[Stage Direction]
Bill (No 141) to incorporate The International Fire Insurance Company-Mr. Lesperance.
Bill (No. 142) for the relief of Alvena Bell Leaitch.-Mr. Macdonald.

Hon.  J. D.@: HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), moved that the House go into committee to consider the following resolution;
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Canada Shipping Act by providing (a) that certificates shall not be required for masters and mates upon sailing ships of not more than one hundred tons, registered tonnage, propelled by auxiliary power other than steam, employed partly in fishing and partly in the carriage of freight; and (b) that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may fix the fee for replacing lost certificates.

He said; The principal necessity for this change in the shipping act arises out of the very great change which has taken place of late years with regard to the way in which the fishing industry is conducted. To-day nearly all the fishing vessels on the Atlantic coast and, to some extent, on the lakes and the Pacific coast as well, are propelled, not alone by sail, as was the case in days gone by, but by auxiliary power furnished by gasolene engines and nearly all of these vessels are being operated in violation of the present law because the law requires that vessels of over ten tons shall have properly certificated engineers. As the law stands it would be a very great hardship upon the fishermen, who find that the auxiliary power afforded to them by the gasolene engine, is of very great assistance enabling them to make their runs to and from the fishing grounds with a great deal more certainty and with a great deal, less labour than was the case when they depended upon sails and upon the wind alone. In addition to that there is no such number of certificated engineers, even if the fishermen were able to pay them for their services, to be obtained as would be necessary for the purpose of serving as engineers on board these boats. The proposed amendment to sec. 100 of the Canada Shipping Act consists of the addition of the following words to the law as it exists to-day:
Or to sailing ships of not more than one hundred tons, registered tonnage, propelled by auxiliary power, other than steam, employed partly in fishing and partly in the carriage of freight.	1
The reason for the amendment is that many of these auxiliary propelled ships are not employed solely in fishing. If they were, they would be exempt under the present law from having to have a certificated master in charge. They engage in fishing for three, six, or nine months only, and after that they carry cargo between the small ports in the maritime provinces.
Without the installation, of the gasolene engine, sailing boats are also exempt from the provisions requiring a certificated master to be in charge, if they are under 150 tons registered tonnage. (See section 5 of Chap. 65, Statutes 1903, raising such tonnage limit from 100 to 150 tons). But the usual custom to-day is to install a small gasolene engine in boats which are to all intents and purposes sailing boats so as to aid their movements in calm weather. As soon as a gasolene engine is put in they become steamships under the provisions of section 743 of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, which reads as follows:
743. Any previsions of this Aat applying to steamers or steamships shall apply to ships 164
propelled hy electricity or other mechanical power with such modifications as the Board of Trade may (prescribe for the purpose of adaptation.
The board of trade have advised the Department of Marine and Fisheries that it is their practice to classify gasolene propelled vessels as steamers, The reason why reference is made in this matter to the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act instead of to the Canada Shipping Act, is that the Canadian Act is silent in part 1, which relates to registration of shipping, as regards such ships. The department is advised that, in these circumstances, the provisions of the Imperial Act would govern. Unless, therefore, some provision is made to exempt these sailing Vessels with their small gasolene engines on board from the operation of Part II of the Canada Shipping Act, every one of them will require, under section 96 of the Canada Shipping Act to have a certified master in charge. There were 4,588 boats with gasolene engines engaged in the fisheries of Canada in 191011, (See answer in ' Hansard,' February 8, 1912, page 2722).
Unless some relief such as is proposed is given, these boats must either lay up when not employed in fishing, or if they engage in the cargo carrying business they must obtain a certified master. It is unnecessary to say that there is no such number of certified masters in the maritime provinces waiting employment. It is bad in principle to keep a provision in the law which it is out of the power of the people to comply with. The owners of these auxiliary sailing vessels could, of course, take out the gasolene engines and so bring themselves under the provisions of section 96 of the Canada Shipping Act which entitles sailing ships up to 150 tons registered tonnage to ply in Canadian waters or to 80 tons on a coasting voyage, (which voyage is defined in section 72 of the Act-and extends south as far as five degrees north latitude), without a certified master. But to remove these gasolene engines would be a retrograde movement, and the shipowners would naturally be opposed to any such step. '
The department has been asked to amend the law so as to meet the present day conditions. There is on file in the department a petition for such legislation. It is very numerously signed. It reads as follows:
To the Honourable the (Minister of Marine and Fisheries:
The petition of the undersigned owners of sailing vessels equipped with gasolene auxiliary power respectfully represents-
(1)	The tonnage of the vessels in which we are interested, and tile horse-power of the engines and speed developed by same is set opposite our respective names signed hereto.
(2)	Said vessels are equipped with auxiliary power for the following reasons: (a) To enable



those operating them to hare them under better control when entering harbours during light airs; (b) To expedite movements from dock to dock when in harbour, and save cost of towing; (c) To keep vessels in motion, and under steerage way in calm weather when on voyage from port to port, and thereby shorten the duration of voyage when fares carried consist of perishable commodities such as fresh fish; and (d) to supply in some measure a port to port service to aid in marketing commodities largely owned hy the operators of said vessels, rendered necessary owing to lack of other available means of transportation, thus enabling those engaged in the fresh fishing or carrying trade to market their fares in as prime condition as possible.
The regulations of the Department of Marine and Fisheries requiring the employment upon said auxiliary crafts of passed masters and engineers are burdensome and oppressive for the following reasons:-
(1) It would add seriously to the expense of operating, as they would have to be paid much higher wages than the ordinary men employed. (2) There are no such men available at present; and if there were any we would he unable to hire them, as we can make our vessels pay only by running them with ordinary men. (3) Men who have passed for steam engineers are not thereby qualified to run gasolene engines as they are so different. (4) Seventy-five per cent of the goods carried is owned by the parties operating said vessels, on which no insurance is carried, on either vessel or cargo. (5) The agents of insurance companies inform us that they will insure gasolene vessels for seven per cent, where without gasolene they charge thirteen per cent.
Therefore, your petitioners humbly pray that the Honourable Minister of Marine and Fisheries will favourably consider our request. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Those members of the House who last year were members of the Committee on Marine and Fisheries will recollect that when the Bill to amend the Canada Shipping Act was before that committee that this question of gasolene propelled sailing vessels came up for discussion. The members from the maritime provinces took very strong ground that something should be done at once to meet the requirements of the case. So firmly convinced was the committee of the justice of this claim that section 100 of the Act was recommended for amendment as follows:
100. The foregoing provisions as to masters and mates shall not apply to sailing ships of not more than one hundred tons gross tonnage having motive power of not more than eight nominal horse-power and employed solely in the carriage of freight; or ito any ship of less than fifty tons gross tonnage propelled by motive power and employed as a tug-boat or in the carriage of freight; or to pleasure yachts not carrying passengers or goods for hire; or to steamships carrying passengers not having a whole or fixed deck and of not more than twenty-nine feet in length at the light Mr. HA ZEN.
water line; or to ships employed solely in fishing; or to barges or other vessels having neither masts, sails or rigging and not being steamships.
Explanatory Note.-Sailing vessels with auxiliary engines and certain ships under 55 tons gross tonnage, are added to the list of exempted vessels.
Owing to the dissolution of parliament the Bill was never reported back to the House. It may be asked why not adhere to the amendment of last session? The reason is that many changes were to be made in the Act last session and this section was amended in line with others in other parts of the Act. As it is not now proposed to deal with the Act generally^ it is thought better to amend this section with the main view of affording relief during the present season to the class of shipowners referred to. Any elaborate amendment of the Act would make its consideration and enactment this session practically impossible. The proposed exemption appears to cover the case fully, and if after it has been in operation for a season or two it is found to be faulty in any respect the matter can be gone into again.
Clause 2 of the Bill is designed_ to remove what is felt to be a just grievance of the holders of certificates issued by the department. If a man loses his certificate he is cahed upon to pay one-half the fee that the original certificate cost. No matter how meritorious his claim to exemption from the payment of such fee may he, there is no power to grant it. Besides, the payment of six or seven dollars is often a serious tax on a master or mate who have, as a class, no reserve fund out of which to pay these extra expenses. The government does not want the money, and the certain knowledge that if a certificate is lost the owner of it will have to pay for a duplicate will not prevent its loss nor tend to make the holder more careful. Section 93 of the Act lays down the scale of fees as follows:-Master, competency, $15; mate, competency, seagoing, $8; mate, competency, inland, etc., $6; master, service, $8; mate, service, seagoing, $5; mate, service, inland, etc., $4.


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).: Will the first part of this Bill apply merely to the coasting trade or to foreign trade as well?


Mr. HAZEN.: It will apply to all vessels of less than 100 tons engaged partly in fishing and partly in other business. If the vessels are engaged partly in fishing and partly in the carriage of freight, it is immaterial whether they carry the freight in the coastwise trade or otherwise.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I think the Minister will have to designate in the Bill whether the sections apply to the coasting trade or the foreign trade.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall consider that point when the Bill is under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.
Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou).: Where has the petition which the Minister has read come from?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not the signatures here, but they come from different points in the maritime provinces. I shall be glad to let my hon. friend see them.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are there any provisions of the law which require certificated engineers for these motor boats, or is any amendment necessary to remove the difficulty?


John Douglas Hazen: They do not require certificated engineers when engaged in fishing. But the fishing does not last during the whole year. At other times these boats are engaged in carrying products from one port to another; and at such times, if they were required to have certificated engineers they would be laid up, and would be of no use to their owners as earners of money.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Will the Bill in any way affect fishermen using gasoline boats on the inland lakes?


John Douglas Hazen: The Bill, of course, is not restricted to any particular part of Canada. It will not in any way restrict the fishermen, but rather extend their rights to use these boats.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. HAZEN moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 143) to amend the Canada Shipping Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. KAY- I beg 'leave to draw the attention of the hon. Postmaster General to the fact that a return ordered by this House on the 26th of February, relating to the dismissal of the postmaster of Bedford, in the county of Missisquoi, has not yet been brought down.
Mr. PELLETIER.: I intent to spend most of my spare time on Saturday and up to tne hours of Sunday in trying to put in shape the various papers asked for. I have really been too much overworked to get them attended to. But I hope to be able to bring most of them down on Monday.



VACANCIES IN THE SENATE.

Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to the I 164i
fact that there are at present three senator-ships from the province of Nova Scotia vacant. One of them has 'been vacant since before the opening of this parliament, and one for some months and the third for some weeks. All indications point to parliament rising within a short time. Does the right hon. gentleman intend to fill these vacancies before parliament rises?


Mr. BORDEN.: There are not on'ly the three to which my hon. friend has directed attention, but there is one from the province of New Brunswick. We will give the best consideration possible to these matters at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. EMMERSON.: It has been announced apparently with authority that the vacancy in the Senate caused by the resignation of the present lieutenant governor of New Brunswick has been filled by the appointment of Mr. Daniel of St. John. Am I to understand that that was not a correct statement?


Robert Laird Borden: I have not observed any report such as my hon. friend has indicated. As a matter of fact, no appointment has yet been made.



THE OFFICE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL.

Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would also call the attention of my right hon. friend to the fact that one of the important public offices connected with the government of the country, that of Solicitor General, has been vacant since the resignation of the late government. Does my right bon. friend intend to appoint any one to that office, or how long does he intend to keep it vacant?


Robert Laird Borden: I will give careful consideration to any claims which my hon. friend desires to put forward to fill that position. I really do not know that I have any announcement to make with regard to it beyond that which I think has already been made on more than one occasion in this House.



CANADIAN NORTHERN ALBERTA RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on the following resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to provide that the aid and assistance which, under the Canadian Alberta Act, 1910, the Governor in Council was authorized to give to the Canadian Northern Alberta Railway Company in respect of the construction of the one hundred and fifty miles of railway therein described may, notwithstanding anything in the said Act, be applied to the first one hundred and fifty miles of the said company's railway at present constructed or located from St. Albert, in the province of Alberta, in a generally westerly direction toward the Yellow-bead Pass.-Mr. White (Leeds).
Mr. WHITE (Leeds).: 
Mr. GRAHAM.: This is a matter which was before the late government on several occasions, and the explanation given by the Minister of Finance is practically the explanation given to us. As I understand it the guarantee as proposed originally could not be accepted by the Edmonton and Yukon Pacific on account of the conditions existing. Consequently, in 1910, the company applied to the Railway Department asking to have a Bill passed not only to incorporate the Canadian Northern Alberta, but with that incorporation .to transfer from the Edmonton and Yukon Pacific the guarantee that had been given to that company. That guarantee must be all right, as I signed the document myself and noi person in this House took objection to it. I think the reason for the change was in connection with the amount of underlying security on one or other of the roads which was not compatible with the security going to the Edmonton and Yukon Pacific. That road was to start at or near Edmonton, and was to go to a point at Wolf Creek, and then down to the Brazeau coal mines, thirty-four miies. This Bill proposes that the road shall start from St, Albert, north of Edmonton, which is on the line of the Canadian Northern railway, and it runs through the same territory to Wolf Creek, /but it will! not interfere with the thirty-four miles branch line to the coal fields owing to the physical difficulties, but will continue along the main line towards the Yellowhead Pass. The meat of the objection, iff lobjectibn there shou-id be, in changing this, is that the line will parallel the Grand Trunk Pacific very closely for that distance. I istudied that question somewhat, and I know it is a difficult matter in the case of through lines to avoid paralleling, particularly when you are approaching the crossing of a river or a mountain pass where there is only one practical place to go through. In order to get the best results for a through line the companies have to be allowed to build as nearly to an air line as possible. If it were a local road for local purposes only, there would be strong objection to allowing the road to be removed from one point to another, thus getting away from serving one class of people perhaps to go to another point that would help the railway, but injure the people. In the present instance this is to become part of their through transcontinental line. For my part, I see no way to avoid what might be considered the difficulty of allowing the Canadian Northern to parallel approximately closely the Grand Trunk Pacific. The Canadian Northern people in discussing this matter with me on several occasions, rather chided the government . in this respect-and I give it to the House for what it is worth-that they always maintained that they were first on the
ground from (Edmonton to the Yellow-head Pass, and instead of them encroaching on the Grand Trunk Pacific, that it was the Grand Trunk Pacific that was encroaching on what they thought were their prior rights. Be that as it may, I cannot see any objection to the transfer of this guarantee, because if this government or the late government had been asked to guarantee the bonds of the Canadian Northern in the first place along this direct line, I think there would have been no objection. As I understand the situation they require legislation passed because under the guarantee of 1910, in which a special Act was passed also incorporating the Canadian Northern Alberta, bonds were practically sold or subscriptions received, and in order to protect those bondholders a trust deed had to be executed. Now, the route is to be changed, and although it might possibly have been all right if the transaction had been between private individuals to not introduce special legislation for the transferring of this road from one place to another, yet I think under the circumstances, not only to protect the bondholder-perhaps that is the smallest part of it because they would have been protected anyway-but in order that there may be no clashing of legislation, and that in the future there may be no opportunity at all for any person to raise the question that the Dominion of Canada was lax in protecting the capital that was sent into this country for the benefit of our railways. I am delighted to hear the Minister of Finance take the ground that the present government, and parliament I believe as well, will not be a party to any legislation, no matter what others may do, which will seem in any way to mar in any degree the securities held by capitalists on Dominion projects. We cannot afford to do that under any circumstances. I acquiesce cheerfully in this Bill, and I believe it is the only thing that can wisely and properly be done under the circumstances.	,
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
. fir- WHITE (Leeds) moved for leave to introduce Bi11n (No. 144) respecting aid towards the construction of the Canadian Northern Alberta railway.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the first time.
SUPPLY-POLLUTION OF THE RED RIVER.	-
Mr. WHITE (Leeds) moved that the House go into Committee of Sunoly.


Mr. G. H. BRADBURY. (Selkirk).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker I must crave the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I call the attention of

the 'government to a condition of things existing on the Red river north of the city of Winnipeg, that is fast becoming intolerable. Previous to some four years ago the river was open. At that time the government constructed what is known as the St. Andrew's dam across the. St. Andrew's rapids, and by so doing all current in that river was practically stopped and there has been created what might be called a large basin of dead water. That basin extends from the dam south to the city of Winnipeg some twelve miles. When the dam was built it raised the water some seventeen feet at the dam and about two feet at the city of Winnipeg. Previous to the construction of this dam the sewage from the great city of Winnipeg and the other cities south of the dam had been deposited in the river, but there was current enough to carry this sewage past the town of Selkirk towards the lake, and it was deposited in Lake Winnipeg. Although at that time we complained bitterly on account of the pollution of the Red river which made it impossible for the water to be used at Selkirk, or by any of the settlers along the river, we failed to obtain any redress from the city of Winnipeg, and up to the present time there has been no legislation (placed on the staAutejbook to make it impossible for this great city to pollute the river. And owing to the construction of this dam the conditions have become intolerable, and as I said a moment ago, property all along that river has been depreciated, and the health and the lives of tens of thousands of citizens of Manitoba are menaced by the conditions that exist in this basin of water. The construction of this dam stopped the current, as I stated a moment ago, and the city of Brandon, the city of Portage la Prairie, and all the municipalities down the As-siniboine river, and the great city of Winnipeg, with its 150,000 or nearly 200,000 people, with all its great stockyards, abattoirs and manufactories, have been pouring their sewage into this basin during the last four years, with the result that the Hives and health of the people are seriously menaced. I hold in my hand a letter from the secretary of the Board of Trade of the town of Selkirk, enclosing a small clipping which I desire to place on record. It is dated Selkirk, March 3:
Selkirk, Man., March 3.-Three cases of typhoid fever are reported at Lockport among the crew from the Dominion government publio works department engaged in blasting out a new ship channel at St. Andrew's locks. The men are working in bulkheads driven through the ice and their illness is said to he due to the bad condition of the river water under the ice. All winter difficulty has been experienced on account of t.he odours arising from the sewage-laden water.


George Henry Bradbury: The letter written to me indicates that the conditions are very bad at this place, and asks me to call the attention of parliament to it. I have a Bill on the order paper which I moved with the object of trying t-o get the sanction of this House, but I only succeeded in securing its first reading. The purpose of the Bill was to make it an offence to deposit sewage or poisonous waste in the river. There was another Bill which passed the Senate and came to this House, very similar to. my own, and owing to the emergency of the case I would have been very glad indeed to assist in passing that Bill into law. The town of Selkirk has from time to time petitioned the government asking that some legislation be passed. I hold in my hand several petitions that have been filed, asking that some action be taken to prevent the city of Winnipeg from using the Red river as an outlet for its sewage. I wish to place on record one of these resolutions. The memorandum reads:
The placing of the dam in the Red River at St. Andrew's causing the waters for a long distance above the dam to be raised has necessarily robbed the river of its current to such an extent that it does not carry away the dirt and waste being thrown into it. This waste falls to the bottom and remains.
The system of running the sewage into the river was objectionable before the construction of the locks, but under the present conditions it is a serious menace to the public health, and it becomes a vital necessity that a more sanitary method be found for the disposal of the Winnipeg sewage without any delay.
Then the Board of Trade passed the following resolution which was filed with the governmenlt:
Partial copy of resolution of the Board of Trade (passed at Selkirk, November 8, 1911:
Be it resolved that this board do emphatically and most strenuously protest against the disposal of the sewage of the great and growing city of Winnipeg without the interposal of a proper septic system for the purification of all sewage before it be discharged into the river.	.
That this board express it as their opinion that such procedure will cause 'the accumulation of practically all of the impurities of sewage for a greater portion of the year between the point of discharge and the St. Andrew's lock dam; and that the discharge of -all this sediment 'en masse' at certain seasons of the year will have the effect of largely increasing the menace to health that is presented by the sewage itself. That such action will be inimical to the lives of sixty million white fisli which are annually desoharged from the fish hatohery at Selkirk, and upon which the fishing industry of Lake Winnipeg and the perpetuity of the species in Lake Winnipeg is largely dependent.	_
That this board is deeply interested in the development, as an agricultural and residential

district, of .the lower Red River valley, and depreciates any action which will have the effect of arresting that development. . . That where the sewage of the city of Wininpeg, with the enormous increase to he expected from it, must depend upon so slow and shallow a discharging stream as is afforded by the Red River, the adoption of any permanent sewage disposal without purification would be suicidal in its tendencies, and work instant and incalculable harm upon this section of the province of Manitoba.
Now, there are several resolutions along the same line. The town of Selkirk, and the residents north of Winnipeg have been worked, up over this matter for some time, and something ought to be done by this parliament. We had an example in the city of Ottawa only one year ago, of the fatal effects on health arising from the pollution of a navigable stream, we had an epidemic raging through this city which filled all our hospitals., and an emergency hospital had to be equipped in order to take care of the sick. Hundreds of people weie ill in their own homes. We hadi over a thousand cases of typhoid fever in this city last year, and it cost the city the awful toll of 83 lives, owing to the crim-* inal neglect of the city o.f Ottawa to take proper care -of its sewage. I do. not think, this House and parliament can escape some of the responsibilities that Test upon us. This is the only body apparently that can intervene with the necessary legislation. While we have been sitting in this chamber during the last two or three months, working on financial and economic matters, and other public questions in which the people are interested, we have entirely neglected this extremely important matter which affects the.health and lives of the people of this, country. The prosperity of .this country dlepends largely on the health of its people, it is one of the greatest assets we have got, and still we allow this system of poisoning the source of our water supply to go on year after year, and apparently nothing is done to prevent it. I have just mentioned that the typhoid fever epidemic in this city resulted in 83 deaths. According to Dr. Wylie, one of the best authorities I believe on the American continent on sanitation, the average human life is worth $50,000 to the state. If that be the case, from an economic standpoint the city of Ottawa last year lost through that epidemic over $4,000,000. Less than $1,000,000, we are told, would provide a proper seiptic tank for the treatment of the sewage.
In the city of Winnipeg we have had the same experience. We have had epidemics there of the most serious nature and I have no hesitation in saying that, if some drastic measures are not taken to remove the source of danger, the great city oi Winnipeg will yet pay an awful price in the loss
of hundreds and perhaps thousands of the lives of its citizens for its neglect to provide modern methods for caring for its sewage. But, I am more interested in the residents of my own constituency. The property of these people is being depreciated in value, and the lives and health of hundreds o.f the residents along the river are endangered by the impure state of affairs existing on the river. I was told by a gentleman living on the banks of the Red river south of the dam that when the water was gradually let out last fall the deposit of sewage opposite his own door was over three feet deep, and the odour -arising from it was simply intolerable. The condition calls upon the government to take some drastic measure and I would ask the horn. Minister of .Public Works (lM-r. .Monk) now to see that there is a thorough investigation made of the conditions of the river especially where men .are working under his department. If we had that investigation made this coming spring perhaps we would be in a better position to deal with this matter effectively when the House meets again. I would urge the government in the meantime to take up one of the Bills that is on the order paper, make it -a law of this country, and thus prevent the pollution of our rivers. I have a record here that is appalling, showing exactly what has taken place from the pollution of rivers in Canada and giving the death rate. Thousands of our citizens have been stricken by typhoid fever all traceable to polluted waters and I think the time has come when this parliament should act in an effective manner in order to make it impossible for the great sources of our water supply to be polluted. The city of Winnipeg is surrounded by rivers. The Assiniboine comes from the west and discharges into the Red river. The Assiniboine carries along the sewage of Brandon, Portage la Prairie and all the adjoining municipalities and, since the water has been raised in the Red river, the Assiniboine, during the summer, is practically without any current, it is practically an open sewer and it is a menace not alone to the people of the city of Winnipeg but to the people living along that river. This great basin of water that has been created between Winnipeg and the dam is fast becoming in. the same condition. In my own town of Selkirk the residents dare not touch the water in the river. They cannot even give it to their stock with safety. The polluting of the water in the river has resulted in the pollution of Lake Winnipeg also. For ten or fifteen miles out from the mouth of the river a whitefish cannot live on account of the polluted condition of the water. I would ask the government to give this matter their earnest consideration and have

an immediate investigation made into the condition of the river north of Winnipeg, and take action at once to protect the health and lives of the people living north of Winnipeg on the Red river. We in Selkirk are determined to have this matter settled in the interest of the health of all concerned.


Robert Laird Borden: 

BETTER TERMS FOR PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND.

Mr.  J. HUGHES .@Kings, P.E.I.: Mr. Speaker, I wish to call your attention Mr. BRADBURY.	.
to a grievance that affects my constituency, and I do so with the hope that it may be remedied at an early date. By the passage of Bill (No. 115), under which largely increased subsidies will be paid to the province of Manitoba, the financial . conditions of the other provinces will be somewhat affected, those of Prince Edward Island with the others. But in so far as the financial conditions relate to_ all the provinces, I presume that an adjustment will take place at some time, and when that adjustment takes place, I presume that Prince Edward Island will receive the same consideration as may be given to the other provinces. By some of the provisions of this Bill an injustice is done to Prince Edward Island which I think should be


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman cannot refer to a previous debate in the House.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.)-removed without delay. When this Bill was in committee I called the attention of the government to this matter, and I really thought I was making some impression, but I am afraid I was too hopeful. On the third reading of the Bill, I again called the attention of the government to it, and I asked the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), for an answer as to whether or not the special case of Prince Edward Island would be considered and dealt with during this session. I was a little surprised to find that the Prime Minister gave me no answer. I do not think it is usual to do that. When a member of this House, in the discharge of his duty, puts to the Prime Minister of the country a proper and pertinent question on a public matter, I think an answer is usually given. I do not know whether the Prime Minister wished to be discourteous to me or not-I hope not. However, it would not prevent me from doing what I believe to be my duty, and I will therefore have to ask the question again. Possibly, I did not make my position clear when I was speaking in committee or when I was speaking to the House on the third reading of the Bill. In order that there may be no doubt about that, I will refer to the clause of the Bill which makes special .provision for a large subsidy to the province of Manitoba in lieu of her public lands.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member (Mr. Hughes) is clearly speaking in violation of the rules of the House now by referring to a previous debate, and cannot be permitted to continue, unless the House is willing to ignore the rules which govern its debates.


Mr. HUGHES (Prince Edward Island).: I am not referring to a former debate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My understanding of the rule is that the hon. imember cannot refer to a former debate or discuss a Bill which has already been disposed of by the House.


James Joseph Hughes: In order to make myself perfectly clear I wish to read the provisions of Bill (No.'115) concerning the boundaries of Manitoba, which give to Manitoba a large subsidy in lieu of her public lands, and I want to refer also to the clause in the statute of 1873, under which Prince Edward Island came into confederation, and which is very brief.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Of course it is quite permissible for the hon. member to read a clause from a statute, but he cannot discuss Bills which have already been dealt with during the present session.


James Joseph Hughes: Well, the House is quite familiar with the provisions of Bill (No. 115) respecting the Manitoba boundaries, and I need not refer to that. This statute of 1893 contains the terms under which Prince Edward Island came into confederation, and the clause which deals with the subject in hand is as follows:
That as the government of Prince Edward Island holds no lands from the Crown and consequently enjoys no revenue from that . Source for the construction and maintenance of local works, the Dominion government Shall pay by half-yearly installments in advance to the government of Prince Edward Island $45,000 per annum, less interest at five per cent per annum upon any sum not exceeding $800,000 which the Dominion government may advance to the Prince Edward Island government for the purchase of lands now held by large proprietors.
That $45,000 is something less than 50 cents per head of the population of Prince Edward Island, and under the Manitoba Boundary Bill, passed this session, Manitoba wi'il receive $1.25 per head of her population for precisely the same reasons as Prince Edward Island receives only 50 cents per head, and the amount of $1.25 to Manitoba will, be increased as the population of that province increases. Now, Sir, I think this is a special discrimination against Prince Edward Island. Of course I do not think it was intended that injustice should be done Prince Edward Is. land in this matter, but justice can now be done to my province by treating it in the same way as Manitoba is treated. Then, as it is the only other province in the Dominion that stands in the same position, I believe that something should be done this session to remedy the injustice, and I would ask the Prime Minister if he will take it up and see that it is dealt with during the present session.


Robert Laird Borden: I have already informed the right
hon. leader of the opposition that an announcement would be made early next week, probably on Monday or Tuesday, as to all the legislation that the government proposes to bring down during the present session. I do not feel myself called upon to make an announcement to my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) in advance of that statement which I have promised. I trust his feelings will not be at all wounded by my inability to take the course he suggests. No discourtesy is intended to him, but these matters have to be done in a certain way and after certain consideration. It is not possible always to answer in a definite way matters of the character which the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes) has directed attention to. I would like to say to him that the Premier of Prince Edward Island and his colleagues called our attention months ago, in a very effective, forcible, clear and lucid manner, not only to the matter to which the hon. gentleman has directed attention, but to other matters affecting the position of Prince Edward Island in its financial relations to the Dominion. The matter has had, upon these representations of the government of Prince Edward Island, very serious consideration by the present administration, but I am unable to make any announcement to my hon. friend to-day.


James Joseph Hughes: I am afraid there is a mistake of some kind because I find that when the Premier of Prince Edward Island and his colleagues returned to that province they gave to the newspapers a list of the subjects they had brought to the attention of this government, and this particular subject was not in4that list. The two subjects which they stated they brought to the attention of the government and forcibly pressed upon the government were, first, the payment to Prince Edward Island for the nonfulfilment of the terms of union in regard to winter communication from the year 1900 to the present time, and, second, for consideration in consequence of the extension of the boundaries of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member has already spoken.


James Joseph Hughes: If there is any mistake in the matter I wish to have it corrected now.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It appears to me the hon. gentleman is out of order.


James Joseph Hughes: Will you permit me to say there appears to be an error somewhere because I am sure that this being the strongest and the best*- claim Prince Edward Island has, that the Premier would not have missed

it in the list which he announced he had discussed with the Dominion authorities. I do not know where the mistake occurred, but there appears to be one because there is a marked discrepancy between the statement of the right hon. the Prime Minister and that of the Premier of Prince Edward Island.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no mistake at all.


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

[Stage Direction]
Royal Northwest Mounted Police-Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory, provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan-Pay of force, $310,000; subsistenc, forage, fuel and light, clothing, buildings, repairs and renewals, horses, dogs, arms and ammunition, medical stores, billeting, transport, water service, stationery and contingencies, $410,000; to compensate members of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police for injuries received while in the discharge of duty, $3,000; total, $753,000.
['There was a Bill brought in the other day by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) that was amended in committee. So the reference of the Standing Committee is not always taken by the House Committee. I do not suppose there would have been any trouble about this Bill had the hon. gentleman explained to us why he wanted to get it. I do not know myself why he should apply under section 44.\nThe hour for Private Bills having expired, House resumed in Committee of Supply.\t,']
Robert Laird Borden: The main estimates for this year aTe exactly the same as those for last year, but there was a supplementary estimate for that year. The estimates are for the pay and maintenance of seven hundred officers and men and five hundred men in Alberta and Saskatchewan at $900 each, amounting to $450,000 and 200 men in the Yukon and remote portions of the Northwest at $1,500 a year each, amounting to $300,000. The item of subsistence, $109,508, is based on 500 men in the headquarters district and subdistricts at thirty cents a day and on 200 men in the Yukon at seventy-five cents per day. *
The item of forage, $55,000, is based on 400 horses at 25 cents per day, 80 at 40 cents per day, and 30 at 60 cents per day, according to the districts where they are employed. I have particulars also with regard to fuel and light, which are not different from those in previous years. So far as the pay of the force is concerned, I have already laid on the table of the House, at the request of the right hon. leader of the opposition, the order in council, which was issued after conference with the Commissioner and1 the Acting Commissioner of the Northwest Mounted1 Police, and upon their recommendation that it was necessary to make this increase in the pay of the force in order to maintain the force at the desired standard. During the first six years the pay is to increase by an average of fifteen cents per day for [DOT]each constable. The amount of the increased pay is not included in this estimate. It will have to be provided for in the [DOT]supplementary estimates for next year.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.)


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I desire to ask the attention of the committee for a moment or two, in connection with a very sad and [distressing incident which occurred in the early part of the year 1911, and which resulted in the death of four persons belonging to the Northwest Mounted Police. Ih the month of December, 1910, Inspector Fitzgerald, of the Northwest Mounted Police, in company with three other constables whose names were respectively, Carter, Taylor and Kinney, left Fort McPherson to patrol the route to Dawson. These members of the force endured great hardships and sufferings from the outset of their journey, and in the end lost their lives. I desire to read1 to the committee a portion of the official report of Commissioner Perry on this sad incident:
Inspector Fitzgerald in bis diary gives some inkling as to what was affecting bis mind; it seems to have been the anxiety to perform the patrol and not return to Fort McPherson defeated. His expression, ' My last hope is gone and the onlv thing I can do is do return,' seems to indicate this. Had he been a less experienced traveller than he was, he would surely, have turned back sooner.
The cause of the disaster may be summed up as follows:	_ _
1.	The small quantity of provisions taken.
2.	Want of an efficient guide.
3.	Delay in searching for the lost trail.
The heroic efforts to return to Fort McPherson have not been exceeded in the annals of Arctic travel.
Corporal Dempster's reports show that the unfortunate men had wasted to shadows. All were strong, powerful young men, and in the best of health and conditioh when they left on their ill-fated journey. That they should have lost their lives is greatly to be deplored. It is the greatest tragedy which has occurred in this force during its existence of thirty-seven years.
Their loss has been felt most keenly by every member of the force, hut we cannot hut feel a thrill of pride at the endeavour they made to carry out their duty, and their gallant struggle for their lives.
I oannot express it better than in the following extract from a letter addressed to me by His Honour the Lieutenant Governor of 'Saskatchewan ;
While the event brings deepest sadness to all, we feel that it is only an event such as this which can give greatest lustre and endur- [DOT] ing remembrance to the splendid Force.
My purpose in mentioning this sad event to the committee is to suggest the desir-? ability of voting an annuity to the mother and sisters of the late Inspector Fitzgerald, who now live in Halifax, and who were dependent upon the deceased son and brother. The last thoughts of Inspector Fitzgerald were for his mother, as shown in the brief and pathetic will written just
bl77

previous to his d'eath, and which was disi-covered in his pockets. It was, I am informed, the intention of Inspector Fitzgerald to retire from the force during the present year, when he would have been,
I believe, entitled to a superannuation of $1,000 per year. In the Halifax Public Garden, one of the most beautiful spots in all America, the citizens of Halifax have erected what is called the ' Fitzgerald Bridge,' as a mark of the esteem and high regard of the people of that city for Inspector Fitzgerald. I venture to make this suggestion to the committee, because the Prime Minister, representing as he does with myself, Halifax county, and which was the home of Inspector Fitzgerald, while no doubt very sympathetic in the matter, might feel reluctant on that account to establish a precedent and meet the suggestion I make to the committee. I think however, that this is a case in which parliament would be justified in voting a specific sum or an annuity to be paid to the mother of Inspector Fitzgerald during her lifetime, and I feel sure that, if the government can see their way clear to do so, it will meet with the support and commendation of the House. What I say respecting Inspector Fitzgerald is, of course, intended to apply to his companions in death.


Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon).: I rise to express my sympathy with the hon. junior member for Halifax, who has just so well expressed his sentiments with regard to this tragedy of the north which resulted in the death of Inspector Fitzgerald and his party. It strikes me that it would be a moat fitting thing for this parliament to recognise the services rendered to Canada, and the empire by Inspector Fitzgerald, who laid down his life in those northern wilds in the discharge of what he considered to be his simple duty. The Northwest Mounted Police have done a great deal in conquering the wilds of the north and the west, and in giving to the people of those sections of our country peace, law and order. I have lived in the Yukon for some twelve years, and1 I can testify, as I do most enthusiastically, to the splendid work they have done, and are doing on our frontiers. Our boundary marches with that of the United States on the 141st meridian west from Mount St. Elias to the Arctic ocean, and the United States and Canada have settlements on either side of that boundary line, and also on the littoral of the Arctic ocean. It became necessary some years ago, in the opinion of those belonging to the Northwest Mounted Police, to establish a patrol annually from Dawson to Herschell Island.
This patrol leaves Dawson in December or January of each year usually. In the year in which Inspector Fitzgerald met his death that patrol left Herschell Island, or Fort McPherson, for Dawson. Inspector Fitzgerald was accompanied by three other men. It seems that on this particular patrol, the inspector neglected to take a proper guide. He had a guide with him whom he thought could guide him through that labyrinth of streams, mountains ana passes which exist on that trail, but his guide failed him. He continued his route thinking he could, with the knowledge he had of the trail, succeed in making Dawson, but we know now that he could not under the circumstances, have done so. His diary is a pathetic document in view of the events which finally cost him his life. Here is an entry dated 17th January:
Twenty-three below. Fine in a.m. with strong S.W. wind which turned 'to a gale in evening.
He goes on to explain what he did that day and continues:
I left at eight a.m. and followed a river running south, but could not see any cuttings on it.
That is he could see no marks.
Carter as completely lost and does not know one river from another. We have now only ten pounds of flour, and eight pounds of bacon and some dried fish. My last hope is gone, and the only thing I can do is to return, and kill some of the dogs to feed the others and ourselves, unless we can meet some Indians.
Unfortunately the party never met any Indians, and in eating the dogs they were taken down by a peculiar disease which sometimes comes to men who have to live on dog flesh as these poor fellows had to. Inspector Fitzgerald carried with him despatches from the police post on the Arctic Ocean, and customs revenues for our government. These were found intact in one of the last camps which he made. There is little more to add, Mr. Chairman, except, on my part to say, that I think it would be a most fitting thing for this parliament to recognize in some measure the services which inspector Fitzgerald performed. An hon. gentleman asks me what about the other three members of the party. They met their deaths a little earlier than Inspector Fitzgerald. The guide who went out to examine the trail, and if possible discover the bodies of the members of the patrol, found two of Inspector Fitzgerald's policemen dead and, cared for them as best could be done. Next they found another policeman, and finally Inspector Fitzgerald himself who was the last to die. I think that some fitting recognition should be made of the services of all four men, but

particularly of Inspector Fitzgerald himself who died in doing his duty.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: With regard to the estimates which are now asked for hy my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden) there are no comments to be made at all. The money will be cheerfully voted, it is well deserved by the force. I have read with some care the report of the Mounted Police which was brought down some time ago by the Prime Minister. In connection with that report two things struck me. One was the advisability of increasing the pay of the men.- The commissioner- of the force states how difficult it is to maintain the required quota of men on account of the inducements which are offered in the Northwest provinces to young men in good health and brains. It is natural to suppose that members of the Mounted Police,	whose	pay is rather scanty
may be induced to leave the force on account of the greater attractions other occupations offer, and of the even probability of their making a good deal more for themselves than they could if they were to remain in the force. I am very glad that the leader of the government, who has charge of the Mounted Police Department has already brought in a resolution to increase the pay of the Mounted Police which will give them more inducement to remain in the service, and when these resolutions are brought down the money called for will also be cheerfully voted. There is another thing which has struck me, as to the advisability, or otherwise, of extending the posts of the Mounted Police northward. Settlement is moving northward all the time. It has now reached the Athabasca river. It will reach by and by the Peace river district, and no doubt will extend, more or less, from that region up to the Arctic ocean. My hon. friend, I believe, will be compelled, as time goes on, to extend the police posts further north. Whether he can do that without increasing the force is a matter as to which I offer no opinion; but probably he will find it possible to decrease the number of posts in the well settled portions of the district of Athabasca and the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, and extend them farther northward. With regard to the tragedy which has just been referred to by my hon. friend from Halifax, and my hon. friend from the Yukon, for my part I will say, if my opinion counts for anything in the matter at all, that I will be very glad to see recognition given to the families of Inspector Fitzgerald and his companions. This is perhaps a little irregular, but the tragedy is one that is not likely to occur anywhere else. The patrolling done by the force in this northern region, from the Yukon to the mouth of the Mackenzie river Mr. THOMPSON (Yukon'
and to the Hudson's Bay Company posts, is a work which requires not only courage, ability and moral force, but all the qualities which may characterize the human mind and human intellect. In looking over the report of the tragedy as it occurred, it seems to me that Inspector Fitzgerald was imprudent in starting with so little provisions as he did, but this does not detract at all from his merit in responding to the call of duty. Inspector Fitzgerald and his party should have had another team of dogs, and carried more provisions, and had they done so they probably would have escaped the calamity which befell them. But this in no wise detracts from the heroism he displayed, and if the right hon. gentleman who is in charge of the force should ask for some testimonial to be given to his family, for my part I shall cheerfully support it.


William Thomas White: I would like to add a few words in [DOT]support _ of what has been already so well said by the junior member for Halifax with regard to the tragic death of Inspector Fitzgerald. It was my privilege to know Inspector Fitzgerald personally, being an old member of the Northwest Mounted Police-though before the time that Inspector Fitzgerald entered the force-and I have some knowledge of the duties which members of the Northwest Mounted Police are called upon to perforpi. There is an opinion in the western country, and particularly at the post at Fort Saskatchewan to which the late Inspector Fitzgerald belonged, that he was -called upon to perform an unnecessary duty. It is believed at least, that he was called upon, on account of his remarkable and distinguished record, to perform something that was altogether out of the ordinary, something beyond what is expected of the Northwest Mounted Police. It is believed in the district I have referred to by old associates and friends of Inspector Fitzgerald that it was perhaps to make a nice report that the police had such a complete system of patrol from the international boundary to the Arctic circle, that he was called upon to undertake that duty.
It is well known that they were not going out fox duty in the way of looking after criminals or to relieve settlers in distress because this is an uninhabited region, and I hope that the request of the hon. the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Maclean) will receive the consideration of the right hon. the Prime Minister. I do not know why it is but we have always found it very difficult to have anything done for the Northwest Mounted Police, one of the best military or semi-military organizations in the world. We read a great deal about the great things they have done, but members of that force who have been un-

fortunate enough to meet with accidents in the discharge of their duty have found since the organization of the police that they have received very little attention from the heads of the department in the east. The government has always been willing to recognize and reward members of other military corps for any service done. When the Royal Northwest Mounted Police were organized in 1874, they received 75c. a day, and at the end of their service they were given a free grant of land of 160 acres. In 1879, the Conservative party came into power, their pay was reduced to 50c. per day and their scrip was cut off, they lost the grant of land although at that time land was of no value whatever. During the rebellion of 1885 they were asked to do the hardest duties on the field, they did the scout duty, and as they had knowledge of the country the most dangerous work fell to them. But when it came to the rewards after the rebellion, although some corps that were under orders in the east received their scrip, the Northwest Mounted Police received no bounty at all. A great many companies that went to the west were sent to police posts and did garrison duty while the police went out to do the fighting; the eastern corps that did garrison duty at the posts received their scrip, while the police received no consideration at all.
I mention these facts simply to point out that for some reason or another the police have not been getting a square deal. They perform duties not performed by any other organization of the kind in the world. During the six years I served in the police force I was called on to act as sheriff for some months. I have acted as collector of customs, and the man who relieved me received $1,800 a year. There is a feeling among the mounted police that they are not receiving what they should receive, and I am glad to notice that a small increase of pay has been made, but, it is very small. There is an increase of only 15 cents a day, but that is not at all equal to the increase in wages in other walks- of life and in the cost of living. Wages of other men have nearly doubled since the police were first organized, and yet the police to-day receive only 75 cents a day for performing their difficult duties. A policeman when sent out on any particular duty has no option, he is not able to refuse the duty if he does not like it. I have known a man to receive a year in the cells for simply refusing to obey an order. When they are ordered to do any work they have to do it, and I think they are entitled to a greater increase than is proposed.
It would be a shame to see the mother of such a man as Inspector Fitzgerald have to suffer wait because her means of livelihood are taken away owing to the death of
her son. The government might well give her the pension that was earned by Inspector Fitzgerald for the 20 years he served, as a bounty as long as she may live, and, while I do not know the others, I think they also are entitled to some consideration. I hope the Prime Minister will look into this whole question, not only with reference to Inspector Fitzgerald, but to the police generally. It looks as if the deputy head of the department is anxious to demonstrate to the people of Canada how cheaply an organization of that kind can be kept up. The initial pay might well be increased to a dollar a day, and I do not think any one would think these men weTe even then being fairly paid.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate all that has teen said in commendation of the force, in which I have always taken a very great deal of interest. I can assure my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, and who, I understand, was a member of the force for some years, that so far as I am concerned the Northwest Mounted Police will always get fair-play and a square deal as far as I am able to give it to them. The statute fixes $1 as the maximum pay for constables. We are increasing the pay in the first year by the order in council lately passed to the extent of 25 per cent; it was 60 cents, it is now 75 cents per diem, end in the sixth year it reaches the maximum of $1. Formerly the constable did not reach the maximum until the ninth 3 ear . I am perfectly well aware that, compared with the rewards that come to men engaged in other vocations, this is not much, but still the pay now provided is iaiger than ever before, and I think it is practically the same as the pay in the permanent force	[DOT]
My right hon. friend has alluded to the probability that posts still further north will require to be established. I think that is very likeiy to be brought about. In the brief experience I have had, a great many applications have come to the department at Ottawa from time to time for the presence of a constable in new communities which are springing up so continuously and so rapidly in the great prairie provinces. We are endeavouring to supply these demands as rapidly as possible. I have heard it suggested in this House on more than one occasion that the force -might advantageously be reduced. Up to the present time I can see nothing that would lead me to such a conclusion. While I have not been able to give to that question the consideration which it would demand before taking action, the inclination in my mind at the present time, without speaking in a definite and conclusive way, would point to the opposite direction. I think, if any change is likely to be made in the constitution of the force.

it wouid be in the direction of increasing it rather than diminishing it.
Now, with respect to the very regrettable accident and loss of life which occurred two years ago on the Dawson and Mac-pherson patrol. This patrol, I understand was established about ten years ago, and the accident which took place a year ago was the first serious accident that has ever occurred in (connection with the patrol. This patrol has been made in the winter for several years past, with the object of keeping communication open with Fort Macpherson and the Mackenzie river, and carrying the mail between 'those places. Without it nothing could be heard from the Mackenzie river from the close of navigation of one season to the opening of the next-a matter of seven or eight months. The distance in direct line is 275 miles. Distance as travelled by patrol, 470 miles. The time usually taken is about 30 days each way. This year the patrol left Dawson on the 6th of January and returned on the 10th of March, making the round trip in 69 days.
Here are the details of the party who were frozen to death on this patrol in the winter of 1910-11:


Inspector F.   J.@: Fitzgerald; age 42 years; 22 years' service.


Constable R.: 0. Taylor; age, 28 years; 5 years' service.


Constable G.   F.@: 

[Stage Direction]
It may be said of Inspector Fitzgerald that whatever error of judgment there may have been in respect of guides and_ supply of provisions, he bore his part in that journey to the grave in a way that will inspire the respect and admiration of every man in Canada. I feel especially proud because he was born and brought up in the constituency which my hon. friend and myself have the honour to represent in this House. It is impossible for me at the moment to make any definite announcement with regard to the subject my hon. friend from Halifax has brought to my attention to-day, and of which he has spoken to me in private. But I may say to him and to my right hon.^ friend, that I feel very earnestly the desirability of making some recognition to the families of these men who lost their lives under the circumstances I have mentioned. It is a matter to which I hope to give attention before the end of the present session.
So far as the members of this force are concerned, my hon. frienu from Victoria will remember that there is a provision made by way of pension which inures to thesd men after a certain service in the force. However, I want him to understand that as to giving these men every consideration possible, having regard to the usual practice in such eases, 1 am disposed to agree very much with what he has suggested. Let me say to him, however, that so far as the permanent officials of the Department of the Northwest Mounted Police are concerned, I do not think there is any room for the criticism that they are not inspired by a very sincere sympathy with the force. The Controller . of the Northwest Mounted Police, Coionel White, is disposed, so far as I know his character and disposition- and I think I know him pretty well, to give every possible consideration, under the law by which he is guided to the officers and men of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. I know there is no man in Canada who has that force in higher regard than Colonel White, there is no man in Canada who is inspired by a more sincere sympathy with the officers and men of the force than the gentleman who is at the head of it at the present time. I think, therefore, there need be no idea in the mind of any hon. member of this House that, whether from the permanent head of the department or from myself, that force will not receive the utmost possible consideration and sympathy.
Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think that the numbers of the force ought to be reduced. There has been an impression in the east that, as the new provinces are getting more populated and civil government is becoming better organized, the force might be dispensed with in those provinces. Anybody who takes the trouble to read the report which has been placed on the table of the House will come to the conclusion that it would be a misfortune if the protection which is given to the settlers should be withdrawn. Any man who reads this report will realise the protection, security and encouragement which are given to the settlers when they see the uniforms of the mounted police around them. If the settler has trouble of any kind he goes to the mounted police, and he is sure to have redress. In a multitude of circumstances the presence of the police gives to him a security which he could not have in any other way. The patrolling of the different sections which has been carried on by the police for many years has given to the country a security that otherwise it could not have had. In regard to the patrolling of the north, to which some exception, I understand, has been taken by my hon. friend from Victoria, Alberta (Mr. White), I think that, on the contrary, it has been of eminent service to the country. This service was organized some ten years ago, when I had the honour to have the police under my charge, and the chief reason which led the government to take that course was the desirability of asserting the authority of Canada in these northern regions. At the present time the mouth of the Mackenzie river is used by American whalers as the base of their operations in summer time. They are in contact with the settler. They took pelts away without any regard to law and it was advisable that we should have a force there, not only for the purpose of asserting our own authority, but also for the protection of the natives against the too close proximity of the American whalers. The force has done eminently good service in that respect. We have asserted that authority in these districts and that alone would be sufficient to warrant these yearly expeditions which have'taken place from the Yukon to the mouth of the Mackenzie river. In summer it is quite easy to communicate from Athabasca Landing with the mouth of the Mackenzie river, but in the winter it could not be done in any other way than that in *which it has been done, and in this respect the service is performing an important duty.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria,Ont.) I desire to say a word in reference to one of the remarks made by the hon. member for Victoria, Alberta (Mr. White). The mounted police is not a military force, and at the
time of the (Northwest rebellion, and also previously, it had to perform the service of the regular troops. Immediately afterwards the volunteers received their land grants and recognition in the way of a medal. The mounted police never received any land grant, and yet all governments in Canada have refused to recognize them as a military body.


William Thomas White: Although they were not a militia corps they were attached to and under militia officers, and performed military service.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria, Ont.) Yes, that is the point I am making. Regular soldiers did the same thing. They were treated as regular soldiers and not as volunteers. The regular soldier got no land grant; all he got was a medal, and the mounted police were treated as regular soldiers. Supposing one of the officers of the mounted police happens to join the militia service of the country, all his service in the police counts for nothing, although in the past it was much more developing service than the militia' service as the mounted policeman in the old days, acted as sheriff, commissioner', inspector, and almost in every capacity from that of a judge down. This service is not counted at all in the militia service. I have always felt that the police have been rather hardly dealt with in hot having any credit given to them for their service in 1885.
Ocean and river service-maintenance and repairs to government steamer and ice-breakers, $1,500,000.


Mr. McKENZIE.: Would the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries inform me how many ice-breakers he has now on the Atlantic?


John Douglas Hazen: We have three ice-breakers. The * Montcalm ' and the ' Lady Grey' are used for the purpose of breaking ice on the St. Lawrence river and the ' Earl Grey ' is engaged with the ' Minto ' in keeping open communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are the boats engaged in the service between Pictou and Prince Edward Island?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is one of them exclusively an ice-breaker or does she carry passengers and freight and mail as well?


John Douglas Hazen: She does.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What would be the policy of the minister respecting repairs to government steamers? Will he ask for tenders or will such work be assigned to persons whom his department may select?


John Douglas Hazen: I am informed that in many eases the work of repairing steamers eannot satisfactorily be done by tender. We have now at Halifax quite an extensive plant in connection with the naval yard there and a very considerable number of the vessels are now, I understand, being repaired at Halifax by the department. There are cases where it would be in the public interest to ask for tenders; there are other cases where it is inadvisable to do so, and there are other cases where it is much more in the public interest that we should have the repairs done by our own department at Halifax. I will always consult the officials of the department, who are better informed on the subject than I, and I shalll endeavour in every case to do what is best in the public interest.


Mr. LAW.: Is it the policy of the present government to continue the system in force under the old government with regard to provisioning the government steamers?


John Douglas Hazen: I intend to continue the system now in force which is, that instead of the government purchasing the supplies itself, it makes a contract with the steward or some officer of the vessel under which he has a certain allowance for each officer and man to provide the meals on board the government steamers. I am told by the officers of the department that this has proven much more satisfactory than the system in vogue some years ago under which the department *employed a steward who purchased supplies for the department and fed the men. I am told that under the old system the meals were not as good and the cost much greater than under the present system. It is intended to continue the present system.


Bowman Brown Law: I am glad the minister has made that statement because I think the system in vogue for the last few years has been very satisfactory. Will the steward or the captain who has the contract to supply the meals to the officers and crew, be subject to the patronage committee, or will he have the privilege of buying his stores wherever he can buy them cheapest?


John Douglas Hazen: He is not subject in the slightest degree to any patronage committee. A contract is entered into with him and he is free to buy the supplies where he can do so to the best advantage.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Have any steps been taken to get over the difficulty which occurred in St. John, where different people supplied goods to the steward of one of these steamers and have not been paid? The steward left the country without paying these merchants, and it has been as-Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax).
serted by quite a number of them that they thought when they were furnishing _ these goods they were furnishing them to the government and not to the steward personally.


John Douglas Hazen: I am sorry I cannot tell my hon. friend that that matter is finally disposed of. Mr. Doutre has been instructed by me to make a very careful investigation into the facts, and I expect to have a report from him in a short time. A man named Cogswell contracted to supply meals on one of the steamers under contract, and he ran up bills in different parts of the country where the steamer called, to the extent of over three thousand dollars, which have not been paid. The claim is made that those who supplied the goods to Cogswell believed that he was an official of the department, and that when they were supplying the goods they were really supplying them to the government. Of course, even though we are not liable legally, we may be liable in equity. There are instances in which it is hard to believe that those who supplied Cogswell thought they were supplying the government, because they went on month after month rendering bills to Cogswell himself, and not to the department. They contended that as Cogswell went to their places of business in the uniform of the service, that they got the idea they were selling direct to the government. We have taken means in the future to guard agains the recurrence of such a thing. We are insisting that every steward with whom a contract is made in the future will have to give the bonds of a surety company for the faithful performance of his contract, and also to indemnify against loss those who furnish him with goods. The Department of Justice has not yet approved of the form of bond submitted.


William Pugsley: It would be a very natural thing for theft people to render bills to the steward, and that point ought not to be strongly insisted upon in their case. Prima facie it might he assumed that the suppliers thought they were dealing with the government through the stewards. Of course, it 'may be that some of them had knowledge, and I am very glad the minister is looking into the matter, and I am sure he will deal with it from an equitable standpoint. Of course, if they had a legal claim, I would not be making this appeal, because they could go to the Exchequer Court. [DOT]


John Douglas Hazen: I do not feel justified in asking parliament to vote money for this purpose in the absence of a report of one of the responsible officials of the department, and I expect to have that report soon. For instance, one of the hanks claims $800 on the ground that it discounted notes which Cogswell had given to some of these mer-

chants for supplies. It is rather difficult to believe that the bank and the merchants who took Cogswell's personal notes believed they were dealing with the government.


William Pugsley: Suppose Cogswell had said that parliament had not yet voted the money, as is often the case.


John Douglas Hazen: There might be something in that.


Bowman Brown Law: I am glad to hear the hon. minister is giving the matter consideration. I know that people in Yarmouth supposed at the time that the department would be liable for the Bill. Of course, there was no necessity for Mr. Sanders or any one else making a claim on the department until the steward defaulted. I hope the minister will see his way clear to pay the bill.


John Douglas Hazen: My disposition is to pay it if I can justly and fairly do so, guarding the future by requiring bonds to be given.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As a matter of fact, in the ordinary course of business, do any of the accounts for supplies that have been obtained by the stewards reach the department?


John Douglas Hazen: No. A contract is made with the steward, under which he supplies each officer and man on the ship at so* much a meal. The number of meals, I presume, is certified to by the purser, and the department pays the steward on that basis.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: As a matter of common knowledge, parties who would supply goods under the circumstances mentioned in this case would do so under the idea that the steward was only a medium between the government and them for the purpose of purchasing. The fact that the stewards made those contracts has not been specially understood by the general public unless it was drawn to their attention. I wish to refer to another matter, to which I called the attention of the minister in the early part of the session, namely, that a man had been employed as pilot on one of the winter boats plying between Pictou and Georgetown who held no certificate as pilot. The answer given to me by the minister was that he was only employed temporarily. I am informed that this man Boute is. a man who had no qualifications whatever. I do not think he was a certificated master. He had only been floating about on sailing vessels in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and he was appointed pilot on this government steamer. Of course, the law is very clear that to be employed on any other kind of steamer he would have to be a regularly licensed pilot.
I know that down to the early part of Feb-165
ruary this man, who had no right to be there at all, was still acting as pilot on this steamer. If the steamer had gone ashore or there had been any other difficulty, the minister would have been in an unfortunate position before the House.


John Douglas Hazen: I asked my deputy to look into the law on the subject after my hon. friend had called my attention to the matter, and I was informed by the deputy that there was no law whatever making it necessary that the pilot should have a. certificate or a license, but that all that was necessary was to appoint a man who was qualified for the position. This man, I may say, was recommended as being highly and thoroughly qualified for the position before he was appointed by the department. After the hon. gentleman called attention to the matter in the House, further inquiry was made, and the department was satisfied that the man was qualified to discharge the duties he was called upon to discharge. It may be that my hon. friend is right that there was an omission in the law, and that it might be desirable that a man should be required to have a certificate for the discharge of the ordinary duties of a pilot. But a man who has been in the habit of going to and fro between the same ports every day as an officer on a ship could perhaps be as safely trusted to guide the ship in case of a storm or fog as any pilot.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I think the Minister is stronger in the first part of his answer than in the last. If .he believes his conclusion, there is no need of anv vessel being piloted. The great difficulty of handling these steamers in wintertime is that they may run aground; and while a man may know the headlands and the lighthouses from going around in a schoon-in the summer-time, it cannot be argued that such a person would have the accurate knowledge that a pilot would have who was specially examined for the purpose and with long experience of taking vessels through harbour entrances. It may be that government steamers have hitherto been exempted from the provisions of the pilotage law, and I am aware that in summer time they do not employ pilots; but in the winter season, when they are navigating waters which are not free from danger, in regard to the depth, and where therp are three pilotage districts running upon one another, it seems to me that the Minister is running a great risk in taking the recommendation of his political friends in Prince Edward Island, who said, we will not give you a pilot, but we will give you one who suits us politically. In Captain Brown of the 'Minto' the Minister has an officer of long experience, who knows the conditions there; but instead of promoting



to the place of Captain Finlayson, as he should have done, the first mate, who had experience there for a great number of years, who knew the conditions that have obtained in later years, and who had the advantage of close; communication with Captain Finlayson, the Minister again listened to the voice of the tempters from Charlottetown, and sent to British Columbia for a man who had been employed on those steamers 15 or 16 years ago, but had nothing to do with winter navigation in the meantime, and practically tells the thoroughly competent and well-trained men on the vessel that he will not have them at all. There was a rule that obtained in the Marine and Fisheries Department, which I am sorry to see the Minister breaking, that was, "that in regard to all officials in this branch of the service, promotion should be based upon seniority.	_
A man who entered the service of the government in any one of these steamers in any responsible capacity connected with sailing the vessel, or in the engineering department, was promoted according to seniority. My hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) due, I take it, to the great pressure that was exerted upon him at the inception of his career in the department, broke through that rule. He accepted the re-Icommendatiion of the two members for Queens county, sent to British Columbia and brought down a man who had not been near the Gulf of St. Lawrence^ for the last 15 years. I hope the Minister will not violate the rule as to promotion by seniority again 'in regard to these matters. This year the department has been very fortunate, although my information is that a few weeks ago Captain Murchison, the man who was brought from British Columbia was on the point of leaving the vessel, she being in such great peril. The conditions were such that he made all preparations for leaving the ship, and had not the wind fortunately changed and the ice begun to move the other way, this vessel commanded by the man just mentioned would have been a complete loss. I refer to these matters because I want to urge upon the minister the continuance of the prudent policy that was adopted by the late administration of making promotion by seniority, and of voicing the complaint, which I think I have a right to make, as being in the public interest, that the minister did net retain Mr. McPherson. I do not know what answer the Minister would have been able to make to the 'country if this vessel had been lost in consequence of his disregarding a well understood rule, and appointing to the command a man who had been absent from the service for ten or fifteen years.


John Douglas Hazen: I may say to my hon. friend that from my observation, and from Mr. MACDONALD
what I can learn, if there ever was such a rule as he speaks of with regard to promotions, it was quite as much honoured in the breach as in the observance.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Oh no, not at all.


John Douglas Hazen: That is my information, and I think it is quite correct. With regard to Captain Murchison, I received the information that he was in every way qualified for the position to which he was appointed. He held the necessary certificates of qualification, he had had very large experience, and his whole record was that of a man who was thoroughly competent to discharge the duties of the position to which he was appointed. I do not think it was a matter of luck on my part, but because we had a very careful and competent navigator in the person of Captain Murchison, that the service has been as successful this year as it has been m the past. My information further is that Captain Murchison was previously in the service of the government, but that a number of years ago he felt that he was being very unfairly treated, and he was forced practically to resign his position. Restoring him to the service and giving him Command was, I think, a mere act of justice and the righting of an injustice which he had suffered in the past. That would not have been sufficient reason for making the appointment, had he not been well qualified for the position not only by possessing the necessary certificates, but by his standing as a navigator and as an experienced man.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.) Has the first officer on the ' Minto ' resigned his position?


John Douglas Hazen: What is his name?
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P. E. I.), McPherson, I think, and I am told that he resigned in consequence of being passed over. I would like also to know who has been appointed in his place.


John Douglas Hazen: I understand that Mr. McPherson, who is the man referred to by my hon. friend, practically resigned. He asked for a very long leave of absence, suggesting, I believe, that it was not his intention to return to the ship.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Because of another man being appointed ?


John Douglas Hazen: No, I am told he gave no reason. There is nothing on the files of the department to show that he received other than fair treatment.


James Joseph Hughes: I endorse to a large extent, the remarks made by the member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), that having in mind the success

of this service nothing will take the place of experience; and while Captain Murchison may be a very good man, yet it must be understood he has been out of the service for quite a number of years. Whether or not he has had as large experience as the man who was in charge of the vessel, is just a question. The principle of promoting men in the service-that service at all events-is certainly a sound one, and it should be kept in view in the appointment of the junior officers. In the event of the sickness of the captain or his absence through any cause, or his removal by death, the next officer ought to be qualified to take his place and thus the principle of promotion should go into effect. The officers, in order to get the best service from them, should be given to understand that promotion will come by seniority. Now, I understand that the steamer ' Minto ' was in a very precarious position at one time during the winter season although it may have been through no fault of the captain. I would ask the minister if the vessel at that time sustained any particular damage, and if it will be necessary to send her to Great Britain to receive the necessarv repairs?	J


John Douglas Hazen: The ' Minto ' has sustained no special damage at all.


Mr.  J. HUGHES .@Kings, P.E.I.: But some repairs will be necessary ?


John Douglas Hazen: I think every season repairs are necessary to every boat in the service.
,,Mr- HUGHES (Kings, P. E. I.). Will there be any more repairs required during the coming season than are ordinarily called for ?	J


John Douglas Hazen: No.


James Joseph Hughes: And the repairs can be made on this side of the Atlantic ?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was any change made in the departmental regulations last year respecting the uniform to be worn by seamen on the government steamers employed in the fisheries protection service ?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so. Certainly I never heard of it. No change has been made in that regard since I have been at the head of the department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There were no regulations to the effect that when on shore, or off duty, the men were prohibited from wearing the ship's uniform?
165J


John Douglas Hazen: Not in any of the ships that are under the control of the Marine Department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps I am mistaken.


John Douglas Hazen: In saying this I am speaking of the Marine and Fisheries Department, not of the Naval Service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has the minister been making any inquiries regarding the points between which the car ferry service is to run ?


John Douglas Hazen: I may say to my hon. friend, that matter is being dealt with by the Railway Department, not by the Marine Department. I can tell him, however, that full inquiry will be made as to what is the most desirable location for the car ferry before a decision is come to.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Perhaps the minister can tell me who the marine expert of the Railway Department is ?


John Douglas Hazen: I am afraid I shall have to refer the hon. gentleman to the Minister of Railways for an answer. I do not know of any marine expert in the Railway Department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It is rather anomalous that when this government is starting upon a proposition to run a car ferry across the straits of Northumberland involving such a large expenditure, they are doing so without having any information whatever as to the conditions, or any information from the proper source from which we should hpve it.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows that no one in the Railway Department has had anything to do with this question of a winter service. The question of obstruction to navigation here can only arise with reference to the winter months. One would suppose that the government before undertaking this expenditure would have taken steps to obtain all the information procurable and I am surprised that the officials of the Marine Department have not been called upon to deal with it.


John Douglas Hazen: It does not seem important which department deals with this question so long as it- is dealt with intelligently and _ thoroughly. As this car ferry will be simply a part of the government railway system, connecting the railway on the island with the Intercolonial railway on the main land, it is right that it should be managed by the Railway Department. While the inquiry is not being made by my department ali sources of information possessed by the Marine Department are being placed at the disposal of the Railway Department. A

former professor at Queen's University, Professor Kirkpatrick, has been appointed to gather all information with reference to the selection of a route for the proposed' car ferry. Professor Kirkpatrick is thoroughly qualified and has no local feeling. He is in touch now with the captains of the government boats running between Prince Edward Island and the mainland and other navigators with experience in those waters, and I am sure that he will submit to Council information upon which Council can come to a correct and sane conclusion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The gov-eminent decided to undertake this project without getting information even from the hon. gentleman's own department. I do not hesitate, with full responsibility, to make the prediction that the car ferry in winter time will be a lamentable failure and the government will have to take the full responsibility of it. They should have looked into the question before deciding to commit the country to this expenditure.


Mr. McLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.).: Does the hon. member object to the car ferry?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I say that the expenditure of the money of this country for the construction of a car ferry in winter is one of the grossest errors this country ever made, and I predict it will be a failure and that the government will repent it. My complaint is that the government put the cart before the horse, they decided to spend the money and then to find out whether it could be spent. I had the papers showing the information the government had before them when they reached their decision and if these papers are accurate the government went blindly into this project.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend is entirely in error. It is admitted that the car ferry would be of great value to Prince Edward Island. The information which the government is obtaining now is information to decide as to the proper route on which to establish a car ferry in order to make the connection between the railway and the island and the mainland.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the minister undertake the responsibility of stating as a minister that he or his government had anything before them that would show that they had the slightest ground for believing 'that the operation of a winter car ferry there would be a feasible proposition in January, February and March?


John Douglas Hazen: I am surprised to hear my hon. friend opposing this proposition.


John Douglas Hazen: 


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Time will Vindicate me.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend has before indulged in the pastime of putting on the veil of prophecy. That is not a safe occupation for a public man. No great public work has yet been undertaken in Canada without some member in this House prophesying that it would be an utter failure, yet all our public works have turned oiit to the benefit of the country. I do not want my hon. friend to be placed in that class of false political prophets by any rash utterances he may make on this question-. However, that has little to do with the estimates before the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It has something to do with them, we are voting money for winter communication. My hon. friend is quite welcome to the feeling that it is a very dangerous thing for an hon. member to make a prophecy in regard to a question of this kind. It is one proposition to make a prophecy as to whether a great public enterprise can be constructed -over land and what it will cost, and another as to a question of this kind. I have lived all my life alongside the Straits of Northumberland, and I have seen the conditions there for the last 45 years. It would have been prudent and wise for this government not to have put the cart before the horse, but to have made some inquiry as to the possibility of operating a car ferry in the Straits of Northumberland in the winter months before committing this country to that expenditure.


John Douglas Hazen: Does my hon. friend not think it would be an enormous advantage to the island to have a car ferry if only in the season of the year during which there is no danger of the interruption of communication so as to avoid the three breakings of bulk in the shipment of the products of the island?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is running away from the point, as he very well knows. The question as to whether a car ferry would be a good thing in summer is an entirely different thing from the question as to whether it could be operated in winter. 1 venture to say that, he cannot find among his friends who live along the shores of the Straits of Northumberland, not even in the province of Prince Edward Island, who will tell him that a car ferry is possible in those straits in the winter months. The correspondence shows that the Department of Railways had nothing whatever before them.


Angus Alexander McLean: Why is the hon. gentleman opposed to it?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My Lon. friend (Mr. McLean) knows that the reason why this proposal is being imposed upon the people of this country was in order to influence the elections in the province of Prince Edward Island. The correspondence shows that the Department of Railways had nothing whatever before them which would lead any one to believe that it was feasible. I say again that the government should be condemned, because they are committing the country to a great expense for what is supposed to be a substitute for this vote, this vote for maintaining winter communication with Prince Edward Island by the steamers 'Earl Grey'and the 'Minto' which have, within the last few years, performed that service as well as it could possibly be performed. The time lost and the inconvenience have been of the smallest possible char-'acter, having regard to the conditions that exist and will exist as long as nature creates them. I say we have here evidence that the government is proposing to make a substitution for this vote without having taken the opinion of any man, of any one in the Marine and Fisheries Department, or any one of those who have had to do with the navigation of these straits during the last twenty-five years. But after having decided to embark upon this enterprise, after they have initiated this thing, then they say, we will look around and see whether it is possible to do this business, and although it is assigned to the Minister of Railways to deal with the question the Minister of Railways has no marine experts in his department. Professor Kirkpatrick of Kingston may be a very good civil engineer, but civil engineers are not people you would think of consulting whether a car ferry can cross the straits of Northumberland in the winter months. I say that professor Kirkpatrick, who has lived in Kingston all his life, and who has not been accustomed to ice navigation, would not be a man who is equipped in the slightest degree with the knowledge to state as to whether any kind of a steamer could operate in the Straits of Northumberland during the winter months. I say before the government decided anything they should have sent for Captain Brown, for Captain Murchison, for Captain Finlayson, men who know the conditions, and if they, had sent for them and got their opinion before the government had started upon this enterprise, they would have told- him that such a thing as a car ferry carrying freight and passengers crossing that tide during the winter months is simply absurd and grotesque. I am astounded that the minister should have told us that the matter was in this position, that not a single one of his officials were ever asked
their opinion as to whether this thing is possible. They tell us that there is a ferry running on the straits of Mackinaw, which are not comparable at all to these straits, the conditions are entirely different. When the correspondence moved for by my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) the other day was brought down, it appeared that outside some representations made by my hon. friend from Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. McLean) to the Prime Minister, it was because some statement had been made at a meeting at the market hall before the election last year, that this whole problem of winter navigation could be solved by the operation of a car ferry in the winter months, that the government proceeded to commit the country to the expense and solution of the problem in that way without Shaving asked the opinion of a single man who knew anything about the subject whatever.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
House ini committee on Bill (No. 121), respecting the Rainy River Radial Railway Company-Mr. Beattie.
On section 1,
Mr. OLIVER.: Is the hon. member in charge of the Bill present?


The CHAIRMAN. (Mr. Goodeve).: No.


John Douglas Hazen: There are no amendments to this Bill.


Mr. BOYCE.: This is just granting the ordinary extension of time to construct.


Frank Oliver: It would1 be in order to have somebody acquainted with its contents to say what the purport of the Bill is.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 98)," respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company-Mr. McCraney.
Frank Oliver: Would the hon. member in charge of the Bill give a few words as to its purport?


An hon. MEMBER.: He is not here.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I will read the clauses if the hon. member (Mr. Oliver) desires.


Frank Oliver: I would1 like to know wliat the Bill is about. I think it is only fair and courteous to the House that when a Bill is presented for consideration there should be a statement as to the purport of the Bill.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: In the absence of the promoter of the Bill, who is one of the hon. gentleman's own supporters, I can give the hon. gentleman some information in regard to this Bill. The Bill provides for an extension of the time for the construction of certain lines. It went through the committee with certain amendments. This Bill occasioned some difficulty in the Railway Committee and necessitated further advertisement with regard to additional powers that were required. The additional advertisement passed the Standing Orders Committee and came back to the Railway Committee, and in order that all matters might receive special consideration it appeared1 to be necessary to relegate the Bill to a special committee for report. That special committee inserted paragraphs 8 (a), 8 (b), 8 (c), and 8 (d), after hearing the parties and giving due consideration to the situation. Many of the privileges that were asked were not allowed by the special committee, but the Bill comes to us after consideration by this special committee, and after the report of that special committee had been adopted by the Railway Committee.


Frank Oliver: I am aware that the hon. member (Mr. Boyce), is not responsible for the Bill, and it would be an occasion for the hon. Minister of Railways, or the chairman of the committee, to be present in order to attend to this feature of the case. If my hon. friend is acquainted with the purport of the Bill he might state shortly what the Bill proposes to do. He has given an account of the procedure whereby the Bill arrives at its present position, but he has not told us the purport of the Bill.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I quite agree with my hon. friend on my right (Mr. Oliver), that the good practice which has always prevailed in the House of the Minister of Railways being here when Bills of this character are before the House, should obtain. As regards the Bill there is nothing in it which is contentious. It gives power to the Canadian Pacific railway to construct -certain new lines in the west, all of which were supported bv the people in the districts interested, and it also contains a provision of a special character enabling the company to deal with some situation that has arisen in Montreal in connection with the extension which they are making in that city, and as to which this special committee was appointed. The Mr. GOODEVE.
clause which came from that committee is the one which was adopted by the full committee.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Adopted in part.
Air. A1ACDONALD. Yes. But the practice of the Minister of Railways and the Chairman of the Railway Committee being present when Bills of this kind are under consideration, is one that has always been followed in the past and should be followed now because the House is entitled to their presence in order that they may explain all these things.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I made the explanation that I have just given at the special request of the Chairman of the Railway Committee who is unable to be here to-night. I would again remind my hon. friend that it is one of -his own supporters who has charge of this Bill.


Air.   AIACDONALD@: I am entirely in favour of, and in sympathy with, the Bill, but- I do not blame my hon. friend on my right (Air. Oliver), who was not at the Railway Committee and who, I think, is not a member of the committee, for asking that the Minister of Railways should be here when railway legislation is up. He has always been here in previous parliaments and wihy he is not here now no one can tell.


Air. NESBITT.: The Bill was thoroughly considered before the Railway Committee and as the promoter wants it put through, I would like to see it passed. I do not think there is any reason why it should not pass.
The CHAIRA1AN (Mr. Goodeve). If it is satisfactory to the committee, I will read it clause by -clause.


Frank Oliver: It is not necessary at all, but wihat I say is that, to the members of this House wh-o are not members of the Railway Committee, or who were not present at the Railway Committee, it is the most ordinary courtesy that they should be informed as to the -purport of a Bill before they agree to it. That is all I am asking for with regard to the present Bill.


Air. STEVENS.: There are a number of members of the Railway Committee present who are prepared to discuss the matter when the Bill is read.


John Douglas Hazen: There is no objection to it.


Frank Oliver: None whatever if it will be stated by somebody what it is intended to -do. I think the House is entitled to that istatement.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: My hon. friend's contention seems to be a'reasonable one, and I shall endeavour in the shortest manner

possible, at the request of the Chairman of the Railway Committee, to give him the information. I may have given it very shortly and very inadequately, but I shall do the best I can, and if he wants a further explanation I will endeavour to give it.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend gave an explanation showing the steps whereby the Bill arrived at the present position, but he did not give the purport of the Bill. That is what I was asking for. However, my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has given a statement of the purport of the Bill.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I think my hon. friend will find if he reads ' Hansard ' to-niorrow that I did mention the general purport of the Bill.
On section 8,


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This Bill was referred to a subcommittee of the Railway Committee, and as this was a special clause for a special purpose concerning expropriations, the subcommittee sent word to all the proprietors of land interested and asked them to come before the committee and give evidence if they thought fit to do so. As they did not appear, the subcommittee reported that clause back to the committee.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CANADIAN NORTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 38), respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Staples.
On section 1,
Arthur Cyril Boyce: This is a Bill authorizing an extension of time for the construction of certain branch lines of the Canadian Northern railway in the west. The Bill was fully discussed before the committee, and the local governments affected were communicated with. A good deal of time was spent upon the Bill, and the amendments that have been inserted by the committee were inserted after consultation and agreement with the provincial governments. The Bill also provides in other respects for the construction of other lines of railway which are mentioned in it.
On section 4,


Frank Oliver: Do I understand that the lines which this parliament is granting authority for, are identical with the lines which the provincial legislature has authorized?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I understand that that wis the point on which all the discussion ensued in the Railway Committee; and in order to make it absolutely certain that
that rvas the case, the provincial authorities were communicated with, and the in-' sertion of these amendments is the result of that correspondence.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


REVILLON FRERES TRADING COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 114), to incorporate Reviilon Freres Trading Company.-Mr. Barker.
Mr. BARKER.: Reviilon Freres is a great French trading company, having very large interests in the wilds of northern Canada, where hunting has been carried on, for the purpose of fur trading. They have had a large establishment for years in Montreal, they nave another in Paris, France, and I believe they have a branch in the United States. They got a charter here some ten years ago through the office of the Secretary of State, and carried on business under the impression that they were a duly authorized corporation. Later they found it necessary to get an Act passed. But the banks through which they carried on their business in looking into the authority of the directors, discovered that in the original charter no provision had been made for first or subsequent directors, and that there was really no person to represent the company. Last session a Bill was introduced to incorporate Reviilon Feres, it went before the committee of the House, and was then referred to a special committee to look into all the facts. The Bill was reported to the House and passed by the House. It then went to the Senate; but unfortunately, owing to the sudden termination of the session, it did not pass. So once again this company found itself without any legal authority. They introduced their Bill again this session, this time in the Senate. It has now passed the Senate practically as it passed this House last year, with the exception of a word or two of a merely formal character. in section 5 and a new clause, section 11, which was introduced in the Senate committee t-o provide for the method by which this company shall have representation of the board in Paris as well as here. The section as introduced was accepted by the company, but the law clerks of the two Houses thought that the words now added to section 11 are more appropriate and more fitly express what was intended. With that exception, the Bill is as it was passed by this House last year. The story of the company is simply that years ago Reviilon Freres, large furriers in Paris, obtained large properties in our north in carrying on their fur business, and as the game disappears, they propose to colonize and sell their properties

to settlers. That is the whole object of the Bill. The company has four directors, of whom two live in Paris and two in Montreal, and the clause added by the Senate provides that the company may by by-law settle what are the particular functions of the section of the board in Paris and what are the particular functions of the section in Montreal, and where there should be representation of both sections.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How does it come that a trading company of this kind has a Dominion charter?


Samuel Barker: I understand that it occurred in this way. Revillon Freres were enterprising French furriers, and looking abroad, they concluded that the northern wilds of Canada would furnish them with a supply of furs, and they started a company. They are enow a very wealthy concern, owning large districts, and they desire that these shall be held in the name of a company properly organized.
On section 11,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I notice that this company have the power to make bylaws. Will those by-laws have the force of law, or have they to be sanctioned by the Governor in Council? My reason foT asking the question is, that I understand the practice to be that by-laws made by companies or corporations require the sanction of the Governor in Council. That is the practice of the provincial legislature.


John Douglas Hazen: It is not the practice in all the provincial legislatures.


Samuel Barker: The practice is not invariable. There are certain by-laws made expressly subject to the Governor in Council for a particular reason. I would not object in the least to putting such a provision in the Bill, but all this proposes to do is to divide the work of the board; that certain work must be done by the whole board, and certain other work may be divided between the Montreal section.and the Paris section. This is a trading corporation that has been in existence for 10 or 12 years, and it is not desirable to put in any restrictions that are not absolutely necessary.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not unusual to do this in the part of the country that I come from. In this case the ccmpany is a trading corporation, and any by-law they pass may be binding upon the people that deal with them and have the force of law. It is not right that the company, or their directors, should be able to make laws binding upon the world that deals with them on their own motion with-cut any restriction whatever.


Samuel Barker: 


Samuel Barker: These people have been trying for ten years to get incorporated and will agree to almost anything. At the same time, I may point out to the hon. gentleman, who is a lawyer himself and therefore knows the custom, that whenever a bank or business body wants to deal with this company they will inquire as to what their powers are under their by-laws. That is the ordinary routine in the case of all these legal questions. It is very undesirable, I should say, that a trading corporation like this should be hampered in any way.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If it is not customary, I do not- want to press any objection.


Samuel Barker: It is certainly not customary in Ontario, except where a by-law may be for the purpose of altering the capitalization of the company. There is nothing of that kind in this Bill at all.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CONTINENTAL CAN COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 119), respecting certain patents of the Continental Can Company.-Mr. Fripp.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: This Bill renews a patent, and therefore I would like to have it explained.


Mr FRIPP.: The object of the Bill is to remove the patent from the operation of section 38 of the Patent Act to section 44, a very simple matter. Under section 38 of the Act a patent that is not manufactured continuously expires. Section 44 gives the patentee the opportunity to appear before the commissioner and revive the patent, or have a chance to hold it at all events. There is nothing unusual about the purpose of the Bill.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is mistaken in the theory that this proposition is not an unusual one. It is a case in which a foreigner obtained a patent in this country and did not carry out the conditions of "the patent. He did not begin to manufacture in Canada within the time limit. After he has failed to comply with these conditions, which are only reasonable, I fail to see any reason why we in Canada should give any special treatment to an outside patentee who does not observe the provisions of the law. It is not the usual practice by legislation to permit the patentee to come in and claim rights and privileges under another section of the law. In previous parliaments Bills of this kind have always been viewed with the greatest possible suspicion, and some evidence had to be presented that there had at least been some effort on the part of the patentee to comply with the provisions of the law before he received consideration. There have been

cases where men had initiated arrangements that would ensure the manufacture of the article patented, hut difficulties have intervened. This fact parliament has taken into consideration, and some leniency has been shown to the patentees and their rights have been preserved, but it is not such a matter-of-course proposition as the hon. member for Ottawa suggests. I think the case he has made out 's no case at all. We ought to have more facts in regard to the Bill before we pass it.


Mr. FRIPP.: My hon. friend is mistaken. The facts weTe all laid before the committee, all possible objections were considered and the committee decided to report the Bill without amendment.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When the Bill was read a second time the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) and I both refused to be bound by the report of the committee.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: My instructions from the solicitor in charge of the Bill are that they have manufactured in Canada but have not manufactured continuously in Canada as the Act requires.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am opposed to the renewing of patents unless some very good reason is given. We should certainly have some better explanation than the hon. member (Mr. Fripp) has given.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: This is not a case of renewal. It seems that this patent was issued under section 26 of the Patent Act and the patentee desires to come under section 44 of the Patent Act where he thinks his patent should have come originally.


Frank Oliver: Then there must have been an error in the Patent Office and we should hear from the Minister of Agriculture. It is not desirable that a practice should be established that patentees who have forfeited their rights may come to this House for relief.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: The statute expressly provides by section 44 for such a case as this, where an article has not been continuously manufactured. Then the Commissioners shall have an opportunity to hear both the patentee and any person desiring to use the patent under license, and after hearing both sides, he may decide whether the patent is forfeited or is to continue.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But this man did not come within the time prescribed by the statute and now comes to parliament . for a restoration of his rights.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: No, I think not. But he does not want to have his patent declared null and void, he wants section 44 invoked in his favour.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not understand what is wanted, we have had no clear explanation of what has happened. If the patentee has complied with the law there is nothing necessary now. I know the department are not in favour of this tinkering with the law. It is the policy of the department to make them comply with the statutes unless there is. strong reason to the contrary.


Mr. BURRELL.: The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) thought they should have a statement from the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister of Agriculture, of course, does not profess to be an expert on patents. I frankly say that I do not know all the details of this Bill. But I point out to my hon. friends opposite that they are exercising, I think, a certain amount of virtuous indignation on patent Bills of this kind, and within my knowledge of this House it has been the practice to put through a larger number of these Bills when my hon. friends were in power than it is during the present session. I do not say that I am in favour of it, as hon. gentlemen opposite know perfectly well the stand of the department is generally against special Bills, and I think rightly. If there were too wide a gate left open it would mean that everybody would get careless about their patents, knowing they could come here and get a Bill shoved through without any bother. For that reason, I think the policy generally should be not to put through Bills of this kind without valid reason. I will say this, that it is a customary thing, after a reference of all these Bills to the Private Bills Committee, to have the Deputy Commissioner of Patents there, or one of the officials, who generally takes a stand against the Bill. It has also always been customary, when there are special reasons or special hardships involved in a particular case, to deal with it on its iherits, and it is usual, I think, to get the judgment of that committee to say whether these reasons are sufficiently strong, and if that is the case, to waive the general procedure of the committee. I am not aware of any cases, certainly not any that I can recall, of a Bill of that kind passing the Private Bills Committee being turned down by the House. Unless it is pointed out to me that this is a particularly weak case, I do not know that it should be turned down. I would point out, however, that in nearly all these cases reported from the committee to the whole House, the report is almost always formal, and I think I only recall one instance during my experience of four sessions when the report of the committee on a Bill has been rejected or turned down, and there has been a report throwing it back on the committee again. I think the leader of the opposition, when he was the leader of the government, enunciated as a 1 general principle that Bills which have

passed a committee of this House, without some extraordinary reason, should be allowed to pass the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: But the committee has been reduced in the meantime.


Martin Burrell: Still, it appears to work fairly satisfactorily. The attendance at all of these committees is sometimes slim. But I think he will acknowledge that if there are strong objections they -are generally put up in that committee before the Bill comes to the House. However, I have no strong feeling in the matter, and I am willing to let it stand if the committee desires it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I am sure we are obliged to the minister for his explanation that because certain patents were renewed under the old government, that is reason why this patent should be renewed.


Mr BURRELL.: 
Mr. AMES.: We have already passed three Bills of this kind during the present session.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There was a Bill brought in the other day by the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) that was amended in committee. So the reference of the Standing Committee is not always taken by the House Committee. I do not suppose there would have been any trouble about this Bill had the hon. gentleman explained to us why he wanted to get it. I do not know myself why he should apply under section 44.
The hour for Private Bills having expired, House resumed in Committee of Supply.	,




[Stage Direction]
Mr. MclLEAN (Queens, P.E.I.). Before recess the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) made the broad statement that a car-ferry across the Straits of Northumberland was not feasible in the winter time. I do not know where he gets his information. I suppose, if he has been observing the ice in Pictou harbour or along the southern coast of Nova Scotia, *he has come to the conclusion that a car-ferry would not be possible in that part 'of the Straits of Northumberland. But surely other people besides the hon. gentleman have been observing conditions there. For over thirty years the captains of the ice-boat at Cape Tormentine and Cape Travers, and the captains of the government ice-breaking steamers, have sent daily reports of the condition of the straits to Otfawa, and that information is to-day in the possession of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
If the hon. gentleman will take the trouble of going over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries he will find there a daily report of the conditions in the Straits of Northumberland from the year, I think, 1881, or previous to that. The conditions are not as he has stated1 them to this House. We have had, for many years, ice-breaking steamers. Those steamers have very fairly conducted the business between Prince Edward Island and Pictou, and between Charlottetown and Pictou. There have been this year very few stoppages. But, those steamers have not the power or the strength that we say they should have, and they do not constitute a fulfilment of the terms of confederation between Prince Edward' Island and the Dominion that we should have continuous steam communication between the railway on Prince Edward Island and the railway on the mainland. My right hon. friend the leader of the government (Mr. Borden), speaking in Charlottetown on the 8th of September last, made the statement that if he were returned to power he would fulfil to tlie letter the terms which were entered into between the Dominion and the province in 1873. I will read for the information of the committee the language which was used by the right hon. gentleman on that occasion:
And now, Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I come to a question of vital importance to your prosperity. I refer to the transportation question. You can never fully enjoy the benefits of the market of Canada and the outside world under your present dislocated traffics arrangement. I believe the conditions at the present existing are not such as you anticipated when you gave up your status as an independent colony and became part of the Dominion. A solemn compact was then entered into, binding as well on the government of Canada as on you as a province, and the hardship is manifest that whilst the Dominion have exacted a strict performance on your part they have not in my judgment used reasonable diligence to obviate your insular disadvantages in this regard. I believed that instead of this subject being controlled by different departments it should be under the supervision of one department only, and your steam communication with the mainland should be arranged in conjunction with the island railway and the Intercolonial railway thus doing away with the exasperation of the three short hauls.
Martin Burrell: Now, the only way that this can be effected is by having a car-ferry or by the construction of a tunnel. We found when we came up here and were in conference with eminent engineers that it would take something like twelve years to construct the tunjiel. We thought that was too long to wait, a third of a lifetime, and we asked the government to give, in fulfilment of this promise made by the right hon. Prime Minister, a car-ferry. The government immediately acceded to our request. I was in this House between 1904 and1 1908, .and on many occasions during that time I and my colleague (Mr. Martin), brought this question before the consideration of the House. The right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), had made a promise to the people of Prince Edward Island in 1891, that if he should be elected at the election which was then ensuing he would see that our transportation problem would1 be solved. Although he sat in this House from 1891 and was leader of the government for fifteen years, .he never raised his voice to say anything for the people of Prince Edward Island, But, when my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Mr. Borden), came into power, although he had made this promise exactly in the same words, that the right hon. leader of the opposition had made it, he immediately fulfilled his promise, and the people of Prince Edward Island are getting the justice now that they ought to have got thirty years ago. It is only fair that this government should fulfil the promise made by the Prime Minister to the people of Prince Edward Island especially when they' know now that it is a feasible matter provided1 the government give us a car-ferry of sufficient power. If we have a boat of 10,000 horse-power strongly enough constructed to force its way through the ice, our transportation problem will be solved whether the boat is run to Pictou or not. The question has been raised as to where this ferry will be run to. I .have no doubt that my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) would like to see it run to Pictou, because I suppose. if it does not run there Pictou will be a dead issue in so far as anything material coming out of the traffic 'between that point and Prince Edward Island is concerned. To-day the business in Pictou practically all comes from Prince Edward Island, and if this car ferry is put in operation within the next two years possibly it may run between Charlottetown and Tatamagouche or between Cape Traverse and Cape Tormentine, and that is why the hon. member for Pictou denounces the government for giving the people of Prince Edward Island the justice they should have had years and years ago.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not propose to continue this discussion very much longer at this stage because, while this matter is perfectly in order in regard to this item, it being to provide for the boat which is being constructed in connection with winter navigation, I shall discuss it at greater length when the estimates of the Minister of Railways come before the House. My only reason for introducing this matter at this stage was to ascertain from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries whether any of his officials, or anybody connected with his department, had ever made any report to the government previously to the government deciding upon a policy in this regard so as to find out whether or not the government had any information before them when they decided upon their policy. I have learned to-night that, in so far as the people who ought to know anything about this matter are concerned, the government had no report from them and, against the enthusiasm of the hon. member for Queens, P.E.I. (Mr. McLean) and those who say that my opinion about this matter is not worth anything, I might tell them that I have before me all the papers connected with it which have been brought down, and I may say that I cannot find from any engineer, or any public official, responsible or otherwise, in any department of the government, any report that would justify the theory that a car-ferry can be operated in the Straits of Northumberland in the winter-time. Indeed, in the discussion that went on before six o'clock, I felt that perhaps I was unfair to the minister in discussing the question at this stage, and I went and looked through all the papers cai'efully to see whether it was really proposed that the car-ferry should be operated in the winter-time. If the proposition involved simplv the operating of a car-ferry during certain months of the summer that was one thing, but if the government, in asking this vote for winter steamers, intended to substitute other means of communication during a part of the year, that was another matter. I took the responsibility of saying before dinner that the -proposition to operate a car ferry during the winter-time would result in absolute failure. I am supported in that view by the only official of any department of the government that ever looked at the question and took the responsibility of making any report upon it. I have in my hand this letter from the former Deputy Minister of Railways. Mr. M. J. Butler, who writes on the subject as follows r-
Your letter of the 16th instant addressed to the hon. the minister, re proposition to put on a modern and powerful icebreaker and car carrying system steamer, across the strait of

Northumberland, has been referred by him to me for reply.
I am of the opinion that no such steamer ran be designed, at any reasonable cost, to do the service during the winter months, nor do I think it possible to make such a project pay its way.
That is the only opinion of any official in regard to this matter that is before the government, and when the Prime Minister wired my ho.n. friend ('Mr. McLean, Queens, P.E.i.) on the eve of a provincial election, that they proposed to inaugurate this car-ferry scheme, the Prime Minister wired without any report from anybody who knew anything on the subject which enabled him to justify any such policy. We have here a report from Mr. Bowden, chief engineer, who tells us that he had not time to look into the matter. When we look into the statements of my hon. friend we find that his estimates are based upon the assumption that one ferry steamer will be sufficient for the purpose. The hon. gentleman has given up the tunnel, he has given up the winter steamer proposed to be built in addition to the ' Earl Grey ' and * Minto,' which would give the people of Prince Edward a complete winter iseTvice, and he is willing to have one ferry steamer as an experiment.-and which he will be bound to admit is an experiment of the first order-when he has not a single person on record in this government or in the 'departments of the government to say whether this scheme will be in any degree adequate. I should apologize to the Minister for going into this discussion on his estimates when this question is perhaps more germane to the Railway Department which is supposed to deal with it.
Will the minister be good enough to get one a statement of the number of passengers carried by the winter boats during the season of 1910-11 ?


John Douglas Hazen: Does the hon. member mean the boats that run to Pictou, or does he include the passengers on the iceboats?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would like to have the total number of passengers that crossed at both places; the quantity of freight that was carried in the winter months and the cost per ton for carrying that freight. Will the minister he also good enough to get me the same information for the months of January and February of this year?


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be glad to get the information for my hon. friend. Meantime I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the following which is. to be found on page 19 of the last report of the Marine Department:


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Earl Grey made 44 round trips, carried 118,532 packages of freight, weighing 5,791 tons.
Her earnings were:-
Receipts from freight	$ 8,497 38
"	passengers	
3,571	<5"	berths, 977	
977	00"	meals, 1,404	
140	40Total earnings	
$13,186 53
The Minto made three round trips, carried 77,196 packages of freight weighing 1,994 tons.
Her earnings were:-
Receipts from freight	$ 2,575 8j
"	passengers	
1,809 25"	meals, 714	
71	40"	berths	
[DOT][DOT]	423 00
Total earnings....$ 4,879 47


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would like to know the cost per ton of loading and unloading that freight at Georgetown and. Pictou last year and this year?


John Douglas Hazen: I will get that informa tion. I do not feel that my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) has anything to apologize for in bringing this matter up, because it is an important question, and it has to be discussed some time during the session. But, I fear my hon. friend forgets that the people of Prince Edward. Island not only want to get better communications during the winter, but they also have the very vital grievance that in shipping their products from the island at all times of year there are practically three different hauls: the haul over the island railway to the steamer, the steamer carriage to Pictou or Cape Tormentine or Shediac as the case may he, the haul on the Intercolonial railway through to destination and the loading and unloading at each transfer. That is a substantial grievance which the people of the island want to have remedied. It would be of enormous advantage to them if a train ferry were established so that they could put. their freight and products on the car on the island and not have to break bulk until that car reaches its -destination in Canada or in the United States. Such a system would of course enable them to have cars equipped with cold storage compartments so that their perishable products would be carried in good condition direct to the consuming markets. That is one great advantage which will be- accomplished by the car-ferry. My hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) says that the government acted in this matter without information, but I do not think it is open to the hon. member to say that. It is true the papers before the House are rather meagre in the information they contain, but there are reports in the Department of Marine and Fisheries showing day by day the condition for the last 30 years so far as navigation between Prince

Edward Island and the mainland is concerned. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald) may fairly give the government credit for having some knowledge of these reports and he might also bear in mind that there are men around the Council Board who live close to the island and who have been for years interested in this very important question. Ice-breakers are not a new thing; every year there is more work done by them; they are making progress on the St. Lawrence river, where navigation is open ' earlier now than in the past owing to their operations between Montreal and Quebec. My hon. friend may be easily within the range of probability when he says that if an ice-breaker is constructed1 as a steam ferry, with proper power and proper weight, then during the greater part of the winter season that ferry can give continuous communication between the island and the mainland.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What would you do when she cannot cross?


John Douglas Hazen: There may be times when she cannot cross, but of 'late years there are fewer occasions when the steamers cannot ply between the island and the mainland than there were formerly.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Quite so.


John Douglas Hazen: The great trouble is that in having to break bulk three times the Prince Edward Island farmer shipping his products to the consuming markets is put at a great disadvantage compared with the farmer on the mainland, and that disadvantage not only extends to the time consumed in transit but to the cost of carrying the freight as well. The three different services now required to ship products from the island to the markets on the mainland mean of course higher freight rates than if there was a continuous haul as there will be when the car-ferry is established. I will have the information, perhaps on Monday, which my hon. friend has asked for.


James Joseph Hughes: In 'the event of a car-ferry being established, is it the intention of the government to charge the same rates to and from Prince Edward Island as are charged now for similar distances on the mainland? I would, gather so from the statement of the minister.


John Douglas Hazen: The matter has not been discussed. I am not familiar with the details but it seems to me that if a car-ferry is established the result must be to lessen all the freight rates.


James Joseph Hughes: I presume that the reports which
the department has with regard to the conditions of the ice in the Straits of Northumberland year after year have been prepared for the purpose of showing the practicability of a car-ferry, or are they just the ordinary reports on the ice conditions?


John Douglas Hazen: The reports were made, I suppose, before a car-ferry had been thought of; but they are reports for the purpose of giving the actual conditions of the water and the ice in the Straits from day to day; and with these reports one could form a fair idea of whether the conditions would be suitable for the operations of a car-ferry ot not.


James Joseph Hughes: Would these reports not have to be compared with the reports on other places where car-ferries are operated?


John Douglas Hazen: I have no doubt that is what the engineer would do.


James Joseph Hughes: Can the minister tell me where the ' Minto ' was, say between the 20th and the 30th of September last?


John Douglas Hazen: I have no doubt that could be told at once by reference to the files of the department. The deputy minister thinks it was at Halifax.


James Joseph Hughes: My information is that she was in Hudson bay. The reason I ask is that I am informed that two of the men who were on board the steamer while she was there were removed from the service before the winter service commenced. I am informed1 that these men went on board the ' Minto ' in the summer season when, it is difficult to get men. One was the chief steward, named Noah Garnum, and the other the boatswain, Benjamin Graham.


John Douglas Hazen: The deputy minister informs me that the crew were engaged for the voyage to Hudson bay and back, and that after the voyage for which they were engaged ended, they were paid off. It was in October that they came back.


James Joseph Hughes: Some years ago it was the rule that the men who went into the service at a season of the year when it was hard to get men, got the preference when the season arrived when it was easy to get men, and I think that would be fair, if their qualifications were satisfactory. These men could not by any possibility be charged with having taken any part in the elections, because at the time of the elections they were in Hudson bay. Therefore, it would seem to me to be a Hardship to dis-

pense with their services, or at least not to re-engage them.


John Douglas Hazen: Do they want to be reengaged?


James Joseph Hughes: That is my information. _ Men who are willing to go into the service in the summer season, when work is plentiful, are anxious to remain in the winter service, wrhen work is hard to obtain. The minister will agree with me that it was a real hardship to these men to be used in that way. 1 d'o not happen to be personally acquainted with them, and consequently I imagine that they were not very active in politics. They were appointed just because they were good men and because others could not be obtained at the time.


John Douglas Hazen: I have personally no knowledge of the facts to which my hon. friend refers, but I am informed by the officials of my department that that there never has been the slightest difficulty in getting men either in the summer or the winter for service on these boats, and there has never been an understanding such as my hon. friend has .described. The men were employed for a certain voyage to Hudson bay. When the contract was fulfilled and they returned home, they were paid off. There was no obligation on the department to hire the same men again. Whether the two men wanted to be engaged again or not I have no knowledge; but in any case there was no breach of contract or any fair ground of complaint even if they were not hired the second time.


James Joseph Hughes: The officials of the department are not correct when they say that in no case has there been difficulty to get men in the summer season. To my personal knowledge there has been difficulty.


John Douglas Hazen: The Deputy Minister says that in his experience there has not been any difficulty, and I must naturally accept the statement of the official of the department.


James Joseph Hughes: That may be, but the information is not correct. It has been difficult in past years to get men in the summer season, and it has been the practice to give the men who have been on the boats in the summer season the preference in the winter. I have personal knowledge of that. The practice followed in engaging men for the winter season has been for the members supporting the administration to meet the captains of the boats and the agent of the department in the agent's office at Charlottetown.
Mr HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.)


John Douglas Hazen: That has been the practice, has it?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, and it is not a bad practice, and it would have been far better if that practice had been followed last winter. I do not- think that the captains were consulted in the matter, and I have an idea that the agent was -not very much consulted, either. But I say unhesitatingly that formerly the men who went into the service in the summer season, when it was difficult to get men, received the preference if they wished to remain in the service, and further, those men who were considered efficient and valuable by the captains were allowed to remain if they wished to do so. The practice was to consult the captains and the agent, but particularly the former, and it was not a bad practice, by any means. I do not think a good practice was followed when the winter crew3 were hired last fall.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the department propose to proceed wi.ffi the construction of a lightship to be placed eff the mouth of Halifax harbour as had been decided upon, I think, by his predecessor in office?


John Douglas Hazen: That has been recommended by the Lighthouse Board. Last yeaT the lightship was brought from Anticosti and was anchored off Halifax harbour, and I believe there the results were good. But the opinion of the Lighthouse Board, which as my hon. friend knows is an advisory board concerning lighthhouses and aids to navigation, is, that it is running too much risk probably to depend upon the one lightship for both places, that if any disaster occurred to the lightship when it was at Halifax it would not be available for service at Anticosti the following year, and immediate steps will be taken for the construction of a lightship to be stationed off Halifax harbour.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And tenders will be asked for, I suppose?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, there will be public competition.
Mr. McKENZIE The speech of the hon. member for Queens, P.EJ., renders it necessary to make a few observations in reply. I am sorry that the hon. gentleman, who is usually good-natuied and affable, thought it necessary to drag in party politics in connection with the matter of an improved service between Prince Edward Island and tire mainland.


John Douglas Hazen: Surely, I did not indulge in party politics.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I referred to the hon. member for Queens, P.E.I., not to the minister. The minister is breaking away from

his usual custom, he is free from party politics to-night, and 1 congratulate him upon it. It" was not, I think, in the very best taste for the hon. member (Mr. McLean, Queen's, P.E.I.) to associate with this question the strongest terms that could be employed in connection with party politics. I think he can rest satisfied that from Seatarie to Amherst, in fact throughout the whole province of Nova Scotia, he will find the greatest possible sympathy for Prince Edward Island, and the greatest possible desire to give that province the very best accommodation that is available. But the bon. gentleman has made the statement that the leader of the opposition, although he had been 15 years in power, had never raised his little finger to improve the conditions in regard to the ferry service or the connection between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.
That leads me from a party standpoint to ask the minister to give a statement of the improvements that were made in the transportation service between Pictou and Charlottetown, and generally between the mainland and the Island, by the construction of boats, etc., during the regime of the late administration. It may be a little cumbersome and involve the giving of figures that -would not be necessary, but the statement of he hon. member for Queens is of such a sweeping character and. such an indictment against the late government, that it is only fair to the Liberal party that we should have some knowledge of what was done by the late government to improve the communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland by means of new and powerful steamers.


Angus Alexander McLean: The statement which I made was that under the terms of confederation it was agreed that our system should be connected with the railway system of the main line, and that although Sir Wilfrid Laurier had promised the people of Prince Edward Island in 1891 that if he were returned to power he would fulfil the terms of confederation in that regard, he never raised his finger to remedy the conditions although he was in office for fifteen years subsequently.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is exactly what I said.


Angus Alexander McLean: I was not talking about the steamers at all, I was talking, about a car-ferry by means of which the two railway systems could be connected. Of course we have had steamers on that route. We have got powerful steamers there now, but as they are not powerful enough to perform the work properly, the government are giving us one that will be powerful enough, and thus fulfil in my judgment the terms of the compact between us and the Dominion.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman and myself are not strangers to each other in this parliament. I remember well the first speech my hon. friend made in this *parliament in 1904, and it was on the subject of the tunnel. That was his particular hobby, and he would have scouted at that time any such thing as a car-ferry. It is a new toy that he has secured this year and one that is absolutely brand-new.


Angus Alexander McLean: Are you in favour of the car-ferry service?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We never heard of the car-ferry at that time, but now from the delight which the hon. gentleman manifests, it is quite evident that he has a new toy. Perhaps he wfil find that like most rubber toys its usefulness will disappear by and by, and it will not be as satisfactory a year from now as he deems it to be to-day. But the hon. gentleman made the emphatic statement that we did not improve the conditions in the matter of communication between the island and the mainland during the fifteen years that the Liberal government were in power. He has repeated the statement, and that is the reason why I think it is only fair to the late government, that we should have some knowledge of what was done for the betterment of the communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.


Mr.  J. HUGHES .@Kings, P.E.I.: I aliso want to make a few remarks that have been called for by the observations of the hon. member for Queens, P.E.I. The fact of the matter is that the car-ferry was first mooted, so far as I remember and so far as the papers show, by a gentleman named George E. Pull, who came here on a delegation, I think in 1906 or 1907, and strongly advocated that project. The hon. member for Queens, P.E.I., was a .member of the House at that time, and I am satisfied that the proposition was not treated seriously then by the great majority of the people of Prince Edward island, and a great majority of the people interested in the subject; it was treated rather as a ridiculous proposition. I am inclined to think my hon. .friend from Queens, P.E.I., likewise took that view ot it at that time, because being a member of the House he would be alive to the importance of bringing forward any proposition of an advantageous character to the province and to the people whom he represented, and it would be his duty to do so. I am quite sure he would do his duty in that respect, and the fact that he did not bring the matter up tends to convince me that neither he nor anybody else thought this car-ferry service would be practicable between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I hope that it will be practicable, and that it will be found to be of great advantage;

and to a certain extent I am quite -willing to give the government a good deal of credit for taking up any proposition that would remove the difficulties under which Prince Edward Island has laboured so long in regard to transportation. But I do not know that this car-ferry service will be a solution of the difficulty, in fact I may frankly state that I am afraid it will not. I hope that it will, but the conditions under which the project was taken up and the haste with which it was announced last fall tend to arouse suspicion.


John Douglas Hazen: Do you not think there
has been delay enough?
iMr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.) There was no great advantage, so far as the car-ferry was concerned, in taking the project up at that time. But there was a purpose which the car-ferry idea has served. It has largely contributed towards the election of a Conservative administration in fhe province of Prince Edward Island:
It has had that effect already. Whether it will have the effect of solving the transportation difficulties I am not sure. However, I shall give the government credit so far as it has gone of being willing to try it and to spend some money, hut to say that the late government did not seriously and effectually contribute towards the improvement of the transportation service between the island and the mainland, is ridiculous. If my hon. friend from Queens '(Mr. (McLean) feeds like condemning the late government for not taking up the car-ferry project he himself should bear part of the condemnation because the project was first brought forward by iMr. Full while my hon. friend was a member of the House, and if in the end this scheme becomes a success a large part of the credit should be given to that gentleman who first proposed it.


Mr. CARROLL.: I do not know if information was given as to whether or not the government has-had technical advice of experts as to the feasibility of this scheme. In answer to questions the other day the Minister of Railways made the astounding statement that this car ferry service was to be in operation in a couple of months.


Mr. COCHRANE.: I never said anything of the kind.


William F. Carroll: To make sure of it I looked up ' Hansard ' and found it there. I understood from the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that an eminent expert Mr. Butler has said that this plan is not feasible, and it strikes one as surprising that the government expect to Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.)
have this car-ferry service in operation so soon without having technical knowledge and advice as to its feasibility.


John Douglas Hazen: There is no question about the feasibility of a car-ferry as they are in successful operation in other places. The only question is as to what portion of the year you will be able to operate it and as to the proper place to make the connection between the mainland and the island. The matter is now being thoroughly inquired into by the officials of the Department of Railways and Canals, who are also acquiring information as to the style of boat required to overcome if possible the ice conctitions in the straits in winter.


Henry Robert Emmerson: This subject, which is not a new one, has claimed considerable attention at my hands and, early in December, I gave notice of a motion to the effect that in the judgment of the House it was desirable to establish a car service between the mainland and the island and at the same time to widen the gauge of the Prince Edward Island railway. I was unable to reach a discussion of that motion owing to delay in bringing down certain information for which I had moved. That information has since come down, but it was then too late to reach the motion on the ,paper and so I withdrew it in order that the matter might be discussed on some other occasion.
In 1905 a Bill was passed by this House having for its object the connection of the Prince Edward Island railway with the Intercolonial railway and the establishment of a car-ferry service between Tor-mentine and Carleton Head. That Bill, however, was killed in the Senate. The fact that a car-ferry service of this kind has not been established is largely attributable to the people of Prince Edward Island themselves. The Bill to which I have referred was strongly opposed by certain members from the island in this House and in the Senate it was killed largely through the influence of Prince Edward Island senators. The reasons are obvious. We must recognize the fact that there are sectional differences and jealousies on the island as in other provinces and Charlottetown and Summerside have vied with each other in an effort to secure every possible advantage in the way of communication with the mainland and because of the influences and prejudices of the eastern and western sections of the island against any means of communication being established in the centre of the island, as between Carleton Head and the mainland at Tormentine, the scheme fell through. I had a strong view with respect to the matter at the time

that the government should acquire the railway which runs from Sackville to Cane Tormentine, known as the New Brunswick and .Prince Edward Island railway, and should establish a car ferry service such as has been established at other points ton this continent, and such as is now in operation on a smaller scale at the Strait of Oanso, on the Intercolonial railway.
I think that eventually the government should acquire that road, and that they should establish a car-ferry service and operate it as part of the government system of railways. I believe that is the only solution of the difficulty. For many years the representatives of Prince Edward Island in this parliament have talked of a tunnel, they have brought it before the House time and again, but no one seemed to take them seriously, in fact sometimes it was thought they were not serious themselves; not that the proposition is not feasible from an engineering standpoint, but that the undertaking was too large to be considered seriously at the present time in our history. In June last I was in Prince Edward Island in connection with an election campaign, in a way, and I discussed with the people the matter of a car-ferry service. I strongly advocated it then, and I advocate it now. I mink it is perfectly feasible, and that it will be a success if established. It may interfere with the constituency of my hon. friend from Pictou, it may interfere with some interests in my constituency; but what are these interests as compared with the greater interest of improved transportation facilities between Prince Edward Island and the rest of the Dominion?
My hon. friend says there are suspicious circumstances in the haste with which this matter has been taken up. This parliament met in November, but there was no mention of it in the speech from the Throne, although the leader of the government had discussed it in Prince Edward Island in September. There was no mention of it by representatives from the Island after the opening of parliament. It was brought to the notice of parliament on the 7th of December, when I took occasion to give a notice of motion with respect to it. I notice in a return which was laid upon the table of the House, that there was a communication addressed on the 22nd of November to the right hon. the Prime Minister, which was signed by the two representatives from Queens, P.E.I. The matter apparently did not claim much further consideration until the 23rd of December, on the eve of a local election in Prince Edward Island. On the 28th of December the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways appear to have taken certain steps in the way of sending telegrams and writing letters to Prince Edward Island. The elections were held in the early days of January, 1 166
I think these telegrams reached Prince Edward Island two days before the polling. Well, of course people are suspicious; sometimes those who are hit are supersensitive with respect to letters and telegrams on occasions of this kind. These letters and telegrams may not have been written with any idea of influencing the provincial elections, it may have been a mere coincidence that they were sent down to the Island at that particular moment. Of course, I do not mean to insinuate that there was any connection between the telegrams and the election, I am only mentioning the facts. It is no doubt unfair to impugn the motives of ministers of the .Crown in such matters.
Now some reference has been made to the lack of estimates. I do not think the government at that time did have any estimates with respect to the matter, and I am bound to say that we could hardly expect them to have. I do not think they should be condemned because they did not have such estimates, although it might be a fair matter of comment that they should have made such positive declarations as to what should be done before they had any estimates of the probable cost. I favour the proposition, and I will support it. It is not only in the interest of Prince Edward Island and of the Prince Edward Island Tailway, but it is in the interest of the Intercolonial and of all Canada. The people of the maritime provinces as a whole are peculiarly interested in it, and the people of Quebec, Ontario and of the distant west are to a large degree interested in the proper solution of this question. In July last I told the people of Prince Edward Island that a tunnel might be feasible. In years to eome conditions may prevail in Canada which will make the construction of a tunn.el possible. But in the meantime what should be done? Try at least this experiment. I _ think it will be successful during the major portion of the year, even during the winter months. Between the nearest points, Cape Tormentine and Carleton Head, a distance of between six and seven miles, I am told by those who are familiar with the navigation of the straits, that during the winter months, once during every twenty-four hours in the day-time, there is practically a clear channel between those two points. It is caused by the tide bringing the ice together, and when the tide recedes one portion of the ice goes out on the eastern end of the island, and the other goes to the western end, the ice separates, leaving a channel. I am told this by people who have no object in misrepresenting the circumstances. I have not seen it myself, but the people in that section of New Brunswick who are familiar with the conditions prevailing there say that is the case.



There is a short period in which there is open and continuous communication between these two points. During the greater portion of the year you could1 have communication between the island and the mainland without extra cost six or seven times during the day. It would be possible to convey trains across. It could have been done last year at these points. It would obviate the three freight charges, it would place the people of Prince Edward Island on a parity with the people of Cape Breton in respect to transportation charges, there would be no break and1 there would be the continuous mileage haul from the point of embarkation to the point of destination. Under these circumstances I think it is commendable for the government to undertake this. 1 may say that in the past I have called the attention of the preceding government to this very matter. I have invited their consideration to it, and I invited their consideration to the subject not later than last July. Regardless of which government is in power, regardless of party affiliations, I believe that the representatives in this House whether they be from the east or from the west, should1 join hands in aiding to give the best possible communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. Perhaps the discussion of this matter is not relative to this particular item, other than that as references are made to winter communication between the island and the mainland, it may be relevant. But this is a subject that might more properly be discussed when the Minister of Railways has his estimates under consideration. It belongs to the government system of railways, and it is a part and parcel of the branch line proposition which has been before this House for many years. The branch line proposition could not be effectively carried out without the establishment of a steam-ferry service at these points-I do not say at these particular points because I am not sectional1 in regard to the matter. It has been said that a very good route might be established between the western end of Prince Edward Island and Riohibucto, or some point in the county of Kent. Let it be determined wherever the best route is to be found, there place your ferry, there establish it in the interest, not of any particular locality, not of any particular province or county, but in the interest of the whole Dominion and bring the people of Prince Edward Island into touch with their fellow countrymen throughout the rest of Canada.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I cannot allow this item to carry until I have had an opportunity of bringing to the notice of the minister what I regard as a matter of very great Mr. EMMERSON.
importance to the section of the country from which I come. This particular item gives me a, legitimate opportunity of bringing up matters that I Tegard1 as important to the harbour of North Sydney and Sydney, and if I allowed it to pass without doing so I might not have the opportunity again. We all take more or less pride in the places from which we come and dwell with delight upon their advantages and beauties. I am sure that any person who has the good fortune of living on the shores of the harbour of Sydney or North Sydney, or, as my hon. friend says, the Bras d'Or lakes, can have nothing but pride in the great beauty and commercial advantages of these harbours. Without saying anything against any other harbour in the world, I do not think that Sydney harbour, particularly the harbour of North Sydney, is second to any. That is a big thing to say, but I think it is true. A harbour in Australia, Halifax harbour, and Sydney harbour are regarded1 as the three finest harbours in the world with the preference given to North Sydney and Sydney. There are a few things that should be done for the harbour of Sydney and North Sydney. When I tell the minister that there is in the neighbourhood of 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 of tonnage coming into that harbour every summer he will get some idea of the shipping that is frequenting it, and when I tell him that never a dollar in the world has been spent for the betterment of that harbour he will understand that we are not coming too often or asking too much. It is true that a few dollars may have been expended in building wharfs and breakwaters. While upon general harbour improvements millions are being spent in other 'parts of Canada, there never -has been a dollar spent on this magnificent harbour of Sydney and North Sydney. The outgoing of iron and steel, the incoming of iron ore, and the shipping of 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 tons of coal out of this harbour every year will give the minister some idea of its imnortance. I take this opportunity of bringing to -hi|a notice this magnificent harbour and the splendid facilities which it offers for transportation. We hear a great deal about St. John. It seems to me that the Minister must have heard of the harbour of St. John, he has heard of Courtenay Bay, and he has heard of some $7,000,000, or $10,000,000, or $15,000,000 being spent in the woods at Courtenay Bay in order to make a harbour which when completed will be nothing like as .magnificent a harbour as that at North Sydney. I am surprised when we are talking about the ereat points of transportation in this country where elevators are to be built, where millions of dollars are to be expended in the betterment of transports-
Ki26
MARCH id, 19iz
tion for the future millions who are to inhabit this country, that we do not hear very much about the great harbour of Sydney and North Sydney. This little item that is now before this committee gives me an opportunity of presenting to the minister some of the advantages of this point which is the nearest point in Canada to the old country and! which is a matter of great importance.


John Douglas Hazen: I would like to call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that this item is for the maintenance of steamers and icebreakers, and it is not for money to be spent on harbours.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not at all losing sight of that, and we have the ruling of the Chair that when a man is coming to the point he is always permitted to take his own road.


John Douglas Hazen: Do not be too long.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will come to the point clean and straight, and the minister will be surprised that I have managed to get to it so quickly.
I shall read a statement made in this House the other night by the Minister of Trade and Commerce which shows the importance of the traffic carried', on the service between North Sydney and Newfoundland. The minister said:
There is a continual growth in this trade. Last year there were carried 6,765 first-class passengers 11,178 second-class passengers, 15,538 tons of freight, 1,635 head of stock, with a very large quantity of mail, and if you take the trade for the previous three years, you will find there is a gratifying increase.
The steamer plying on this route usually makes her trips between Port aux Basques and North Sydney without interruption, but in a particularly severe season she meets with difficulty and it would be a great advantage for us to have an icebreaker at that port. I understand the minister has an ice-breaker that he sends on missions-I might say on useful missions-throughout the country. I saw her tracks in Sydney harbour last year, just enough to show us what she could do if she kept at the work. She came to Sydney harbour and without any difficulty made tracks in the ice but she went away and has never come back.


John Douglas Hazen: When was that?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Last winter. I do not know what she came there for except it ivas to give an exhibition of her power, and then she fled and we never have seen her since. If the 'Stanley' were sent there in February and March, I believe she could do excellent service in keeping the channel open for this line of steamers between North Sydney and Newfoundland.
166J
Now, the service is three trips a week, but after the first of May there will be a daily boat and with this daily service established, we hope to make connection with the mail boats so that the maritime province mails can be caught up by the ' Bruce ' from the steamers coming up the St. Lawrence and landed at North Sydney by which means the million people in the maritime provinces would get their mail much quicker than by the Rimouski route. I believe that at little expense the government could send us an icebreaker which would clear the entrance at North Sydney harbour and this I believe would be beneficial, not only to North Sydney, but to the Intercolonial railway and the country generally.


William F. Carroll: I endorse what my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) has said in reference to the necessity for having an icebreaker at certain times of the year in the harbour of North Sydney and Sydney, which after all is the one harbour. The hon. gentleman (Mr. McKenzie) has not exaggerated the importance of this matter. Unfortunately in some years, in January and February the harbour is frozen over, and I am sure it would not take a large expenditure to have an icebreaker there for a couple of months. This year the harbour froze over a good deal earlier than usual. I think it only justice to the county I represent that I should supplement what has been said by the hon^ member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie. When we are spending millions of dollars in making ports all over the country which are not natural harbours at all, I do not think it is too much to ask the government to assist in this small way the splendid natural harbour of Sydney so as to make it available for shipping at all times during the winter months. I trust that the minister will make inquiry as to the cost of keeping an ice-breaker there during a certain portion of the winter, and I am sure if he puts an ice-breaker there he will do good Work not only for the port of Sydney but for the shipping interests of the Dominion generally.


John Douglas Hazen: I fear I will have to make a confession, which I regard as somewhat humiliating: that I never have had the great pleasure of visiting Sydney. But, after the description given of its beauties and potentialities by my hon. friend (Mr, McKenzie), I shall not delay that visit longer than I possibly can help. I may say, however, that although I have not visited Sydney I possibly have as good an idea of it as my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) seems to have of Courtney Bay which he speaks of as being situated in the woods. I would invite my hon. friend

(Mr. McKenzie), to drop off at St. John some time, and I would like to take him around to have a look at Courtenay Bay, and then I am sure he will come back next session and be ready to withdraw the disparaging things he said about it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it would be hopeless for me to find it without the guidance of my hon. friend the minister.


John Douglas Hazen: There are none so blind as those who will not isee, but I am sure that with the beautifully clear air and exhilarating atmosphere of St. John my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) will be able to see further than when his vision is bounded by the four walls of this chamber. I may say that this year we sent the ' Stanley ' to Sydney harbour at the request of some shipping interests with a view of opening the channel so that vessels could get out, and that experiment was very successful. Only last week we sent an ice-breaker there again for the purpose of making a channel up to the pier of the Dominion Coal Company, and as a result of our laudable efforts to assist the port of Sydnev, the ' Stanley ' is now firmly bound in the ice' off Sydney harbour, and I am afraid it will be some days before we can get her released. The question of ice-breaking is every year becoming more and more important, and people are beginning to realize that it has the effect ot helping shipping and trade. I shall be very glad to give my attention to the representations made by my hon. friends and to accede to them so far as it is possible for the department to do so with the steamers and plant now at its command.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In connection with the vote for masters and mates, may I ask if Mr. Adams has resigned?


John Douglas Hazen: Very much to the regret of everybody in the department Mr. Adams feels the work is becoming too onerous for him, and he has applied for superannuation.	.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Has any appointment been made?


John Douglas Hazen: No appointment has been made. His retirement is a matter of regret to every one in the department, where he has had a very long and honourable career.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are there any local examiners for masters and mates?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, this includes the vote for local examiners.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there a local examiner in the county of Great Breton?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, James Sutherland of North Sydney is a local examiner.


John Douglas Hazen: Rewards saving life,. including life-saving stations, $96,000.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I would like to ask my hon. friend if be has considered the question of establishing a life-saving station at Cape Jourmain in Westmorland county? '
Mr. HAZEN That is being considered now by the officials of the department, and reports are being prepared upon it.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Inverness).: I would like to have some information in regard to the station at Cheticamp.


John Douglas Hazen: That station is under construction at the present time.
Mr. McKENZIE It was decided last year to build a life-saving station at Cranberry Head. What position is that in now?


John Douglas Hazen: There is included in the present vote an appropriation of $2,500 for that work. It is situated at the mouth of North Sydney harbour.


Bowman Brown Law: Is it the intention of the department to establish a life-saving station at Mud Island in Yarmouth county?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so; but a life-saving station is being established on the south shore of Nova Scotia rot far from Digby. This year, I may say, in consequence of representations made to me by the hon. member for Digby, I ordered the 'Stanley' to proceed to Digby and to remain there, as I was told that on several occasions fishermen had got into trouble, and the 'Stanley' had to be sent for from St.John for life-saving service. Therefore, it was thought 'advisable to have her stationed at Digby for that purpose. We are establishing a life-saving station, with a lifeboat, at Bay View, east of Digby.


Bowman Brown Law: I never heard of it. It cannot be south of Briar Island. It must be further up the bay.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, it is further up the bay.


Bowman Brown Law: That would be no use for the southern coast of Nova Scotia. Mud Island is situated at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy, where all the boats going up and down the bay have to pass, and there have teen many shipwrecks at that point, and I would like to see a life-saving station there.


John Douglas Hazen: There is one at Baker's Cove now. But I will consider what my hon. friend says. The appropriation for the station near Digby was voted in the estimates of the present year, but the money was not spent when I came into office, and I have given instructions to have the woTk proceeded with at once.


Mr.  J. HUGHES .@Kings, P.E.I.: Has the department information with regard to the utility of what is known as the rocket apparatus? It costs much less than life-sav-irg stations, and can be moved quickly from place to place.


John Douglas Hazen: It is an auxiliary to lifesaving stations.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, I have received information from captains familiar with conditions in Great Britain to the effect that more life is saved by the application of that machinery than by the regular lifeboats.
Investigation into wrecks, $18,400.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Why is the increase?


John Douglas Hazen: It is due to the appointment of a wreck commissioner in British Columbia and to the fact that the shipping interests on the Great Lakes have ardently demanded that investigations be held into all cases of grounding which appear to be of a serious nature.
Expenses of schools of navigation, $8,000.


Bowman Brown Law: Where are these schools situated?


John Douglas Hazen: At Halifax, Yarmouth, St. John, North Sydney, Quebec, Montreal, Collingwood, Midland, Vancouver, Victoria and other places if necessary.
Registration of shipping, $1,500.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I believe that the officer in the city of Sydney who used to make the measurements for the registration of shipping is dead. Has this fact been brought to the notice of the minister?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. No appointment has yet been made.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it would be well to consult the authorities and get an appointment made, because it might be required at any moment.
Inspection of live stock shipments, $5,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Last year 1,635 head of stock were shipped from the port cf North Sydney. I think if the Minister has anything to do with looking after these cattle, then he might see that provision be made for the cattle between the time of their leaving the car and getting on board the vessel.
I wish to point out to him that the greatest possible cruelty is practised on these cattle. There is no place in which to put them, and in winter they are left outside exposed to very severe weather. That has been the subject of comment in that part of. the country, where the opinion is entertained that accommodation should be provided for these cattle. I want particularly to point out to the minister that there is no officer resident at the port of North
Sydney to carry out this inspection and certainly, I think, the officer should be on the spot where the work has to be done.


John Douglas Hazen: The officers of the Marine Department are not supposed to look after these cattle until they are on the ship, when I think their duty is to see that they are given proper accommodation. It would be the duty of the Railway Department to take care of these cattle until they are placed on board ship. But if the conditions are such as is described by my hon. friend, certainly representations should be made to the Railway Department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I hope that my representations will reach the Railway Department, because at present there is no provision made for these cattle although there were 1,625 of them last year, showing that it must be quite a profitable business for the -railway and for the vessel as well.


John Douglas Hazen: As the hon. gentleman has brought this matter to the attention of the House when my estimates were under consideration, I will ask my officials to call the attention of the Railway Department to what he has said, undoubtedly this is a very important matter which should be remedied at once.	.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Then I would point out to the minister that the Newfoundland government will not permit any of these cattle to land on the other side, unless they have a certificate from a veterinary officer of some department of the Canadian government.


John Douglas Hazen: That does not come under our control at all.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is this money for then?


John Douglas Hazen: The inspectors when we pay see that the cattle are properly cared for on board ship, that proper stalls are built so that they will have the proper amount of space that is requisite, and be looked after in other ways, during the voyage across the Atlantic. They have nothing to do with the question of health, or with the question of quarantine, but they are simply for the purpose stated.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the deputy minister will inform the minister to what department this official belongs.


John Douglas Hazen: That would be the Department of Agriculture.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is exceedingly important that the officer who has to examine this number of cattle shorn d always be on the ground. I would like to call the attention of the department to that fact.


John Douglas Hazen: Perhaps it will do when the estimates of the Department of Agriculture are under consideration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I thought it came under the Marine Department.
To continue the subsidy for wrecking jdants in Quebec, Maritime Provinces and British Columbia, $30,000.


William F. Carroll: What companies, if any, in the province of Nova Scotia have received subsidies?


John Douglas Hazen: Subsidies are paid to three companies: $10,000 to the Davey Company, Quebec; $10,000 to the Dominion Coal Company at Sydney, and $10,000 to the British Salvage Company.


William F. Carroll: Has there been an application for a subsidy from the city of Sydney?


John Douglas Hazen: No. Tenners are asked for this important service.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Are tenders invited every year?


John Douglas Hazen: No for a period of five years.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about the Quebec tender?


John Douglas Hazen: The Quebec tender, I may say, is expiring this year, and as a matter of fact, Mr. Davey has informed the department that he will not carry it on any longer at that subsidy as he is losing money on it. He has to keep an expensive plant, and there have been so few wrecks that there is no income coming in, and he gave figures to show that actually there (has been a loss. As far as I can find out Canada is the only country in the world where the government assist in maintaining these wrecking plants. In other countries this work is done by the shipping interests.
To (provide for the maintenance of vessels ^employed in patrolling the waters in the northern portion of Canada, &c., $59,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is it the minister's intention to again send the ' Arctic ' into those northern waters?


John Douglas Hazen: This vote will be available for sending the 'Arctic', or some other boat, to patrol the northern waters if it is decided to do so.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I suppose tenders will be invited for the supplies?


John Douglas Hazen: I suppose something of that sort should be done.
River St. Lawrence ship channel, $841,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would ask that this item, as well as the next one, be allowed to stand because some hon. gentle-Mr. McKENZIE.
men on this side familiar with these matters are not here to-night.
Salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $450,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has the minister dismissed any of these lightkeepers in my own county, North Cape Breton and Victoria?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so, I cannot recall them.


William F. Carroll: Is there any system of superannuation for these lightkeepers?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


William F. Carroll: It might perhaps be well for the department to consider some scheme of superannuation. There are men who are employed in this w-ork for twenty and thirty years, and when they retire are not fit for anything else, having been in the government service for so long a time. I think it would be proper for the department to take this matter of superannuation into consideration.
Mr.	HUGHES	(Kings,	iP.E.I.).	Have
any charges been made against lightkeep-*ers in Kings county, Prince Edward Island?	.


John Douglas Hazen: I could not answer that question offhand, but I would be very glad to get the information for the hon. gentleman. So many charges have been made that it would be quite impossible to carry (hem all in my memory. .
Mr.	HUGHES	(Kings,	Prince	Edward
Island). Has the minister appointed any one to investigate these charges?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, a gentleman named Norman Campbell, I think.
Mr.	HUGHES	(Kings,	Prince	Edward
Island). Is he a lawyer?
Mr.	HAZEN.	Yes, a	lawyer	is appointed to conduct the investigation in every case.


James Joseph Hughes: I understand some charges have been preferred against a man named Luther Jordan, who has charge of Murray harbour light.


John Douglas Hazen: Those were not for partisanship.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know really.


John Douglas Hazen: 
James Joseph Hughes: Is there an age limit in the case of the appointment of lightkeepers?


John Douglas Hazen: There is an age limit, but in very many cases it is impossible to live up to that age limit. As the hon. gentleman knows, most of these smaller lights are situated in country districts, and it is necessary to get somebody who lives in the neighbourhood as keeper. The pay is so small in the case of most of these lights, that a person who lives at a distance cannot attend to the light for the remuneration that is given. In a great many instances it has been the case in the past, and I am afraid it will have to continue to be the case in the future, men are appointed to look after these lights who are bevond the age that is prescribed.


James Joseph Hughes: What is the prescribed age?


John Douglas Hazen: The prescribed age is forty, and in many cases it is impossible to get men as young to do the work.


James Joseph Hughes: I am informed that a man named Clark, who has been lightkeeper at New Georgetown, has been, or is likely to be, removed from office.


John Douglas Hazen: I cannot recall the case at the moment; I would be delighted to give my hon. friend all information at the office.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I know of one lighthouse keeper being removed in my county. I understand that the investigator in regard to political charges is Mr. Du-chemin, who Is poorly qualified to give an independent judgment in any matter involving political partisanship. I have no objection to men being removed who have transgressed the well understood rule about interference in politics, but where a man says he is not guilty he is entitled to a hearing, and should have a fair hearing. I know of Mr. Duchemin going back seven years to find that a man had attended a political) meeting in a local election. Then the investigator will not allow the person charged1 to ask any question of the witness except through him or to be represented by any one at the hearing. I would ask the minister to have this gentleman told the limits within which the investigation is to go. I am complaining of proceedings in other departments than the Marine Department.


John Douglas Hazen: I entirely agree that it there is to be a trial it should be a fair
trial, otherwise there is no sense in having it. Some of the gentlemen who have been appointed to hold examinations are absolutely fair I know. Mr. Bergeron, a former member of the House, conducts them with the most absolute fairness.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am quite sure he would.


John Douglas Hazen: Of course m each case an abstract of the evidence comes before me, but I do not regard these reports as final, I consider the report in each case before acting and1 certainly a person accused should have every opportunity of crossexamining witnesses. If there are any investigations in my department I shall certainly prescribe the lines on which the investigation is to be held.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am told that this man was examining an excellent official at Glace Bay. Here are some of the questions asked him:	Do you know Premier
Murray? A. Yes. Q. Was Premier Murray in Glace Bay last June? A. Yes. Q. Did you shake hands with Premier Murray- and I think the man had to admit the enormous crime of having shaken hands with genial George Murray at Glace Bay. Another question asked was if it was true that Mrs. McKinnon attended a Liberal d'ance at Glace Bay?


John Douglas Hazen: I am not in a position to discuss the matter, but I think on investigation you will find that the hon. gentleman's statement is a little overdrawn.


William F. Carroll: I understand that the keeper of the fog alarm station at Louis-burg has had pressure brought to bear on him and has been obliged to dismiss his former assistant, and that another has been forced on him, who is not qualified to operate the fog horn in the keeper's absence. The assistants are not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Marine and! Fisheries, but are under the keepers. They should be under the department directly.


John Douglas Hazen: The system in regard to these stations is that the man appointed in charge of a station is paid a certain sum and he is responsible for his assistants whom he pays out of his salary. I understand there has not been much difficulty under the present system, as the man in charge is liable to dismissal if his assistant makes mistakes, as he is responsible.


William F. Carroll: I understand that the gentleman forced on him is not qualified.


John Douglas Hazen: Then he had no right to accept him. No lighthouse keeper who properly does his work need have any one foroed on him.	; J


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Last year several industries in tlhat county along the East mver, and the schooner people and owners tof steamers going up and down that river, 'asked me to call the attention of the 'government to the necessity of some small lights along the river in order that it might be made navigable at night. I did 'so shortly after the late government went [DOT]out of power, and the matter was to have been dealt with by the Lighthouse Board. The necessity for these lights is very great. There is a stretch of about seven miles where there are a tremendous lot of big steamers and vessels. The dredging is not yet completed. It would be a great public convenience, and I ask the minister to consider it favourably.
1 Mr. HAZEN. I understand this matter has been before the Lighthouse Board, but they have not come to a decision. They think they should wait until the dredging is completed before they determine what lights are necessary. The hon. gentleman knows the composition of the board. Since T have been minister I have always acted' lip on the advice of that board with regard to lights.
1 Mr. MACDONALD. I think that, pending the completion of the improvements, there is absolute necessity for the lights, 'and there is nothing in the improvements that would involve any change in their location. I will take the opportunity of 'addressing the board directly.
1 Mr. HAZEN. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman have a talk with Colonel 'Anderson.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister the position Of the lighthouse keeper at St. Paul island. The light at this place was established 'long before confederation by the provincial government of Nova Scotia, when a 'gentleman named John Campbell was appointed. The same position has been held by his son, Samuel C. Campbell, and later by his grandson. At present Mr. John 'Campbell is in charge of the island. During the regime of Sir Hibbert Tupper 'charges were brought against Mr. Campbell of a most trivial character, and the gentleman who then represented the county of 'Victoria, for some personal reason, threatened to resign his seat unless Mr. 'Campbell was dismissed. Mr. Campbell *was dismissed. When the Laurier govern-inent came into power there was some difficulty on the island, and the man who Vas in charge was found to be incompetent and was removed. Mr. Campbell was put back, and was left there for the rest of his life. His son is there now. I understand there was a rule that when it was found necessary ki dismiss an officer by Mr. HAZEN.
the late government, the man who was dismissed should be put back where he *was before without making much inquiry. 'It would be a great hardship to apply this rule in the present case. Mr. Campbell was improperly dismissed, and was put back in his .place when the late government came into power, not for partisan reasons, but because he had been found competent. The third generation of Campbells is now on the island, the position is a sort of an heirloom in the family. I take the opportunity of bringing this case to the notice of the minister so that, if anything is done toward replacing Mr. Campbell, the minister will know the history of the case, and I hope he will not interfere with such an excellent officer as John Campbell is.
Construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation, also for the improvement of the West Coast Trail, British Columbia. $1,000,-
000.


Alexander William Chisholm: Application was made last year for the construction of a lighthouse in Margaree harbour. Has anything been done?


John Douglas Hazen: The matter was never brought to my attention, and my deputy informs me that nothing has been done.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is it the intention of the department to improve the light conditions at that place?


John Douglas Hazen: The matter has been referred, I suppose, to the Lighthouse Board. There is an application, which has been approved by the Lighthouse Board, to improve the existing lights at Margaree harbour, and we will act on the recommendation.
Amount required to .pay pensions at $300 each to certain pilots, $6,300.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Some time ago a veteran pilot in the Northumberland Straits named William Cook, who does not happen to be a political friend of mine, appealed to the department for a pension. I believe there was some difficulty in regard to the law dealing with this case. The pilots that are pensioned all come from Quebec. But if it is possible under the law to deal with the case, every merit that entitles a man to consideration for a pension exists in the case of Mr. Cook. I think the papers are before the department.


John Douglas Hazen: There the law under which *these pensions are voted applies to the pilots of Quebec only. The case my hon. friend refers to would not come under the statute under which this arrangement is carried into effect. Some gentlemen of Pictou have made representations to the department regarding the case of Mr. Cook, and from

what I can learn from my deputy the difficulty is that there is no provision of the law to meet it. I will, however, look into the matter and see if it is possible that something can be done.
To provide for the purchase or construction of a lighthouse and buoy steamer for river St. Lawrence to replace the * Shamrock (Dollard), $80,000.


John Douglas Hazen: This is a revote. One hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars was voted last year, the boat is under construction and it is hoped that the balance over and above $80,000 will be paid out of the vote of the present year. That will leave $80,000 to pay next year and to complete the work.
To provide for the purchase or construction of a lighthouse and buoy steamer to replace the ' Scout/ $110,000.


John Douglas Hazen: The ' Scout,' the steamer that did lighthouse work between Kingston and Montreal on the St. Lawrence, has been condemned by the officials of the department and those who have made the inspection as being unfit for further service.


George Perry Graham: Will this be a larger boat than the ' Scout '?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, it is proposed to build a larger and more modem boat. The ' Scout ' was not an old boat, but she seems to have gone to pieces quickly.


George Perry Graham: It is high time that there was a new boat to replace the ' Scout.' I hope that this work will be put up to tender and that if possible it will be given to one of our own shipbuilders.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, I fancy that we will only ask for tenders in Canada for it.
To provide for the expenses of delegates to the International Association of Navigation Congress to be held in Philadelphia in 1912, and the transportation and entertainment of the members of the congress while in Canada, including the cost of printing pamphlet, $20,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the minister tell us about that?


John Douglas Hazen: This is the International Congress of Marine Engineers. The last meeting was held at Brussels two years ago, and an invitation was then extended to hold the next meeting in the United States. It is going to be held in Philadelphia and the representatives from Canada who were present two years ago extended an invitation to the delegates after their meeting in the United States to come to Canada so that they might have an opportunity of seeing our waterways and our transportation system. It is felt that as they are coming to Canada as the guests of the Canadian people it would be only
proper that we should entertain them while they are here.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who will be the representatives of the department?


John Douglas Hazen: The representatives from our department will be Major Stephens, chairman of the Montreal Harbour Commission, Colonel Anderson, chief engineer of the department and the Deputy Minister reminds me that I am also to be one of the representatives.
Marine hospitals-care of sick seamen in marine hospitals; and repairs to marine hospitals, $70,000.


William F. Carroll: Am I right in saying that Dr. Sullivan, port physician at Glace bay, is getting $150 a year for his services?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


William F. Carroll: In the Auditor General's report of last year he is charged with having received something over $400 when, as a matter of fact his salary is $150. He is under considerable odium in that part of the country on account of the statement that he has received $150 or $200 more than he has actually been paid. Reports have been circulated against the doctor, who is a very honest man, and it has been alleged that he has received money in some underhand way, or by methods which are not honest.


John Douglas Hazen: I understand that the Auditor General, through some mistake in his department, charged up to this gentleman $300 for coal that was not for the doctor at all, but was used in the marine hosiptal at Louisburg. It certainly would be most unfair to Dr. Sullivan to make a charge against him such as has been suggested by my hon. friend.


William F. Carroll: I just wanted to have tlie matter cleared up.
Steamboat inspection, $57,000.


John Douglas Hazen: into the lakes and on dark nights it is a very difficult proposition to navigate these lakes. The minister perhaps has not an intimate knowledge of the extent of these inland waters. They extend about 75 or 100 miles from the mouth of the Big Bras D'Or to the canal.
Going up the other way, towards Bad-deck, would be a distance of about thirty miles above Bras d'Or, with various branches in different directions extending about twenty-five miles across in some places. There is a great deal of navigation in this inland sea, particularly in carrying Ipit-props to the mines in which small schooners engage. When a man builds a little schooner it is sometimes his all and it is unfortunate she should be wrecked through lack of aids to navigation. There are on the records of the department requests asking for a lighthouse to be placed at St. Patrick's channel in the County of Victoria. That has been turned down, I am sorry to say, by this Lighthouse Board, composed no doubt of very capable navigators, but none of whom perhaps ever saw Bras d'Or lakes, and none of whom know of the difficulties of sailing a schooner through this place on a dark night. At little expense there could be put here and there through the lakes small lighthouses to help these poor people and if that were done it would ,be money well spent. Although it does not appeal to the Lighthouse Board, such as do aids to navigation in the St. Lawrence or along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, it is just as important to the man who in his small way is trying to make his living by navigating the Bras d'Or lakes. This point at St. Patrick's channel would be lighting a stretch of water between Little Narrows and Baddeck, a distance of twenty-five miles, in which whole distance there is no lighthouse from the time you leave Little Narrows until you get to Baddeck.
I refer to what is called Eli Point, St. Patrick's channel, and we do not want a big lighthouse but something that would guide the mariner on his way. This board, I am sorry to say, has turned down my application on several occasions, but still I persist in coming until better light is given to the navigator there. I am encouraged by the affability and capability of the minister to come back [DOT] to him on this occasion and put the case of the St. Patrick's channel navigators before him. Then, the minister will find a great manly petitions on file in his department from Big Harbour on the Bras d'Or where, within the last three or four years several schooners have- been piled on the rocks in trying to make the harbour on a dark night. These are the only two places in this tremendous inland
Mr. McKenzie.
sea for which I am asking any assistance, namely, Eli Point, St. Patrick's channel, and Big Harbour. Then, on the coast of Victoria county and North Cape Breton there is Cranberry Head without a lighthouse and it is strange to .say that although that is a well-known dangerous point on the 'coast there never has been a light there. The fog alarm that is now on Low Point used to be on Cranberry Head, and for some reason some years ago that foghorn was taken from Cranberry Head and there is nothing there at all now to help navigation. There is a requisition, if I may call it so, from the Dominion Coal Company and the Nova Scotia Steel Company, both owning large steamers, on file in the department, asking for some navigation aid at Cranberry Head. I hope it will receive the .attention of the minister. Ingonish Harbour has a lighthouse now, but within the last few years the Department of Public Works has deepened that harbour, and it is now much more important than it formerly was. I think there is something on record with the department showing that something must be done to place better aids to navigation than exist at the present time at Ingonish Harbour. The same thing is true of Bay St. Lawrence, The navigation generally is under the supervision of the Minister of Marine, and when there are obstructions to navigation in the shape of railway bridges, they must have been put there by the Kailway Department with the consent of the Marine Department. I call attention to a bridge right across the Grand Narrows, which is a serious obstruction to navigation. The minister will find that a report was made by the Department of Public Works some years ago which shows that a large number of small ships were broken to pieces and the greatest possible destruction of property resulted by striking against this bridge. We have been for years trying to provide a remedy for that. Thousands of small vessels go from Prince Edward Island and other parts through this bridge every year, and many of them get damaged. The danger to the bridge itself is also serious. If these vessels coming along with the force of tide and wind strike against one of the piers serious damage will certainly result to the bridge. We wanted some kind of a tug put there which for a small fee might guide the vessels through.


John Douglas Hazen: Have any vessels run against the bridges?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Oh, yes, several vessels from Prince Edvard Island in the spring of the year have come in contact with that bridge, and if the Prince Edward Island members were here they could tell the minister that a great many disasters have occurred there.


Mr.  J. HUGHES .@Kings, P.E.I.: I am here.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I meant members from Prince Edward Island on the other side of the House. My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) can bear testimony that very often vessels are injured there. I seriously bring it to the notice of the minister, and I hope something will be done both for the sake of the bridse itself and for the vessels navigating there. Although not publicly, I have brought this matter to the attention of the Railway Department a dozen times, and they have this report to which I have referred which substantiates what I say, but still _ I could not get them to spend any money. As this obstruction to navigation must have been put there with the consent of the Marine Department, I would ask the minister to insist on the Railway Department taking proper precautions to safeguard public and private property there.


James Joseph Hughes: I can support the statement made by the hon. member (Mr. McKenzie) in regard to the danger of navigation at mat particular point. I have heard the captains say how very dangerous it is. and I have known of wrecks that have taken place there on account of striking against the bridge. If the department can do anything to remove the obstruction it would be money spent in the right direction.


John Douglas Hazen: It seems to me that the question of the danger of the bridge at Grand Narrows is more especially for the Railway Department, and if the bridge is causing all the danger that it is said it causes then it would be for the Railway Department to do something in the direction outlined by my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) to enable vessels to be taken through the bridge in safety.
If my hon. friend would see the Minister of Railways about the matter, perhaps he [DOT]would find him less obdurate and hardhearted than some of his predecessors, and he might be able to make some impression upon him. With regard to the necessity of lights in English Harbour, I _ have great pleasure in telling my hon. friend that it has been decided to have lights put there for the purpose of making the harbour safer. My hon. friend has referred to a number of other applications which he said he had made in the past for lighthouses, and which were turned down. Perhaps that turning down, in some cases at least, was not intended to be permanent, for I have found since I have been in the Department that the Lighthouse Board has refused applications that have merit for the simple reason that we have hardly organization enough to carry out the works for which parliament has provided the
money, in the way of construction of lighthouses and aids to navigation, and the work has not proceeded as rapidly as it is evidently the desire of parliament from the liberality of its appropriation that it should ' proceed. I would request the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who is here, and who is a member of the Lighthouse Board, to bring these matters to the attention of the board for consideration, and in view of the way the hon. gentleman has expedited the passage of my estimates, I would ask him to request the board to give special consideration to the request of my hon. friend.
Salaries and disbursement of fisheries inspectors, overseers and guardians, $200,000.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister was good enough to say that if I called at the department the deputy minister would show me the papers with regard to charges made against the lighthouse keepers. Will he show me the papers with regard to some charges made against the fishery overseer of King's county, Mr. McCormick?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend spoke to me about that, and I asked the deputy minister to furnish the information. I understand that the papers were sent to-day.


James Joseph Hughes: No matter what the result is, he is a capital officer.


John Douglas Hazen: The charge made is that of wrong-doing in connection with the payment of the fishing bounties. It is not a new thing for officials to be so charged. We are having the charge in this case investigated. '


James Joseph Hughes: The payment of the fishing bounties is a very difficult thing to handle. Sometimes the fishermen are not at home when the officer goes to pay the claims.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I want to take this opportunity of bringing to the attention of the minister a case which I think i3 well deserving of his personal attention. In my own county an enthusiastic political friend of his, a medical doctor named Murray, had' been in the habit of poaching on the West river in company with some other men 'Liberals and Conservatives. It was we'll known that Dr. Murray w'as a poacher, along with some other men who did not regard it as a heinous offence. Wherever they could get a salmon, they took it, to the injury of the fishing. Dr. Murray was of course no more guilty than the men who participated with him in the amusement. But about the 8th or 9th of October, when this government was safely installed in

power, he went up the river and announced to his fellow poachers that no more Grits were to be allowed to poach on the river, and that he and his friends were going to take all the fish that fall. Later on this new guardian of poachers, in company with some other men were setting nets on the river and he proceeded to telephone into town to Inspector Hockin, that men were poaching on the river, and that he should send out a policeman, which he did, another good Conservative; and he, along with Doctor Murray, took a net from a man who was not fishing, but who was on the road, and who happened to be a Grit, and brought it into town in triumph. As this man complained next day that there was going to be trouble about .this thing, Ghafiles <E. Tanner, writes to the minister, and develops a new phrase of the matter, that employment was to be furnished to no less than three Conservative lawyers in the county. Mr. Tanner writes:
Inspector Hockin of -this place has in hand important cases of salmon poaching on the West River. There has been a lot of poaching, hut the law was never enforced against certain people. The catch the other night involves some people who ought to he severely punished. One of them is a special guardian DeWolf McLean. Other important people are named Porters. _
It is very much in the interest of the public that the cases be thoroughly prosecuted. The example will have a most wholesome effect; and theTe is great need of lan example. These people have been making a business of poaching.
Mr. Hockin tells me that heretofore the department would not let him retain legal assistance in prosecutions. It may be unnecessary in cases at times to have counsel; but in this instance, at this time, having regard to general conditions and the people involved, it is most desirable that speoial dare should be taken to have the prosecutions conducted to a satisfactory conclusion;
I would therefore ask you to give Mr. Hockin authority to engage a solicitor to act with him. I will he glad to recommend a 'man to Mr. Hockin. I do not want the work myself.	,
The information will be laid at once before ia stipendiary magistrate.
A man was waiting ready for the job whom Mr. Tanner was ready to recommend. The official in the department communicated with Mr. Hockin, and asked if it was so that counsel was required. Then Mr. Hockin telegraphed:
Four persons summoned, two have confessed, others retained E. M. Macdonald. Circumstances require assistance of counsel.
I was not acting for the others; and at [DOT]the moment he wrote that letter he must have known that the two men who confessed were men that I advised to plead guilty. Hockin then proceeds to write a


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: letter in which he tells his own story, after the officials of the department have written to him and called him to task for [DOT]telling Mr. Tanner that the department had always refused to employ counsel.
I may add that it was represented to this department that you had stated that you [DOT]are not allowed to employ legal assistance, t presume that the information that may have been given you in such connection was, that such was not permitted without the authority of the department having been first procured.
Mr. Tanner and Mr, Hockin were 'communing together presumably on this line: The Grits, when they were in power, would not allow anybody to retain counsel, but we will get somebody retained, now Mr. Hockin, after getting this letter, tells the story:
On Thursday evening about 9 o'clock, p.m. I received a telephone message from Duncan Murray, M.D., that he was at Loch Broom, about 7 miles from Pictou, and that if I would send a constable there he would show him where a number of nets were set. He said there were a number of persons fishing there and amongst them was a fishery guardian.
I engaged Mr. David Morrison who went to the place and in company with Dr. Murray lay in wait to take the poachers in the act.
Then the conclusion of the letter, which I am not going to read in full, he says:
John McCabe and Scott McCabe have also been summoned

These men were not defended by me; I was retained by Mr. David Porter. Yet Mr. Hockin says:
David, Sr., and Benjamin Porter have confessed. The others have employed Mr. E. M. Macdonald, M.P., to defend them.
The men for whom I was acting are the men who confessed. I never appeared before the police magistrate in defence of any one connected with the poaching. Mr. Hockin ought to have known that because he knows I was appearing for the Porters, and had no right to assume that I was appearing for anybody else. Now, Mr. Hockin says that John McCabe and Scott McCabe were also summoned. These gentlemen were defended by another man, a political friend of my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen), and a friend of Mr. Tanner's, and to-day I understand that he asks that this gentleman be retained by the department in the case of McLean. He will have been the third lawyer who will have been connected with this case, as I will show you, and is being paid by the department as the result of the interference of Dr. Murray, who was a poacher himself and was not interested in enforcing the law but in getting the exclusive right to poach on the river for the Conservative party.


John Douglas Hazen: There is a saying that it is a good thing to set a thief to catch a thief.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Certainly, but when you do that you should not provide him with counsel and go on and spend all kinds of money on his defence afterwards. That is what the government is doing now. Then Mr. Hockin, this innocent gentleman who is entirely non-partisan- writes at the end of the letter:
It is alleged that Dr. Murray himself [DOT]has been fishing salmon there since October 1st. He also has been summoned and the day of trial has been set for October 31st.
Then comes a letter from Mr. Tanner. Mr. Tanner writes further in regard to this matter:
Dr. Murray's only connection with the matter was pure public spirited action as temporary officer of your department at request of inspector Morrison.
This patriotic individual, Dr. Murray, was being brought into the County court himself for trespass. He was fighting with the Grits up the river, and Mr. Tanner represents in his (behalf:
Under the circumstances detailed it would appear to be the fair thing for the department to defend Dr. Murray, and I would ask your favourable consideration of that.
Now, here was the second lawyer. The first lawyer, Mr. Fitzpatrick, was employed to prosecute these men who confessed. He did not require any thing for that, because he took no part in the hearing, but I suppose has received payment. He prosecuted two other men, and let me say that he took very great care not to even crossexamine Dr. Murray at all when it came to the hearing. This gentleman appointed to carry out and vindicate the law and stop poaching, this adviser of the department, never cross-examined Dr. Murray, who was shown to have been on the river night after night. Dr. Murray said that -he had occasion to go out there to attend a case of midwifery and took a walk down to the river. That is a new occupation for a medical men to be standing round on the river banks looking at nets and boats floating along. As the result rf this representation on the part of Mr. Tanner in regard to this poor unselfish Dr. Murray, Mr. Tanner's partner, Mr. John McKay, was instructed to defend the suit brought in the county court against Dr. Murray at the expense of the department. Then here is the stranger thing in regard to Mr. Hockin, that in a long letter of explanation in defence of his political friend, Dr. Murray, he says:
In order to annoy and put to inconvenience Dr. Murray they have brought this action. I understand that when the nets were seized the persons were some few hundred yards from the river, but had been
followed from the river and the only colourable reason for any action is that at the time they were taken they were not in actual use.
_ Now that is the issue that is being tried in the County Court, and Dr. Murray is
being defended by the partner of Mr. Tanner, the local member for the county, and at the expense of the government.


Mr. CARVELL.: Was Mr. Tanner prosecutor?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: No, Mr. Fitzpatrick prosecuted.	[DOT]


George Perry Graham: Both prosecuted and defended.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There was a prosecution against Dr. Murray in which the man acting for the department never cross-examined Dr. Murray when he went on the stand, and Mr. Hockin, the inspector, after detailing the story found on page 22 of the return says:
On information from Guardian Livingstone I had brought an action against Dr. Murray, whom the Porters alleged had been fishing himself, but he explained his presence there had been in connection with a midwife case, and having to visit had strolled down to the river.


George Perry Graham: To watch the salmon spawn.


George Perry Graham: To watch the sallmon spawn. Mr. Hockin said further:
I think it is in the interest of the fisheries that Dr. Murray should not have to hear the cost of defending this suit, and further that the constable David Morrison should be reimbursed the expense he had been put to to defend himself in the purjury case.
Now the man who defended Dr. Murray in the proceedings in the first instance was a man who hears the same name as myself, hut who is a political friend of the hon. gentleman (Mt. Hazen), Mr. William Macdonald, and in the case against fishery guardian McLean, who is a Liberal, it was dismissed by the magistrate before whom it had been laid by Mr. Hockin, a man who could not by any possible means be charged with having sympathy with Mr. McLean in any way. After the dismissal of that case, Dr. Murray comes along, through Mr. Tanner and these gentlemen come and get the department to appeal to the county court the case against 'Guardian McLean. I am told that the department have authorized this (to be done and the result is that the roan who defended Dr. Murray is now engaged by the department, and is representing them on the appeal of the case from the magistrate to the county court. So that to-day as the result of this interference on the part of Dr. Murray :in the way I have stated-as

the result of this doctor's action, the reason of which I have given to the committee on my responsibility as a member of parliament-the department have three pieces of litigation on hand in which they are represented (by three Conservative lawyers. And the question is how is it going to contribute to the administration of the law?
Had Mt. Fitzpatrick, who had been retained in the first instance, carried out his business properly in regard to Dr. Murray, he would have been cunvictul, but when I tell the minister that the man who represented the department when the defendant went on and told the story about the midwife case did not ask him a question in cross-examination in regard to that stcry, it seems to me the department would have been better instructed if they had advised Mr. Fitzpatrick to gj on and appeal the case against Dr. Man ay. The result is that the gentleman who started all this furore, for no patriotic reasons or desire to enforce the lav/, but wishing to be politically officious and offensive, is sued in the county court and is being defended by the department. The department have paid Mr. Fitzpatrick for four cases, including the one in which ne apparently did not try to convict Dr. Murray. I ask the minister if that is a proper way to carry out the law. I am not speaking as counsel for the men, because I told those who came to me that they must go and plead guilty, i am anxious to see the law enforced in mv county properly, and Mr. Hoekin wdll never enforce it properly if he is starting out cn this basis.


Mr. MORPHY.: Do i understand the hon. gentleman to say he was retained as counsel for the defence?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was retained by two of these men proceeded against at the time Dr. Murray was proceeded against. 1 took no part in the case other than to instruct them to plead guilty.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Dees the hon. gentleman think it fair to produce in parliament ex parte matter which cannot be contradicted?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have quoted from the records which the minister has given me.


John Douglas Hazen: You have travelled very far outside the records.
Mr. ' MACDONALD. Not very far. The minister cannot deny that he is employing to-day three Conservative lawyers in that county as the result of a prosecution initiated.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The hon. gentleman has shown a choleric temper in the presentation of his case.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend does not know me very well when he makes such a statement. I may be emphatic in my statement, but it is justified by this record, dhe hon. member should learn something about the rules of the House before attempting to lecture anybody.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not think that because a member is an old member he has any authoritative right to lecture young members.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have as much right to lecture my hon. friend as he has to lecture me. The resuit of this peculiar position, so far as the department is concerned, is that Mr. Tanner's partner is employed in the county court defending in that case. It also appeared that Mr. Fitzpatrick was employed by the department to prosecute certain people including Dr. Murray. 1 would ask the minister to verify the statement that Mr. Fitzpatrick, in the course of that prosecution, did not cross-examine Dr. Murray.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman says so and makes charges against the gentleman in his absence.
Mr. MACDONALD I am representing to the minister that he did not cross-examine witness.


John Douglas Hazen: That is not evidence that he did not do his duty.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I leave it to my hon. friend as a lawyer, that when the doctor stated that he had gone for a stroll by the river that night


John Douglas Hazen: There was nothing wrong about that. .


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nothing wrong in October for a doctor to go to the riverside? Would that not be a good subject for crossexamination? It was his duty to crossexamine. Of course I am not blaming the minister, because I know that he cannot be acquainted with all these detailed cases. I say that Mr. Hoekin is the man who led the department into this hole, and I would ask the minister to investigate, and see if I have not made out a proper case.


John Douglas Hazen: I think my hon. friend is making a mountain out of a very small mole hilil, and has also travelled very far from the record before the House, and made all sorts of ex parte statements in the absence of people who are not here to contradict them. My hon. friend admits that there was wholesale poaching going on in the East river for a long time past. He says that while this Doctor Murray made the observation after the elections that no more Grits would be allowed to poaoh on the East river. I have no doubt

that Doctor Murray would contradict that if he were here. My hon. friend is evidently repeating idle gossip. It is ridiculous to imagine that a man occupying the position of a leading physician in a community would' make such an absurd statement as that no more Liberals would be allowed to poach.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I can give the minister a declaration under oath from a man whose word vrould not be questioned.


John Douglas Hazen: I have no doubt that Doctor Murray's word would be accepted'. It is an ex parte statement easily made by a member of parliament here when there is no one to contradict it. I say it is an unfair statement to make about Doctor Murray, who, I understand, is a man of respectability in his community, and a man of standing in his profession, to say that he made a statement or that sort, and that he himself had previously been poaching, and the inference of my hon. friend is that Doctor Murray took this course in order that he might have a better chance of poaching in the future. According to the records in the department we find that Doctor Murray was down there attending a professional case. Having to wait a little while, he took a stroll along the river bank, and finding that poaching was going on he telephoned the fact to Mr. Hockin, and told him that the poachers could be caught, and asked' that somebody be sent down there. A constable was sent down, who made certain arrests. Now my hon. friend, not only reflects on Doctor Murray's character, but he reflects on Mr. Hockin.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I say he is a political partisan.


John Douglas Hazen: All I can say to my hon. friend is that he will not get one official m the Department of Marine and Fisheries hut will say that Mr. Hockin has been a most successful and excellent fishery officer and his record in the department is as high as that of any other official in Canada. That is the departmental record which Mr. Hockin has. He has been a fishery official I think for over a quarter of a century, he has been there under different governments, and his record as fishery officer is. an excellent one in the department, so I am informed by the officials whom I find in the department. Now Mr. Hockin very properly reported to the department that men had been arrested charged with poaching, and surely it is a desirable thing that the fishery laws of the country should be enforced, and that poaching should be stopped. Mr. Hockin writes to the department, having been informed that my hon. friend is going to appear as counsel for the defence,
and recommends that counsel be employed on' the other side. The Department of Justice was asked to name counsel, and they named Mr. Fitzpatrick. Now my hon. friend, having reflected on Dr. Murray and having reflected on Mr. Hockin, now comes down and reflects on the professional conduct of Mr. Fitzpatrick, who is not here to-night to defend himself, either. My hon. friend seems to think that Mr. Fitzpatrick has shown himself to be a party to a conspiracy because he did not cross-examine Dr. Murray. I want to tell him that that fact indicated nothing of the sort. Time and again when I have been acting as counsel I have refrained from cross-examining witnesses where I believed it would do my case more harm than good. One cannot tel] whether Mr. Fitzpatrick was acting well or not from the mere fact that he did not cross-examine witnesses. I do not think it is fair for my hon. friend, who is himself , a member of the profession to reflect upon the professional conduct of a brother member of the profession merely because he did not judge it prudent to cross-examine a witness, who my hon. frieqd thinks he should have cross-examined. I have not seen the evidence in the case, therefore, I cannot give an opinion. All I say is that the fact that he did not crossexamine the witness would not, to my mind, be conclusive evidence or any evidence at all, that he had neglected the case. Then a prosecution is commenced against Dr. Murray in the county court. The opinion of the fishery inspector is that it originated in spite, because of Dr. Murray's action in laying the information against these people, and the fishery inspector advises that Dr. Murray should be defended by the department, and the department has acted upon his advice. Is there anything wrong or improper about that? Then we come down to the fact that an appeal is being taken, and counsel of course are necessary to argue that appeal. Now I would ask my hon. friend if he really thinks on reflection there is anything improper or wrong about it, and if he does not think that he is making a mountain out of a mole hill. I would not like to suggest anything improper,^ but it seems to me that my hon. friend is influenced by his political feeling against Dr. Murray and Mr. Hockin, and possibly against Mr. Fitzpatrick, in the charges he is making. Now it is incredible to me that in a county like the county of Pictou, you will find three men of such leading, standing, and repute-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How do you know?


John Douglas Hazen: Because I am so informed. Mr. Fitzpatrick is a respectable member of the bar, and I am informed by the

officers in my department that they have no more faithful and zealous fishery inspector than Mr. Hockin. Now I think my hon. friend, before making charges of this kind against these three gentlemen, who are not here to answer for themselves, fehould have hesitated, because the charges are of a much more serious character than probably my hon. friend realizes. It seems to me, as my hon. friend states that he does not wish to make any reflection upon my conduct, that he is desirous of getting a slap at men down in his own constituency because of what has taken place in politics and for party reasons only. I ask any hon. friend in a'll sincerity if he thinks he is justified in making the statement against these gentlemen?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 
John Douglas Hazen: I might retain the hon. gentleman.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not know that my hon. friend would retain me, and I do not think I could take a retainer from him under the law. Therefore, I am entirely disinterested in bringing this up. But, I regret that the minister has assumed charge of the cases of men about whom he does not know anything. His eulogy of Mr. Murray is most surprising. How the officials in his department could have told him about his high standing as a physician and all that kind of thing is ludicrous to me and it will be ludicrous to the people in the county to whom I send ' Hansard.' Mr. Hockin is all right in a good many ways, but he made a sudden jump when his friends got into power and when Dr. Murray wanted to hire a lawyer he wrote to the department and suggested that they should undertake that duty, and that the employment of these counsel is uncalled for. I want the minister not to take all he hears about these people as gospel and at least look into the matter of the employment of counsel in this way, because if this goes on it will go on ad infinitum.


Bowman Brown Law: Would the minister inform me if Mr. Hatfield fishery officer in Yarmouth county, has been dismissed?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, he has.


Bowman Brown Law: On whose recommendation was he dismissed?


John Douglas Hazen: On the recommendation of a number of gentlemen in Yarmouth.


Bowman Brown Law: Has he had any investigation?


John Douglas Hazen: No. The feeling in the department was that, as Mr. Hatfield was 83 years of age, he was too old to properly discharge the duties of the office.


Bowman Brown Law: Would it not have been fair to Mr. Hatfield, who had performed his duties so well during all these years, to have given him an opportunity of defending himself?


John Douglas Hazen: The man is 83 years of age.


Bowman Brown Law: There are men who are 80 years of age who are smarter than some men of 40. He belongs to a long-lived race and he has been a most capable officer.


John Douglas Hazen: Our information about this gentleman is that he is not only 83 years of age, but that he is quite crippled with rheumatism and was unable to attend to the duties of the position.


Bowman Brown Law: Who is his successor?


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. James G. Doutre-ment.


Bowman Brown Law: On whose recommendation was Mr. Doutrement appointed?


John Douglas Hazen: He was appointed on the recommendation of a number of gentlemen in Yarmouth county.


Bowman Brown Law: What qualification has Mr. Doutrement for the position?


John Douglas Hazen: He has only been appointed temporarily, and if he does not fill the position satisfactorily he will not be continued.


Bowman Brown Law: If I move for the papers in connection with it, I suppose they will give the names of the gentlemen who recommended him?


John Douglas Hazen: Certainly; if the hon. gentleman moves for the papers they will be brought down.


Bowman Brown Law: I presume Mr. Doutrement was not appointed particularly because he was the Conservative candidate in two elections?


John Douglas Hazen: If that was the case it would give him a claim upon the party in case a vacancy should occur.


Bowman Brown Law: Without any other qualifications, as I understand?


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman does not need to understand anything of the sort. We will not appoint a man unless he is qualified, but if he is qualified the fact that he was twice the candidate of his party is nothing against him.


Bowman Brown Law: It is nothing against him, but I think that in filling a position of that kind it should not be very much in his favour.


George Perry Graham: I would like a statement as to the actual condition of the treaty which is supposed to really exist between Canada and the United States with reference to the fisheries.


John Douglas Hazen: Does my hon. friend refer to the treaty relating to fisheries in waters contiguous to the international boundary?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Douglas Hazen: I can give him the information with regard to that at any time.


George Perry Graham: There would be some discussion upon it.


John Douglas Hazen: Well, then, we will let the item stand until we come to that.


George Perry Graham: Then, in reference to the first item, I presume it has to do with 'he dismissal of overseers and inspectors appointed by the late government. I am not going to defend the appointment of those officers or attack the dismissal of any gentleman, but I would like to point out that if it were possible for some understanding to be arrived at between the provinces and the Do-minion by which this .vork and the regulations would be under the jurisdiction of one or the other, it would be greatly to the benefit of everybody. The minister may not be aware of it now, but if he happens to continue as minister, he will find out that political advantage is taken of the conditions as they at present exist. Fishermen on the lakes in Ontario especially will apply for an extension of the fishing season to the Dominion. The Dominion officers will be stiff and say: No, the request cannot be granted, while the provincial officers will go to the fishermen and say: We would be delighted to give you an extension but the Dominion will not allow us to do it. That leads to constant friction. That is one of the reasons why I presume the minister's predecessor found it necessary to have a staff of inspectors. He desired to get information as to whether these applications should be -complied with and as to whether the regulations were properly enforced toy the provincial governments. If some arrangement could be made by which the province, or the Dominion-I do not care which-would have absolute control of the regulations and their enforcement, it would relieve a very trying and irritating situation, and I have no doubt rwould be welcomed by both the Dominion and provincial authorities.


John Douglas Hazen: I think everybody who has given any thought to the question at all will agree with what my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) has said about the unsatisfactory condition of things as they at present exist. The authority apparently is divided between the two governments. If some arrangement could be made by which the control of the fisheries could be taken ever by one government or the other, it would be very much in the interest of the fisheries, and it would promote the public interest generally.
Every one agrees about this, and it is not a party question by any means. Buff, in the past, it has been found impossible to work the matter out satisfactorily, and I am not prepared to say that even had I



had the time to consider it carefully and thoroughly I would have been more successful than my predecessors have been. Certain questions with regard to the jurisdiction of the provinces and the Dominion at the fisheries are being submitted to the courts in a stated case, and it may be that the decision given by the Privy Council will clarify the situation.


George Perry Graham: The last one muddled it.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend smiles at my anticipation that the decision of the Privy Council may clarify the situation, and, as he has pointed out, the last decision probably made it more cloudy than before. There were about forty fishery overseers in Ontario and the feeling was that they were not doing any good from the Dominion standpoint, and were duplicating the work done by the Ontario government officials, and so it was thought better to drop them and not appoint anybody in their places. The hon. gentleman suggested that if you had a government in Ottawa of a different political1 stripe from the government of the provinces there would be more difficulty, but I may say that in my short experience with the government of the province of Quebec which is of a different political stripe from the government in power nere, I have had no 'difficulty whatever. Trouble perhaps may come in the future, but it certainly has not come yet. I think every one will agree that if some arrangement can be made for the administration of the fisheries from the one central authority it would be much in the public interest.
Oyster culture, $10,000.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What about this?


John Douglas Hazen: This vote is to keep the public oyster beds in good condition, and' is thei same amount as last year. I find a memorandum here from Mr. Found:
For more than a year past negotiations *have been going on with the governments of the maritime provinces looking to a modus vivendi which will enable the issue by the federal government of satisfactory leases of areas in which to carry on oyster cultivation, pending the settlement of the outstanding question of the fishery reference. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia agreed to the modus vivendi and it is hoped that Prince Edward Island will also agree and that before another year is over a start will be made by private enterprises to Cultivate oyster areas now almost barren.
That memorandum was prepared some time ago, and since then we have introduced a Bill' dealing with the matter.
To assist in the establishment, maintenance and inspection of cold storage for bait, the Mr. HAZEN.
conservation and development of the deep sea fisheries, and to provide for better transportation facilities for fresh fish, $50,000.
' Mr. HAZEN. We find that the fishermen throughout the country are taking greater advantage every day of the provision under which one-third of the express charges on fresh fish is being paid from the lower provinces to places in Ontario and the west. In view of the rapid increase in this business, I would ask the committee to amend the item by making it $65,000 instead of $50,000. I am told that the intention was to make it $60,000, but by a misprint it was made $50,000 in the estimates. I now propose t>
have it made $65,000.


George Perry Graham: I do not think you can increase the item in this way without the consent of His Royal Highness.


John Douglas Hazen: Is that the rule?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


John Douglas Hazen: I am much obliged to my hon. friend for the suggestion.


George Perry Graham: You can pass the $50,000 in this item and then bring in a supplementary item for the $15,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would ask that this item stand, with the understanding that we may discuss on it any matter which we please appertaining to the fisheries.


John Douglas Hazen: Very well.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) is interested in the question of the reduction works for dogfish, and L would ask that item to stand also.


George Perry Graham: We are anxious to expedite the passage of these items, and I would ask that items 285 and 290 be allowed to stand with the understanding that there will be freedom of discussion.


John Douglas Hazen: That is satisfactory to me. I do not wish to have the discussion restricted especially to any particular item. I think there ought to be free and full discussion.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A property was purchased last summer at Spry Bay, Halifax County, for the establishment of a lobster hatchery and the building which was on the property was torn down. In what condition is that matter new?


John Douglas Hazen: That matter is still under consideration; nothing has been done with regard to it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does not the minister propose to proceed with the lobster hatchery there?

* Mr. HAZEN. The matter has not been finally decided, but I think it is very doubtful if anything will be done this season.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why?


John Douglas Hazen: It is felt that there are other places in which the hatchery would be of more general use to the fisheries.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Have you paid for this property?


John Douglas Hazen: The property was paid for some time in August last.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There does not seem to be any reason why you should not go on with it. However, I will inquire again about it. In connection with item 289 for the issuing of modus vivendi licenses, is it proposed to increase this license fee?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: During the last election it was stated by Conservative candidates throughout the maritime provinces generally that the fee was too small altogether, and that it would be increased in the event of the Conservative party coming to power. It was the subject of an attack against the late government that the American fishing vessels should have had such privileges as they obtained under these fishing licenses for such a small amount.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Hazen, House adjourned at 12.30 a.m., Saturday.

Monday, March 18, 1912.
The SPEAKEK took the Chair at Eleven o'clock.


FIRST READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 149) respecting water in the Railway Belt and the Peace River block and land.-Mr. Rogers.
Bill (No. 145) to ratify and confirm certain Agreements between the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway Commission and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada'.-Mr. Currie.
Bill (No. 146) respecting the Saskatchewan Central Railway Company.-Mr. Martin (Regina).	*
Bill (No. 147) for the relief of Isabella Helen Horncastle.-Mr. Clark (Red Deer).
Bill (No. 148) to incorporate International Guarantee Company.-Mr. McCraney.
167i

Hon.  J. D.@: HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 150) respecting the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


John Douglas Hazen: This Bill is for the purpose of correcting a typographical error in the Act of 1904 by changing the word ' southern ' to the word ' eastern ' in the definition of the limits of the harbour of Montreal.


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

Mr. LEMIEUX.: I beg to call the attention of the Minister of Marine (Mr. Hazen) to a serious accident which occurred recently at Birds Rock Lighthouse in the Gulf of St. Lawrence when the lightkeeper was drowned. Bird Rocks is a very dangerous spot and many accidents have happened in years past, this being the third lightkeeper, in my recollection, who has met with a violent death there. The body of the lightkeeper has been found and is now on Bird Rocks where his wife and his assistant are living in the lighthouse. The father of ,the young man who is an old elector of mine has written me to ask the Minister of Marine to send one of the government steamers to bring the foody to the Magdalen Tslands. The father is an experienced navigator and he says that one of the government steamers, especially the ' Montcalm,' could reach Bird Rocks at this season of the year without any difficulty. It would be a humane act on the part of the Minister if he could comply with the desire of the father of the deceased.


John Douglas Hazen: On Friday evening or on Saturday morning a telegram addressed to me was received at the department from the agent at Quebec, conveying the same request that my hon. friend has now made. I had that telegram handed over to my deputy minister with the direction to reply that if possible one of the government steamers would be sent to Bird Rocks for the purpose of removing the body of this young man to the place of burial. I have no doubt the matter has been attended to. It seems to have been a very sad accident. I was not aware that several other accidents of a similar character had taken place.
Mr. iLBMiIEUX. There were three in all.


John Douglas Hazen: It seems to me that something ought to be done, if possible, to pre-

vent such fatalities occurring. I think the matter referred to by imy Ihion. .friend has already been attended to, but I will communicate at once with the department and let him know.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some years ago I wanted the Department of Public Works to reestablish a cable station at Bird Bocks to connect with the mainland and the Magdalen islands. It was found that the cable was always broken by the ice in winter. Then I changed my proposal and asked the government to establish a Marconi station at Bird Rocks. I understand there is a Marconi station at Grindstone island, but it has always been the opinion of the lighthouse keeper that it should be at Bird Bocks.


INQUIRIES FOE RETURNS.
Mr. TURGEON.: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to an order of the House issued on the 22nd of January for papers relating to the dismissal of two fishery overseers in the county of Gloucester. Those papers have not yet reached me.


John Douglas Hazen: My attention was not called to the matter before, but I will make immediate inquiry, and if the return has not been brought down, I will see that it is brought down not later than to-morrow.
Mr. iLEMIEUX. May I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals to bring down the papers concerning the dismissal of George Bourgoin, employed as statistician on .the Lachine canal at Montreal. My motion for these papers in so far down on the order paper that it may be dropped, and I think a verbal request to my hon. friend will cause the papers to be brought down.


Francis Cochrane: I shall be very glad to bring them down.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 120) for the relief of Ethel May Stewart.-Mr. Clarke (Red Deer).
Bill (No. 122) for the relief of William Holloway Adams.-Mr. MacNutt.
Bill (No. 101) to incorporate the British Western Loan Company.-Mr. Martin (Regina).

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 125) to incorporate the Western Dominion Railway Company.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill (No. 126) to incorporate the Universal Eyesight Insurance Company.-Mr. McLean (Queens).
John Douglas Hazen: Bill (No. 127) to incorporate the Canadian Public Health Association.-Mr. Schaff-ner.
Bill (No. 128) to incorporate the Montreal Transcontinental Railway Company.-Mr. Coderre.
Bill (No. 129) respecting the Alberta, Peace River and Eastern Railway Company.-Mr. Cha'bot.
Bill (No. 130) respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Currie.
Bill (No. 131) for the relief of Isobell Isaac.-Mr. MacNutt.
Bill (No. 132) respecting Mexican Interurban Electric Traction Company, Limited, and to change its name to Mexican Interurban Electric Railway Company, Limited. -Mr. Macdonell.
Bill (No. 133) respecting the Methodist Church.-Mr. Aikins.
Bill (No. 134) respecting the British Columbia and Dawson Railway Company.- Mr. Goodeve.
Bill (No. 135) respecting the Vancouver, Fraser Valley and Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Stevens. .
Bill (No. 136) to incorporate the Prince Edward and Hastings Railway Company. -Mr. Hepburn.
Bill (No. 139) to incorporate the Ottawa and Lake McGregor Railway Company.- Mr. Devlin.
Bill (No. 141) to incorporate the Interprovincial Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Les-perance.
Bill (No. 142) for the relief of Alvena Bell Leaitch.-Mr. Macdonald.



QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterick.)

Mr. BOYER:: 1.	Did the Postmaster General receive, on February 2 last, a complaint from the firm of Daoust & Co., of Ste. Anne de Bellevue, informing him that two letters had been sent to them open, and that those letters, instead of being delivered in the evening had only been delivered the next morning?
2.	If so, has the government special reasons for not replying to the complaint?
3.	Is the government going to inquire into the state of the matter revealed, and will it provide a remedy?
4.	Is the postmaster in this locality obliged to deliver postal matter on the same evening that he receives them, or is it allowable for him to deliver letters, &c., only on the next morning?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	The complaint in question does not appear to have been received at the Post Office Department.
2 & 3.-Answered by No. 1.

4.-This would depend upon the hour at which the mails reach Ste. Anne de Bellevue post office in the evening.


CANADIAN AGENCIES-APPOINTMENTS.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What are the names and salaries of the officials appointed since October 1, 1911, at the following Canadian agencies: Liverpool, Glasgow, Paris, Commissioner's Office, and Boston, Mass.?


Mr. FOSTER.: So far as the Department of Trade and Commerce is concerned, none have been appointed. Probably the question had better be allowed to stand to have an answer from the Minister of the Interior.


CENSUS OF SASKATCHEWAN.
Mr. MARTIN (Regina):: 1.	Has the census of the province of Saskatchewan been fully completed?
2.	Has any detailed official information of the census of Saskatchewan been sent to any one in that province? If so, to whom was it sent?


Mr. BURRELL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The special report, issued February 29, was sent to every person who made a request for it.


MR. R. S. FAULKNER, OF STELLARTON, CONTRACTOR.
Mr. DAVIDSON:: 1.	In respect of what public works was R. S. Faulkner, of Stellarton, Pictou County, N.S., the contractor?
2.	What was the contract price or total expenditure in each case?
3.	In respect of each work, at what date did the work begin, at what date was the work completed, and when there was a contract, at what date was it stipulated that the work should be completed?
4.	In respect to such work, how much per day was R. S. Faulkner paid, for how many days was he paid, and what was the total amount paid to him?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Construction of station building and freight shed at Granton, N.S. Contractors R. S. Faulkner and Jas. F. Falconer.
2.	$1,130.
3.	Work started April 25, 1905. Work was completed on June 16, 1905. Stipulated time for completion March 15, 1905, but the time was extended to June 30, 1905, by order in council.
4.	Was not paid for by the day.


C N. Q. RAILWAY-ROAD ON LTLE BOURDON.
Mr. SEGUIN:: 1. Has the Railway Commission refused to intervene and compel the Canadian Northern Quebec Railway Company to make and maintain on Pile Bourdon, between the bridges of Bout de Pile and Charlemagne, a road fit for carriages and macadamized as required?
2.	Is the honourable Minister of Railways and Canals of the opinion that by virtue of the bargain concluded between his department and the said company, the latter is bound to make the works in question?
3.	If so, has the department given notice to the said company of an order to carry out these works and comply with the wishes of the public in the matter, or will measures be soon taken to compel the company to fulfill such obligations?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	The matter referred to came before the Board of Railway Commissioners on February 22 last, and the application was refused on the ground that the Board had no jurisdiction to entertain the same.
2.	In August, 1910, the Department of Justice advised that the construction of the highway across Pile Bourdon, between the bridges of Bout de Pile and Charlemagne was not contemplated by either contracting parties when the subsidy agreements were executed, therefore the company is not legally liable to build the high way referred to. There appears to be no grounds for adoption of any other opinion than that given by the Department of Justice.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
C.P.R. IRRIGATION-SUPPLY OF WATER. Mr. BUCHANAN:
1.	Has the government received a communication from the United Farmers of Alberta in regard to the supply of water for the Canadian Pacific Railway Irrigation tract east of Calgary.?	.
2.	Has the government issued the following guarantee with reference to the delivery of water to the Canadian Pacific Railway Irrigation system east of Calgary: ' That the Canadian government stands behind the settler, and sees to it that he gets an efficient supply of water for live-stock raising and irrigation '?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
CANADA-FRANCE STEAMSHIP SERVICE. Mr. LEMIEUX:
Has the contract for a steamship service between Canada and France been renewed with the Allan company? If so, for what term of years?


George Eulas Foster: The contract for a steamship service between Canada and France has been renewed with the Allan Company, for a term of five years.


ALLEGED USE OF GOVERNMENT STEAMERS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1. Has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries been informed that the government steamers

William Joliffe' and ' Falcon,' connected with the fisheries protection service on the coast of British Columbia, are being used, as alleged, by the Conservative candidates in the north of British Columbia, for political purposes ?
2. If so, has he taken any action in the matter ?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	General statements have been made that these government steamers are being used by Conservative candidates in British Columbia for political purposes.
2.	The complainants have been informed that no one was authorized to use the departmental steamers for electioneering purposes. The agent of the Marine and Fisheries Department at Victoria, B.C., was advised to the same effect.
The general instructions to the captains and other government employees distinctly lay down that no part is to be taken in politics.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all correspondence in the possession of the Postmaster General respecting the change of name of Broderick post office, in the province of Saskatchewan, to St. Aldwyn.-Mr. McCraney.
For a copy of all correspondence, negotiations, proposals in writing, and other papers and documents in the possession of the government of any department thereof, relating to reciprocity in trade with the United States, bearing date between January 1, 1890, and December 31, 1891.-Mr. Sinclair.
For a copy of all papers, telegrams, letters and order in council, respecting the purchase of a piece of ground from Mr. Pierre Bourgeois, for the construction of a public building at Napierville.-Mr. Lanctot.
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, complaints and other documents relating to charges against Jas. W. Matheson, I.C.R. trackman at Meadowville, Pictou County, N.S., of the evidence taken and other proceedings of the investigation held on said charges, the reports thereon and of all representations in regard to the case from the Brotherhood of Trackmen.-Mr. Macdonald.
For a copy of all charges against A. M. Hatfield, fishery overseer for the county of Yarmouth, N.S., and of all letters, telegrams, and any other communications between the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or any officer of his department, and any other person, having reference to the same, in relation to the appointment of Mr. Hatfield's successor. -Mr. Law.
For a copy of all reports made by the inspector of agents for placing immigrants, both domestic servants and farm labourers, in Ontario and Quebec, during the years 1910 and 1911.-Mr. Sutherland.

Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That the order for the third reading of Bill (No. 106,) an Act to amend the Civil Service Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
Act be discharged and the Bill be referred back to the Committee of the Whole.
He said: When this Bill was in committee the other day we amended clause 4 by inserting the word ' preliminary.' The law clerk of the House has pointed out that in doing so we struck out the word ' qualifying ' before examination, which was not the intention of the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went again
into committee on the Bill.
On section 4, qualifications of third-class clerks.
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I beg to move that the words 'preliminary or qualifying' be inserted before the word * examination.,
BENNETT (Calgary). I certainly think that the provision of the section should be so extended as to provide for the case of graduates within the British Empire. As it now stands it merely allows advancement to those who are graduates of the Royal Military College or of any university in Canada. There are a large number of valuable civil servants that I know of in Canada who are graduates of English universities, some of Cambridge, some of Oxford, and from other leading universities of the world, and I think the privilege should be extended so as to cover the case of graduates in the Royal Military College or of any university in the British Empire. I cannot see why it should be otherwise.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there reciprocity in that?


Mr. BENNETT (Calgary).: No, there is something better than reciprocity; there is something that concerns true imperialism.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let those who are graduates of the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, who are already in the civil service, and who desire promotion, obtain that promotion by extending this privilege to them.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What I meant by reciprocity was whether the same privilege will be extended to graduates of Canadian universities in the English civil service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Practically it has been so. Members of our professions go over to England and all they have to do is to go through a very formal examination.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does not my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett, Calgary) think that if our people have to go through a formal examination in England in law or in medicine the same thing should take place in Canada? I am not against giving the

privilege to any graduate from. Great Britain, or,any other part of the British Empire, but even in this country the same rulle exactly exists as between the different provinces. There are no reciprocity degrees. Some few years ago a Bill was passed with this object of bringing about reciprocity in this respect, hut the principle involved in Dr. Roddick's Bill was not acceded to by some of the provinces. My hon. friend, I am afraid, is opening up a much wider issue than he thinks. We all stand for the British Empire, but our home is Canada and we want to give first chance to our own people in Canada, In England Donald MaoMaster, K.C., one of the ablest lawyers in this country, had to undergo an examination.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Purely formal.
Mr. LEMIET1X. Well, let the same formal examination be prescribed for those who come from England, South Africa, Australia or New Zealand. This is a very serious matter. If we extend this privilege to the graduates of any university in the empire the same privilege must be extended to our own people in any part of the empire.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).: I take exactly the view of this -question that has been expressed by my hon. friend from Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux). The first duty of this parliament, as I conceive, is towards Canada, and I think that in a matter of this kind we should not be called upon to give rights to Britain which Britain would not give to us. Mv hon. friend (Mr. Bennett, Calgary)' is proposing, if I am not mistaken, what my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) would call a jack-handled preference. It is to reconcile myself with the hon. member for Brantford in this matter


George Eulas Foster: You are thinking of jack-rabbits.


Robert Laird Borden: I think he calls it a ' jug-handled ' preference.


Michael Clark: Well, I am not particular about the term; it means the same thing. I think the position of the hon. member for Rouville is sound with regard to this question.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The question raised by my hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) is one which deserves consideration, and it ought to be looked into, but I think my hon. friend will admit with me that we should not go into this matter on this section of the Civil Service Act. This Bill refers to the third class employees of the Post Office Department. The wording of the clause is that which is adopted by all the other departments If we were to
adopt the principle which -my hon. friend advocates, and advocates so well, we should make the change not only with reference to the third class employees of one department, but with reference to the employees of all the other departments. I think this will appeal to my hon. friend. For the moment, we are only passing a clause which says that no third class clerk shall be eligible for promotion for a higher class until he passes the -qualifying examination, or unless he is a graduate of the Royal Military College, or of a university in Canada.	Even if we were satisfied
it is quite possible that he is right on the iqu-estion-1 would not like to make that provision in -a clause which deals specially with one class in one department. Consequently, I would ask my hon. friend to .allow this amendment to pass as it is. The question whether this ought or ought not to -be put into the Civil Service Act is one well worthy of consideration, -but. we will have to consider it in connection with all the departments and not only in connection with one department. <


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is a question which might well come before the next imperial conference, and I might say to my hon. friend (Mr Bennett, -Calgary) that, sooner or later, he may have to exercise his faculties in the British House of Commons. There will be a good chance for him to advocate these imperial schemes which, for my part, I consider the nobler kind. He might at the same, time, when he is in the British House of Commons, ask the British authorities of free trade doctrine to remove the cattle embargo and to amend the naturalization laws.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Both the hon. members for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) and Red Deer (Mr. Clark) entirely misapprehend the point I -make. The hon. member for Red Beer speaks of our first duty being to Canada, but allow -me to remind him that the class of people who would be affected by this proposed change are those who are Canadians, because they are living in Canada and are British subjects by reason of their birth. My understanding is that when one comes and takes up his residence here and finds employment he is a Canadian. I would, therefore, ask the hon. member for Red Deer what he means when he refers to these gentlemen as not being Canadians. Pernaps he might be able, in his usual voluble style, to explain. This clause deals with those who are in the employ of the government of Canada already, and it merely provides for their promotion. To enter that employment they have to pass an examination. In the western provinces any person who desires to study law is allowed the status of a student if a graduate of

the Royal Military College, or any university in the United Kingdom or Canada. We in the western provinces provide that any one may become an articled student at law without examination if he is a graduate of a university in the United Kingdom or of a Canadian university. This young man referred to in this section 3 is already in the employment of the government; the time comes for his promotion and he may be promoted by reason of passing an examination or by reason of his academic attainments, these attainments having been acquired before he became a citizen of Canada.
I submit that any one who has passed the examination and obtained the degree of B.A. in any of the universities of the United Kingdom may just as well be spared that examination as one who is a Canadian and obtains his education in the Royal Military College or in a university in Canada. They are both Canadians, but by an accident of circumstances one got his education in the United Kingdom and the other in Canada; one came to Canada in his youth or was born in Canada and obtained his education here; the other came after he obtained his education in the United Kingdom, and they should be on the same footing because they are both Canadians. The position taken by the hon. member from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), and by the hon. member from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) was beside the question and had to deal with a case not now before the committee. As the Minister of Marine has suggested, a man born in Canada might have obtained his degree in Oxford or Cambridge, and I know of one particular case where under the Rhodes scholarship system a young man in western Canada so obtained his degree.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A young man who goes to Oxford as a Rhodes scholar must, before doing so, obtain his degree in Canada?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not so. I know of two men personnally who did not obtain Canadian degrees. They got the Rhodes scholarship, one in the junior year and the other in the sophomore year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know three Rhodes scholars who went from Quebec and each had previously obtained his university degree. '


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know the rules very well and they do not have to obtain a degree here before getting the scholarship.


George Eulas Foster: As a matter of fact most of them do have their degrees before getting the Rhodes scholarship.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, but it is not essential.
Mr. BENNETT lOalaarv).


Michael Clark: My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) referred to me as having in my usual voluble style referred to someone as not being a Canadian. A compliment from my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) on volubility of style, I rate extremely high, but my hon. friend seems not only to be voluble in his style of speech but defective in his style of hearing, because I never used the words he attributed to me. I never referred to any one not being a Canadian, as he will find when he reduces his volubility to reading in ' Hansard ' what I actually said.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I would ask my hon. friend from Red Deer not to forget my Bill.


Michael Clark: There is no fear of any one in this House forgetting either the hon. Minister or his Bill. To come to the Bill, as I was doing, I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) has touched the argument in this case. If I proceeded actually on his style of argument, I should think that a man who learned his economics in England should be allowed to introduce English goods free of duty because he was born in Canada. It is not the man we are dealing with in this case; it is the degree, it is the qualification. The question is as between a Canadian and an English qualification; the man is not in the question at all. I did not mention him; my hon. friend thought I did, but I did not say anything about the man.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did not the hon. gentleman say the first duty of this parliament was to legislate for Canadians?


Michael Clark: I said the first duty of this parliament was to Canada. There is a very great difference be tween a Canadian and Canada. There may be some Canadians who would not make the distinction, but there is a great distinction between any given minority of Canadians and ' Canada '. I repeat that the first duty of this parliament is to Canada, and I don't think my hon. friend will disagree with me in that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We agree.


Michael Clark: The question is as between degrees and I think we are on safe ground in dealing out to a British degree exactly the consideration which Britain gives to a Canadian degree.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported as amended, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution.

Resolved, that it is expedient to extend the -limits of the province of Qoebeo so that the : boundaries thereof shall include, in addition to the present territory of the said province, the territory bounded and described as follows Commencing at the point at the mouth of East Main river where it empties into James bay, the said point being the western termination of the northern boundary of the province of Quebeo as established by virtue of chapter 3 of the statutes of 1898, intituled:
' An Act respecting the Northwestern, Northern and Northeastern Boundaries of the Province of Quebec/ thence northerly and easterly along the shores of Hudson bay and Hudson strait; thence southerly, easterly and northerly along the shore of Ungava bay and the shore of the said strait; thence easterly along the shore of the said strait _ to the boundary of the territory under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland; thence southeasterly along the westerly boundary of 'the said last mentioned territory to the middle of Bay du Rigolet or Hamilton inlet; thence westerly along the northern boundary of the province of Quebeo as established by the said Act to the place of commencement.
Robert Laird Borden: I have an amendment to offer, and I might mention it now. _ This resolution is founded on the description contained in the resolution of 1908. It has been prepared by the technical officers ; the Dominion Geographer and the Dominion Astronomer, and it is, I believe, in proper form with one exception. That is to say: my right hon. friend will find in the 11th line the words ' under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland.' There is a question about 'de facto' and 'de jure' jurisdiction at present. My right hon. friend will remember that for some time past there has been an endeavour to have a decision given by the judicial committee of the Privy Council upon a stated case which has not been heard yet, nor I think agreed to. In the meantime, I think it would be advisable to strike out the words ' under the jurisdiction of Newfoundland' and substitute for them * over which the Island of Newfoundland has lawful jurisdiction.' I think it would be desirable to distinguish between the 'de facto' jurisdiction and the 'de jure' authority.


Wilfrid Laurier: That would improve the Bill but perhaps it would be better to say: ' May have lawful jurisdiction.'


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps that is a little vague.


Wilfrid Laurier: It may be too vague for a statute.


Robert Laird Borden: The word ' lawful ' would preserve all our rights.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The question will probably soon be decided by the Privy Counci) It is true that some years ago a test case
was prepared by the Department of Justice for submission to that court, and I do not know for what reason it was not submitted; hut I am informed by the Attorney General of Quebec, 'Sir Lomer Gouin, that proceedings have been taken against some of the poachers who for some years have had so-called authority from Newfoundland to cut timber in the district which is supposed to _ pertain to the province of Quebec and in some parts of Ungava. When this resolution is passed and Ungava is ceded to Quebec, I am quite sure that the provincial authorities will see that the jurisdiction of both governments is clearly established by the Privy Council. May I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if he has communicated with the government of Quebec as regards the exact territory which it is proposed to add to the province of Quebec? I understand that the Prime Minister of Quebec has been quite willing to accept the territory of Ungava, but he claims that not only the mainland but also the islands bordering on Ungava, should be given to Quebec; and I would like to know from the right hon. gentleman if the islands will be included in the territory to be ceded to that province.


Robert Laird Borden: No, they will not. There was a question, in regard to the islands in relation to the three provinces to which territory was added-Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. We determined not to include the islands for the present. One reason was the difficulty of giving a description of the islands adjacent to those _ territories which would be sufficiently definite. Then, the islands may be necessary for Dominion purposes in connection with navigation and defence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my right hon. friend kindly inform the House what is the population of Ungava-Indians, Esquimaux and white men-if he has the information at hand?


Robert Laird Borden: I have not the information before me at this moment, but I will give it to my hon. friend on the second reading of the Bill.
Resolution reported, read the first and the second time and agreed to.
Mr BORDEN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 151) to extend the boundaries of the province of Quebec.


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

[Stage Direction]
* The following resolution was considered in committee, reported, read the first and i second time and agreed to:
[Stage Direction]
Resolved, that it is expedient to extend the limits of the province of Ontario so that the boundaries thereof shall include, in addition to the present territory of the said province, the territory bounded and described as follows:-Commencing at the most northerly point of the westerly boundary of the province of Ontario as determined by the Canada (Ontario) Boundary Act, 1889, chapter 28 of the statutes of 1889 of the United Kingdom (the said westerly boundary being the easterly boundary of the province of Manitoba); thence continuing due north along the same meridian to the intersection thereof with the centre of the road allowance on the twelfth base line of the system of Dominion land surveys; thence northeasterly in a right line to the most eastern point of Island lake, as shown in approximate latitude 53° 30' and longitude 93° 40' on the railway map of the Dominion of Canada, published, on the scale of thirty-five miles to one inch, in the year one thousand nine hundred and eight, by the authority of the Minister of the Interior; thence northeasterly _ in a right line to the point where the_ eighty-ninth meridian of west longitude intersects the Southern shore of Hudson bay; thence easterly and southerly following the shore of the said bay to the point where the northerly boundary of the province of Ontario, as established under the said Act, intersects the shore of James bay; thence westward along the said boundary, as established by the said Act, to the place of commencement,-Mr. Borden.
Mr. BORDEN moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 152) to extend the boundaries of the province of Ontario.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. HAZEN moved the second reading of Bill (No. 140) to amend the Fisheries Act.
Mr. SINCLAIR.: Will the minister be kind enough to explain this Bill?


John Douglas Hazen: The measure was explained upon its being introduced on .Thursday. My hon. friend (Mr. Sinclair) was, I think absent on that occasion, but it will only take a few moments to again explain the Bill. Owing to the uncertainty as to the question of fishery rights in tidal waters, following the Privy Council decision of 1898, the Department of Marine and Fisheries discontinued the granting of new leases of areas on which to carry on oyster culture and cultivation, and while some of the provinces at first arranged to take up the matter, as it was felt that leases of a satisfactory nature could not be given by the provinces without the consent of the Dominion, it was dropped and things were drifting on in this way up to two years ago when the Inspector of Fisheries took up the question of a modus vivendi with Mr. BORDEN.
the maritime provinces, under which this department would issue leases pending the settlement of the outstanding question of fishery rights, and without prejudice to the claims of the provinces in any way. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick agreed to this modus vivendi, although up to the present time the government of the latter province has not signed it, and of late I think there has been a disposition on its part not to do so; but Prince Edward Island, after first expressing anxiety to enter into such an arrangement, finally declined to do so, and the premier of the province, Mr. Matheson, *who has been in Ottawa for some weeks past, states that the local government is not prepared to enter into any arrangement which would hand over rights which it considers it possesses; but on the other hand is anxious to itself issue lease on the policy that it is in a position to place the industry on a flourishing basis. The question has been taken up with the Department of Justice, and the deputy minister of that department advises the desirability of amending the Fisheries Act, to enable a suitable agreement to be entered into with the province, and states that such an agreement would not in any way prejudice or affect the questions now pending, looking to a decision regarding fishery rights. The matter is important, because as my hon. friend knows the oyster industry in the lower provinces has been falling off year after year. If the hon. gentleman will look at the report of the oyster fisheries on the Atlantic coast prepared by Mr. Wm. A. Found, the Inspector of Fisheries, and published in 1910, he will find a table at page 23 which shows the following state of affairs so far as the oyster industry is concerned:	The oyster fishery some years
ago was one of very great importance. We find, for instance, that in the year 1890 54,926 barrels of oysters were produced in the three lower provinces. The year before that, the quantity was 61,549 barrels. From that time down to the present there has been a continuous falling off in the production year by year until in 1910-11, the last year for which I have statistics, there were only 27,005 barrels of oysters produced in those provinoes, of which 14,045 barrels were produced in New Brunswick, 11,264 barrels in Prince Edward Island, and only 1,696 barrels in Nova Scotia. This discloses a very alarming state of affairs, and it is perfectly clear that unless something is done the oyster fishery will become an industry entirely of the past. There is every opportunity in the maritime provinces for a very large production of oysters. The natural producing beds are situated about as follows:	In New Brunswick 5,000
aojres, in Prince Edward Island 4,300

acres, and iti Nova Scotia 1,250 acres. The area that might be made to produce oysters has been variously estimated at from 1,000,000 to 3,000,000 acres. Hon. gentlemen know that oyster culture is now carried on on the Atlantic coast of the United States to such a large extent that it yields approximately $15,000,000 per annum, though oysters sell for from one quarter to one-third the price they do at the Canadian beds. Under artificial culture, [DOT]oyster beds would yield about 250 bushels per acre per annum, and even as high as 500 bushels per acre might be obtained. Unless oyster culture is taken up in an intelligent way the Canadian oyster fishery must soon be practically wiped out. The regulations have become more and more restrictive, until at the present time fishing is not allowed to begin until October 1 so that it usually lasts about four weeks each season, and as the number of oysters is being year by year reduced, the quantity of spat is being proportionately minimized, so that the beds will have less and less chance of being seeded. When oyster culture is taken up the regulations will have to be so arranged as to enable it to be carried on to the [DOT]best advantage. The department, without the consent of the provinces, was unable to do anything because in view of the condition of the fishery laws at the present time, parties could not accept leases from us unless those leases had been approved of by the provinces concerned. Under these circumstances it has been thought better to pass this law empowering the government of Canada to grant permission to the provinces to make leases of these oyster areas, under rules and regulations and under terms and conditions to be determined upon by the Department of Marine and Fisheries and. the different provincial governments. If that is done it is believed that these oyster areas, which are not now yielding, can 'be leased in blocks of from five to ten acres, as the case may be. The result will be that the person who leases areas will replant the beds, and we hope there may be an increased production in this industry which is such a desirable one to perpetuate and develop. The Bill simply authorizes the Governor icn Council, under terms and conditions that may be [DOT]agreed upon, to empower the provinces to grant leases of these oyster beds.


John Howard Sinclair: I am very much obliged to the minister for the very interesting [DOT]account he has given us of the purposes of the Bill. My own view is that it will be much better to leave the management of the oyster industry in the hands of the Dominion government, and that is the view held by the people of Nova Scotia
generally. The other provinces are more interested in this fishery, as they have larger areas capable of cultivating than have the people of Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia we have no Minister of Fisheries, and no officers to look after these matters; but there is no doubt, at all in my mind that so far as the maritime provinces are concerned it would be much better for the industry and for everybody else concerned, if the Dominion government should continue to take charge of the oyster industry. I presume from what the minister has said that it will not be compulsory on the part of any government to accept the management of the oyster industrv from the Dominion unless they wish to do so. It will still be open, I presume, for the province of Nova Scotia to leave the conduct of the oyster industry in the hands of the federal government, as has been the case in the past, should the province wish to do so. I trust if that should be done, the minister will take an interest in this important question, and carry out such a policy as will have the effect of conserving the oyster industry.


John Douglas Hazen: I am very glad to hear the hon. gentleman's views because they entirely concur with my own. I think without doubt it is more in the interest of the oyster industry that it should be managed by the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Ottawa. This Bill is simply introduced to meet a difficulty which faces us in the case of Prince Edward Island, and I fear also in the case of New Brunswick. Nova Scotia has, however, consented to our carrying on the management of the industry in that province, and we are prepared to have the oyster areas delimited and lease them to certain people under the regulations to be established. But there is no intention of throwing any burden in connection with this matter on the provincial governments. To my mind the other governments are making a mistake which will involve them in a certain amount of expenditure in the way of stocking and delimiting the beds, and in other Tespects. However, that is a matter for the provinces themselves to decide. If Nova Scotia is still willing ito agree to the modus vivendi, we are prepared to go ahead and do our share.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).: In the county I have the honour to represent there is some business done in the cultivation of oysters and this industry is of considerable importance to a couple of the districts there. On that account I am emboldened to say, I think it would be a mistake to transfer the cultivation of the oyster to the ! provincial government. As my hon. friend

from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) pointed out, they have not the machinery down there for the cultivation of the oyster, and I fear if the whole thing is transferred to the province, the result may be ultimately the entire neglect of this industry. As it is, there has been a serious falling off. I think that the department here should devote a little more attention to the matter of oyster cultivation. The beds in my county, to which I refer, are in Tracadie harbour. I have asked the department to have some cultivation done there; and I take this opportunity of calling the attention of the minister to this place. It was proposed, I think, last year, that Mr. Kemp should go down and do some work there, as he did fifteen years ago, but owing to the fact that he was engaged in 'Prince Eidward Island, it was impossible for him to go. I had good reason to expect, however, that this matter would receive attention at an early date and I hope that the assurances given will be borne in mind by the present minister.


Mr.  J. HUGHES .@Kings, P.E.I.: I understood that under this proposed arrangement, the Dominion government would still retain the management and regulation of the fisheries and the local government would have the power to grant leases and receive the rents from those leases.


John Douglas Hazen: As in practically all fisheries, we make the regulations.


Mr.  J. HUGHES .@Kings, P.E.I.: And the local government has the rents-


John Douglas Hazen: Well, the effect would be that we would allow the local government subject to conditions which may be agreed upon, to grant the leases and to get the benefit of what revenues there -may be. I do not expect that there will be a large revenue. The license fee is merely nominal, a dollar or two an -acre. These licenses would be controlled by the commissioner. But I think that there is no question that under the law, the power to regulate in relation to close seasons and so on, is vested in the Dominion government. Even where it has been decided, as in the case of the rivers, where the provinces are the riparian proprietors, that they have the rights to lease those riveTS to anglers and to collect the fees, yet the regulations regarding the close season and all that sort of thing are made here at Ottawa.


Mr HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.).: And enforced by the officers of this government?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: I assume that the minister intends to make appropriations for the promotion of the oyster business. I understand that in Nova Scotia, assuming that Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish)
these beds are left under the control of the federal government, something will be done. But if in Prince Edward Island they do not agree to leave the beds under control of the federal government, will the minister spend money to assist the oyster propagation there?


John Douglas Hazen: Under the Bill, we will not spend money anywhere in oyster propagation. The proposition is, that worn-out bottoms, capable of producing oysters, but now sterile, will be leased to private individuals and these private individuals will practically farm below the sea as the farmers do in the land. They will lease these areas, plant them, and reap the profits.


Alexander William Chisholm: Will the local government have the right to determine the length of time?


John Douglas Hazen: Under the Bill everything is subject to terms and conditions that may be agreed upon between the two provinces, and that will be a matter of agreement having regard to conditions that are desirable.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read a second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
Mr. JAMESON.: If the provinces avail themselves of the benefit of this measure, will that mean that the Dominion government will abandon the work it has been carrying on recently, in connection with oyster culture? An officer of the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Hazen) department has been doing work in the different parts of the maritime provinces in this connection. For the last few years, I believe he has been operating in Prince Edward Island-Some years ago, .this expert of the department, Mr. Kemp, was in the neighbourhood of my own riding, and planted some oysters in the Annapolis river at Goat Island. I have not been able to get a report on that experiment to learn whether it turned out satisfactorily or whether it was a failure. Is it proposed to abandon work of this character? Or is this work to go on and are we to have reports of the progress made?


John Douglas Hazen: We must be able to get reports in the department. If the hon. gentleman will let me know what report he desires, I will expedite the furnishing of it. Mr. Kemp is now in Ottawa, I believe. There must be reports on file, I assume, though, as my attention has not been called to the matter, I cannot say that IJrave seen those reports.


Clarence Jameson: No, there is no report.


John Douglas Hazen: Then I should think it w mid be desirable that my hon. friend

should call for a report, and I will be glad to have it furnished. Even though this work is being carried on by arrangement with the provinces, as undoubtedly it will be in Prince Edward Island, and maybe in other provinces, I think that from the national standpoint, and having in view the importance of this matter, it is only right and proper that the department should continue, as far as it can, to assist in the development of the industry by placing the services of its expert in oyster culture at the disposal of any province to assist that province by advice and consultation. If the government here are to carry on the work then, in addition to the leasing of these areas, it might be well for us also to carry on experimental work to furnish object lessons to those leasing areas from the government as to the best methods of oyster culture. I do not see why we should cease our work here even although under this Bill we enable the provinces to extend their work.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


AID TO AGRICULTURE.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 100) for the aid and encouragement of agriculture-Mr. Burrell-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2-annual grant to encourage; agriculture,
William Pugsley: It seems to me that this clause is fairly subject to criticism in that it proposes to leave to the Governor in Council very wide discretion as to the granting of subsidies. A subsidy may be granted to one province which is not in proportion to its population or needs. Subsidies granted to provinces ought to be based upon some principle, as nearly as possible on the principle to be found in the British North America Act. If this Bill passes, it will give the Governor in Council absolute discretion, without consulting parliament, to do what the Governor in Council pleases with the money which may be voted for this purpose. 1 do not know whether it is intended that when the estimates are brought down a separate amount should be voted for each province or a lump sum for the whole Dominion to 'be used at the pleasure of the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture might enlighten the committee as to what is intended in that respect.


Martin Burrell: There is absolutely no desire on the part of the government to divide the money in any way except what is absolutely fair and equitable. I stated in introducing the Bill that the money would
be granted according to the population of the various provinces, and I think there would be no objection to bringing down the supplementary estimates divided as they would be according to the populations of the various provinces.


Mr PUGSLEY.: Well, why should that not be provided in the Bill?


Martin Burrell: I do not see why.


William Pugsley: It is a wrong principle. If the Minister of Public Works were to come down with a Bill providing that moneys appropriated to public works might be divided in the discretion of the Governor in Council we would all be shocked. It is true we have the statement of my hon. friend, and I have no doubt that the intimation he has given will be carried out in good faith, but parliament is passing a law which presumably is to remain permanently upon the statute-book, and I think we ought to recognize the principle upon which subsidies are to be given namely, in proportion to the population of the different provinces.


John Douglas Hazen: I have no doubt that the practical working out of this will result in the amount voted by parliament being apportioned practically in proportion to the population of the different provinces, but I do not think parliament should lay down a hard and fast rule that that should be the case. There may be years when one province will need for agricultural purposes more than another. Regard must be had to the conditions in the different provinces. It would be better to leave it as it is, allowing some small measure of discretion with the Governor in Council that he may have regard to the different conditions. My hon. friend will see that there should be some elasticity and a certain amount of discretion although the probable result will be that the provinces will all get their fair share.


George Perry Graham: Of course that could all be done under a special Act. When the estimates are brought down and passed they become a statute of the Dominion of Canada, and you can give aid to any province for any purposes for anything within the constitution. This is a general principle laid down providing for an amount of money to be expended annually and there should be some basis as to how the money will be divided. To put it on a sordid ground, it is possible that in one province, where a provincial election may be taking place, the government might intimate, as certain gentlemen did in a riding recently, that if the people want a lot of money expended in that province, they had better put in a certain party. In a riding recently they were told that if they wanted a lot of money spent on agriculture it would be

well for them to vote for a certain candidate. That is what was said by a very prominent member of this House.


John Douglas Hazen: I have heard that statement frequently in the last fifteen years.


David Henderson: Very frequently.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman seems to want to hang on to it. With that experience, there should1 be some standard established when a general principle is being laid down. Special circumstances can be met, by special legislation, and special estimates, as they arise. But, this is for the distribution of an amount to be voted annually and the government are asking us to place in their hands the sayso of where this money will go without any regard to the population of the different provinces.
Mr. HUGHES (Victoria;. It may not go to a province at all; it may go beyond a province.


George Perry Graham: This Act, unfortunately, says it shall be confined to the provinces. If we are going to hand this over to a department of the government we shall lay down the general principle upon which the division shall be made. I say this all the more strongly coming from the province of Ontario which has the largest population, and I think ought to have some consideration, particularly wnen the government had such a large support from that province.


William Pugsley: The statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), which is quite at variance with the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), shows the necessity for having some provision in this Bill. The Minister of Agriculture made the statement, as if it were the settled policy of the government, that whatever money as voted should be distributed among the different provinces in proportion to population. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, having an eye perhaps to the condition of affairs suggested by my hon. friend on my right (Mr. Graham), says: Oh, it will not do to declare that it shall be distributed according to population because we must have some discretion; there must be a certain leeway left to us; we must be allowed to pick out the different provinces, and to say how much money shall be given to each; circumstances may arise which might make it desirable for the Governor in Council to give larger proportion to one province than to another. That shows that the government has not settled upon its policy. The Minister of Agriculture, with Mr. GRAHAM
the very best intentions might be outvoted by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries when the matter comes before council. It is proposed to increase the subsidies to the different provinces. That is the basis of the provision, and nothing else. Section 2 says:
The Governor in Council may grant . . . to any province, for the encouragement of agriculture, a subsidy not exceeding such sum as may in such year be voted, by parliament for that purpose.
The Fathers of Confederation, haJving had in mind what would be the necessity of the different provinces, what they would require for education, roads, bridges, and other provincial purposes, felt that, in order to guard against dissatisfaction in the future, in order to guard against difficulties as between the different provinces and in order to prevent the spectacle of the provinces being obliged to come to the federal treasury


George Eulas Foster: If my hon. friend is going to dwell on the Fathers of Confederation, probably we had better take lunch first.


William Pugsley: I rather think so too.
At one o'clock House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


William Pugsley: Before the recess, when the Minister of Trade and Commerce seemed to think that the principles of the Fathers of Confederation should be subordinated to bis desire to get an early luncheon, I was proceeding to speak of the agreement of confederation, with regard to the subsidies, and I showed, I think, that it was considered in the highest degree desirable that the provinces should know exactly what subsidies they were going to receive, and that the allowance to the provinces should be made upon a fixed and definite basis, so that the people of any one province would not feel that they were in any way subject to control by or dependent upon the generosity of the federal government. The idea was to make them in every possible respect independent of the federal authorities. That was the same plan which was adopted as the result of the interprovincial conference in 1906. The governments of the different provinces met together at the request of the federal government and increases were made to all the provinces, but they were made upon a fixed and definite principle. It is now proposed to do by this Bill, what the government asked parliament to do in reference to the Highways Act, that is: to vote subsidies to the different provinces, but

to 'leave it in the discretion of the Governor in Council as to how those moneys would be apportioned. We know very well that one of the most important subjects with which the governments of the provinces have to deal is the subject of agriculture. All the provinces give aid for the encouragement of agriculture, and by this Bill it is proposed to add to the subsidies of the provinces sums to be devoted to this special object. I submit that in the interests of all the provinces, in the interests of the whole people of Canada, this Bill should provide that these additional subsidies should be granted upon a fixed and definite principle. The Minister of Agriculture admitted that was right and he said it was intended to apportion these amounts according to population. But that the government has not any definite policy upon the subject, is evident from the remarks of the Minister of Marine, who apparently took distinct issue with the Minister of Agriculture and said that there might be circumstances which would render it desirable not to grant the aid according to population, but to leave it to the discretion of the Governor in Council. In the absence of any definite statement from the Prime Minister, that shows the government has no definite policy upon this subject. I submit that the principle in this Bill is most objectionable. It was bad enough to do this sort of thing in respect to the highways, and the only excuse the Prime Minister gave for that was that the Bill had been drawn in a hurry and they had not had time to work out the details. Let me ask the Minister of Agriculture if that is the excuse in this case. Has there been no opportunity to work out the details of this measure, so that it is necessary to come to Parliament with this skeleton of a Bill and ask Parliament, with respect to these moneys for the promotion of agriculture, to give to the Governor in Council an absolutely free hand to deal with these grants just as they please? I can hardly imagine a case arising where there would be any difficulty if the Bill provided that these subsidies be given to the different provinces according to the population of each. All the provinces of Canada are agricultural provinces; they are equally interested in the matter of agriculture, they are all spending large sums of money for the encouragement of agriculture. Therefore, I cannot imagine that any possible difficulty will arise if the government should amend this Bill so as to provide that these subsidies should be given just as are subsidies provided by the British Worth America Act, on the basis of the population of each province. This Bill! purposes yielding to the Governor in Coun-t cil that power over the expenditure of money which parliament has always been jealous of retaining. In the estimates there
are almost thousands of items in respect to which parliament is asked to give its ap-( proval or disapproval for all kinds of public works which are specified in detail, but in this case, it is proposed simply to pass the Bill in blanket form, giving to the Governor in Council, which means the Minister of Agriculture, the right to be generous to one province and niggardly to another, and to depart from the principles laid down in the British North America Act.


Rodolphe Lemieux: election times to discriminate as between one province which favours the government and another province which does not. My hon. friend is full of good intentions, I know; but let us make it dear in this legislation that there shall be no discrimination but that all the -provinces shall be treated alike, and that the grants shall be really in the interest of the farmers and not- in the interest of one political party.


Martin Burrell: There seems to be some rather strange misconception in regard to this Bill. I am almost led to think that the ibon. member for St. John (Mr.Pugsley) and the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) were not in the House when I asked leave to introduce the Bill, for I took particular pains to state accurately and clearly what was the purport of the measure and what were the lines on which the government were going to proceed. I know that my hon. friend from St. John has a very fertile and expansive mind, and he has probably put into his remarks some statements in regard to which he was not very serious. He said that it was to be left to the Governor in Council to apportion the money among the different provinces. What the Bill refers to the Governor in Council is not the allotment of the money, but to devise the ways in which the respective amounts shall be expended, so as to ensure their being expended on agriculture and in such a way as not to induce the provinces to knock off their own agricultural grants, but rather to stimulate them along those lines. This is done because we had not time to formulate an exact policy under which we could spend this money ourselves, and in order to implement the promise of the leader of the government to give some aid to agriculture this year. I am perfectly in sympathy with what the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) says in regard to the work done by Macdonald College and other educational institutions, and I believe the money which this parliament may vote for agriculture would be well expended if devoted to the objects aimed at by these institutions. I might point out that in the province of Ontario, of about half a million dollars per year which the provincial government spends on agriculture, nearly 30 per cent is spent on agricultural education; and in Nova Scotia nearly 40 per cent of the money spent by the provincial government on agriculture is spent on agricultural education. The Dominion government would be amply justified in helping the provinces along these lines. But to relieve the mind of my hon. friend from St. John, I may say that when the votes are brought down, they will be divided among the different provinces according to population, so that eaoh province will know Mr. LEMIEUX.
exactly what proportion will be allotted to it. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote the closing lines of the remarks I made in introducing the Bill, and which will make this quite clear:
The principle upon which grants will be apportioned will be that of division based on population, the census of 1911 -governing. The government has given a good deal of consideration to this phase of the matter, and has arrived at the conclusion that the population basis is one which is open to the fewest objections. . . I may add that there is no desire in this matter to favour -this or that of the various provincial governments. We recognize that in every provinoe a government has been placed there by the people, and I am voicing the sentiments of the Prime Minister and his colleagues in saying that the sole purport of this measure is to do what the title declares it is designed for, viz.: to aid and encourage agriculture.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would that include aid to annual exhibitions?


Martin Burrell: It would be done in any way, upon agreement between the provincial governments and the Minister of Agriculture, so long as it will assist in agricultural development. These details must be left to this government, which is giving a grant which is rather unusual. The hon. member for St. John intimated that there was some difference of opinion in the government on this matter. I do not think so. What the Minister of Marine said was that owing to natural conditions of an extraordinary character, it might be advisable in one year to spend more in one province than in another. We can all understand that; but this year at any rate we do not propose to take that into consideration. There is going to be a straight division -according to population.


William Pugsley: What about next year?


Martin Burrell: In introducing this Bill I pointed out that it was more or less of a temporary measure. The idea of the government was to work- out this year a thorough knowledge of agricultural conditions in the whole country. The British North America Act has slightly confused the jurisdiction as between the provinces and the Dominion as to agriculture. We would prefer to do this work ourselves, but we want to work out the scheme this year on lines that will be fair and that will be approved by the provinces.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When an amount will be put in the estimates in accordance with this Bill, will that amount invariably apply to all the provinces, or will the government be in a position one year to exclude three or four provinces, and in another year to exclude others, or will

any amount put in the estimates be applied to all the provinces?


Robert Laird Borden: Not one dollar can be spent, under this Bill until it has been voted by parliament, and parliament has to be satisfied.


Mr. KNOWLES.: Can the expenditure be withheld without the consent of the province? Suppose 'a certain amount is voted to a province and the province and the Dominion government do not agree, could it be withheld at the dictation of this government?


Robert Laird Borden: If the province could not satisfy the government that the amount would be expended c-n agriculture, it would not be proper for the government to hand it over.


William Erskine Knowles: Apart from that there would be no conflict?


Robert Laird Borden: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would it not be very much better to have the distribution provided for in the Bill? Of course, we will all take the word of the present Minister of Agriculture, that if he is Minister of Agriculture next year, he will divide the money among the provinces according to population; but there might be a condition of things under which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would feel that it would not be in the interest of the Dominion to expend this money according _ to population. That is what we on this side of the House fear. Therefore, I think it would be better for the minister to frame an amendment providing that the total amount to be divided under this Act must be divided among the provinces pro rata, allowing this government to exercise some control as to the manner in which it should be expended under proper arrangements with the provincial governments,


William Pugsley: I do not at all object to the provisions of section 3, which provides for the making of an agreement between the federal and the provincial governments. I think that is very proper, but it does seem to me that my hon. Mend the Minister of Agriculture has not shown any reason for not putting in the Bill a provision that the moneys shall ibe divided according to the population of the different provinces. My hon. friend (Mt. Burrell) says that this year the government aTe experimenting in oTder to ascertain whether it is desirable to expend the moneys themselves instead of through the provincial government, but I would remind the hon. gentleman that if that decision should be come to, they will have to apply to parliament to amend this Bill because the measure provides for subsi-168
dies to the provinces. Therefore, before the Dominion government could take charge of the expenditure to be made under this Bill, the Bill would have to be amended.


Robert Laird Borden: Why?


William Pugsley: Because section 2 provides :
The Governor in Council may, in any year, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as are prescribed by order in council, grant to any province, for the encouragement of agriculture, a subsidy not exceeding such sum as may in such year be voted by parliament for that purpose.
Now, I take it, Mr. Chairman, that means the granting of a money subsidy to the governments of the different provinces. It would not be making a grant to a province if the government themselves expended the money by giving aid to exhibitions or giving aid to agricultural colleges; that would not be in accordance with the terms of this Bill. The Bill provides and provides only, for a subsidy to different provinces. The expression subsidy to a province is well understood. We had it first in the British North America Act, and we have had it in all the Acts in amendment to the British North America Act, which have been, passed since that time. I am going to suggest an amendment which I think my hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) would have inserted in the Bill if he had had time to think the matter over before introducing the measure. I will move that the following be added as a subsection to section 2:
All moneys voted in any year, if expended under this Act shall be .apportioned among, and paid to, the governments of the different provinces of the Dominion according to the respective population of the said provinces as established by the last census for the time being.
Now that carries out what my hon. friend says he would do if he had control over the matter as Minister of Agriculture, but he should put it clearly upon the statute- book that that shall be done. It would be a declaration by this parliament that where an arrangement is made for voting moneys in the way of subsidies, these payments shall be founded upon the principle of population so far as the different provinces are concerned, and it prevents an Act going on the *st'atue-foook which is imdefinaite in its character, and which would be a declaration by parliament that it was willing to vote moneys in the way of subsidies, leaving it to the government to do as they pleased with the money as between the different provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is perfectly apparent that if the scheme outlined by the hon, member for St. John were carried



into effect it would be perfectly useless. For instance, take the two provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan:	It must be
apparent that at times we _ might have an excellent crop in one province and not in the other. It therefore, becomes necessary to provide seed grain in consequence of hail falling in certain localities. The hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) knows perfectly well that in some sections of the province of Alberta during the present year the crop was entirely destroyed by reason of hail, while in other sections there was no destruction at all. In the province of Saskatchewan no loss was experienced. It therefore, becomes essential that in the distribution of this money there should be no fixed principle, but rather regard should be paid to the demands from the several provinces by. reason of their necessities. That should be the governing consideration, I submit to this committee, in determining how the money should be divided. For example I think the province of Saskatchewan this year, having regard' to seed grain requires little or no money at all; but I happen to know that in the province of Alberta large sums of money will be required to meet the demands of the settlers not only by reason of hail, but owing to the early frost, a condition which has not arisen in the other provinces. If you divide the money according to population then the necessities of at least one of the provinces may not be properly met. There is this, point further. As the interests of the provinces are presented to the Governor m Council, the government of Canada should practically determine how that money should be apportioned and divided.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman who has just spoken evidently did not hear the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture, who stated most positively that although not mentioned in this Bill, the estimate brought in would provide that the money should be divided, under this measure, between the provinces according to population. What the amendment proposes to do is to embody in the present Bill the suggestion and the promise of the Minister of Agriculture. The amendment simply proposes to place in the Statute what the Minister of Agriculture says is the policy of the government. My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett, Calgary) says that he objects to it being divided on any fixed principle. But that is what we on this side are contending for. We think it would be wise to do that. It does not at all affect, and would not and could not affect, the Act referring to the distribution of seed grain, or any other distribution to meet any misfortune that might occur. When special cases arise, this parliament has unlimited power to deal with such cases by special Mr. BENNETT (Calgary).
legislation, and it always has done so. Should any requirements appear or be needed in any province, this parliament has always been, I think, fairly generous in meeting the emergency and providing money in the estimates to so satisfy such a demand. But this Act is to provide practically a subsidy to each province, and that subsidy is to be expended' along certain lines, and it has no connection whatever with any special conditions that may arise. The Minister of Agriculture has taken the ground, and taken it wisely, that when this money comes to be distributed under this Bill, which is nothing less than a subsidy, it will be divided according to population among the various provinces; and when estimates are brought down for the money to he expended under this Bill, those estimates will be provided among the various provinces according to the population. Now all we are asking is this: That there be embalmed in the statute a clause which shall carry out the promise of the minister to the House this afternoon.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon friends on the other side are threshing out exactly the same question that was debated at very great length in connection with the Highways Act. There is not the slightest objection to setting forth the proposed division of the appropriation in a statute, but we are not going to put the division m this Bill because there is no necessity for it. The division will appear in the Supply Act in both cases, and there is no need whatever for putting it in this Act as well, so far as I can understand. Up to the present time no good reason has been shown to me why we should do that. If we were providing in this Bill a certain sum of money whicn need not therefore be voted by parliament, everything that has been said on the other side would be absolutely logical and absolutely reasonable, and we would accept it at once. But we have already assured the House, and it remains to be seen whether our assurance will be borne out, that the moneys provided for assistance to highways, and the moneys provided for assistance to agriculture, will be brought into the estimates in the way my hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) has mentioned this afternoon, and will therefore appear in the Statute, and that Statute will be just as binding as if the same provision were made in this Bill. It seems to me therefore that there is no good reason why the division should appear in both places.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is all very well when my right hon. friend gives us the assurance that the division will take place in the supplementary estimates this year, but we have no guarantee that it will take

place the next year or the year after. If that be the intention what good reason can be urged against putting it in the present Bill, and then we will know what will occur not only next year but some other year when another gentleman perhaps may be leading the government. We do not know what conditions may obtain in the future, and we would like to have this safeguard inserted in the Bill so that we may know what is going to happen. It has been said by the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) that in the west this is going to be distributed in providing seed grain. For my part I can well conceive what might happen if my hon. friends were able to go to any particular province in Canada and say: ' We will give you so many bushels of seed grain this year.' My right hon. friend (Mr. Borden) says, 'We do not intend to do that.' But we on this side would like to have the amendment of my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) inserted in the statute so that we may know what will be done in future.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend seems to forget that every year parliament has the matter in its own hands. A vote must be brought down, and parliament will have a perfect right, before the appropriation is made, to point out any injustice to any particular province. And that appropriation must be embodied in the Supply Bill. It seems to me there cannot possibly be any danger such as my hon. friend has alluded to. He speaks of the great advantage-I do not know if he speaks from experience-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I never distributed seed-grain.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend seems to have very impressive ideas with regard to this measure. The proposal in this Bill, as m the Highways Bill, is to utilize such provincial machinery as can effectively be utilized in connection with the subject. I need hardly remind my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley), that af this parliament isaw fit to make a general appropriation for aid to agriculture, it would not be necessary to have any such Bill as this at all. He knows that under section 95 of the 'British North America Act, the laws of this Dominion relating to agriculture override any provincial laws that are inconsistent with them. This parliament has the primary right, the dominant right, to legislate in respect of agriculture; so that if we saw fit to depart from the proposal which we are making now-which I think is a very good proposal-of co-operation with the provinces we should not need any legislation at all. But it has seemed to us that co-operation with the provinces and the 168}
utilization of provincial machinery is a good principle. At all events, we are disposed to try it, and to try it on terms that will be absolutely fair and just to every province of Canada. It is perfectly obvious that we must have assurance that the money in each province will be expended judiciously, economically, and acceptably, and for the purposes for which parliament has voted it. That is the only qualification we make with regard to the matter. So far as the distribution is concerned it will be on the fairest basis we can propose, the basis suggested by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), the basis of population, the basis of existing subsidies.


Wilfrid Laurier: If everything
contemplated in this Bill can be done by an appropriation Bill, what is the object of this measure? The object is that intimated by my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden), to provide a system of co-operation with the provinces. So far, we all agree with him. The object is a good one, and we do not oppose it-quite the contrary. But if the object is to lay a foundation for cooperation between the Dominion and the provinces, it seems to me obvious-and I submit it to my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden)-that \ye should have a complete law which the provinces will know and understand, and which will not be changed by an appropriation Act to be voted year by year. To this end the method of appropriation among the different provinces should be laid down. I confess that I view with some alarm the statement of the (Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), When he said that this year it was intended that the money should be apportioned among the different provinces. But he was not looking to the future.


Martin Burrell: The right hon. gentleman must have misunderstood' me.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am very glad of that. Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burrell) then please tell me what he said ? I understood him to take the view expressed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) that it might be necessary to give to one locality more than to another. On the Highways Bill we heard the same thing from my hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox)-that he hoped the policy would not be pursued of making an even distribution among the provinces, because one province might require more than another. That is exactly the kind of thing we object to, and I understand that this is the sentiment of the House, and that everybody is satisfied that this money should be distributed on the basis of population, which, I think, is

the fairest basis. If that be so, then why not have it stated in the Bill. Then, happen what may afterwards, the distribution of the money voted by parliament, for the purpose of aiding agriculture would be given in a proportion that is known and understood. I would not insist so much on this amendment but for the statement made by two prominent members of the majority, the hon. member for South Sim-coe (Mr. Lennox) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), that there may be occasion when it would ba advisable to give more money to one province than to another. This makes it absolutely indispensable that this should be in the Bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I remind the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when he speaks of distributing this money according to population, that to distribute it on the basis of a decennial census would not be fair to the west, inasmuch 'as in the new provinces we have a census every five years.


William Pugsley: The amendment does not say ' the last decennial census,' but the ' last census.'


Richard Bedford Bennett: But, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) knows that you have to read the law by the special provisions in regard to Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The population of one province may increase by 100,000, while another may increase only 10,000. Mani-| toba, probably, will not increase as rapidly as the other western provinces. The government will have the information before them by reason of the immigration returns. They should be free to distribute the money according to the necessities of the case, the climatic and other conditions that may arise from year to year.


Wilfrid Laurier: There may be something in what is stated by my hon., friend (Mr. Bennett, Calgary). Everybody is aware that the population of the western provinces increases more rapidly than that of the eastern provinces. But that does not take from the principle that the money ought to be distributed according to population, and if according to population, it should be according to population as shown by the census.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (Simooe).: I had not intended to speak on this subject, although it is one in which I am very much interested. But the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) happened to mention my attitude in regard to a former Bill, the one relating to the highways. I realize that I am in a hopeless minority, as it. might be expressed, at this time. I am' Sir WILFRID LAURIER
entirely in harmony with the government's attitude that there is no reason whatever for incorporating this proposed amendment in the Bill; I am opposed to that amendment at all events. I am exceedingly glad that the government has decided to aid agriculture. As I said the other, day in reference to the Highway Bill, it is a step in the right direction.
I think I will stand alone in the position I take in regard to the system of distribution. The government's policy is that, they shall distribute this money absolutely upon the basis of population. The at-tiude of the opposition leader is also that it should be distributed upon the basis of population. The only difference between them is whether that principle should be incorporated in the Bill now. I do not want it incorporated in the present Bill, because I do not think it would be right to incorporate it, but since the matter has been mentioned, I would rather like to place on record, my view upon this question as to the system of distribution. My view ts that neither the money under the Road Act nor those under this Act, should be distributed upon the basis of population, and I hope, as I said the other day, that the government, having taken this step in advance, will yet come to realize that, whatever party may be in power, the true basis of distribution is the needs of the localities, and not population or conformity to provincial boundaries. I believe that the less sectionalism wre have, the better. I believe that we should throw aside all parish politics, and parish legislation, that we should leave to the county councils the duty of providing for the needs of counties, and to the provinces, the duty of providing for the special needs of the provinces; that when we come into this House, whether it is in the selection of cabinet ministers, or as far as may be in the selection of senators, and as far as may be in everything, that we should realize that it is not a question of county or locality or province, but it is a question of the whole of Canada, and that we are legislating for the whole of Canada. I can see that cases will arise and must arise, when it would be more in the interest of Canada as a whole, more for the general advantage of Canada, that we should distribute this money upon the basis of the needs of localities altogether aside from the question of provincial boundaries.
It has been suggested that this may be used for political purposes. I am not afraid of that, I would not be deterred from my course even if the right hon. the leader of the opposition were in power (which God prevent for a long series of years, at all events) because I think the true principle is, that this government have been chosen

by the people, upon them has been cast the duty of legislating and providing for the needs of Canada; and they have the right to take upon themselves the duty of determining, and it is their duty to determine from time to time what shall be the basis of the distribution of this money. My answer would be, if I had the power to make the answer:	Do not trouble yourselves gentlemen, we are in power, and we are asked by the people to administer this fund, we will take the responsibility and to the people we will be responsible. I would not be afraid of criticism in that position. My view is, that certain portions of Canada are especially adapted for agriculture. Certain other portions of Canada are not so manifestly adapted for agriculture and the government of this country takes a large view of the whole situation, not provincially, but they say: Here is a locality that particularly needs the distribution of a certain amount of money; we are charged with the responsibility of distributing the funds of the people of Canada and whether the criticism is favourable or unfavourable, we will decide that this particular locality, whether it be in Quebec or in Manitoba, shall have this assistance out of this public fund. That position would be subject to criticism. Hon. gentlemen opposite, would perhaps think it was not honestly done, because they have not been accustomed to that sort of thing to any great extent; but wrapt in the consciousness of honesty, knowing I was doing what I absolutely believed to be right, I would" disregard the criticism of the opposition and I feel confident that the time will come when we will have sufficiently enlarged ideas in Canada, as to the necessity of obliterating provincial lines to distribute public funds as regards railways and this fund, on the basis of the greatest need of the population and having regard to the general advantage of Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: And suppressing the provinces also.


Haughton Lennox: Not suppressing the provinces to any degree, but endeavouring that every province shall devote its energies to that particular line of industry best adapted to develop the greatest good for the greatest number of the whole Dominion of Canada and where a section of Canada is especially adapted to mining or fishing or agriculture, we shall bend our energies to develop it along; the lines of least resistance, and so seek to promote the general welfare of all without regard to provincial boundaries or local boundaries of any kind.


Frank Oliver: to say that this money should Ibe handled	in	the different provinces
on conditions to be fixed by the Dominion government? Why should not the money be handed over to the provinces to be disbursed on the responsibility of the provinces? Why are not the government and legislature of the province just as responsible to the people of the province as this parliament and this government are to the people of the whole Dominion? It would almost seem as though the idea of this legislation was that the provincial legislatures and governments were in some sense inferior, or less intelligent, or less responsible, than this government is. That is an assumption that is entirely unwarranted. The provincial legislature represent the people of the province just as the members of this parliament represent the people of the Dominion and the government o.f each of the provinces represent the people of the province just as this government represent the people of the Dominion. Then why should there be any hesitation, considering that it is right to hand back to the provincial governments for exspenditure by them, money taken out of the Dominion revenue which is not provided for in the Confederation Act? Why should there be any hesitation about doing it and saying that we are doing it for that reason and that purpose? Why should this government want to exercise some sort of directive control over the proper functions of government in the various provinces? Why should we assume that they do not know how to build their own roads or aid agriculture within their own limits? Such an assumption is entirely uncalled for. So, I say that if we do intend to follow the principle that we are handing back to the various provinces money that in equity, though not in law, is theirs, let us put it in the Act and say that that is the principle in accordance with the amendment of my hon. friend from St. John. As long as the government refuse to do that, as long as the Bill contains the words and phrases appearing in it as it comes to the House, I must say that the government are asking too much in asking the people to consider that the fixed policy of the government is such as the premier has undertaken to state here to-day. The very fact that there are supporters of his own who hold diametrically opposite views to those he has expressed is a reason for urging that the principle, if there is a principle, should be embodied in the Act.


William Chisholm: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. 'Burrell) has admitted again and again in the course of his remarks that it is the intention to distribnte this money according to population. What objection can there be to inserting that in the Act? Is it not Mr. OLIVER.
more satisfactory to all concerned that that should be embodied in the Act itself? The aright hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) has said that there is no occasion for it. Yet, at the risk of being regarded as provincial by the hon. member for South Simeon (Mr. Lennox), and at the risk of talking parish politics, I venture to say that there are people who are not quite as confident of justice being done in the distribution of this money by Die present government, or perhaps by succeeding governments, as the hon. member for South Simcoe appears to be. I can understand that the maritime provinces, without any possibility of their territory being enlarged and without any possibility of their population growing proportionately with that of the other provinces, will necessarily become relatively an insignificant part of Canada; that is that their influence will be relatively insignificant. Whilst we have the Premier and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as the commanding influences in the Cabinet, we have every confidence that justice will be done each year, but they are not to be there always and we know not the day nor the hour when perhaps one, or both, of them will disappear from his present position. We feel that it would be only right and fair that the principle should be set forth in the Bill itself, that each and every province, the smaller as well as the larger, those that are not influential as well as those who have influence, should have an assurance of its fair share of this money. The people of the various provinces are entitled to their relative share of this distribution. There is a surplus of nearly $40,000,000, the treasury is full to overflowing, the different provinces have contributed to this money, and it is only right that each and every one of them should receive its share. We had the budget brought down a short time ago. There was no relief to the farmers of the country in the way of giving them a reduction of taxation. It is a very laudable thing that the government should spend a portion of this large sum in the improvement of roads and encouragement of agriculture. What are they going to do with the surplus taxation taken from the pockets of the people? They do not propose to reduce the customs tariff; the interests will not let them. So no thanks to them if they increase the subsidies to the provinces for the promotion of agriculture and the improvement of roads. If the government lessened the burdens of the people by a reduction in the customs tariff it would be very acceptable to the farmers of the country, but, inasmuch as they will not do that, it is only right that the farmers should be guaranteed their proportionate share of this money by having a section in the Act giving to each

province its share in proportion to its population and not leaving it dependant on the sweet will of the government. I think the amendment is a reasonable one.
Amendment (Mr. Pugsley) negatived on division.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Shall section 2 be agreed to?


Mr.  J. HUGHES .@Kings, P.E.I.: Perhaps this might be a suitable time to get some information from the hon.'Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell). 1 wish to ask him whether it is the intention to increase the acreage at the experimental station at Charlottetown, P. E. I. Perhaps I might ask the question by reading a letter.


Martin Burrell: I think it will he as well to bring that upon the estimates. My hon. friend will have an opportunity when the estimates are brought up and perhaps he will defer the matter until then.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Could not the hon. gentleman give the practical object of the legislation and tell us how he intends to encourage agriculture? These are broad terms. Could he specify a little more than he did before?


Robert Laird Borden: It has been made very plain so far. If the government had had in mind some of the considerations that seem to have influenced hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House it could have brought in a large appropriation in general terms and spent it anywhere throughout the country that it saw fit. But it did not think that the wisest or best course, so it proposes to use this Bill as a means of arriving at an arrangement with the provincial governments by which there can be co-operation between the provincial and federal governments. The government proposes to distribute the money, which it will ask parliament to vote for this purpose, in accordance with the population of the various provinces. Hon. gentlemen on the other side ask us upon what principle? The principle is a very plain one; each of the provinces of 'Canada has or is supposed to have an agricultural department under which money is expended in the interest of the people of the province for aid to agriculture and for agricultural education. We are endeavouring, by means of this statute, to provide that the money voted by this parliament and to be distributed under this .Bill shall he expended by the provincial government under such regulations and under such conditions as will ensure to the government and parliament of Canada that it is expended for the purpose for which it is intended. We propose to try that principle here and if that does not
succeed we may try some other principle another year. We may try the principle which hon. gentlemen on the other side seem to be fighting for-although I must confess that I cannot understand why they are fighting for it-of giving up the principle of co-operation, and of bringing down instead a grant in aid of agriculture expending it ourselves in the various provinces. We have not thought that was the best course, but there is so much objection to our proposal and so much argument in favour of this other course that perhaps we might take that into consideration. I would suppose that the principle which we have adopted and by which we would call the provincial governments into co-operation, would have commended itself to every man in this House without distinction of party. Instead of that, the proposal of the government made in an eminently fair spirit and to be embodied, so far as the division is concerned, in a plain statute, seems to be viewed with suspicion and distrust. I must confess I cannot understand why. The principle is the encouragement of agriculture by the utilization of provincial machinery and by cooperation with the nrovincial governments. It-seems to me that this is a very easily understood principle; it is a principle I believe from which good results may he expected, but I am bound to say that the other suggestion which 'seems to be urged so strongly by hon. gentlemen on the other *side of the House is worthy of being taken into consideration.


William Pugsley: I think my right hon. friend is extremely unfair to members on this side of the House. I did not hear a single member on this side speak against this government co-operating with the provincial governments in encouraging agriculture. My hon. friend must have got angry at some of his own followers because they were not disposed to accept the suggestion of the Minister of Agriculture, that these moneys should be divided on the basis of population. My right hon. friend surely did not hear us on this side correctly. All of us who spoke weTe in favour of co-operation with the provincial governments, but what we said was: that if it is proposed, as the Minister of Agriculture admits it is the correct thing to do-to apportion these moneys among the different provinces on the basis of population, that parliament in this statute should now lay down the principle on which this money is to be divided. That is all we were arguing for. And surely we have the more reason to argue for that when we find the Minister of Marine rising in his place and saying that he was opposed, to binding the government to distribute these moneys according to population, because, he said, there might be cases in which in one province or another it would

be necessary to appropriate a larger amount than would be justified on the basis of population. In view of that statement it is hard to believe that this policy was settled upon, as my right hon. friend says it was, by the government before the Bill was brought down. If the policy was settled upon, how is it possible that an influential member of the government could say it is true that so far as we reasonably can we will apportion these moneys on the basis of population, but we want elasticity so that from time to time we may depart from that principle in cases where in the judgment of the Governor in Council it would be necessary to do so. There is no ground whatever for the statement of the Prime Minister that we have opposed liberal encouragement to agriculture or that we have opposed the federal government granting aid to the different provinces and acting in co-operation with the governments of these provinces.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
['I have no doubt that to-morrow if hon. gentlemen on the other side are not ready to go on with those estimates they will be allowed to stand until they are.']
William Thomas White: I move that item 248, for a grant of $100,000 to the National Battlefields Commission, be struck out, as I intend to have the vote brought down in the supplementary estimates, with appropriate wording to meet the requirements of the statute.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I trust that the Finance Minister, in making his amendment, will make it so comprehensive that it will include the battlefields of the Dominion other than those of Quebec. There are the old forts of Beau 'Sejour and Gaspereaux in New Brunswick, and Fort Lawrence in the county of Cumberland in Nova Scotia, and a number of others, and I hope he will take into consideration the preservation of -all these old battlefields and forts, which certainly have been too long neglected.


William Thomas White: At present I -am dealing only with this Battlefields Commission with respect to Quebec. The other matters to which my hon. friend has referred w-illl have our consideration, but it is not possible for us to deal with them this year. I do not say that it will be possible for us to deal with them at any particular time in the future, but the matter to which my hon. friend has called attention, is, I am sure, one in which we are all interested.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not suppose it is the intention of the government to change the present personnel of the commission?


William Thomas White: I have no information to give my hon. friend as to that.


William Pugsley: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: The Finance Minister says that nothing can be -done this year, and he cannot give any assurance when anything can be done, as to these odd forts and historic battlefields. I want to impress upon him this fact, that unless -something is done soon, the day will have gone when anything can be done. Fort Cumberland or Fort- Beau Sejour are fast crumb-lig, and unless something is done speedily, they will simply be a memory. At Fort Lawrence and at Fort Gaspereaux on Baie Vert-e similar -conditions -prevail. If -anything is to be done to wrest these places from the process of decay, it must be done speedily. I think the attention of this government has been called to this matter. I know that the attention of the former government was called to it, and it w-as put off, as- is too -often the case with all governments. If the government would make some announcement with respect to taking early action in this matter, I think the -country would hear it with pleasure and gratification.


William Pugsley: I may say that the late government had this matter under consideration, and a proposition was made to enlarge the scope of the National Battlefields Commission. There did not seem to be any reason why that should not be done. The -gentlemen who are serving the country very acceptably on -this commission do not get any compensation for their services, and it seems to me that it will be pre-eminently the work of the -commission to take charge of the matters outlined by the hon. member for Westmorland. Several months ago I brought this matter before the House, and the hon. Minister of Militia referred to it as a matter of great importance on which the government would take early action. He -expressed unbounded enthusiasm at the idea, and I would have thought that the Minister of Finance would have been prepared to have enlarged the scope of this commission. A few words put in the Bill would be all that would be necessary.


William Thomas White: I think that the commission should be consulted with regard to such a matter. Individually, I am in entire sympathy with -the preservation of our battlefields and all -historic points in Canada. I have had in mind the possibility of enlarging the -scope of the commission, but as the expenditure for this year is comparatively large, it -is probably as much -as the government may feel called upon to make this ye-ar. The question of enlarging the -scope of the commission is a matter which will have to be left for future consideration, as there is not a great deal of time left this session.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: I may say that the proposition meets with my very

hearty endorsation, but inasmuch as we 'have a Battlefields Commission, I presume it would be more appropriate that such an item should be placed at the disposal of that commission. Whatever items may be set apart for dealing with our Canadian battlefields belong, I should imagine, to that commission.


William Pugsley: Let us get the item first.


Samuel Hughes: The item, of course, will have to be considered. The matter has not yet been discussed in council, but as soon as it is in shape my hon. friend will have full information in connection with it. Whatever has been said in regard to the matter has been most sympathetically received by my colleagues, to whom I have spoken.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Sympathy is cheap, it is money we want.


William Pugsley: Sympathy is a good thing to start with.


Samuel Hughes: There are certain persons who like to indulge in promises without performing them, I need not say that it is not our intention to proceed along those lines.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend the reason we were greatly discouraged when he was absent from the chamber was that the Minister of Finance, with that care for the treasury which of course, it is proper he should have, rather led us to believe that nothing would be done this year.


Mr. BEATTIE.: While this matter is before the House I would1 like to draw attention to two very celebrated forts at Niagara, Fort George, and Fort Missauga. These forts are opposite the United States frontier where the American forts are kept in good condition. It will be a disgrace to Canada if the forts on the Canadian side are not kept in an equally good state of repair, more especially as it will not require a very large expenditure for that purpose.


Samuel Hughes: I will take the liberty of bringing the matter to the attention of the Battlefields Commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let me call the attention of the Minister of Militia to the old fortification at Chambly, not very far from my own county of Rouville. This is one of the finest pieces of old military architecture to be found in the country. The fortifications have been well preserved1 up to a few years ago when the government' of Canada spent a few thousand dollars to repair the fortifications, and to restore; the names of the great soldiers and captains
who fought there under the French Regime, but lately I have noticed that the old fort was crumbling and giving signs of decay. I do not think that all the fortifications, all the old landmarks, should be placed1 under the control of the Quebec Battlefields Commission, because that body has one object in view. I believe the time has come when we should take into serious consideration the conditions of all the old military landmarks of the country. I would- mention also the old fortifications at L'lsle-aux-Noix which were beautifully built by the English officers about a century ago, and are very historic. These-fortifications are also crumbling, and I specially draw the attention of the Minister of Militia to the fact. We should not rest satisfied with mere words on this>
matter, because, as the English proverb1 has it, * fine word's butter no parsnips.' . Let the minister act heroically in this matter and see that a sum is placed in the estimates, and that a systematic policy dealing with the preservation of the historic military landmarks of the country, is adopted, for the perpetuation of the memories of the heroes of the past, and for the education of the young men of this country. Some years ago a monument was erected at Chateaugay to commemorate the valorous deeds of Canadians there, and a similar monument was put up at Niagara, but we should not forget that in other sections of the country there are landmarks which also call for consideration and attention.


James Joseph Hughes: The [DOT]hon. gentleman would not expect the present government, which has only been in office for a few months, to attempt to perform what he and his colleagues failed to do in 15 years of Liberal administration. He will surely give us breathing space at the beginning of our term of office and allow us time to demonstrate our intentions, if not our promises, in this matter.


William Thomas White: All that has been said confirms me in the view that this [DOT]matter should be dealt with in a comprehensive manner, either by the Quebec Battlefields Commission or some other commission. The whole question should be taken up and so dealt with, instead of dealing with it piecemeal and in hugger-mugger fashion. I am quite sure the proposal will have the sympathy of every man on this side of the House if treated [DOT]comprehensively. Because this is not a party question, it is a question in which we would all heartily support the government in dealing with it in a proper and comprehensive manner. So far as I am concerned, speaking for myself, I am heartily in sympathy with what has been said. It is only as to the method employed that

there may perhaps he any divergence of opinion. I aim entirely in accord with the idea that legislation should be passed authorizing some commission to take up the whole question, so that it may be dealt with in a thorough and comprehensive way.


Mr. McKBNZIE.: The discussion that has taken place this afternoon may be regarded as a basis for further inquiry upon this subject, and I do not wish the Minister of Militia and his colleagues to lose sight of the old fortifications at Louisburg. I was waiting for some other hon. gentleman to mention this grand old fortress, but as nothing has been said, I deem it proper now to bring the fortifications of Louisburg to the notice of the government. The old casements and other parts of those fortifications are just as much intact to-day as they were during the French regime at Botuis-burg, and we should take care that they are preserved as well as can be. An interesting point that I might mention is, that a former captain in the English army Capt. Kennedy, who spent some years of his life at Louisburg and died there, made provision in his will towards the upkeep of the fortification at Louisburg in co-operation with government assistance, so that the conditions as they existed at the time of the siege might be, as far as possible, maintained. I simply mention this matter so that when the government are dealing with this question, Louisburg shall not be forgotten.
Naval Service, including purchase and maintenance of ships, the maintenance and up-keep of dockyards at Esquimalt and and Halifax, and the establishment and maintenance of training school, $1,660,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will the minister please explain this item?


John Douglas Hazen: 
William Thomas White: College	$	5,500
Purchase of new machinery for the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt	 19,200
New buildings and other	works..	41,276
Construction of lighters, water-tank and other service boats	 64,5000
Total	$1,660,000
If hon. gentlemen want any further information regarding these different items I have that information under my hand, and will be very glad to give it to them. I may say pending the declaration of what the policy of this government will be touching the naval service-which as my hon. friends know the Prime Minister announced in the debate on the address would not be determined until after full opportunity was had of considering the whole question and of first consulting with the Admiralty authorities in the matter- it has been thought better that the estimates this year should be based on the idea of maintaining the existing ships and the existing establishments, including the Naval College at Halifax, on a proper basis, without adding new ships or adding to the equipment we have at the present time more than is necessary for the purpose of maintaining it in proper condition. It is on that basis entirely that the estimates are made up this year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I notice that my hon. friends who represent the interests of the province of Quebec in the government have all vanished. They disappeared at the announcement that we might discuss the /Naval service this afternoon. I am sorry for that; I should like to have seen them here. But let me be very frank with my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) and tell him, notwithstanding the absence of his colleagues .from Quebec, that each and every one of the Quebec ministers, in their respective (constituencies, and at large public meetings in my province during the last election contest, and before that contest, solemnly promised the .people that if a government should be formed under the leadership of the right hon. member from Halifax, (Mr, Borden) then, as soon as parliament should be convened, every sign, every vestige of a Naval service would disappear from the blue-book, that the naval policy of the Laurier government would be wiped o!ut and that we should never hear any thing about it again. Bet me tell my hon. friend also, as I have already stated in his presence elsewhere, that he has no idea of the fight, of the struggle, which took place in our province during the last general election on this naval question. We were told by the Minister of Public works (Mr. ;Monk) by the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) and by the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel) that our policy, was

suicidal, that we were selling our birthright to 'Great Britain, and that the time had come for Canada to assert herself and to do away with all this imperialism and this whole naval expenditure. We on our part, resisted those appeals, appeals of the worst kind, that were made in our province against the naval policy; we stood to our guns like men; and we educated public opinion in the province of Quebec to such an extent that on the 21st of September last we returned a majority of members of that province, pledged to a naval policy. Of course, the members returned in favour of the late government were pledged, I am glad to say to the Liberal policy. I say our campaign was a campaign of education and it was carried on against the declaration on the other side that if we were defeated every vestige of the navy would disappear from the blue-books and that there would be no expenditure whatever on such a service.
Now, I am surprised to see such a large amount of money in the estimates for the maintainance of that naval policy. People are being told every day, in our province, not only in the newspapers but at public meetings, that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) intends to wipe out the navy from his programme. On the * other hand we read in another section of the press, and learn of speeches on other platforms, that after consultation with the admiralty, a new policy will be evolved which will mean something while the old policy meant nothing.
Now, I want an authoritative statement from the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hazen) who is at the head of the Naval Department. We on this side of the House are not opposed to a Canadian navy; far from it. And in my own province I would be ready to take up the cudgels again to-morrow and fight the same battle that we fought before the 21st of September last. Public education has been eSected in that regard in spite of the Quebec ministers of the government and their followers in the House. I want the hon. gentleman to speak plainly on this question and to say to the country whether we are to have a navy-yes, or no. Whether we are to have a contribution-yes, or no. Then we can debate whether that contribution should be given or not. The naval policy should be above politics. Canada is pledged to do something. Brat there are certain members who represent especially the interests of the province of Quebec, who are pledged against it; and so are their followers in this House. Now, let us be frank about it. Why shillyshally? why speak one way for one province, and another way lor another province? Our words will reach the heart of the empire, and Great Britain will know whether Canada will do something for fcl
maintenance of Britain's supremacy on the seas or not. My hon. friend '(Mr. Hazen) will consult the admiralty. I know Ms fine Imperial spirit. I may disagree with him on the lines of the policy he may pursue. But is it not time to know distinctly whether Canada will do something or not.
I believe that the country has declared in favour of certain aid to be given to Great Britain to maintain her naval supremacy.
I say it would be unbecoming on the part of the Canadian people through their representatives to say that a certain policy was pursued by the late government, but we are going to wipe it out from the statute-book and do notMng. That is what is being said in the province of Quebec today; that is what is being repeated from platform after platform and in every newspaper of a certain stripe in that province. During the last election and since the last election^ they have equivocated as to what they will do and they are equivocating amongst the partisans of the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) in Quebec to-day whether they will do something or nothing. The time has come to speak firmly and plainly. If it is the province of Quebec the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hazen) is afraid of, let him not be afraid. In Quebec he will find a majority of His Majesty's loyal subjects ready'to stand for a Canadian navy that will do its share for the maintenance of the supremacy of Britain on the seas. Those opposed to that principle are but a minority, and a very insignificant minority at that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Returning to the House after an absence oi a few minutes, I am told that my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) has used the same means as were used on a former occasion to say that I was out of the House when this question was discussed. I am never out of the House when my duty calls me here. And I am not afraid to discuss this question with the hon. gentleman now or at any other time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are you going to do?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will tell the hon. gentleman if he will wait a minute. In this House I give my mind and .say what I think. But I wish to make clear the point I mentioned first, so that certain newspapers in Montreal to-morrow may have no reason to say that I ran out of the House because I was afraid of what might fall upon me coming from the important member from Rouville. I am going to tell my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) that he is not stating the facts as they are when he speaks as he has just spoken. I shall ask him to tell me at what public meeting since the elections the stand indicated by him a moment ago was taken.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When my hon. friend was returned by acclamation he made a speech at Lorette in the province of Quebec at which he announced that at last the people would be free from that naval policy that the Borden government has decided not to have any naval question to bother them and that something better than the repeal of the Bill would take place.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I said then and I say now that I am opposed to the scheme of the late government, that it is a bad thing. I said then as I say now that when the leader of the present government on the debate on the address took up this question he made declarations which were perfectly satisfactory to us and which were satisfactory in the province of Quebec. Those are the facts which wre stated in Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not much facts in that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am not going to be responsible for people in some quarters-
Mr. iLBMIEUX. In your own paper?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for Rouville will not find it in my own paper. I have no paper.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend state he has no paper ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I must tell my hon. friend that I took the precaution of getting from the court-house in Quebec a declaration of the ownership of ' L'Evenement,'
* of Quebec, and I find the name of my hon. friend the Postmaster General quite prominent amongst the directors and joint owners of ' L'Evenement.'.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend is dealing with ancient history. I was at one time one of the directors of the paper, but I inform my hon. friend that I am not now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Since when?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not remember the dates but I can get them for my hon. friend. I thought it was more becoming for a member of this government not to have any interest in any of the newspapers of this country which might be called upon to publish advertisements for this government and I gave away, transferred all my interests in that paper and I think it was the right thing to do. But my hon. friend will not find in that paper anything dike what he has said this afternoon and I defy him to find anything of the kind.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Get me the paper.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am not going to look for something that is not there. If he wants it he will have to hunt it up himself.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We from the province of Quebec have been misrepresented on this question, not only to-day but from the very day the debate in this House began. We have been told that we went around the province of Quebec and declared that we were against any policy at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is not the stand we have taken. The right hon. the leader o>f the opposition said one day in this House that we had taken the stand that the children of Canadians were going to be disembowelled.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: And that was tantamount to cowardice. I may tell my right hon. 'friend now, that I am against any policy, naval or other, which will put the Canadians of this country who are going to fight for this country in a position to be disembowelled without fighting. I have taken -the stand that the policy of the late government was to send Canadians on such ships, that if they should meet the enemy they would not be within range to fight and that these ships would be sunk before having a chance to fight.


John Howard Sinclair: Is my hon. friend aware that at the present moment there are four battleships of the same type <as was proposed by the late government, being built in Great Britain, and that they will be launched during the present season, and added to the navy of Great Britain?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Those are the things which we said to the province of Quebec. I do not regret it, I am of that opinion now, but we in the province of Quebec, have been told by the hon. member during the debate on the address that there was an anti-British party in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I want to tell him that there is no such thing in the province of Quebec, that the people of our province are British subjects and loyal British subjects-although I am afraid that if this cry goes forth that there is an anti-British party in Quebec, there may be one in some quarters-but the cry to-day is absolutely erroneous, not to say a lie.
We have taken a certain stand on this question. We were absolutely opposed to the naval policy propounded by the late government. What did we find when we came into power with reference to the ten or eleven ships which were to be built on the lines of the ipolicy of my hon. friends opposite? We found that the very men who were in charge of that service, had made reports in which

they stated that [DOT]when the last of these ships would leave the navy yard, they would be obsolete and of no use. Are you surprised that we were opposed to such a policy as that? We were not naval experts but we thought we were telling Quebec what was right in taking that stand, and arriving here, we found that Admiral Kings-mill and Commander Roper were of the same opinion as ourselves. I think that was pretty good justification. Now we are face to face with this question. The government have not had time to go into it, but we have never declared that there would be no policy at all; we adhere, one and all, to the declarations made here by the Prime Minister and those declarations are to the effect that something will be done, that a new policy will be put before this country. With those declarations my right hon. friend has no right to say what he has said. When this policy has been carefully studied, it will be put before parliament, and the country. Those are the declarations made, and it may be that my hon. friends opposite, who had such hopes of seeing this government go to pieces on certain rocks, and who have been disappointed so far, still hope that something might come up to wreck this government. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Le-mieux) says that now is the time to speak, that he must know now where this government stands. We are just going to take our time. The government declared that this question should be looked into, and carefully studied, and if the hon. member for Rouville is so impatient about a policy I can only say that the policy which will be put before this country by this government, will be a much better one than the one which he himself, as a member of the late government, put before the country and which was disapnroved.
In the last general election, if it had not been for the appeals which were made to the people of my province that the Prime Minister for (the time being was a French lOanadian and a Catholic, there would not have been a majority in that province of Quebec to approve of the policy which gave us a ' Rainbow ' and a ' Niobe.1


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) says that the party which he represents in Quebec is not afraid to fight, but that when they fight they want to be in a position to fight and not to fight upon vessels that are so' small and so imperfectly equipped that they will not be within the firing line;. Hoes my hon. friend mean to say-and I hope he will give me an answer to this question-that he and his party will take a vote to provide for efficient vessels that will be in the fight, and that his French friends in Quebec will not De massacred, but will stand up and fight like men ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I can tell my hon. friend that when French-Canadians were called upon in the past they did their duty
nobly to their country. That is what they did when they fought at Chateauguay. '


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But my hon. friend is not answering the question. Answer the question.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1 will answer the question in my own way.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Ah !


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. gentleman would like me to tell the committee what is going to be the policy of this government when the government has not had time to consider its policy.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I cannot make you answer.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. gentleman will not make me answer questions which have not been considered by this government. This question has not been considered by the government. My hon. friend may try as much as he likes to make party capital out of it, but this government has taken the stand that there is no policy which it has looked into, but that this matter will be taken up later, at which time a plan governed by the necessities of the question will be considered.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend the Postmaster General has taken refuge on the ground that he was opposed to the Laurier policy. That is the way he put it to-day before the House. He knows as well as I do-and if he denies it I will not bandy words with him-that the position which his party took in the last election, and ever since the Naval Bill was introduced in 1910, was that Canada owed absolutely nothing to England and that there was no need for any policy at all.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: When I heard words to that effect uttered in the province of Quebec I said that for all the years I had lived I had thought it was wrong to say that we owed nothing to England. My hon. friend will never find anything of tbat kind on my lips.


Wilfrid Laurier: I said a moment ago that I would not bandy words with my hon. friend. I never heard him speak, but I read some speeches upon this point, and I maintain that the policy which was followed by his friends in Quebec during the last campaign and previously, ever since the month of June, 1910, when the Naval Bill was introduced, was that Canada owed nothing to England, that they were against any naval policy and that, if they were not to be disembowelled upon the seas of China and Japan, it was not because they were not to be put upon

imperial ships, but because they were not to be put upon any ships at all. We heard in this very House the declaration that this policy would mean conscription, and the hon. gentleman knows as well as I do that his friends stated during the campaign that the children of the people would be taken by force and put upon the decks of these ships to fight for England. My hon. friend can take any position he likes upon the present occasion as to what he did or did not say-I would not contradict him even if I knew to the contrary, but I leave it to those who heard him and who heard his friends. I hope that his words of to-day will be reported in the province of Quebec just as he has spoken them, for nothing will be better for the peace of the country than that for once we have it from the mouth of himself and his associates that Canada owes something to England. The hon. gentleman says that he was opposed to the Laurier policy. Everybody heard him say that. He and his friends declared themselves as being opposed to that policy and they said that the first thing which would be done would be to repeal it. One of the first things which was done by one of the followers of the present government was to put a question to the leader of the government whether or not the naval law would be repealed during the present session. That was the course advocated by the party in office, or the wing of the party coming from the province of Quebec; they threatened that as soon as the late government had been defeated that policy would be repealed. Well, it is not yet repealed. It is, in part in force. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or the Minister of Naval Service (Mr. Hazen) asks for an appropriation of $1,660,000, for what?-to carry on the naval policy of the Laurier government. That is very far from what was expected by the people of Quebec who voted in favour of the members of the government from that province. They never expected that they would be called upon to vote one dollar for the maintenance and support of the naval policy introduced by the Laurier government. They did not suppose that they would be called upon to vote any such money as that, and if anybody in this House had stated to the electors of the county of Quebec or of Champlain county that they would be called upon to vote over a million dollars to carry out the naval law which was then on the statute-book I am satisfied there would have been a different vote in the province of Quebec. But, it was because these promises were made that hon. gentlemen opposite had the measure of success which they achieved in that province. Now, it is indicated in these esti-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
mates that parliament will appropriate $1,660,000. What for? The naval law asks for the creation of a Naval Department. The Naval Department is maintained. The naval law asks for the creation of a naval college. The naval college is maintained. The only thing that is dropped off is the building of warships for which we had invited tenders. In the course of time I do not know what will be done by the government after they have conferred with Great Britain. But, I know what will be the answer of Great Britain. Whatever answer they will have-in the future, at the present time they are providing the money for carrying out the naval law. What is it that they provide for? They provide for a naval college with a naval staff; they provide for all the frills and feathers of the naval service, but they do not provide for building ships. We shall have no tin-pot navy! But we shall have a. gold lace navy; we shall have an admiral, commodore and' captains, but we shall have no sailors. That is what is provided for by these estimates. I find no fault with the estimates and we are ready to vote the-money. What will the answer of the British government be' when my hon. friend goes over to the other side in order to get that answer? We have it already and we have had it since 1909? At the conference that took place in 1909, which was called' bv the British government and at which all the dominions were represented, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, the first thing the British government asked for was a contribution. We were not in favour of a contribution. Whether or not the present government are in favour of a contribution remains to-be seen; we will have to wait for that.
The next thing that was asked for was a fleet unit on the Pacific, and for reasons intimated more than once during last parliament, we did not think it advisable to have a unit on the Pacific only; we thought we must have a service both on the Pacific and the Atlantic-a moderate service to begin because we had to commence in a moderate way-but at all events it was accepted. I shall not anticipate what may be the policy of the present government on the navy but after their return from England we will have an opportunity of judging of it. I have simply to repeat that the naval law is maintained by this government, and that whatever my hon. friend say to the contrary I am glad for my part that he is forced to go back on the language he used last election and to retain the naval policy of the late government.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) says he had no occasion to hear what I had to say in the

last election, but if that is so it is his own fault. When the leader of the opposition was going around the province of Quebec he singled out the county I represent to speak in at the last minute, when he knew he could not be answered, and so he called a big meeting in my county on the afternoon of the day before the voting. I then sent a Telegram to the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Lauxier) asking him to allow me to appear with my friends at that meeting and I would give him a chance of hearing what I had to say. That request the Tight hon. gentleman refused. Therefore, if the right hon. gentleman had no opportunity to hear me on that occasion, he had nobody to blame but himself for it. I suppose the right hon. the leader of the opposition remembers that incident; at all events I do. I shall not qualify his action in refusing me a hearing but I may say that it is the first time I ever heard of the leader of a great party going, on the eve of an election, into a county, when he could not be answered, and refusing the candidate on the other side an opportunity to speak. If the right hon. gentleman is much surprised to-day in finding a vote for the navy in the estimates, I may tell him that I am not, and I may tell him further that that vote is absolutely logical and consistent with the policy of the Conservative party. Whan we came into power we found certain conditions existing; we found that a naval college had been built at Halifax and that two ships had been purchased. Does the right hon. gentleman mean to say that we should have set fire to that college and sunk those two ships? It is true that one of 'them had met with a bad accident on a certain trip down in Yarmouth, but, nevertheless, we found her there with the other ship, both belonging to Canada. As we had no opportunity to put a naval policy before the country, was it not reasonable and sensible to do as we have done and to say that we would not build these other ten ships which were proposed by the late government, sending back the cheques which had been put in with the tenders and declaring to the country that the ships would not be built? We had under the circumstances to continue what the late government had put into operation. It would have been ridiculokis, even for those so called bad Nationalists in Quebec, without one moment of consideration, to -close the naval college and give the ships to some other country. That would not	be	reasonable. I	may	say	thatwhen this government has looked into the question, the policy which shall be brought forward and which shall have the support of all the people of this country, French-Canadian and. English-Oanadian alike, will	be	a policy that	every	one	will
regard in a broad-minded spirit as this government shall regard it. I am not taking here at the present moment any stand different from that which I have taken in the province of Quebec. I know that some people have said: we owe nothing to the empire. I am not of that opinion. I believe that we owe to the British Empire the protection of the liberties which we enjoy in this country and which are dear to us. We French .Canadians think as much of the Union Jack as do the people of any other race or ' creed in this country, and nobody will ever find a word from me even suggesting anything to the contrary. And, Sir, that is the opinion of the French Canadian people of the province of Quebec to-day, and it has been the opinion of the French Canadians of Quebec for years and years. You will not find today in any part of the province of Quebec any support for a proposal for annexation to the country south of us; we are British subjects; we are glad that we are British subjects. And, even although some men may say: we owe nothing to the British Empire; yet if ithe French Canadians had a chance to-day to go back to the French flag they would stay with the British flag under which they have enjoyed their liberties. That is the sentiment of the province of Quebec, and although that sentiment -may be distorted for political and party ends, I say that the province of Quebec is as loyal to the empire as any other province.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pelletier) has one language for this House and another language for his electors, and for the people of the district of Quebec when he addresses them on public questions. I state here most positively that during the election campaign the Postmaster General was one of the worst sinners on the question of the navy to be found in the province of Quebec First of all he did not run as a straight Conservative candidate.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I did.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You did? '


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, I did.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pelletier) has more brass than 'the 'Niobe' ever used up in her 'construction.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I withdraw the remark if it is offensive.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is not offensive, coming from you.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -My hon. friend (Mr. Pelletier) -has the audacity to state that he

did not run as. a Nationalist during the last campaign. Has he the audacity to say so now in this House?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Shall I answer now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will tell the hon. gentleman


Rodolphe Lemieux: Give the answer, yes or no, because on that point I will read what the hon. gentleman says in hd-s own newspaper.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If the hon. member takes his seat I will give the answer.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend (Mr. Pelletier) is not going to give a straight answer. I will give the answer, as the hon. gentleman insists he did not run as a Nationalist last election. My hon. friend) dls one of the proprietors of ' L'Evenement ' of Quebec. True, he has told us that he is no longer one of the proprietors of that newspaper, and I accept his word, but he was one of the proprietors during a part of the session, as I have ascertained from the records of the Quebec Court House. But, when he was a co-proprietor of ' L'Evenement,' speaking after the elections in the county of Monf-magny, represented by young Armand Lavergne, who was his master during the last election, who was his guide spiritual and temporal during the last election, speaking in the county of Montmagny, in the presence of Mr. Lavergne, to celebrate the victory of my hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. L'Esperance), here is what my hon. friend (Mr. Pelletier) stated, and I quote from ' L'Evenement ' of Tuesday, the 3rd of October, 1911, when he was fresh from his triumph with forty majority in Quebec county.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is better than being beaten in Gaspe.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I did not catch what my hon. friend said.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I said that forty majority was better than being beaten in Gaspe.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But I was defeated as a straight Liberal, and my hon. friend (Mr. Pelletier) has been defeated under all colours -and all shades for the last twenty years.
But let me quote what the hon. gentleman says; and I am glad you are in the chair, Mr. Chairman, because you were yourself a witness to what took place:
-Mr. Pelletier assured the electors that the French Canadian Conservative members from the province of Quebec would be less the representatives of their counties than the re-Mr. LEMIEUX.
presentatives of their race. He proclaimed, himself a Nationalist and proud to be a Nationalist. The day will come when there will be no more Nationalist groups, but when the Nationalist spirit shall have invaded the whole country.
Was not my hon. friend a Nationalist on the 21st of September last, and before that? A few weeks before the felection, he proclaimed boldly, in the presence of his master, Mr. Lavergne, that he was a Nationalist, and that he hoped to bring the whole Conservative fold under the magic wand of the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec. And now my hon. friend says that no racial appeals were made by the Nationalist party. He will not deny, I am sure, that Mr. Bouirassa is the leading spirit of the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec. My hon. friend took his instructions from Mr. Bourassa, and from Mr. Lavergne. He would never have been a candidate in the county of Quebec if be had not sworn allegiance to Nationalist principles. Mr. Bourassa publishes the gospel of the Nationalist party in the province of Quebec, ' Le Devoir.' Now let us see what kind of literature was used by my hon. friend and by every other Nationalist candidate against the naval policy of the Laurier government:
Mr. Laurier did not stop at the violation of the Canadian constitution; from his own admission, by taking, without authorization, the money of the Canadian people to arm the Canadian troops and to have Canada participate in this infamous _ war (South African war); his cynicism carried him to the point of proclaiming-in the full light of parliament-that this war was the most just that England had ever carried on. No responsible statesman, not even Mr. Chamberlain, had ever dared to go so far. Yes, the Nestor of the Imperial Conference, the Canadian Washington, found it right and good that 50,000 men should be massacred, millions of farms to be burnt and ravaged, peaceful homes to be pillaged, women to be outraged, and little children to be shut up in pestilential camps, where they died like flies. English and Afrikander soldiers who fell on the veldt for the glory of Chamberlain, women who died from shame or misery for the glorification of Laurier, children whose entrails have dried up in the concentration camps for the honour of the empire.
This was not published at the time the contingents were sent to South Africa. It was published during the last campaign by my hon. friend's party leader, whom he followed very modestly and very humbly. Did it arouse the racial feeling of the French-Canadians? With all the incendiary speeches delivered by the hon. gentleman, with all the incendiary speeches delivered by the Minister of Inland Revenue, and with all the incendiary speeches delivered by the Minister of Public Works, I am

proud to say that the province of Quebec gave a majority in favour of the naval policy of the Laurier government; and I say to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that if he comes back from London with a similar policy, he will have, and the government of this country will have, the support of the whole province of Quebec notwithstanding the appeals made by the firebrand whom I see in my presence just now.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Never mind big words. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Le-mieux) has thought fit, since the beginning of this session, to throw mud at a great many people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Chairman, I rise-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I should have risen a little earlier, to call the hon. member to order for using the word ' firebrand.'


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for Rouville is very thin-skinned.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am in good humour.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It does not seem so. The hon. member is in the habit of attacking the honour and the reputation of the most honest men of his province.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Whom?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member used to be very courteous. I do not know whether or not it is the cold shades of opposition that have angered him, but he has acquired the new habit of calling people names and of assailing the reputation of such men as Mr. Ducharme, one of the most respectable men in Montreal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A notorious boodler.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I can only say I am surprised. I wish the hon. member for Rouville would repeat outside of the House what he says in this House against Mr. Ducharme, so that he might be called upon to answer. From his seat in the House, protected by the privilege of a member of the House of Commons, he is able to say a great many things which he would not dare to say outside of the House. I invite him now to repeat these words against Mr. Ducharme outside of the precincts of this House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Come back to the navy.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for Rouville went outside of the navy and I have followed him. Now, I have no advice to give to the hon. member, but if the ordinary rules of debate are to be followed in this House, I think he will have to change the course he has adopted lately of calling people names.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Arch-traitor-did I say that?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: You said Mr. Du-eharme was a boodler.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I still say so.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Say so outside of the House like a man.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And you appointed him commissioner.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If you said so, you could not prove it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know him too well.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member has quoted from speeches made by certain gentlemen in the province of Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Postmaster General.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, the last quotation which he has made is not from me, and I would not be very much surprised if he had quoted from the ' Toronto Globe.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, I quoted a translation from ' Le Devoir.' Do you deny it?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Let me proceed.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER  .@: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux), has no right to interrupt.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Toronto ' Globe ' has the habit of publishing reports of public speeches delivered in the province of Quebec which are absolutely erroneous, and of such a character as to deceive the public. I am not responsible for what the Toronto ' Globe ' says, and I do not want to be responsible for the statements . appearing in that journal. I have stated my position before this House, and I am prepared to compare my stand with the stand which the hon. member for Rouville took in a letter published' in 1903, in which he said that he was absolutely opposed to helping England in her wars and sending anybody from Canada to fight her battles. There sitting opposite me is the hon. gentleman who called certain people arch traitors-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I meant your friends.
Mr. PELLETIER-'because they would not adopt the hon. gentleman's policy. A potion of the letter to which I refer was read in the House the other day by the Prime Minister, and I am going to have copies of that letter distributed to all our friends in the House, so that when the ocassion presents itself they may show to the people of Canada what kind of a loyal British subject the hon. member for Roluville has become. Unfortunately I do not happen to have that letter under my hand at the present moment, but the



532C
hon. member for Rouville admitted that he wrote it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Does the hon. gentleman still believe in the sentiments to be found in that letter?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, I can subscribe to teach word contained in that letter. I asked the Prime Minister at that time to read the whole letter, but he only read an extract.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Prime Minister read enough to make the House understand that the hon. gentleman was opposed to going to war to protect England's interests.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you got a copy of the letter there?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I could get it in five minutes, it is in my officte.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Get it as soon as possible, and read it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If some hon. gentleman will hold the floor I will go to my office now and get the letter, and have it placed on ' Hansard.'


William Pugsley: I want to take advantage of the interval during the Postmaster General's albsence, to say a few words upon the excuse which the Minister of Marine and1 Fisheries gave during the debate on the address, for the government not proceeding to let the contract for thte building of the ten war vessels for Canada, after tenders for their construction had been invited by the late government. I see that my hon. friend the Postmaster General has returned, and perhaps he would like an opportunity of concluding his remarks.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I would be greatly obliged1 to my hon. friend if he would accord me that privilege.


William Pugsley: Then I will yield the floor to the hon. gentleman, and take the opportunity of speaking later.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This letter, of which I have a great many copies, bears the signature ' Rodolphe Lemieux.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: I never change my name to Zandring.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: When the hon. gentleman is cornered-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not by any means.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: When he does not not know what to say, when he is confronted with a letter which contains his condemnation

41r PELLETIER


Rodolphe Lemieux: Read it please.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Then the hon. gentleman uses the words which are insulting, words which I despise. Let me read this letter, and then every hon. gentleman will understand why the hon. member is calling a fellow member names. The letter is addressed to Mr. Henri Bourassa, member for Labelle:
House of Commons,
4th August, 1903.
My dear Colleague,-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Send me over a copy
of the letter, if you please.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will give one to the hon. gentleman and another to his leader. The House will see by and by where that leader comes in.
My dear Colleague,-
I would have liked very much to have been present at the meeting on Sunday evening m order to protest with you against the untimely resolution adopted within the last few days by the Congress of Chambers of Commerce. Reasons of a purely personal nature have prevented me from being present.
Permit me, however, to express my surprise that tlie Chambers of Commerce of Canada, and of the province of Quebec in particular, have thought fit to support the resolution which affirms an absolutely wrong principle, that is the obligation of the colonies to participate in the defence of the empire.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear. Go on,


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am going on.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member for Rouville continues to interrupt I shall be obliged to declare him out of order.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The purport of the letter is so far so good, or so far so bad.


Rodolphe Lemieux: So far so good.
Mr. PELLETIER, (reading):
Useless to tell you that the Canadians should not be bound by such a declaration.
And you will remember that the declaration is


Rodolphe Lemieux: Read the letter please.


Haughton Lennox: I rise to suggest that the hon. member for Rouville should remain silent in order that we on this side may hear the hon. gentleman who is addressing the House.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not like to call the hon. gentleman to order, but let me say that it is not proper for any one to interrupt an hon. member while he is speaking.


Haughton Lennox: I suggest that the hon. gentleman who has the floor should be allowed to make such comments as he sees

fit, and that the hon. member for Rouville be restrained from indulging in interruptions.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We must make some allowance for the fact that the hon. member for Rouville is in a bad predicament at present. On that account we must forgive him something.


Haughton Lennox: Yes, I suppose he cannot help interrupting.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Now we will continue the reading of the letter.
all necessary to ask us to approach a question of this kind

That is the defence of the empire.
-because during the same session in which we are now the government has given its word to this House that it would be ready at all times to do its duty to that end, and it has received for that the unanimous approval of both parties. But the politics of the present day, both in England and in Canada, and perhaps in this House, comprise a certain school which would like very much to plunge Canada into the vortex of militarism which is now the bane of old Europe. I am not in favour of such policy.
Useless to tell you that Canadians should not be bound by such a declaration. By virtue of what treaty would they like to add to the rights and duties respectively of the empire and of the colonies? What mandate have the delegates of our chambers of commerce receiv-0(1	tlle future of the country in this
wav ? The Canadian parliament alone has the right to assume such a responsibility.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Do not be too rash, have not yet finished.
I
Now, we have from the pen of the hon. member


Some hon. MEMBERS: Is that the whole of it.
Here, you have, my dear colleagues, the sentiments of all true Canadians and it is to be regretted that the delegates of the Chambers of Commerce have taken their inspiration from some other source. Believe me to. be,
Yours very truly,



[Stage Direction]
The Canadian .parliament only has the right to assume such a responsibility, and I do not hesitate to say that the Drummond resolution does not express the wishes of the calm and reflective opinion of the Canadian people.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 
Mr. PROULX.: I would like to ask the hon. .gentleman a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
On the contrary, it is the manly attitude taken Last year during the International Conference by the Prime Minister of Canada which answers public sentiment. You will remember with what enthusiasm the speech of the Prime Minister was received on the 12th of May, 1902 in the House of Commons. Cer-taan people having exaggerated notions have been anxious for a long time that our country should plunge into the wars of the empire.
llfrid Laurier has made a declaration wh'cth has been published broadcast which is part of the Drummond resolution and which must, so far as Canada is concerned put an end for ever to militarism. Here are the words used by the Prime Minister:
Now, we come down to the head. This is a quotation from the right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier):
It is absolutely useless, at the point where we are now and in this parliament of Canada, to deceive ourselves as to what we may have in view in respect of this matter of the defence of the empire. If the intention is only to discuss what part Canada will take in its own defence and in what measure we must he ready to safeguard the integrity o.f the country in which we were born, which has received our faith and in which are our homes and all our affections, we certainly shall always be disposed to discuss such a matter as that. But I do not believe that it is at 169i


Edmond Proulx: If the hon gentleman will permit me, I would like to ask him-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman has no right to interrupt the speaker except with his permission.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Let me finish what I am saying and then the hon. member '(Mr. Proulx) can put all the questions he likes. But we have in his letter the affirmation by the hon. member from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) that he is absolutely opposed to the principle of participating in the defence of the empire. It is there in so many words. He says that he bases his opinion upon that of his leader, and his leader says that whilst he is ready to do _ everything for the defence of Canada he is against doing - anything for the defence of the empire. This letter will go on ' Hansard ' and this country will know now that these hon. gentlemen who rise in their seats and tell us that we are arch-traitors because some people have said this or that tin some parts of the province of Quebec have gone even further, as the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) himself has done, or as the right hon. leader of the opposition

'(Sir. Wilfrid Laurier) went when he made that speech. They have put themselves on record before this country as being *opposed to doing anything for the defence of the empire and they have no right to tell this House of 'Commons what the hon. member for Rouville has been telling the House this afternoon. Now, Sir, I have perhaps taken more time than I ought to have taken, but I thought perhaps this question should be sifted so that we should know where we stand. With these few words, I bow to hon. gentlemen on the [DOT]other side.


William Erskine Knowles: Let me ask the hon. gentleman a question. Did not Sir Charles Tupper say that this country did not want to be drawn into the wars of the old country?


Mr.   LBMIETJX@: I must thank my hon. friend '(Mr. Pelletier) from the bottom of tny heart for his kindly discovery of that letter of the 4th of August, 1902, and for translating it, and translating it well, so that it will be on 'Hansardi' and the people will know where I stand on this question. (Let me call attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman is not a pathfinder in this matter. For in the earlier stages of this session a young gentleman, a member of the Nationalist party in this House referred to the fearful letter published broadcast in the province of Quebec last election and asked me if it were true that L expressed in it different sentiments from those that I expressed in the House. Then I explained under what circumstances that letter was published. In the year 1903, my hon. friend will remember there was a congress of the Chambers of Commerce of the (Empire, held in Montreal and *- presided over by Lord Bnassey, I attended the meetings because I took an interest in the world's progress. Some important resolutions were placed before them and adopted dealing with trade, naturalization and other questions such as naturally came before such a gathering. There was one resolution placed before them in favour of a direct contribution by Canada to the British exchequer for the maintenance of the British navy. Immediately after the passage of that resolution and before the Congress the Chambers of Commerce [DOT]dissolved, a public meeting was held in Montreal at the now famous Monument National. It was called by Mr. Bourassa, then member for Labelle, who invited me to be present at the meeting.
He said specifically in his letter of invitation that he wanted to protest against the resolution which had been adopted by the Chambers of Commerce and he included in his letter a copy of that resolution. The resolution had been moved by Mr. Drummond, a friend of mine who is well known Mr. PELLETIER.
to belong to a school of thought as regards our duty as British citizens towards the mother country, which differs materially from another school of thought no less British I could noit attend the meeting, but I wrote this letter and I would subscribe to every line, to every word of it this very day if I was called upon to pronounce upon a similar issue. My hon. friend the Postmaster General was not in the House during the discussion on the Navy Bill in 1909 and especially in 1910, when the gist of this very letter was discussed before the House. The right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was taken to task by the then leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) because, forsooth, we had included in the Naval Bill a clause by which the help to be given by Canada in time of emergency should be given only when the representatives of the people should have so declared. We were taken to task, we were quite vehemently reproached for the inclusion of that clause in the Naval Bill. A debate took place here and the very sentiments embodied in this letter were expressed not by one member or by ten, but by a majority of the members of the Canadian parliament in the session of 1910. When the question came before the Congress of Chambers of Commerce, the same principle was at stake, the principle of direct contribution as against the principle of voluntary aid to the mother country. You, Sir, are well aware of the fact that not only in Canada among His Majesty's loyal subjects	but in	the	veryheart of the realm	there	are	menopossod to militarism,	there	are	menwho to-day are members of the British government who are opposed to that vortex of militarism	so	aptly	described by the then Prime Minister, now leader of the opposition. Lord Haldane, the Minister of War, the other day went from England to Berlin in order to confer with the German authorities and the papers say that his visit was in order to put a stop if possible to that policy of intense armaments which seems to be the bane of all European countries. I have never been against helping the mother country and when the day comes to maintain British supremacy over the seas, I say that not a true Canadian will hesitate one second in doing the needful for the mother country; but there are people in this parliament, in this country, in the motherland, amongst the ministers of His Majesty in London, who are opposed to militarism, and I say it was such militarism to which I objected in that letter.
You, Mr. Chairman, know better than anybody else what a fight we had to encounter in the province of Quebec. The Postmaster General, the Minister of Pub-

lie Works, the Minister of Inland Revenue, the members who formed the Nationalist party in Quebec, abused the right hon. gentleman, decried his followers in the province of Quebec, because, forsooth, they were going to sell our birthright because they were going to spend the people's money to help the mother country and said these gentlemen, this means conscription, this means that your children will be tom from your Somes and carried away across the seas, and there be disembowelled. And they added: For what cause? We know that in Drummond and Arthabaska and in every constituency in Quebec the same vicious appeals were made by the Postmaster General and his compeers of Quebec. But I say again, and I am pleased to say it before my friends of the Tory party, let them draft a Bill on a sane imperial basis, dot them decide that Canada shall help the mother country even to a larger degree than we ourselves expected to help her, let them bring -a Bill acceptable and consistent with Canadian dignity, and they will have the cordial sfupport not only of their friends, but of the Liberal party in general and especially of the French Canadians in the province of Quebec.	[DOT]
The vicious appeals made by the firebrands during the last campaign have helped not a little the British cause in Canada. Our people have opened their eyes. They were taught by a noisy fraction in our province that we owed no duty to the mother country, that Laurier when he was Prime Minister had sacrificed the interests of Canada by sending the contingents to South Africa. They were told all those stories but they have learned through this campaign of education their duties as British citizens, and I repeat they have elected a majority of supporters not only of the right hon. gentlemen who leads the opposition but of the British cause whenever the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, putting aside the vicious arguments used in the last campaign by some of his colleagjues' and followers, will frame a Canadinan policy for the supremacy of Great Britain in the world. I hope that this letter will be distributed not only to members of this House but to every elector of my hon. friend in the county of Quebec who have been so much led astray during the last campaign.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend need not worry; it was distributed in the county of Quebec and that was one of the reasons why I was elected.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: The letter which the late Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) has placed on 'Hansard' is dated 1903, and I could quite conceive that any member would be justified in changing his opinion since that date. I understand the hon. member for Rouvilie (Mr. Lemieux) t& say that he has not changed his opinion and stands by every word of it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I stand by my guns like a fighter.


William Sora Middlebro: The principle of that letter is that there is no duty devolving upon Canada to take part in the defence of the empire.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is in plain language.


William Sora Middlebro: The House can
judge of it. The gist of that letter is that there is no duty devolving upon Canada as a portion of the empire to take any t>art in the defence of the empire.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Nothing of the kind.


William Sora Middlebro: Well then, what is the effect of it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: You will read it in ' Hansard ' to-morrow.


William Sora Middlebro: I ask my hon.
friend what the pith and gist of it is.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is opposed to militarism and a direct contribution to the British exchequer. That is the gist of the letter.


William Sora Middlebro: I leave it to the hon. members of this House to judge as to the gist of that letter and as to the purpose of the hon. gentleman in speaking in Quebec or in speaking to Mr. Henri Bour-assa in the endeavour to prove to him that he was not in favour of taking any part in the defence of the empire.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You are all wrong.


William Sora Middlebro: I am in the judgment of the House as to that. When my hon. friend voted in favour of the naval policy of the late government was he carrying into execution the principle which he laid down there?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Exactly so.


William Sora Middlebro: Then I would like to ask my hon. friend this: If you are going to leave it to the last minute for this parliament to say, as a portion of the British Empire, whether or not Canada shall take part in Great Britain's wars, after war has been declared, in what single respect do you differ from any foreign nation which, after war has been declared against Great Britain, makes up its mind and says whether it shall be a friend to Great Britain or an enemy? You are in a less loyal, less patriotic position and have less faith in Great Britain than the little kingdom of Japan which sat down ten years ago and said to the representatives of Great Britain: I have sufficient eonfi-

dence in your integrity, in the justice of your war, I have sufficient confidence in you as a nation, to say that, if within the next ten years you become involved in war, I will come to your assistance and conduct the war in common with you. When the hon. member for Rouville says that this country is bound in no way to take part in the wars of Great Britain, he is less loyal and less patriotic than the ally of Great Britain who sits down and agrees that for a certain time she will participate in the wars of Great Britain. You are a portion of the empire or you are not. If you are a portion of the empire, the minute war is declared you are subject to the international law the same as any other portion of the empire and the same as Great Britain herself. We will suppose that war has been 'declared and Canada decides that she will not join in Great Britain's war because, in her opinion, the war is not a just one. What position are you put in? Mv hon. friends says that he is a fighter, but he is in the position of the man who decides not to fight b!ut is open to be attached by Britain's enemy under international law. He is not able to take any position in the defence of the empire. So long as you are a portion of the empire there has to be some connection between the motherland and Canada, therel has to be some automatic arrangement by which, when war is declared by Great Britain, she is the absolute, superior power that controls the colonies; otherwise you place yourself absolutely in the position of a foreign nation.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why do you not get your navy ready then?
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


William Pugsley: When I gave way to allow the Postmaster General to resume a very interesting discussion into which he had entered, and which was interrupted by his retiring in order to obtain a letter written by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), I was proceeding to speak of the fact that the Minister of Marine had given as a reason why the government had decided not to accept the tenders which had been received for the building of ten war vessels, that he had indisputable evidence that it would be a waste of money to construct the vessels as proposed, and my hon. friend gave the impression, whether intentional or not, that these vessels were not of a type which would very long remain under approval of the British admiralty. I would like to read the remarks that my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) made in giving Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
the reasons for not awarding the contract. Although it may be out of order to do so, yet the matter is of such great importance that probably no objection will be made. In the discussion upon the. address in reply to the speech from the Throne, the Minister of Marine is reported in * Hansard ' at pages 179 and 180 as follows:
Now, Sir, my hon, and respected friend the leader of the opposition said that the old government had a well defined policy on that subject. The policy may have been well defined, but I submit to this House that it was not well considered, because the policy which they embarked upon and laid before thi9 House was one which, if it had been carried to a conclusion, would have resulted in the expenditure of an enormous amount of money with little or no advantage to Canada or to the empire. Let me say that, there is evidence that the hon. gentlemen themselves must have come to a conclusion of that kind. We find that in the month of February last, tenders were asked for the construction of four cruisers of the 'Bristol' type and six torpedo destroyers. Those tenders were received on the 1st day of May, 1911, five months before the government went out of office; yet during the whole of that time, apparently, the government did nothing with regard to those tenders. Now, Sir, why was it, if the government were convinced of the wisdom of their naval policy, that they did not, on receipt of those tenders, award the contract for the construction of those cruisers and destroyers? Why did they wait for five months, until they went out of power, without having taken a single step in that direction? There were nine tenders. There was the tender of Cammel, Laird & Company, which was the lowest, for $11,280,000. There was the tender of Swan, Hunter & William Richardson for $12,174,000. There were other tenders, ranging from the lowest already mentioned up to $13,055,804. Those tenders did not include the armour plating, the armament, and certain supplies that go with warships of this sort, and which would have considerably augmented the cost.
Now why did the late government, after embarking on that policy, after receiving those tenders on the 1st day of May, allow them to remain in abeyance without taking a single step towards making a contract for the building of those ships? Was it because the hon. gentlemen discovered afterwards that if they had done so they would have simply been throwing away about $15,900,000 of the people's money? Because the fact is, and I have evidence that cannot be contradicted, and which I am prepared to give th:s House at any time if my statement is challenged, I have evidence that those vessels, under that contract, and under the conditions, would not have been completed for six years from .the time the contract was awarded, and by the end of six years those vessels would have been obsolete, entirely unfit for the purposes for which they were designed. I cannot help concluding, therefore, that the late government, after issuing a call for those tenders, discovered the actual facts which I have just stated. Therefore,

thev did not award the contract for the construction of those ships, hut they allowed the matter to stand. When the present government came into power and when I, as Minister of the Naval Service, began to look into the question and found the facts I have just narrated to this House, I would have been entirely failing in my duty as a Minister of the Crown, if I had advised my colleagues in the Council and the Governor General to sign a contract for the construction of those ships which, by the time they were completed, would have been obsolete and valueless for the purpose for which they were intended.
Now, the Minister of Marine in these remarks throws out an intimation that probably the reason the late government did not award the contract for these vessels was because they discovered there had been a mistake and that the expenditure of the money for the purpose would not have been wise. (Left me say to my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) that he is absolutely and entirely mistaken in that assumption. There were two reasons why the late government did not award the contract. One was, that there was some considerable difficulty in determining as to the firm to whom the contract should be awarded. The lowest tenderers were The Cammell-Laird Company. They are a very reputable ship building firm. They have a very laTge ship building plant at Birkenhead, near Liverpool, and there is no question whatever but that if the contract had been given to them they would have completed it to the entire satisfaction of the government. But one difficulty -and it is the only difficulty I am aware of with regard to the Cammell-Laird Company-was that they coupled with it, a condition of their making an arrangement with one of the tenderers, Norton Griffiths & Company, for the construction of harbour works, including a drydock, in Courtenay bay, St. John. The late Minister of Marine had considerable doubt as to whether that could be regarded as. an unconditional tender, and that was a matter which required the careful consideration he was giving it. But what was of perhaps even more importance than that was (that all the tenderers either had shipyards in Great Britain, or were associated with builders having shipyards in Great Britain, it was considered desirable to take a memorandum of the tenders to England and to confer with the British Admiralty with regard to them, as well as with regard to the different firms who had tendered. Just as soon as it was convenient to do so, the Hon. Mr. Brodeur went to England and conferred with the admiralty. My hon. friend knows what happened after his return to this country. He knows that very shortly after his return it was decided to dissolve parliament and in consequence of that the government did not deal with the matter. After the elections, in consequence of the very great importance of the contract, and of the magnitude of the sum which was involved, it was thought only right to leave the question of awarding the contract to our successors. That is the whole story. Whether rightly or wrongly the late government decided that it would be in the interests of the people of Canada that the ships which were to form the nucleus of the Ganadian navy should be constructed in Canada. The late government felt it would be desirable to encourage the building of ships in Canada that it would give employment to Canadian labour, and as it was necessary to make a beginning at some time, that it would be better to make a beginning in the way in which we proposed it should be made and to enter upon the construction of these war vessels in our own country. So much for that. Now, in consequence of that statement which was made by the Minister of Marine, there was put to him a question later on in the session by myself, which will be found at page 1239 of ' Hansard ', as follows:


William Pugsley: Having reference to the statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, quoted in Hansard of the present session, page 179, a 9 follows:-
The fact is, and I have evidence that cannot be contradicted and which I am prepared to give this House at any time if my statement is challenged, I have evidence that those vessels, under that contract, (referring to the tenders for the construction of cruisers and torpedo destroyers), and under the conditions, would not have been completed for six years from the time the contract was awarded, and by the end of the six years those vessels would have been obsolete, entirely unfit for the pur poses for which they were designed.
What is the evidence to which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries referred, and will he give the House such evidence in detail?
To that the Minister, Mr. Hazen, answered :-
In the conditions embodied by the late government in their call for tenders for the construction of vessels for the naval service it was stipulated that the time allotted for the construction of the vessels would he six years.
In a memorandum from Admiral Kingsmill, dated October 9, 1911, it is stated that ' owing to the rapidity with which designs change it is anticipated that if it takes six years to complete the programme the ships will be out of date before they are completed/
Then my hon. friend was requested, I think on a motion made by my hon. friend from Rouville, to lay the memorandum on the table of the House, and that was done. I have before me the memorandum of Ad-

miral Kingsmill, which does not at all bear out the statement of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. To th)3 Admiral Kingsmill attaches the following memorandum:
With the advent of a minister who is not conversant with naval matters, nor with the requirements of the naval service, it appears desirable to supply information on these points; I therefore forward herewith a few remarks which will tend to enlighten him with regard to immediate requirements with a view to discussion at an early date on the points raised.
This is dated the 9th of October, 1911. Then follows his memorandum, the first clauses of which relate to ship construction. This is what Admiral Kingsmill says:
The programme of new construction adopted by _ the late government consists of: four cruisers of the improved Bristol type; six improved river-class destroyers. Whilst this progamme does not appear an ambitious one, yet it meets present requirements from the fact that ships of this kind do not require very large complements, and we are in a position to train sufficient men to form part of their crews, and will not require the loan of such large numbers of officers and men from the imperial government as would he necessary if large armoured cruisers were included in the programme. The admiralty find, difficulty in keeping their ships fully maimed, and are thus not iu a position to spare large numbers for the Dominions navies.
This statement is an absolute and complete justification of the action of the late government in calling for tenders for this description of war vessel. Admiral Kingsmill entirely approves of the programme of building four cruisers of the improved ' Bristol ' type, and six improved ' river-class ' destroyers. As having a bearing upon this, I would like to read from a report in the 'Montreal Star' of this evening of a speech made by the Rt. Hon. Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, in the House of Commons in England, in introducing the naval estimates:
Referring to the building programme, which includes four large armoured ships, eight light armoured cruisers, twenty destroyers and a number of submarines, Mr. Churchill said that $3,500,000 was to be expended on the construction of submarines this year, and as regards the light armoured cruisers the admiralty had decided to return to a smaller type of vessels as being more useful than the recently built vessels of the Chatham class of 5,400 tons. These eight armoured cruisers will be the smallest, cheapest and fastest vessels protected with vertical armour ever projected for the British Navy. They will be strong enough and fast enough to overhaul and cut down any destroyer.
We have here the very strongest approval by Admiral Kingsmill of the programme Mr. PUGSLEY.
undertaken by the late government. The remainder of his memorandum relates to the place where it would be best to have these vessels constructed-whether it would be better to build them all in Canada or to have some of them built in Canada and some in the shipyards of the mother country. This is what he says on that point:
Tenders were called for and have been received by the government for the construction of these vessels in Canada; whilst it may be desirable to encourage a firm or firms to establish shipyards in Canada, the interests and efficiency of the naval service would be better served if some portion of the ships, one or two of the cruisers, and two destroyers were constructed in England, orders being placed without delay. We should thus he able to obtain delivery of one destroyer within a year and one cruiser and a second destroyer within eighteen months; by that time a' sufficient number of men will have been trained to form a nucleus of the crews, and training will be more efficiently and expeditiously carried out with the advent of modern ships. In the meantime a shipyard can be established in Canada and the remainder of the ships constructed in this yard; the whole of the programme would thus be completed in four years instead of in six as at present arranged. Owing to the rapidity with which designs change it is anticipated that, if it takes six years to complete the programme, the ships will be out of date before they are completed. Even in the short period which has elapsed since the present designs were adopted, the typical destroyers have increased in displacement and the machinery arrangement has been re-designed, which may make it desirable to negotiate with the firm who undertakes the work for an improved destroyer.
The committee will see that Admiral Kingsmill draws a distinction between the advantage of having these ships constructed in four years, and having them constructed in six years, as was proposed in the programme of the late government. But he has overlooked this important fact, that while the contracting firm had six years in which to build all the ships, that did not mean that they would delay for six years the 'building of any one vessel. They were to begin the work within a time specified, and would be obliged, in order to complete the contract within six years, to build two war vessels in every eighteen months, and hand them over complete to the Canadian government. That is what the specifications called for. Has my hon. friend the tenders and specifications here?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not the specifications.


William Pugsley: That is what would be provided for by the Naval Department. Then Admiral Kingsmill suggests that probably the department sholuld have the right to make the changes in accordance with changes which might be suggested by the

o334
British admiralty. I venture to say that would be in the contract, as it is in all contracts, that the minister should have the right to make alterations which might be recommended by the engineers oi the department, and that the contractor would be obliged to make those alterations, and in case of decreased expenditure, he would make a reduction, while in case of increased expenditure, he would be allowed an increase in cost. The memorandum of Admiral Kings-mill does not at all bear out the statement that was made by my hon. friend. What does my hon. friend propose to do about the building of the Canadian navy? Does the hon. minister contend, does Admiral Kingsmill contend or do the o.fficers of his department contend that these vessels were not of the very best type existing in the British navy at the time those officers gave their approval to the government for their construction? There is no question that was the case. If the vessels of a different type had been designed, the same remark would apply. If a country entered on a naval programme which would run over six years or ten or fifteen or twenty years, it might well be that before the whole programme was completed, the vessels of earlier construction would be out of date.
But that is a difficulty which always presents itself to any nation which undertakes the building of a navy. If my hon. friend is right then the United States could never, with any degree of wisdom, have started to construct a navy. Nor could Japan, nor any country in the world, because when they start they start with a programme which will extend in most cases over a great many years, and of course after the lapse of a numbeT of years the vessels which are constructed in the first place would become obsolete. But surely this remark -would not apply to a contract such as the late government proposed to give which wduld allow the contractors to take six years for the building af all these vessels, yet would have required them to construct at least two of the vessels during every 18 months in order to complete the contract within the prescribed period. Now this is a matter of very great importance to the people of Canada, and it seems to me that the committee has a right to know if, when my hon. friend gave that reason for not awarding these contracts, the government concurred with Admiral Kingsmill that two or three of .these ships should be built in England. Surely my hon. friend and his colleagues did not take the important step of delaying the commencement of a Canadian navy without either agreeing or disagreeing with Admiral Kingsmill. If they agreed with Admiral Kingsmill then they should have at once placed an order for the construction, as he says, of one or two of the cruisers and two destroyers in England without delay, and the contract for the remainder of the vessels should have been awarded to a firm for construction in Canada, so that that firm could proceed with the building of its shipyard and get to work on the construction of the additional ships. But the government has done nothing. Notwithstanding there was a unanimous opinion expressed by this House as long ago as 1909, that it was desirable to proceed with the least possible delay to provide a Canadian navy which would be available for the defence of Canada, and which would also be available to assist in the defence of the empire in time of peril, the government simply withdrew from the matter, returned the deposits, and decided not to go on with the contracts, and so far as we have been informed the government have not decided whether they will adopt the view of Admiral Kingsmill: that is to have two or three of these ships built in England and proceed in Canada with the construction of the remaining vessels which would form part of the navy. If the contract had been let to the lowest tenderers Cammell, Liard & Company, early last October when the government came into power and when they had authority to deal with the matter, and if they had also acted upon the tenders which were received for the construction of a dry dock at the harbour of St. John, instead of delaying for many months before taking action, by this time the construction of a dry dock and a ship yard would have been under way, it would not be many months before the keel of the first vessel would have be.en laid in Canada, and it would not have been many years before all the ten vessels would have been constructed and available for the defence of the country and for the defence of the empire. But nothing is being done, and my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) proposes to go home to England to consult the admiralty. What does he intend to recommend to the admiralty? He has stopped all action upon these tenders, he has not acted upon the advice of Admiral Kingsmill and given an order for two or three vessels in England, he has taken no steps whatever. Nevertheless he is going home to consult the British authorities. Well, we know What their opinion is. We know perfectly well that what they would prefer iwould be a money contribution. They would prefer that Canada should contribute a good many million dollars every year, place it at the disposal of the admiralty and let them build, man and control the ships. Does my hon. friend prefer to act upon the advice which the British admiralty may give him, if it is in that direction? The next thing the admiralty would prefer, and it is all on re-

cord, is that Canada should build a fleet unit to be placed entirely in Pacific waters. Is this government prepared to act on that suggestion, or has it any opinion upon the subject at all? It seems to me they ought to know whether, in their opinion, the proposition would be acceptable to the people of Canada or not. I think it would not be, but that it would be wholly unacceptable to the people of this country. Then there is the third suggestion, and this is the last which the British government made, their views upon the matter being well known: That we undertake to do the next best thing which could be done for the benefit of Canada and for the benefit of the empire; and my hon. friends may dally months and months and even years, and they may make trips to London in order to consult the British admirailty as often as they like, and they will find I think those are the views which will be .presented to them by the British government. It seems to me it is idle for my hon. friend to say that they want to get he opinion of the British admiralty when, as I have said, we have it already clearly expressed in terms with regard to which there can be no doubt whatever. I felt, Mr. Chairman it was my duty to bring this matter before the committee, because whatever others may have thought, I certainly understood my hon. friend to convey the impression that none of these ships were to be completed for six years, and that perhaps by reason of the type of vessels they would become obsolete. But if you read carefully Admiral Kingsmill's memorandum his remarks would -apply as much to any class of vessels the construction of which might be undertaken, as it would to these vessels which were proposed as part of the programme of the late government. He admits that they are the best type which can be designed for the purpose for which Canada required them. He admits th-at it would be better to build vessels of this class at the outset, than to build vessels of different design; and the only respect in which he differs from the late government is that he thinks these vessels ought to be constructed in four years instead of in six years, and that in order to do so it would be better to place an order for one or two cruisers and two destroyers in England, and then proceed with the establishment of a ship-yard in Canada and award the -contract for the construction here of the additional vessels.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman from the city of -St. John has at last thought it necessary, that somebody should give some explanation to this House and the country as to why it was that the government of which he w-as a member delayed for so long a time without taking any action on the tenders that were submitted in answer Mr. PUGSLEY.
to the call for tenders for the building of certain cruisers of the ' Bristol ' type, and certain torpedo destroyers, for the purpose of constituting the nucleus of a Canacdan navy. I might -remind the House of the fact that these tenders were received on the 1st day of May last. The firms who tendered were:	Caramel! Laird & Company, $11,280,000; Swan, Hunter & Wig-ham Richardson, $12,174,000; nearly $1,000,000 more; the British Canadian Ship Building & Dock Company, $12,464,000; Vickers Sons and Maxim, $12,712,000; Sir William G. Armstrong, Whitworth & Company, $12,842,000; William Beardmore & Company, $13,055,000; and the Thames Ironworks Shipbuilding & Engineering Company, $8,532,000. The last mentioned tender, whi-ch is $3,000,000 less in round figures than the lowest of the other tenders, provided that the ships should be built in England and, therefore, was- not open to consideration under the call for tenders which was that the ships were to be built in Canada. The tender of Cammed Laird & Company w-as nearly $1,000,000 lower than the tender of Swan, Hunter & Wigham Richardson. These tenders were received on the first day of May in the year 1911 and, beyond opening the tenders and tabulating them, there is not a scratch of a pen to show that any action was taken, or any thought given to the tenders until the 5th of October, 1911, two weeks after the general elections, and more than five week-s after these tenders had been received by the Department of Marine and Fisheries in Ottawa.
The first record we have of anything being done with regard to these tenders is in a memorandum that was submitted to -council on the 5th of October, 1911, more than five months after they were received by my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), who at that time was in charge of the Department of the Naval Service.


William Pugsley: Not over six months- five months.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, a little over five months. The memorandum of my hon. friend says.
Under existing circumstances, and having regard to the magnitude of the transaction, the undersigned is of opinion that the question of awarding the contract may probably be left to the incoming administration and has the honour so to advise council.
So, for a period of five months after tenders were received, nothing was done with regard to the -matter, so far as the record shows, by my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) or the members of the government to which he belonged. But on the 5th of October, shortly before they handed over the seals of office, my hon. friend reports to council that the matter should

be left to the incoming administration. My bon. friend, who to-night is in such a tremendous hurry that something should be done, has, I think the House will admit, entirely failed to give to the House any good reason why five months should have elapsed after tenders were called for before any action was taken. I feel that I was amply justified in saying, when speaking on the address, that the reason that appeared to actuate my hon. friend was that after the tenders were received it was felt that even if the contracts were awarded and carried out, before the contracts could be completed the vessels constructed would be useless, being out of date, and that the $15,000,000 or thereabouts spent in their construction would be spent to no good purpose, and be actually lost money so far as the interest of Canada; or of the empire was concerned. I mentioned the sum of $15,000,000, for although the lowest tender amounted to between $11,000,000 and $12,000,000, it did not include the armour-plate or armour and certain other portions necessary to a war vessel which would have to be bought and paid for entirely outside the contract price, and these would have added very materially to the cost of these ships.
The hon. gentleman has said that I was not justified in drawing the conclusion I did from the report made to me as Minister of the Naval Service by Admiral Kings-mill. Let us look at the report of Admiral Kingsmill as read by my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman lias said that the first clause affords absolute and complete justification for rwhat the government did, for its whole course in regard to this naval matter. What is the first paragraph? He first refers to the fact of the programme of new construction adopted by the late government which consists of:
4. Cruisers of the improved 'Bristol' type.
6. Improved ' river-class ' destroyers.
And says:
Whilst this programme does not appear an ambitious one, yet it meets present requirements from the fact that ships of this type do not require very large complements, and we are in a position to train sufficient men to form part of their crew, and will not require to obtain the loan of such large numbers of officers and men from the imperial government as would be necessary if large armoured cruisers were included in the programme.
In other words, Admiral Kingsmill says that the programme might meet present requirements, and this opinion is based solely on the ground that for these ships we might get	the sailors in
Canada without having to go to England to get men to man the ships and make them effective. That is the only reason given in the memorandum prepared by Admiral Kingsmill as to this programme being sufficient for the requirements; and on that the hon. gentleman bases the assertion that Admiral Kingsmill's statement shows that the course taken by the government was absolutely and completely justified. And here is what Admiral Kingsmill says with regard to these vessels, after first recomanending that they should be allowed to be built in England:
In the meantime a shipyard can -be established in Canada and the remainder of the programme would -thus -be completed in four years


Rodolphe Lemieux: I desire to ask a question. Does the hon. gentleman know how long it would take even the best shipyards in England to build the ships as mentioned in the naval programme of last year?


John Douglas Hazen: Admiral Kingsmill, who was an authority on matters of this sort, who was selected as the Admiral of the Canadian navy by my hon. friends-and a very proper appointment and selection no doubt-calls attention to this in these words:
Tenders were called for and have been received by the government for the construction of these vessels in Canada; whilst it may be desirable to encourage a firm or firms to establish shipyards in Canada, the interests and efficiency of the naval service would be better served if some portion of the ships, one or two of the cruisers, and two destroyers, were constructed in England, orders being placed without delay. We should thus be_ able to obtain delivery of one destroyer within eighteen months; by that time a sufficient number of men will have been trained to form the nucleus of -the crews and training will be m<^re efficiently and expeditiously carried out with the advent of modern ships.
Evidently Admiral Kingsmill believes that if the contract were placed in England one destroyer and one cruiser could be delivered this year and a second destroyer within eighteen months, but that if we followed the programme laid down by hon. gentlemen opposite and if the contract had been awarded to Cammel, Laird & Co., the lowest tenderers, or to any of these other firms, the contract could not have been completed within six years from the time it was awarded and by that time the ships would be completely obsolete and out of date.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman understand Admiral Kingsmill to mean that all the ships will be built in six years? Does he deny that two ships will be completed in eighteen months?


John Douglas Hazen: I do deny that two ships could be completed in eighteen months. It would be absolutely impossible to have a Canadian shipyard established, the plant, materials and men assembled to do the work and to complete any one of the vessels in eighteen months. The language of Admiral Kingsmill's report is plain and clear, that having regard to the whole contract it could only be completed in six years and at the end of six years we would have ships delivered to us obsolete and practically fit for the scrap heap.


William Pugsley: Within what time does a first-class warship become obsolete?


John Douglas Hazen: Judging from Admiral Kingsmill's report, in about six years. Owing to the rapi^ improvements and new inventions a ship ceases to become an effective fighting machine in a very short time. Having regard to that set of facts, I do not believe there is a man in Canada unless, he is speaking from some political standpoint, who would for a moment advo-


Rodolphe Lemieux: cate that it was desirable to enter into this contract and on the other hand I believe that the people of Canada would almost unanimously have condemned any government that would enter into a contract under which they would receive ships obsolete at the time they were built. I think I was placing the most charitable construction possible on the action of hon. gentlemen opposite who for six months and over after the receipt of these tenders did nothing, apparently did not even give serious consideration to the matter and took no action, when I say I believe their action was prompted by the realization that the contract into which they proposed to enter was improvident and not in the interests of the taxpayers; that they would be spending a large sum without getting an adequate return to the people of Canada or rendering service and assistance to Great Britain in case she became involved in a war with a foreign power.
_ My hon. friend to-nigho asked what we intended to do when we consult with the admiralty. The Prime Minister in adressing this House during the debate on the address stated plainly that it was our intention not to rush into a scheme as hon.. gentlemen opposite did which was not well considered but to carefully consider all the different interests involved and after consultation with the admiralty, to formulate and bring before this House a naval policy that we believe will meet with the approval of the people of Canada irrespective of the province from which they come and also of the empire whose interests we want to protect with those of Canada in the framing of any naval policy or any navy that we may have.
With reference to some remarks made by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux), I would say that I am not afraid in any respect of the people of the province of Quebec. I have the very greatest respect and admiration for the patriotism and loyalty of the people of the province from which my hon. friend comes, and I believe that the people of Quebec, in common with the people from the rest of Canada, realize that it is a duty that we owe to the empire to take some effective means not only for the protection of our own ports and shipping, but also that we join hand in hand in promoting the interest and defending the cause of the British Empire as well .
This naval question undoubtedly is a question of very great importance in this country. We are gaining in Canada a position of wealth and importance as one of the sisters beyond the seas of the British Empire. I believe that there is-not a self-respecting citizen of Canada who does not feel that the position we occupy to-day, allowing the taxpayers of Great Britain without any assistance on our part

to continue as in the years when we were in our infancy to maintain the British navy for the support and protection not only of the British Isles but of the British Colonial possessions beyond the seas, is rather humiliating to us as a self-respecting people and that it is our duty plainly, clearly, and manifestly, to contribute our fair share towards national defence.	[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


John Douglas Hazen: I believe that throughout Canada that is the strong sentiment of the people, but while that is the general feeling, while we feel that we have outgrown our swaddling clothes, and are standing on strong ground financially and in every other respect, it is humiliating to us as a nation to go on and allow the mother country to continue to pay all the expense of the support of the navy that has done so much for us in the past, and must be maintained if the British Empire of which we are an integral part is to maintain its supremacy in the future. Therefore, I say it is our duty to contribute our share fairly to the support of the British navy ; but while I say that I think our contribution must be on grounds that will meet with the approval of our citizens and will be consistent with our position as a iselfr-especting part of the British Empire. A navy to be effective must be for the purposes of the empire. If we are to continue as an empire we cannot have one navy for New Zealand, another for Australia, another for South Africa, another in Canada, and another for the British Isles. A navy which exists for the purpose of the general defence of the empire must be a navy concerning which there shall not be a divided control which would destroy its usefulness and efficiency in tiime of trouble. As General Botha, Prime Minister of South Africa, said soon after the imperial conference: I fail to see how South Africa can fail _ to be at war if any other part of the British Empire is; it is not consistent with the idea of empire, that ont part can be at war without the other parts assisting and rendering effective aid. That must be the feeling and ambition so far as the navy is concerned, and whatever navy is designed-and for the moment I am not considering whether each portion of the empire should have representation on the board controlling that navy-must be a navy concerning which there will not be a divided control and must be prepared to act and strike as an effective whole when necessary in defence of the flag.
This question has been discussed to-day largely from the standpoint of the effect of the naval policy of the recent government upon the province of Quebec. Let me say to hon. gentlemen opposite that I believe that naval policy as enunciated
by hon. gentlemen opposite was not any more popular in the other provinces; I believe that the general feeling in Canada was largely adverse to the scheme which was embarked on hurriedly without carefully considering the consequences. We hope and believe that the government of the day will be able to formulate and lay before parliament at a not far distant date a proposal in regard to the important question now under consideration that will meet with the enthusiastic support not only of the English provinces but of Quebec as well, and that will prove itself in the future a very great force for the preservation of the. peace and for the security of the whole British Empire.


William Pugsley: Has my hon. friend the
tenders and, if so, will he kindly send them over to me?


John Douglas Hazen: The tenders I read were contained in the report made to council by my hon. friend who sits opposite to me, the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). The tenders were laid before the House. I think the papers can be got.


William Pugsley: Perhaps my hon. friend can tell the committee within what time these vessels were to be completed?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not the call for tenders; all I have is a list of the amounts of each tender. I may be able to get the information without any great delay.


William Pugsley: I think this is a matter of a great deal of importance, and that my hon. friend ought to allow this item to stand until we have the conditions of the call for tenders, and proceed with some other item.


John Douglas Hazen: We will get it for the hon. gentleman in a moment. The deputy minister of Naval Affairs tells me that the call for tenders required the delivery of one cruiser and two destroyers within three years of the date of the awarding of the contract; after that one cruiser every year and one destroyer every nine months.


Mr. BELAND.: Only one cruiser would have been obsolete.


John Douglas Hazen: They would all have been obsolete at the end of six years.


Robert Laird Borden: As a matter of fact, the British admiralty have abandoned this type of vessel alogether during the present year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I agree with what has been said by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) that something ought to be done for the naval defence of Canada and we must all join hands in maintaining the supremacy of Great Britain in case of danger. There

has never been any difference of opinion between this side of the House and the other as to that material point in the discussion, namely, the defence of the Brit-itsh flag and the maintenance of British supremacy over the seas. Let that be clearly understood throughout the country. The words we are speaking this evening will, I hope, be repeated by the press throughout Canada. The issue was obscured during the election. My hon. friend must be aware, that in certain provinces the policy of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) was assailed, because, forsooth, his policy did not go far enough, and in the province of Quebec it was assailed, because, forsooth, it went too far. Now, I admit we suffered heavily from the joint attacks of the extremists on both sides during the election. I have no doubt whatever that on the 21st September last many constituencies were lost to the government of the day because the .policy of my right hon. friend had been represented as being a little Canadian policy, whilst in the province of Quebec it was represented as being too much of a British policy. Now, after the defeat the late government could not consistently give the contract for the carrying out of the naval programme that had been elaborated before the elections. We thought, and properly so, that the question should be left to our successors who had defeated us on that very question because, let there be no mistake about it, while we may talk about reciprocity and other issues that were involved during the last campaign, I can assure the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), that in our province we were simply pilloried on the naval question, because, indeed we had gone too far. I repeat again to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the majority of the people in the province of Quebec, in spite of the appeals there were made, pronounced themselves in favour of the naval defence and of the maintenance of the supremacy of Great Britain upon the seas and in the world at large. The question has been solved There is a majority amongst the people in favour of that policy. Now, it remains for my hon. friend to evolve a new programme. He is going to consult with the admiralty, he says. I am glad of the words he has spoken this evening. He does not speak this evening in the back concession of the county of Quebec; he speaks on the floor of the House of Commons, to the Canadian people, and his words to-morrow will be re-echoed in Great (Britain, in the heart of the empire. We are going to have a naval policy. That naval policy, from what I understand from the hon. gentleman, will be a policy which Mr. LEMIEDX.
will take one of two forms, either a contribution in money to the British exchequer, or the construction of cruisers, of destroyers, perhaps of Dreadnoughts in Canada or Great Britain. Have I understood the hon. gentleman rightly?


John Douglas Hazen: I did not say what form it would take.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: the construction of a Canadian navy will make a new Halifax of the old Halifax. Then, the hon. member for North Toronto during the recess also went around the country delivering many speeches, and at many places again declared himself in favour of a Canadian navy, built in Canada, and manned by Canadians. Thank Heaven, the Conservative party was once true to its colours; it was a Canadian party. On that question of a navy, evolved on the very pretext, the obvious pretext, of helping the mother country it put that question above party lines. It did not want to play the politicai game with that national question. But that mood did not last many months. An election took place in the county of Drummond and Arth-abaska. The firebrands, the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Bourassa, Mr. Armand Lavergne, the Postmaster General saw an occasion to create troubles for the Liberal government. They could not well attack the Liberal government on its general policy; but they went before the people of Drummond and Arthabaska on the naval question; and what did they say there? My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in those days was quietly presiding over the affairs of New Brunswick at Fredericton, honestiy administering the affairs of his province. The right hon. the Prime Minister was away somewhere else, perhaps outside of Canada-If I remember well. At all events, although about half the electors in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska are English-speaking and the other half French, my right hon. friend the leader of the government kept away from the constituency; so did the Minister of Trade and Commerce; although some years ago I remember, when there was a by-election in the country of Sherbrooke, we met there the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade and Commerce-it was not then too far for them to come and visit ns. But on that very serious occasion of a iby-election in Drummond and Arthalbaska, they kept away from the country. There we saw the Postmaster General, the Minister of Public Works, you, Mr. Chairman, the member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny), Mr. Bourassa and the Beau Brum-mall of the Nationalist party, the young man of the red necktie, Mr. Armand La-vengne. And what appeals did they make?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Will my hon. friend allow me?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend may answer me by-and-by. They all came to the constituency, and there we know what incendiary appeals they made. We know

that an hon. gentleman spoke of certain holes in the British flag. _ Another gentleman appealed to Divinity itself. The Canadian nationality, meaning the French Canadian, he said, was being crucified on the Golgotha of militarism, and the crucifi-ers were the Liberal ministers and their right hon. leader. The Judases of the nationalise were the Liberal ministers; the traitors were the Liberal ministers; yes, we in their estimation, were selling our birthright for a mess of pottage. Great Britain was encroaching on the rights of Canada, and we were mean enough, we were unpatriotic enough, we were anglicised enough, to forget our own blood, our traditions, to our aspirations, our ideals, and we were playing into the hands of John Bull.
Sir, we know the result : They went from concession to concession, people with brass buttons knocked at the door of Jean Baptiste the farmer, and said to the mother in that household:	' Mother, how many
sons have you?' ' What is the (matter with you?' ' Well, have you got any sons?' 'Yes.' 'Then you had better give me their names, because Laurier is going to take them and enlist them' in the navy, they will be sent from Quebec to the China seas, or to India, or to Japan, and they will be disembowelled. Laurier wants them to fight for the British flag for an unknown cause. The Postmaster General, was he then Zandrang? I do not know. The Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Inland Revenue, and you, Mr. Chairman, were all there; and the people of Drummond and Arthabaska in a moment of weakness, to quote an historical phrase, were so upset as to believe in what the hon. gentlemen said. Thank heaven the people of Drummond and Arthabaska were found on their way to Damascus at the last election. They paused, they reflected, they read, they listened, and they saw the light and they sent back to his farm that modern Cincinnatus Mr. Gilbert. Now, Sir, to be serious.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am only repeating the arguments used in Drummond and Arthabaska. My hon. friends on the other side-and I have many there I know- my Tory friends, for whom I have great respect, frankly applaud the appeals made by the Postmaster General when he turns to them and says: 'Yes we are ready to fight for the British flag. We adore the same God, we Catholics and Protestants.' He newer misses that- peroration; 'but if they knew him as I know him, if they could have listened to him in the county of Quebec, in the county of Lotbiniere and in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska, they would find, not the Britisher who appeals to their noblest passions and 170
looks for their applause in this House, but the very worst firebrand this country has ever known.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Now to be serious again. I say to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries: He has taken my portfolio-I was Minister of Marine and Fisheries for two months, and I know that there has been no mistake in that department-and he will find the department clean and unsullied, and even the honest Ducharme will find nothing to investigate there. My hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) will go to England. Let me tell him in all seriousness that he carries with him the best wishes of the Canadian people, whether Conservative or Liberal. He will consult the admiralty; behind him will stand the Canadian people. There in conjunction with the British statesmen he will evolve a new policy. Whatever that policy may be, if it is all accepted, it will be the policy of the Canadian people, and I can tell him this further:	The Liberal party in this House,
composed not only of English speaking Liberals, but French Canadian Liberals, will stand behind the government when that policy is put before the House. We will not make a party question of the defence of the empire.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, we will not make a party question of the defence of the empire, of the defence of the British flag and the supremacy of the mother country over the sea. This is a national question. That is how we put it before the people of the province of Quebec, in spite of the vicious appeals made by the friend of the Minister of Marine who is sitting to his left, in spite of the passions roused by his colleagues in the cabinet. We stood firmly by the Canadian police during the last elections, and we intend to stand for it in the future, as in the past. We stand by the mother country when the government's naval policy is brought before parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend this afternoon and this evening has reminded us very much of those beautiful lines of Tennyson :
MeD may come and men may go, but I go on for ever.
If there is anything the hon. gentleman said this afternoon which he did not say this evening, or anything he said this evening which he (lid not say this afternoon, I, for one am unable to appreciate it. He was evidently so thoroughly satisfied with his performance this afternoon that he found it necessary to repeat it this evening. Well, had we plenty of time,


REVISED. EDITION COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
and were we here purely for the purpose of giving my hon. friend that practice which he really does not need, no one would have any objection to it; but I would suggest to my hon. friend that perhaps he might devote himself to some matters that he did not explain very well, and as to which I will ask an explanation from him now. I presume that he spoke for his party. One is a little in doubt as to whether he, or my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) is leading on the naval question, but I would perhaps be safe in concluding that as far as the construction of ships is concerned my hon. friend from St. John is the mouthpiece of the party, and so far as the fighting part of it is concerned my hon. friend from Rouville is their exponent. Now he informs us that he stands absolutely and literally by the letter which he wrote on the 4th of August, 1C03. There is no mistake about that, is there?
An hon. MEMBER.: Speak now?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the Prime Minister appealing to me?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then I will reply that I am certainly against militarism.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not speaking of militarism-


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is what I mentioned in the letter.


Robert Laird Borden: However, that is one statement. Does my hon. friend not speak for his party in that regard?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am speaking for myself.


Robert Laird Borden: Then apparently it is not a happy family on the other side of the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Everything is serene.


Robert Laird Borden: I ask my hon. friend again whether in making that statement he is, or is not, speaking for his party.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Since my hon. friend the Prime Minister has asked the question I am bound to answer. I say that the letter in question I would write again today; I stand by every word and by every line of that letter.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to inquire whether the hon. gentleman's party stand by every word and by every line. . My hon. friend does not seem inclined to give any very direct answer to my question. However, I will leave it in that way. Now let us look for one moment at the letter, and at the resolution which it criticised-because I have taken the pains to look at the resolution-and we will find exactly where Mr BORDF.NT
my hon. friend and presumably his party stand-unless they repudiate him, because they put him forward to speak-we will find exactly where they stand with regard to this question before we get through.
My dear Colleague,-
I would greatly have desired to have been present at the meeting on Sunday evening in order to protest with you against the untimely resolution adopted these last days by the Congress of the Chambers of Commerce of the empire. For reasons entirely of a personal nature I was unable to be present. Permit mo, however, to express my astonishment that the delegates of the Chambers of Commerce of Canada, and of the province of Quebec in particular, had thought it their duty to support a resolution which affirms a principle absolutely false-
Mark the words ' absolutely false '-[DOT]
-that is to say, the obligation of the colonies to participate in the defence of the empire.
Now, what was the resolution which my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) thought it necessary to attack, and which he attacked to-day-in the name of his party, I presume?


Rodolphe Lemieux: On my own behalf.


Robert Laird Borden: Was it? Well, let us see. He stated that once before to-day. I will read the resolution he has attacked on his own behalf and in the name of his party as reported in the Montreal ' Gazette ' and various other places:
That this Congress affirms the principle that it is the duty of the self-governing colonies to participate in the cost of the defence of the empire


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Why, my hon. friend wrote a letter denouncing it. He did not hear the rest of it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Go ahead.


Robert Laird Borden: We will read it again, so as to be absolutely sure we get the whole of it:
That this Congress affirms the principle that it is the duty of the self-governing colonies to participate in the cost of the defence of the empire


Rodolphe Lemieux: The cost.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend should endeavour to calm himself, I will try once more, and I will ask him to use the greatest possible self-control and let, me get through with it. I know that it disturbs him, but let him exercise self-control, and we shall be able to get through. This is the letter-**-


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the old one.


Robert Laird Borden: He is still disturbed. I would commend to him the advice of a good old friend of mine in Halifax, who

occasionally made use of a Latin word in a wrong way when he exhorted a friend,
' Now, don't get too excelsior.' Now, let us begin once more:
This congress affirms the (principle that it is the duty of the self-governing colonies to participate in the cost-
Not a word from my hon. friend that time.
-of the defence of the empire; but the colonies claim the privilege of taking their own initiative as to the nature and mode of he'p which (they agree to offer.
Now, that is the resolution which called forth this letter of protest from my hon. friend as I understood-~


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not quite sure of that.


Robert Laird Borden: There was a previous resolution which was drafted in these words:
It is resolved that this congress hereby affirms the principle that it is the duty of the self-governing colonies to participate in the cost of the defence of the empire.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the one.


Robert Laird Borden: Now my hon. friend's face lights'up when the latter words are omitted.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I thank my hon. friend.
I had forgotten it; but that is the very one.


Robert Laird Borden: And not the other? The one I read last was never adopted. The hon. gentleman has stated in this letter, as distinctly as it could be stated, an exactly opposite position from that 'which his leader took this afternoon. Does not he recognize that. It was put forward as a reproach to my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) and others that they had declared that there was no duty on the part of Canada to participate in the defence of the empire.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: What does the hon. gentleman say? I will read it again. Apparently his ability to comprehend either the French or the English language is disturbed for the time being. Let us read it first in French:
Permettez moi cependant d'exprimer mon etonnement de ce que les delegnes des Chambres de Commerce du Canada, et de la province de Quebec en ipartioulier, aient cru devoir appuyer une resolution qui affirme nn prinoiipe absolument faux, a savoir: ['obligation pour les colonies de participer a la defense de l'Empire.
Now, let us read it in English in the best translation I can give:
Permit me, however, to express my astonishment that the delegates of the chambers of commerce of Canada, and of the province of Quebec in particular, have thought it their duty to support a resolution which affirms a principle absolutely false, that is to say an obligation on the part of the colonies to participate in the defence of the empire.
My hon.. friend says that the obligation
or the duty of the colonies to


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not duty; obligation. Mr. BORDEN. That is a delightfully fine point.


Rodolphe Lemieux: ' The obligation.'


Robert Laird Borden: The principle that there is an obligation on the part of the colonies to participate in the defence of the empire is a perfectly false one, -but the principal that there is a duty on the part of the colonies to participate in the defence of the empire is a perfectly sound one. I am glad to know where we have my hon. friend at last. What a beautifully fine distinction he makes of it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend allow me? Does not he see that there is quite a difference?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Tight hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) is interpreting a letter [DOT]of mine. I suppose I can help him to interpret it. Does he not see the difference between a moral duty and an obligation?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, I stand by my words. I appeal to my right hon. friend as a lawyer, and a lawyer of distinction, is not there an essential difference between a moral duty-that was the Lauiuer policy- and an obligation, which was another policy.


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the word ' moral ' might be applied to an obligation as well as to a duty. I never heard that the adjective would be misplaced in one case and properly placed in another. As a matter of fact the letter of my hon. friend does not contain the word * moral ' at all, and does not refer to it. I submit to any hon. member of this House, that when my hon. iriend endeavours to squirm out of his letter in that way, he is not doing his intelligence or his standing in this House great credit. It would have been a perfectly proper and reasonable thing to do if he had stood up and said: I did write that letter; but I came to a different conclusion afterwards. But when he ventures to tell this House that any reasonable man could regard for a moment such a distinction as he has attempted to draw, he makes demands upon our intelligence which are either above or below the grasp of any man in this House. My right hon.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not speaking of
*myself, I am speaking of parliament, 1 am not proposing to do anything of that kind. I say that we in parliament, speaking of parliament as a whole, might enter upon a policy of constructing a certain number of cruisers of light type.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Hear, hear. I agree to that, does the Postmaster General agree to that?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend does not understand the context in which I am using that illustration. I say we might do that, but in doing that we would not be framing the basis of a naval policy that would stand in all the years to come. It is for that reason that we thought the late government were wrong in (proposing such a policy, and that they did not go to the

very heart of the matter; and that before we entered into any arrangement of that kind we must know where we were standing within this empire. So, we propose that the naval policy of the late government should not be continued, and we do propose before any naval policy is entered upon that some of those matters shall be considered, and when that policy is brought down it shall be presented to parliament, and the people of this country shall be given an opportunity to pronounce upon it.
So far as the future policy of this government is concerned, we propose to formulate it after careful consideration and attention to the problems which I have mentioned here to-night. We propose to give to those problems our very best consideration. We propose, so far as the technical question is concerned, to be guided by the empire's experts, because he was not guided because the admiralty must be better informed upon the technical side of this question than any man in this country can possibly be.


William Pugsley: Just as we were guided.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend says he was guided. He told us a while ago that he was not guided because the admiralty proposed one thing which they would not do, and then proposed another thing which the late government would not do, ^nd then the admiralty finally consented to something, which they regarded as not wholly satisfactory, because the late government were so anxious to have it.


William Pugsley: Which thev quite approved.


Robert Laird Borden: Therefore, I do not appreciate the force of my hon. friend's statement that they were guided by the admiralty.


William Pugsley: Guided as to the class of vessels by the admiralty.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not view it in that way, but my hon. friend hag his opinion and I have mine. In conclusion there was a certain organization left to us by the late administration. My hon. friend has already said that we would not be expected to sink the vessels or to set fire to the building they erected. We have kept them up, we are maintaining the organization so far as it may be necessary and desirable until a definite policy can be arrived at, but when a definite policy is arrived at we shall be very glad indeed to have from the hon. member from Rou-ville that fervent support which he pledged to us to-night.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Always provided it is on safe lines.


Wilfrid Laurier: For my part, and I believe for the whole House also, the discussion we have had is most instructive and will bear excellent fruit. At last we know where we are On this question of the naval policy. We know that it is the policy of this government to-have a naval service. We know that it is-their intention, somehow or other-I do net know how-they do not themselves know exactly-to take part in the defence of the empire, but whether by a contribution or whether by maintaining a fleet of their own is a matter to be decided, very properly, in the future. The present government took issue with that policy, the policy we laid down, and for which we had the approval of the last parliament. I have no fault to find with those who condemned that policy from the point of view represented by my hon. friend opposite. He was not satisfied with the line which we took, nor were his friends behind satisfied with it. In their view we had kept too much autonomy in our policy. In so far as I remember the discussion during the last parliament, the reproach of my right hon. friend and his friends from all the provinces, except the province of Quebec, was that there was too much autonomy in our policy. But everybody knows in the province of Quebec that for eighteen months and more, from the month of January, 1910, when we introduced the naval policy Bill, up to the 21st September, 1911, the gentlemen who support the present administration, the gentlemen who represent the province of Quebec in this administration, one and all, upon all the hustings in Quebec, upon every stump upon which they could plant their feet, stated that we owed absolutely nothing to-England, that we should not have a ship to assist in her defence and that we should never give a penny for that defence. I suppose that I am not to bring proof of what I say, but if that statement is denied upon the present occasion


Rodolphe Lemieux: They cannot deny it.


Wilfrid Laurier: If it is denied^ I leave it to those who sit behind them to-say whether or not I am right. But, after all, we have gained this out of this present discussion that we know that all this talk was for political effect and that now that the elections are past every gentleman who represents the province of Quebec in this administration will come up and do his duty like a British subject and a Canadian. There is nothing more to' be said on this point; it does not require any discussion. The government tell us that they are not satisfied with our programme and that they want to go to England and consult with the admiralty. Well and good; I have no objection to that. We will await their policy. If they can do better than.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, I shall not indulge in the kind1 of-should I call it argument-which the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux)-


Rodolphe Lemieux: I stated your own words.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If the hon. member for Rouville will only hold his tongue for a few minutes-he is so much excited that he cannot refrain from talking all the time. The hon. gentleman would not Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
allow me to say anything while he was speaking.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And you did the same to me.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: His leader ought to give him some advice. I am not going, Sir, to indulge in that kind of argument. The hon. member for Rouville has thought fit to go as far to-night as to address a member of this House by giving him, not his name, or the name of the county which he represents, but by giving him a name of his own invention.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What name?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for Rouville will allow me to speak; he has not allowed me to interrupt, and he will please sit down and keep quiet, i shall not roilow the hon. member for Rouville on these lines. The hon. member for Rouville is sore, his heart is full of all kinds of regrets, and, of course, we must have some pity on the poor fellow. If we were to follow him this House would be turned into a bear garden. SomeDody must have some dignity, and somebody must not forget himself; we will1 try to show him that good1 example, and if he js susceptible of learning something, he may learn that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Thank you.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He will not hold his tongue. The hon. member for Rouville has become a great Imperialist, and he is a great Imperialist notwithstanding his own letter in which he says the reverse. I shall not try to explain all that he has put before this House, but I am just going to give you an example of the kind of man the hon. member for Rouville is, and this House will know him, and judge him after that. This man has repeated three times to-night


Rodolphe Lemieux: I rise to a point of order.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I should have said * gentleman,' I suppose.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, ' I suppose,' but ' hon. gentleman.' My hon. friend will be polite in spite of himself.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I intend to be polite, and I shall never go as far as the hon. member for Rouville went to-night. If the expression ' man ' is not parliamentary, I am willing, in order to be parliamentary,
to say * gentleman '-


Rodolphe Lemieux: * Honourable '; go on.
Mr. PELLETIER-which is made the obligation of every member of this House. This House has heard three times from the

lips of the hon. member for Rouville tonight, that I went over into the county of Drummond1 and Arthabaska, and that I said this, that, and the other thing. I will ask the hon. member for Rouville (Mr Lemieux), if he is enough of a man-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of an honourable man.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, not this time. I ask him if he is a man to come boldly forward and put his seat at risk and I will put mine in the balance with his, if my statement is not correct that I did not even put my foot in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska during that election.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to say-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, sit down.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does he ask for an answer?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The rule of the House is that no member can interrupt another who has the floor unless with the consent of the hon. member addressing the House.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for Rouville must not be surprised if I do not allow any interruption, in view of the fact that he several times refused to let me answer him when he was speaking. I have tried to show him all possible courtesy since the House opened. I have allowed him to put all kinds of questions, and when he to-night asserts that I took part in the Drummond and Arthabaska election and I wanted to tell him that I was not there at all, he would not allow me to say. so and I declare that to be very unfair. I do not want to uselessly prolong this debate, but I cannot resist the temptation of comparing these great imperialists opposite of today with their traditions as a party. We have heard to-night the member for Rouville addressing the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, say: bring a bold policy forward and we on this side of the House will support you. He spoke for his side of the House, and it would seem that whilst we were told that there was a lieutenant needed for the leader of the opposition, some of these gentlemen on the front opposition benches think that they are the lieutenants and that they should not be ousted by the arrival of a new figure in the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You went to Renfrew and could not prevent him coming here.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: And to-night we have the member for Rouville promising the support of his party to the government, following the footsteps of the hon. member for South Wellington, who, during the
debate on the address told our leader: why don't you get rid of these bad Nationalists and we will support you if you put them to one side. Well, these gentlemen are lonesome in the cold shades of opposition, but let me tell them that this government is quite capable of taking caTe of its own policy. Let me tell them further that if any good policy is submitted to this country we will always find these gentlemen opposite taking a stand, as they have always done, against the public interest, or else behind the lines of Torres Vedras. Let us compare for a moment the patriotic principles and lofty sentiments of the member for Rouville to-day, when he has become a great imperialist, with the platform of his party years ago. Let us compare his utterances to-day with the programme his party had in the province of Quebec when they came into power in 1896. The member for Rouville, I think-I do not make assertions as he does without being perfectly sure- but I am informed he was one of the founders of a paper called ' Le Soir.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member (Mr. Lemieux) says ' No,' but he also says I was in Drummond-Arthabaska during the last election, when I was not there. There was in Quebec a paper which my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition-who by his courtesy always gives a good example to the young fellow from Rouville- there was in Quebec a paper which the right hon. leader of the opposition had written articles for and which was his organ.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I rise to a point of order. My hon. friend (Mr. Pelletier) is rather too cheeky.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. gentleman state his point of order?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Pelletier) speaks of the ' young fellow ' from Rouville, He may apeak that way in the county of Quebec, but not in this House. He must speak of the hon. gentleman from Rouville.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The rules of parliament do not oblige me to say more than the hon. member for Rouville.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The hon. gentleman will have to be polite in spite of himself. I do not lose my temper, but I say the hon. gentleman has no right to make that remark. The rules of the House will compel him to refer to another member as the ' hon. gentleman.'


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The ' hon. member ' will do. Well the hon. member says he is

not losing his temper, but if we saw him when he really lost his tempper >he must lose control of himself altogether. There wag a newspaper in Quebec in which the leader of the opposition sometimes wrote very good articles and which was known as his party organ.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am responsible for the articles I wrote myself.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, and there were other articles written in support of the policy of my right hon. friend which he never repudiated.


Wilfrid Laurier: Life is too short.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will read what one of these articles now, and we will see what these great imperialists said when they wanted to reach power. This is from the Liberal organ in Quebec:
Do you want war; thence million dollars in guns, cannons and bayonets; imminent danger for you farmers.
These are the head lines and here is the article:
One of old Tapper's dreams was imperial federation. Imperial federation means a closer alliance between England and her colonies generally and Canada in particular. Ono condition of such an alliance would be that in time of war Canada would he called upon to pay its share of the cost in money and in men. And, as England is nearly always at war with somebody we would be continually taxing ourselves to find money, always drawing lots to raise men. In return England would make these fakirs baronets, knights of this, commanders of that. But the people would remain food for cannon.- Hardly had Sir Charles Topper returned from England than he began to pave the way for the realization of his awful plan. England was threatened with a difficulty with the United States over a few acres of mining land which she claimed in Venezuela, thousands of miles away from our country, in Central America. Immediately Sir Charles Tnpper, to be officious hastened to Order the purchase in England of guns, cannon, &c. to the extent of $1,800,000, in the midst of a session without consulting the House. That was not enough for him. He wanted three millions. Mr. Foster proposed on April 21st, 1806, '(Hansard/ page 16902) a resolution authorizing a loan of $3,000, 000 to pay for the purchases made and to he made. There had then been ordered 40,000 Lee-Enfield rifles and 23,000 carbines of the same make for the cavalry. There have been ordered four batteries of six cannon, 12 pounders with the (accessary ammunition. The riflles cost $18 each.
Now I come to the climax, and when I read this, let it not be forgotten that these were the words spoken to the public by the party organ in Quebec:


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: No, Mr. Chairman, the country does not know them now. The country may know one side, but it does not know the other side. Let us see a little what the country will think of the other side-at least, a portion of the other side; because I know my hon. friends opposite; I know there is no mistake about them; they are staunch Tories, staunch Conservatives. But these words do not apply to my hon. friend, and I wish to reply at once to the question that was put to me a moment ago. It is good for the House, it is good for the country, that this ultra imperialist, this ultra Tory, should be known-not by us; we know him; but by his own friends. My hon. friend said a moment ago that he did not go to Drummond and Arthabaska. He did not, and I will explain to the House why.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: You said three times that I went.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Listen to the reason why the hon. gentleman did not go to Drummond and Arthabaska. The hon. gentleman, I stated to the House the other day, has changed colours as often as the sky changes. In 1886 he was a Rielist candidate in the county of Temis-couata against the Ross government. In 1887 he was a Liberal candidate in the

county of Three Rivers. In 1888 or 1889 he was elected in the county of Dorchester, succeeding his bosom friend, Mr. Laro-ehelle. In 1890 he was again a Liberal candidate. In 1891 that stalwart loyalist, who would not stand for reciprocity in 1911, supported unrestricted reciprocity.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is not discussing any issue bearing on the question before the committee.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think certainly that the committee is wandering far from the item under discussion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend spoke of articles published in 1896 and before 1896 to explain his stand, and I think I am entitled to answer him to show him before the country and before his own friends. I was just saying that in 1891 the hon. gentleman stood firmly in favour of unrestricted reciprocity as a straight Liberal in the county of Dorchester. A few months afterwards


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is now entering upon an issue


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am coming to the point.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I quite understand that I am not entitled to make my point of order without being interrupted. It seems to me that the House is degenerating to a pretty low standard. The hon. gentleman is entering upon a discussion of unrestricted reciprocity. What that has to do with the naval question I cannot see. I ask your ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must repeat that the hon. member has gone far from the question under discussion. Both sides of the House have done so. I would invite the hon. member to come back to the point under discussion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am nearing the point, Mr. Chairman. I was just saying that in 1891 the hon. gentleman stood with this party. In 1896 he stood with the other party, but in 1904 he had a quarrel with the other party, and that is how ' Zand-rang ' comes in. He wanted to know why I should call him ' Zandrang.' He had a quarrel with his party on that very point; that is why


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Mr. Chairman, I cannot see that the hon. member is coming to the point.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am coming to the point.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And to-day he stands in this House ready to support anything emanating from the government. The other day on another question the hon. gentleman said to tlhe faithful of the county of Quebec that there were times in the life of a public man when it was more difficult for him to keep his portfolio than to throw it aside. He decided, however, to ,keep his portfolio on the school question, and make sure, Mr. Chairman, he will again keep his portfolio on the naval question also.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may bean advantage, or a disadvantage, but I happened to sit in this House in 1896, and it would be hard to reconcile the voluble gentleman who has just taken his seat with the same gentleman who sat here silent as the tomb on a certain occasion. What was that occasion? The Postmaster General quoted to-night utterances from newspapers published in the province of Quebec prior to the elections of 1896. There happened to sit in this House at that time a gentleman who stood prominently high in the opinion of both sides in his reputation for fairness, and his splendid character in the province of Quebec. I refer to the Hon. John McIntosh who had the honour of representing the city of Sherbrooke, which city did ' itself credit in electing him as its member. I remember seeing then a blanched face which held a palsied tongue, and it was the face and the tongue of the hon. member for Rouville on the occasion of a scathing denunciation by Mr. McIntosh. Sir, the occasion of criticism were the speeches uttered by the hon. member for Rouville

who paraded from one end of the province of Quebec to the other making denunciation of 'Old Tupper'. The hon. gentleman did not even have that respect which he should have had for the grey hairs of that distinguished statesman as to term him by his title of 'Sir Charles'. That is the taste which the hon. gentleman displays for a man in public life. Did that hon. gentleman dare to deny one word uttered by the hon. John McIntosh on that occasion? No, Sir, not a single word. And his leader and the ministers sitting with him on that side of the House hung down their ,very heads for shame of him. The statement which Mr. McIntosh made at that time, at the same time .enumerating the different places where the hon. gentleman had made the speeches complained of, was that he was a man wiho instead of being in the Canadian parliament, should have been prosecuted for treason to the British Crown. That is the hon. gentleman who has been prating here to-night, and presenting his views on imperialism as to the views that should be entertained by the hon. gentlemen on both sides of this House.


An hon. MEMBER.: Save the mark.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The wreck in the shape of His Majesty's loyal opposition which sit on the opposite side are at such variance with each other that they do not know in what direction they are going. I have been in this House, with a slight interruption, for which hon. gentlemen opposite devoutly prayed, for three parliaments, and in that period who ever saw such a spectacle as was presented1 in this House on the Manitoba school question the other night? Sir, it is a well known rule in the British navy that when a ship sinks owing to the blunder of the commander, that commander like a man goes down with his ship. That has not been done by the leader of the opposition. He is still clinging to the ship, and if any man should be humiliated how must the leader of the opposition have been humiliated the other night. He took a stand on the school question, in connection with the Manitoba boundaries extension Bill, and1 I give him credit for being conscientious; but if he was conscientious in his attitude with respect to that question, then he stands in the unenviable position that he no longer leads his compatriots from Quebec, but they lead him. Under these circumstances the time has come in the province of Quebec when the right hon. gentleman cannot lead his own following. Sir, the public are getting tired and sick of these hon. gentlemen prating about race and religion.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 


Richard Bedford Bennett: I represent a constituency in the province of Ontario where there are 1,500 French .Canadian voters, and in the last election what was the whole issue in that French Canadian settlement? Was it the question of reciprocity or the question of the navy? No, Sir, but the bosom friend1 of the leader of the opposition, the creature of his hand, the putty which he moulded, Senator Cas-grain, travelled all the way from Montreal to the riding of East Simcoe, and for two hours harangued at different points French Canadian audiences. What was the subject? Was it reciprocity, was it the question of the navy, was it the economic question? No, Sir, it was: 'Vote for the old man because he is a French Canadian and a Catholic.' That was the whole cry raised during the last election amongst the French Canadians in my riding. And, Sir, in making that statement I do not go behind Senator Casgrain's back, I am a personal friend of his-at least I hope I am-and I saw him after the opening of the session, and said to him: ' You ought to be ashamed of yourself. The idea of a man of your intelligence going into that riding and endeavouring for two hours to excite the people on questions of race and1 creed in a county where the people were intelligent enough to deal with questions on their merits, and on their merits alone.' Senator Casgrain admitted the very statement that I attributed to him, that the whole trend of his speech was, ' vote for Laurier because he is a Roman Catholic anu a Frenchman.' What happened? An intelligent French Canadian elector said: 'We know Sir Wilfrid is a Frenchman and a Roman Catholic. Tell us about reciprocity.' Senator Casgrain's response to that question was: ' That has nothing to do with it. Vote for Laurier, because he is a Frenchman and a Catholic.' Sir, that policy was not only carried1 on in East Simcoe, it was carried on in other ridings, and what was the result? Why, Sir, the returns show it. The county of Prescott, in Ontario, went Liberal in answer to the appeal along those lines. Glengarry with its large French vote, went Liberal in response to the same appeal. South Essex, the two Kents, and Russell were all carried in the same manner, I repeat that people are sick and tired) of these eternal howls from hon. gentleman opposite, and from their leader, on this question of race and religion. However, it has stood them in good stead. The leader of the opposition has never thought it was not the proper thing to do it himself. I sat in this House during the session of 1896, and what happened when his Chicoutimi speech was attributed to him? The leader of the opposition had there made the

statement ' that he thanked God there was not an Orangeman in the Liberal party, and yet, sitting right behind him at the time, was the Grand Master of Eastern Ontario, the hon. member for Addington.


Samuel Hughes: The Orange order never so far disgraced itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And then Mr. Bellay, member for Chicoutimi and Saguenay, made the statement repeatedly from his place in the House, and produced a bunch of affidavits in support of it
The right hon. gentleman who leads me opposition did not dare deny that he had made the statement attributed to him, anil ' Hansard ' will prove it. It was a pituul sight, and for this reason, that though the right hon. gentleman did not deny it hun self, it fell to the lot of two gentlemen to stand up-two of his own supporters, Mr Carroll and the present Senator Choquette -and declare that they were present ana *had not heard it said, and it could not have been said. But, as I have said, the right hon. gentleman himself would not make the denial, and I do not suppose he would deny it to-night even after twenty years. That is the style of election cries that we have been subjected to in the riding of East Simcoe and in all the ridings in Ontario in which there are many French Canadians. And I want to tell hon. gfit-tlemen opposite that had they eliminated that feature from the discussion in these contests the French vote in their ridings would have been much broken up, but instead of that it was a solid mass, and that by reason of the appeals that have been made from time to time. As to the member from Renville (Mr. Lemieux), I do not suppose that the House is very much concerned with his personal troubles. I have beard the adage that fools rush in where angels fear to tread, and also that people who live in glass houses should not throw stones. If the hon. gentleman had come at me personally as he cape at the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), I would refer to a debate which took place in this House in .relation to certain actions .in the county of Gaspe that did not redound to the credit of the hon. member and to some person very near to him. And on that occasion, what did the right lion, gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) plead for him? Why, it was enough to melt one to tears to hear the defence put up by the leader of the opposition for the hon. member for Rouville and a certain other person in connection with certain occurrences in one of the ridings in the province of Quebec. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) talks about the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) as being a firebrand. Well, there is one thing about a man who carries a firebrand- you can always see him coming. But this
darkdantern brigade gentry who infest the French settlements are not always to be caught. For my part, I prefer the man with the flaming torch to the man who arms himself with a dark lantern.
These hon. gentlemen are in opposition, and I think before many years are passed exposures will be made in this House of the way millions of dollars were frittered away and stolen from the public treasury, anid the result will be to keep them where they are for many years to come. They may as well accept the inevitable. They are in opposition, and they are in opposition to stay for many years. But all this talking of the hon. member for Rouville may be summed up in this:	He is very
busy about nothing and out of wind to no purpose.


Wilfrid Laurier: I desire to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) for 'information as to the ships included in this item. What is the nature of these ships?


John Douglas Hazen: It is not expected to purchase any ships with this vote. The total amount is $1,660,000, and it is divided under the following heads:
To pay the officers and men of 'the ' Niobe ' and 'Rainbow' and of the Naval College, $583,080.
Stores for the two boats, and guns, $533,900. Repairs to ships and vessels (nearly all for repairs of damages to the ' Niobe '), $200,000.
Repairs to the dockyards machinery at Halifax and Esquimau, $13,260.
Miscellaneous dockyard services at Halifax und Esquimalt, $44,444.
Miscellaneous other services, $118,600.
Repairs and maintenance of buildings, provision of additional improvements for the college, $5,500.	,
Purchase of new machinery for dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt, $19,200.
Hew buildings and other works, $4,276. Construction of lighters, water-tank and service boats, $64,500.
That makes the total of the vote. I would be glad to give the right hon. gentleman details of any of these subdivisions if he desires.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, I only wished to know if new boats were to be purchased. I understand it is not intended to make such purchases.


John Douglas Hazen: Nothing except lighters, _ a water-tank and service boats. Nothing in the way of what might be called boats for the navy.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Are men being recruited for the service?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, from time to time, to keep the number on the 'Niobe' and the ' Rainbow ' up to strength.


Henri Sévérin Béland: How many men on each of these ships?


John Douglas Hazen: The authorized numbers are: .For the 'Niobe,' 60 officers and 630 men; for the 'Rainbow,' 18 officers and 251 men; Royal Naval College at Halifax, naval officers, 8; civilian officers, 4; cadets, 45; naval men, 40; civilians, 10. This makes a total of 1,068. That is the authorized strength, but I do not think we are up to strength at the present time. For instance, there is accommodation in the naval college for 45 cadets, and I think that at the present time there are only about 30.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Would the hon. minister sum up the services which are being rendered now by . these two ships?


John Douglas Hazen: Those upon the ships, of course, are enlisted for the purpose of receiving instruction. The course of instruction is similar to that on board the ships of the British navy; and the intention was, in the scheme proposed, that after taking a certain course of instruction they should be shipped into other vessels actually engaged in outside waters instead of doing the work among the harbours which the ' Niobe ' and ' Rainbow ' are doing. The training summary included the British navy instruction in gunnery, the management of a ship and other matters to make them efficient seamen for a man of war.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have seen it stated in the papers that certain of the cadets had been sent to England aboard of some of the ships there. How many young Canadians have been sent to the other side? And will they come back?


John Douglas Hazen: Thirteen have been sent to continue there the work of their course of training that they could not get on board the ship here.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who commands the ' Rainbow '?


John Douglas Hazen: Commander Holmes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And on board the
' Niobe ' Commander Macdonald?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When I was Postmaster General, I was asked by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of that time, to ask the postmasters throughout the country to recruit men for the navy. Are the postmasters continuing that work? Are they continuing to recruit?


John Douglas Hazen: That is continued, those instructions to the postmasters have never been cancelled.


John Douglas Hazen: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are you recruiting men?


John Douglas Hazen: We are getting men from time to time, there is no very active recruiting going on.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would the minister give some further information about the college at Halifax?


John Douglas Hazen: The college is the old hospital building in the navy-yard. The cadets are instructed by a staff of instructors in different branches of education necessary to fit them for the navy. They are also instructed in mechanical work, there is a machine shop and carpenter shop and they receive manual training. In fact they receive the sort of training for the navy that 'is given at the college at Kingston for life in the army.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do they all receive the same kind of training? '


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the length of the course?


John Douglas Hazen: About two years.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do they spend part of that time on the ships?


John Douglas Hazen: Not until they are through with the college. Then if they want to continue a naval career they go on board a
ship and continue their course.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What qualifications must a cadet possess?


John Douglas Hazen: He has to pass a preliminary examination such as a 'boy would get at the common schools of the country, but although the examination is simple some boys fail. The boys are usually about 17 years of age. It is found impossible to get the boys to go to school as young as they do in Great Britain.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The idea of the minister undoubtedly is to have these men who are trained on those ships serve on the new navy he is going to devise when he goes and consults with the admiralty?


John Douglas Hazen: That, of course, was the idea, object and purpose of establishing the college just as with the college at Kingston, but many of those who graduated from the college at Kingston do not go into the army or even take out commissions in the militia; the education they receive fits them for engineering or any other calling because of the very excellent training they get. The same thing is true of the naval college at Halifax. I visited it last autumn and was very much pleased with what I saw. I thought the discipline was excellent and the training good. It would be a benefit to a boy even if he did not enter the navy as a profession. Of

course if we are going to have a navy in Canada and to have naval officers we must have means to properly educate them. In England they have the naval colleges and a naval college is an essential and necessary part of the naval system.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The .minister of course is aware of the tenor of the resolution adopted here on March 29, 1909. As I understand the minister is going to England within a short time. Some other course will be adopted after negotiation with the admiralty. I would call the minister's attention to a paragraph in the resolution unanimously adopted in this House two years ago:	[DOT]	;
The House is of opinion that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the self-governing Dominions, the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury for naval and military purposes, would not, so far as Canada is concerned, be the most 'satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
Another course might be adopted, that would be the building of a navy either in. close co-operation with toe British navy or an entirely Canadian navy. Does the minister wish to adhere completely to the resolution of March 29, 1909, or does he not propose to do that?


John Douglas Hazen: I am not prepared to tell my hon. friend at this moment what the policy of the government will be in that respect.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The minister is not even in a position to say whether he will adhere to the resolution which was adopted unanimously in this House and in the wording of which his own leader, then the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), participated.
I am sure of that because I was present in the House when this resolution was adopted with the participation of both parties and with both leaders sharing in the framing of it. It has one paragraph which is important. The minister is not in a position to say whether he will' adhere to the resolution which was adopted here unanimously not two years ago-may I ask?


John Douglas Hazen: That is correct.


Henri Sévérin Béland: The minister, a few minutes ago, said, if I understood him correctly, that the scheme propounded by the late government had been hurriedly conceived. This resolution was adopted almost three years ago. It was adopted in March. 1909, and the Bill was presented to this House for the carrvinsr out of the policy regarding naval defence on the 3rd February, 1910. That is almost one year later, and, in the meantime, there was a
conference in London between two ministers, at least, of the late government and the Brisish admiralty. I do not wish to delay the House at all, but this is a subject in which I am very much interested. I have been discussing it a good deal with gentlemen who sit behind the minister. One paragraph of this most important resolution reads as follows:-
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the *speedy organization of a Canadian Naval *Service in co-operation with and in close relation to the Imperial navy, along the lines suggested, by the admiralty at the last Imperial Conference, and in full sympathy with *the view

And so on. We have contended that the policy, inaugurated by the late administration was exactly on the line of this part of the resolution. We have been contending that in the province of Quebec, and I think we were right. The naval policy which was adopted provided for the building in this country of a certain number of ships, the control of which was to be in the hands of the Canadian government, but it was provided in a certain clause-I do not remember the number of it-that if it was judged necessary, this Canadian navy could share in the defence of the empire and be a part at a given moment of the imperial navy. We have been condemned in the province of Quebec, by the Postmaster General, because this scheme was in too close co-operation with the imperial navy, whilst, if I am well informed, in the province of Ontario we have been condemned because it was not in cooperation sufficiently with the mother country.	[DOT]


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: In defence of the Naval Bill, did not the hon. member for Beauce, in the counties of Montmagny and Beauce where he ran, tell the people that this navy was not so bad as it looked because it was for the protection of the export of cheese and butter?


Henri Sévérin Béland: Certainly, and in saying that I was repeating the very words of the right hon. gentleman who leads the government. He expressed that in the seat which is now occupied by my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition when he said that this naval organization would provide for the protection of commerce. Are cheese and butter not important factors in our commerce, I would ask my hon. friend?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Certainly, but what I meant to suggest was that the hon. member for Beauce, as a minister of the Crown, told the audience which he addresser! during the eleotion, that there was no danger at all of anybody being hurt by those poor ships, because they were not

going to wage war, but were merely for the protection of cheese and butter.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I never stood for an academic resolution to protect the country but I always stood for a navy to protect our coast and trade and how could we protect the country when we went to war unless we fired guns? I see that the Postmaster General is right when he says that he was not in Drummond and Arthabaska; otherwise he would have known what I said there.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am told that it was about the same thing.


Henri Sévérin Béland: Yes. this navy was to be a Canadian navy under the control of the Canadian government for the protection of our ports, coasts, trade and commerce, and sharing with the mother country in the moment of need. Those are the words I used in Drummond Arthabaska.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the Postmaster General said that it was a crime to do that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. .member for Rouville does not know anything about it.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I never heard the Postmaster General on a. platform in the last election. I have read some of his speeches in a paper which is supposed to be friendly to him and one paragraph conveyed to me the idea that this navy was condemned very severely and that any participation whatever in defence of the empire would be a national crime. Of course, to-day it is changed as on the school question everything is changed. We have gained to-day the knowledge that everybody in this House is in favour of this country sharing in defence of the empire. Is there anybody in the House against it?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Speak now.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will speak.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Speak now.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Would the hon. member for Rouville try and take some advice from his leader and be somewhat more calm? I will speak when my leader speaks on this question and when we have formulated a policy. Let my hon. friend wait a little.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You cannot speak.


Frank Oliver: In the meantime the hon. gentleman is within the lines of Torres Vedras.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do you mean Mr. Lavergne or your present leader?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Let the hon. member for Beauce speak.


Henri Sévérin Béland: As far as I was personally concerned I had not taken very strong-Mr. PELLETIER..
ly to the idea of the organization of the Canadian navy until the 29t/i March, 1909. But on that occasion |we witnessed the great spectacle of both readers and both parties uniting on the one idea that the time had come when we should organize, in so far as naval defence was concerned, and the word 'speedy* was included in this paragraph at the suggestion of the leader of the opposition of that time. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries claims that it was conceived hurriedly, that we were too quick, that we were too fast, too swift, too speedy and yet this word 'speedy' was included at the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government. Since then I have been a fervent adherent of the idea of naval organization in Canada. I realize that it is necessary, that it is a duty, an obligation, and I take this opportunity to say that I believe there is a difference, at least in .French, between the word 'duty' and the word 'obligation'. There is a big difference between the word 'duty' and the word 'obligation' and I am sorry that I have to differ from the right hon. gentleman who leads the House in that regard. I have done my best to have the people in Quebec come to the idea that the time has arrived when we should organize a naval defence.
The minister stated to-night that when in six years the ships would be built, they would be obsolete, but if such an opinion were ever given by any, gallant admiral it would be a suprise to me because a good 'many British ships are older than six years and yet they are in effective service in the navy. I tell the minister :	I still
adhere to the resolution adopted on the 29th of March, 1909, I adhere to every "word of it and I trust that when he goes to England-and this country will be well represented by him-he will emphasize the fact that this Parliament was unanimous in passing this resolution, and that direct and periodical contributions to the British admiralty are not allowed by this resolution of the Canadian parliament, but that a speedy organization of a naval service in co-operation with the mother country is ordered by the resolution. The Liberal, party has been doing its best to carry out that resolution as fast as possible, and we have been blamed for it. We now await the policy of the government, and I trust that whatever the minister proposes will be well devised and well planned, as the result of these negotiations with the home authorities and the experts of the British navy. I hope that every man in this House, not only the minister and his leader, not only the gentlemen who sit behind him, not only the Liberal party as a whole, but even those whom you, Mr. Chairman, know so well and who have been denouncing any naval

organization in this country, will support the policy the minister submits. Then will be done away with these vicious appeals
that have been made in the Drovince of Quebec especially, and even in Ontario and the other provinces on exactly opposite grounds.


William F. Carroll: I realize that it is perhaps in the interests of the country that we should get quickly through with the estimates, but I must say a few words upon the resolution now before us. It seems to be well understood that the policy of both political parties in this country is to contribute some aid, in whatever shape it may be, to the defence of the empire. It may he that in the heat of a political combat things have been said which would not be said on the floor of this parliament, but taking the discussion we have had in this House to-day, we may fairly come to the conclusion that the Canadian Parliament endorses some contribution towards imperial naval defence. I think we may also draw the conclusion from the discussion that the present government does not intend to give a money contribution to the British admiralty. I take it that that contribution will be in the shape of ships, because _ otherwise the government would not be maintaining what naval defence service we have in Canada at the present time. Of course, it must be supposed that if the government had the intention of doing anything else than supplying ships, which may be built either in this country or in England, it would be absurd for the government to be voting imoney to keep up the two ships we now have. Much has been said about the delay that has taken place in reference to this question of contribution to our naval defence, but it must not be forgotten that much has been done in Canada towards helping out the British Empire in connection with the defence of pur country. It takes a long time to work out a plan of this kind; it took a long time to work out a plan for taking over the fortifications at Halifax and Esquimalt, but, in this as in other cases, the longer it takes the better may be the final result. / Much has been said about the delay on the part of the late government in providing for our defence, but it seems -to me that the present government is not in any great hurry, and the best we have heard from the Minister of Marine is1 that in the not far distant future there will be something done in the matter. We are led to understand that the Minister of Marine is going to England to discuss the question with the home authorities, and as this is a business government and supposing as a business government it will not contribute money towards naval defence, but that it will build ships, then the question arises
as to whether ships should be built in Canada or in the mother country. From the mere standpoint of loyalty alone, and without considering anything else, it would of course be just as loyal for the Canadian government to give the money to the British admiralty to supply itself with these ships, as for the Canadian government to build the ships in our own country. But, there are other things which may be considered. The man who takes the ground that we would not, in the course of a few years, be able to build as good ships in Canada as they can build in the English dockyard is not a true Canadian, because he underrates the skill and the industry and the ability of Canadian workmen. I believe it to be the sentiment in the province from which I come, that if there is going to be a contribution to naval defence, then that money should be spent in Nova Scotia, in New Brunswick, in Prince Edward Island or in British Columbia, as the case may be. If we go into the building of these ships, the British workman can come here and earn Canadian dollars if he will, but the people of Canada who are putting their hands into their pockets should have the right to earn these dollars if dollars are to be earned. I look upon this matter from a business standpoint, and I say that in the course of a few years we will be able to build just as good ships on this side of the water as they can in Great Britain. We may talk as we like about conferring with the admiralty, but as I understand it the admiralty has already concurred in the naval policy of the late government.
But the principal point that I wish to lay stress on is this, that the hon. Minister of Marine, when he goes to England to confer with the admiralty on this question, should not forget that there is a sentiment in this country, especially in the maritime provinces, in which I include British Columbia, that if we are going to contribute ships-and I believe we should contribute nothing but ships-those ships should be built by Canadian workmen, of Canadian material, and with Canadian dollars. That is the stand that I believe every maritime man will take. They may tell us: Yes, the people of Nova Scotia, the people of New Brunswick and the people of British Columbia will' have a chance to obtain some graft from such government expenditure. Surely every government that comes into power in this -country has enough business capacity to see to it that there is no such thing as that. That is an argument that is put up by the ' Montreal Star '-that our people yho ask for money to be spent in this country are people who have some axe to grind. There is no one in this parliament who has not some axe to grind, and the axe

that we should grind is to see that our workmen are protected, that if money is to be spent, we should take a strong Canadian, business view, that it should be spent on this side of the water.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: 

light and are now ready to abandon every idea they had except to stand loyally and consistently by the ideas announced by the. Prime Minister. And I for one will not harbour any grudge against them, nor hold an account against them, if they will even at this late day stand loyally behind the Minister of .Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) in carrying out the policy of the resolution read a moment ago by the hon. member for Beauee (Mr. Beland) and adopt the imperial resolution of 1907 which is the standard adopted by themselves, ana go forward with the policy and let us no longer remain under the condemnation meted out by the Prime Minister to any class who are not willing to .contribute to their own support an/d defence in 'this empire of which we are so proud to form a part.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to add ijust one word of exhortation to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Two days ago the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Mondou) asked a question:
Does the government intend to propose the repeal of the Naval Act?
And the answer was 'Yes', and then the Minister of Marine and Fisheries went on to explain some kind'of .policy that is to be adopted by the present government and *said that policy would undoubtedly require legislation, which legislation would involve the repeal of the present Naval Act. I took the trouble to look up the Naval Service. Act to find what in it could be objectionable t-o the minister. I find that the first section is the title. Sec. 2 and 3 refer to interpretation. Sec. 4 provides that the King is to be commander-in-chief of the Canadian navy. I suppose that will not be objectionable to my hon. friend?


Henri Sévérin Béland: It is objectionable to the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny).


John Howard Sinclair: 
Mr. EDWARDS.: What good would they be without the Dreadnoughts?


John Howard Sinclair: If they -were no good the British admiralty would not build them.


William Cameron Edwards: They .are good with the others, but what wo-uld be the use of them without the others?


John Howard Sinclair: They are the kind of ships used for the protection of the trade routes. They are swift ships, battleships. They are building also 20 destroyers, 6 submarines, 2 river gun-boats, 1 department ship and 1 hospital ship. We proposed 4 of these cruisers of the ' Bristol ' type and 6 torpedo destroyers to begin with, the very kind of ships they are building in England. They are building these constantly. One of them was launched in June last, and they are proposing to launch one on the 18th of June this year.
They are proposing to launch another on the 19th of August, a third on the 31st of August and a fourth in September. During the past two years the British government has built in British yards the following protected cruisers:	Five of the
Bristol type (that is the type we are proposing to build); four of the Dartmouth type; three of the Dublin class; three improved of the Dublin class, and three for the Australian government, making in all 18, and we are told by the Minister of Marine and by the Prime Minister that these vessels will be useless in time of war. Then 18 of these useless vessels have been built by the British Admiralty within the last two years, or are now building, apd they are also being built by every civilized country in the world. There is a dispute among experts as to the best type of ship. There is no doubt that the strongest and most effective ship is the Dreadnought, but these other ships are being built by every civilized and progressive nation in the world. The British government to-day own 92 protected cruisers, Germany 41, Japan 16, United States 14, Austria 9, Russia 8, Italy 7, France 5. The last proposal of the British admiralty was that they would build five in Great Britain each year and if they were the kind of ships my horn, friend says they are, I submit that the British admiralty would not be building them at all. A _ couple of years ago the government of Australia asked for an expert to be sent out to make some investigations and give them some advice and -then the report of -Sir Reginald -Henderson the expert who went there recommends within the next 22 years the -construction of the following vessels: Eight battleships, 10 protected cruisers, 18
destroyers, and 12 submarines. I can understand my ihon. friend saying we ought to have some Dreadnoughts. If that is his policy why -does he' not announce it? If the only difference between the two parties is that we on this side of -the House believe in protected -cruisers to begin with and th-ose on the other side in Dreadnoughts, it -should be easily -settled, but the postmaster -General and the Nationalist party have not made that demand, and they are not in favour of any kind of ship. These are the questions with which the Minister of Marine will be met when -he reaches London, and I submit he will have either to pay a cash contribution or to adopt some policy verv close to the policy of the late government.
Fishery protection service, to provide for repairs and maintenance of vessels, $320,000.


John Douglas Hazen: This estimate is $38,000 more than last year. The details of the estimate of expenditure are:
' The Canada/ $45,000; structural alteration $10,000; new armament $5,000; new motor boat, $1,500;
Steamer ' Curlew/ $20,000; steamer ' Constance/ $20,000; steamer ' Petrel/ $20,000, steamer 'Vigilant/ $30,000; steamer 'Restless/ $12,500; steamer 'Falcon/ $12,500. Hire and maintenance of extra vessels for patrolling on the Pacific coast, $120,000.
This makes up the amount of $320,000 that is required for this service.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend taken into consideration the serious remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver about poaching by Americans on the Pacific -coast?


John Douglas Hazen: Oh, yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What precautions are you taking?	*


John Douglas Hazen: We have here an item of $120,000. We are unable to get new vessels for the service this year to patrol on the Pacific coast. So we propose to lease.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The protection of the fisheries along the coast from Canso around to Cape Breton as soon as the drift ice is gone is very important, because we have many American vessels around the coast at that time, and it is highly necessary that the three-mile limit should be enforced. Is there any system by which the ships will be in readiness to go to that part of the province as early as they will be required?


John Douglas Hazen: I entirely concur in what my hon. friend has said. We have three steamers in the service on the coast men-

tinned, the ' Canada,' the 'Constance,' and the ' Petrel.' They will all be put in commission when the season opens and their services are required.


John Howard Sinclair: It is reported on the coast that the laws are not well enforced in regard to steam trawling, that in the Gulf of St. Lawrence the steam trawlers have been working inside the three-mile limit. Some doubt has been expressed as to what is a bay in all parts of our waters. The steam trawler is prohibited from working in bays or harbours or within three miles of the coast line. In the gulf between Cape Breton and Cape Jack some fishermen contend that they should be kept out of that place altogether.


John Douglas Hazen: How wide is the bay at the mouth?


John Howard Sinclair: Perhaps ten or twelve miles.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Twenty miles.


Mr SINCLAIR.: I am not quite sure about the width of the bay; at all events, I think the minister should have some authority that would define the bays along the coast that are excluded from the operations of the steam trawler, and also the instructions to the protective agents to look out for these steam trawlers and see that they observe the law.


John Douglas Hazen: This question with regard to bays was dealt with at the arbitration which took place at The Hague two years acr0 when Sir Charles Fitzpatrick was the representative of the. Canadian government, and Sir Allen Aylesworth was the agent of His Britannic Majesty. The tribunal at the Hague practically adopted the rule in regard to bays that was adopted in the treaty of 1888, spoken of as the Blaine-Chamberlain treaty, which was negotiated by Sir Charles Tupper, and which was subsequently thrown out by the Senate of the United States. It defines, except in the case o.f the Bay of Fundy, which is not considered * at a.11, where the three mile limit shall be with regard to bays. In bays that are not more than ten miles in width it shall be a line from headland to headland at the point where the bay ceases to have the conformation of a bay,_ and at other places it -shall be three miles from the shore. But, there are bays in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, like Mira-michi Bay and the Baie des Chaleurs, in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, more than ten miles in width, in regard to which it is expressly provided that the line shall be diawn from headland to headland at the point where it ceases to have the conformation of a bay. There is a general clause in other cases to the effect that the line Mr. HAZEN.
shall be drawn from the first point _ at which the bay is not more than ten miles ir width. A treaty has been agreed to practically in so far as Canada is concerned, -and Newfoundland is now about to do the same, but there must be a reference to the United States Senate fox confirmation. The deputy minister tells me that the department has been unable to get any evidence whatever that isteam trawlers have be-en^ fishing within the three mile limit in the waters mentioned by the hon. member for Gnysborough. The Naval Department has been unable to find steam trawlers, whether from the United States or France, inside the three mile limit. I will ask the deputy minister to give instructions to the commanders of these vessels to take more particular pains this year, to watch out and see that no trawlers are allowed within the district referred to by my hon. friend.


John Howard Sinclair: Might I suggest that the deputy minister will ask the protection vessels to lay out at nights when the trawler is in the vicinity. I am told that it is at night that the damage is done. The trawler works at might, and as a rule the cruiser goes into some snug harbour where they can have a nice easy time, and they do not see anything, of course. If the protection vessel would lay out at night and watch the trawler perhaps it could get at the difficulty.
Fisheries protection service-to provide for two new vessels required for fishery protection sevice on the coast of British Columbia, $275,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There was a rumour a few days ago that Commander Wakeham who has charge of the ' Princess ' in the Baie des Chaleur and generally on the north shore, was going to be superannuated. I have known -Commander Wakeham for several years and, although he has been in the service of the government for nearly forty years, he is still quite alert, vigorous and an excellent officer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I do not think that Commander Wakeham is willing to be superannuated. I know there are many requests made for the^ succession to his position. I hope the minister will take into consideration the very great service he has rendered to the Crown and to the government and retain him as long as he is willing to perform service.


John Douglas Hazen: Commander Wakeham is nut in the naval service, hut in the service of the Marine and Fisheries Department, No application, in so far as I know, has been made by Commander Wakeham for superannuation and no application has been made to me from any source to superannuate him. I do not know of any reason

for superannuating him. He 'has been a very capable officer 'and I am sure that I have not the slightest intention of superannuating him at present.


Clarence Jameson: Befoie we leave this question with regard to steam trawlers, which has been introduced by the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), I wish to say a word with respect to it. The hon. member for Guysborough, during last session, introduced a resolution, on this question which resulted in a very full and free discussion. I spoke upon that occasion and I condemned very strongly the system of taking fish by means of beam iand otter trawlers. I entertain today exactly the same opinion in regard to the matter as I did upon that occasion. On that occasion there were statements made by various gentlemen supporting the administration of that day which effectually evidenced the fact that these trawlers were operated within the three-mile limit. I dare say that the hon, member for Guysborough will recollect that such was the case. The subject is one which is of very vital importance to the fishermen not only of Nova Scotia, but to all the maritime provinces, and is one which might very well engage the serious attention of the officers of the Department of Marine | and Fisheries. For two or three years in i the reports of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of the late government some reference to these beam and otter trawlers was made and in each case the intimation was thrown out that beam trawling had come to 'stay, that it was something which might as well be accepted because it was inevitable. For my own part I think that it would be a very serious thing if it were allowed to go on unchecked. If large sums of money were permitted to be invested in these [DOT]trawlers it might be said later on that there was a vested interest and that it would be improper to interfere with the operation of them. I think that the government should now do all that it possibly can to check the operation of these trawlers. Of course, in the case of trawlers operating in the North Sea, there is a very different condition prevailing from that which prevails in this 'country. In the maritime provinces the government has expended millions of dollars in constructing breakwaters, wharfs and aids of that character to the fishermen and the fishermen have invested large sums of money in high-class fishing boats and vessels.
If these trawlers are permitted to carry on their operations in our waters, it will mean that the money invested in our ordinary fisheries will be very largely wasted. That is to say, the tendency will be to drive the fishermen who are now prosecuting their calling by the ordinary method,
out of that business and compel them to engage in some other, while the steam trawlers will themselves carry on the operation of taking fish. That may be profitable perhaps in countries where there is a very large population and having many industries, such as Great Britain,. but in this country I think it would be a most serious thing, and everything that we can do should be done to prevent the operation of these steam trawlers. I took the view at that time, and I think the hon. member (Mr. Sinclair) also entertained a similar view, that if possible these steam trawlers should be debarred the use of our harbours, that they should not be permitted to enter our ports for the purpose of landing their fish or for coaling. In that way they would be excluded from the benefit of the ports in the maritime provinces and the prosecution of this business would be discouraged.


John Douglas Hazen: Would that in any way interfere with the trawlers coming from France and operating from St. Pierre-Miquelon?


Clarence Jameson: I quite understand that difficulties might arise In that way, but that is a matter that might be dealt with by diplomatic negotiations with the United States and with France. I believe that if the United States and Canada agree that there shall be no beam trawling in the waters of the North Atlantic, there will be none. I furthermore believe that the conditions are such upon this side of the Atlantic that it would he manifestly in the interests of those who have large sums of money invested in the fisheries, and in the interest of the fisheries themselves, that efforts to suppress and discourage steam trawling should be made. Something has been said lately with respect to the steps which the late government took in respect to the suppression of steam trawling. They passed regulations preventing the operations of beam trawlers within the three mile limit. Regulations were passed preventing the operations of these beam trawlers within the territorial waters of Canada, but in so far as the payment of bounties to the steam trawlers was concerned, I know that bounties were paid. For instance, they paid to the trawler ' Wren ' the amount of $111.50 in one year, and it was not until a question was asked by myself in this House in'1911, and the matter thus brought to the attention of the administration, that regulations were passed by which beam trawlers were excluded from the benefit of these bounties. To-day we find that although, this government and the Minister of Marine have been charged by certain gentlemen, who are not upon this side of the House, with being in favour of the operation of the beam trawler, the fact is

that the government has taken a firm stand in regard to the enforcement of the regulations with respect to the three-mile limit, and also with regard to the nonpayment of bounties to these steam trawlers. I am assured by the minister that he has gone a step further, and has already opened up Correspondence which may lead perhaps to some arrangement being arrived at whereby the United States and Canada will stand together in preventing in future the operations of these trawlers in the North Atlantic waters. I trust it will not be thought that we on this side of the House are in favour of the operation of the steam trawlers, because .we are not. For my own part I am as strongly opposed to them to-day as I was a year ago, and I believe that all those who take an interest in the fisheries of our country feel that the best interests of the fisheries, and the best interests of the fishermen themselves, will be conserved and advanced by preventing, so far as possible, the operation of trawlers in the North Atlantic waters.


John Howard Sinclair: The question to which my hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) refers is a very interesting one on the coast of Nova Scotia. I have not much to say against what my hon. friend has said; I think he and I agree as to what ought to be done in regard to these steam trawlers. I will not call it a ' beam5 trawler, because I understand there is no such ship now in use as a ' beam1 trawler. There was a good many years ago a ship of that kind used in the North Seas but a new type of ship has been adopted called the ' otter ' trawler, and is now in use. In order to distinguish what I mean I call this kind of trawler a steam trawler to distinguish it from the usual line trawls. My hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) has given a little credit to the late government, although it seems to hurt his feelings to do so. He has admitted that the late government did prohibit this kind of fishing and did so very promptly a few weeks after the arrival of the first steam trawler in Canadian waters. He also admits that when he brought the question of payment of the bounties to the attention of the late government, at once the regulation in regard to the bounty was repealed and a new regulation was adopted by which the steam trawler is in future to get no bounty. I do not admit that he was at all instrumental in bringing about this change. Although it has been drawn out of him to a certain extent he is compelled to admit that the attitude of the late government was decidedly against this mode of fishing, and if the present government is able to do as much as the late government to show its sincerity in this matter 1 think Mr. JAMESON
we will have reason to be pretty well pleased. My hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) has suggested some method by which this could be done, and perhaps it is the best method. If it can be carried out I shall certainly give it my support. I had the pleasure of travelling yesterday to Ottawa with certain gentlemen who have come from Nova Scotia to interview the government in regard to this matter. A number _ of them are captains of schooners sailing out of the port of Lunenburg and fishing on the banks. They are what we call deep-sea fishermen; splendid fellows; some of them are in the gallery to-night listening to the speeches. They have come here supported with affidavits showing the destruction of their gear on the banks by these ships, and they have sulfinm; proof in their pockets to show the government that the fishermen cannot carry on their business at all on the Grand Banks if the steam trawler is to be allowed to work in those waters. This means the rapid destruction of the inshore fisheries and of the deep sea fisheries of Canada in which eleven millions or twelve millions of money has been invested. And not only will the money be lost, but the best type of men we have on our coast will disappear; the men who we will have to draw on to man our navy if we are to have a navy in the future. I say that we should stand by these men because it is quite certain that if this kind of fishing is allowed to become a rule on the coast of Canada the ^ ordinary fisherman who now owns his ship and is his own master, will be wiped out and he will have to work for some capitalist who will own the steam or beam trawler.
I trust, therefore, that the Minister of Marine will take this matter to heart, and give it his best consideration. My hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson), said that if we could exclude the steam trawler from the ports of the United States, and also from the ports of Canada, that would perhaps settle the business. I know that it would be difficult to get the assent of European governments to the prohibition of the steam trawler in these waters, from the fact that it is the usual mode of fishing in France, and has come to be the mode of fishing in Great Britain. The trawler has driven the ordinary fishing vessel out of the North Sea, and if that mode of fishing is carried on for many years longer, there will not be any fishing worth anything left there. On the coasts of Canada we have a great fishing industry, and we should do what is neccessary to preserve it. I think my hon. friend will find a good deal of sympathy at Washington with the proposal that something drastic should be done, and if the two governments unite, I

think something can be done. I would1 like, however, to have the policy of the government from the minister himself rather than from the hon. member for Digby. I have no doubt that the hon. member knows what he is talking about, but when this matter was discussed a few days ago, the attitude of the government did not seem to be what the hon. member for Digby says it is. If the minister is opposed to steam trawling in these waters, and is ready to advocate regulations under which fish caught in steam trawlers cannot be allowed to land1 on the coasts of Canada, and steam trawlers engaged in this industry cannot receive coal from the coal mines of Canada, it will be interesting for the House to know it.


John Douglas Hazen: I am surprised that in some quarters an endeavour has been made to create the impression, in consequence of some remarks that I made in the House a few weeks ago, that I was not in favour of the suppression of the steam trawler. I made a statement to the House, prepared for me by the officers of the department, dealing with this question, and1 showing the pros and cons of it-a statement very similar to one made a few years ago by my predecessor in office, the Hon. Mr. Brodeur; and an attempt was made for political reasons to create the impression that I was not in favour of suppressing steam trawling if it could be suppressed. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I am convinced, from what I have read on the subject, that steam trawling is a Serious menace and danger to our fisheries on the Atlantic coast, and I presume on the Pacific coast as well, and if persisted in must lead to the destruction of the fisheries. The difficulty in the matter, however, is this. Steam trawling is not now permitted inside of our territorial waters; no trawler can operate in Canada within the three-mile limit. The vessels engaged in trawling come chiefly from France, and the United States. In the North Sea steam trawling is carried on very extensively. There are probably over 2,000 steam trawlers carrying on operations there now, and1 it is impossible for Canada to get the support of the [British government in any attempt to prohibit steam trawling, so long as Great Britain is a party to the arrangement under which it is carried on in the North sea by the people of the different countries engaged in fishing in those waters. In fact, the government of Great Britain will not take any steps to prevent steam trawling on the Atlantic coast, and cannot do so consistently so long as she is a party to that arrangement. There does appear, however to be some reason for hope that the government of the
United States will be willing to join with the government of Canada in endeavouring to do something to prevent this mode of fishing being carried on, as there is, among the fishermen who go out from the port of Gloucester, at the present moment a very determined agitation in favour of the suppression of fishing in this way. The difficulty that arises, however, is this:	The United States and Canada
may enter into an agreement providing that neither country should engage in steam trawling. But that will not control France, which sends steam trawlers close to the three-mile limit and makes Pierre and Miquelon their base of operations; and if we adopted regulations providing that steam trawlers should not land their fish or buy coal at a Canadian port, that would not prevent the trawlers from France from carrying on their operations. Perhaps, however, if the United States and Canada came to an agreement on this subject, they might bring moral pressure enough to bear on other countries to induce them not to allow steam trawlers to carry on these operations in future. I have taken up this question with the authorities at Washington, and I am carrying on a correspondence of an informal character through Mr. Bryce, the British Ambassador, which may lead to something later on. I am not in a position to inform the House what that correspondence amounts to; but I can assure the hon. member for Guysborough, the hon. member for Digby and other hon. members who are interested, that, if it is possible to do so, effective steps will be taken to prevent steam trawling being carried on. The question is whether we should prohibit at once steam trawlers, shipping fish or buying supplies from Canadian ports. Suppose we made that regulation, is it going to assist us at the present time? I do not say whether it is or not. If we made that regulation, and steam trawlers continue to come from France, while American trawlers will be able to take their catch to the American market, and probably bring enough coal for the round voyage. The only way to make such a regulation effective would be to prevent steam trawlers from carrying on their operations outside of the three-mile limit; otherwise you might have the spectacle of an American trawler coming to the three-mile limit and carrying on operations while ours would1 be unable to carry on a similar business. There are, I believe, only two steam trawlers operating from Canada, a large number from the United States, and a larger number from France. That is the situation. No matter how strongly any Canadian government might be in favour of preventing the operations of steam trawlers, there are great difficulties in the way, that will have to be over-

come before anything can be accomplished. I am having the matter given consideration in the department, I am carrying on correspondence with Washington through the British Ambassador, and I hope we may be able to accomplish something in the direction desired.


John Howard Sinclair: The responsibility of introducing this matter into politics does not lie with this side of the House, but with the other side.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think either side of the House is above making political capital out of anything of that kind.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister said a few minutes ago, that some person had
been endeavouring to make political capital out of this question.


John Douglas Hazen: I noticed that in some extracts from the press of the province from
which the hon. gentleman comes.


John Howard Sinclair: It has been one of the chief planks in the platform of my hon. friend opposite representing the eastern part of Nova Scotia during the last few elections. I was accused of owning a share in a steam trawler. When my opponents discovered that they could not find out any other way of trying to prejudice the fishermen in the county I have the honour to represent against me, they told a false story round the shore that I was a shareholder in the steam trawler that was working in that vicinity. This question has been a political one in that province for the last four or five years, and when the late government had taken the step to abolish steam trawling in Canadian waters, the provincial convention of the Conservative party, at a meeting held -in Truro some years ago, passed a resolution condemning that government for not doing more in connection with this question. You will therefore see that no person on this side of the House is. responsible for introducing this question into the political arena, but that it is owing to hon. friends from Nova Scotia, who were trying to harass and annoy the late government over this question, that their chickens are now coming home to roost, that they have to deal with this question themselves.


Clarence Jameson: The hon. gentleman said that I somewhat grudgingly admitted the late government had taken certain steps for the prevention of steam trawling within the three-mile limit. I do not grudgingly admit it, I say it is a matter of record that on the 9th September. 1908, an order in council was passed which reads as follows:-
The use or operation of vessels known as steam trawlers, operating beam, otter, or other trawls for the purpose of catching fish Mr. HAZEN.
is prohibited within the three mile limit and in the hays and harbours of Canada.
I do not make that at all as a grudging admission. I say that it is a matter of record, and the hon. gentleman, I dare say, was very well informed with regard to it himself. Now, let us see what the late government did under that regulation, and T will quote for that purpose from the debate which took place last session on the resolution of my hon. friend from Guys-borough. That question was discussed in this House on the 6th February, 1911, and I will quote from the remarks of one of the hon. gentleman's own friends on the subject, the hon. member for Inverness (Mr. Chisholm) which are to be found on page 3116 of ' Hansard.' This is what the hon. gentleman in question said:
I have just a word or two to say with regard to the operations of steam trawlers within the three-mile limit. I am of the opinion that the steam trawlers do operate within that limit.
This, be it remembered, was over two years after the enactment, by the late government, of the regulation prohibiting the operation of steam trawls within the three-mile limit.
On more occasions than one that famous beam'traiwler the 'Wren,' and another whose name I do not remember, operated off the coast of Inverness last year.
That would be in the year 1910, a year and upwards after the passage of this regulation.
This steam trawler would come about dark, move along aimlessly, and just as soon as night fell they would drop their nets and steam on. That I hare from the fishermen of Inverness, who have watched their movements. From their statements I am satisfied that their steam trawler did operate within the three-mile limit.
'So that while I am perfectly satisfied to admit that the late government passed a regulation prohibiting the operation of steam trawlers within the three-mile limit,
I put the hon. member for Inverness in the witness-box and proved out of his own mouth, that the late government did not enforce that regulation and did not protect the fishermen.


John Howard Sinclair: The late government, it was shown over and over again, had given instructions to the vessels to watch the steam trawlers, and see that the regulation was not violated. They also challenged the parties who were making those statements to produce proof, and if they did so prosecutions would be conducted. Those parties, however, failed to produce the proof called for, and the government is not responsible in that case.


Clarence Jameson: The hon. member for Guysborough may not be prepared.to take

the statement of bis colleague the member for Inverness in that regard, but it certainly went unchallenged in this House when the question was debated in 1911, and I believe it will be unchallenged by any member who is cognizant of the state of affairs as they were. The hon. member for Guysborough states that we are attempting to make political capital out of this, and insinuates that the government which came into power on the 10th October last are responsible for the present condition of affairs.
I do not wish to labour the question, but I think it is very obvious that the late government only trifled with the matter, that *they were not serious at ad'i in their 'attempts to deal with it. They went on and paid a bounty to steam trawlers after the regulations had been passed prohibiting the operation of steam trawlers within the three-mile limit. It was not until some days after I had brought the matter to the attention of the late government by placing a question on the order paDer with regard to the payment of these bounties, that on the 22nd of February, 1911, an order in council was passed which prevented steam trawlers from sharing in the bounties paid to fishing vessels. Therefore, I do not think it comes with very good grace from the hon. member for Guysborough to cast insinuations upon either the Minister of Marine and Fisheries,or this administration, with respect to the steam trawlers or intimate that they are favouring them. 'The hon. gentleman has gone a step further and said that the Conservative party in Nova Scotia pitch-forked this question into the political arena by passing a resolution in respect to the matter, after, as I understood him, the late government had passed a regulation by which they debarred the steam trawlers from' participating in the bounties paid to them. That regulation, as I have said was passed on the 22nd of February, 1911, and the resolution to which he refers was passed, if my memory serves me, in June or July, in 1909, almost two years before the late government had taken the stand with regard to these bounties to which I have jusi alluded, and one year after they had passed the regulation prohibiting the operation of these steam trawlers within the three-mile limit, during which time they had actually permitted such operation by steam trawlers. So that when the matter is looked at from a fair and reasonable point of view, it will be seen that the late government only trifled with the situation and never dealt with it energetically. Either they disregarded the interests of the fishermen, or they stood in with those gentlemen who were operating the steam trawlers. I drew attention on more than one occasion, in this House to reports of officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, suggesting
that the steam trawlers had come to stay, and when the question was being discussed in the House I quoted on the 6th of February, 1911, from the report of Mr. Cowie, an officer of the department, an officer engaged by the late government and who I believe is yet in the government employ. I quoted from the statement made by that officer at page 377 of the report of the Marine and Fisheries Department for 1910, and this is what-he says:
I think it is now beyond a doubt that trawling ha9 come to stay here, and although its development will, of necessity, be slow, nevertheless, looking to the time when Canada will have many more millions of people within her borders than she now ihas, when railway rates have been reduced, and the distributing facilities will have been increased to keep pace with the expanding trade, I believe there will he seen a fleet of Canadian steam trawlers running in from the Atlantic grounds with daily supplies of wholesome fresh food fish.
That was the statement which appeared in the report of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the year 1910. Does not that seem to have favoured the operation of these steam trawlers? And yet when the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries a few days ago read a report prepared by officers of his department-officers not of his own selection, but officers that were in the department when he came into office-that is along somewhat similar lines, the Liberal newspapers in Nova Scotia attribute to him the views that are expressed in the report and my hon. friend from Guysborough is not fair enough to admit that the statement was not one made by the minister, but was a statement made by men, whom he found in office when he took charge of the department over which he has now the honour to preside.
Hydrographic surveys, including survey of Hudson bay, $320,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has this anything to do with the work of the ' Arctic? 5


John Douglas Hazen: No, that is in the main estimates which were passed the other night. This is divided as follows: Lake Superior, $30,000; Lake Ontario, $30,000; Atlantic coast, $40,000; Pacific coast, $90,000; Hudson bay, $100,000; Harbour surveys, $20,000; general account, including engraving and printing, $10,000-total, $320,000; the same amount as voted for the service last year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to detain the House, but I was not here when the question of the Arctic came up, and perhaps I may be permitted to say here that the government ought to recognize the work done by Captain Bernier in the far north. The Captain ought to receive

through the recommendation of his minister the recognition generally given to an old officer of the Crown. Had I been here the other evening I would have spoken more of the merits of Captain Bernier. But I would ask the minister to bear in mind the service that Captain Beirnier has rendered to Canada and the empire.
Hydrographic purveys-bo provide for a new vessel required for surveying the Atlantic coast, $200,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is a new vote?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the contract been given?


John Douglas Hazen: No, tenders have not been asked for yet.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are tenders to be asked for as soon as possible?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the Minister intend to build the vessel in this country?


John Douglas Hazen: I prefer to have it built in this country if possible. I think the old government had a rule in regard to vessels of this sort that if the tender put in from Canada did not exceed that from outside, by more than a certain percentage, the contract was awarded here. I would like to have it built in Canada, but sometimes our shipyards are so busy that it is almost impossible to have vessels built.
Radiotelegraphio service-to provide for the building and maintenance of wireless stations, $271,500.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the hon. minister aware of what is taking place in England in connection with the wireless system? I see it stated that the British government have decided upon a policy on this subject, .and that they are arranging to girdle the whole globe with the wireless system, connecting the various colonies. Has the hon. gentleman been in communication with the home government on this .subject? The naval service being established, would not this be a timely subject for discussion at future naval conferences by my hon. friend with the British admirafty?


John Douglas Hazen: That, I believe, was agreed upon at the Colonial conference. We have practically bridged the Atlantic with the wireless. The idea then is to reach Australia, but I do not think that up to the present time they have been able to get messages acrosis the Pacific ocean. Of course, we have the cable on the Pacific.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: 
George Perry Graham: Before we leave the large amount in which the Hudson Bay is involved-I do not wish to detain the House-but I would ask the privilege when the Hudson Bay Railway is under discussion to ask my hon. friend .some questions about this survey o>f the Hudson Bay as it will affect the question of the railway.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be happy to give my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) information at any time.


George Perry Graham: It is connected with the Hudson Bay route, and the discussion will naturally come up on the railway item.
Some resolutions reported.


FIRST READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 153) for the relief of George McKay Sutherland.-Mr. MacNutt.
Bill (No. 154), to incorporate the Guarantee Life Insurance Company o.f Canada. -Mr. MacNutt.
Bill (No. 155), to incorporate the British American Trust Company.-Mr. Bradbury.
Mr. HAZEN moved the adjournment of the House.
George Perry Graham: What business will be taken up to-morrow.


John Douglas Hazen: I think we will take up whatever Bills are on the Order Paper ready to be taken up and the Supply will be the balance of the Railway estimates and I think the Militia estimates.


George Perry Graham: With the estimates for the Grand Trunk Pacific it has been the custom to.give the members notice exactly when they are to be taken up.


John Douglas Hazen: I have no doubt that to-morrow if hon. gentlemen on the other side are not ready to go on with those estimates they will be allowed to stand until they are.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.50 a.m. Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 19, 1912.