indian Islands we would send our representatives there. Since that I may say that I have received by cable a communication, informing the government - and I am sure all members on both sides of this House will receive the announcement with pleasure-that it has been decided that the West Indian commissioners appointed by the different legislatures shall come to Ottawa, and I expect at present they will be here about 27th of March. The date was fixed late in March originally in order that if we had to go to the West Indies we would not be there in the very hottest season, but happily the West Indian commissioners are coming here, and they will include representatives from most of the islands of the West Indies and from British Guiana. I am sure these gentlemen will receive from the members of the opposition and from the government a right hearty welcome.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: I hope that we may be able to have results, as a return for the long and somewhat patient negotiations which .have been going on now for a series of years.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, I agree with my hon. friend (Mr. Foster), that we have had a very important discussion on this matter, and I was glad to notice that the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley), Mr. FOSTER (Toronto).
on our trade relations with the West Indies were so well received by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster). I do not know what trade is to be developed with the West Indies, but be it much or be it little we are all anxious to get it even if we have to pay pretty liberally for the privilege. I regret that our efforts to stimulate trade with Australia, efforts that have been constant for the last ten years, have been fruitless. I may say to my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), that the expose he has made to-day of the possibilities of trade with Australia is, in my judgment, the clearest we have ever had in this House. He has told us the way in which that trade can be developed if any trade can be developed with Australia. Of course, it is quite true that the uncertainty of government in Australia lias been one reason for the ill success of our negotiations in the past, and I fear there is no certainty that the government now in power will remain long in office, but if a fusionist government under Mr. Deakin is returned I know that he will be most anxious to have with us favoured trade relations. But, the difficulties in the way are not only political. Australia has only two large staples of export, wool and meat. We buy Australian wool to-day, but we buy it largely through Great Britain, and perhaps if we had direct communication from Australia we might get that, product direct to Canada. But, I should judge that there is no market at all in Canada for Australian meat and I do not know that the tariff views of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) would favour a very large importation of meat from Australia to Canada. At all events there are some sections of our country where such a proposition would not be favourably received. For my part I think it would be well to make some sacrifice to develop a trade with Australia. I agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster), that there is a wide field in Australia for Canadian manufactured goods, and if it is possible to induce the Australian government to give us a slight preference over the Americans the benefits to us would be immense. I think it possible that in a very few years we could increase our export trade to Australia which is now only $1,000,000 annually, to perhaps $12,000,000. I agree with the suggestion that we should send commissioners to Australia. We have at present in Australia a very able Canadian agent in Mr. Ross, who is well versed in business, who is conciliatory and diplomatic. He has the ear of all parties in Australia and no better man could be found to negotiate, but Mr. Ross could not move a step forward in these negotiations without being in constant communication with the government here, and the belter wav is for us to send a commissioner to Washington.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: I said Washington, and I am sorry I made the slip. We did send a commissioner to Washington and we failed.


George Eulas Foster: It lies heavy on. yonr heart.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not sorry we did so, but I am sorry that the people of Canada did not view our efforts in what we consider the proper light. If we are to send a commissioner to Australia I do not know any better man than the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who is qualified by his position as head of the department and still better qualified by his enthusiasm in the work and the information he has with regard to it. I would even trust 'him with the light wines of Australia, and I therefore think that if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) were to go to Australia and associate Mr. Ross with him there might be a possibility of bringing back a trade treaty with our fellow-subjects. But the great difficulty about that arrangement is that both parties to the negotiation would be protectionists, and it is very difficult, for a protectionist in one country to convince his fellow-protectionist of another country to make way for him by lowering the tariff.


George Eulas Foster: How was it at tih-e Washington Conference?


Wilfrid Laurier: There, we exchanged natural products for natural products. One of the difficulties in that ease, and it will be ia difficulty in the present case also, is, that there would have to be secret negotiations. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) has suggested that they should sit around the table 'and consult with each other, and that is an excellent way of doing business and the only proper way to do such business, .but last year that procedure was characterized as secret negotiations and as dangerous negotiations. The Minister of Trade and Commerce put that objection most eloquently last year, but let him not be afraid of his own arguments then, let him have secret negotiations^ with the Australian government if be will, and if he can bring us back a good trade treaty we will approve of it. The Labour party in Australia is composed of protectionists to a large extent, the Fusionist party was composed one-half of protectionists, and it would be difficult for the Minister of Trade and Commerce to persuade the protectionists of Australia to give ( annai an manufacturers a preference m their market.^ They would be something like the protectionists in this country who are ready to give Great Britain a preference. on manufactured goods provided the British manufacturer does not compete 64
with the Canadian manufacturer. My hon. friend will find the Australians most patriotic, but I feaT he will find them ready to trade with Canada on such conditions as will not let the Canadian manufacturer compete with the Australian manufacturer in lie Australian market. However, let him try his hand at the job, and if he succeeds in bringing us back ia good 'arrangement we will be most anxious to approve of it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I desire to express my feelings of satisfaction at the remarks made by the hon. member for Montreal (Mr. Ames), which were exceedingly interesting 'and which lucidly put before the House the possibilities of Canadian trade with Australia. I rise to suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce that at the conference which is to take place in Ottawa in March next with the representatives of the West Indian Islands, the Canadian government should invite to be present 'those who are interested in the steamship business between St. John, N. B., Halifax, N. S., and the West Indian islands.
The question of trade between Canada and the West Indian islands is largely one of steamboat transportation, and it is a very difficult question. In some of the recommendations made by the West Indian Commission respecting the steamship service between Canada and the West Indies they are obviously in error. Some of those recommendations are impossible to carry out. I wish to suggest to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce that a steamship service between Canada and the West Indies which departs from Halifax is very much hampered by reason of the fact that the steamers are obliged to call at the port of St. John, at which port they secure very little traffic, which traffic the steamboat company could carry as readily by absorbing the increased railway rates between St. John and Halifax, which they are willing to do, thus making Halifax a port of departure throughout the whole year. It might, however, be possible to secure for the port of St. John another steamboat service which would be as much to its advantage as the present one. I rose merely for the purpose of making the suggestion that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce avail himself of any information he may secure from persons in St. John and Halifax who have been for many years interested in our trade with the West Indian Islands.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey).: Mr. Speaker, I would not have taken part in this debate but that 1 happen to have received a letter from one of my constituents which illustrates the desirability of larger trade between Canada and the Aus-



tralian colonies. In the town of Owen Sound we have a company, the North American Bent Chair Company, Limited, which manufactures nothing but chairs. My information is that last year that company shipped to Australia and New Zealand $171,000 worth of chairs, and they tell me that if we could obtain a preference in the Australian markets and an increase of the preference that obtains in New Zealand, they could double that exportation, bringing it close to $400,000 a year. This is one illustration of what Canada might accomplish if we had a preference in the Australian markets.


William Pugsley: Can the hon. gentleman tell me through what ports their shipments to Australia are chiefly made?


William Sora Middlebro: I cannot say, but I think it is likely through Atlantic ports.


William Pugsley: Through Canadian ports or through New York?


William Sora Middlebro: Most likely through Canadian ports. I am glad to know that the hon. Minister of Traae and Commerce has already taken steps to have a conference on the subject. I agree very largely with the remarks of the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works, with the exception of his attempt to show that the action taken by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce with a view to obtaining a preference for Canada in the Australian market is at variance with his opposition to the late government's reciprocity measure, I think I can show that it was strictly in accordance with ins previous attitude in that regard, because had we adopted the reciprocity pact, we would not to-day be discussing the possibility of better trade relations with Australia; we would have been deprived of the onlv weapon we have for obtaining preferential trade with Australia, namely, the aouny to give them something in return for what they may give us. If that reciprocity arrangement had passed, Australia would have been able to send to this country free of duty every article which, under that arrangement, the United States could have sent in free.^ I say that the present policy of the Minister of Trade and , Commerce is strictly in line with the position he took on the reciprocity measure. That policy has in view reciprocity within the empire, which is a very different thing from reciprocity with a foreign nation.


William Pugsley: What I was quoting from was a declaration of the Prime Minister made at a banqudt in New York to the effect that the Conservative party are unalterably opposed to the framing of tariffs by diplomatic action, and he gave as a reason for that conclusion the dissatisfaction whidh had occurred among the British possessions in South Africa; and what I Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
said was that I was not able to reconcile the present demand of my hon. friend the Minister of'Trade and Commerce for reciprocal tariffs between Canada and Australia and between Canada and the West Indies, framed by diplomatic action, with the declared policy of the Conservative party as thus stated by the Prime Minister.


William Sora Middlebro: It may be that the Prime Minister is not correctly quoted, but even if he is, my hon. friend will not deny that in the course of his speech he said that he was surprised that the Minister of Trade and Commerce should now be attempting to extend the trade relations of this country when he rejected the opportunity of having reciprocity with the United States, and he maintained that his present action was inconsistent with the position lhe took with reference to the reciprocity pact. I say that it is entirely consistent, because now' he is able to negotiate a trade arrangement with Australia which he would not have been able to do had the reciprocity pact passed.


Mr. F. B. McCURDY. (Shelburne-Queens).: Mr. Speaker, I regret to observe a disposition on the part of some members of this House to belittle the possibilities of trade between Canada and the West Indian Islands. It is common knowledge that for many years a large and profitable trade has been done by Halifax merchants with those islands-that the foundations of many substantial Halifax fortunes were made in that trade. That was particularly in the days of wooden ships. Although under modern conditions the steamship service is not, in my opinion, adequate, yet it is a fact that a business of considerable and increasing magnitude and financially satisfactory, exists to-day at Halifax, and it can be largely extended. The West India steamship service is a more difficult one than some of us are aware, because it is not a question of ocean-going boats running from a port in Canada to a port in the West Indies, but it necessarily includes a sort of coasting service. A boat suitable for carrying mails from Halifax to Kingston, Jamaica, for instance, is not qualified to call at the small ports of the Windward Islands. There must be either a central depot in the West Indies to which large ships Vould go, with coasting vessels of lighter draught to go from there to the smaller ports, or else vessels of lighter draught to do the combined services, which would mean a slow service for mails and unsatisfactory aeefommodation for passengers. Export trade with the West Indian Islands, consisting of flour, fish and general produce, has been largely controlled in the past by New York and West Indian houses with large financial resources.

Controlled, as it has been, by old-established New York houses with large financial resources, it can only be diverted with difficulty. But, even with the inadequate transportation system we have had, that trade is being diverted and it is a matter of interest to know that large New York houses have found it necessary in order to retain their trade, to establish branch houses in Halifax or St. John, and ship Canadian exports of flour to the West Indiesi via Halifax, using the steamship service that is subsidized by this government. When the matter of steamship subsidies was before the House recently, I took occasion to Suggest to the Minister of Trade and Commerce the possibility and advisability of the Canadian government railway system taking up this portion of the steamship service, and either acquiring existing lines or putting on a new service. I have been glad to note here to-day, that the hon. minister was prepaied to go.to the extent of recommending a larger subsidy if necessary, in order to provide an adequate service. The Intercolonial railway carries a large part of the produce destined for the West Indies via Halifax and then hands it over to the steamship company. It might be possible; it should be possible;- it would under business control, though the government operations of this kind may toe carried on at some disadvantage compared with private business-to have the railway see that freight through to its destination. I am convinced that if the Intercolonial railway does not take up that service, some other railway will, and will take it up because of a prospective profit. If the Intercolonial railway is to continue in business and is to continue to accomplish the purposes for which it should exist, it should avail itself of every opportunity for profitable expansion of its business. The West India steamship service, in my opinion, is such an opportunity. But if this is not possible, then such a subsidy should be available as will provide a service to place our exporters in a position to compete without a handicap with foreign firms. The present steamship service, we know, i3 not satisfactory. The present operators of the steamship line have built up a large business and, considering the subsidy, has given perhaps as good a service as could be expected. But the trade can be facilitated and much enlarged, and I am satisfied that if better steamship service is provided-preferably as I have stated by an Intercolonial railway-steamship service-the results will be totally satisfactory, both to the railway, the export merchants, and consequently to the producer and manufacturer in Canada 64i
Conditions, I take it, have been imposed upon the steamship company which have been objectionable. Calls were required at ports where insufficient cargo was available to make these calls profitable. So, as the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) pointed out, it would pay the steamship company better to absorb the railway rate on outgoing shipments than to make calls where small quantities of freight only were to be had.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must be misinformed as to St. John. They had a trade going from St. John to support one line of steamers.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The subsidy is conditional upon a call at St. John once in every twenty-two days, but I am informed that the total amount of freight collected for each trip in St. John does not average much more than $1,000. And any person with experience in shipping can figure out for himself whether or not a quantity of goods that pays $1,000 of freight would justify the service.


William Pugsley: But while a call is made once m twenty-two days in St. John, a call is made once in eleven days at Halifax. Is it not true that large quantities of freight are sent from St. John by ran to Halifax for shipment, because the goods cannot be kept waiting? Such goods went through bt. John when we had the same service as Halifax has now.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: change was made?
How long is it since the


William Pugsley: About eight months. At the termination of the contract, Messrs. Pickford & Black insisted upon giving a reduced service stating tiiat tney would not continue to give the same service for the subsidy they were receiving. A temporary arrangement was made which still exists, under which they give a service every eleven days at Halifax, and every twenty-two days at St. John. I am informed that it is by reason of this inferior service that goods are sent forward by rail to Halifax Tather than await the call of the steamer at St. John. The arrangement is unfair to the port of St. John.	'


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The point I wish to make is with regard to facilities and extending the trade generally between Canada and the West Indies. I do not wish to set the advantage or disadvantage of any one port up as against the other. Let the generally enlarged trade find its natural port. It is a matter of common knowledge that before the days of steamship subsidies, the West Indian trade centred in certain localities for perfectly natural reasons. That is the answer I would give to the hon. member for St..

John. , But I do not wish to speak of one port as against another; our purpose here is to seek to extend and increase the West Indian trade.
^GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP OF TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE LINES.


Mr LEMIEUX.: I regret that the Postmaster General .(Mr. Pelletier) is not in his place. But I suppose the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), who is leading the House will be able to give me tjie information I desire. I see it stated in the ' Evening Journal ' that the Postmaster General made an announcement yesterday . on the nationalization of the telegraph and telephone lines by the Dominion. It is a rather startling announcement, and I desire to ask if the government has considered this matter of nationalizing telephones and telegraphs. Also I see it announced that the Postmaster General said that free rural mail delivery will be .given. I am sincere m asking for information on these points. Does this represent the personal view of the Postmaster General, or did he speak for the government?


George Eulas Foster: I think if would be more satisfactory if the hon. gentleman would put the question to the Postmaster General himself. We have had an illustration already to-day of the inadvisability of tieing ourselves up completely to items in newspapers. While trying to be as correct as possible, they are tinged with human frailty, I fear. '


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.

['I think that each case should be appreciated on its merits, and where the promote.rs of a Bill and those who know the local conditions state what the object of the legislation is and the circumstances which render that legislation necessary, that is to my mind sufficient evidence for the House that it is a project for the general advantage of Canada. During the years that I have been in parliament such a statement has been regarded as sufficient.\nBill repo-rted, read the third time and passed.']
William Pugsley: I believe the item * Wingham-Public Building-Tower Clock, 1$2,000,' was allowed to stand. I was speaking when the House adjourned on Wednesday last at .six o'clock. .1 have only a little more to say. I noticed in some of the papers the statement that my hon. friend, the former Secretary of State (Mr. Murphy) announced that the government had decided to abandon the land on Sussex street, as the site for a new departmental building. I observe also 'that in one of the newspapers the language of the former Secretary of State was quoted for the purposes of showing that I evidently was unaware of the statements which that hon. gentleman had made.	,
I have, however, looked at ' Hansard report of his statement and what he said, as I interpret it, is not that the govern-xnent lutd decided that the Sussex street site was not suitable for a departmental building to be erected now, or looking to future needs. I take it that what the hon.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: member for Russell meant was that that land would not be sufficient for all the accommodation that would be required now or in the future and therefore a sub-committee of Council had been appointed with a view to looking over other available sites in order to purchase the land in advance of the actual requirements. It is true we had differences of opinion as to the extent to which we should use the land on Sussex street.
When I became Minister of Public Works, plans had been prepared under direction of my predecessor for two departmental blocks and also a Palace of Justice which were intended to cover all of the land purchased from Sussex street up to Mackenzie avenue and also to cover Mackenzie avenue. Subsequently when by an arrangement between the government and the City of Ottawa and the Ottawa Improvement Commission the City of Ottawa proposed to buy certain lands along Sussex street and facing the river in order to improve the driveway, the Ottawa Improvement Commission made a very strong protest to me and other members of the government, including the then Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), against the closing of. Mackenzie avenue, saying that it would be desirable to keep that avenue open as a public driveway particularly because a portion of Major's Hill park had been taken for the Chateau Laurier. I yielded to the view of the Ottawa Improvement Commission as urged upon me. I directed the Chief Architect to prepare new plans for a building which would come only to the edge of Mackenzie avenue. Owing to the change, we had to take one story off the building in order to give proper light in the wells and we had to narrow the building by some 40 feet, the width of Mackenzie avenue. It took some time to prepare those new plans and while they were under consideration quite a feeling was expressed by prominent citizens of Ottawa, which, I may say, -was shared in by the late Governor General, who is a warm friend of Ottawa as well as of Canada, and who takes a very enthusiastic view of the future of Canada and of Ottawa and who urged very strongly that it would be a mistake to erect a building upon any part of the land acquired, that it should all be left open as a public park and that the building should be put either on the other side of Sussex street or in some other locality. I felt bound to give weight to these representations which were made to me and which I knew were shared in by at least one gentleman who is now very prominent in the Conservative partv. I deferred coming to a final decision as to the construction of the building until the return of 'the late Prime Minister from England. After his return, as my hon, friends know, the House

was dissolved, the general elections came on and therefore there was no time to deal with the matter. But it is in no sense true that we had decided, as a government, to abandon the land on Sussex street. On the contrary, I would have expected that a part of it at any rate, would have been utilized for some departmental buildings, while, of course, it would be the part of wisdom to acquire land in some other locality to provide for the very pressing needs of the public service.
One statement with Tegard to the Lan-gevin Block in answer to the Postmaster General who, I think, tried to unduly press the charge that the late government bad been neglectful of the interests of the employees of the Post Office Department. If there is any fault anywhere, it is on the part of those who built the Langevin Block in the first instance. It was constructed by the Conservative government a 'good many years ago, not by the Liberal government and, instead of acquiring land right through to Sparks street and erecting a building which would have plenty of light and ventilation, for the different public offices, the building was erected on only half the block so that the rear offices are not lighted at all and it is exceedingly difficult to get proper ventilation.
With regard to the congestion, as I said the cffher day we recognized that trouble and sought to remedy it. Since I have been minister, we have rented a large number of buildings in Ottawa. We have rented commodious premises in the Grand Trunk building for our Railway Commission,, splendid accommodation at large expense. We rented the old Y. M. C. A,, the Rosenthal building, the Brennan building, the Imperial Realty building and some others, endeavouring, as fast as we could reasonably do so, to give accommodation; but the new buildings had to be erected before we could get the accommodation. I entered into negotiations for the Blackburn building some time ago, and the new Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) is only carrying out to completion the negotiations we entered upon.
I do not like to charge my hon. friend with exaggeralion, but I think he is exaggerating when he speaks of the rats being so destructive. I think if that is so, it is the fault of the caretaker. If a building is neglected, rats will accumulate. The Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) says rats were so wary because they were born and brought up while the Liberal government was in power. I would rather think that the fact that it was only after the new government came in that they became so vicious and started in to devour the postal notes, shows that they have seen the procession moving towards the
public crib and would like to be in with the crowd, and the only thing they could find was these postal notes and money-orders.


Mr. MONK.: I merely wish to correct the impression, if it exists, that anything-has 'been absolutely decided as yet about the sites. What I told the committee and what is the fact is that the government has not yet had time or opportunity to fully study this important question. A committee of the Privy Council has been appointed, we are very anxious to get to work and to take up the matter as soon as possible because our accommodation is entirely insufficient and inadequate and every day demonstrates more conclusively that we have no rooms, that the departments are very ill provided with absolutely essential accommodation. We have to continue leasing buildings as has been done in the past and we are extremely anxiou3, if possible, to put an end to that by commencing the construction of cur own departmental building as soon as possible.
Personally I would be very sorry to see the Sussex-street site abandoned. I have only had time to cast my eyes upon the plans of a justice building to include the Justice Department, the Supreme Court, the Exchequer Court and the Railway Commissioners, in fact everything pertaining to justice. That plan has been prepared by one of the most- skilful arch!-tects. It seems to me it would be possible at any rate to install that part of our departments on the Sussex-street property leaving sufficient space around to give the necessary relief to such a very handsome building. I can assure the committee that as soon as the House has adjourned we will take up the question and try to bring it to a solution as soon as possible.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: As some newspapers have sneered at me about the ' ratty ' condition of the Langevin Block, and have held me responsible for the congestion there, I wish to vindicate myself once more, and to say that when I took office-in the Post Office Department five years ago I found that there were certainly too many people congregfted together within those walls. But the Post Office Department occupy onlv or e Aoot and the cellar for the parcels the Archives and the old files. I immediately called upon the Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. King.
I was then Postmaster General and Minister of Labour. I urged upon Mr. King to fully consider the question, to study the building from the labour point of view and to prepare a report. I may say that the city of Ottawa had laid a complaint to the Department of Labour. Mr. King

prepared a lengthy report at my request which I laid before my colleagues in council. In that report it was stated that there was too much congestion and that the employees required more space. Council im. mediately decided that a new departmental building should be erected. Then my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) started the expropriation proceedings on Sussex street. We know that it takes months and even years to get reasonable valuations of properties such as those on Sussex street, and, especially when such properties are to be purchased by the government, you must go quietly to work and get as good a bargain as possible. That took tvo or three years, but meanwhile we began to look around to find in the city of Ottawa some available space to accommodate the employees of the Post Office Department. It was reported to me that the only possible thing for the department would be to get hold of the upper floors of the building occupied by the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. Unfortunately, I could not convince .Mr. Fisher or my hon. friend the membe'' for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) to vacate the premises, and we had to. look elsewhere. There was only the Blackburn building available. It was started two years ago. and it is not yet completed. But, to put the facts right 'before the public, let me say that what is now being carried out by the Minister of Public Works is nothing else than what was decided upon by his predecessor. It was decided to take fiats in the Blackburn building. That building is not yet completed and none of the employees of the Post Office Department have been transferred since the 21st September to any outside building. Not until the Blackburn building is completed will they be transferred from the Post Office Department-. It was only just that I should rise and state what the facts of the case are
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 22) respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Jam'eson.
.On section 2.
Mr. BEST.: Is not this railway already constructed?


Mr. JAMESON.: It is with the exception of a branch line of about fifteen miles known -as the North Mountain railway, which I am given to understand will be [DOT]built very shortly.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


John Best: Why is the guarantee increased from $25,000 to $30,000 per mile?


Clarence Jameson: T,he Dominion Atlantic l-ailwaj consists of the -amalgamation of several short railways running from Yarmouth to Windsor, with one branch from Truro to Windsor. In 1908 they w-e-re empowered to build this North Mountain railway and the security authorized was limited to $25,000 per mile. The object of increasing the guarantee -to $30,000 per mile is to enable them to improve ihe railway by laying heavier rails and putting steel bridges in the place of tire original wo-od-en bridges. The company has not, perhaps, m-ade as much progress in the past as some other companies, but I believe it is the intention of those now in control of the road to put it in condition so as to improve transportation in that part of Nova Scotia, which no -doubt-, my hon. friend (Mr. Best) will deem a very desirable thing.
Bill reported, read a third time and passed.


CAP DE LA MADELEINE RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in -committee on Bill (No. 43)- Mr. Paquet.
Mr. PUGSL-EY. I would like to know from the Chairman of the committee on what ground this railway is declared to be for the general advantage of Canada?
Mr. LENNOX.: The ground, I do not think, is a very satisfactory one, but it is a time honoured one, if that be any justification. There was not a word that I remember raised in the committee against declaring this railway a work for the general advantage of Canada. On many occasions, when I was in opposition, I fought vigorously for the principle that there ought to be some evidence that a work really is for the general advantage of Canada before we embody that declaration in any Bill. But we have been in the habit on all occasions of practically taking that for granted.


William Pugsley: Where uoes the road begin and where does it end?


Haughton Lennox: That I leave to be explained by the gentleman who is promoting the Bill.


William Pugsley: I think that of late years, at all events, after a good deal of criticism, it came to be clearly understood that the committee would not allow such a clause to be inserted without some evidence to show that it was based on fact. We know that the provincial legislatures have , been constantly asserting provincial rights and declaring that this parliament ought not to declare roads of a purely local character to be for the general advantage of

Canada. This road is wholly within one province. It does not connect one province with another, and it is, therefore, a provincial work under the terms of the British North America Act. What, right have we to falsify the record by declaring that a purely local work is for the general advantage of Canada when we have not a particle of evidence to warrant our making that declaration?


Mr. HENDERSON.: My recollection is that this road was described in the committee as a short line ot about six miles long to connect the water-front with the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway for certain purposes. The fact that it connects with the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway, which is a work for the general advantage of Canada, was accepted as sufficient to warrant this parliament in making that declaration. That question was not discussed in the committee, but I presume that is the reason why this clause was accepted.


William Pugsley: In the case of some'rall-ways which, though wholly within a province, were connecting links in an interprovincial system, it was held that they might be considered as being for the general advantage of Canada. But this is a short branch line only six miles long, not constructed by the Canadian Pacific railway, but to be constructed by a separate company and is purely of a local character.


Haughton Lennox: It is already constructed.


William Pugsley: Then this takes it out of provincial jurisdiction. It was constructed under a provincial charter, as a purely provincial road, and we are now declaring that it is a work for the general advantage of Canada. The British North America Act is very explicit on this point. It provides that the incorporation of companies for provincial objects shall rest exclusively with the provincial legislatures.
The British North America Act gives this parliament power in exceptional cases to declare a work to be for the general advantage of Canada. Surely we ought not to act in a capricious manner, and assume a jurisdiction that we would not otherwise have by inserting those words. I understood that, in view of the protests which the provinces had been making in recent years, we had come to the conclusion that we would not make that declaration except in cases 'where it was perfectly clear that it was justified; otherwise we could assume jurisdiction over all provincial works simply by making that declaration.


David Henderson: I cannot understand why a _ small line of railway such as this, to be operated by the Canadian Pacific railway, should be refused Dominion jurisdiction when the main line is under that jurisdiction.


William Pugsley: Is there any evidence that this line is to be operated by the Canadian Pacific railway?


Haughton Lennox: It is so stated in the Bill.


Mr HENDERSON.: 1 am inclined to think that if the hon. gentleman will refer to the Railway Act he will find that wfiiere one line of railway crosses or connects with another line, if the latter has been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada, the other one would as a matter of fact, come under the same jurisdiction.


Hugh Guthrie: Only in respect to the crossing.


William Pugsley: The Act was changed to limit it to the point of crossing.


Hugh Guthrie: It was certainly stated jy the promoter of this Bill that the charter of this small branch line was now mder the control of the Canadian Pacific [DOT]ailway, and that it would be operated 3V the Canadian Pacific railway, and .vould become a part of its general system Under these circumstances my /pinion is that it should be declared to be a work for the general ad-i-antage of Canada. You cannot operate two lines under two jurisdictions, one provincial and the other Dominion, when they are really parts of one system.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: From my Knowleoge of the local conditions, I may say that there are immense industries being established at Cap de la Madeleine, near Three Rivers, and it is impossible for the local railways to serve these industries. Hence an amalgamation with the Canadian Pacific railway was obtained, and this necessitated giving to this railway a federal charter.


William Pugsley: I could understand that if there were any evidence before the committee that the Canadian Pact"* railway had leased this road, but there is no allegation to that effect.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is the object of the BiH.	, ,,


Mr PUGSLEY.: Is my hon. friend able to say that the arrangements for that purpose have been completed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am not able to say that but I know that that is the object the promoters have in view.


William Pugsley: There is no statement 'rea-e that the amalgamation has taken place.


Mr. COCHRANE.: They could not enter into a contract until this Bill passed.


Mr PUGSLEY.: Why not? The Canadian Pacific Railway Company can lease

a road incorporated by a provincial legislature. The Quebec legislature could give this company power to lease its road to the Canadian Pacific railway and after that was done it might very properly be brought under the Dominion jurisdiction.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am informed that the arrangements are practically completed, but the Canadian Pacific Railway Company would not complete them until this empowering clause was passed.


William Pugsley: If we declare this small road, without any amalgamation, to be for the general advantage of Canada, how .can we refuse in the future to make a similar declaration with regard to any branch line that connects with the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific or the Canadian Northern?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think that each case should be appreciated on its merits, and where the promote.rs of a Bill and those who know the local conditions state what the object of the legislation is and the circumstances which render that legislation necessary, that is to my mind sufficient evidence for the House that it is a project for the general advantage of Canada. During the years that I have been in parliament such a statement has been regarded as sufficient.
Bill repo-rted, read the third time and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 12) respecting the Erie, London [DOT]aiKl TiJLsoiiiburg Railway Company.-Mr Clarke (Essex).
Bill (No. 34) respecting the Algoma Eastern Railwaj Company.-Mr. Boyce.
Bill (No. 51) respecting the Pacific and Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Boyce.
Bill. (Nm 22) respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Jamieson Bill (No. 25) respecting the Ottawa Northern and Western Railway Company -Mr. Fripp.	'
Bill (No. 28) respecting the West Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 33) respecting the Alberta Electric Railway Company, and to change its name to ' The Alberta Interurban Railway Company/-Mr. Bennett (Calgiarj).	'
Bill (No. 37) .respecting the Calgary and Ferme Railway Company.-Mr. Goodeve. j ^°' respecting La Compagnie du Chemiin de fer de Colonisation du Nord -Mr. Achim.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
['Would the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) inform the House when the rvrit for South Renfrew will issue?']
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am informed that before 6 o'clock my hon. friend from Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux), made some further
Mr PTTGSLEY
statements about my department. I was not in the House and of course his remarks were not answered because they were made in my absence.


Mr. CHISHOLM. (Inverness).: The minister intimated the other evening that he would give me some information with reference to a public building at Port Hawkesbury in the county of Inverness. Is it the intention of the government to buy a site for a public building there?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There were negotiations for the purchase of a site but the item has been left out of the main estimates and I think those negotiations will have to be suspended under these circumstances.


Mr. CHISHOLM.: (Inverness). Would
it not be possible for the minister to purchase a site before the 31st March? The grant will not expire before then.
Mr. MONK, It might he done.


William Chisholm: (Inverness). An engineer of the department was there last year, he looked over several sites and got prices and, I understand, reported in favour of purchasing a site owned by Mr. Bain. This engineer was not influenced by myself or any one else in making that selection. The selection was acceptable to the community and the price reasonable, the lowest price at which you could buy property of the importance of this property. It is the 'best site for this purpose in the town. Port Hawkesbury is a thriving town with a fine fishing industry with a most promising future in store for it. It now has a prosperous population of 2,000 and prospects of a large increase in the near .future. I trust, therefore, that the minister will see that this site is purchased, if the Bain site is mot eligible for any reason, better known to the minister, let him select another site, and let the property be bought. Since the appropriation is there, provided by the late government, it is too bad not to go on and buy a site and erect that public building with as little delay as possible. I ask the minister to take it into consideration and, if possible, purchase a site before March 31, and have included in the supplementary estimates an item sufficient to erect a respectable building.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would be glad to take the matter up at any time with my hon. friend.
I cannot give him an absolute promise- that the site will be purchased. I understand there is no absolute agreement as to the site, but I am not very sure about that. As soon as these estimates are disposed of I will be glad to take the matter up with the hon. gentleman, hut I cannot give an absolute promise because, of course,
I alone cannot conclude a transaction. I shall give every consideration to what my hon. friend has said.


Alexander William Chisholm: I asked the minister the other day for some information with regard to the dismissal of the caretaker at 'the Inverness public building. The minister was good enough to promise he would bring down the necessary information before the discussion of the Nova Scotia items.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Alexander William Chisholm: Who made this complaint?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The recommendation for the dismissal was made by the defeated candidate, Mr. Gallant, 'because of his interference in politics. Now that there are investigators named, if my hon. friend wishes for an investigation he can have it.


Alexander William Chisholm: I would be glad if the minister would be kind enough to give this man a chance to show his innocence because I am convinced he is innocent, and that he did no more than exercise the right of every citizen. He voted as he saw fit. I am very glad that the minister has agreed to have his case investigated. While I am at this I might refer to another case, that of the general repairer of telegraph lines in Inverness county. He was notified some time ago that he would be dismissed. The minister was kind enough to give him the privilege of having his case investigated. I would suggest that pending this investigation Mr. Kennedy be allowed to remain in his office. If he is innocent I assume that the minister will see that he is continued in his position and if he is guilty it will be time enough for him to be dismissed when his guilt is actually proven. If the minister will be kind enough to allow this man to remain in office until such time as the government's agent will investigate the case I will be very glad.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will consider my hon. friend's request and I think it should be considered. I would like to have some further reason urged for an investigation in the first case to which he has referred. We are trying to make these investigations at as little cost as possible but still there are several of them and they involve considerable expense. Therefore, if my hon. friend will confer with me and show some probable cause for investigation I will be very glad to grant one. As to the second case, I will give my hon. friend's request my best consideration. I do not know the details but I will find them out to-morrow morning.


Alexander William Chisholm: I will be very glad to confer with the hon. gentleman.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: I would like to understand the plan of the minister not only in regard to this case but in regard to a large number of cases throughout Nova Scotia 'and the country generally. His plan appears to be to dismiss the official first and investigate afterwards. I would like to know what the result of these investigations will (be. Will he restore the official to his former position if it turns out that he is innocent and that the charge laid against him by the defeated candidate is shown to be incorrect? There is not much use in our asking for these investigations if they do not bring about some result, and if the minister will say that it will be his policy to restore a party to his former position if it turns out that there is no ground for the 'charge, there would then be some purpose in carrying on these investigations. The expense would 'be incurred for no purpose whatever unless that was done.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In case it were established by an investigation that the department had made 'a mistake I consider that it would be the duty of the government to provide some indemnity in the shape of occupation, at any rate, for the party who had been treated unjustly. That would appear to me to be the fair and just course. Last night I think I established that in 1896 the proceedings were of a far more summary nature and I quoted a number of cases in which the dismissal took place without any denunciation whatever and without any investigation. We have progressed since that time and we have no dismissal, without a denunciation, which the minister has to appreciate, and, if an investigation is found to be, prima facie, just, it is granted. We are, therefore, advancing towards a higher civilization. But, if upon investigation, it is established that there has been a failure of justice, I think the duty, of the department should be to do its best, to make amends to the party who had been dismissed. There is a case to which my hon. friend referred the other night and in connection with which he stated that he had written and had received no answer. I expressed the opinion that I must have mislaid or not received the letter of my hon. friend, but I find that I received it and immediately referred it for information in the department. My organization was not very good at that time, it is not very good yet, but on receipt of the letter I referred it at once to the officers of the department for information. The information was not sent to my hon. friend but I have it at his disposal.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister purpose to grant an investigation into the case of Mr. Sutherland of Canso, that I wrote him about?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In the case of Canso, if the hon. gentleman has a fair ground for investigation, it will certainly be granted. There is an investigator named for the purpose, and if there is any kind of allegation that the person named has not had justice rendered, an investigation will take place.


John Howard Sinclair: I cannot understand
how a ground can be established by a defendant who does not know what the charge against him is. In so far as Sutherland is concerned I am not able to find out if any charge was made against him. How is Sutherland to show that he has the right to a trial unless there is something specific? The minister has adopted a very curious method and it does not strike me that it is in accordance with the usual principles of British justice that the defendant should be told to show ground why he ought to have a trial. The principle that I have been accustomed to is that the defendant is innocent until some one lays a charge against him and tnen, if he knows what the charge is, justice requires that he shall have an opportunity of answering it. That does not seem to be the method of my hon. friend at all. Some secret charge is laid against the official by somebody and on that secret charge my hon. friend dismisses the official. Then he comes to us and says that if this man can show fair ground ffi.r a trial he will give him a trial and if it turns out tJbat he bias not done anything wrong he will compensate him. That is an extraordinary method. I do not think we have made much progress during the last few years if that is the best we can do. I should think the minister should commence at the other end, he should first notify the man. that a charge has been made against him. of some kind and ask him to appear and stand his trial and if nothing is proven he should allow him to remain in his place. This is a practical case and I want to know how I am to deal with it. What am I to do as representing Mr. Sutherland? How am I to convince the minister that Mr. Sutherland has the right to a trial? He does not seem to be willing to give it to him unless I show him that he has a right to it. Every man has a right to a trial who is accused of anything. The minister ought to be frank enough to say he will give him a trial and that if he is found innocent he will put him back in the position of which he was unjustly deprived.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The procedure indicated by my hon. friend is the procedure which we conceive as a general rule to be the proper one. I do not know if my hon. friend was here last night when we were discussing this question. I gave a number of instances Of cases that occurred in 1896, when


John Howard Sinclair: the method of dismissal was that one with this addition that there was no charge at all. Information as to the party who recommended the discharge was generally refused.
I gave instances last night of several discharges in my own constituency in 1896, and the then minister told me that the dismissals had been made on representations of members from the city of Montreal. There was no charge and no investigation. I have some cases in which Mr. Blair told me that he did not think it his duty to give the information as to who had made the complaint or as to who had recommended the man who took the place of the man discharged. Ah advance has been made, for if there is a denial of the offence an investigation is granted.
Mr. SINCLAIR, Has the minister the Sutherland papers on his desk?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Would he be kind enough to show me the papers?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will send them over to my hon. friend.


Alexander William Chisholm: The minister has been good enough to promise that an investigation will be held into the case of Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Kennedy is no doubt at home attending to his business and some fine morning the investigator will turn up and Mr. Kennedy will not have an opportunity of knowing what the charges are.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Kennedy will be given the charges against him whenever he asks for them, and I suppose when the investigator holds his investigation Mr. Kennedy will have, these charges before him.


Alexander William Chisholm: I understand that this man will give Mr. Kennedy due notice that he will investigate certain specific charges.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly.


Mr. MACDONALD.: There is a matter of some importance to my constituency and to the whole province of Nova Scotia, to which I would direct the attention of the minister. I speak of the proposition for the deepening of the East river in Pictou county to the town of New Glasgow. Some years ago a very important deputation representing the business interests of that community, which is one of the most advanced industrial centres in the maritime provinces, came to the then Minister of Public Works and sought the aid of the government to deepen this river with a view of enabling New Glasgow to have water connection for larger steamers which would bring natural products in

and manufactured products out. As the result of the representations made by that delegation, the then minister had the suction dredge ' Northumberland ' built and it has been working there ever since and has done splendid work. One of the difficulties experienced in government dredging in the maritime provinces is the expense of carrying away the dredged material to deep water, 'but the construction cf the ' Northumberland' obviated this expense, and she is probably the best investment in dredges that the government has ever made. A large amount of dredging has been done by the ' Northumberland ' during the last three years and the late minister had in contemplation the continuance of the operations by the removal of rock in a narrow part of the river. The late minister placed in the estimates last year a preliminary vote of $25,000 to let a contract for the removal of the rock which cannot be removed by the dredge. That vote, unfortunately, has not been repeated in the main estimates. I would say to the minister that of all the expenditures which are being made in the maritime provinces none will open up greater commercial possibilities than the completion of this work. I know that the attention of the minister has been already called to the matter, and with the same emphasis that I pressed the matter on the attention of the late government I press it on his attention now. The completion of this work will be of immense advantage to the industrial community there and incidentally to the whole country. Before the supplementary estimates are brought down I hope the minister will familiarize himself with the details and if he does I have no doubt he will place a vote in the estimates for the prosecution of this work to completion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have given some consideration to the completion of this work on the East river and it commends itself favourably to me. The channel needs deepening and straightening for seven miles, four miles of which has been already done and in the expectation of its completion large industries have been erected at Trenton about a mile and a-half from where the present work ends. I think the whole work when fully completed will cost considerably over $300,000. I have a great desire to continue the work this year, at any rate as far as Trenton. The dredge has been constructed specially for that purpose, but she cannot of course do the rock-work, and that will entail an expenditure of $25,000 or more. The work is a necessary one. I will endeavour to have it continued this year if possible, at any rate for that mile and a half which
would enable vessels to go to Trenton. I will do my best in that regard.


William Chisholm: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I brought those papers down to-day. As regards the harbour at Antigonish, I shall give my hon. friend's observations every possible consideration. The demands for public works are of course very great, and it is difficult to satisfy them all, however reasonable they be. The estimates for dredging are very considerable, and the government would not be justified in granting all the demands until we have occasion to go into the organization of our dredging and see what improvements can be made, but I shall give careful consideration to my hon. friend's request.


John Howard Sinclair: I am very much obliged to the hon. minister for the informa-

tion I have received from the return he has handed me. No doubt he intended that I should make use of the documents, as they are public property. I find that the charge against this man is as follows:
Canso, Nov. 6, 1911. To the Hon. L. P. Pelletier, M.P., Postmaster General.
I hereby make application for the position of janitor of the post office at Canso, N.S., now held by Roderick Sutherland. Mr. Sutherland has been an active Liberal partisan, and was a worker for the Liberal candidate at the recent as well as previous elections. I beg respectfully to ask for his dismissal.
Yours truly,
. T ,	GEORGE A. PYCHE.
Charles Lohnes, President, Liberal-Conservative Association.
.T. J. McKENZIE, Secy.


Hon.  L. P.@: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: I stated that I thought there had been some progress, and I believe there has been. In 1896, men were dismissed without any complaint, almost without the intervention of the minister. There are cases recorded in 'Hansard'' in which Mr. Blair will be found to have stated that dismissals had taken place before the matters had come to his knowledge. There was also in 1896 a refusal to grant any investigation. I mentioned at that time a few cases that were familiar to me. I will just refer to two as examples. Here is a question which I put, which will be found on page 2410 of 'Hansard' of 1897:
1.	How long has Joseph Sauve, lately bnidge-master No. 5 bridge, Cote St. Paul, Lacnine canal, been in the employ of the government?
2.	Why was he dismissed on the 30th April last ?
3.	Was there any complaint against him, and by whom?
4.	Who was named bridgemaster in his place, and by whom was the new nominee recommended ?


The MINISTER OP RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Joseph Sauv6, lately bridgemaster, bridge No. 5, C6te St. Paul, Lachine canal, has been employed during the season of navigation since the 1st of May, 1878. His services were dispensed with at the request and on the representations of the members of parliament for Montreal district; the department did not receive any written complaint against Sauve. Joseph Archhierre was appointed bridgemaster in place of Joseph Sauve.
2.	Why was he dismissed on the 30th of April last ?
3.	Was there any complaint against him, and by whom?
4.	Has he been replaced by one Adolphe Fichaud, of St. Henri, brother-in-law of the member for Hoohelaga?
5.	Who recommended the new lockmaster for nomination?


The MINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS.: Joseph Desohamps, lately lock-master at lock 4, Cote St. Paul, Lachine canal, has been employed during the season of navigation since the 1st June, 1873. His services were dispensed with at the request and on the representation of the members of parliament for Montreal district, no written complaint was lodged in the department. Adolphe Fichaud was appointed lockmaster in Ms place.
The book is full of such declarations. I could give my hon. friend one statement, of Mr. Blair in which he took the ground that the government considered that public employees occupied their positions during pleasure, and that the government was not obliged to communicate to parliament confidential representations made to it in regard to those employees. Although this case is not as strong a one as I have seen, there is a direct, open, public denunciation by a man known in the place, and I am informed, although I do not know him, that he is not such a peaceable man as my hon. friend says, but a very strong partisan, and that would be established by an investigation. If my hon. friend wishes for an investigation, it will take place.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish the minister to note that the dismissal he has cited was at the instance of the members of parliament from the Montreal district. I would say that was a very strong case. If any official is so offensive that he is indicted by a number of members of parliament, he *should surely be turned out of office. I would not complain if a member of parliament stated on his honour that Mr. Sutherland had been guilty of anything.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would my hon. friend have found it a very good answer if I had said that this man had been dismissed on the request of the members of parliament from Nova Scotia?


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, if the members from Nova Scotia, or any one of them, will father this thing and accept the responsibility for it and say they are prepared to defend it on the floor of parliament, that is all I would ask. But that is not what we have got. We have an office-seeker, a man who is looking for the job, simply making the statement that this man was an active Liberal.
Here is another one:
1. How long has Joseph Descliamps, lately lockmaster, No. 4 lock, C6te St. Paul, Lachine canal, been in the employ of the government?


Mr. BRADBURY.: I am a little surprised at the attitude of the hon. gentlemen opposite regarding dismissals, in view of their record since 1896. Why, Sir, at one time


John Howard Sinclair: The defeated candidate makes no statement of his own; he simply says that the other man's statement may be relied npon.


George Henry Bradbury: That is only splitting hairs; the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) knows that it is quibbling. The charge is made by one man, and the defeated candidate endorses that charge by telling the minister that the man who makes it -can Mr. BRADBURY.
be relied upon in the statement he makes regarding Sutherland. So, I submit this official has been dismissed on the recommendation of the defeated candidate who had the evidence. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) himself was willing that an official should be dismissed on the word of a member of this Hquse, because the member took the responsibility. But if a candidate has been defeated through the work of partisan officials and writes a letter taking the full responsibility of asking for their dismissal, I hold that the hon. minister is justified in making that dismissal. The member for Guysborough dares not disagree with this. I am not in sympathy with some of the investigations the government are giving. They are showing too much consideration for hon. gentlemen opposite. For fifteen years there was a complete weeding out of Conservatives occupying positions in the public service from the Atlantic to the Pacific their places being filled with Liberals. And now, because these men are being removed for partisanship, hon. gentlemen opposite raise a howl to save them. For my part, I hope the government will have courage enough and will be fair enough to their friends to punish every official who has been guilty of partisanship.


John Howard Sinclair: In what I said I raised two points in regard to this case. The first was that there was no evidence against Mr. Sutherland, except the evidence of an interested witness which would not be taken in any court of justice in any British or other civilized country. The sole evidence is that of a witness who is interested so much that if he does not succeed in this application he will he out of a job. The defeated candidate, and these other gentlemen who have put their names down, do not venture to say that they know anything about the case. The other point I raised was with regard to the attitude of the leader of the hon. gentlemen opposite for fourteen years on this matter, and the results of it all to-day. And I submit that neither of these points has been answered.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Would the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) consider it sufficient ground for the dismissal of an officer that a member of the House had written saying that he had been credibly informed that the official was an offensive partisan?


John Howard Sinclair: No.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will produce the record of a case in which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair), did that himself.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think the hon. minister can do it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will do it as soon as you like.


John Howard Sinclair: Do it now.

Mr. PELLETIER, The case is that of the postmaster at East Roman Valley.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Do it now.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Do these hon. gentlemen wish me to go to the department now and get the files? I do not know how it is in Red Deer, but in Ottawa the department is closed at five o'clock. But I have given the name of the post office-that of East Roman Valley.'


John Howard Sinclair: That is the only official with whose dismissal I had anything to do during the eight years I have been in this House. If the Postmaster'General will bring down all the papers, ne will find that there was proof of the statements made. I hope he will be fair enough to bring the whole record, including the declarations and affidavits. He will find that the action was taken, not on what I said, but on the proof that was given.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. gentleman asked for the dismissal of the postmaster, and a petition was filed, and was referred to him, and the hon. gentleman wrote that he had been informed that the official had done this or that, and on his letter the man's head was cut off.


Mr. CLEMENTS.: I have not hitherto taken part in this debate ot dismissals, but I have been compelled to listen to what seems to me an idle, and useless discussion intended to be in the interest of hon. gentlemen opposite. I might, if I chose, give cases of dismissal by the late government in the riding of West Kent, which I had, at one time, the honour of representing in this House. Dismissals were made in that riding, not by the dozen but forty or fifty of them. I have in mind, particularly, one case, Mr. Dunn, the janitor of a post office. Concerning this gentleman I can give my word of honour that he had not the faintest idea of entering into politics for either side. He had a crippled son depending on him for support. Yet he was dismissed practically at a day's notice. This dismissal was made at the instance of Mr. Campbell, who formerly represented Kent. I could take up the time of the House for the next two hours in giving facts about other dismissals by hon. gentlemen opposite after their accession to power in 1896.
As representing Comox-Atlin, the first Conservative who has ever represented that constituency, I would say that the officials throughout the length and breadth of that great constituency are and were controlled by a Liberal machine. They acted as returning officers, stumped the country and used every means possible to defeat me in that riding. Yet I have shown sympathy for these officials for I know that the late government held the club over them in
many cases and compelled them to act in this way, and that they would not have acted in 'this way if the club had not been held over them. I have listened with disgust to our friends opposite. If they have any regard for the remaining officials throughout the different constituencies, they will discontinue this discussion. If not, I shall make many recommendations for dismissals of Liberal appointees in the great constituency of Comox-Atlin.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the minister's decision; will he give an investigation in the case of Mr. Sutherland?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend will give some good grounds for holding an investigation it will be granted.


John Howard Sinclair: What grounds?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like him to give an allegation that he has not meddled in politics and is not guilty of these offences.
Mr. SINCLAIR, Do I understand that the minister requires a letter signed by Mr. Sutherland that he has not meddled in politics ox is not guilty of being an active partisan ? I cannot undertake to sign a letter About him, I have not got much knowledge.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend told me there was absolutely no ground for his dismissal. If my hon. friend has no objection to putting that on record in the department it will receive consideration.


John Howard Sinclair: I am informed there is no reason for his dismissal.


William Chisholm: tAntigonish). It seems to me that the attack on the government is more severe from that side than from this. The hon. members opposite recognize that the government are weak-kneed and vacillating and have not risen to the high ideals they expressed while in opposition. What we complain of is that we cannot get anything definite from the minister or from his government. If he is going to act on the principle that to the victors belong the spoils, as hon. gentlemen opposite advocate, we would like to know that. If hon. gentlemen would say:-We are going to make places for our friends wherever we can find places, and will decapitate every Liberal if we can find any excuse whatever for doing so, we are not going to be concerned about nice distinctions tut we are going to take the animal by the horns and turn out a Liberal wherever there is a chance to do so and put in a Conservative. If they would say that we would know where we are at. What we object to is the professions of honesty and sympathy and fair play which hon. gentlemen opposite and the ministers make-professions

which conduct does not justify. What does it all mean? Suppose the Liberals were wrong in 1896 and were guilty of injustice, is that a reason why the Conservative party of to day should continue in that wrongful course? If so, let them say so. They have put themselves on record as being opposed to wholesale dismissals. They have professed higher ideals than that. Why do they now say, we will first dismiss the man if anybody makes what appears to be a charge against him and then will try him and if an injustice has been done, we will reinstate him. Let me say, very few of those who have been dismissed will be reinstated, investigation or no investigation. I happened to get the papers in connection with Captain Peter Decoste. I do not find that the defeated candidate made any charge against him of offensive partisanship. I do not find that any representation, came from the county to which Decoste belongs. I do find letters from T. Gallant, and others asking that Decoste be dismissed and Captain Daniel Gillies of Port Hawkesbury be appointed. There is a sort of stereotyped letter signed by different parties asking for this change. These men were frankly acting on the principle laid down by hon. gentlemen opposite. They were manly about it, they said we want Decoste fired to make a place for Gillies a good Conservative, dismissed in 1896. There is not a hint or insinuation of any kind against Decoste. It is not alleged that he was an offensive partisan and it is not stated whether he is a Liberal or a Conservative, but all through the letters runs the word:	'We
want Captain Decoste out of the way in order to make a place for Gillies '. What about Gillies? They, the minister's advisers in this matter say that he was dismissed in 1896 for absolutely no reason except that he favoured the Conservative party. In other words, they say he was a Conservative partisan in 1896 and yet they are going to replace this partisan. I do not see the difference whether a partisan is a Libe.ral or a Conservative if partisanship is to be a ground for dismissal. They asked that Gillies take the place of Decoste against whom no charge is made, for no other reason than because Gillies was a Conservative partisan. It is stated in one letter that he was dismissed because he was a Conservative and for no other reason.. That is the letter of William Macdonald, President of the Pictou Conservative Club. There is also a letter from the Conservative Club of Inverness. They allege that Gillies was dismissed because of partisanship. As a matter of fact, he was continued in the service after 1896. He was mate on one of the dredges, I think the ' George Mackenzie ', and was continued right up to the time of the last elections and afterwards. As a matter of Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).
fact, Captain Gillies was working on the government dredge ' George Mackenzie ' the greater portion of the time the late liberal government was in power and on the eve of the elections. I have nothing against him. So far as I know he is a competent man and a good seaman, but he was rather unfortunate in his experience as a Captain. As I pointed out the other evening, he lost one of the dredges with its equipment and under his control there was a great deal of damage by an accident in another case, $9,000 to $12,000, and since his appointment on October 24, he ran the. dredge ' Cape Breton ' ashore. Or some accident occurred to the dredge under his charge at a serious loss to the country. It may be that this was simply his misfortune. One man who writes to the minister as shown by the correspondence brought down on this subject says that Captain Decoste has had no experience. That man did not know what he was talking about. Captain Decoste is a navigator of 25 years experience, holding the most complimentary certificates. He has had experience in the command of dredges and tug boats and is absolutely competent in every respect. No one who knows the facts or values the truth, will insinuate that he has not had experience and is not a competent and capable official. Why does not the minister come down clearly and explicitly and say: i m'ased Decosta because I wanted a place for uhhea who is no better than Decoste as far as the records show as an official but who is a good tory as it is represented to me and deserves well of our party.


Alexander William Chisholm: Will the hon. member read the letter purporting to be from the Conservative Association of Inverness?


William Chisholm: Yes. It would seem that there was concerted action and they did not lose very much time. We have letters dated October 12, October 16 and October 24. The president of the Conservative Association writes as follows: Inverness, C.B., Oct. 12, 1911. Hon. F. D. Monk,
Minister of Public Works,


Ottawa P.O.: Dear Sir,-The Liberal-Conservative Asso-siation of the county of Inverness, C.B., strongly recommend the dismissal of Capt. Decoste, of the dredge 'Cape Breton/ now in Cape Breton waters, and the appointment in his stead of Capt. Daniel Gillies, of Port Hawkesbury, C.B. Immediately after the coming into power of the Liberal government in 1896, Capt. Gillies, a man of many years experience, was summarily dismissed with-ont any alleged cause 

That is not true as I am informed.
-and Capt. Decoste, a man of no experience whatever


That is absolutely false

-appointed in his stead. We feel that justice requires the immediate appointment of Capt. Gillies to this command.
Very respectfully yours,
The Inverness, C.B., Liberal-Conservative Association.
(,Sgd.) D. M. CHISHOLM,
*	President.
(Sgd.) ANGUS R. McDOUGALL, Secretary.


Air. BOYCE.: I have not heretofore said anything in this House in regard to the question of dismissals. We have listened to a great many complaints from hon. gentlemen opposite, and I must confess that their cant and hypocrisy are absolutely beyond belief. Having been a member of tbit House for the short period of only eight years, I glance at the benches opposite and I see, from my hon. friend the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Lemieux) down, the faces of hon. gentlemen who, when they occupied seats on this side of the House, stood up and, time after time, voted to retain in their offices men who were guilty of the most flagrant partisan acts and worse. I speak about the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries


Rodolphe Lemieux: Only for a month.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Yes, only for one .month and some people think that a month too long.,.,, r
Mr7'CEMIEUX. That is longer than being made Solicitor General in the press.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That is perfectly true and while my hon. friend occupied the office of Solicitor General I do not know that he was regarded as a shining light.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was there anyway.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What I was going to refer to was the manner in which the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries hurled his invectives at my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) last night in regard to what he termed the heartless dis* missal of the postmaster at Sudbury.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman has not read ' Hansard,' or if he has read ' Hansard,' he does not understand French. There was no question of the dismissal of a postmaster at Sudbury.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I understood my hon. friend's statement. My hon. friend referred to the fact that there had been great numbers of the French Canadian race at Sudbury who had been deprived of their offices.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, my hon. friend is wrong.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It can be explained. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) did not refer particularly to Sudbury, but he spoke 63
about French Canadians being dismissed everywhere.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I had Sudbury in my mind and I will give my hon. friend, who is so solicitous for the French Canadian race when his party is in opposition, the facts as regards Sudbury. There was a postmaster dismissed at Sudbury, that gentleman was of the French Canadian race and he was dismissed from his office just as soon as hon. gentlemen opposite came to occupy the government benches after the election of 1896. "Why was he dismissed? He was put out into the cold world, as my hon. friend said last night, with a family of eight children, a newly made widower without the present means of support, without investigation and for a practically unknown cause. When my hon. friend refers to the heartlessness of treating the French Canadian race in that way and to giving the succession of office to that race let me remind him that Mr. Fournier, who was dismissed at Sudbury, was succeeded by a gentleman of the name of Kelly, who, I do not think, belonged to the French Canadian race.


Mr. PROULX.: Was he dismissed for partisanship?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: There was no cause alleged.


Edmond Proulx: I understand that he was dismissed for some other reason.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: If you will wait a moment you will hear of something more that will interest you and something in connection with your own vote. Let me further remind the hon. gentleman, the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries, of something in regard to the postmaster at Copper Cliff which was brought to the hon. gentleman's attention after he became Postmaster General'. I see he recollects it right well. There was a petition signed by about 500 people of the town of Copper Cliff complaining of the wretched condition and mismanagement of the Copper Cliff post office.


Mr LEMIEUX.: Was it a political offence?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: They informed the Postmaster General that this postmaster had been away- from his office for two years. Did the hon. gentleman take any action? He promised consideration and


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was it Kelly?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: No, his name was not Kelly. I will tell the hon. gentleman his name because the name is written upon the records of the court. I pointed out upon the floor of this House to my hon. friend, who then occupied the position of



Postmaster General-and I had the record then in my hand-that W. C. Kilpatrick, the postmaster at Copper Cliff, had been found guilty and reported for corrupt practices in the election court in the famous ' Minnie M.' case at the Soo. I invited my hon. friend the Postmaster General, to look into this matter and to divest himself of the valued services of this gentleman. Did he do so? A year went by and I drew it to my hon. friend's attention again and he simply said that he would give it further consideration. Until the time that the hon. gentleman's party went out of power Mr. W. G. Kilpatrick was postmaster at Copper Cliff.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was there any deficiency in the office? Was the office well administered?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: He was away for two years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He had a deputy.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I have told my hon. friend -it is on record in the Post Office Department to-day and it is written on the pages of ' Hansard '-that he received a petition signed by about 500 residents complaining of the shameful and disgraceful service of the office and of the absence of the postmaster for two years, and drawing the fact to his attention that this man had been reported by the judges of the court of law for corrupt practices in an election. Yet, notwithstanding all this, he did nothing,


Rodolphe Lemieux: There was never any charge of mal-administration.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.
Mr.- LEMIEUX. No, not against Mr. Kilpatrick. I remember the case perfectly well. I never made a dismissal while I was Postmaster General-never one dismissal.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) knows very well a friend of his, a man occupying a very high position in Quebec who had been for months and even years without going to his office. I was asked to dismiss him The office was well managed.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Who was that?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Paquet, of Quebec. I never dismissed him.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Does the hon. member say that he has not dismissed postmast era?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I dismissed one on the recommendation of Mr. Sifton on the principle of accepting a member's word. Mr. Mr. BOYCE.
Sifton promised to defend my action if it were questioned in the House, and when Mr. Lake brought the matter up in the House, I looked in vain for Mr. Sifton, and I saw him in number 16. I reminded him that he had given his word of honour that he would defend the case, and Mr. Sifton refused to come into the House.


Mr. CROTHERS.: Did you reinstate him?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Why not?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Because Mr. Sifton maintained what he had written in his letter, that the man was guilty of partisanship. Other than that I never dismissed, a postmaster for political partisanship.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Sir William Mulock had put them all out before you got there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Minister of Public Works comes with his classical three cases in tlie county of Jacques Cartier in 1896. He stated time and again that we had dismissed the employees by hundreds in that county in 1896. Well, he has dismissed hundred of poor labourers in his department since the 21st September. In fact he has become quite bloodthirsty in his methods. Like Marat, who during the terror in France ruled Paris for a few months, he wants thousands of heads to purify the country. The Minister of Public Works has dismissed day labourers by the hundred.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. member knows that is not the case.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He has dismissed hundreds of day labourers since the 21st of September, and finally when he saw that public opinion and the English press of Canada, tile' Toronto * Telegram,' the Toronto * Star,' the Montreal ' Gazette,' put him to shame, he has instituted a legal investigation and he has appointed a relative of his, Mr. Ohauvin, to preside over the investigation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. member is absolutely mistaken. There are no dismissals in my department. I have appointed no relative of mine to the position of investigator, and the hon. member knows it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is not Mr. Ohauvin. your relative?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the minister say that Mr. Ohauvin fa not his relative?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Certainly he is not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, the minister deserves to be one of the famous French terrorists, he can deny anything, even his own blood.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Withdraw.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I submit that is not a parliamentary expression and that the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) should* retract.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am very much obliged to my hon. friend (Mr. Cro there), but I can assure him I can take charge of that myself.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Here we have the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), admitting that he took the word of Mr. Sifton, then a member of the Liberal party with him, to dismiss a postmaster on the ground of political partisanship, but when I, a member of the opposition on my responsibility as a member, told him that the postmaster at Copper Cliff who was a Liberal had been found guilty of political partisanship by the highest court, he sat there and refused to take action. The hon. member (Mr. Lemieux), is guilty of cant and hypocrisy of the worst description when on the mere statement of a member of his own party he dismissed a Tory postmaster, and at the same time refused to dismiss a Liberal postmaster in the face of a petition signed by 500 residents of the community, complaining of the miserable incompetency of the postmaster, of his absence for two years, and of the shameful condition in which that office was run. I told him that the highest election court in Ontario had found that postmaster guilty of corrupt practices, and the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux), would not take that as sufficient evidence of political partisanship. Does the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux), remember the case of Richard Wagner who was found guilty by the court or theft from poor immigrants coming to this country, whom he was appointed by the government to care for, and who having served his term in jail, was promoted to a high place by the Liberal government; does the hon. member recollect that he sat in this House and supported the promotion of this man in the service. All these things are written in the pages of ' Hansard,' and it is idle for the hon. member (Mr. Lemieux), to indulge in pyrotechnic displays and pretend at righteous indignation wnen the records are so black against him. Does he recollect the case of the postmaster at Thessalon, and does he remember that he declined to take action in that case?


Rodolphe Lemieux: What was that case?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. member has a poor memory for that case, but he can remember the poor Tory postmaster whom he dismissed on the recommendation of Mr. Sifton. I will tell him what the Thessalon case is. On the report of the post office inspector, the postmaster at Thessalon was found guilty of embezzlement, and the Postmaster General ordered his dismissal, but the postmaster at Thessalon was not dismissed. Let him look at the file in that case.
65J


Rodolphe Lemieux: I want the file.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. member can haver the file, and he can see all the facts about the case in the pages of ' Hansard ' for-1905, 1906, 1907, and 1908.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are the facts?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I have only got to the fact
that the man had been found guilty of embezzlement and an order was given for his dismissal, and he was not dismissed and is, there now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He was dismissed and his daughter was appointed.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The hon. gentleman is wrong. I accepted his correction a few moments ago and he must accept mine now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am aware of the facta.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: His daughter was not appointed but he was reappointed. His dismissal was not effected and he is there now, as postmaster of Thessalon, and I asked my hon. friend to take the matter up and he did not.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Better write to me about it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Look at the file.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: You can see the file and you can see the whole thing at a glance, and the House can judge what a miserable and pitiable position was taken by the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) in his-attempt to defend that man. My hon.. friend had the matter brought to his attention when he was Postmaster General but he did nothing. Why? Because the postmaster was shown to have been, at the time the fiat was issued to dismiss him, politically active in a partisan manner, very active in the provincial and Dominion elections, and therefore was kept in his place-in spite of his embezzlement and misconduct, and in spite of the report of the-inspector and the fiat of the Postmaster General.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask my hon_ friend to put the case in the hands of the-present Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier). Let him take the file, and I will accept his verdict. My hon. friend knows that I would never have kept a thief as an officer-in the postal service.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I may remind hon. members that this debate is completely out of order.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: By whom was it started. I am merely answering my hon. friend. In. this connection, I want to tell him that he does not have to accept the verdict of the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) but by the rules of this House he should accept my statement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would accept the decision of the Postmaster General on the case.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The rule requires that remarks in committee must be strictly revelant to the item under consideration. The item is Anderson Cove, breakwater extension.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: With all due respect to your ruling, Sir, I think it might have been made
a little earlier, because my hon. friends from Guysborough and Antigonish and Rouville have all been speaking about dismissals and the hon. member for Rouville waxed specially eloquent.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).: I wish to understand your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Is it irregular on the estimates to discuss at ah the question of dismissal?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Not at all but we cannot discuss matters connected with the Post Office Department on an item for a breakwater.


Michael Clark: Is it out of order on breakwaters to discuss any dismissals except those connected with the breakwater?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is the rule.
Arickat-retaining wall to protect government property, $600.


Mr. KYTE.: Before that is carried I desire to ask the Minister of Public Works if he has any report with reference to the proposed construction of a breakwater at Charles Forest's cove in the county of Richmond, Nova Scotia. A sum was provided for the construction of that work in the estimates a year ago and tenders were called for, but I understand the contract was not awarded. A few days ago I put the following question to the hon. minister:
1.	Has the contract for the construction of the breakwater at Charles Forest's Cove, Richmond county, N.S., been awarded?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to proceed with the work during the present year ?
3.	Have the deposit cheques of the unsuccessful tenderers been returned?
To which the minister replied:
1.	No.
2.	No; no amount has been provided therefor in next year's estimates.
3.	All security cheques have been returned.
And I asked further whether the contract for the construction of the breakwater at Port Richmond had been awarded and whether it was the intention of the government to proceed with the work during the present year to which the minister replied :-
No; no amount has been provided therefor .in this year's estimates.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Before the item was put in last year's estimates, there w'as a report from the engineer of the department of Public Works, which no doubt justified the then minister in providing for the construction of this work. What additional information has the hon. minister had to justify him in dropping that item this year?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We very often have reports from our district engineers that certain works are useful, but we do not always find it possible 'to carry them out. In this instance we had a second report from the engineer of the district to the effect that the work was not of an urgent nature. As it is not urgent, I cannot give any promise that it will be carried out next year.


George William Kyte: Ho-w is it that the hon. gentleman selected 'this particular work to be the .subject of a supplementary report from the government engineer?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 1 do not think that report came 'at my request or in my time. I did not ask for it.


George William Kyte: Has the hon. minister made reference to a report of last year previous to the item being placed in the estimates?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think it was a report of last year. I can show it to my hon. friend if he wants to see it.


George William Kyte: Will my hon. friend be good enough 'to have that report when the estimates are next under consideration, and any correspondence he may have had with any parties with reference to that work?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend had better move for a return because I cannot bring all the reports down here.


Mr. KNOWLES.: I wish to draw the hon. minister's attention to an announcement in the morning edition of the Moose-jaw ' News ' a Conservative paper. I wish to ask him if the announcement is correct. It has to do with the erection of an armoury in that city.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman's question is not relevant to the matter under discussion.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend will se'nd me the paper, I will give him the information.


William Erskine Knowles: I would like to have it in ' Hansard.' The hon. minister might make a note of the question, and give the information on another occasion.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to call the attention of the minister to the necessity of extending the breakwater at Charlos Cove in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. That work was com-

menced some years ago, and is not yet completed. It is intended to afford protection for fishing boats, and is very much required. As it stands to-day, it is not of very much use, because it is not carried far enough into the harbour to afford proper protection. I mention it in the hope that the minister can see his way, if not this year, then next year, to make the necessary provision for extending that breakwater, so that the money that has already been spent upon it will not be unremunerative.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will make a note of my hon. friend's request.
Blue Rocks Island, breakwater, $500.


William Chisholm: I observe in the estimates for last year an item for Bayfield breakwater, $15,000. Of this $6,250 was voted before the dissolution of the last parliament, and the other $8,750 was voted since the present government came into power. I wish to ask the minister why this item has been dropped in the estimates of this year. This is a very urgent work. It was begun many years ago, and considerable money has been expended' to make that a safe harbour. The longer the work is delayed the more inconvenience the people will suffer and the greater wilt be the liability of the harbour to fill with sand, necessitating more dredging.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The government did not see its way clear, in view of all the expenditures which it has to make to continue the work referred to by my hon. friend. But I will make a note of it.


William Chisholm: On whose recommendation was the work discontinued? Did the engineer report that it was not urgent?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, I do not think so.


William Chisholm: Did the minister take the advice of anybody in respect of the work? What information did he get to justify him in dropping this item? To my mind it is very important that this work should go on, otherwise the money expended on it already is liable to be wasted.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have to provide for important works this year in our large national ports in order properly to equip them for the trade and to keep the trade in Canada, and we found that we could not continue at this juncture the work which my hon. friend refers to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What special works are there at the national ports this year?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have considerable works at all our ocean ports in conformity with the report of the Transportation Commission. We are undertaking considerable works at St. John, some at Halifax, and we
hope to undertake some at Quebec. We have had urgent demands from the ports on the Pacific, and it is absolutely necessary for us to do some work there.


William Chisholm: I do not minimize the importance of the ports to which the hon. minister has referred. But these small ports, insignificant as they may appear to him, are of great importance to the people who live in proximity to them. The exports at Bayfield for 1910, consisting of cattle, sheep, horses and agricultural products, amounted to $25,950, and the imports amounted to a considerable sum also. This information I take from a copy of a report made by the resident engineer of the Public Works Department at Antigonish a couple of years ago. It is from this port that the farmers of Antigonish county, and some from Guysborough county, ship their cattle and agricultural products to Newfoundland, and unless it is made available, they will have to ship by rail to Mulgrave, a distance of forty or fifty miles from Antigonish, and load their cattle on vessels there. Bayfield should not have been dropped out of sight without some reason. The minister should have consulted his engineer as to whether this was a port which he could neglect for a year or two without anybody suffering. I find that practically every item which was in the estimates of last year for the county of Antigonish, and provided for by the late government, has been dropped this year. The minister's own engineers reported that these works were necessary and proper. It happened that during the election campaign last fall, when a part of this money was available, it was not expended. In the first place an election was on, which might be considered good reason why public expenditures should not be made, it was not deemed advisable to go on with the work unless the whole of the money required for it was available. I say it is not fair to the county of Antigonish to be penalized because of the money that was voted, five-twelfths of the total amount was not used. I urge on the minister to remember this port of Bayfield when the supplementary estimates are being prepared, and to see that the extension of the breakwater goes on. I may tell him frankly that, as far as political reasons go, it would suit me if the work did not go on at all; but I look to the larger interests of the community, and in this matter politics should not count at all. It is my duty as the representative of the county to call attention to this important woTk and to urge the minister to provide for it in the supplementary estimates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will give my hon. friend's observations every consideration. -He must not imagine that political considerations move us in these matters. My own county

has had none of the public works that I have asked for.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What about the wharf at Point Claire?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I owe that to a different .'*man from what you are.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I rise to a point of order. This is not the language for this House.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is the language that suits you.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am asking the hon.
* gentleman a courteous question. And 1 vwish him to apologize now.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Oh, indeed?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. And I will ask the chairman's decision.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The language, as I understand it, is not in accordance with the rules, and I hope the hon. minister will explain or apologize. At the same time, I will make the remark that the debate has been conducted from the beginning with too much of such language from one side as well as from the other.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I accept your ruling, Mr. Chairman, absolutely. Let me say to my hon. friend (Mr. Chisholm, Antigonish), that I will give the matter consideration. The work has been begun. I was stating a moment ago that I had been asked for post offices and other works in my own constituency under circumstances which seem to give justification for the demand. But the government have not been able to meet all demands. I will read in ' Hansard ' what my hon. friend has said and will ask a report from the engineers.


William Chisholm: I have no doubt that when the report is made the hon. minister will see that the work is necessary.


George William Kyte: I would like to ask as to the work to be carried on at Little Anse. The contract was awarded last September, but I do not see an item in the estimates now before us. I presume that in cases in which a contract has been given the money will be provided for in the supplementary estimates. I should be glad if the minister could tell me that my understanding of the matter is correct.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I cannot s;ay from memory whether the contract was awarded or not. But where a contract has been awarl-ed and the work begun, the money will have to be provided whatever may be the opinion of 'the government.


George William Kyte: The work was not actually
commenced, but I am given to understand that the contract is in existence.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the policy of the. minister in regard to advertising for tenders in connection with these works?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Where the work is to cost over $5,000, tenders are usually called for. But -where the district engineer reports that the work can be done better by day work, that plan is followed. In the case of breakwaters even it is sometimes found better to deliver the material during the autumn and winter and to complete the work in the spring.


William Pugsley: The work is sometimes more economically carried on in that way.


George William Kyte: I have a question to ask also with regard to an item in last year's estimates for a breakwater at Port Richmond. I asked the minister a question with regard to this a few days ago. I was told that the contract was not awarded, and m answer to 'the question: Is it the intention of the government to proceed this year? I received the answer:	No; no
amount is provided in next year's supplementary estimates. I would like to know if any report has been received by the department within the last few months having reference to the importance or otherwise of this undertaking?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand that we had a report, but I do not now believe that there was any allegation of urgency. If my hon. friend wishes to see the report, we will get it for him. The hon. gentleman must remember that I am not the supreme arbiter in these works. The officers make suggestions, and I bring my estimates to the government. But it is the government that finally decides on the estimates.


John Howard Sinclair: There is a similar case in Guysborough county, at New Harbour. The sum of $10,000 was provided in the estimates passed before the holidays for the extension of the breakwater there. And if I recollect rightly, tenders were advertised for, though I am not certain of that. It is a very important work. Prior to the erection of the present breakwater it was difficult to carry on fishing at all on that stormy part of the coast. But after the breakwater was built, a number of fishermen collected and built houses, and a thriving fishing village has grown up along that breakwater. The number of fishermen increased so rapidly that the breakwater was soon too small to shelter all their boats in a storm. I visited the place last year. There were about thirty boats there, only about half of which could get in behind the breakwater whilst the rest had to seek shelter elsewhere. I think the minister will find that the engineers were favourable to the extension, and that $10,000 was placed in the estimates for that

.purpose. But I noticed it was not in the present estimates and I trust it will not be forgotten. If the amount is not revoted in the supplementary estimates the work cannot be gone on with this year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will give this matter full consideration. A number of large items for Nova Scotia as well as for other provinces, and in many constituencies irrespective of politics were cut out. The Minister of Public Works must bring his report to council where the whole thing is considered by his colleagues. As I have said, a number of reductions were made in the estimates I brought down-very properly, no doubt. We had estimates for dredging that we had to reduce by half. Those whose demands are not satisfied must not lay the blame wholly on the Minister of Public Works.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand that. But this is the most important expenditure on that coast for a hundred miles. While other works might be dropped without great injury, this certainly should not be dropped.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will consider it. But I notice a tendency on the part of members of the House to regard as the most important in the Dominion, the work that
has been left out. It does not matter who
the member is, that is what they tell us. It shows a praiseworthy zeal.


Mr. CARROLL.: What is this extra amount at Burke's Head, northern Cape Breton, required for?


Mr MONK.: That is to complete a contract, to continue the breakwater now under contract at, Burke's Head, as petitioned for by the residents.


Mr PUGSLEY.: There would seem to be a printing or clerical error here as the amount of the revote is stated to be larger than the vote now taken.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That must be an error made in the Finance Department.


William Pugsley: I presume the experience of the minister has been not unlike that of previous ministers that it is easier to get through council items which pertain to counties where my hon. friend has supporters than where he has opponents.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Sometimes it is, But I must say to my hon. friend with absolute sincerity that there are cases where counties are represented by our own friends where it is very difficult to get what is thought sufficient.


William Pugsley: Still my hon. friend used to condemn that very strongly. He
used the words ' that there should be no question of party favour so far as public works are concerned.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think there ought not to he.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is an excellent fighter and I suppose would present that very strongly to his colleagues and have that principle applied absolutely in reference to these estimates.
Mr. MONK I would like to.


Mr. STANFIELD.: Look at the difference between Pictou and Yarmouth.


William Chisholm: It is pleasant to hear the minister admit that politicians may have had some influence on the government in the allotment of these works, but we are glad to hear of his desire not to have politics enter into such matters because we all know that he is eminently fair and magnanimous However evil associations have undoubtedly influenced him. When I look at the long list of items dropped in the county of Antigonish then I must conclude that the minister felt that other counties had a stronger claim upon him and upon the consideration of the government and therefore those good Conservative friends in these various districts who have been expecting these works begun by the late administration to go on will have to take the stone instead of the bread and will have to be content with nothing this session. I admit that in new work the minister may have good reasons for delaying undertakings until some more opportune time when the * hungry horde ' is first satisfied, but when you have works already begun and practically completed, it would surely be a wise policy to spend the small amount of money required to complete them. The amounts for these little places in Nova Scotia amount in the aggregate to trifling sums in comparison with the large expenditures on other matters. The minister should be a little more generous in preparing his estimates in reference to these small matters. In the estimate for last year we found a number of works that were not new but works on which a small amount had been expended from year to year to maintain them and improve and make them more useful and these have been dropped. I shall read some of them. I have mentioned Bayfield where $15,000 was voted last year, none of which was utilized because as I 'Said before, only five twelfths of the appropriation was available. At Breen's Pond some work was done but it is not of . much practical use without a slight extension. I have no doubt there is a report from the engineer that a slight extension would be required to give the

fishermen enough water, It would not cost much to continue this work and thus afford a very much needed accommodation. At Cribbin's Point a small amount, $1,000, required t-o complete repairs to the wharf has been dropped. At Delorey's Beach a small amount was voted to carry on a contract for the erection of a breakwater to cost $14,000. The nec-eessity of the work was clearly pointed out in the report of the engineer. But this is left where the present government found it. At Livingstone's Cove there is a provision of $2,000, the second item in Anti-gonish county that has not been dropped. At McNair's Cove for the extension and repairs to the 'breakwater wharf there was a vote of $5,400 but that has been dropped. This, is an important port at which the subsidized .steamer between Pictou. Antigonish and Inverness calls, and there is quite a good deal of fishing and trading done there, and the extension is a real necessity. Not even the appropriation made by the late government is however now available for improviments there. At Malignant Cove $1,341 was to he expended to complete the extension of the channel piers, but that has been dropped. The piers that are there will simply be wiped out before the fall storms are over. At McAra's Brook $991 was to be expended but this has been dropped. At Southlake, $4,000 was to be spent. Some money has been spent there since the change of government, some stones and material provided.
What are they going to do with all the stone which the faithful have hauled there .since September 21? This really is an important work and I cannot understand how this item was dropped from the estimates by the minister. It would only have cost $2,000 or $3,000, I would have supposed, to have extended the piers so as to <dVe plenty of water for the fishing boats and for the steamer that calls there at times, and .also to save the opening or channel in the beach from filling in. As far as the Sonth Lake work is concerned, I cannot understand why the minister has dropped it out of the estimates. I would ask him to state whether he proposes to have an item in the Supplementary Estimates for it-. It is rather significant that in the whole county, there -are only two items. The horn, member for Colchester (Mr. Stanfield) referred to Yarmouth and Digby, and I would ask the minister to institute a comparison and to observe the contrast. I looked over .some of the counties represented by Conservatives, and I found that they are fairly well treated.
I aim not at all insinuating that they are treated too generously or that they are getting appropriations and advantages that they ought not to get, but I cannot under-Mr. CHISHOLM (AnHgoni?vd.
stand the minister, finding these items in the old estimates and having no report from the engineer which would justify him in dropping them, no evidence to show that the work is not as necessary or urgent to-day as two years ago, dropping these votes without consulting (Somebody. If he does not choose to consult the representative of the county, he could consult those who give him advice in some other matters, for instance those who give him advice in the matter of dismissals. I would urge with respect to the items that I have .referred to, that he make provision for them in the Sujpplanentary Estimates. All I ask is that he shall procure a report from the engineer and I am quite satisfied that the engineer will tell him that these works are just as urgent as they were a year or two ago and that they should be completed at the earliest opportunity.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend must not imagine that a minister must have the authority of the district engineer to enable him to go on with the work. 'The minister decides that himself from what he knows the government will authorize him to spend in a locality. The minister has a certain sum' which he knows he can spend and he is obliged to divide it as equitably as possible. I did not follow all" that my hon. friend has said, but he spoke about McAra's Brook-
Mr. CHISHOLM
Nair's Cove.
(Antigonish). Mc-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not McAra's Brook?


William Chisholm: No. I referred to Me At a ,s Brook ais one of the items that had been dropped.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was that an urgent work?
Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish L I would not say that it was a particularly urgent work, but it is as urgent as it was a year ago. It would be a great convenience to the fishermen .and the .amount is very small.
. ^r. MONK. The district engineer says in his report:
Application was made to Mr. Chisholm, M.P., for the name of a foreman to expend the amount voted, but as no name was given the work was not undertaken.


William Chisholm: If a request of that kind was made on the eve of the election certainly I did not name any foreman because there was only five-twelfths of the grant available and the engineer was not desirous of going ahead with the work unless the whole sum was available. It would be a very unfortunate thing if, after an expenditure of five-twelfths had been incurred, no more work could -be done for want of further funds

because the work which had been begun would be carried out to sea. I have no doubt that I did not make any recommendation on the eve of the election. I know that after the election the work was going on and and I was not asked to name a foreman. T know nothing at all as to who the foreman is, but I know money was expended then. The place was of sufficient importance after the 21st of September to justify the expenditure of wuat money was available.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is impossible to suppose that a government coming into poweT would absolutely take all the estimates or all the works of improvement of the preceding government. There must be differences of opinion and these differences come out in the estimates.


William Chisholm: The minister refers to McAra's BiuoK. I do recall that there was a request made for a foreman down there but it happened that there was no road, no means for the public to get from the main road down to this wharf, although the wharf had been begun under the late Conservative auministration. 1 refused to recommend a foreman until such time as the road was obtained.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to ask the minister if he takes the . advice of the defeated candidate on his own side with regard to the requirements of constituencies as to wharves, breakwaters, and improvements of that kind.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We are glad to get advice but we are guided largely by the district engineer. We receive representations from all who make them.
Mr. MAC'LEAN (Halifax). At an earlier date in the session I made inquiry of the Minister of Public Works regarding an expenditure of public money at Chester in the county of Lunenburg, and this is an instance in which the minister has allowed himself to be moved by improper influences. This is a public work, what is known as Chester canal and it is a cutting between the front and back of the harbour forming a small boat channel. The canal was supposed to facilitate the passage of boats from one harbour to another a distance of only a few feet. The expenditure of this money was commenced in the month of September, after the Dominion election. The provincial by-elections took place in Lunenburg and polling day was the 15th November. Two or three days, or possibly a week before polling day, on instructions from the department, work ceased and I have not the slightest doubt in the world that this was done upon representations of influential supporters of the Conservative party in Lunenburg that the continuance of this work during this particular period would operate against the Conservative candidate in the election. The work was stopped notwithstanding the fact that only $200 or $300 remained to be expended. That, in the first place, was small politics. Since then nothing has been done. At that time some money was due the men who were working on the canal for wages and up to this day they have not received all their claims. I do not propose to waste very much time over this, but I would like the minister to take it up. It is a case he cannot defend as the administration of his department. There was absolutely no excuse for the cessation of the work and there should not be any delay in the completion of it and the payment of such sums of money as are due the men for wages.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When I came to office I found a great many useless works being carried on and a very large number of men employed for whose services there was no necessity. When I saw the condition of things I gave a general order to stop, and it may be that in some cases the order operated unjustly. I will have much pleasure in looking into the work to which my hon. friend has referred. There is no doubt room for improvement in the harbour of Chester Cove, but I think the opinion of the sitting member is that the dredging as projected is not sufficiently deep. I will have a special report made by the District Engineer to see if anything can be done.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Some reason had to be given for stopping the work, I suppose, but in my opinion the work as contemplated is sufficient for the place. I trust the minister will at once take steps to pay these men for the work they performed last November?


George William Kyte: There were three items in the former estimates and omitted from these estimates which were for works of quite an important character, and 1 trust the minister will restore these votes in the supplementary estimates. I refer to the breakwater at Petit de Grat, the repairs to Poulamond wharf, and the improvement at Little harbour. The breakwater at Petit de Grat is in great disrepair and to preserve it money should be expended upon it at once. The Poulamond wharf is absolutely unsafe for handling freight, and vehicles cannot trust themselves upon the rotten covering. These are important works in the locality and a little money expended now would put them in repair. With respect to the Little harbour improvements a foreman was appointed last year and the lumber was purchased and conveyed to the site of the work. If the work is not

proceeded with this year that timber will be useless and considerable loss will be entailed on the department. I trust the minister will provide for these works in his supplementary estimates.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will give the request of the hon. member consideration. I am told that the lumber can be stored and used in the work later. There appear to be very few constituencies in which I have given full satisfaction as regards expenditure. We can only do the best we can.
Mr. KYTE I am not criticising the action of the minister; I am simply calling his attention to these important works the repairing of which will not be costly. I may tell the minister that there are no facilities there for storing the timber and there is a chance of it being lost during storms, it is difficult to secure it m its present position.


William Pugsley: The minister told us he found a great many useless works going on when he entered the department.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I found a great number of works going on under conditions of extravagant expenditure. I did not say useless works.


William Pugsley: Then I misunderstood the hon. gentleman. I was going to ask him if he could assure the committee that ,the works in Nova Scotia, for which he is now asking us to vote money are of a useful character, and if not, which of them can be dispensed with.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know that any of these works can be called useless works, but there are some more urgent tnan others. There are port improvements that are far tnore urgent than some of these small works, but that does not mean that the smaller works are useless. We are threatened at the present time with the loss of very valuable trade because our principal ports are not properly equipped, and I believe we could more or less delay some of the smaller works, unless they are absolutely urgent, so as to equip our great ports to enable us to keep trade in Canada.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman makes careful inquiry he will find there is a great deal of merit in everyone of these *public works which were provided for in the estimates last year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There were some useful works on which a great many men were employed.


William Pugsley: And in many cases it is better to employ a considerable number of men so as to hurry the work along. I have no doubt my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) will follow my good example, and will find Mr. KYTE.
that at proper times he can employ a considerable number of men to hurry along a public work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If there is any extravagant expenditure connected with any of these public works the minister has the power to stop it, and he should do so. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk), has on many occasions in the past delivered speeches urging that the recommendations of the transportation commission should be carried out by the government. Does he intend to pursue that policy now that he is in office? If I remember well, the commissioners reported in favour of the nationalization of certain of our ports. Is my hon. friend going to select the national ports, and to declare his policy on the subject.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman will pardon me, but I must again remind him of the rule restricting debate to the item under consideration.


William F. Carroll: There were a good many items last year for public works in South Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. There were a number of little breakwaters for which appropriations were made and for which we had voted five-twelfths of the estimates before the holidays. None of 'these are of great national importance, but each one is very materially important to the particular locality interested. For example, there was an appropriation of $1,000 for a wharf at Albert Bridge. Albert Bridge is on the Mira river, about 30 miles from a railway station and the river is the only means, outside of trucking 25 miles to the Tailway station, by which the inhabitants can send out their products to the Louisburg and Sydney Railway. This is only a small country place, and it is almost impossible for the people there to get their products out or bring merchandise in unless they have a wharf. Last year this riding was represented by a Conservative-a good man and a friend of my own- and he says he impressed on the government of that day the necessity of voting some money to build a wharf at that bridge. The House voted that amount but now I find 'the item dropped. I have the same thing to say concerning Gabarous Harbour. There was an estimate of $5,000 altogether for some extensions or protection work at 'that har-bur. There was also an item for a wharf at Marion Bridge on the Mira river which is further up the river by about ten miles than the wharf at Albert Bridge. That also has been dropped. That is a large country district, and at present the people there have to wade into the water to meet a little steamer before they can put anything on board it. That is a great hardship, and I do not think the district engineer could have reported against either of 'those two

works at Marion Bridge or Albert Bridge. There was also an appropriation of $17,000 voted for a wharf at Mainadieu. In fact every item voted for that constituency has been dropped .except a paltry $3,000 for completing construction work at Cow Bay and $5,000 for buying a sand bar at Sydney Harbour. The first vote that came down for Sydney Harbour was $25,000 but now that vote is reduced to $5,000. These are only small works and it was partially through the efforts of the former representative of that county that these items were put in the estimates and a part of them voted. It was really a hardship on these people that all these moneys should not be spent. Why they should have been dropped is something I cannot understand, and I am drawing to the attention of the hon. minister the necessity of going on with these works, and I trust that he will take the matter up. If these works could be attended at once especially those two little works on the Mira river, the hon. minister would be eonfering a great benefit on that locality.


Mr MONK.: I shall certainly give my hon. friend's remarks every consideration. In the case of Main-a-dieu, I brought an estimate down but the government did not accept it, as it threw out many estimates I endeavoured to have accepted. With regard to Gabarous harbour, I find a note in the report to the effect that on August the 7th instructions were given to proceed with the expenditure of the amount authorized, and to consult Dr. Arthur Kendall about the appointment of a foreman. Dr. Kendall was written to on August 8, but he did not reply, and consequently no further action was taken. I shall, however, make a note of my hon. friend's request.


William F. Carroll: With reference to Gabarous harbour my answer is exactly what was given by my hon. friend from Anti-gonish. Dr. Kendall did consult me at the time, but only a part of the amount appropriated had been voted, and as there was an election on, we did not think it a proper time to go on with the expenditure on public works, because that would look like vote catching. Dr. Arthur Kendall is not responsible for the foreman not having been appointed, but myself. We were both consulted, but we thought there was no use appointing a foreman then as .the House would meet in a few months, and we thought it was of no avail to appoint a foreman at that time in order to expend five-twelfths of the estimate when the estimate itself was so small.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A condition of affairs prevails, to some slight extent at least, in Nova Scotia, and possibly in other provinces, by reason of the fact that a few years ago or more, votes were passed by
parliament and tenders asked for, and in some cases the lowest tender accepted, and the works have not been gone on with or the deposits refunded. The result is that in many cases the department now holds the moneys deposited by successful tenderers, and probably will hold theta for a year or more, or possibly may not proceed with the work. I would like to suggest that in such cases the deposits of the lowest tenderers, which are still with the department, should be returned to the successful tenderer upon the understanding that should the department later on decide to proceed with the works, these tenderers would be asked to refund their deposits. That would be only fair, or else the department should allow interest on these deposits.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That would be fair enough, but we might decide to call for new tenders and not have accepted1 the first tender.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am referring to cases where the 'lowest tender was accepted. I know of three cases in Nova Scotia in which, before the present government came into power contracts were awarded in each case to the lowest tenderer, but the moneys for these works were not voted until 1912-13; and prominent friends of the government have approached the successful tenderers offering them a sum of money to assign to them their contracts. This is a very objectionable practice and places these persons in a very uncomfortable position. It makes them feel that influences are at work which will actually prevent them making contracts with the government; and if they had an understanding with such persons in the meantime, it would be an obstacle.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would be obliged to my hon. friend if he would give me the facts of these cases. I know nothing of them.


Alexander William Chisholm: I think the constituency which I have the honour to represent occupies a unique position m this regard, that whereas in tne supplementary estimates brought down last year there were 14 or 15 works in that county provided for, in the present estimates there is just one item for a work in Inverness county. Will the minister be good enough to tell me what is being done in regard to that very important work, the Port Hood breakwater and harbour extension?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is a work that has been going on for some time. It is under consideration. It is an important work, and we will endeavour to follow it up. But my hon. friend must not be too disappointed if a great many of these estimates have been struck out by the government. In the province of Ontario, notably on the Great Lakes, the estimates of the previous government have been cut in two.

I have been the object of very much reproach as to that. The present government has had to make large expenditures which I suppose were not foreseen by the previous government, and we have been cutting down expenses everywhere. We have cut pff almost a million for dredging in the eastern provinces. In many Conservative constituencies the estimates of the previous government have been cut down. My hon. friend must not think that he is specially unfortunate.


Alexander William Chisholm: I may point out to the minister that $115,000 has been spent on this work. The object is of course to close the northern entrance to the harbour by an erection of a breakwater. If this work is delayed, the harbour, which before the work was commenced was in fairly good condition, will be absolutely spoiled, for the reason that as the approaches from either sides are being built the entrance is narrowed and the consequence is to increase the force of the current resulting in the formation of sand hills, in the harbour. If the minister has a report from his engineer as to the actual condition of that harbour at present he will find that it is of the greatest importance that the work should be continued with as much expedition as possible. If it is left for a couple of years without the northern entrance being closed, it will become so tilled with sand as to be of no use at all. This is the point to which I do not think the minister's attention has been called?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will get a special report upon it.
Cole harbour-wharf, $5,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister intend to go on with that work this year?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes.
Cow Bay (Port Horien)-completing protection works and general repairs, $3,000.


William F. Carroll: Is it the intention of the minister to do this by contract or by . day work?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have not decided that point.


William F. Carroll: In years gone by it was done by day work. I would recommend the minister, if it is to be done in that way, to be careful as to who superintends the work. If he will get a report from the engineer, he will find that that is very important and requires some technical skill.
Devil's island-extension of breakwater, $25,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the contract been awarded?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is before the government at this moment.
Gillis Point (East)-construction of -wharf,


Alexander William Chisholm: Where is that?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is a small settlement on the shore of the Little Bras d'Or lake.
Inverness-harbour improvements, $5,300.


Alexander William Chisholm: What is the intention of the minister with regard to this important work? Is it the intention to have an additional vote in the supplementaries?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, we intend to ask an additional vote.
Mdford-construction of wharf, $5,700. .


John Howard Sinclair: What is being done with regard to this? My recollection was that the contract was awarded last autumn but that afterwards the contractor was told not to proceed with the work. Does the minister intend to go on with the work? And what is the present state of progress with regard to it?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is some dispute as to the site. Tenders have been received in answer to public advertisement. This wharf will be convenient both for Melford and for the country north and south.


Alexander William Chisholm: Where is the wharf to be built?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understand the site is still under consideration and has not been absolutely decided.
Yarmouth harbour-improvements, $100,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would like to have this vote and the general vote for harbours and rivers stand, and I should be glad if the Minister of Public Works would not take them up until the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) and the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Law) are in the House. .


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would not like to keep the Yarmouth vote lack. Is not my hon. friend in favour of that improvement?


Mr MACLEAN (Halifax).: There will be no delay.
Some resolutions reported.
ADJOURNMENT-INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS, &c.
Mr. MONK moved the adjournment of the House.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would remind the Minister of Customs that I asked for two returns some days ago which have not yet been brought down. One has

reference to the dismissal of Eugene Baldwin, Customs officer at Coaticooke, and another to the change in the regulations concerning the duty on lobster twine.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I think I laid that return about the lobster twine on the table. The other return has been delayed pending the receipt of another copy of the newspaper.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have a dozen, I shall dispense with that.


John Dowsley Reid: Then I shall bring down the return on Monday.


John Stanfield: I moved for a return from the Railway Department two years ago and only one half of it has been brought down. I have mentioned the matter several times and I would like to have it completed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has any decision been arrived at by the Department of Marine and Fisheries as regards the retention of the Harbour Commissioners in Montreal?


Mr. HAZEN.: The hon. gentleman is out of order because there is a question dealing with that matter on the order paper to be answered in due course.


William Pugsley: I am desired by the member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) to call the attention of the government to the fact that Mr. W. H. Downey, the deputy returning officer. for the constituency of Kings-Albert I presume, because the letter is from Harvey Bank in Albert county, has not yet received the election expenses which are due him by the government. He says he filled in the blank form as required to be signed but when the remittance was made the returning officer said that a part of the amount was with held without information. The amount, although small, is of importance to him, and I wish the Secretary of State would look into the matter for my hon. friend.


Mr. ROCHE.: Those accounts are looked after by the Auditor General.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Would the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) inform the House when the rvrit for South Renfrew will issue?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to," and the. House adjourned! at 11.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 29, 1912.
Day Act. He said : The amendment is with respect to musicians who have been more than once prosecuted for having played on Sunday at funerals and public parades and so forth. They would like this disability to be removed. This Bill also provides to give a day's holiday to waiters amid waitresses working in restaurants and hotels.	*
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 86) to laimend the Railway Act. He said: This Bill simply provides to add to the powers of the Railway Commission by giving it jurisdiction over the length of sections and number of men required to do work on a section. The Railway Commission supposed it had such power and had dealt with matters oif that kind, but, on -appeal it was found that the Act does not give it such jurisdiction.
Motion 'agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 87) to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act of 1907. He -said: This Act at presents prohibits a strike or lockout pending negotiations where there is -a labour dispute. There is an additional subsection preventing any one from aiding or assisting an employer or employee during that period. The courts have construed that section to prohibit any aid or assistance being given to the men by any labour union during that time. They have held that where the strike condition exists, but the strike has not been declared 'and the conciliation board has not reported, it is unlawful for anybody to give assistance to the striker or .a m-an prepared to strike. That would prevent the ordinary benefits payable by labour unions from being distributed to the men during that time. I do not believe that the Act was ever intended' to bear that meaning. Such an interpretation would prevent any one from giving charity to a striking employee. The 'amendment -makes it permissible for the funds of a benefit society or a trade union to be paid to its members during that period without incurring liability and laying itself open to the penalities of -a criminal offence.