1904-07-27

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 161) respecting the Canadian Assessment Policy-holders in the Mutual Reserve Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Heyd.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 148) to amend the Dominion Elections Act, 1900.- Mr. Fitzpatrick.
On section 1,
Hon.   CIIAS@: FITZPATRICK Minister of Justice). This section is intended to amend section 24 of the Dominion Elections Act, 1900, in respect that in so far as the electoral district of Algoma is concerned, the returning officer has the power to fix a date beyond the date fixed for the nomination of candidates and the holding of elections in other countries, if he deems it prudent in his discretion. By the Redistribution Act of last session, Algoma was divided into east and west Algoma, and the effect of the present amendment will be that the returning officer will have power to do with respect to the two ridings of east and west Algoma what he had the power to do with respect to Algoma as it originally stood. It makes the law applicable to the constituency as subdivided. The same thing will apply to British Columbia. There the counties of Burrard, Yale, and Cariboo, have been divided into Comox-Atlin, Kootenay and Yale-Cariboo. The electoral divisions mentioned 243|
in the Act now practically take in the territory covered by the old divisions in British Columbia. That is the only change except that to the list of counties in Ontario in which the returning officer may extend the time for voting we add the district of Nipis-sing, which I am informed is geographically in the same position as Algoma. It is a county covering a great area of country, and some portions of it are unorganized, so that the same conditions that prevail in Algoma apply to Nipissing.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I regard the provisions of this section, as far as a number of these ridings are concerned, as absolutely unjustified. For example, in British Columbia, I have had time to get information about only one of these ridings, but I find that in the riding of Kootenay the provincial elections were held on the same day as in the rest of the province, without the slightest inconvenience, as I am informed. All portions of that riding are reached by rail or steamboat, and I am surprised that the Minister of Justice should present this measure to the House without giving some better reasons for postponing these elections than he has done. The mere fact that this has been done in the past is not of much consequence ; the question is what the conditions are at present. The country has not been standing still, so far as means of communication are concerned, during the last fifteen or twenty years, and in these districts there are better means of communication than there were before. So far as the two other ridings of British Columbia are concerned, I am not in a position to state their condition, but I shall require some good reasons to convince me that the elections should not be held there on the same, day as in the rest of the province. It is not a sufficient reason to state that they are large districts. So far as Algoma and Nipissing in the province of Ontario are concerned, I believe that what I have stated with regard to one of the British Columbia districts is true of one of the Ontario districts -that the provincial election there is held on the same day as the general election.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: Which of them ?


Robert Laird Borden: I am informed that in the provincial elections the voting in Nipissing is held on the same day as in the other ridings. I am sure the Minister of Justice will regard that as a very cogout reason for carrying out the same policy in this Bill. I am not familiar with the riding of Algoma, but my hon. friend from East Sim-coe (Mr. Bennett) will speak about that. He tells me that there are equally strong reasons why the election there should not be postponed. So far as the ridings in the province of Quebec are concerned. I would not presume to speak of them, not having a knowledge of the facts. The Minister of Justice, I am sure, will be good enough to

make an explanation to the House with regard to these. I am not objecting to this proposal in any case where it is necessary. But I say that there should be very strong, in fact imperative, necessity before any election is postponed. The principle we have followed in this country for more than a quarter of a century is to have all the elections throughout the country held on the same day ; and only for the gravest reasons should that rule be departed from.


Charles Fitzpatrick: So far as Quebec is concerned, I can speak with some degree of personal knowledge. In the GaspS district there has been absolutely no change within twenty years so far as facilities of communication are concerned. They have not a single railway within the whole district. The facilities for Communication in summer have been somewhat improved, but not to such an extent as to allow the elections to take place under the same condition as in other parts of the province. In Chicoutimi and Saguenay there has been an increase in the facilities of communication. There is a railway which reaches Hake St. John and extends down to the town of Chicoutimi. But it is a very large district and there are many outlying parishes which are in quite an exceptional position. Therefore. I think that the conditions existing in these two districts are such as to justify the action I ask the House to take with regard to them. As to Nipissing, I am personally responsible for having added that district to the number which are treated exceptionally. Looking at the map and taking into consideration the position, I came to the conclusion that the district was not accessible. And, so far as one can judge by looking at the map. it seems to me that this is one of the constituencies which is in an exceptional position. But I am entirely in the hands of the committee so far as Nipissing is concerned. As to the division of Algoma, I merely apply the old law with the verbal changes made necessary by reason of the fact that that territory has been subdivided into east and west Algoma. If there are reasons as to one riding why the old law should not be made applicable, I am quite willing to listen to any objection that may be stated. As to the province of British Columbia, I would ask members from that province to explain the conditions there.


Mr. BENNETT.: I think it will be agreed that the two ridings of east and west Algoma were formerly the one riding of Algoma. Now, the minister will find upon inquiry, that the government thought it wise and proper to have the elections in the district of Algoma in 1900 on the same day as the general election.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The provincial election ?


Mr.   R.@: L* BORDEN.


William Humphrey Bennett: No, the Dominion election. The local elections are also held on the same day as in other ridings of the province. Surely, if the election for the whole district as one riding could be held on the same day as the general election in 1900, there is no reason why, now that it is divided, a change should be made. That must appeal to the hon. minister's sense of right.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) I understand, speaks from his certain knowledge when he says that the election in 1900 in Algoma was held on the same day as the general election ?


William Humphrey Bennett: I am very positive about that from something I recollect-I am con-lident I cannot be mistaken. If a returning officer could do the whole work for these two districts in 1900, and if one candidate ' could look after his interest for the whole district, surely, now that railway communication is improved and there is more accommodation in every way as well as a considerable addition to the number of settlers, the same course could be pursued in two districts with two returning officers and a double organization.


Mr. BLAIN.: 
Charles Fitzpatrick: I think I will drop it.


Richard Blain: Do I understand the hon. minister to say he will drop Nipissing from this section ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: How about Algoma ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I took Algoma because I found it in the statutes we had before. The other statute could not be made applicable to the changed state of things and therefore I included both east and west Algoma in this Bill. If the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Bennett) says that he is in a position, of his own knowledge. to inform the House that the election of 1900 in Algoma was held on the same day

as the general election, of course I shall have to consider it.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am positive that in 1896, the election in Algoma was held subsequent to the general election, and I am equally positive that in 1900 the election in Algoma was held on the same day as the general election.


Mr. BOYD.: The Canadian Northern Railway has been constructed since the last election and runs directly through the western portion of the constituency, taking in Rainy River and all that territory, while the Canadian Pacific runs through the other portion. There is really no necessity for making an exception as to the date of holding the elections there.


Robert Laird Borden: I have a communication from a gentleman who is very familiar with that district, in which he says :
In the old days, when It was the custom to hold the Algoma election later than the general election, there was good cause. It was impossible to give the notices required by law within the specified time. But now, it is different. The railway has opened it up and it is now Just as easy to hold the election on the same day as the general election, as it is in any ordinary constituency in the east.


Mr. CLANCY.: I would call the attention of the Minister of Justice to the fact that, even if there were any reason why the election in Algoma should be held on any other day than that of the general election, the difficulty would arise with regard to Manitoulin Island, which difficulty could only be at some seasons. If any reasons do exist for this provision, they can only apply to one riding and not to two.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In which of the ridings is Manitoulin Island ?


James Clancy: In East Algoma.


Mr. GALLIHER.: With regard to the division of the district of Yale-Cariboo, the leader of the opposition is in error when he says there is no occasion for having the general election at different dates. I may state to my hon. friend, and I know something about the geography of that country, as well as the facilities for travelling through it, that it is a physical impossibility to have the next general election at the same time in what will be the district of Kootenay. There are nine local ridings in which the returning officer will have to act in the Dominion election ; that is to say, he will have to do the actual work of nine returning officers in a provincial election.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the hon. gentleman talking about Kootenay or Yale-Cariboo ?


William Alfred Galliher: I am talking about Kootenay for the. moment. Now, in the
election of 1900 we endeavoured as much as possible to give every voter an opportunity of voting, and we followed out the practice in the Dominion election of establishing polling places at the same points as in the provincial elections, so as if possible to give every person an opportunity of voting. I may state to my hon. friend that there are sections in that district that cannot be reached by rail or by steamer. For instance, you have all the Fire valley to travel through, you have other parts of the Trail district to travel through, and you have parts of the Lardo where you have to travel by teams, and any person who is acquainted with mountain roads must know that you cannot travel over them in the same space of time as you can country roads. Furthermore, a reference has been made to the election being held at the same time as the general election in what was the old riding of Yale-Cariboo. But the conditions then were absolutely different from what they are now. then all the settlement was in the upper part of the district around Kamloops, and along the railway belt, and there was very little settlement in Kootenay. In fact, I believe that the few people who were residing in Kootenay then did not know there was an election until after it had taken place. That, I believe, is an actual fact. But this was in Mr. Mara's time, before I was elected. That country is settled up now. You must remember that you will have to travel probably 100 miles in one direction in order to deliver the ballot boxes. You cannot cross a range of mountains to reach another valley ; you have to retrace your steps to the central point, and take another direction. Any person who will take the trouble to study the physical features there must come to the conclusion that it is a physical impossibility for any returning officer, within the time between the nomination and election, as fixed by the Act, to do that work.


Richard Blain: Why not have two returning officers for each district ?


William Alfred Galliher: The Act provides for one for every district. The same remark applies to the Yale-Cariboo district, with equal force. There is no. question, as I stated before, that it is a physical impossibility for the returning officer to do the work within the time.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: I would like to put the facts of the case before the leader of the opposition, who seems inclined to take the stand that the Dominion elections will have to be held upon the same day. Tue district of Comox-Atlin is 1,500 miles in length, as the crow flies, from the polling subdivision which will be at Squamish to Surprise Lake. If the election is held in the winter time, you will require a dog train to take up the polling boxes ; if in the summer time, you will require canoes to

take them up. My hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo1 (Mr. Galliher) has said it is a physical impossibility to hold ail election in Kootenay in the time required by law, and it is equally impossible in Comox-Atlin. In fact it is more difficult in Comox-Atlin than in any other district, for the reason that the facilities for travelling are much more difficult. To illustrate by a case in point. On the occasion of the last election the returning onicer went into the then district of Burrard-Comox-Atlin is a little larger than the district of Burrard-and he was obliged to travel five days with a dog team. He had first to travel on snowshoes to break a trail for the dog team to bring the ballot boxes in. It takes him almost fourteen days from the time he leaves. If he takes Nanaimo as the central point of Comox-Atlin. it would be a physical impossibility for him to get into Surprise Camp or to Atlin, as my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Earle) can substantiate, in less than fourteen days.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I move that the words ' West riding of Algoma and Nipis-sing ' be dropped from this section.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is that with the idea of having Eastern Algoma subsequently ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


William Humphrey Bennett: Eastern Algoma is the most easily approachable, for the reason that a branch line of railway running along the north shore of the Georgian bay runs through a part of the riding, and then it is only a few miles further across to Manitoulin island. In the winter time you can shorten the distance by crossing on the ice. In summer there are numerous boats plying across to Manitoulin. There is a thorough system of telegraph lines all through that district, and a telephone system too, I am informed, on Manitoulin and on the north shore.
Amendment (Mr. Fitzpatrick) agreed to.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as the riding of Kootenay is concerned, I am not much impressed by the argument of the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Galliher), who 1 regret to observe has disappeared within the last moment. It is beyond doubt that it comprises nine provincial electoral districts, and an election was held in every one of these nine districts at the recent provincial election. In one of them, Columbia, there was an election by acclamation, in the other eight there were contests. I am informed on the authority of a gentleman whom 1 know very well, and who is absolutely reliable, that there was no inconvenience whatever experienced in holding all these elections on the same day as the elections in the rest of the provinces. The hon. member for Yale-Cariboo dwells on the fact that this district comprises nine provincial electoral districts. The Minister of Justice will re-Mr. MACPHERSON.
member the riding of Alberta. That comprises eight or ten territorial electoral districts. We never found it necessary to postpone that election. We had the whole of the Northwest Territories divided into four electoral districts. We have never found it necessary to postpone the elections in these. Why should there be any necessity for postponing the elections in these districts in British Columbia ? The means of communication in British Columbia are just as good as they are in the Territories. The physical difficulties of crossing the mountains may be greater, but as far as the roads are concerned I do not think there is any great difference between the conditions in those two ridings of British Columbia and the conditions as they were in the Northwest Territories years ago when we held elections at the same time as in other ridings in the Dominion. It seems to me that there should be an irresistible case made out before the elections in any of these ridings should be postponed. Yale-Cariboo is large, Kootenay is large, but so also are the districts in the Northwest Territories ; so are also many districts in Ontario, where the elections are held on the same day as those in the rest of the Dominion. All through the provinces we have conditions of that kind. If you have an active returning officer, and if you empower him to use the means which jnay be at his disposal, I think there should be no difficulty of holding these elections on the same day as in the rest of the country. My hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Galliher) did not say very much about his own riding. He devoted his attention more particularly to Comox-Atlin and Kootenay.


William Alfred Galliher: I spoke of Kootenay and I said that my remarks would apply equally well to Y'ale-Cariboo.


Robert Laird Borden: I have spoken of Kootenay, and my remarks will also apply to Yale-Cariboo. I do not see why the elections in these ridings should not be held on (the same day as those in the rest of the country and the absence of any special argument in regard to his own riding should be the best reason for believing that the hon. gentleman does not entertain any very strong views upon the subject. I trust the hon. Minister of Justice will not place a blot upon the statute-book by postponing the elections in these ridings unless he is absolutely convinced that it is necessary.


Charles Fitzpatrick: The blot is there unfortunately and we are trying to remove it.


Robert Laird Borden: The blot is not there except under certain conditions, whereas, this is a blot under present conditions. May I ask whether the elections in the Chicoutimi and Saguenay district are postponed under the provincial law ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I think that if the elections take place in the summer time as

far as Chicoutimi and Saguenay are concerned the voting takes place on the same day. It has taken place on the same day. But if in the winter time I imagine, if there is any justice to be done to the electors, it would be physically impossible to have the election held on the same day as elsewhere, because you have to go all over the riding in sleighs.


Robert Laird Borden: How is it in provincial elections ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: It is the same as in Dominion elections.


Robert Laird Borden: Are they postponed in these three ridings ?
(Mr. FITZPATRICK. Yes. My hon. friend of course, understands the geograpi-eal conditions existing in Gaspe. Gaspe is at the extreme eastern end of the peninsula. It is absolutely inaccessible except in summer time by boat and in winter time by sleigh. As far as Chicoutimi and Saguenay are concerned my hon. friend will remember that the district of Chicoutimi and Saguenay takes in the Lake St. John region, the Saguenay river and the whole north shore of the St. Lawrence.


Robert Laird Borden: I am quite ready to accept the assurance of my hon. friend as to that, but as far as the east riding of Algoma 'is concerned and as far as these British Columbia constituencies are concerned, particularly Kootenay, I am very strongly of the opinion that they should not be pressed. I would even ask the hon. Minister of Justice to delay for twenty-four hours to make inquiry.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no objection.


Robert Laird Borden: I think he would be satisfied that there is no real necessity for postponing the elections in at least two of them.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I would like at the Aame time to hear all that could be said in favor of the objection that is made to this proposal so that I may be in a position to have all the information obtainable on the subject. I would like to know all that can be said because I must confess that to a large extent I was guided in regard to the east riding of Algoma by what the hon. member for Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) said as to the difficulties of getting access to the island of Manitoulin.


Mr. CLARKE.: When the distinction was made in respect of the holding of elections in Algoma there was no railway communication at all. This is one of those provisions that was allowed to remain upon the statute-book when it should have been removed. Algoma is just as accessible as many other districts in the province of Ontario. The Canadian Pacific Railway runs along the
north shore of Lake Superior and there is no difficulty in getting to Manitoulin now.


Charles Fitzpatrick: What about the autumn and spring ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is no trouble reaching the Manitoulin island during the period when navigation is opened. After navigation closes there is access from the north shore at Little Current and there is I believe abundant means of communication with eastern Algoma, just as there are with western Algoma. There is no trouble in reaching western Algoma.


Mr. SPROULE.: In eastern Algoma there are only a few weeks in the spring and fall during which there is any danger connected with reaching the island of Manitoulin; that is in the spring when the ice is breaking up and in the fall when the water is freezing over. That usually takes about two or three weeks. The distance is very short and when the ice is formed there is no difficulty in getting to the island. In the spring of the year up to the time that the ice breaks up it is an easy matter to get to Manitoulin island and when on Manitoulin island the roads will be found to be as good as the ordinary roads of the country.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Two or three weeks in the spring and autumn might make a very considerable difference. If the elections were held in the spring or the autumn it would make a material difference. My hon. friends opposite must remember that this power is only discretionary with the returning officer. He is not under any obligation to postpone the election. This is only intended to confer upon him the power to exercise his discretion in view of the conditions existing at the time the election is held. Of course, the returning officer would necessarily be a man upon whom we could rely and who would not postpone the elections if there -was not necessity for it.


James Clancy: I perhaps did not make myself clear to the hon. Minister of Justice. I did not urge that there was any reason why there should be a different period for holding the election in East Algoma but what I said was that if there were reasons, and there were at that time, they would apply to both east and west Algoma since they had been divided. The hon. gentleman knows that the Rainy River district which has been made into one riding and east and west Algoma were all contained in the district of Algoma formerly and that if the same reasons existed as formerly for holding the elections on a different day these two ridings of east and west Algoma would not be subject to them now'. But, as my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) points out there is no good reason that would apply to even East Algoma now as compared with any other riding in the province. The hon. Minister of Justice has stated that this

power is discretionary with the returning officer but I want to point out to him, that, notwithstanding the fact that the elections in 1900 were held on the 7th November, at a time when Algoma was perfectly accessible, as much so as in .Tune, the election there was held on a different date. Therefore, the returning officer takes the law as mandatory rather than being a merely discretionary power placed in his hands.


Charles Fitzpatrick: In .Chicoutimi and Saguenay the elections were held on the same day in 1900 as in other districts, because they were practically held in the summer time.


William Humphrey Bennett: I was in error in saying that in 1900 the election in Agloma was held on the 7th of November ; I find it was held a week subsequently. It would appear to me that the reasons for holding the election in East Algoma on the same day, are stronger than with regard to West Algoma.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My only reason for insisting is because of the Manitoulin islands. Would my hon. friend direct his attention to that ?


William Humphrey Bennett: The most remote part of the islands is, I think, Little Current, and that is a trifling distance from the main shore ; in fact you can see right across.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: In some places it is only 100 yards.


William Humphrey Bennett: There are little islands in between and the water freezes over early in the fall and the ice remains late in spring, so that it is usual to have uninterrupted communication to every point. The town of Sault Ste. Marie is in East Algoma and the local elections were held in that district on the same day. The Manitoulin islands are one of the most accessible places in Ontario ; and I remember well that the first returns that came in last election were from these ridings.
Mr. GALLI1IER. In view of what the leader of the opposition has further said in regard to Tale-Cariboo and the Kootenay districts, I wish to place the facts before the House. The Kootenay riding is curved out as a subdivision of Yale-Cariboo which I now have the honour to represent, and which after the next election I hope to continue to represent.


Mr. LOGAN.: Hear, hear.


William Alfred Galliher: I shall direct my remarks particularly to the Kootenay, and j they will apply to the new division of Tale- [ Cariboo. I am informed that the leader of the opposition stated that in the nine ridings the provincial election was held on the same day. That is quite true, but the hon. gentleman must see that the one federal returning officer, in. order to establish polling places and to give facilities to the electors to vote, would have to do the same Mr. CLANCY.
amount of travelling as the nine separate returning officers did in the provincial elections.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it the practice in British Columbia that the returning officer must travel over the whole riding ?


William Alfred Galliher: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not the practice in my province. The returning officer sits in his office in the city of Halifax and makes arangements over the whole constituency, which has many miles of seacoast without any railway, and he never has had any difficulty.


William Alfred Galliher: What about the distribution of the ballots between nomination and election.


Robert Laird Borden: He sends them out by messengers to his deputy returning officers.


William Alfred Galliher: I can only speak of what took place in the Yale-Cariboo election. There is no question, but that it is a physical impossibility for any one man to get over that district in the time unless you give him wings. ' If my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) knew the district as I do, he would realize that. The returning officer has to appoint his deputies, and swear them in and give his instructions to them personally, and he cannot do that as it can be done in other constituencies. Personally T *would not object to having the election on the same date as the other elections, but I know it is a physical impossibility.


Robert Laird Borden: When was the election held last time ?


William Alfred Galliher: On the 6th of December, about a month after the general election. I ' am well acquainted with the district and with the means of egress and ingress, and I will be frank with my hon. friend. There are many mining camps where there are fifty or a hundred men who could not vote unless they had a polling place. It is neither fair nor just to ask them to travel from the camp and lose a whole day going to vote. They have an opportunity of voting in the local election, and they should not be deprived of it in the Dominion election. In the matter of settlement and in the matter of places to be reached to establish polling places, the [DOT] conditions are entirely different from what they were ten years ago when every one knnws that the population in the mining camps was very sparse. My hon. friend (Mr. Macpherson) can speak as to the AtUn district, but I know as regards Yale-Cariboo that it is simply a physical impossibility to cover that district in the time provided.


Mr. BROCK.: It is most extraordinary that commerce has overcome the difficulties which are spoken of by gentlemen on

the other side of the House. Commercial men have been going through the constituency of Yale-Cariboo regularly, and not [DOT]carrying a bundle of papers either, but ten [DOT]or fifteen heavy trunks.
Mr. G-ADLIHER. On a pullman car.


William Rees Brock: The whole country is traversed by commerce and it is very hard to make a merchant believe that there is any physical impossibility in getting through that country. The fact of the matter is that we have post offices, telegraph offices, and telephone offices scattered pretty generously through that territory.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If we could only vote by telegraph it would be most convenient.


William Rees Brock: If the people want to vote they will have no difficulty in voting. The hon. gentleman from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Gab liher) has told us that one election was over before the people knew there was an [DOT]election at all.


William Alfred Galliher: I say so again.


William Rees Brock: Commerce has shown you how to get through that country and how to get through it regularly. Even in GaspG about which the Minister of Justice speaks so much, the conditions are Wonderfully changed as compared witu fifty or a hundred years ago.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Brock) has now got me on ground with which I am familiar. In what respect have the conditions changed ?


William Rees Brock: Ask the Quebec merchant how he deals with that country now as compared with the conditions fifty years ago, and he will ten you that he has his commercial travellers all through the district, and that there are a multiplication of post offices there. Could the returning officer not send the deputy returning officers all the papers by mail, and inform them about the election ? The argument in favour of the principle of having all these elections on the one day. far outweighs any difficulties that might be presented on the other side, and the government should drop this Bill. There may be some injustice done, but that occurs in every act of administration, and the injustice that would be done by holding the elections on the same day is far less than the injustice of making these exceptions which really make it look as if you were providing certain openings for defeated candidates.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That might have been the reason formerly, but we are trying to remedy it now.


William Rees Brock: The remedy is in the hands of the government because they can fix the elections on any day they like, and they can
give notice sufficiently far in advance to af-ord facilities for voters in these outlying districts. Give the notice a few days earlier, and all the elections can be held on the same day. So far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we are ready for the elections when they may come. But. in view of the failure of the hon. member (Mr. Galli-her) to make out a case for his own constituency. I think the government should drop this Bill, and stand on the principle of uniformity. North of Lake Superior and the Georgian bay at one time we had no post offices, telegraph offices or railroads. This is all changed. Y'ou would be surprised to know that the people up there now read the daily papers. I hope the people out in Cariboo are becoming educated enough to read a weekly paper, at any rate. The hon. gentleman should supply them, and let them know when an election is coming on. But apart from that, the great question in this country is, when we shall have the elections; and the Prime Minister should name the day far enough ahead so that we can have them in the whole country on the same day.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend is evidently quite unaware of the difficulty which we have to deal with. My hon. friend must not imagine that by giving a yeat's notice of the elections we could help the difficulty we are now confronted with. The difficulty is this. There are certain things which have to he done after nomination day : the ballot boxes, the ballot papers, the electoral lists and the instructions have to be distributed. There are only eight days under the law between nomination day and polling day ; and the difficulty arises with respect to those electoral districts in which the physical conditions are such that it is impossible to make the distribution within that time. If my hon. friend's information with respect to Algoma is not more accurate than it is with respect to Gaspfi, then I would not place on his information in this respect that reliance which I generally place on what he says in this House. So far as Gaspe is concerned, suppose the nomination takes place at Perc6, at the ex treme eastern limit of the peninsula, and it is necessary to send the ballot boxes up to Ste. Anne des Monts or Cap Chatte, T. would like my hon. friend to tell me how, after the 1st of December, when navigation is closed, it will be possible to do it in eight days ?


William Rees Brock: By notifying the men whom you appoint as returning officers in the different istricts to be at the nomination and take their ballot boxes home with them.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If my hon. friend had them there, and provided them with relays of horses at every ten miles, they could not do it in eight days. That is a fact about which there is no doubt. In the

first place, along two-thirds of the coast there are no roads, and yon have to use dogs if you get along at all. On the north shore of the St. Lawrence, in Chicoutimi and Saguenay, you have to go from Tadousac, at the mouth of the Saguenay river, to Blanc Sablon, on the Labrador coast, and how are you going to do it in eight days ? it is a physical impossibility.


William Rees Brock: If you have a will you can do it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no reason why the nomination should be held at the extreme limit of the constituency. The iaw says it shall be held as near the centre as possible, and three poll clerks may be appointed as well as one to distribute the ballot boxes and the papers. As a matter of fact, in the province of Ontario, the ballot boxes are usually held by the various municipalities, and are not required to be taken from one centre to another. The provincial ballot boxes are used.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That explains many things. We are getting light now. If the ballot boxes are not under the control of the returning officers, but are distributed around, we had better look after them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That has been the case for years. The ballot boxes in most cases are owned by the municipalities and are not in the possession of the returning officers. Where the municipality cannot furnish the ballot boxes, the returning officer is bound to furnish them. But the rule is that the same ballot boxes are used for provincial, Dominion and municipal elections.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I cannot say anything about what is done in Ontario, because I am not there ; but subsection d of section 41 of the Act requires that ' the returning officer shall deliver to each deputy returning officer, two days at least before the polling day, a blank poll book, forms of oaths to be administered to voters, envelopes, sealing wax and a ballot box.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Let me tell the hon. gentleman how he does it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there anything laughable or absurd about it ? The only thing absurd is the ignorance of the laugh. The election clerk gets the ballot boxes from the clerk of the municipality, and after they are used he returns them to the municipality. They are gathered up and distributed by the election clerks.


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is very improper.


Mr. HOLMES.: There is another point that has been overlooked by our hon. friends opposite, that is, that the ballot papers are not printed until after the official nomination ; and, as a general rule, it takes two Mr. FITZPATRICK.
days to print the ballot papers before they can be given to the returning officer.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
Mr. HENDERSON.: In the larger districts the returning officer never attempts to-distribute all the ballot boxes and papers himself. He delegates that power to others, which I think the law permits him to do. Either the election clerk or some other person is employed by the returning officer to make the distribution. In the outlying counties what is to hinder the returning officer employing half a dozen men, if necessary, to-cover the whole ground ? Where there is a will there is a way.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no difficulty about his employing others if he chooses. His obligation is to deliver to each returning officer the ballots, the lists and the ballot boxes. When the distances are so great that after the ballots are printed he cannot do that within the eight days, what is going to be the result ? If he cannot reach every polling division in the whole district within the eight days, is that not sufficient reason for postponing the election ?
Why should any group of men be deprived of their right to vote ? Is it not fair to say that if the conditions existing at the time the elections are held are such that any important group in the community may be deprived of the right to vote that the returning officer shall have power to postpone the election in order to give these men the right to vote, especially as this provision is restricted to two or three counties in the province ? So far as Ontario is concerned the only district added is East Algoma, and the contention of my hon. friends opposite is that this provision is not necessary for that constituency. I have heard nothing on this side in support of the contention ; nobody on this side seems to be interested in the question of whether the election be held on the same day or on a subsequent day. I shall take into consideration what my hon. friends opposite say, but I want to point out that it is not a case of whether all parts of one island are accessible, but whether all parts of the constituency are accessible. Suppose the elections are held in the autumn or spring there might be difficulty.


William Humphrey Bennett: Manitoulin island is a very old settled district. Farmers have been living there for years and there is a splendid system of municipal organization. The island is almost connected with the main shore and there will be no difficulty in traversing it at any season of the year.


Charles Fitzpatrick: It there is no difficulty, if the thing can all be done within I the eight days, then I will have to consider the propriety of dropping the provision as

to East Algoma as I did that with regard to the west riding. So far as Quebec is concerned, I know what I am talking about because I have been about the country and know it. All that is necessary is to take a map for instance of the county of Chicoutimi and Saguenay and look at the distance from Tadousac to Blanc Sablon. It must be 150 miles and there is a dog trail for most of the road.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall not dispute with my hon. friend about the province of Quebec ; he knows more about it than I do, and I am willing to accept his assurance. In regard to Ontario I find, according to the statutes of 1887 the latest I was able to get in the library, that all the provincial elections took place on the same day, and I understand from Ontario members that the same thing is done under the statutes of 1897. If that is so I am sure the Minister of Justice would recognize that it is not necessary to have this extension.


Charles Fitzpatrick: If that is so there is no reason for our making an exception.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as Yale-Cari-boo is concerned, let me say that if the mode of procedure that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Galhher) seems to think should be followed by returning officers were generally adopted about two-thirds of the constituencies in Canada would require to have the elections postponed. He seems to argue that the returning officer himself should go to every deputy returning officer and deliver the boxes and ballots and administer the oath. This is not done. It is not done in my own county, it could not be done in Halifax. If it was done1, Halifax would require to be in the excepted list. We have 100 miles to the east with no railways, and 40 miles to the west with no railways, and it would be a physical impossibility for the returning officer to go over that county and visit every district between nomination and polling. The returning officer sends to some of these polling districts a messenger, and for many other districts he has the deputy come to Halifax and personally receive from him the ballot boxes and ballots. I see no reason why the same procedure should not be followed in the constituencies in British Columbia. How shall we say that any one of these is any more difficult to traverse than one of the great constituencies of the west before they were recently divided.


William Alfred Galliher: 
William Alfred Galliher: I do not think I will dispute that.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will not dispute that ? Well, he practically abandons his case.


William Alfred Galliher: Oh, no.


Robert Laird Borden: Because all we require is that there shall be a deputy returning officer, who by means of messengers or by requiring his deputy returning officer to-come to him shall distribute his ballot boxes and I'allots within the period between nomination day and election day. Why cannot the returning officer use exactly the same polling districts and polling places as those which were established in the recent provincial election ? Ought there to be any difficulty about that ? One would not siippose that if there were any run l desire on the part of the returning officer to accomplish this within the time mentioned that he would have the slightest difficulty in doing so. My hon. friend is very confident about coming back. So far as he is personally concerned I would like to see him here, but perhaps not, from another standpoint.


William Alfred Galliher: I do not think I was egotistical enough to speak in that way. I said I hoped that I would have the honour of being returned. I think a man may modestly say that he hopes he will come back to this House.


Robert Laird Borden: If he is coming back we would like- to have him back as early as possible and therefore to have the election as early as possible. Of course we will endeavour to console ourselves if he does not. hoping that we might see him occasionally, but if he is to come back we hope we may see him at the earliest possible moment, and therefore there is every reason from his own standpoint why we should

have the election on the same day as they are held In other parts of Canada.


Mr. OSLER.: Is not Yale-Cariboo the mining camp where they play poker for 150 votes ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Order, order.


William Alfred Galliher: I have no doubt they can play poker In some of the mining camps In Yale-Cariboo.
Mr. oENNETT, The national game.


William Alfred Galliher: Yes, the national game. I hope the leader of the opposition does not think that it is not purely from a desire to give to every person and to every part of that district, whether to the miners in the mining camps or to those along the direct line of railway and steamboat which my hon. friend travelled very comfortably, an opportunity to vote that I am taking the position I now take. I certainly want to give every man entitled to vote an opportunity of voting. I therefore want to have every facility granted to these men whether they be working as miners in a mining camp even although it be very remote as some of these camps are. There is no question about the fact that while we are civilized and advanced in British Columbia as far as means of travel are concerned, there are many mining camps in the mountains miles and miles away from these means of transportation, and I want to see these men have ftn opportunity to cast their vote whether they vote for me or against me. The vote is their own privilege and they have a right to vote for whoever they please. Now, it is all very well to say in general terms : We see no reason why this should not be done. Why the elections should not be held here at the same time as the other elections. Personally I have no interest in postponing it. In fact, if you wish to know my personal preference, I would rather face the fight on the day of the general election than later. Rut I am instructed, and I know, that it is a physical impossibility to have this election on the same day as the others. I have stated that two or three times already. I do not know how often this district must be subdivided to bring it down to the same position as other constituencies in regard to holding the elections, but I know that though it has been subdivided, it still covers a vast area. It has been said that there are constituencies of great area in the Northwest. That is true, but the conditions are altogether different. From any point in these constituencies in the Northwest you can strike off to any other point. But you cannot do that in a mountain district. You may travel fifty, a hundred or even two hundred miles in one direction to reach a certain point. From there, you cannot cut across the mountain range to a point that may be only twenty miles away, for there is no means of communication. The only thing Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
you can do is to go back to the starting point and strike off at another angle. I do not know why we should have to repeat these things. They are facts, and facts that anyone knows who has travelled through the mining regions. Many points you can reach comfortably in a parlour car or in the cabin of a nice steamer, travel such as the leader of the opposition, like myself, has frequently indulged in up and down that country. But when you get away from the points reached by these means of communication, the travelling is very different indeed.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to read to my hon. friend a statement that has been sent to me by a gentleman in that district. It differs from the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Galliher). I do not' know whether my -information is under a misapprehension or not. Probably my hon. friend would say he is :
The Kootenay district according to Representation Act, 1903, section 2 of the British Columbia division of that Act, provides that the electoral district of Kootenay shall comprise the provincial electoral districts of Cranbrook, Columbia. Fernie, Kaslo, Nelson, Revelstoke, Ross-land, Slocau and Ymir. As far as I can see, and all others here agree upon the point, there is no physical reason for postponing the election for this district to any later date than that of the general election. We had a general provincial election in 1903 for the same districts and the election was held in all these districts on the same day. No inconvenience whatever was experienced thereby, and, inasmuch as the Dominion elections will be upon the same lists and with the same polling places, there is absolutely no excuse for making the change. In the Columbia electoral district there was no poll held, inasmuch as the member was elected by acclamation. But an election took place in all the others. Each one of these districts is reached by rail or steamer. The means of communication are good, and in fact the returns were in from every point, with the possible exception of one or two small polls, on the night of the election.	*
If that is a correct statement of the facts, I do not think there is any adequate reason for postponing the election in this district.


William Alfred Galliher: Who wrote that letter ?


Mr. BORDEN.: It is not a confidential letter, and I do not think the gentleman who wrote it would have the slightest objection to my making known his name. It Is from Mr. A. H. MacNeil, K. C., of Rossland, to whom I wrote for information.


William Alfred Galliher: There is nothing there except what my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) has repeated. It is stated that every district is reached by rail or steamer. It is true that probably some portion of every district is reached by rail or steamer, but there are points in these districts that cannot be reached in that way. As I said, you have to go by team to the end of the settlement, and from one point you cannot strike across to another even though it is only ten or

fifteen miles away, but must retract your steps and strike off at another angle.


Frederick William Borden: Does my hon. friend agree that the returns from all these districts except one or two were in on the night of the election ?


William Alfred Galliher: That is probably true. But my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) knows that returns can be sent by telephone or telegraph from places which could not be reached by driving except with great expenditure of time.


Robert Laird Borden: But, if you have the means of communication by telephone or telegraph, cannot you bring in your deputy returning officer on the day of nomination and send him out with the ballot box ?
Mr. GALLIHER, Of course, you can reach a man by telephone or telegraph if those means of communication exist, but-


Frederick William Borden: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Galliher) is not very much in earnest.


William Alfred Galliher: So far as I am personally concerned, I do not care to have the election postponed. But I am told that it is impossible to hold it on the day of the general election, and I know it is impossible.
Progress reported.



REPRESENTATION ACT 1903-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 149) to amend the Representation Act of 1903-Mr. Fitzpatrick-was read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
Mr. HAGGART.: What is the effect of this ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: This is to correct a clerical error. When the Bill was prepared last session an Act of the Ontario legislature 1901 was overlooked. It was one of a series of Acts which are passed each year by the legislature of Ontario, entitled ' Acts to amend the Statute Laws.' They are amendments to various statutes and especially this Act in question has reference to the Ontario Territorial Divisions Act, chapter 3, of the Revised Statutes. The amendment consists in shifting the boundary between the provisional judicial districts of Algoma and Thunder Bay, twenty minutes westward from eighty-five degrees west longitude to eighty-five degrees, twenty minutes. The effect of that I canjnot realize myself, but it was in order to make our description of that territorial division agree with the territorial division as described in the local statute.


James Clancy: It would be difficult to tell what the effect really is. The hon. gentleman has no doubt looked into it; is
he prepared to say if it affects the popu* lation


Charles Fitzpatrick: Territorially it will make a very trifling difference, I could not say how much. Twenty minutes is not much.


James Clancy: It depends upon how fast the hon. gentleman travels.
Mr. FITZPATRICK, I know nothing about it except that the gentleman who is responsible for it in my department, Mr. Fraser, drew my attention to the fact that we had overlooked this Ontario Act of 1901, and told me it was important to make the definition in our Representation Act agree with the territorial description given in the Ontario Act. My hon. friend can take my word for it that there is nothing serious in it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is assuming that this description is exactly the same as in the Provincial Act.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was going to suggest that as the government are getting out maps of each constituency it would be desirable if they would prepare a map of these constituencies so that we might examine them before the Bill is finally passed.
On section 1,


Charles Fitzpatrick: Sections 7 and 8 of the Representation Act slipped into their present position where they are now, by mistake. Hon. gentlemen who may have a copy of the Act will see that in chapter 60 of the Act of last session, sections 7 and 8 form part of the beginning of, the Act and therefore apply to all that comes after it ; that is to say, 7 and 8 will apply to all the schedules for all the provinces because they are at the beginning of the Act. Section 7 says :
The limits of every electoral district bounded by a river extend to the middle of that river.
8. The nearness of an island or islet to an electoral district is measured by the relative distance between either side of the island or islet and the shore of the opposite electoral district.
These two sections are taken from the Quebec Act, Revised Statutes, Quebec, chapter 2, sections 67 and 68. The intention was to put these two sections at the head of the Quebec schedule so that they would apply exclusively to Quebec. There is no reason why they should apply to any other province because the electoral divisions of the other provinces are regulated upon different lines. But so far as Quebec is concerned the limits of the electoral district, where it is bounded by a river, extend out to the middle of the river, which is the boundary ; and when there are islands or

islets in a river separating two electoral districts the island or islet is counted with the electoral district to which it is nearest. There is no reason why these sections should apply to all the provinces, and it may create confusion ; there is every reason why it should apply to Quebec because it is part of our municipal organization.
On! section 3,


Charles Fitzpatrick: I propose to amend that so it shall read as follows :
(f.) For the purpose of defining the constitution and boundaries of the counties mentioned in paragraph (a) and suh-paragraphs 10, 11, 15 and 16 of paragraph (c), of subsection 3 of section 3 of the Representation Act, chapter 6, of the Revised Statutes, the said paragraph and sub-paragraphs respectively shall be read and construed as if the words ' Section 1 of ' in each of these paragraphs were struck out.
My hon. friend will understand the moaning of this bv examining the statutes of Canada of 1886.


Robert Laird Borden: It would take a little while to work it out.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Here is the point. Perhaps my hon. friend will be better able to appreciate it after I have made my explanation. I do not intend to ask that the Bill shall go beyond the committee stage at this sitting. The Representation Act, 1886, chapter 6, of the Revised Statutes, section 3, defines the limits of each electoral district in the province of Quebec. In the province of Quebec the counties of Ottawa, &c.
As they were respectively constituted on the thirty-first of January, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, section one of chapter seventy-five, of the Consolidated Statutes for Lower Canada, shall each be an electoral district and shall each return one member.
That is to say that these divisions as constituted under section 1, of the old Revised *Statutes of Lower Canada shall each return one member. Then they go on to describe other counties which they say 'are constituted as they were constituted under section 1 of the old statute. Speaking generally, therefore, all the provisions of the old statute are applicable to all the other counties except these and three or four others, for instance, Quebec county which is my own county as it was Bonstituted on the 31st January, 1861, by section 1 of chapter 75 of the Consolidated statutes for Lower Canada. The same thing applies to LotbiniSre, Bellechasse and Beauce.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought they had included all these counties in the first general statement.


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, they included in the first general statement Ottawa, Pontiac,


Charles Fitzpatrick: Hochelaga, Jacques Cartier, Laval, Vau-dreuil, Soulanges, Laprairie, Chambly, Richelieu, Yamaska, Maskinonge, St. Maurice, Champlain, Montmorency, and others, only a certain number of them. Then they go on and distinguish. I would like to point out the difficulty that results from that. The old statute of Lower Canada, chapter 75, section 1 provides :
The counties, cities and towns hereinafter mentioned, shall be the subdivisions of Lower Canada upon which the representation of the people thereof in the legislature shall be based ; and the said counties are those intended for all purposes in these Consolidated Statutes and in the Consolidated Statutes of Canada, except only where it is otherwise expressly provided, either in the said Consolidated Statutes or in some local or special Act remaining in force and applicable to the subject of the enactment, that is to say :
Then they go on to give a description of the different districts. Then section 2 of the statute provides that:
All augmentations or gores of parishes, townships or seigneuries, and all cities, towns, villages or reserves for the same, not specially mentioned in this Act, shall be considered as forming part of the county in which the principal part of such locality or in the immediate vicinity of which, such city, town, village or reserve is situate, unless it be otherwise ordered by some statute in force, for any purpose or purposes.
Then it goes on :
Wherever both banks of any river in Lower Canada are in any district or county, there the river itself is within such district or county :
2.	Wherever one bank of any river is in one district or county and the opposite bank is in another, there the centre of the main channel of the river is the boundary between the two districts or counties, each of which extends to the centre of such main channel ;
3.	And wherever any river or portion of a river is in the county, it is also within the district of which such county forms part.
All these things are provided for in sections 2 and 3 particularly of the consolidated statutes of Quebec, chapter 75 and are applicable to all the counties except those that are constituted under section 1. The effect of the amendment is that in the province of Quebec, where we have only 65 members and where the number does not change, the counties shall be the same counties as were constituted under the Consolidated Statutes for Lower Canada by section 1, chapter 75.


Robert Laird Borden: That results from the provision made in the statute that certain districts settled from time to time shall become part of the counties which they adjoin ? That is exactly the idea. I see that you simply strike out section 1.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes. Sections 7 and 8 are not mentioned, because we constitute the counties under the old Conso-

lidated Statutes for Lower Canada. In view of the fact that In our province we have only 65 constituencies and that they remain the same we retain the old division as we had it previous to confederation.


Robert Laird Borden: This is really for the purpose of making the law as we understand it already ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: As we understand it now.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 4,
Paragraph 5 of that part of the said schedule which deals with the province of New Brunswick is repealed, and the following paragraphs are substituted therefor :-
' 5. The electoral district of Victoria shall, as heretofore, consist of the counties of Victoria and Madawaska, and shall return one member.
6. Each of the remaining counties of the province shall form an electoral district and shall return one member.'


Charles Fitzpatrick: A mistake was made in the New Brunswick schedule, it having been overlooked that the old county of Victoria had been divided by a provincial Act into the two counties of Victoria and Madawaska and that these two counties have since that date formed the electoral district of Victoria, which is entitled to return one member. It will be seen that under the schedule as it now stands there would on account of this mistake appear to be 14 electoral districts in the province each entitled to return one member, whereas the province is only entitled to 13 members.
On section 5,
The said schedule is further amended by adding at the end thereof the following :-



' THE YUKON TERRITORY.

[Stage Direction]
' The Yukon Territory shall form an electoral district, to be called the electoral district of Yukon, and shall return one member.'
Charles Fitzpatrick: That was omitted.
Bill reported.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that before the Bill is read the third time the bon. minister is to furnish a map of Algoma so as to ascertain whether the limits as described are correct or not.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Yes.



ARBITRATION WITH THE GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 152) respecting an arbitration between His Majesty and the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada (Mr. Fitzpatrick) read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. BARKER.: What are the questions that will arise on this arbitration, and under what circumstances have the disputes arisen ?	*


Charles Fitzpatrick: In 1879 the government originally purchased that portion of the Grand Trunk Railway extending from Riviere Du Loup, 110 miles below Quebec, to a place called Hadlow on the shores of the St. Lawrence almost opposite the city of Quebec. The road extended at the south side of Levis up to a point called ChaudiSre curve, and then came down again towards the city of Quebec on the south side of the St. Lawrence to Hadlow cove. From Hadlow to a place called South Quebec, there is a piece of line that also belongs to the Grand Trunk Railway, but that piece between Hadlow and Quebec South remained the property of the Grand Trunk Railway. At a subsequent period it was decided to build a branch line extending from St. Charles on the line of the old Grand Trunk purchased in 1879, down to a place called Harlaka Junction, thence from Harlaka Junction on to the town of LGvls, and from the town of Levis to a place called South Quebec. It will be borne in mind that there are two links there from South Quebec to Hadlow, one the property of the Grand Trunk, and the other from Hadlow to Chaudiere Junction, the property of the government. By the original agreement the government granted to the Grand Trunk Railway Company, for the purpose of using its yard at South Quebec, running powers over that portion of the line extending from Hadlow to Chaudiere curve, and on the other hand the Grand Trunk Railway gave to the government the right to use that portion of its line between South Quebec and Hadlow Cove. The government had running powers over the road from South Quebec to Hadlow and the Grand Trunk Railway had running powers from Hadlow up to Chaudiere curve. After the St. Charles branch was built down to Point Levis, then the importance of Harlaka Junction came in. Harlaka Junction is the point where the Quebec Central Railway intersects the Intercolonial Railway, and the Quebec Central, has running powers over the Intercolonial Railway from Harlaka Junction up to L6vis. There is considerable interchange of traffic from the Quebec Central Railway to the Intercolonial Railway. The Quebec Central Railway hand their traffic over at L6vis to the Intercolonial Railway, and the Intercolonial Railway takes the westbound traffic west. Under the original agreement running powers were conferred upon the Intercolonial Railway over this little piece of road belonging to the Grand Trunk Railway between South Quebec and Harlaka Junction, and the Grand Trunk Railway says r We gave you running powers over that, but we did not give it to you for the purpose of taking freight from the Quebec Central Railway ; you must hand that freight over to us at
7G75

South Quebec and we will haul it west, but if you do not you will have to pay us for each car you receive from the Quebec Central that you haul over this little piece belonging to the Grand Trunk. They claim from $2 to $2.50 a car which they charge either to the consignee of the freight or to the Quebec Central. Our argument is that when that freight reaches Point Levis it becomes Intercolonial Railway freight and we have a right to handle it and to get the tolls on it from the time it reaches our line at I.cvis until it gets to its destination. We argue that the parties to the agreement of 1879, had in contemplation not only the freight of the Intercolonial Railway proper, but all freight that was gathered from intersecting lines until it reached the point of destination at Levis. That is the difficulty with respect to the 1879 agreement. There is another trifling matter which arises out of the fact that they are making certain charges for handling our freight at South Quebec which we think are too high. Subsequently, in 1898, when the Drummond County Railway was acquired by the government, another agreement was made between the two companies with respect to the use of the Grand Trunk line from Ste. Rosalie up to St. Lambert Junction, and thence over the bridge into the Bonaventure depot. In return for that, the Grand Trunk were under obligation to hand over to the Intercolonial Railway certain freight that was intended for points eastward. We hold that the Grand Trunk have not carried out the conditions of their agreement in respect of the handing over of this freight at Ste. Rosalie, and as a result difficulties have arisen out of that agreement. All these matters have been referred to arbitration under the conditions of the original contract which provides for arbitration in case of dispute, and it is to carry out the terms of file original agreement that this arbitration was entered into. When the matter got before the arbitrators, we discovered that it would be important to get access to all the documents and all the papers on both sides and the arbitrators found that they were without power to grant the necessary orders for the discovery. It is for the purpose of getting these additional powers and authority to summons witnesses that this Bill is introduced. The arbitrators sajr that they have not got these powers, and' it is at the suggestion of the arbitrators that this legislation is asked for.
At One o'clock, committee took recess.
Committee resumed at Three o'clock.


Samuel Barker: I do not rise to oppose this clause of the Bill, but rather to express my regret that the Bill does not go much further and occupy a very much larger field. We have been entering into other agreements with the company referred to in the Mr. FITZPATRICK.
Bill, the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, with relation to matters of a somewhat similar nature to those that have led to the dispute which is now being arbitrated. It appears that for the last six years, under the contract of 1898, the Grand Trunk Railway Company, in the opinion of the government at all events, have been refusing to the Dominion the traffic which they had agreed to give to the Intercolonial Railway. That has been persisted in so that the government have found it necessary to have an arbitration with the company to dispose of the question. Now, we have during this session been spending week after week in discussing an agreement with the government of Canada and the Grand Trunk Railway Company with relation to traffic matters, and especially with relation to the diversion of traffic from Canadian ports to American ports. I say the Grand Trunk Railway Company, because that is the real party to the contract which we call the Grand Trunk Pacific contract. We have again and again endeavoured to get hon. gentlemen opposite to see the need and propriety of inserting in this agreement carefully prepared provisions to protect the people of Canada as against the self-interest of the other contracting party ; but we have been told over and over again that we were dealing with an honourable company, a company of such a character that we might rely upon it; and the government, instead of inserting proper clauses to protect the people against the selfish interests of the company, knowing all the time that this same company were not carrying out honourably, according to the opinion of the government, a contract which had been entered into six years ago, have refused to accept the amendments proposed by the opposition for the purpose of protecting the people against that company. Under these circumstances I am somewhat surprised that the government should bring in at this session, while the country has still before it the recollection of their attitude with regard to the Grand Trunk Pacific contract, a Bill to enable them to get at the books of the Grand Trunk Railway Company in order to see plainly whether that company told the whole' truth or not with regard to the course the traffic took under that agreement of 1898. Why, Sir, when we proposed jn one of our amendments that the Dominion government should have the right to inspect the books of the Grand Trunk Railway Company with reference to the traffic that is carried from the Northwest to the ocean, the government voted our amendment down, and the hon. gentlemen behind them, in dutiful allegiance to their party, but regardless of the interests of the country, backed up the government in that refusal ; and yet all that time hon. gentlemen opposite knew that the company which they refused to protect the people against, was absolutely, according to their own opinion, refusing to carry out the obli-

gations they had themselves entered into with regard to the traffic. Therefore the introduction of such a Bill as this may be regarded with some surprise. Here we have a Bill enabling the arbitrators to compel the Grand Trunk Company to produce their papers. Why, Sir, when we asked that there should be put into the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill a provision that the Grand Trunk Company should be obliged to disclose its papers to the government, they said, no, we do not require them. They said that, with the knowledge that they were quarrelling with the Grand Trunk Company at that very moment on the same subject, and were getting no redress. Under these circumstances I think we have a right to criticise the attitude of the government on this matter. It is quite true, the hon. gentlemen had settled their agreement with the Grand Trunk Company. That was the only answer we ever received. The Grand Trunk Company could get alterations made in the contract when they needed them, while the government would not ask for the slightest alteration on behalf of the people. When they are introducing this Bill to give the arbitrators greater power, why do they not go a little further ? For the past six years they have had an agreement with the Grand Trunk Company which has not worked satisfactorily. The hon. Minister of Justice tells us that certain traffic which the Grand Trunk had agreed to hand over to the Intercolonial has not gone to the Intercolonial ; and there is a dispute between them as to whether it ought to go to the Intercolonial or to the Grand Trunk. We all know that these questions will arise. On the one hand, the Grand Trunk Company, looking after their own interests and not after the interests of the country, will take every advantage they can to take the traffic over their own rails and on their own trains, and to put the freight charges into their own pockets. Nobody blames the Grand Trunk for that. We only blame the government of the day that allows them to do it, and refuses to put provisions into contracts entered into with the Grand Trunk that would enable the country to get what it ought to get. Now, we propose not only that the government should have the right to inspect the books, papers and vouchers of the Grand Trunk relating to this traffic, but that if there should be found any reason for complaint that the Grand Trunk Company are not carrying out the provisions of that contract with regard to the course or direction of the traffic, that matter should be investigated by the Board of Railway Commissioners, and reported to this parliament for action. The hon. gentlemen not only refuse to give us the power to inspect the papers, or to take upon themselves that power, but they refuse to give the Board of Railway Commissioners the power to investigate and report to this House.
Not one step -would they take to enable the country to get protection against what has been going on apparently for the last six years under the contract of 1898. Therefore I say it is a matter of regret in this committee that this Bill, good as it is, does not go further and provide once for all for all contracts between the government and the Grand Trunk Railway. It should have provided for a full investigation of all matters not only under this contract but under any other railway contract, which they may enter into with that company, and it should have provided that in any arbitration or proceeding, either by arbitration or the Board of Railway Commissioners, they should have all the power for which the government is now coming to parliament to ask under this Bill. For that reason and not because I object to the Bill which is all right so far as it goes ; I say that we ought to go further and when the government have entered into a contract of such enormous interest and value to this country as that respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific which is infinitely greater in its relation to the interests of the country than the comparatively small agreement with which we are now dealing, I say they ought to have applied the knowledge and experience that they have derived in the last six years in their traffic negotiations and dealings with the Grand Trunk to the new contracts that we are entering into. They should have availed themselves of that experience to put every necessary provision in the new contracts instead of voting them dowm ns they did when they were proposed by the opposition.


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am sure that my hon. friend does not expect me now to discuss over again the clauses of the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill. So far as I am concerned I think we had better deal with the Bill now before us and refer those interested in the Grand Trunk Pacific to the debates that occurred in the committee when that Bill was under consideration.


Robert Laird Borden: Still it would be desirable to have a little further explanation from the Minister of Justice as to the precise nature of the differences that have taken place between the government and the Grand Trunk Pacific under the agreement of 1898. As I understand the traffic arrangement made at that time was practically of the same date as the so-called lease by the Grand Trunk Company of a portion of its line to the Intercolonial Railway. The Minister of Justice adverted to differences which had arisen under that traffic arrangement but he did not give us much information as to the magnitude of the differences, of what was really involved in them or of their nature.


Charles Fitzpatrick: With respect to the differences that have arisen under the agree-



REVISED


[Stage Direction]
ment of 1898 I would like to say that the Crown claims damages in respect of several breaches :
First, for the diversion by the Grand Trunk Railway of traffic destined for the maritime provinces and Newfoundland, via Lennoxville and the Canadian Pacific Railway which we contended under the agreement of 1898 should have been routed via Montreal and the Intercolonial Railway.
Second, for the diversion by the Grand Trunk of traffic destined for the maritime provinces and Newfoundland which has been sent via United States ports instead of via Montreal and the Intercolonial Railway.
Third, for the diversion of traffic destined for the maritime provinces and Newfoundland by the Grand Trunk Railway via the water route from Montreal instead of via the Intercolonial Railway.
The Crown also claims damages in respect of a certain agreement as to switching and terminal privileges covered by an agreement entered into by the Grand Trunk Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, enjoining the Grand Trunk against switching or permitting to be switched cars or freight to or from sidings on the island of Montreal included in the agreement of the Canadian Pacific Railway from other roads when such freight is destined to or from points on the Intercolonial Railway.
The Crown claims that the Grand Trunk Railway has not afforded to the Intercolonial Railway the accommodation at Bonaventure station required by the contract and claims damages therefor.
The Crown has paid under protest one-half of the cost of a subway and station at St. Hyacinthe. We claim a refund of the amount so paid.
Robert Laird Borden: Has the amount of the claim of the Crown been stated in dollars and cents ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Robert Laird Borden: How much of that is for traffic diverted to the United States ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I have not the details.


Robert Laird Borden: Perhaps the minister will give them on the third reading of the Bill. Could he in the meantime inform the committee on what basis the Crown makes up its claim for damages in respect of the diversion of traffic 1 Is it the net profit that would be earned by the Canadian government's railways, or is it the gross amount of the claim or what is the basis ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I did not draw up the claim myself and I really could not, speaking off-hand, give that information.


Robert Laird Borden: It occurs to me that it would be useful to know the actual amount of freight in tons which the govern-


Charles Fitzpatrick: ment claim to have been diverted, and to what United States ports it was diverted.
On section 2,
The said arbitrators may sit lor the hearing of evidence wherever in Canada they think it necessary, and they may, from time to time and as often as they think fit, adjourn the sessions to meet either in the same place or elsewhere.


Samuel Barker: This leaves the arbitrators plenty of time to make their return.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend will remember that the third arbitrator is a judge of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Killam. The arbitrators are separated and will not come together until September, and I do not think there is any danger of delay in the rendering of the final award.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY-RESIGNATION OF LT.-COL. GREGORY.

['We may take some of the Bills still on the order paper but at', 'an early stage we will go into supply and continue the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER.: I desire to call the attention of the House and the government to the matter of the resignation and treatment of Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, of the 2nd Dragoons of St. Catharines. Probably the shortest way to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Militia would be to read the letter which Colonel Gregory wrote me last month, in which he asked me to give my attention to the matter, as representing the people of the county in which Colonel Gregory has resided since his infancy. I propose therefore, to give Colonel Gregory's own words to the minister and the House in order that they may have a full understanding of the facts. Colonel Gregory, in writing to me, said that his term of command of the 2nd Dragoons was about to expire when the officers of the regiment signed a requisition requesting him to accept an extension of term. Colonel Gregory goes on to say :
I did not make application for an extension, but as I had been requested by some of the officers of the permanent force to accept an extension I called upon the District Officer Commanding, and -told him if my term of command was to be extended I wished to know it, and if it was not I wanted to be relieved of my command at once. I stated that if I accepted an extension at all I wanted it for three years.


Frederick William Borden: Is this the same letter which was published in the [DOT] Mail and Empire ' on the 23rd of June ?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would not say it is the same. In effect it is, but it is not a verbatim copy. This is a letter addressed by Colonel Gregory to myself, as representing in this House the people of the county in which he resides.

On the 4th of August Colonel Otter wrote me that the period I named would not be entertained by the department. He was quite willing, had that day recommended me for an extension of two years and trusted it would be approved.
I heard nothing more about the matter until on the 2nd of November I saw a copy of the general order of September 3rd, in which my term had been extended to July 12th, 1904.
I immediately sent in my resignation and a few days later received a letter from Colonel Otter saying he had my resignation, but before forwarding it he was writing urging that my term be extended as recommended and not to be surprised at some delay. Shortly after this I was asked to make a report as to the fitness of Major W. R. Ferguson for the position of second in command which he held, and as I was given to understand by Colonel Otter that some one was urging the matter, and believing that Major Ferguson would be gazetted out if he did not resign, I advised him to send me his resignation, which he did, and which I forwarded.
On the 10th of January Colonel Otter wrote me directing me to at once recommend Major Glasgow as regimental major, also for the officer who was to succeed him. I replied that at present and under all circumstances did not feel disposed to accede to his request. Colonel Otter wrote me again January 14th requesting an explanation for writing such a letter, claiming I was in duty bound to do as directed. I replied on the 18th stating that my reasons were that I did not consider it was in the interest of the regiment that he should be promoted at present. On the 21st January I received another letter from Colonel Otter saying, I now tell you it is necessary you should recommend Major Glasgow as second in command, saying further ' You may be sure I have good reasons for asking for this action on your part.' On the 23rd I had an interview with the General Officer Commanding in Ottawa and he gave me to understand that my time of command had been extended for two years or would be extended. On the 25th I called Colonel Otter by telephone and told him if his anxiety for the promotion of Major Glasgow was on my account there was no longer the necessity for it as the General Officer Commanding had informed me on the Saturday previous that my time of command had been extended for two years, and to me Colonel Otter replied that he knew more about the matter than any one else, as he had made the arrangements, and later on in a private interview told me that my extension to two years depended upon, me recommending Major Glasgow, saying further, that when in Ottawa some time previous to this the General Officer Commanding had told him to express to me his regrets that he was unable to carry through my extension for a longer period than one year, and that after saving the General Officer Commanding he went to another.
On the night of the 25th, I had a meeting of the officers of the regiment followed by a dinner to which a number of gentlemen not in the regiment were invited and were present. After the dinner I entered into an arrangement with Major Glasgow that he was to remain in command of his squadron until after this camp in June and in the meantime take a course in the Royal Military College, and I would then recommend him for the position of second in command. The next day I wrote the District Officer Commanding, notifying 2444
him of arrangement with Major Glasgow and that I expected to receive a letter from him concurring in the arrangement, but which' ' I did not get.
At an interview I had with Colonel Otter a few days later he informed me that he had reason to believe that nothing but the recommendation from Major Glasgow would secure my extension as recommended and stated that I would only be playing into the hands of those opposed to me and sacrifice the regiment as well if I resigned as I threatened to do before I would recommend Major Glasgow if he did not take steps to improve his qualifications.
On the 22nd February I wrote the district officer commanding again, reiterating what I was prepared to do, and again on the 29th asking if my letter of the 22nd would be acceptable and if my tenure of command was to be extended beyond the 12th of July, 1904, and received a reply dated March 2nd stating that he had written Major Glasgow a few days before, and that he had promised to attend the school before camp for a course, and that he (Colonel Otter) was quite prepared to forward his recommendation at once, and asking me to forward the recommendation as soon as possible. Again on the 3rd of March Colonel Otter wrote me in reply to my communication of the 29th February stating that the recommendation of Major Glasgow as second in command should be sent in at once and ho had every reason to believe that the extension of my command would follow.
To this I replied on the 7th that if Major Glasgow did attend the school as he had promised he should remain in command of his squadron until afi^er camp, when his promotion would immediately follow, and that I was firmly convinced my proposition was not only reasonable but in the interest of the regiment, and that I had come to the conclusion that if my extension of time demanded upon me acceding to the demands of Major Glasgow, I had better resign my command at once.
On the 10th of March Colonel Otter wrote me that he regretted that I could not see my way to make the recommendation and that as action had shortly to be taken, he now proposed to do it himself. After getting the ' Canada Gazette ' of June 11th, in which appeared the promotion of Major Glasgow to second in command, also that of Captain Sharp to major commanding * D ' squadron, and Lieutenant D. Dell to rank of captain, and none of which I had recommended, I forwarded my resignation to the district officer commanding and asked to be relieved of the command of the regiment at once. My resignation was sent in on the morning of Wednesday, June 15th.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me, although I am not technically what would be called a military man, that the department has put itself entirely in the wrong. The people of this country have a deep interest in seeing the Militia Department administered in the interests of the militia of Canada. And digressing here for a moment,
I think I can say without any fear of contradiction that it is only as an institution for the benefit of the people of Canada that this militia organization exists; and speaking

as a representative of the people I am just as much entitled to say what I think of it as if I were a military man technically or enrolled in the militia force. I need not of course say that those of us who do not technically belong to the militia force nevertheless have the interest of the militia as much at heart as those who do belong to it ; and it is because we have only so many hours in a day and so many days in the month in which we can work at anything, after getting the necessary sleep that nature requires, that we are not all of us able to take that active part in militia affairs that some of us do and others would like to do. Now the ease of Colonel Gregory seems to me to be a pitiable one, pitiable from the standpoint of the interests of the people of this country, not to qualify it in any stronger language. I ask the House to accept one statement from me without proof, and that is that Colonel Gregory is, as far as a man can be who is not a regular soldier belonging to the regular army, as well qualified an officer, as careful, as earnest, as painstaking, as self-sacrificing in the expenditure of time and energy in the performance of his duty as any militiaman or any other man in the Dominion of Canada possibly could be, and not belong to the regular army. Colonel Gregory has been known up in the county of Lincoln where he was born and has always lived, to have, as some critics of his would say, spent too much time over the militia ; he is known to have sacrificed his money, even his financial interests in his devotion to the welfare of the militia and in the energetic performance of his duties as a militiaman. No man on either side of politics, I am not afraid the most violent Reformer in the county of Lincoln will contradict me in saying, that no man on either side of politics will say that Colouel Gregory as a military man is not absolutely qualified for the performance of his duties, and he has seen that the officers under him and with whom he is associated are also well qualified. It is evidenced by this letter that Colonel Gregory has realized his duty to the country, and to the officers above him as well as to the officers beneath him, and to the whole community in what he was called upon to do. He seemed to think that the duty he was called upon to perform was not a mere bagatelle ; he realized that he. had a serious duty to perform to those in authority over him in the militia, and to the whole people of Canada, in the exercise of the duties that devolved upon him while an officer in command of that troop. Now he was called upon, as is seen by this correspondence, he was invited, as it were, to ask for an extension of time, he was asked if he would accept an extension of time. It does not matter for what length of time ; the point is this, that he was not going to be allowed Mr. LANCASTER.
to have any extension of time unless he did what, Mr. Speaker, unless he certified to a thing that, whether he was right or wrong in his judgment, he would have been a dishonest man if he had certified to holding the opinion he did.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend is probably not aw-are that Colonel Gregory had one year's extension of time without any condition, and he does not pretend there was any condition.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Colonel Gregory has had an extension of time of one year before this extension of time without any condition. The question is not whether he should have an extension of time for more than one year. It is idle to say that a different rule or principle should be applied according as the extension of time was long or short, for one year or more. No matter whether it was for one month or three months, for one year, or ten years, or a hundred years, the principle is the same, and it was intimated to him that if he did not do something which he could only do on the assumption that whether it was right or wrong does not matter, and which he could not do as an honest man, he was told that if he did not do it, he could not get that extension. If that principle was to prevail in any department of government it is easy to imagine what the consequences w'ould be. If it was to prevail in the Finance Department, in the Department of *Trade and Commerce, in the Department of Inland Revenue, in the Department of the Postmaster General, in the Department of the Minister of Customs-now I have named the departments of all the cabinet ministers who are in the House except the Minister of Militia. I say that if this principle was to prevail, what confidence would any one have in those departments or in any other institution in which it was allowed to prevail ?
: If Colonel Gregory was wrong in his opinion, that might be a reason for telling him , that he was no longer fit to command, but ' it would be no reason for imposing upon I the people a commanding officer who was ! exercising his functions as he was entitled ' to exercise them, and still telling him that ' he could not remain in command unless he 1 exercised his functions on a different side | of a question to what he in all conscience ' thought he ought to exercise them.
! Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. Would the * hon. gentleman state what was the condi' tion ?
1 Mr. LANCASTER. The condition, accord, ing to this letter, was that if he would re-i commend Major Glasgow- as second in com-1 mand his extension of time would at once t follow. He said he could not do so, because t Major Glasgow was not qualified in his 1 opinion, not having the necessary military

training. He was right in that statement, and was asked to certify the contrary.


Frederick William Borden: He was qualified.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I differ from the hon minister. I am not a military man, bar I can understand facts and inferences, and the results of facts, in regard to the Militia Department as well as I can understand them in regard to any other department. It is quite clear that Major Glasgow at that time was not qualified, because Major Glasgow partly did afterwards what Colonel Gregory was insisting would have to be done at that time before he could be qualified. The hon. minister may be right technically in saying that he is qualified now, but at the time it was sought to obtain Colonel Gregory's recommendation he was not qualified, and I would like the hon. minister to explain why it was that this gentleman had to get a further qualification before he could get the certificate.


Frederick William Borden: If the hon. gentleman will look at the papers which were laid on the table of the House he will see by Colonel Gregory's own report that Major Glasgow was qualified in the summer of 1902.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I differ from the hon. minister. That may be his way of looking at these papers. I must speak of the facts as I understand them. It is all very well for the hon. minister to put his construction on certain things, but I am sorry to say that I cannot find the facts to be as h.; represents them. We must differ in respect to the certificate that Colonel Gregory gave. The fact stands out clear and distinct, and I would not be doing my duty to the people if I did not insist upon this fact being presented clearly to them. The fact stands out clear and distinct that Colonel Otter told him that some one was urging him to secuie the recommendation on behalf of Major Glasgow. As the hon. minister does not seem to understand it, I will read it again :
On the 23rd I had an interview with the General Officer Commanding in Ottawa, and he gave me to understand that my time of command had been extended for two years or would be extended. On the 25th I called Colonel Otter by telephone and told him if his anxiety for the promotion of Major Glasgow was on my account there was no longer the necessity for it, as the General Officer Commanding had informed me on the Saturday previous that my time of command had been extended for two years, and to me Colonel Otter replied that he knew more about the matter than any one else, as he had made the arrangements.
Colonel Otter had made the arrangement. What arrangement ? Colonel Otter had made the arrangement that Colonel Gregory should have an extension of time. There had to be pressure brought upon him to make the arrangement that Major Glasgow was to be placed in command and that notwithstanding the fact that he was not certified to as being qualified.
Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory says that on the 25th he called up Colonel Otter by 'phone, and Colonel Otter told him that he knew more about the matter than any one else, that he had made the arrangement, and later on he told Colonel Gregory that his extension of two years depended upon his recommending Major Glasgow. If Major Glasgow was qualified without a recommendation by Colonel Gregory, why was Colonel Gregory told by Colonel Otter that his own extension for two years depended upon him granting this certificate ? That is the vice and the mischief of this matter. That is where you are striking right at the heart of our militia. Whether Colonel Gregory's judgment was right or not in saying that he would not recommend Major Glasgow when the government said to him : Although according to your judgment it may be wrong, you must do it, and we will not extend your time of command for two years until you do it, they were introducing a system -that means ruin to the militia of this country. It is an unfortunate thing for the people of Canada. Colonel Gregory would not submit to that, because, being a soldier, he was a man. They cast a reflection upon him. and he said in effect. I am a man. I wall not certify what I do not believe. He said :	I
am responsible to Roland W. Gregory and to Roland W. Gregory's own conscience for what I do, and as my superior officers do not say that my judgment was wrong. I consider that it is my duty to resign in order that the people of Canada may clear up the matter and take such means as they see tit to ensure that the government shall not allow this serpent to crawl in and accomplish the disasters that it will accomplish if this course is allowed to prevail, and which undoubtedly would have prevailed if something had not been done to prevent it by putting the facts before the House, as he idid and as I am endeavouring in my humble way to do, I being the representative of the county in which this gentleman resides. He goes on to say :
Colonel Otter replied that he knew more about the matter than any one else, as he had made the arrangements, and later on in a private interview told me that my extension to two years depended upon me recommending Major Glasgow, saying further, that when in Ottawa some time previous to this the General Officer Commanding had told him to express to me his regrets that he was unable to carry through my extension for a longer period than one year, and that after leaving the General Officer Commanding he went to another person (but did not give name)

I think the House will be curious to know who that was.
-and arranged with him that if I recommended Major Glasgow for the position of second in command my time of command would be extended two years. ,

I do not notice in the correspondence that the hon. minister has referred to a few moments ago any instructions or memoranda by which we can draw any satisfactory inference as to how that result was brought about. There is nothing in the correspondence to indicate how the change took place. There was a changing of mind here on the part of those in authority over Colonel Gregory, but I do not find anything in the correspondence that shows how it came about There should be some explanation given to the House as to how it arose, because Colonel Gregory says that Colonel Otter, after leaving the General Officer Commanding, went to another person, but did not give the name, and arranged with him that if Colonel Gregory recommended Major Glasgow for the position of second in command Colonel Gregory's time of command would be extended two years, and that information had been conveyed to the General Officer Commanding that his time was to be extended for another year. I want to point out to this House, in endeavouring to do my duty in this matter in the interests of the people of Canada, that, although I am not, as I said, a qualified military man, I do understand the difference between a combatant and a non-combatant. I think we all understand without being in the militia that a man who is trained as a surgeon is not the best man to command in a fight. If it is a question of which wing of the army you shall put forward, if it is a question of drill, if it is a question of whether you shall march or counter-march, a surgeon is not the best man to put in command. I want to tell the hon. minister that we have two officers in our district, Major Stull and Major Birch, who, although residents of my constituency, are not both supporters of mine in politics. The hon. minister need not be afraid of that. He has already heard of Major Birch. He knows that Major Birch had a brother who lost his life in South Africa, he knows that he lives in the county of Lincoln, and he knows that he is a well qualified major of these dragoons.
Major Stull is also a well qualified combatant officer in this regiment ; these two gentlemen are the next best qualified after Colonel Gregory to take command of that troop of dragoons. Colonel Otter, who went out of his way to recommend Major Glasgow, for some strange reason, has shown by his course the necessity for having Colonel Gregory's certificate and not that of some outsider who apparently did not know there were two majors who were the next best qualified to command the troop after Colonel Gregory. But what did they do ? Major Glasgow was a surgeon-major ; he took this very much hurried course-I think it was for less than a month-to qualify him, [DOT]and he was appointed instead of Major Stull and Major Birch who were overlooked entirely by whoever was interfering-for somebody was interfering-and this Major
Glasgow who was promoted


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


Frederick William Borden: I know my hon. friend (Mr. Lancaster) does not wish to mislead the House, but he must know, if he has acquainted himself with the case at all, that Major Glasgow was the next in order of seniority,


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not know what this government, or this Minister of Militia, means by next in order of seniority, but if he means that Major Glasgow was the next best qualified I take issue with him. Major Glasgow was a surgeon-major


Frederick William Borden: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman must know that Major Glasgow was the senior major in command of the senior squadron of that regiment and that he had been in that position for at least two years.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If so, he was there without proper qualification as a combatant officer.


Frederick William Borden: Which is not true.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I am perhaps on dangerous ground not being a militia man-


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. member will allow me


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


Samuel Hughes: I have as much right to interrupt as the Minister of Militia, and I object to the impertinence of the Minister of Inland Revenue in calling ' Hear, hear.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If I chose to give the floor temporarily to my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) I suppose I could do so ?


Samuel Hughes: I hold in my hand the militia list, and I find that these three officers were gazetted on exactly the same day, viz., the 16th of February, 1902.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: And I think that list describes Major Glasgow as a surgeon-major. Although not a military man myself I have still impudence enough-if you like to use the word-to believe that a surgeon-major is not so well fitted to command a regiment as a major who is a combatant officer. The fact that he is a surgeon-major merely means that he is given the rank and perquisites of a major, but he is not in the force as a combatant officer. If as surgeon-major, he was two years in command of the troop, then there is another grievance against the government, and I can well understand that Colonel Gregory thought it *was time to put an end to such a state of things. Although as I have said, I am not in the militia, I represent the militia of the county of Lincoln, and I believe it is my duty to raise this question in parliament. As there are other gentlemen on both sides of the House who are well versed in military matters, and who will no doubt take

part in this debate, I shall not trespass further on the time of the House.


Mr. HYMAN C. S.@: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) has pinned his faith entirely in this discussion on a letter written to him by Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) has shown an utter disregard,-I think I might say contempt- for the papers which have been laid on the table of the House, and whenever he was pressed to give fair play to Major Glasgow he shielded himself behind the fact that he has no particular knowledge of military affairs. I would venture to advise the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) to acquaint himself somewhat with the ordinary rules governing military proceedings and promotions before he attempts to discuss a question of this kind in parliament. The letter which the hon. gentleman read is almost word for word the statement which Colonel Gregory published in the ' Mail and Empire ' on the 23rd of June last ; and before proceeding with the main statement which I have to make on this subject, I will make a passing reference to this statement, which, by the way, I may observe at the outset, was an exceedingly improper statement for Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory to make. It was a direct violation of the regulations of the Militia Department of Canada, and a direct violation of the King's regulations as well ; a fact which must have been known at the time to Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory.


Samuel Hughes: How is that ?


Frederick William Borden: If the hon. gentleman wishes information I will endeavour to give it to him.


Samuel Hughes: At the time Colonel Gregory wrote the letter was he under orders ?


Frederick William Borden: At the time Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory made the statement he was still commanding officer of the 2nd Hussars though possibly under suspension.


Samuel Hughes: Was he in camp ?


Frederick William Borden: 
Mr. INGRAM.: Is the minister quite sure that Colonel Gregory was in camp when that letter appeared in the ' Mail and Empire ?


Frederick William Borden: I believe so.


Andrew B. Ingram: My impression is that he was not.


Frederick William Borden: He was still in command of the regiment.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He had sent in his resignation; he had left the camp and had gone home before he gave the interview.


Frederick William Borden: He is still on the reserve list of officers and is equally under the regulations.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the date ?


Frederick William Borden: [DOT] The 23rd is the day it is published. The article in the ' Mail and Empire ' is dated Niagara-on-the-Lake, June 22, from which I assume that the statement was made there and sent from there, and that he was in camp at the time.
With regard to the language of this statement there are just two or three observations which I wish to make. In view of tile statement that unjust conditions are attempted to be made, I wish to call attention to the fact that Lt.-Col. Gregory insisted on having three years' extension, which is the maximum permitted under the regulations, and at the outset refused to accept any less, and threatened to resign his commission if less than three years were given. He finally modified that to two years. Further on he says that he * was given to understand by Col. Otter that some one was urging the matter,' and so on ; the insinuation all through being that either the minister himself was taking a personal interest in this matter, or that some one behind the minister was urging the minister to take this personal interest.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Frederick William Borden: Although the hon. gentleman did not make that statement, I make it for him, and I say that such an insinuation is absolutely unfounded and without the slightest justification. Moreover, the hon. member bases his argument entirely upon the ipse dixit of Lt.-CoI. Gregory, and reiterates Col. Gregory's statement as to conversations which took place between Col. Otter and himself, in which Col. Gregory puts words into the mouth of Col. Otter for which there is no proof whatever, and which I doubt very much Col. Otter ever uttered. He says, for instance :
On the 23rd I had an interview with the General Officer Commanding in Ottawa, and he gave

me to understand that my tenure of command had been extended for two years.
I do not believe a word of that. I do not see how it is possible that the General Officer Commanding could have given such an assurance as that when the matter had not been discussed with me, and had not been recommended to the minister. Then he goes on to say that Col. Otter visited Ottawa, and saw the General Officer Commanding and then ' went to another person,' meaning, I suppose, the minister. I wish to say here most emphatically that so far a* I know and believe and can remember, Col. Otter nev'er discussed the question of Lt.-Col. Gregory with me, here or anywhere else in his life.
1 do not know that I need refer to any more of the points mentioned in that letter. But, Sir, I propose, in the discussion of this matter, to refer to the papers which have been laid upon the table of the House. Before doing so, however, let me refer again to a matter which I referred to in a debate which took place in this House on the 23rd of June, namely, the question of the limitation of the extension of Lt.-Col. Gregory's extension to one year instead of three years. There was a recommendation, which will be found in these papers, from Col. Otter that Col. Gregory's term should be extended for two years. That recommendation came before me, and I saw fit-and I believe I acted wisely, as the events prove-to change that to an extension for one year. I did it in conformity with a practice whjich I had adopted; because great injury and injustice may be done to worthy junior officers by these long extensions of time. If after an extension of one year it turns out that there is still good reason why a further extension should be made, it is always possible to make a further extension. No possible harm can be done by limiting the extension in the first place to one year, because it can always be extended another year and yet another year; but the greatest harm and injustice to worthy, capable and qualified young officers may be done by an immediate extension of time to three years at the outset.
Now, to come to the papers. We are told that Lt.-Col. Gregory is a good officer. I do not quarrel with that statement. I believe he is an excellent cavalry officer ; but I cannot say as much for the methods by which he proposed to keep himself in the command of his regiment after the term for which he was appointed had expired. He was appointed for the regular term of five years, and at the end of five years he proposed, by hook or by crook, to continue in the command for three years more, and threatened the district officer commanding that if he did not give him the extra three years he would resign the command of his regiment. Well, Sir, let me point out to the House the peculiar methods which Sir F. W. BORDEN.
this gentleman adopted in order to attain his end. Let me point out the peculiar little game this gentleman was playing. The second in command of his regiment- will the House believe it ?-was a doctor- not Dr. Glasgow, but one of the best friends the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) has in his constituency or in the neighbouring constituency-Dr. Ferguson, a prominent Conservative. I suppose it is all right for a medical man to hold a combatant position under such circumstances.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: With a combatant's rank.


Frederick William Borden: Dr. Ferguson was second in command, with precisely the same qualification that Dr. Glasgow had. Let me stop here for a moment to say, in justice to my profession, that we are sometimes able to fight, and that some of the best combatant officers to-day are medical men. Let me point to Dr. King, whom the hon. gentleman knows. Will the hon. gentleman undertake to sneer at Dr. King because he is a medical man ? I think he will not dare to do it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Will my hon. friend permit me ? I did not object to his being a medical man. I said he had a medical training only, not a combatant's training.


Frederick William Borden: Which is not fair, if it were parliamentary, I would say it is not true ; because the hon. gentleman knows, or ought to know, if he examined the papers, that Dr. Glasgow possessed exactly as good a qualification as Dr. Ferguson or Dr. King. In saying that I speak of what I know. It does not do for the hon. gentleman to shake his head and make denials against facts. So much for this doctor, the Dr. Ferguson who is all right and to whom the hon. gentleman took no exception. Dr. Ferguson, in accordance with the peculiar methods which I am going to expose on the part of Col. Gregory, was unfit, as I shall show by Col. Otter's report for five long years to fill the position of second in command. He was kept there by Col. Gregory for the very purpose of giving him an excuse for asking that his own tenure of command be extended because the second in command was unfit to fill his place.
Mr. LANCASTER, There is no evidence of that.


Frederick William Borden: The papers will show that.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Frederick William Borden: I will explain. The reason is that Colonel Gregory had made up his mind that for some reason or other best known to himself, Major Glasgow should not be promoted to the position of second in command although qualified, and he insisted that before he would recommend Major Glasgow, although Major Glasgow was qualified, he must have a promise from Glasgow that he would attend another course. For wrhat purpose ? To improve his qualification, not to get qualified, those are not the words.


An hon. MEMBER.: Oh, oh.


Frederick William Borden: My hon. friend may laugh, but it was to improve his qualification, and those are the words which Lieut.-Colonel Gregory has carefully used.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not making any suggestion to the contrary, but I am risking for information. Why is it in this case that Colonel Otter concurs in that and advises Major Glasgow to do it ? He is not in a conspiracy with Colonel Gregory.


Frederick William Borden: Because Colonel Otter was anxious to have peace in this regiment and I dare say Colonel Otter recognized even Colonel Gregory himself would not suffer by taking a further course to improve his qualifications, and he was quite willing to co-operate with Colonel Gregory to insist so far as he could although the officer was qualified that he should take or so advise that he should take a further . course to improve his qualifications which [DOT]were already sufficient technically at any rate for the purpose of promotion.
Now, I wish to come to a little closer quarters with Colonel Gregory and I wish to point direct to the attention of the House to a letter which appears in this file of papers, which was laid on the table of the House. The letter is one addressed by Colonel Gregory, in December, 1902. to the District Officer Commanding, Colonel Otter, with reference to officers of his regiment who he said were * indifferent '. This is a report which refers to those officers only who are * indifferent This is the letter.
Sir, I have the honour to report that the officers mentioned in my report as indifferent are :
,1st. Major Glasgow, who intends taking another course at the school.
2nd. Captain M. S. Muir, who is a poor horseman.
3rd. E. D. Taylor, who is not yet qualified.
Evidently the other two were qualified.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
ROLAND W. GREGORY, Lieutenant-Colonel Commanding 2nd Dragoon*.
Now, I have here the report in detail, the confidential report of Colonel Gregory, dated December 3, 1902, in which he reports upon every officer in his regiment in detail under the headings.
General ability, general professional requirement, practical proficiency in drill and in the field, professional zeal, smartness in performance of duties, horsemanship, capacity for command, judgment, tact, temper, self-reliance, and 1 is he fit for promotion for higher rank ? '
Now, let us look at these men. First, there is Lieutenant-Colonel Roland IV. Gregory himself, who is reported upon by Colonel Otter.
Next comes this Doctor, Major Ferguson, William R. Ferguson, and next comes the other Doctor, the objectionable Doctor, S. H. Glasgow. I follow these two names through under the above headings and I find that whereas Dr. Ferguson, second in command is reported upon as fair, Dr. Glasgow is reported upon in the same column us good. Under the next column where Dr. Ferguson is reported as fair, Dr. Glasgow is reported as good. So it goes on. In nearly every column in this report, Dr. Ferguson is reported, upon as fair, and Dr. Glasgow is reported upon as good. In only one case is Dr. Ferguson reported upon as good where Dr. Glasgow' is reported upon as fair. This I think is somewhat significant. But it so happens that both are reported upon under the heading of ' Practical proficiency in drill and in the field,' as indifferent. But it does so happen too that under the column
Is he fit for promotion to higher rank ?
Mark you they are majors now.
Is he fit for promotion to higher rank ?
The answer to the question by Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, confirmed by Colonel Otter is * Yes.'


John Graham Haggart: Does that mean that he is qualified, that they reported him qua-fied ?


Frederick William Borden: Qualified for major and fit to be promoted to a higher rank, namely, lieutenant-colonel.


Mr. WARD.: I believe that confidential report also gives the qualifications of officers, does it not 1


Frederick William Borden: No. I read all that it gives, but I will give the qualifications before I have finished.


Henry Alfred Ward: The hon. gentleman has referred to that qualification which was possessed by Major Glasgow and I would lie glad if the minister before leaving the question of qualification would give exactly the qualifications which these two officers possess.


Frederick William Borden: They both possess the qualification of field officers' qualifications. Ferguson's qualification is R.S.C. and Glasgow's qualification is field officer's which is equivalent as I shall show before I get through with my statement.
Now I want to call attention particularly -because I am dealing with Gregory, the

gentleman who has obtruded himself upon the consideration of this House and this country-to the fact that Colonel Gregory has written a letter which singles out Major Glasgow as being indifferent when the record, his own record, shows that Major Glasgow's qualification and his character for fitness and good conduct are better than that of Major Ferguson, and I wish to show you, Mr. Speaker, that this was part of a scheme to discredit Major Glasgow and to keep on Major Ferguson who was not able to attend drill in 1901, indeed was not in camp at all, was only in camp a few days in 1902 and was not able to go to camp in 1903. There again the game was to keep Ferguson on in order to be able to say that he was unfit. He was unable to speak above a whisper and he was kept in that place as a sort of warming pan so that Colonel Gregory could use him and be able to say : There is no second in command able to take my place ; therefore I must be kept where I am.


Robert Laird Borden: The letter to which the hon. gentleman refers accompanies that same report, does it not ? They are of the same date.


Frederick William Borden: This report is not in the letter of Colonel Gregory at all.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has read a letter in which Major Glasgow is described as one of the officers who are indifferent. It is dated the 13th of December, 1902, and he gave that same date as the date of this confidential report.


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Then the letter accompanied the report.


Frederick William Borden: Exactly. And the letter is a misleading one intended to call attention to Major Glasgow in an unfavourable way, while passing over Major Ferguson who was in a worse position, on Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory's own report, than Major Glasgow himself. The hon. gentleman has referred to a round-robin signed by all the officers of Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory's regiment, asking that his term of command be extended. If the hon. gentleman will look through the papers, he will find that both Colonel Otter and Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory were severely reprimanded, I might almost say-it did not amount to that-but at any rate exception was taken to the fact that a round-robin had been signed in that way, because that is absolutely against all military rules and regulations ; and I am informed-I do not state it as a fact-but from all I can hear and see, and reading between the lines, I am disposed to believe that the statement which has been made to me, namely, that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory procured the signing of that round-robin. This is the Sir F. W. BORDEN.
memorandum that was sent from headquarters :
Will you please inform Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory to communicate to the officers of his regiment that it is highly improper for them to send any communication with reference to his tenure of command.
How could an officer refuse ? This paper is put before him. He does not wish to run the risk of getting the ill will of his commanding officer and he signs it, and such a request is against all military regulations and rules, and the reason is obvious.
It was your duty when you received this round-robin, to communicate to the officers of the 2nd Dragoons the great breach of military etiquette and military procedure of which they were guilty, and to have returned the round-robin to those who signed it.
Now we come to the extension of time. On the 4th of September, 1903, under the heading of ' Appointments, promotions, &c., general order 149 ' we find the following :-
2nd Dragoons-the period of the tenure of command of Lieutenant-Colonel R. W. Gregory is extended to the 12th July, 1904.
It will be remembered that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory in his letter appears to complain of the fact that he found that Major Ferguson's case was being inquired into and it appeared probable that Major Ferguson would have to resign. Major Ferguson was being kept, as I have stated, for a certain purpose, and later on somebody seems to have ascertained the fact. Colonel Gregory, I believe, feared a medical board to examine into the case of Major Ferguson would follow ; and Major Ferguson was advised by him that he would lose his position and that he had better make a virtue of necessity and resign rather than have any examination.


Samuel Hughes: Who ordered the medical board ?


Frederick William Borden: I did not say that a medical board was ordered. I said that it was expected that a medical examination would be made and a medical board appointed to look into the matter.


Samuel Hughes: Is there any evidence of that in the report ? I do not know of any private correspondence or evidence of that.


Frederick William Borden: I am not aware that there is any.


Samuel Hughes: On what does the minister base his statement.


Frederick William Borden: 
Samuel Hughes: Whose statement is that ?


Frederick William Borden: I am quoting the paragraph itself. Now Colonel Otter states distinctly in his letter here that there was no question whatever about Major Glasgow's qualification. But we are told that there was an attempt made to make a bargain with Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, that conditions were imposed. I want to call your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that the man who wished to impose
conditions was Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory himself. First, he wished to impose the condition that his extension must be for three years, and if it was not for ,three years, he forsooth, would have none of it, and would resign his commission-which he thought better of afterwards. But, Mr. Speaker, let me point out the fact that no conditions were being forced upon Colonel Gregory, so far as I know, but he was attempting to insist upon conditions with Colonel Otter before he would agree to do what it was his bounden duty to do, to recommend, unless there was some strong objection against it, the promotion of Major iGlasgow who was next in seniority. And what were the conditions which he wished to impose ? He wished to impose the condition that although Major Glasgow might be promoted to the position of second in command, he should not take that position, but should remain in command, I think it was of D squadron, until after the next camp, that is that he might in name only be second in command ; and that as long as Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, who has followed him with the utmost hostility and endeavoured to block his .promotion, remained there, he should not act upon the staff and take his position of second in command alongside of the pretentious Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory. When we talk about conditions, those were the terms which Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory undertook to impose upon the District Officer Commanding, Colonel Otter, and Colonel Otter very properly refused to be dictated to in any such way. It is stated that Colonel Lessard went to Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory and asked him to sign the recommendation, and that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory agreed to do so, and then putting the pen to one side, refused; and after writing letter after letter and doing everything that mortal man could do both Colonel Otter and Colonel Lessard found that it was necessary, in order to do simple justice to Major Glasgow, for them to act without the recommendation of Colonel Gregory, and this they did. I am sure that any impartial man who will read the papers and observe the course which Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory has pursued from the beginning, the means by which he was keeping an unqualified man for fivp years, knowing him to be unqualified, a man who was not able to attend camp in three years, a man who is described in the manner which I will read in a moment, by the District Officer Commanding, Colonel Otter, keeping that man in a position which was directly against the interests of the militia and of the country, in order to keep Major Glasgow down and to keep himself in


Samuel Hughes: I presume the minister means unqualified, not in a military sense ?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: He does not mean that jViajor Ferguson had not proper certificates.


Frederick William Borden: No, he had no voice.


Samuel Hughes: That is what I want made clear.


Frederick William Borden: I do not know what that would be called.


Robert Laird Borden: Had he the same qualification as Major Glasgow ?


Frederick William Borden: I am informed in the department that it is precisely the same, although the letters are not the same. In the case of Major Ferguson it is R. S. I., but in the case of Major Glasgow it is F.O., field oflicer, which is a more recent qualification, but I am informed is just as good a qualification. Now I want to read what Colonel Otter says with reference to this matter. Here is what Colonel Otter, writing to the adjutant-general, says with reference to Dr. Ferguson, second in command :
Toronto, 8th July, 1904.
Sir,-In reply to your memorandum of yesterday's date I have the honour to report upon the duty performed by Major Ferguson, late -2nd Dragoons, during the latter part of his connection with the regiment.
1901,	absent with leave for the whole period of training.
1902,	absent with leave for four days of training.
1903,	absent with leave for the whole period of training.
As to the ability of this officer to perform his military duties satisfactorily I have no hesitation in affirming that owing to the loss of his voice from an affection of the throat he has not been fit for his military duties during the last five years of his connection with this regiment. In this assertion I am sure that both Colonel Lessard, inspector of cavalry, and his own commanding officer, Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, will bear me out. In the interest of the regiment I should have reported his case long ago, but as he informed me, whenever the inquiry was made, that he hoped soon to be quite well again, I deferred action until it became apparent that his recovery was most doubtful, and that the efficiency of the regiment was becoming affected through the want of a second in command who was able to undertake the duties of that appointment.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
W. D. OTTER, Colonel.


Samuel Hughes: Wliat is the date of that letter V


Frederick William Borden: That letter is dated 8th of July, 1904, a few days ago. I do not know that i need go further in the matter. It seems to me it has been abundantly proved that the course which I pursued in limiting the extension of the com-Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
mand of Colonel Gregory, was in the interest of the public service. There is proof that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, although he may be a very good officer, was a man who possessed so little regard for the public interest in connection with his regiment that he kept as second in command, for a period of years during which this man was unable to attend camp, a man whom he knew could never be able to succeed him as commanding officer of the regiment.
I believe that the papers justify me in saying that he did it with malice prepense, that he did it deliberately for the purpose of keeping the place warm for himself so that he could hold it for the extra three years or for a longer period if possible. I say that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, knowing the facts concerning Major Fqrgusonr, has fallen far short of performing his duty in reference to that officer. I say that he has slrown a malevolent disposition, at least an unfair disposition towards Major Glasgow who was qualified, who has been qualified for three years past and who holds as good a qualification as Major Gregory does himself, by standing persistently in that officer's way and refusing when he had no good reason for doing so to recommend that that officer be promoted to be second in command and before he would agree to sign the recommendation for promotion endeavouring to Impose the condition that Major Glasgow, although he could be promoted to the second in command, should not be promoted and should not eujoy the results of that promotion until after the next camp and until after Major Gregory had passed out of the regiment.


John Graham Haggart: What was the date of the qualification of Major Glasgow for F.O. -Field Officer ?


Frederick William Borden: The date of qualification was the 6th February, 1902. In conclusion let me repeat, if I may, what I have said before, that I believe it is in the interest of the militia and therefore in the interest of the public that these extensions of command should be reduced to a minimum and that no extension of command should be made unless absolutely necessary. I believe it is the duty of the department, and of the head of the deartment to give special attention to matters of this kind and see that abuses such as those which existed in connection with this regiment are not permitted to exist and are not repeated in the service of the militia.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. minister rose to his feet he reproved my hon. friend the legal member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) for having shown a disregard and contempt for the papers laid on the table of the House. He demanded fair play for Major Glasgow and he said that my hon. friend had shielded

himself behind his lack of knowledge of the duties of a militia officer, at the same time advising my hon. friend to make himself acquainted with the rules governing the militia. A very strange doctrine, Mr. Speaker, coming from the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence, who, as is evidenced by the facts that have been brought before us in recent weeks, has shown an utter disregard and contempt for the papers laid on the table of the House. My hon. friend from Lincoln, I venture to say, and I am within the judgment of the House, adhered more closely to the papers laid upon the table of the House than did the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence. The hon. minister has paid no attention whatever either directly or indirectly to the papers laid on the table of the House except in so far as it suited his own convenience to draw from them improper inferences in relation to Major Ferguson and in relation to the conduct of Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory. A point at the outset and it is an old point of contention between the hon. minister and myself ; he asserted that this letter which Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory wrote to the Toronto 'Mail and Empire' on the 23rd June, was written in direct violation of the King's regulations. I asked him at the time how it was a violation of the King's regulations and he gave us to understand, although he qualified it somewhat later, that Colonel Gregory was then in camp. I am going to show that the hon. minister paid no attention to the papers he has in his hand, because if he had done so he would have found that it was by his own order that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory was suspended from his command and that he returned to his home dismissed from his regiment on the 20th June, three days before he wrote that letter.


Frederick William Borden: Does my hon. friend think that it makes any difference ?


Samuel Hughes: I am coming to that in a moment. I am merely pointing out to the hon, minister that he was wrong and that my hon. friend from Lincoln did not utterly disregard the papers laid on the table.


Frederick William Borden: That paper is not on the table of the House.


Samuel Hughes: Well, the papers are here in my hands.


Frederick William Borden: Oh, yes.


Samuel Hughes: Furnished by the hon. minister, I presume they are genuine. And here let me ask the hon. minister if all the papers have been brought down. If they have not been we want them. I understood from Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory and other sources that the papers are not all here.


Frederick William Borden: In regard to that, the hon. leader of the opposition
(Mr. R. L. Borden) asked the other day for some letters which had passed between us and Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory. I intended to state before and I shall repeat now what I said to the hon. leader of the opposition to-day that these papers will be here to-night or to-morrow morning. I propose to lay them on the table.


Robert Laird Borden: It is four weeks since I particularly specified that I desired these papers as well as the others. I would have thought that with a reasonable amount of effort they might have been here a fortnight ago. Let me point out that if the copy with which I have been furnished of the papers laid on the table of the House is correct, the document referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Sam. Hughes) is among the papers brought down.


Frederick William Borden: I thought my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) referred to Colonel Gregory's letter published in the ' Mail and Empire.'


Samuel Hughes: No. I was referring to the minister's letter dismissing Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory. As to the papers which have not been brought down the hon. minister will be able to bring them down possibly after six o'clock in case they are not now here. The hon. minister himself in a former debate referred to the tact that he assumed the responsibility of order -ing that LieutenantHColonel Gregory should not get an extension of command. I do not find any such order here. The hon. minister will remember distinctly that he himself ' assumed the responsibility of issuing the order that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory should , not get an extension of command. I find no such order here. Will the hon. minister bring that down ?


Frederick William Borden: There is no such order but what happened was that . when the 1 Gazette ' was made out a recom-' irendation was made for two years and that 1 recommendation was modified to one year.
; That is what happened and there were no | papers in connection with it.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. min-[DOT] ister has referred to various. other matters in connection with this subject, and I shall , take up the point in reference to the King's ! regulations. I have shown that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory was not in camp at the time he wrote that letter to the Toronto i [DOT] Mail and Empire.' Now I want to tell the : lion, miuister one thing so that he will cor:	rectly understand one of the principles of
liberty and of responsible government, and '7 so that he will understand what it is to live . in a free country and not be under the ty-r ranny of some dark age tyrant; I want to tell him that when Lieutenant-Colonel Gre-1 gory is not on duty and is not in uniform he i can write as many letters as he can get the

papers to publish and that he is absolutely independent of the Minister of Militia. Is it a repetition of the Ponton case that the hon. minister would have brought before us ? Is he going to dragoon every man in the militia who dares to stand up before him or the Militia Department ; and endeavour to silence him in this way '!


Frederick William Borden: I would venture to suggest that as a matter of fair play, it would possibly be just as well not to discuss the Ponton case, as my opportunity for speaking is exhausted. I will be quite prepared to discuss the Ponton case when the time comes, but it would be unfair to discuss it at this moment unless I am given an opportunity to reply.


Samuel Hughes: We will discuss the case the minister has before him where the members of the musketry school down here are marched up like so many school boys and ordered to give a statement. The minister talks about round-robins, but what was done in the case of the men attending the musketry school ? Let me ask him how any of these poor fellows down at the school of musketry dare refuse the order of the commandant of the school to say that everything was satisfactory Why should not a lot of free men speak out and say that they wanted Colonel Gregory to remain as commanding officer ? I am glad that last night the men and the officers at the school of musketry showed themselves free men, and ready to stand up in defiance of the tyranny of their superiors, and to take part in the grand demonstration on the departure of the late General Officer Commanding. What are the facts of the case ? Colonel Gregory was in command of his regiment and there was no question as to his qualification. He comes from a military family ; he has been in the force for a generation you may say, and he has always borne the reputation of being one of the best officers in the service. Colonel Gregory had as senior major, one Major Ferguson who was an excellent officer in many ways, but whose voice had failed him. The doctors reported again and again that it was only going to be a temporary failure of the voice, and Major Gregory was absolutely justified in keeping Major Ferguson second in command until some other officer qualified. Any one who has commanded one of these corps knows the difficulty there was eight or nine years ago when an officer had to go to a permanent school and put on all the fuss and feathers of a parade before Her Majesty ; one can readily understand how lots of these fellows hesitated about the expense of going to these schools. Colonel Gregory was justified in keeping Major Ferguson there until some one was qualified for second in command.


Frederick William Borden: What Glasgow had done on the 6th of February, 1902.


Samuel Hughes: 


Samuel Hughes: I will come to that later on. Colonel Gregory became officer commanding on the 12th July, 1898, and Major Ferguson succeeded to his majority on the 20th of January, 1899, and proved himself to be a very excellent officer. Gregory's five years were up and he was given a year's extension which brought his term to the 12th of July, 1904. I remember distinctly that Colonel Gregory some years ago told me that his business affairs would not permit of his taking hold of the regiment under the proposed reorganization, unless he were given a three years extension. He is a commercial traveller ; is away from home a good deal of the time and he wanted three years in order that he might have a chance under the new arrangement to do justice to himself and his regiment. That is why Colonel Gregory wanted three years extension, and in all fairness he was as entitled to it as any man in Canada was ever entitled to an extension of time. I know for a fact that Colonel Gregory dogged Ferguson to get the best medical treatment possible to have his voice restored so that when he retired from command of the regiment Major Ferguson would be able to take his place. About the beginning of last year we began to see signs of political meddling. Colonel Otter and Colonel Gregory were in Ottawa as is shown by references in the correspondence.


Frederick William Borden: It is simply a statement of Colonel Gregory that Colonel Otter told him, and it is absolutely unsupported.


Samuel Hughes: The minister will not deny that on the 4th of April, 1903, Colonel Otter wrote recommending the extension of Colonel Gregory's command for two years in addition to the other.


Frederick William Borden: Not in addition to the other.


Samuel Hughes: Well for two years. Colonel Otter wrote :
My reasons for such recommendation are these :
1st. The officer next in command, Major Ferguson, is not at present prepared to accept the command, as will be seen by the accompanying telegram in answer to a communication from me as to his wishes in the matter. The remaining officers of the regiment have also expressed their desire in the form of the inclosed petition-


Frederick William Borden: Round-robin.


Samuel Hughes: Call it what you like. They had an absolute right to sign this and the minister cannot lay his finger on anything in the King's regulations or the Army Act to the contrary. The minister must remember that the militia of Canada are not a permanent force paid for 365 days in the year ; but must remember that

we are determined to preserve our individuality as citizens in this free country, and we are not going to be held under the beck and nod of every pettifogging officer no matter how high he may be ; even the minister himself. He must remember that we are not going to be dragooned and held to the strict letter of regulations which do not apply in England to the militia volunteers or yeomanry but only to the regular forces. Does the minister imagine that we are going to allow him to dragoon us into line in this country ? We are not.


Frederick William Borden: Oh, well, we know you are a great man, but I might point out that there are special regulations that apply to the militia in England which are quite as strong as the regulation I read. I am not sure that this particular regulation does not apply to the militia in England, but I think it does, and be that as it may the King's regulations apply to the militia in Canada.


Samuel Hughes: In this country the King's regulations apply only when a man is on duty or in uniform, and the minister knows that because he and I have discussed it on many an occasion.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Oh, well


Samuel Hughes: The minister admits it, and the West York market gardener need not interfere. The next statement of Colonel Otter is this :
The remaining officers of the regiment have also expressed their desire in the form of the inclosed petition, that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory should remain for another term.
The minister says that the other officers were anxious to get Colonel Gregory out, but I know several of them and I know they are independent free men who would scorn to sign this petition at the request of Colonel Gregory or any one else, if they did not believe it. Colonel Otter goes on to say :
2. That none of the squadron commanders have had charge of their squadrons for more than eighteen months, and lack the experience to fit them to command the regiment.


Frederick William Borden: And I extended the time for one year so that they would have eighteen months, plus a year.


Samuel Hughes: How does the minister get over the statement that Colonel Otter says they were not fit to command ?


Frederick William Borden: After the time was extended a year they would have two and a half years then.


Samuel Hughes: I am speaking of the facts at the time the two years were refused. I have given the reason why Colonel Gregory wished the two years extension and I am now giving the recommendation of Colonel Otter. So the minister cannot turn it on Colonel Gregory and Major
Ferguson and endeavour to show that it was a conspiracy on their part. I am going by the record laid on the table of this House.
Third, That in view of the great improvement in the efficiency of the regiment that has taken place during Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory's command, I think he as deserving of the recognition of his services which I now recommend.
What further proof do we want, in the face of Colonel Otter's own recommendation, of the political meddling of the hon. member for Welland and the senator representing that district ? The minister endeavoured, until I corrected him, to make it appear that Major Glasgow was considerably the senior of the other gentlemen in the regiment. I want to point out that the officers of the regiment stand as follows : Major Ferguson ; Major Glasgow ; Dr. Ferguson's full majority dates from February, 1892.


Frederick William Borden: If my hon. friend looks further in the list, he will learn that Major Ferguson was put in on the same day as Major Glasgow. How does he happen to be at the top ?


Samuel Hughes: I will tell the hon. gentlemen how. Dr. Ferguson was a major in that regiment in January, 1899, when Dr. Glasgow was not in a cavalry regiment at all, but was a surgeon, I believe, in the 44th Regiment, an infantry regiment in the city of St. Catharines. Is that satisfactory to the minister ?


Frederick William Borden: Is Dr. Ferguson a combatant officer ?


Samuel Hughes: Certainly.


Frederick William Borden: Then Dr. Glasgow is.


Samuel Hughes: Dr. Glasgow was not a combatant officer until 1902 ; the minister does not pretend that he was ; whereas Dr. Ferguson was in the regiment for fifteen or twenty years. Another thing : let me ask the minister why Birch and Stull, men with equal qualifications to Dr. Glasgow, men who had distinguished themselves in a cavalry regiment for many years, the brother of one of whom went to South Africa, and both of them good Liberals-'although that makes no difference, for we refuse to recognize the politics of any man in the militia-why these two men were passed over and a medical doctor from the 44th Regiment was selected instead, and put over their heads. Will the minister answer that question ?


Frederick William Borden: Because Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory so recommended.


Samuel Hughes: Let me ask a fur-the question. What machinery was behind Colonel Gregory at that date to get that done ?


Frederick William Borden: I do not know.


Samuel Hughes: I am pointing out to the minister that if we want to criticise motives, we can show what the motive was from the start to the finish. Now, Sir, what are the facts of the whole case ? Colonel Gregory reports, away back on December 3rd, 1902, that Major Glasgow is indifferent. The minister tried to make some capital out of the confidential report. Let me say that I do not believe in these confidential reports. I never made a confidential report in my life without showing it to every officer of the regiment. I object to these intrigues to cut a man's throat behind his back. The sooner that is stopped the better. There is hardly a regiment in this country in which the sheet which the minister holds in his hand is not taken advantage of. I was complimented once by the statement that I had sent in the most satisfactory report of my second in command in the whole community. I object to any commanding officer sending in a confidential report to the minister that would knife a man from behind his back. The first principle of British justice is to bring the accused and the accuser face to face ; and if the commanding officer has any charge to make against any man in his regiment, the man should have a chance to answer it. The report made by Colonel Gregory in reference to Major Ferguson shows that he was honest, because he says that although Major Ferguson had worked his way up in the regiment, he was not as good a man as he would like, being fair in general ability, fair in general professional requirements, indifferent in practical proficiency, in drill and in the field, good in all other respects excepting fair in judgment. All these things are brought out because Dr. Ferguson. I presume, was indifferent owing to being laid up by ill-health.


Frederick William Borden: What does the hon, gentleman have to say about the letter which he will find in the report of the 3rd of December, in which Colonel Gregory singles out Dr. Glasgow to be reported against, and makes no reference whatever to* Dr. Ferguson, who is certainly deserving of a more unfavourable report in that very report than Dr. Glasgow ?


Samuel Hughes: These are officers for promotion. Dr. Ferguson could not be promoted to any higher place, and therefore Colonel Gregory had no occasion to report upon him.


Frederick William Borden: If Colonel Gregory was going out, he would be promoted.


Samuel Hughes: No, he would have" to pass a special examination, as the minister knows. I had to do it, although I thought I knew as much about drill as the Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
others. I took the courses at Kingston and at London, although I had passed examinations in the same matters years before. Every officer in the service, as the minister knows, must do the same thing.


Frederick William Borden: If my hon. friend will look at the sheet under the heading of ' practical proficiency in drill and in the field,' he will find Major Ferguson marked indifferent and Major Glasgow indifferent ; and if he looks at the special report which Colonel Gregory makes he will find the following :
I have the honour to report that the officers mentioned in my report as indifferent are-
Not Major Ferguson, but first, Major Glasgow, although they are both reported indifferent in this report.


Samuel Hughes: Is the minister getting childish, or what is the matter with him ? This is a special report to Colonel Otter himself, and why should Colonel Gregory mention those who are indifferent ?


Frederick William Borden: Why should he put one man down as indifferent and not the other ?


Samuel Hughes: Because he is reporting men who are fit for promotion. Major Ferguson could not be promoted, because he was already second in command, and therefore did not require to be reported upon to Colonel Otter.


Frederick William Borden: If the hon. gentleman will allow me 1


Samuel Hughes: Oh, yes ; I will allow anything, although the minister is not always so courteous to me.


Frederick William Borden: Of course, I know I am very remiss in that regard.


Samuel Hughes: Yes, I am sure the minister has been quite brusque.


Frederick William Borden: Under heading 14 the question is put :
Is he fit for promotion to higher rank ?
The reply opposite to Ferguson's name is ' yes.' Thus he was fit for promotion according to Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory.


Samuel Hughes: Certainly.


Frederick William Borden: And liable to be promoted.


Samuel Hughes: These are for the position of second in command. Major Glasgow, who intended taking another course at school, and Taylor, who was not yet qualified. He reports Glasgow as indifferent in the two essentials for second in command-


Frederick William Borden: Ferguson also.


Samuel Hughes: As indiffrent in practical efficiency, in drill in the field, and

as only fair in horsemanship, the chief requisite of a good cavalry man. He reports Ferguson as good in horsemanship. These two points show that he had Major Glasgow's qualification for promotion in mind when he took the stand he did. Now, what are the facts ? He goes to Glasgow and says : Ferguson is unqualified to be promoted on account of the weakness in his throat, I want you to go to the school and he qualified. The minister has told us that this man Glasgow was as well qualified as the other. Now, the minister knows that technically he may be right, but practically he is absolutely wrong, and I shall show him by his own regulations that he is absolutely wrong. I will take the case of an officer who succeeds to the command of a regiment. Under the present regulations he must go and take his qualifying certificate ; that is, he must go and brush himself up, so to speak, before he can become commander of a regiment. As far back as 1897, I had to do that, so had my friend Colonel Thompson, my friend Colonel Ward, and every other oflicer in the country .before they could be promoted from one step to the other. A few years before, this did not have to be done. Is the minister fair to this House and the country in trying to make believe that the status in relation to the certificates and the regulations applying to the certificates are the same as they were ten years ago, although a man who came in ten years ago was as well qualified as one appointed now ? I will prove by his own regulations that he is wrong. In the regulation dated June, 1904, for appointments and promotions, I find :
No person shall be appointed or promoted to any command rank or appointment in the militia unless such person has the qualification which from time to time may be prescribed for such rank or appointment.
4. No person shall be promoted unless he has served at least two years in the rank which he then holds.
and 11, for whom special provision will bs made -and the third-class of non-commissioned officers mentioned in paragraph No. 2 of this order -except those resident in Military District* Nos. 10 and 11, for whom also special provision will be made-will be instructed at the Central Camp only.


Frederick William Borden: There was no central camp, and therefore there could be no qualification.


Samuel Hughes: I point out to the House that under the minister's own rules, before Major Glasgow


Frederick William Borden: No.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-could become second in command, he had to comply with this rule here, or else the rules are made fish for one and flesh for another.


Frederick William Borden: No.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHElS. I know that officers already had to pass these examinations, that there has been disturbance in the country before, and that under the minister's own regulations these officers have to comply with the necessary requirements before they can proceed.


Frederick William Borden: This is tfle celebrated regulation which was made in the effort to improve the education of officers, and this regulation did not rescind the previous regulations and orders of 1898, although, by an extraordinary attempt in a militia order, the General Officer Commanding undertook to make a militia general order rescind an Order in Council.


Samuel Hughes: He is not out of the country yet; be careful.


Frederick William Borden: I do not think I have shown myself to be very much afraid of the general or of the hon.'gentleman opposite.
Now, I turn to another militia order. No, 09, Wednesday, March 3, 1904. I find there that the classes for the purposes of professionally qualifying for promotions in the militia, other than the permanent force, will be divided into five classes. The fourth class is :
Of majors who desire to qualify for regimental command and of officers -who have passed the third-class examinations and desire to qualify for staff appointments.


Frederick William Borden: How are they to qualify ?


Samuel Hughes: By the rules.
Sir'FREDERICK BORDEN. By being instructed at a central camp. Look at clause 3, on the next page.


Samuel Hughes: The third, fourth and fifth classes of officers mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of this order-except those resident in Military Districts Nos 10 243
All previous orders relating to the training of officers and non-commissioned officers at schools of instruction, are cancelled.
That is, a General Officer Commanding by a mere militia order, attempted to cancel a general order. As a matter of fact the general order of 1898 is in force, and there has never been any qualification whatever under any other order than the order o' 1898, which covers the qualification of Maior Glasgow.	J ~


Samuel Hughes: 

language more forcible than polite, at a dinner at St. Catharines, that Lord Dundonald had nothing to do with granting an extension of command to Colonel Gregory, and that he would not get it.


Frederick William Borden: I do not believe that.


Samuel Hughes: I will take the word of a gentleman who heard him much in preference to that of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German).


Frederick William Borden: That is hard on a brother member of the House.


Samuel Hughes: In a letter from Lord Aylmer, the 30th June, 1904, Lord Aylmer asks-and I am sorry that the papers between Colonel Otter and Colonel Gregory are not here. I have them, but they are not official, and therefore I do not care to use them.


Frederick William Borden: The gentleman may use them ; I have them here, all but one letter, I believe, and I shall be glad to send them over.


Samuel Hughes: I think I have them all.


Frederick William Borden: Then there is no objection at all. As a matter of fact, I got the letters, and then received word from Colonel Otter that one letter had been found later, and I thought it better to bring them all down together.


Samuel Hughes: On January 10, 1904, Colonel Otter writes to Colonel Gregory :
My dear Colonel,-Will you please send me at once recommendation for the appointment of Major Glasgow as regimental major and also for the officer who is to succeed him in command of ' D ' squadron. I think that your extension for another year will be arranged.
(Sgd.) W. D. OTTER.
Colonel Gregory wrote in reply that he did not so intend. Colonel Otter writes on November 3 to Colonel Gregory in reference to the letter which I have previously quoted here, showing that he has again urged the department to give Colonel Gregory the extension. Then Colonel Gregory wrote a reply to Colonel Otter that he did not feel disposed to recommend Major Glasgow at that time. On the 14th of January, Otter comes hack on Gregory again. He says :
I have your note of yesterday and cannot understand what you mean by -writing such a reply to a request that you are in duty bound to accede to.
Why is he bound to accede to any political meddling of a senator or any minister ? If Colonel Otter is weak enough for this, Colonel Gregory is not weak enough to bow to this command.
Please explain this at once, as I cannot accept from you such a reply. It is, to say the Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
least of it insubordinate, though you may not be aware of it.
I want to point out that, on the day Col. Gregory wrote the letter, to which the letter of 14th January, 1901, was a reply, Col. Otter had not the slightest control over him. And as far as I am concerned, I am going to see that our militia officers and men show the spirit of freedom, and that when the minister or any of his satelites under the political regime that seems to be in force at present, undertakes to dragoon them, they will stand up for their rights as free men, and not allow themselves to be trampled upon. Under the statutory law of Canada, the minister has no control over these men except when on duty or in uniform.


Frederick William Borden: I have no control, but it seems to me their superior officers ought to have.


Samuel Hughes: Not the slightest. Why should they ? Has the minister no better opinion of the militia ?


Frederick William Borden: You would have a pretty funny militia if you had your way.


Samuel Hughes: Not at all. But we would have a very funny militia if _ any minister could lay his thumb on these' men and say to them :	You must dance to the
tune I play or I will make you suffer, because you are under the King's regulations, These men are not going to submit to that kind of thing. Then follows other correspondence until the 21st January, when Col. Otter again writes Col. Gregory :
I have yours of the 18th instant and accept your explanation in so far as the abruptness of your note is concerned, for most abrupt it was, being a direct refusal to carry out instructions given you without assigning any reason.
And a little later, when poor Col. Gregory assigned reasons, he was promptly dismissed from the service.
I want once more to tell you that it is necessary you should recommend Major Glasgow as second in command and also the officer who is to take over his squadron, so please let me have inclosed form duly filled in as soon as possible. You may be sure that X have good reasons for asking this action on your part.
I want to know these reasons. What are the good reasons which Col. Otter had for his action in this matter ? Was it a question of political pull ? Here again I want to revive the memory' of the minister, and possibly he bad better ask his deputy. The hon. minister told me in the House that he assumed the responsibility of cancelling the order giving Col. Gregory an extension of command for two years. I want to see that order.


Frederick William Borden: Not cancelled It, changed it.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister changed it, and I want to see it. We want that correspondence brought down. I am told that Col. Gregory informs his friends that there was an order of that kind issued.


Frederick William Borden: Does the hon. gentleman doubt my word ? I stated a moment ago that the thing happened in this way. A recommendation was made to extend the time for two years. I altered that recommendation to one year. There is not the slightest objection to showing the hon. gentleman or anybody else the original document.


Samuel Hughes: We would like to see it.


Frederick William Borden: But it is the first time since I have been in parliament that I have known an hon. gentleman to refuse to accept the statement of a minis-;ter as to a question of fact. Of course when the hon. gentleman doubts my word, I shall bring the paper down.


Samuel Hughes: The minister will pardon me. I want to tell him that I have every reason for thinking he is mistaken ; and I would suggest to him that he should consult his deputy and look up all the correspondence, and he will find out that Col. Gregory's statement is true, that the minister, through his deputy or somebody, issued an order to the General Officer Commanding to cancel the 1 Gazette ' which gave Col. Gregory two years' extension. The minister will find out, on examining the record, that what Col. Gregory informs his friends is true.


Frederick William Borden: No such thing. I remember exactly what happened. When the recommendation came to me I changed it, and initialled the change, and there it is. I have seen it myself within the month.


Samuel Hughes: There was no letter accompanying it ?


Frederick William Borden: No. I am
speaking of the extension of time of Col. Gregory.


Samuel Hughes: That is the very thing I am speaking about. Then Col. Otter goes on to say :
I once more tell you that it is necessary you would recommend Major Glasgow as second In comipand and also the officer who is to take over his squadron, so please let me have the inclosed form duly filled in as soon as possible. You may he sure I have good reasons for asking this action on your part.
I wish the minister would ask Col. Otter for the good reasons. Now we come to a letter from Col. Otter to the officer commanding the Second Dragoons :
245i
Your letter of 22nd of February was duly received and replied to yesterday. The recommendation of Major Glasgow as second in command will be sent in at once, and the extension of your command I have every reason to believe will follow.
Still Col. Gregory stood to his guns. He still said : Until this man goes and qualifies, until he carries out his promise to me by taking a course at the school, I shall not put him in as second in command.


Frederick William Borden: Improve his qualifications ! He was already qualified.


Samuel Hughes: Then Col. Otter says :
I have yours of the 22nd, re the promotion of Major Glasgow. I wrote this officer a few days ago and he has promised me to attend at the school before camp for a course, and am quite prepared to forward his recommendation as second in command at once.
So that Col. Otter is still bearing out Col. Gregory's contention that Major Glasgow has not the necessary qualifications to take the second in command.
And I am quite prepared to forward his recommendation as second in command at once. Will you therefore please send me the necessary recommendation as soon as possible. In the letter above quoted you refer to certain conditions under which you will only make the recommendations to which I refer to. But I would not advise you to adhere to the determination you have expressed as Major Glasgow has promised to attend the course before camp. I think that ought to he enough. I am anxious to get this matter settled as soon as possible.
Then we come to another letter from Col. Gregory to Col. Otter :
Sarnia, March 7th, 1904.
Dear Sir,-I have yours of the 2nd instant re promotion of Major Glasgow, and in reply beg to say that if Major Glasgow does attend the school as he has promised, he should remain in command of the squadron until after camp, when his promotion would immediately follow. I am firmly convinced that the proposition I made was not only reasonable but in the interest of the regiment, and I have come to the conclusion that if any extension of tenure depends upon my acceding to the demands of Major Glasgow I had better resign my command at once.
He was still determined that before he would recommend this officer to be second in command, Major Glasgow should be qualified, and rather than recommend him, under the circumstances, he would leave the regiment. Then Col. Otter writes back to Col. Gregory :
Toronto, 10th March, 1904.
I have yours of the 7th instant re Major Glasgow, and regret that you cannot see your way clear to make the recommendation. An action must shortly be taken. I now propose to do it myself.

So that the minister, in endeavouring to shoulder the blame on Colonel Lessard must see that there was a conspiracy1 behind all this. Why should Colonel Lessard have become imbued with the notion to get near Colonel Otter, and why should Colonel Otter hold the intention as early as the 10th March to act himself in the matter unless there was a power behind the throne ? Unless political pull was being exercised to the detriment of the force and in, order to get Major Glasgow promoted. The fact is before us that without Major Glasgow's knowledge stores were handed over to another man without the officer in command of the regiment being consulted. Here let me tell the minister that he will search the records of the Militia Department from confederation down to the present hour, and he will not find another instance where such a thing was done in connection with a regiment without the commanding officer being consulted and being a party to it. It is scandalous that such a thing should be allowed to take place in a free country. One would think that we were under a despotism of the dark ages. If such things are permitted we shall prove ourselves unworthy, of civil and religious liberty. Here is a letter from Colonel Gregory to Coloniel Otter, dated May 4, 1904 :
Sir,

In view of our previous correspondence I have the honour to respectfully request you to give me the following information :
1.	When and by whom was the order given for the transfer of the arms and accoutrements of ' D ' squadron from Major Glasgow to Captain Sharp, and when did the transfer take place ?
(The order was given by me and transfer made on 25th March, 1904.^W. D. 0.)
2.	Has Major Glasgow been recommended for the position of second in command ?
(Yes, 4, 4, '04.-W. D. O.)
3.	Is my tenure of command to be extended beyond July 12, 1904 ?
(No recent recommendation has been made as I understood from Colonel Lessard that you had told him that you did not desire such as you proposed resigning-W. D. O., 13, 5, '04.)
Then Colonel Gregory, as a free man, answered as a free man would do. This letter I may say reached him during the Niagara camp :
. Camp Niagara, June 15th, 1904. To Colonel Otter-
Sir,-As a protest against the system of political intrigue that compels my superior officers to interfere with the efficiency and discipline^ of the regiment under my command, by promoting without my approval an inefficient officer in my regiment while knowing and acknowledging such inefficiency, and at the same time being aware of the fact that I was trying to compel the officer referred to (Major S. H. Glasgow) to improve his qualification before I recommended him for the promotion to the position of second in command,
I hereby tender my resignation as commanding officer of Second Dragoons, and would further request that I be relieved of my command Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
at once. I have just seen the official announcement of promotions above referred to in the recent issue of the ' Canada Gazette.'
I have the honour to be, Sir,
ROLAND W. GREGORY, Lieutenant-Colonel Commanding Second Dragoons.
Now, Sir, see the little petty politician get his hand in. Here is another statement:
Camp Niagara, June 21, 1904. Colonel Gregory to Colonel Otter.
I have the honour to request that I be allowed to correct the statements made by Sir Frederick Borden regarding myself as reported in the Toronto ' Globe ' of yesterday.
I do not know what these statements are, but I presume the letter of Colonel Gregory of June 23rd, corrected them. Now we will see what the sequel to this is. Colonel Otter takes that letter of Colonel Gregory's resignation where he says :
As a protest against the system of political intrigue that compels my superior officers to interfere with the efficiency and disposition of the regiment-
Colonel Gregory does not blame Colonel Otter, but he blames the political intriguers in Ottawa. In reference to that, the colonel forwarded this communication :
In connection with this communication, I resent and deny the charge of ' political intrigue ' with relation to the -appointment of Major Glasgow as second in command of -the Second Dragoons.
As I have already explained in a previous memo, I considered it a/lvisable in the interests of the regiment that the appointment above referred to -should be filled with the least possible delay, and as Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory would not make a recommendation in the matter, I felt justified under the circumstances in doing so without his recommendation.
We find Colonel Otter's explanation different from that which I quoted a few minutes ago. I referred to it at that time, and asked the minister to obtain from Colonel Otter an explanation of why he had changed his base, why he had now found out that Major Glasgow was qualified for the command wherea's a few weeks ago he fouhd he was not qualified for the command.


Frederick William Borden: He never said so.


Samuel Hughes: He says he was unfit for the command. Colonel Otter says on the 4tli of August, 1903. giving as one reason for his recommendation :
Second, That none of the squadron commanders have had charge of their squadrons for more than eighteen months, and lack the experience to fit them to command the regiment.
Now there was no camp and no opportunity for Major Glasgow to get any training, or to get any further experience between the 4th of August, 1903, and the date when he was placed in command of

that Squadron. I ask the minister, did Major Glasgow spend any time in school, or one day in camp anywhere, where he could obtain the qualification to make him better fitted on the 10th day of June, this year than he was on the 4th day of August, 1903 ? Then he goes on to say :
That in view of the great improvement in the efficiency of the regiment that has taken place during Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory's command, I think he is deserving of the recognition of his services which I now recommend.
I want the minister to obtain from Colonel Otter and bring to this House his reasons for changing his position, and for finding out so suddenly that Major Glasgow was entitled to the command.


Frederick William Borden: If the hon. gentleman would read the memorandum of Colonel Otter addressed to the adjutant general, which is among the papers, he might .get some light.


Samuel Hughes: What is the date of the memorandum ?


Frederick William Borden: June 10, 1904.


Samuel Hughes: I will read this paragraph in which he says :
On this I wrote Major Glasgow advising him to take a course as soon as possible, to which he replied on the 27th of February that it was his intention to do so, and had such in contemplation before hearing from me.
I thank the minister for drawing my attention to that clause where Colonel Otter deliberately recognizes the fact that Major Glasgow was not qualified to take the .position of second in command, but that he urged him


Frederick William Borden: Will the hon. gentleman read another paragraph?


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister asked me to refer to this recommendation and 1 am referring to it. The next paragraph reads :
Towards the end of March, in order to get all probable transfers completed, I had the transfer of the squadron made by the District Staff Adjutant and at the same time that officer got all particulars concerning the officers affected by the change, and filled up the militia form Cl on the day the transfer took place, namely the 28th of March.
Now I am delighted that he has referred to me again in this matter. When he opened un he charged my hon. friend from Lincoln with not being familiar with the proper routine of promotions in the service. I charge the hon. minister with having deliberately inspired Colonel Otter to trample under foot the recognized course of responsible government in dealing with promotions.


Frederick William Borden: I say that is absolutely without the slightest foundation.


Samuel Hughes: Well many a man has been hung for circumstantial evidence and in this case the hon. minister would stand a poor chance of having a verdict of not guilty rendered in his favour.


Frederick William Borden: If you were the jury I might.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister has declared that my hon. frend from Lincoln did not understand the proper course to be pursued in making recommendations. The captain of a squadron recommends to the officer commanding. If it is a major commanding the squadron then the officer commanding the regiment under responsible government is the man and the only man that can do that. I will recall to the mind of the hon. minister the fact that a gentleman who is now a senator from Lindsay undertook to meddle in the formation of my regiment, undertook to force a man into the position of major who was absolutely disqualified and that I defied him and told him that there was only one person in Canada that could make that recommendation. I would not allow the district officer commanding to recommend an appointment over my head. I venture to say that if the minister and the Department of Militia undertook to pursue an illegal course we would be justified in the regiment in pursuing an illegal course also. That is the only way to bring these gentlemen to time and I am surprised that Colonel Otter should undertake to step into a regiment and make a recommendation that only one in the empire can make under our law, viz., the commanding officer. I am satisfied that Major Glasgow's appointment as second in command without having the necessary qualification is not legal unless sanctioned by Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, the officer in command of the regiment. This is the course laid down under our responsible government and the minister who stands up and charges my hon. friend from Lincoln with not being familiar with the proper course has been trampling under foot every regulation that has been in force in the service for generations. Does the hon. minister expect that this House and this country are simple enough to believe that Colonel Otter would have dared to take the course which he pursued if he had not known that the minister was at his back ? If he does he must think us much more simple than we are.


Frederick William Borden: He did not know from me.


Samuel Hughes: I do not think there is anything more to be said. There is a great deal of correspondence here but I will not go into it further. It shows the government to have been absolutely guilty

of political meddling. There is just this one point and it is the contemptible manner in which the minister dispenses with the services of a man whose record is as honourable as that of Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory. Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory's services in the force have been as follows : He joined the St. Catharines troop commanded by his father in 1867. He received his commission as cornet at the suggestion of Colonel Duree, deputy adjutant-general, on the 10th January, 1870, and at the request of the late Colonel Villiers, then brigade-major, he took the adjutancy of the dragoons in 1876, he held that position until he took command of the St. Catharines troop in 1883. He held the command of the St. Catharines troop until appointed major, second in command, of the regiment in 1893 and this position he held until he got command of the regiment on July 12, 1898. There is a record of which any man might be proud and every one in the old Niagara district knows .that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory has been one of the most self-sacrificing and disinterested soldiers in the service. Yet, a gentleman with a record of that kind, because he has the spirit of a free man, because he resents the petty political tyranny of the minister and his satellites, because he dares to speak out is treated in this manner. He resigns, but, Sir, in place of accepting his resignation in place of allowing this gentleman to retire the hon. minister who has become so egotistical, carried away by his self-importance does what ? Here we have a letter from the General Officer Commanding the militia. Thank God it is not signed ' Dundonald.'
From the General Officer Commanding Canadian militia to the Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence.
Ottawa, 18th June, 1904.
Resignation of Lt.-Coi. Gregory, 2nd Dragoons.
While the attached letter, of the 15th inst., from Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, officer commanding 2nd Dragoons, is grossly insubordinate in tone, whether his statements are true or false, I feel that it would be better as Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory's regiment is now in camp at Niagara, and under his immediate command, that he should be suspended from his command, furnished with transport requisitions and ordered to return to his home forthwith.
The apparent cause of this officer's insubordination-the promotion of Major Glasgow as second in command of the 2nd Dragoons without the concurrence of Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory-Is fairly well set forth in the accompanying correspondence, but if the hon. minister should consider it desirable that further information be supplied, a court of inquiry can be assembled at a later date for that purpose, after which the disposal of Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory's services as an officer of the militia can be decided upon.
(Sgd.) AYLMER,
Colonel, commanding Canadian militia.
Here is the order suspending Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory.


Samuel Hughes: *
Headquarters, 20th June, 1904. From the Adjutant General, Ottawa, to District Officer Commanding, Military District No. 2, Toronto.



[Stage Direction]
Lieutenant-Colonel R. W. Gregory, commanding 2nd Dragoons.
With reference to the resignation of Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, commanding 2nd Dragoons, and your covering letter of the 16th instant thereon, you will be so good as to suspend Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory from the command of his regiment until further orders, provide him with the necessary transport requisitions to cover his immediate return to his home, and hand over the command of the 2nd Dragoons to the next senior officer in the Usual manner.
(Sgd.) D. H. VIDAL, Colonel,
For Adjutant General.
Is that a fitting conclusion to the connection of this gentleman with the militia ? I am amazed to think that the hon. minister should lend himself to any interference such as has been clearly proven in the conduct of this whole matter. I am not saying anything against the qualifications of Major Glasgow as a medical doctor. But in the 44th he was only the surgeon of the regiment and he never had any qualifications as a combatant officer until 1902. Then, he is placed over the heads of older military men in the regiment. Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory shows no ill will towards him. He speaks well of him although he-says he is not good at drill and not a good rider and he urges that he shall go to the school and qualify himself. Then, it comes down to the question of extension of Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory's command. He says -at least he said to me ; I am a commercial traveller, I am away from home a great deal, it is not worth my while to take the command of the regiment for another year and go on with the organization of it, but, if I can get the command for three years, I am willing to take it. Then, he compromised by offering to accept an extension of two years, but the hon. minister denies him that right and confers in an unconstitutional manner the appointment on Major Glasgow. I am not saying a word against Major Glasgow, I do not know the gentleman, but as far as Major Glasgow's being placed second in command of that regiment is concerned, although Colonel Otter's report as well as Lieutnant-Colonel Gregory's report says that he is not qualified and that he should go to the school, it simply presents another instance of the militia being dragged through the political mire. I will tell the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that Mr. Mackenzie never allowed it. The old Liberal leader in bygone days never allowed it. The old Minister of Militia (Mr. Ross) has told me, as he has told this House, that he never directly or indirectly permitted it. Sir John Macdonald never permitted it. He alweys said that he
7721 JULY 27, 1904 7722	
kept the bench and the militia free from party polities, and if the hon. Minister ot Militia has fallen into bad hands I call upon the right hon. Prime Minister to step in and see that party politics are kept out of the militia of this country. At six o'clock, House took recess. After Recess. House resumed at Eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS. SECOND READING. Bill (No. 159) respecting the Pacific Bank of Canada-Mr. Holmes. WEST CANADIAN COLLIERIES, LIMITED. House proceeded to consider amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 80) respecting the West Canadian Collieries, Limited-Mr. Oliver. Mr. SPROULE. I have once before suggested that in the case of these Bills coming from the Senate, some one should take the responsibility of announcing to the House whether the amendments made by the Senate are of some consequence, or merely verbal alterations. Mr. OLIVER. The amendments here are clerical ; the only exception being that clause 8, providing that the company may dispose of its undertaking, and clause 9, which provides for the issue of paid-up stock by the company, are stricken out. Amendments read the second time and concurred in. SUPPLY-RESIGNATION OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL GREGORY. House resumed debate od motion for Supply. Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax). In view of the somewhat elaborate discussion which has taken place on this matter, I propose to detain the House only a very few moments. It would appear to me that the attacks which the Minister of Militia has made upon Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory are founded more upon inference than upon any evidence we have before us. After a pretty careful examination of this correspondence from beginning to end, I do not find anything that would justify one in coming to the conclusion that there had been any conspiracy on the part of Colonel Gregory. The Minister of Militia founds his inference principally upon the fact of Major Ferguson's illness and the refusal of Colonel Gregory to recommend the appointment of Major Glasgow as second In command. That inference is unreasonable and without any foundation. It is beyond question, so far as I have been able to gather, that Major Ferguson was absolutely qualified in a military	,ense, and that under the advice of experts le fully expected to recover from the m-irmity of the throat which had occasioned iis loss of voice. It was therefore entirely 'air that Major Ferguson should be allowed a reasonable time to undergo medical treatment, in order that he might recover and iroceed to promotion in the regiment. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. Major Ferguson's qualification was no better than that of Major Glasgow ; in fact, according to the confidential report of Colonel Gregory, it was not as good. They were both reported indifferent ' in a certain thing, and in other things ' fair ' and ' good.' The report upon Glasgow was somewhat better than that upon Ferguson. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. I do not think that concerns the question very much, and I will tell the hon. gentleman why. The question is, whether or not it was a reasonable thing for Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory to insist that Major Ferguson and Major Glasgow should obtain some further training and qualification before either should be recommended as second in command. In that matter Colonel Gregory should have the right to his own judgment ; the commanding officer is not supposed to make his recommendation as a mere matter of form; he lias to exercise his judgment upon it, and the only sound criticism that could be made upon Colonel Gregory would be that in refusing' this recommendation he was not acting bona fide. That would be a fair, and it would be a severe criticism on the part of the Minister of Militia, if he had any foundation for it. But any such idea is absolutely' inconsistent with the evidence before us. I am willing to concede, for the purpose of argument, that the minister is correct in saying that Major Ferguson's qualifications were no better than Major Glasgow's, but what does Major Ferguson himself say when there is some question raised as to his undertaking the command of that regiment. In a letter, dated the 13th of July, 1903, he says : Letter just received. By all means I wish to see Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory's time extended. I am not in a position now to take his place and if it were open to-morrow could not, so wish you would do what is within your power to have his time extended as long as possible. I hope to be able to get to the school this coming winter and qualify. It has not been denied by the Minister of Militia that Major Ferguson was as we.l qualified as Major Glasgow, so that out of the mouth of Major Ferguson, as the first, witness, we have the distinct statement that if he should take the command of that regiment he regards it as absolutely necessary that he should go to the school and quality. These gentlemen may be technically qualified, but they may not be regarded either by themselves or by their commanding oliicer as professionally qualified to fill that high position in such a sense as would justny
[Stage Direction]
the recommendation of the officer command ing. The next witness is Major Glasgow himself, and I will read a letter which has not been placed before the House as yet. This letter is dated the 27th of February 1904, signed by Major Glasgow and address ed to Colonel Otter :
Dear Colonel Otter,-I received your letter and in reply will state that it is my intention to attend the school to improve myselt before the June camp. I thank you for your good advice and in fairness to myself will say that I had the matter under serious contemplation before the receipt of your communication.
Yours truly,

[Stage Direction]
Major Glasgow himself is the second wit ness in answer to the minister, and he recognizes the fact that he must have a further training before he can hope for a recommendation as second in command, or promotion as commanding officer. He excuses himself ; he says :
In fairness to myself will say that I had the matter in serious contemplation before the receipt of your communication.
That is in reply to a letter from Colonel Otter, in which the District Officer Commanding had pointed out to Major Glasgow the absolute necessity of adopting this course if lie desired to be recommended as second in command. Here are two witnesses to prove that it was eminently reasonable for Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory to call upon Major Glasgow to get some further training before he should be recommended to this position How then can the Minister of Militia for one niouiGiit s&j that Colonel Gregory was acting in bad faith when he suggested that Major Glasgow should take this verv course ?	'
It was a course which Major Ferguson admitted to be necessary in his own lase * it was a course which Major Glasgow admitted to be necessary in his ease ; and, according to the statement of the Minister of Militia this afternoon, these two officers so far as qualification is concerned, were on the same footing. But we have a third witness ; we have the testimony of Colonel Otter m support of Colonel Gregory in this regard. Here is a report from Colonel Otter to the Adjutant General under date
^lle,of June, 1904, and it contains the following passage :
that was not at all necessary, that he was going out of his way to make any such suggestion as that with regard to'Major Glasgow, because he was fully qualified, and it was his duty either to recommend or not to recommend. Does Colonel Otter leave the situation in that light ? Not by any means. Let him speak for himself. His letter continues as follows :
On this I wrote Major Glasgow advising him to take a course as soon as possible, to which he replied on the 27th February that it was his intention to do so, and had such in contemplation before hearing from me.
You have thus three witnesses not only as to the absolute bona tides of Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, but as to the wisdom of the course which he suggested Major Glasgow should follow. Under these circumstances it does not seem to me becoming that any reflection should be made on one side of the House or the other on the bona tides of Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory in that regard, or on his conduct in making this suggestion.
I will not deal further with that portion of the correspondence, because it has been gone over pretty thoroughly, and I do not want to repeat what has been said. But I am bound to say a few words on a certain portion of the correspondence which has been read this afternoon, and I must confess that it presents itself to my mind in a very peculiar light. On the 4th day of August, 1903, Colonel Otter wrote to Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory as follows :
On the 22nd February Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory replied that he would recommend Major Glasgow provided that he, 1st, retained the command of the squadron until after the June camp-2nd, that he would in the meantime take a course at the Royal School of Cavalry, and improve his qualification.
Now, if the matter had presented itself to Colonel Otter as it evidently presents itself to the Minister of Militia, or rather as he presented it to the House this afternoon, Colonel Otter would have said : I immediately told Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory that Mr. R. L. BORDFIN.
Dear Colonel,-I have yours of the 23rd ultimo re your extension of command, and while I am sure the period you name, three years, would not be entertained by the department, I am quite willing to recommend you for a term of two years, which I have done to-day, and trust to have approved.
In haste, yours,

[Stage Direction]
I may say in passing that on no less than two occasions did Colonel Otter recommend Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory for an extension of two years. On two occasions he stated that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory's extension of the command for that period was in his opinion necessary to the welfare and efficiency of the regiment ; and I would have thought that after the report of an experienced officer of Colonel Otter's standing, the Minister of Militia should have given some better reason to the House for overriding that report than the reason he gave the House this afternoon. However, the whole record is on ' Hansard.' On the 3rd of November, 1903, Colonel Otter writes again to Colonel Gregory as follows :
My dear Colonel,-I have your official of the 2nd instant, hut before forwarding it to headquarters I am to-day writing urging that my recommendation of some months ago, for two years, be granted. You will thus understand any delay that may take place.
[Stage Direction]

On the 10th of January, a little more than two months after he had forwarded that second urgent recommendation, there is a letter from Colonel Otter to Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory as follows :
My dear Colonel,-Will you please send me at once recommendation for appointment of Major Glasgow as regimental major, and also for the officer who is to succeed him in command of ' D ' squadron.
I think that your extension for another year willjm arranged.
It appears that in reply to that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory wrote a letter of which I have no copy ; but on the 14th of January, Colonel Otter wrote In reply to that letter as follows :
Dear Colonel,-I have your note of yesterday and cannot understand what you mean by writing such a reply to a request that you are in duty bound to accede to. Please explain yourself at once as I cannot accept from you such a reply. It is to say the least of it insubordinate, though you may not be aware of it.
I may not thoroughly understand the principles of military etiquette, but I confess that I do not understand how Colonel Otter could say to Colonel Gregory that he Is in duty bound to make a particular recommendation. Is this recommendation a mere matter of form ? Has Colonel Otter, as district officer commanding, the right to say to Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, You are bound to recommend a particular individual as second in command, though that is against your better judgment ? If there is a form of that kind, I would say that in the interest of the whole country, in the Interest of the militia especially, it had better be abolished at once. In reply to that, Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, on January 18, 1904, writes as follows :
Dear Sir,-Yours of the 14th instant received and in explanation beg to say that in the interest of ' D ' squadron and the regiment I did not think it advisable to take Major Glasgow from his squadron at the present time. I may not have been sufficiently clear in my note as to my reasons, but I certainly had no intention of being insubordinate.
To that Colonel Otter, on the 21st of January, replied as follows :
Dear Colonel,-I have yours of the 18th instant and accept your explanation so far as the abruptness of your note is concerned, for most abrupt it was, being a direct refusal to carry out instruction's given you without assigning any reason.
That seems very curious language to come from Colonel Otter in respect to a matter in which Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory has a right to exercise his judgment-ay, more than that, Is bound to exercise his judgment. If Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory gave a recommendation of that kind against his true judgment, he would be guilty of dereliction of his duty in every sense of
the term. It would be dishonest for him to do so ; it would be wrong for him to do so. And yet Colonel Otter seems to think he has a right to issue instructions to Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory commanding him to recommend a particular officer as the proper person to become second in command.
Samuel Hughes: He has no authority.
Mr.* R. L. BORDEN. If he has any such authority, I should think that the sooner it is taken away the better. His letter continues as follows :
I once more tell you that it is necessary you should recommend Major Glasgow as second in command and also the officer who is to take over his squadron, so please let me have the inclosed form duly filled in as soon as possible.
And he uses that language, although he hasj been definitely and distinctly told by Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory that he does not regard it as in the best interests of the regiment that he should recommend Major Glasgow as the second in command. It seems remarkable language to be used by an officer in a position of that kind. For my part I am not able to understand it. Colonel Otter continues :
You may be sure that I have good reasons for asking this action on your part.
A most mysterious portion of the letter, and a portion of which we have had no explanation up to the present time. I accept at once the statement of the Minister ot Militia, that he knows of nothing to which this can refer, if he went that far, but whether there was some action on the part of the minister or not-and in view of his denial we are bound to assume there was not-there certainly was action on the part of some person who thought that he had influence in matters of this kind, and it is evidently on account of the threatened exercise of that influence that Colonel Otter sees fit to say, dares to say, to Colonel Gregory in respect of this matter :
You may be sure that I have good reasons for asking this action on your part.
Let it not be forgotten in dealing with this correspondence that Colonel Otter has twice recommended Colonel Gregory for an extension of two years, has pressed that upon the department, and that that appointment i3 now being delayed while Colonel Otter is fencing with Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory during all these weeks for the purpose of compelling him to make a recommendation which Colonel Gregory thought he had not the right to make.
The correspondence continues as follows : On January 26, Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory wrote Colonel Otter as follows :
Sir,-I have the honour to report that I have made the following arrangement with Major S. H. Glasgow re promotion.

*7*70*7 t i - i
First, that he retain command of ' D ' squadron until after the camp in June, and in the meantime try and take a special course at Royal Military College to improve his qualification.
Second, that I will at, or immediately after camp recommend him for the position of second in command of the regiment.
I expect to have a letter from Major Glasgow concurring in this arrangement which I trust will be satisfactory.
On the 22nd of February he writes a further letter, which I need not read, and which is practically to the same effect. Let it be understood that during all this period there has still been no action taken upon the report of Colonel Otter, that an extension of two years should be granted to Colonel Gregory.
Sir FR1E1DERICK BORDENf. I would like to interrupt my hon. friend there. Action was taken in September, 1903, upon that report, and, so far as I know, there was no report except a letter a month later from Colonel Otter, in which he regrets that the extension had not been made for two years instead of one. I do not know of any other report since that time, and I do not think there was any.


Robert Laird Borden: There were two reports of Colonel Otter's.


Frederick William Borden: I think they were close together. There was his first report, favouring an extension of command for two years. That extension was cut down by me to one year. Almost immediately after there was a letter from Colonel Otter, regretting that the extension had not been carried out for two years instead of one. That was within a month.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the minister has not very carefully followed the correspondence I have already read. On November 3, 1903, Colonel Otter writes to 'Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory as follows :
My dear colonel,-I have your official of the second instant, but before forwarding it to headquarters I am to-day

That is on November 3rd, 1903.
-writing urging that my recommendation of some months ago for a two years' extension he granted. You will thus understand any delay that may take place.


Frederick William Borden: That letter of Colonpl Otter's is among the papers.


Robert Laird Borden: I know it is, but my hon. friend thought there was no letter later than September. This will show that there was a letter as late as November 3, and it was to that I was referring.


Frederick William Borden: I said that there was but the one occasion upon which the matter was dealt with at headquarters. That was after Colonel Otter's recommendation of 'September, which was dealt with, and immediately thereafter-I thought it Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
was sooner than two months, but shortly thereafter-a letter from Colonel Otter, reporting that he regretted that the two full years' extension had not been given.


Robert Laird Borden: Here is the letter I was looking for. It is a letter from Colonel Otter to the Adjutant General :
Toronto, 3rd Nov., 1902.
Sir,-X have the honour to refer to G. 0. 149 of 5th September, 1903, respecting the extension of the command of the officer named below for one year.
Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, 2nd Dragoons,
And to respectfully ask the reconsideration of the case by the General Officer Commanding, with a view to enlarging the time of extension to two years as recommended by me in my letter of the 4th August last.
In that letter you will note my reasons for making this recommendation and I am still fully convinced of the desirability of conceding the extension for two years, if the efficiency of the regiment is to be maintained ; besides which I very much doubt if Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory will accept an extension for one year.
I have the honour to he, sir,
Your obedient servant,
W. D. OTTER, Colonel.
That is the letter to which I alluded when I said there had been no action taken during all this period, that no action was being taken on this letter.
I have quoted letters from Colonel Otter to Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory, de manding that he shall give a recommendation to Major Glasgow as second in command of the regiment, letters not only urging him to do it, but commanding him to do it, as a matter of military duty. Now, I said, and I repeat, that having regard to the terms which Colonel Otter used in these letters addressed to Colonel Gregory, it is evident that some person who either has or imagines he has political influence, is communicating with Colonel Otter respecting this matter, and is insisting that Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory shall recommend Major Glasgow as second in command, or in the alternative that there should be no further extension of Lieutenant-Coloriel Gregory's command. That is perfectly evident, and no one who reads these letters with any care or consideration can for one moment doubt it.
On February 29, after this had continued during all these weeks-and one can understand why Colonel Gregory should be anxious to know whether or not he was to be continued in command, as he would have his arrangements to make, and would have to consider his own future as well as the future of the regiment-during all this period, while the correspondence was going on, he was in doubt, so finally, on February 29, he addressed this letter to Colonel Otter :
Sir,-I have the honour to respectfully request you to inform me if my letter of the 22nd instant re promotion of Major Glasgow to the position of second in command will be

acceptable and if my tenure of command is to be extended beyond 29th July, 1904.
I have the honour to be, &e.
He frankly recognizes the situation there. He has made a certain recommendation in favour of Major Glasgow as second in command, provided Major Glasgow obtains certain qualifications, and he writes to ask whether or not that recommendation will be acceptable, and if his tenure of command is to be extended beyond the 29th of July.
In reply to that letter Colonel Otter writes under date 3rd March, 1904 :
Officer commanding 2nd Dragoons.
Your letter of February 22nd was duly received and replied to yesterday. The recommendation of Major Glasgow as second in command should be sent in at once.
And the extension of your command I have every reason to believe will follow.
That is as plain as words can make it. If Lt-Col. Gregory, against his better judgment will, without qualification, recommend Major Glasgow to be second in command of that regiment, then his period of service will be extended one year ; if on the other hand, he follows the dictates of his better judgment and insists on the full qualification to which reference has been made, the period of his service will not be extended one year. There is the whole thing in black and white. You are not left to inference ; there is Col. Otter's direct statement to Col. Gregory as to what the situation is. If my hon. friend the Minister of Militia thinks that is a desirable condition in which to leave this matter without further explanation, I can only say that I should hardly be inclined to concur with him.
There is some further correspondence which, it seems to me, throws no further light upon the subject, until we come to the letter of Lt.-Col. Gregory addressed to Col. Otter, and dated 7th March. It is as follows :
Sarnia, March 7th, 1904.
Dear Sir,-I have yours of the 2nd instant re promotion of Major Glasgow and in reply beg to say that if Major Glasgow does attend the school as he has promised he should remain in command of his squadron until after camp when his promotion would immediately follow. I am firmly convinced that the proposition I made was not only reasonable but in the interest of the regiment, and I have come to the conclusion that if my extension of tenure depends upon me acceding to the demands of Major Glasgow I had better resign my command at once.
Yours sincerely,
ROLAND W. GREGORY, Lieutenant-Colonel Commanding 2nd Dragoons. Colonel Otter, D.O.C., Toronto.
I think we would all agree with him that his usefulness was gone if conditions were such that he was not permitted to exercise the judgment which he was bound to exercise in the interest of his regiment and, as ,1 should 'think, under his oath of office ;
if he was not to insist upon certain qualifications which he believed to be necessary but was obliged, as a matter of military command, to make this recommendation, or if he was obliged to make it as a condition of obtaining the extension of command * which he thought his due, it is clear that he was right in believing that his usefulness was gone and that he was right in resigning his command. Finally we have his letter of loth June in which he refers distinctly to political intrigue. This is denied by Col. Otter. I think it would have been well for Col. Otter in making that denial to furnish to this House and to this country some explanation of the letters I have-read. And I have to say that, if I had anything to do with him, and if he could not give a clear and frank explanation to show that political intrigue was not affecting his judgment in these matters. I would consider that he was worthy to be dismissed within forty-eight hours. How does this gentleman venture to impose upon Lt.-Col. Gregory, as a matter of military command, that which should be left to the right and true judgment of Lt.-Col. Gregory ? How does he venture to traffic in the question of extending Lt.-Col. Gregory's term of office ? How is it that we find a district officer commanding descending to work of that kind. ' If you assent to this recommendation ; if you withdraw your qualifications, your term will be extended for one year ; if you persevere in. what you believe to be right ; if you persevere in what you believe to be in the interest of the regiment, your term will not be extended.' I think it is high time we had some rule in the militia of this country which would prevent a district officer commanding entering into traffic of that kind. I accept at once the statement of the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) that he knew nothing of it. But some one knew of it ; Col. Otter was doing this at the instance of somebody. We are not quite fools ; and, when we read this correspondence we understand well enough what it means. And I venture to think it would be very much in the interest, not only of the government but of Col. Otter as well, that some explanation of this most extraordinary correspondence should lie furnished to the House forthwith. I can take-only one meaning from it. In saying that, I desire to be fair to Col. Otter. I regret very much, in the interest of the militia force, that correspondence of this kind should have been placed before the House-And let me say that in the additional correspondence that the Minister of Militia brought down to us I have this further confirmation not only of the bona tides but of the wisdom of Col. Gregory in insisting upon further qualification. Here is a letter from Major Glasgow, under date of 17tht February, addressed to Col. Otter :

Dear Colonel Otter,-I am forwarding to Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory by this mail a letter asking that I be recommended as second in command of the regiment.
Yours truly,


S. H. GLASGOW.
[Stage Direction]
1 do not know whether that is in order. I should suppose that Major Glasgow ought to have communicated with his own lieutenant-colonel. However, he saw fit to go outside of his own commanding officer and to write this letter to Col. Otter. And on this document, at the bottom of the page, is a note-evidently we have not the full correspondence. This note made by Col. Otter says :	' Answered 19th February concurring and advising further qualifications at once.' So, here is Major Glasgow's intimation to the district officer commanding that he is asking to be recommended as second in command, and upon it is the memorandum of the district officer commanding that he concurs and advises further qualification at once. Yet, we are told t>y the Minister of Militia that Lt.-Col. Gregory was not acting bona fide when he was insisting on this qualification. Was Col. Otter acting bona fide when he advised it ? I think the Minister of Militia has done injustice to Lt.-Col. Gregory in describing him as a conspirator-for this was the indictment against him to-day, I think there is not a line, not a syllable, in this *correspondence which does not indicate that Lt.-Col. Gregory in taking the course he did, was taking the course which presented Itself to his best judgment ; and in every single action he took with regard to Major Glasgow he is not only supported by Major Glasgow himself, who admitted the necessity of further qualification, but also by Major Ferguson who, having the same qualification as Major Glasgow, admitted that he must require more if he were to be appointed second in command ; and, last but not least, Lt.-Col. Gregory is supported by the direct advice and concurrence of Col. Otter at the time. Under the circumstances, it seems to me that Lt.-Col. Gregory comes out of this with his reputation absolutely unblemished ; cojnes out of it as one who has acted the part of a good *soldier and an honest man, one who only retired from the regiment when he found that his usefulness was gone by reason of certain influences which were being exercised against him and which prevented him from giving to the regiment that direction which he thought was its due.
Edmund Boyd Osler: I would like to ask the minister to answer one question. It is a question which has been raised in this House a great many times during this debate and during other debates on military questions, and one which must *be of interest to the country. That question is whether the militiamen of the country, when out of uniform and not on [DOT] Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
duty, are subject to the control, or the will -control, perhaps, is a better word-of the Minister of Militia or the officers of their regiments ? I am asking this question because it is one of public interest. It has been stated positively by my hon. friend from Victoria (Mr. Hughes) that the militia are not in any way under the control of their military superiors when they are not in uniform and not on duty. I hope sincerely that he is right in that statement, and that such is the fact. The Minister of Militia, so far as I have heard him, has not denied these statements. The question is so important and affects so closely the personal rights of almost every man in the militia, every volunteer in the country, that I think it is due to the force that the Minister of Militia should make a distinct announcement on that question so that there can be in future no doubt about it. It is only fair to the members of the militia that they should get from the minister a statement clear enough to leave no misunderstanding. If they are under the control of the Minister of Militia or of their superior officers all the year round, it had better be known and realized at once.


Frederick William Borden: I think it would be out of place for me now to make a statement on this point. There may be an opportunity later on. I would refer my hon. friend to Militia Law and Regulations.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I am perhaps in the position of most of the members of this House in not being connected with the militia force and I am not able, certainly without a great deal of study, to form an opinion on the subject. I think surely the Minister of Militia ought to be able to make an announcement on that question that would carry weight all over the country. I do not think it should be left to each member of the militia and each volunteer to interpret for himself, or that they should be obliged to study up the laws, rules and regulations in order to ascertain whether they are entitled to speak their mind freely on subjects which they know they cannot discuss when they are in uniform and on duty. I think it is essential that we should have from the minister a clear, straight statement on that question.


Frederick William Borden: If I may say one more word-I am sure that nothing I could say would settle the question ; it would still be a question probably for the courts to determine, no matter what 1 might say.
Mr. 'OSLER. If that is the case, might I suggest that in the Militia Bill now before the House we should take that question out of the courts and make it perfectly plain, so that there may be no longer any doubt about it. It is the duty of the government not to allow any rules to be put in so vague a manner that the Minister of Militia him-

self says they must be referred to the court to interpret.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Minister of Militia is at the head of that department in
Canada and is always looked up to as the one who might properly interpret the Militia Law. Let him put an interpretation on if. and then leave it to others to call that interpretation into question if they desire. But a pronouncement from him would certainly carry wfeight. There are many who desire to keep strictly within the regulations and yet entertain an opinion that they ought to have perfect freedom, when they are not wearing the King's uniform to hold and to express their views on public matters. I think the Minister of Militia should ncft be reluctant to give us his opinion on this question.


Samuel Hughes: If I might ask a question of the Minister of Militia-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. member can only speak again with the consent of the House.


Samuel Hughes: By permission of the minister I want to ask a question. The Militia Bill comes up again in committee In a short time, and when it comes to its third reading, I would suggest that the minister give us a little notice, then the question brought ,up| by the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Osier) can be discussed. I have given the minister notice of a motion that I propose moving on that occasion.


Robert George Macpherson: Can we not get through our business in this House without so much, militarism ? I have been here from 10th of March

	[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS: You don't like it.


Robert George Macpherson: I have a right to express my opinion. I have not bothered the House by talking much, and I am very anxious to get away, I think we all are. 1 think, Mr. Speaker, the people of Canada are thoroughly sick and tired of hearing so much talk of military matters in this House. There are other things to talk about. I am prepared to do my share at all times in defence of my country, as well as any other man, but I do wish to protest against so much time being wasted on military matters in this House. There are many other things of very great importance that we should consider, and among them is that of winding up the business of this session so that we may get home. I wish to enter my protest as vigorously as I can, and I hope we will forget for a iittle while at least that we have such a thing as a militia in this country. Let us get to work and do business.


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the innocent question which my colleague from West
Toronto (Mr. Osier) has asked the Minister of Militia is not a proper question to ask and not a proper question to be answered, I am very much surprised. Is it introducing militarism into this House to enter an emphatic protest on every occasion against the prostitution of the militia force to the advancement of party interests ? "Will anybody say that the opposition is introducing militarism-in the discussion which took place this afternoon. in entering a protest against the treatment which has been meted out to a gallant officer ? The opposition would be derelict in its duty if it allowed this session to pass without taking prompt notice of this matter, and bringing it to the attention of the country. Shall it be said that the hon. member for West Toronto is taking up the time of the House unnecessarily in discussing militarism when he asks the simple question of the Minister of Militia, if a militiaman when off duty, when not clothed in the garb of a military man, is amenable to military discipline ? I think my colleague was endeavouring to put a stop to the imperium in imperio that is being created on the other s'de of the House, and that he should receive the support and countenance of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson). We have some rights in this House, and I think certainly one of our rights, is to protect the militia force, to endeavour to keep it what it was intended to be, and to prevent it being reduced to an arm, a political aid and support, of hon. gentlemen opposite. If there is any quarrel between the two sides of the House it is we who are standing as guardians of the militia, who think the militia has a mission to perform, and that that mission can only be performed to the satisfaction of the country by the force being kept out of party politics.


Robert George Macpherson: You have had your innings already.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We have not had our innings yet, but we will have it when the Bill comes up again, and we will see whether a reasonable question asked by my colleague-should receive an answer. I think the minister ought to have been able to answer it.


Robert George Macpherson: I had no reference to that question at all.


Mr. W. B. NORTHRUP.: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) that the question asked by his colleague (Mr. Osier) was one of the most important questions that could be asked in this House and I have merely risen to say that although the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) now declines to answer that most important and very proper question he practically answered this afternoon. It will be remembered that this afternoon a letter was read by my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) bearing date the 23rd June at which

date it was stated by the lion. Minister of Militia the writer of that letter, Colonel Gregory, was in camp. As a matter of fact he was not in camp and the attention of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence having been called to this fact that not only was Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory not in camp at the time but that he had been actually suspended by the order of the minister himself some three days before the minister quietly added : I do not know that it makes any difference. Every member of this House knows, every militiamen in this country knows that if Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory had been in camp wearing his uniform on the 23rd of June it would have "been improper for him to have written that letter to the newspapers. Nobody would question that ; but when the hon. minister states that he did not know it made any [DOT]difference whether Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory wrote that letter not merely after he had ceased to be a member of the militia but after he had been suspended by the hon. minister himself, it would seem to be such a monstrous doctrine that I, an ordinary layman would not have believed my ears had not precisely the same theory "been carried into effect in my own city of Belleville. One of our colonels retired after be had served his time in the regiment and when he was on the retired list, happening to make some observations at a private dinner which were obnoxious to the hon. minister, he was called upon to give an account of his words. The answer was sent by the colonel to the minister with the request that it be laid before the General Officer Commanding and while at the same time courteously answering the letter raising the point whether or not the minister had any control over him now that he was on the retired list, no answer was given by the department and although the colonel has written again and again asking that his questions shall be answered he has been unable to obtain even the courtesy of a reply. I think in view of these two facts, the treatment of Lieutenant-Colonel Gregory and the treatment of Lieutenant-Colonel Ponton, which is an actual fact in the history of the militia force, we do not require any statement from the hon. minister as to what his view is as to his rights or intentions in regard to the militia force. I would like to point out to the hon. minister that while he says that the question before the House is a moot question, that the regulations are there and that every one can read them for himself, everybody knows perfectly well that if it is a moot question it could be made a plain question in two minutes by the hon. minister, and if he is willing to have an Act of this parliament passed declaring that no official of the department has any control over an officer who is not on duty every officer will feel himself free and independent if he is not on duty. The doctrine laid down by the hon. minister Mr. NORTHRUP.
brings it down to this that every officer and soldier in the militia, no matter how high or how humble he may be, when he joins the force pledges himself for ever to abstain from politics in so far as supporting the party of the opposition in this House is concerned. But, when it comes to gentlemen in the militia supporting hon. gentlemen opposite it is apparent that they can sign any sort of a document they choose to give a certificate of character to hon. gentlemen opposite and the government does not deem it to be a violation of the King's regulations. But, let any gentleman in the force, no matter what his position in the country may be, express a difference of opinion with hon. gentlemen opposite and he is at once disciplined by his superiors. If that is not a case of dragooning I would like to know what it is.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public Works-harbours and rivers, Prince Edward Island-Higgin's shore pier, works of construction and repairs, $1,000.
Mr. HACKETT.: I would like to ask the hon. minister what is being done at Higgin's Pier ?


Mr. CHAS. HYMAN (acting Minister of Public Works).: The departmental estimate for the work is as follows : Face timbers, 25 pounds, $250 ; cross ties, $100 ; face piles, $250 ; one and a half tons iron, $150 ; stone filling. $175 ; gravel filling, $75.


Edward Hackett: Is that for the renewal of the old work or is it for a new one ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, for the renewal of the old work.


Edward Hackett: You will remember that last year I made a protest against any money being expended on the old work and that I pointed out that if the government desired to accommodate the people of that part of the country they would build an entirely new work.


Charles Smith Hyman: The work is there, it is a government work and the government felt they ought to maintain it. Therefore the engineers recommended that this sum be expended for the purpose of maintaining the old work.


Edward Hackett: Before I came to parliament last year a meeting of the people of the locality was held and they sent a memorial to the government asking that no more money be spent on the old work but that a new work be commenced some 100 yards away from the old work because the old work was in an improper situation and would never be of any more benefit. I am sorry that the government are spending money on this old work.


Charles Smith Hyman: I shall be very glad to drop the item if the hon. gentleman objects.


Edward Hackett: That is the old game of bluff. Strike it out if you dare. I dare you to strike it out.


Charles Smith Hyman: I move that the item be dropped.


David Henderson: I think perhaps on consideration the minister will realize that he had made a mistake. He wants to throw the responsibility upon the hon. member (Mr. Hackett). I know nothing about the transaction nor as to whether it is a wise'expenditure or an unwise expenditure, but I understand the protest of the hon. member (Mr. Hackett) to be that the money was not being spent in the proper place. If the minister had listened to the suggestion of the hon. member, he would have allowed the item to be passed with the intention J that if that were not the proper place to spend the money it would be spent in some adjacent location where people of that section of the country approved of it, or the minister himself or his engineers might think it better to expend the money. I have no desire to increase the expenditure of the country or to ask the minister to allow the item to go through beyond the fact that 1 think it unfair to throw the responsibility of dropping the item upon the hon. member, simply because he made the suggestion that it would be better to spend the money at a place where the people would get greater advantage from it.	.


Mr. MONET.: I do not think there is anything unfair in dropping this item. At the end of every session gentlemen opposite are in the habit of criticising the general expenditure without mentioning a single item to which they object. Just now they have mentioned an item which they believed not to be a legitimate expenditure, and the Minister of Public Works relying upon the remarks of the hon. member (Mr. Hackett) moves that the item should be dropped. I think that is perfectly fair.
matter looked into, but it is not a thing that can be decided at a moment's notice to-night. As I understand, the hon. member (Mr. Hackett) asked that the item should be struck out, and I shall be glad to have the engineer at the first opportunity inquire into the necessity for a new work.


Edward Hackett: The people of that section of the country are not in favour of expending any more money on the old work. They want a new work altogether, about 100 yards away from the old work, and at a meeting of the electors held a year ago they passed a resolution that any expenditure made there should be upon the new work, and that it would be simply a waste of money to expend it upon the old work. That is the view of the people, and you can do what you like about it. You may strike it out or you may leave it there. It makes no difference to me ; I am only expressing the wishes of the people when I make these remarks.


Charles Smith Hyman: I withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn and item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Prince Edward Island-New London harbour improvements, $5,500.


Edward Hackett: What is this vote for ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is to improve the entrance of the channel. The work is under contract ; the contract price being $5,500.


Edward Hackett: Were tenders invited ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Public tenders were invited.	.


Edward Hackett: Who was the contractor ?


Mr. HYMAN T. P.@: Cullen.
Harbours and rivers-Prince Edward Island -Point Prim island wharf, $5,000.


Edward Hackett: Is this a new work ?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monet) carry out that suggestion a little further, and say that the minister should drop every item to which the opposition object ?


Dominique Monet: If I condemn an expenditure in my constituency, I think the minister should drop the item.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is a work which has been in existence. The officers of the department have recommended to the minister the expenditure of $1,000 for repairs of the old work, and the hon. member (Mr. Hackett) objects to the expenditure of this money altogether. It is not a question of spending the money in some other place ; the money is intended for the repairs of this particular work ; and it cannot be expended elsewhere. If the hon. member thinks there should be a new pier, I shall be glad to instruct the engineers to have the


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes. The estimated cost is $15,000, and tenders have been called for.


Edward Hackett: Is this intended to improve the entrance to Charlottetown harbour ?	.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is a wharf at Point Prim island, and is to be 1,000 feet long.


Edward Hackett: Are the boats that will use it engaged in the deep sea fisheries, or the coast fisheries ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I suppose when the wharf is built, any kind of boat will be able to use it.


Edward Hackett: Has the contract been let ?	[DOT]


Charles Smith Hyman: Tenders have been advertised for but the contract has not been let.


Edward Hackett: I am making no objection to this vote at all, but I consider that

there are many parts of Prince Edward Island, especially on the northeast of the island, where money could be expended with greater advantage to the people than at this particular point.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is only a question of degree then.


Edward Hackett: I at first supposed that this was to improve the entrance to Charlottetown harbour, but it appears now that it is only for a boat shelter. I am in favour of affording every accommodation to the fishermen of the island, and I would like to know whether these boats are small boats or large boats.


Charles Smith Hyman: My foresight is not sufficient to enable me to tell what kind of boats will use this wharf when it is built. At the outer end the wharf is six feet at low water, and fifteen feet at high tide, and any boats that come there to use it will be allowed to.


Edward Hackett: Is this wharf from the shore towards the island ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is on the island.
P. E. I.-Richmond Bay - reconstruction of wharf near Grand river ferry, $5,000.


Edward Hackett: When did this wharf come into the hands of the federal government ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The officers of the department tell me that this wharf was purchased from the province a number of years ago.
.Mr. HACKETT. I remember when the piers on Prince Edward Island were taken over by the federal government from the local government, and this wharf was left. It must have been taken over lately.


Charles Smith Hyman: The question is in regard to the expenditure of money on a wharf which belongs to the Dominion government. I can inform the hon. gentleman that I will have this matter looked into, and if the wharf does not belong to the Dominion government, the money will not be spent.
P. E. I.-Rustico harbour-breakwater on Robinson's island, south side of entrance to harbour, $11,000.


Edward Hackett: This is mainly a revote. What has been done there '! Has the contract been let ?
Mr. iiYMAN. The plans are all ready, and the tenders will be advertised for immediately.


Edward Hackett: We have a great deal of this kind of thing on Prince Edward Island. Immediately preceding an election a large amount of money is voted, but nothing is done. I trust the minister will see that this money will be expended in the interest of the people down there, and that the, Mr. HACKETT.
placing of money in the estimates to be car-| ried until the elections are over will be stopped.
P- E. I.-Souris, Knight's Point-strengthening of breakwater, $5,000.


Edward Hackett: Who is the contractor for this work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The contractor is J. I.ani-gan.


Edward Hackett: Anybody else ? The allegation has been made in the press that the hon. member for King's is a partner in this work, and he will be able to deny that statement if it is not correct


Mr. JAMES. J.: HUGHES Does my hon. friend make that statement ?


Edward Hackett: I saw it in the press.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES.: Does my hon. friend endorse it ?


Edward Hackett: I am not assuming to endorse it


James Joseph Hughes: When any man makes that statement on his own authority, I will refer to it.


Edward Hackett: I want to be perfectly fair to the hon. gentleman. It is not necessary for me to endorse it. I say that I saw the allegation in the press. If the hon. gentleman desires to deny it, I think he-should do so now.


James Joseph Hughes: I too saw the statement in the press, and I asked the paper which published it to give me the name of the person who made the statement, or publish my reply, and it refused to do either. Consequently until some person will make that statement over his own signature or on the floor of this House, I will take no notice of it.
P. E. I. - Summerside harbour - breakwater, $15,000.


Edward Hackett: What has been done there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The estimate for the total completion of this work is in the neighbourhood of $150,000. Part of the work was undertaken, but after a small amount had been expended upon it, it was found that the work was not of a substantial enough character to stand the heavy stress of weather there, and therefore only a small amount has been expended as yet. The work will have to be still further looked into by the engineers to see if some other method cannot be found to effect the improvements in the harbour.


James Joseph Hughes: As my hon. friend does not go further than to repeat in this House a statement which is unfounded and devoid of truth, I challenge him to father the statement. It is unworthy of him to

repeat such a silly, unfounded and absolutely untrue statement in this House.


Edward Hackett: I regret that I have raised the ire of the hon. member for King's. There is an old saying that a guilty conscience needs no accuser. The statement appeared in the newspaper press of Prince Edward Island some months ago, and I was giving the hon. gentleman an opportunity of denying it. I must accept his denial, but I regret very much that the hon. gentleman did not take the opportunity of denying it through the press. I was waiting simply to give him a chance to show himself on the floor of parliament this evening. Who are the contractors for this work at Summerside ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The contractors were Macdonald & Moffatt.


Edward Hackett: What was the amount of their contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The amount paid to them was something like $11,000 or $12,000. The total amount of the contract was $55,000, but the work has been stopped. They have not had very much time since May 17th, when it was found that the work was too light, but it is the intention of the department to take the matter up as soon as possible.


Edward Hackett: There is no work being done there now.


Charles Smith Hyman: Not at the present moment.


Edward Hackett: What kind of work is this V


Charles Smith Hyman: Brush, stone and pile work, protection work.


Edward Hackett: Where was the work done, at Indian Point, or near the lighthouse ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The work was started at Indian Point, and worked out from Indian Point.


Edward Hackett: I notice by the supplementary estimates there is another large amount for this very work at Summerside Harbour.


Charles Smith Hyman: The object in putting in a further sum bears out what I have said that the department are acting in good faith in the matter. When the department have $35,000 at their disposal they would feel justified in going on with a heavier class of work.


Edward Hackett: I have had a great deal of experience in connection with this work. At every election, local or federal, this work has been taken up, and a certain amount of money put in the estimates for it. Macdonald and Moffatt are good contractors. They entered into a contract with 246	'
the government to construct this work, and a large amount of money was voted for it. Why was It stopped ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Simply because the officers found that the work was not strong enough to stand the stress of weather and it was thought better to cancel that contract, to take a further vote to look into the matter and if necessary enter into another contract at a larger cost. In this the department acted in good faith, and it was only after it was started and the difficulty of the work became known that it was thought better in the interests of the public to put in a work of a more satisfactory and stronger character.


Edward Hackett: It is a singular thing ; the same ground and water was there, the same facilities for building a breakwater were there, and I cannot see why the government cancelled the contract with Macdonald and Moffatt. It is looked upon by the people of Prince Edward Island as a mere mockery. I would ask the minister to invite tenders and be serious about it.


Charles Smith Hyman: I think the department has proved they were serious ; they did invite tenders.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was the work performed according to plans and specifications of the officers of the department ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, there is no doubt about that.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The officers were in error, the work was not strong enough, and so after $11,000 had been expended, the work was abandoned, and new specifications were arranged for ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There were two sets of plans, one involving a very heavy expenditure, and another involving a less expenditure. It was thought by the officers of the department and they recommended that in their opinion the lighter work might answer, but after starting the lighter work it was found that owing to the stress of weather it would not be in the interests of the public to continue it. The work done is not thrown away, the material is there, it is simply a question of widening the present breakwater and going on with the extension if it is found to be in the interests of the public that that should be done.


Edward Hackett: Have any surveys been made lately in connection with this work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This matter has only been settled a short time ago, and no surveys have been made since, but surveys and specifications will be made at once.


Edward Hackett: You will require the surveys first.


Charles Smith Hyman: The surveys before the
specifications, of course.



V


Mr. EARLE.: Is it the intention of the department to carry on this work oh the greater plan now 7


Charles Smith Hyman: I would hardly like to make a definite promise. I am only acting minister, but if I am in the department for the next month I would like to see the plans and have the reports of the engineers. The good intention of the department was shown by the fact that they have taken a further estimate of $20,000 in addition to this $15,000.


Thomas Earle: I am asking, for information, if you are going to adopt the greater plan or have further investigation ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There will be a further investigation.
Prince Edward Island-West Point wharf- repairs, $1,000.


Edward Hackett: Is that for repairs or for an extension of the work '!


James Joseph Hughes: Before you pass from Prince Edward Island I want to say one word more in regard to the matter which was brought up by the hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett). Since the matter was referred to I think it is due to myself to make a still further statement in that regard. I did not expect that that matter would be brought up here at all. My hon. friend if he has read the newspapers of Prince Edward Island at all, must know the facts of the case, and since he has referred to this matter he might as well have the whole statement of the case. He knows that an anonymous writer in the Charlottetown ' Examiner,' the Conservative organ in Charlottetown, who signed himself ' Elector,' but whose identity I think I know, referred to this matter and mentioned my name in connection therewith. The editor of that paper in an editorial stated that he would be glad to publish a reply. I sent a reply to that paper absolutely denying the truthfulness of the statement made by the anonymous writer, but the editor refused to publish my reply. The hon. gentleman who referred to this to-night must have known that as well as he did the other and he might have referred to it. My reply' appeared in the ' Patriot.'


Mr. COCHRANE.: Gracious !


James Joseph Hughes: My hon. friend from East Northumberland (Mr. Cochrane) is the sprightly boy of the opposition and very often engages in these unseemly interruptions.


Edward Cochrane: We want to get away, and I do not know that this committee is very much interested in what the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. J. Hughes) may have written in Prince Edward Island.


Edward Hackett: I think it is due to myself to say that it was not an account of Mr. HYMAN.
animus against the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. J. Hughes) that I brought this question up. He thinks I ought to have known that he had written to the Charlottetown * Examiner.' How could I tell about that ? The hon. gentleman was attending to his business and I was attending to mine. 1 cannot see that the hon. gentleman has any grievance against me in that regard.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Let us go home.


Edward Hackett: Some of these hon. gen-tlement are very anxious to go home. Some of them, who live within 500 miles of Ottawa," can go home every Friday night; but we who live 1,000 miles or more away must remain here all session. Let these hon. gentlemen go away. We are here to attend to our duties as representatives of the people, and we are not to be blocked by anybody in this chamber. I wish to say to the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. J. Hughes) in conclusion, that I have no desire to make any personal attack upon him. I hear some hon. member say ' sit down.' I want to tell that hon. gentleman that I will not sit down at his word.


Robert Holmes: Nobody asked the hon. gentleman to sit down.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: We are discussing an item that we passed some time ago. Now, I wish to bring to the attention of the committee this fact, concerning which there seems to be a false impression-each of these items is a subject in itself, and when it is discussed and passed it cannot be referred to again.


Edward Hackett: I asked a question with regard to the work at West Point, whether it is the new work, the extension of a pier or repairs ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is repairs to an old work.


Richard Blain: This ends the list of these items for Prince Edward Island. There was a request made by the minister last night to give us a statement of the items that were passed then showing the counties in which the works were situated. May I ask if that statement has been prepared ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I gave instructions to have the statement prepared, and I expect to be able to lay it on the table in a few minutes. But, if I cannot get it to-night I will give it to the hon. gentleman in the morning.
Public Works, chargeable to income-harbours and rivers-New Brunswick-Anderson's Hollow-improvements and repairs to wharf, 51,100.


Mr. GANONG.: Where is this located ?


Charles Smith Hyman: In Albert county.
New Brunswick-Black Brook-(Loggieville) -wharf, $3,500.


Gilbert White Ganong: Is this to complete the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Gilbert White Ganong: What is the total cost Y


Charles Smith Hyman: The total estimated cost is $7,000. of which $3,500 has been expended, leaving $3,500 to be expended under ihe present vote.
New Brunswick-Campbellton wharl-extension and repairs, $20,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: I notice that this amount was in last year's estimates. Has anything been done since last year in connection with this ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There was some difficulty in connection with acquiring the wharf we propose to extend. The matter is still in court. Consequently, although tenders have been called for, the matter not having been settled, the department has not yet accepted tenders for the work.


Gilbert White Ganong: What is the estimated cost of this work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The estimated cost of the construction work is $35,000, and this $20,000 Is on account.


Gilbert White Ganong: Has it been under the control of the government engineer all the time or is there a local engineer in charge?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is the district government engineer, of course.


Gilbert White Ganong: Who is he ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Mr. Geoffrey Stead.
New Brunswick-Cape Tormentine-improvements, $10,000.


Edward Hackett: Are these improvements intended to give greater facilities in crossing between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am afraid that that is not within the purview of the Department of Public Works. I must ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hackett) to renew his question when the estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries are up.
New Brunswick-Caraquet wharf, $44,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: We had better have a little explanation about an amount of this kind and what we are going to get for the money.


Charles Smith Hyman: The wharf is under contract. with Messrs. Simmons and Burpee, for $59,950. Adding the usual 10 per cent for contingencies, we get a total estimate of 'cost of about $65,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: Were tenders called for this ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Tenders were publicly called for.
246}	...


Gilbert White Ganong: Was there any public accommodation at Caraquet before ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No deep-water accommodation, I understand. This is a deep-water wharf.


Gilbert White Ganong: What is the population of Caraquet ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not know that the population of the town itself is very large. This is intended to serve the shipping from that point which, I am told, is very considerable.


Mr. FOWLER.: There is an item which
has been passed to which I ask leave to refer-the Campbellton wharf. Can the minister tell me whether this wharf was purchased from Mr. Shives ?


Peter Macdonald: Mr. Hyman moves that item ' Campbellton wharf extension and repairs, $20,000 ' be reconsidered. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt that motion. Carried.


George William Fowler: Was this wharf purchased from Mr. Shives ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand it was.


George William Fowler: How much was paid for it Y


Charles Smith Hyman: No money was paid to him. The matter is still in court.


George William Fowler: Is there a suit ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Charles Fitzpatrick: A reference to the Exchequer Court.


George William Fowler: Was the property expropriated ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


George William Fowler: What special privileges have been granted to Mr. Shives in the wharf ?


Charles Smith Hyman: None.


George William Fowler: Has he no right or privileges there over other users ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


George William Fowler: I am informed that when Mr. Shives wanted to load freight on that wharf other people had to stand aside.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is not the case. If Mr. Shives assumes any position of that kind it is not with the consent of the department.


George William Fowler: I understand an order with respect to that matter has been issued by the department, that some correspondence has passed between the William Richards & Company, Limited, and Mr. Gourdeau, the deputy minister.


Charles Smith Hyman: That is in the Marine and Fisheries Department. All we have to do

is to construct the wharf, and we hand it over to the Marine Department.


George William Fowler: I understand that there have been certain privileges granted to Mr. Shives over the other users of the wharf.


Charles Smith Hyman: Not with the consent of this department.


Thomas Earle: Will the minister state what amount he offered for the property ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand the Justice Department offered $5,000 for it. Something over $40,000, I am told, was asked for it, and X thought we had better go to court under the circumstances.


George William Fowler: I understand there were two large users of the wharf, the Richards Company and the Shives Company.


Charles Smith Hyman: The Marine Department are the only ones who have a right to use the wharf.
New Brunswick-Dalhousie-harbour improvements, $10,000.


Edmund Boyd Osler: How is that money being expended, and what is the nature of the improvements ?


Charles Smith Hyman: To build an extension to the present government pier. The estimated cost of the work is $42,000.
New	Brunswick-Dipper Harbour-breakwater, $15,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The estimated cost of that work is something over $30,000. No money has been expended on it so far.
New Brunswick-Great Salmon river-groyne and breakwater combined, $4,300.


Charles Smith Hyman: I move that we drop that item. The policy of the department is not to make expenditures where the government cannot control the roads to the wharf. I understand in this case there is some difficulty in obtaining that right, in order that we may give the public the free and full use of the property adjoining the wharf. For that reason the department will not proceed with the work.


George William Fowler: This is a very important point, and the breakwater is much needed.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is important that the department should own it.


George William Fowler: Why don't you expropriate it ? Down at a place called Grande VallSe, I remember distinctly we spent about $75,000, and the Minister of Justice said they had a right to expropriate the land ' there. It is not fair to allow one individual who owns this land to prevent a public work being constructed which would be of advantage to the public. I think you had better let that vote stand and expropriate the land.


Charles Smith Hyman: As the hon. gentleman thinks it is of some importance, I have no Mr. HYMAN.	,
objection to letting it stand. I was only saying that we were unable to obtain satisfactory control of the approaches to the wharf.


George William Fowler: I do not know as to the importance of this particular work that is proposed, hut I know the place is important. There are large lumber interests there and important businesses.


Charles Smith Hyman: We had better drop it and take it up another session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and item struck out.
New Brunswick-Hopewell Cape wharf-repairs, $2,000.
Gilbert White Ganong: What is the total cost of this work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: $2,000 is all that it is intended to spend upon it. It is to repair a wharf that was burnt.


Gilbert White Ganong: The statement last year with regard to this wharf does not agree with that.


Charles Smith Hyman: That was another work. This is not the same work.


George William Fowler: I know something about that locality. There is an old wharf and a new wharf.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is the old wharf. It was burned, and it is in the interest of the public to repair it. It only requires a small amount.


Richard Blain: When the item was up before we were told it was under contract.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is the new work that wa3 under contract. There are two wharfs in the same place. This is to repair the wharf that was partly destroyed.
New Brunswick-North Head breakwater wharf-Grand Manan, $10,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: Has anything been done in connection with that work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is rather a large work, and it is estimated to cost $125,000 or $130,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: $91,000 was given as the estimate last year.


Charles Smith Hyman: The difference between the two estimates is that one was for native timber and the other for creosoted timber. The difference is as $91,000 to $120,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: Has the land been acquired ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not think the land has been acquired yet.


Gilbert White Ganong: 
Charles Smith Hyman: The necessary plans have been prepared by the department for the acquirement of the land.


Gilbert White Ganong: Can you tell me who owns ttye land that will have to be acquired?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, I have no information as to who the owners of the land are.
New Brunswick-Petit Roeher-breakwater, 16,000. ,


Charles Smith Hyman: Under contract.


George William Fowler: That is in Gloucester county ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


George William Fowler: What is the total cost of this wharf ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The amount of the contract is $32,900. The estimated total cost is $36,000. The contract has been entered into with Mr. McGregor of Dalhousie for $32,900. We are taking a vote of $6,000 in these estimates antf in the supplementary estimates there is a vote of $10,000, making $16,000, the amount which we will have to pay out during the present year.


George William Fowler: When was the contract let ?


Charles Smith Hyman: On the 31st May.


George William Fowler: Did you spend any money last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


Edmund Boyd Osler: What business is there at that port to warrant such a large expenditure ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is a population in the town of 2,000 and there are large fishing and lumbering interests which use the wharf.


George William Fowler: How many miles from the post office, for instance, would you have to go to get 2,000 people ? There is no such population of 2,000. It is merely a farming community. it is a very thickly settled district but there is no town ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is the parish of Beresford, which has a population of nearly 5,000 to be served by this work.


George William Fowler: Yes, in the whole parish.


Gilbert White Ganong: Will the hon. minister explain why he has increased the cost of this work ? It was stated last year that the contract price was $27,400.


Charles Smith Hyman: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the contract was let for that amount ?


Gilbert White Ganong: The estimate was $&7,400.


Charles Smith Hyman: In this case the estimated cost was higher than what was found to be the real cost when the contract was let


George William Fowler: It was the other way ; the estimate was $27,400.


Gilbert White Ganong: I think the hon. minister should give some explanation as to why this work is costing $5,000 or $6,000 more than the estimate.


Charles Smith Hyman: The explanation given by the officers of the department is that in preparing the estimate there' is not as much care taken as when they are preparing plans for the contract.
New Brunswick-River St. John, including tributaries, $16,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The usual vote.


George William Fowler: Are there any applications for wharfs along the St. John river adjacent to King's county ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We have an item in the supplementary estimates in connection with the local government.
New Brunswick-St. John harbour-Negro Point breakwater, $20,000.


Gilbert White Ganong: Is this for repairs ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.


Gilbert White Ganong: What is the total ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is practically a maintenance item. The departmental engineers report that it is necessary to spend $20,000 for repairs and this item has been put in for the purpose.
New Brunswick-Upper Salmon river (Alma pier), $1,300.


George William Fowler: What are you doing there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This work is under contract and this vote is simply to complete it.


George William Fowler: You had a vote of $4,000 last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The amount of the contract is $4,964, $3,360 has been spent and that is to complete the work.
Harbours and rivers, Quebec, $723,300.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. minister take up Ontario instead of Quebec ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am sorry to say that I have not the particulars for the Ontario items.


William Humphrey Bennett: As far as we can go. I do not think there will be much objection.


Charles Smith Hyman: Very well.
Harbours and rivers, Ontario-Amherstburg -dredging, $30,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will that complete the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This work is practically rendered necessary owing to the increased draught of boats that are now going up and down the river. The approaches to the

wharfs would only permit a boat drawing sixteen feet to come up to them. This item is put in the estimates with the intention of calling for tenders to perform work so as to increase the depth of the water and permit larger boats coming into the wharf.
Ontario-Barry's Bay, Madawaska river, wharf, $4,500.


Richard Blain: Explain this.


Charles Smith Hyman: The estimate was $4,500 ; there has been no expenditure ; it is intended to prepare plans and call for tenders.


Richard Blain: What do you mean when yon say it is a departmental matter.


Charles Smith Hyman: I mean that the resident engineer reports to the chief engineer that a certain amount of money is required for repairs, and when the report comes to the minister it is scrutinized and a vote asked in accordance with the departmental report.
Ontario-Braeebridge wharf, $5,800.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the total cost, and has the contract been let ?


Charles Smith Hyman: $7,000 is the estimated cost; the contract is not yet let.
Ontario-Burlington channel pier, $20,000.


Richard Blain: What is the explanation of this ?
Mr. n l .uAN. This is under contract; it is a revote to complete the payment.


Richard Blain: When will the contract be completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The engineer informs me that it will be completed in the month oE September.
Ontario-Collingwood, improvements in harbour, $50,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: Has Mr. Coste, the government engineer, valued the Collingwood dry dock, and if so, what is the valuation ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is not connected with this item, but I will be glad to get the information later.


William Humphrey Bennett: Surely the minister would remember.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it correct, as reported, that Mr. Coste has valuea the dry dock at $540,000 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I cannot remember, but I will bring the information down to-morrow.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is a matter of very great importance if we have to pay for thirty or forty years 4 per cent on $540,uoo.


Charles Smith Hyman: I will bring the information down to-morrow.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this item for ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Charles Smith Hyman: To complete the widening of the channel which is under contract at present.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When will it be finished and how much is required to finish it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This amount is to complete the work

carried.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It won't pass in that cavalier way.


Charles Smith Hyman: What does the hon. gentleman mean by ' cavalier ' ? I am delighted to give the hon. gentleman all the information I can.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister should not call ' carried ' without replying to the question asked. Collingwood is a very important harbour and it is the duty of the minister to give the information we require.


Charles Smith Hyman: The total amount of the contract is $87,000, there was paid upon that $49,000, and this is to complete the balance of the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the depth and width of the channel ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Twenty-one feet deep and 220 feet wide for the whole distance of the harbour and for some distance outside.


William Humphrey Bennett: If a boat gets out of the channel what will be the depth of the water at the side ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It would vary from twelve to fifteen feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The first channel was 110 feet wide, and now it is being enlarged to 220 feet. How much remains to be completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Judging by the expenditure, about one-half.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This has nothing to do with the bonus for the dry dock.
Mr; HYMAN. Nothing at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who has the contract ?


Mr. HYMAN C. S.@: Boone.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There were a good many complaints last year, but I do not think the contractor was entirely to blame because he had a great many difficulties to overcome. Taking everything into account I think he did very well. Some were very strongly of the opinion that the Minister of Public Works should take the work from him, but I do not think so at all. I think he was making a reasonable effort to get along with the work as best he could.
Mr. [DOT] HYMAN. I think these complaints were made two years ago. Last year and this year so far as the department is concerned, the work has been proceeded with in a satisfactory manner.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it dredging, or rock work now ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The engineer informs me that the present work is principally rock work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Has Mr. Broone any dredges other than he had last year, or is he working .with the same plant ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The same plant, so far as the department is aware.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is he progressing at the usual rate according to your progress estimates ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The engineer informs me that the work is progressing satisfactorily.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Collingwood is a very important port and every reasonable effort should be made to get the work done promptly. The people will be glad to know that the work is likely to be finished at an early date, and that the harbour will be in a proper shape to enable them to carry on their business successfully.
Depot Harbour breakwater, $100,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the total cost of this work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The total contract is $157,500 and there is some rip-rap work for foundation amounting to $37,500. The contract was let on the 14th of May, 1902, to Messrs. Davis, Haney & Miller.


William Humphrey Bennett: What are the dimensions of this breakwater ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The addition is 120 feet long, 80 feet wide and from 29 to 50 feet high. It runs from the main land towards the island.


William Humphrey Bennett: Practically it is a present to the Canada Atlantic Railway.


Richard Blain: When was that amount first voted ? I see that the same amount was in the estimates last year, and no money was expended.


Charles Smith Hyman: The contract was let last year.


Richard Blain: What is the amount of the contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Richard Blain: Did the government purchase the land ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am informed that the wharf is being built at the foot of a public road, so that there is no necessity for purchasing the land.


Richard Blain: It belongs to somebody, of course ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is open to everybody.


Mr. LENNOX.: I do not think that follows. On a public road you must get liberty the same as anywhere else.


Charles Smith Hyman: I do not suppose that it is possible to close the road, and therefore it will always be open to the public.


Haughton Lennox: If the minister has obtained an opinion from the Department of Justice to that effect, we must bow to it, but I have very great doubt about it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this to complete the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, there will be a small amount left.


Haughton Lennox: I do not understand why the department does not take the whole amount now.


Charles Smith Hyman: We are taking the difference in the supplementary estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When does the contract for Depot Harbour call for completion ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Early this fall.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The parties who did the work last year were Haney, Davis and Miller. Is that the same Davis who did the Cornwall canal business ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand not. This is J. P. Davis.
Ontario-Gananoque, dredging, $5,000.


Thomas Earle: Will the minister explain this ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is for the purpose of increasing the depth of the harbour from 10 to 15 feet. The work was commenced this year and this is to complete it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is this being done by contract or by days' work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is being done by a rented dredge at the rate of 13J cents a yard.
Ontario-Goderich harbour works, $20,000.


William Humphrey Bennett: What is the total amount of the contract ?


Charles Smith Hyman: $20,000. This vote is for repairs to the north pier.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it all for repairs ? Mr. HYMAN. All but about $2,000 for dredging.


William Humphrey Bennett: Is it intended to ask for tender for this work, less what there may be for dredging ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The work is made up or some six or seven different items. It is almost impossible to have a work of this kind done by contract. It is being done under the engineers of the department by days' work. There is a special engineer in charge of the work.


Richard Blain: What amount was expended last year and what was the result ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The work last year was on the south pier.


Richard Blain: The amount Toted last year was not for repairs, but for the construction of a breakwater.


Charles Smith Hyman: I understand that the vote of last year was for repairs.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman is misinformed or wrong information was given last year. It was to the effect that the vote was to construct 200 feet of a breakwater as a trial. The minister in charge of the estimates said that if that was found to be a valuable work, it would possibly be continued. How was the money expended, and what was the result ?


Charles Smith Hyman: $12,000 of this is a revote. $S,000 was spent on the repairs. Only $8,000 is being asked for this year.


Richard Blain: Is there anything in the supplementary estimates for 1905 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is nothing in this work for the supplementary estimates.


Richard Blain: For another work there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: For the extension of the breakwater there but nothing for this.


Richard Blain: Was there any money expended last year on the breakwater 1


Charles Smith Hyman: Not on the new breakwater.


Richard Blain: How was that ? The money was voted for that purpose.


Charles Smith Hyman: It is being revoted now and the contract has been let for the work which is now being proceeded with. The timber is being got out for the work but no money has been expended.


Mr BLAIN.: What is the length of the pier ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 500 feet.


Richard Blain: It would seem to me that when a certain amount of money is to be expended on an important harbour like Goderich there should be some general information given to the committee as to how much money will be required to complete the harbour and make it worthy of the people of Canada. This system of putting in $20,000 this year and $20,000 next year, &c., makes it rather unsatisfactory to the committee and cannot be in the interests of the people of that neighbourhood. Last year the hon. gentleman having charge of the estimates said that it was proposed to spend $20,000 on the new breakwater. The .minister of Public Works at page 13240 of last year's ' Hansard ' said :
This matter has been taken up not alone by the Goderich people but by the large business Mr. HYMAN.	,
and commercial interests of Ontario, especially from Toronto west who represent in the strongest manner the importance of this work. I am asking for this vote of $20,000 for the purpose of making a trial of 200 feet of breakwater.
There is the statement of the hon. minister, It may be that the hon. gentleman will keep this going for many years. It has been going now for many years.


Charles Smith Hyman: The explanation of the item is simply this, that the breakwater to which the hon. gentleman alludes has been contracted for but on the old breakwater certain repairs were needed and $8,000 were expended on this last year. There are two separate works and the intention of the department is to proceed immediately with the construction of the new breakwater which is now under contract.


Richard Blain: Did I understand the minister to say that $8,000 of the $20,000 voted last year for the construction of 200 feet of a breakwater was expended on repairs ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There was a larger item $20,000 last year, an item of $30,000, which was in different appropriations and of this $8,000 was expended on repairs to the south breakwater.


Richard Blain: Then the $20,000 voted last year was not expended at all ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No.


Richard Blain: Out of what vote was the $8,000 expended ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am informed that the amount expended for repairs was in the supplementary, not in the main estimates.


Richard Blain: When will the Goderich harbour be completed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: That is a somewhat difficult question to answer. The reports of the engineers in regard to Goderich are that before a complete work is made, at least a thousand feet of the new breakwater will be required. The contract which has been entered into by the department at the present time is for 500 feet of that breakwater. If that is not found sufficient it will then be a matter for the department to decide whether they will extend the breakwater to a thousand feet or not.


Richard Blain: I do not want to continue the discussion beyond saying that last year the statement of the minister was that it was proposed to make an experiment here with 200 feet of breakwater at a cost of $20,000. I understand the minister to say the $20,000 was not expended. They are proposing now by the statement of the hon. gentleman to try 500 feet. They are going to make an expenditure very much larger before they ascertain whether the breakwater will be suitable or not. If it was necessary in the interests of the country to

experiment with 200 feet I do not think it is in the interests of the people that the department should now experiment with 500 feet.


Charles Smith Hyman: The only explanation I have in regard to the matter is that the engineers of the department reported, after looking into the matter carefully in different states of the weather, that it might require 1,000 feet of breakwater but that 500 feet would be quite necessary in the interests of the department and the public, and a contract was entered into for 500 feet, in the hope that it will be sufficient and that the balance will not be necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What became of the balance of the vote of last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We are revoting $12,000. Hon. gentlemen will understand that these estimates were made up some time since. This vote should have been for a larger amount than $12,000, but it was expected that more of the vote available in the department would have been expended before the end of the fiscal year and consequently there appears a vote of only $12,000.


Mr. ROSAMOND.: Could the minister give any idea of the total amount of this expenditure ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is a contract for 500 feet. If my memory serves me the contract amounts to $71,000 or $72,000.


Bennett Rosamond: What amount of shipping goes into that port ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not the details but I may say that Goderich is one of the most important ports on Lake Huron. There is a large elevator there now which is being served by the Grand Trunk Railway at the present time and the Canadian Pacific Railway are extending their line so as to reach Goderich harbour ; I presume the amount of shipping will increase when they get there. I understand it is the intention of the Canadian Pacific Railway to make Goderich a large receiving and shipping port.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When and to whom was this contract let ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Battle & Conlon, the lowest tenderers. The amount of the tender is $74,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many tenders were received ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have not the information here, but I shall be glad to give it later on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Information given after the money is voted is interesting, but it is more interesting when given before ,thei money is voted.


Charles Smith Hyman: It was given to the lowest tenderer.
Mr. iSPROULE. Is the $16,000 spent last year included in this contract, or was that for something else ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It was not included. This is a straight contract for the building of 500 feet of breakwater at Goderich. There has been no expenditure under that contract:


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What became of the $16,000 over and above the repairs ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am sorry that I have been unable to explain the matter to the satisfaction of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule). It is stated in the estimates that this is a revote of $12,000. The hon. gentleman will understand that these estimates were made up very early in the year. It was then expected that there would be a larger sum expended upon the amount available to the department, that the contract would be let on certain money earned. But the preparing of the plans and calling for tenders took longer than was expected, and the work did not go on. Otherwise the amount would have been larger than $12,000. This is a revote of $12,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is practically no explanation at all. Last year $36,000 was voted for this work at Goderich. Out of this the minister tells us he spent $8,000 in repairs. That left him $28,000. Now, if $12,000 of that is revoted, that leaves $16,000 that must have been spent for some purpose, because it does not appear in the revote and is not in the estimates. What was it spent for ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It may have been revoted. It is not spent. If this item were made up to-day, or if the department had known the exact expenditure that would have been made up to the end of the fiscal year, it would have read ' Goderich harbour works, revote, $28,000.' But $16,000 of the money lapsed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what you revote.


Charles Smith Hyman: We revote $12,000 and $16,000 lapsed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But why do you revote
$12,000 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Because it was thought that the expenditure for the year ending 30th June, 1904, would be larger than it actually proved to be.
air. LENNOX. If we had known all we know now we would have had a revote of $28,000 instead of a revote of $12,000 V


Charles Smith Hyman: That is practically correct-only $8,000 was expended.
air. LENNOX. We voted $36,000 last year and spent $8,000. That would leave $28,000. Should we not amend this item, and make it plain that it is a revote of $20,000 instead of a revote of $12,000 ? In its present form it is misleading. If you change that to a revote of $28,000 you will have to

776<X
change the other column to make it correspond. The result is.that we are voting less this year than last year.


Charles Smith Hyman: Sixteen thousand dollars has lapsed.


Haughton Lennox: Is it all lapsed ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We revote $12,000.


Haughton Lennox: It is all lapsed except the $8,000 that has been expended. That is correct, is it not ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The total vote last year was $36,000, of which $8,000 was spent. We might have revoted $28,000, but we only revoted $12,000 owing to the fact that when the estimates were made up we thought the expenditure would be larger. But we make a revote of $12,000 and an additional vote of $8,000.


Haughton Lennox: If we are revoting at all, we should revote to the whole extent of the vote of this year, so long as it is within the limits of the lapsed vote. You could revote to the extent of $28,000. As a matter of fact, you are revoting $20,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: We are only revoting $12,000. Surely the hon. gentleman will see that of the amount of $20,000, $12,000 is a revote and $8,000 is new.


Haughton Lennox: The mere fact that the hon. minister puts it down as $12,000 does not make it so. There was a lapsed vote of $28,000. Anything that you vote to-night up to $28,000 is a revote, however it may be put in the estimates. But you should make the estimates accord with the facts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is right-otherwise this is misleading the House. We voted last year so much. At the end of the fiscal year everything voted and not spent lapsed. So, to the extent of the unspent amount, any money voted this year is a revote. If this is done in every case, we know what we are giving in addition to what was given last year. We know7 what we are doing.


Haughton Lennox: This ought to be amend ed


Archibald Campbell: Carried.


Haughton Lennox: I want the chairman to understand that if he wishes straight sailing he will have to treat us properly. When a gentleman is speaking it is not proper for the chairman to throw ' carried ' in his face. I protest against that. Now, I want to say to the minister, through the chairman, that it is not consistent or proper that we should deal with an item in the way it is here proposed. We have the minister's bald statement that we are revoting $12,000 and making a new vote of $8,000 besides, a total of $20,000. Now, the fact is we are revoting $20,000 of a lapsed vote of $28,000. I submit to the committee that that item should be changed before we go any further Mr. LENNOX.
if the committee has any regard for consistency or any desire to put the facts on record as they actually exist.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We have an extra column put in the estimates to enable us to keep track of what money we vote from year to year, how much has been expended and how much is intended to be expended in the future. Now, if this column that is headed ' revote ' means anything or is worth anything, we ought to have put dowrn here the amount actually revoted. Contrary to the custom, in a great many cases this year, it is improperly put down, and so the House is misled. It takes much more trouble to-get at the information, and even then we do not get it as clearly as if it were put down in the estimates as it ought to be.


Haughton Lennox: I move that this item be amended by changing so as to show that this is a revote of $20,000.


Archibald Campbell: This resolution reads ' Goderich harbour, $20,000.' Of that one-fifth has been already voted. We are now asked to vote $10,000, and it is for the committee to say whether that is to be voted oi' not.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is it the intention to spend only $20,000 this year ? I understand the position the minister takes, that so much money was expected to be expended by the 1st of July, and that was expended when these estimates were made up. Now I ask whether the government intends to spend the lapsed amount in addition to the $8,000.
' Mr. HYMAN. Whatever is in the supplementary estimates. That is the total amount that we are permitted to expend.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Now that the Finance Minister has come in, I want to appeal to him with regard to these items. For the purpose of enabling the House t,o understand how the money is voted and used, we have the estimates made up with three columns of figures. One gives the full amount of money voted for the work last year ; the last column gives the amount supposed to be voted this year, and the third column to the left shows how much of the money voted last year is to be revoted this year because it was not spent. In this case according to our calculation, there ought to be a revote of $28,000 because there has been only $8,000 of it spent in repairs ; but it shows in this case a revote of $12i,0i00>. Now, either there is a purpose in having this additional column or else it is useless. The purpose has been to enable us to understand how much of the money lapsed at the end of the financial year and how much was spent during the year we require to revote for that work. Now this is misleading, because any one would come to the conclusion that out of this $36,000 all was spent but $12,000, whereas the minister says only $8,000 was srent. We want to know whe-
.TITTY 27. 1904
776^
ther it is the intention to have the estimates made and kept in a proper way, or jumbled up in such a way that we do not know what we are voting.


Mr. FIELDING.: I have not heard the explanation of the Minister of Public Works, but I know there is no jumbling up and no hap-hazard way about it. These main estimates were made up months ago. The only judgment to be formed was as to the amount which was likely to be spent during the financial year. My hon. friend says a revote should be made of the money1 which has lapsed at the close of the financial year. That would be correct if the estimates were prepared at the close of the financial year, when you know exactly how much money you have spent. But when you make up your estimates early in the year, say in the month of January, and the main estimates were begun earlier than that, you can only form a reasonable judgment as to what amount is likely to be spent, and when we reach the end of the financial year it may turn out that the actual expenditure has been different from that anticipated. The statement for the revote therefore made some months ago was made in perfect good faith, but the events of the six months since intervening might largely change the figure, and the actual expenditure might prove to be different from what was expected. There is no lack of good faith I can assure my hon. friend.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But when the estimates were made up it was in the winter time. You could not do this class of work in the winter time, therefore it was within the knowledge of the minister or the heads of the departments that it was utterly impossible to spend the money for this work for which he is asking money now. Therefore it must be revoted if they intend to use it\ for the coming year. We would naturally expect that the amount of money not spent would appear as a revote ; otherwise what is the purpose of having a column of revotes ? It does not give the House any intelligent information if it is made up in that way, and we might far better have no column to show the revotes.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend forgets that when the estimates were made up, say in the month of January-probably the appropriations began to be made up in December-the officers of the departments might reasonably expect that in the months of April, May and June, a very large proportion of this money would be expended ; and if it turned out that less was expended than they expected, that certainly would pot show any lack of good faith. It would simply show that the officers in the winter could not say how much money would be expended up to the 30th June. But they might make a fair estimate and say : If the season is favourable we may probably spend
so much. That would be a fair way to deal with it. The estimates begin the 1st of January, or in December, because we aim as soon as parliament meets to have the estimates ready. As soon as the beginning of the new year we commence to urge the various departments to prepare their estimates, and some of them are prepared as early as the first week in January. The estimates are not finally brought down until parliament meets. Speaking generally, we urge the various departments to prepare their estimates in January in the hope that parliament might be able to meet in January, and I am sorry that it was not able to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister will see that his explanation does not apply to this ease at all. The Minister of Public Works tells us that this contract was let recently. Now the work was of such a nature that it could not be undertaken in the winter time, therefore the money could not be spent, they had not made any provision for letting the contract. It was only let very recently, and the minister is not sure whether the contract is signed. So it must have been apparent to the minister that that money could not be spent before the 30th of June, as there was no contract let and they were not prepared to Jet it. Therefore, whatever monev they required that was voted last year on that contract for the coming year and was not spent, must be a revote and it could easily be known that it would be aj revote, even at that early date.


William Stevens Fielding: It is conceivable that the engineers preparing their figures in January expected this work would be let and would be begun in the month of April, though they might not have ben correct in their anticipation. But preparing their estimates in January, it would be reasonable for them to assume that this work would be commenced in April and during the next three months they would spend so much money. They can make only an approximate estimate.


Haughton Lennox: The Minister of Finance has expressed exactly what I claim ought to be expressed. I am not making any charge of bad faith. I was pointing out that we voted last year $36,000. It has been ascertained now, though it could not be known at the time the estimates were made up. that the whole expenditure was $8,000. That left $28,000 expended. Now up to the extent of the $28,000 which lapsed, I say that would be a revote, and finding we have actually spent only $8,000 they are asking for another vote. Now the $12,000 I see in that column should be changed to $20,000, that is a revote of the whole amount the government is asking for. That $16,000 we are faking to-night is part of the $20,000. the total estimate for this year. When we vote the $16,000, that, with

the $4,000 voted the other day, makes up $20,000, and every dollar of that'is a revote, because it is part of the balance of $36,000 voted last year. It is only a question of getting the matter right, and I move that the item be amended in the revote column by changing the amount from $12,000 to $20,000.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman will see that we cannot do that. The revote column is not before us foivtke action of the committee. It is given for the information and assistance of the House and we are not legislating on the revote. We are dealing with the specific sum in the estimates. It is really of little or no consequence whether it is a revote or not.


Haughton Lennox: I will take the statement of the hou. minister and if there is any difficulty about it technically I will not urge it at all.


Mr. TAYLOR.: The hon. minister came down last year and asked for $36,000. The House voted it. Now he comes down and says that out of that $36,000 he has only spent $8,000 which would leave a balance of $28,000 to be expended under the estimate of last year. He says now that he does not want that $28,000, that he is only asking for $20,000. If the hon. Minister of Finance will look at the vote before us he will see that there is a discrepancy; either the hon. Minister of Public Works asked for too much last year or he is not asking enough this year.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, that may be correct. If he is not asking for enough the hon. gentleman should not complain. If the hon. minister wants to have a fit of economy why should we not allow him ?


George Taylor: But he should not have asked for $36,000 when he did not want it, because it was stated last year that the estimate was based on the engineer's report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These figures are placed in the estimates for the purpose of enabling us to understand what we are doing, and what we complain of is that the House is being improperly misled. While that cannot be avoided now we are drawing attention to it because we have the same thing occurring frequently this year. This is a thing that we have rarely had to complain of before but we have had this trouble several times this year and it is suggested that the estimates have been gotten up very loosely and carelessly.


William Stevens Fielding: These estimates were not got up carelessly or loosely. At the time this estimate was prepared it was a fair and reasonable estimate, but it was prepared on the assumption that these votes would be dealt with long ago. It Mr. LENNOX.
turns out, however, that we are, at a late stage of the session, dealing with estimates which were prepared many months ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But if that applied to this year it would apply to every year where the session extended beyond the 30th June.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it would.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And we would have the same thing to contend with every year. Until this year we have rarely found this condition but this year we have found it very often.
Harbours and rivers, Quebec, $723,300.


William Humphrey Bennett: Will the hon. minister answer a question as to Midland ? Is the government dock at Midland rented and was any rent derived last year from it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I am afraid the hon. gentleman will have to ask the Department of Marine and Fisheries, because docks, immediately they are employed, are placed under the control of that department.


William Humphrey Bennett: I might explain to the hon. minister that that dock has not yet passed over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. He can ask the deputy minister whether it was rented last year or this year to any person, and if so, what rent is payable.


Charles Smith Hyman: The deputy informs me that he has no knowledge of the dock being rented.


William Humphrey Bennett: The department are not receiving any rent for it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This department would not receive rent from the dock.


William Humphrey Bennett: I have a letter here which I will read to the minister and which will show that this department are dealing with it. There is a valuable dock in the possession of this department, they have not handed it over to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and last year an offer was made for the dock and the warehouses on it on the following terms :
Ottawa, 28th April, 1903.
Gentlemen,-X have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter asking whether this department would accept an annual rental of $450 for the use of the storehouse and docks belonging to the government and which were lately purchased by the town from Messrs. Burton Bros.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant, FRED. GELINAS, Secretary.
This is addressed to the Midland Mercantile and Trading Company. The hon. minister will see that last year this company offered $450 in rental for the dock. It has been in the occupation of other

parties. Surely the deputy must be conversant with the case. The docks and buildings are being used by Playfair and Company. Is that correct or not ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have no information in regard to the matter. I will look into the matter and let the hon. gentleman know all about it when the item comes up.


William Humphrey Bennett: I may not be here when the item comes up. Surely the deputy must know something about it. These dock's have been in use by this company for two years and there are large warehouses on them. Surely the deputy must be able to inform the committee whether Playfair and Company are paying rent or not ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Playfair and Company are paying no rent to the department.


William Humphrey Bennett: That is what I expected. May I ask the hon. minister, just on the question of this Midland item, if the department have received anything from any persons in Midland for dredging done by the government dredge there ?


Charles Smith Hyman: At the request of the hon. gentleman I took up Ontario. I shall be very glad to answer any questions in regard to Ontario, but the Quebec votes were the next in order, I have the explanations in regard to Quebec but I am not prepared to give the explanations in regard to the rest of Ontario.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am only asking the hon. minister as to whether anything has been received for the dredging done there and as his deputy is sitting there surely he could give the information.


Charles Smith Hyman: The deputy informs me that he cannot remember the circumstances.


William Humphrey Bennett: I am sure nothing has been paid either for the dredge or the dock.


Charles Smith Hyman: That may be your statement.


Mr. TAY  LOR@: When we asked the hon. minister to forego Quebec it was for the reason that none of the members from that province on this side of the House were present. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) will be here to-morrow. We understood that we would take up Ontario. I always thought the minister had his book with all the explanations for the whole of the estimates with him at every meeting of the committee so that he would be able to go on. I think the hon. (gentleman should go on and give any explanations that are necessary.


Charles Smith Hyman: I cannot. I have not the book here and I cannot do it.


George Taylor: Then, do I understand you expect to get through with Quebec to-night?


Charles Smith Hyman: I expected to go on with Quebec.


George Taylor: You have gone now as far as you can go with Ontario ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It was simply at the request of the hon. member for East Sinicoe (Mr. Bennett) that Ontario was taken up. The understanding with the hon. gentleman was that we should take up Ontario, proceed as far as we could and then turn back to Quebec.


George Taylor: Are we to understand that when we do Quebec that is as far as we can go ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, there are lots of other things.


George Taylor: What other things ?


Charles Smith Hyman: We can take up telegraphs, dredging and certain capital expenditures which we passed over.


George Taylor: If my hon. friend is prepared to go on with Quebec we will go on.


Mr. MORIN.: Go on. I am ready.
Quebec-Anse aux Gascons-extension ot wharf, &c., $6,000.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Where is that ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Bonaventure county.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: It is bound to be either Bonaventure or Gaspfl.
Quebec-Baie St. Paul-repairs to wharf at Cap aux Corbeaux, $1,000.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Is this wharf used by the Richelieu and Ontario steamers, and if so, do they pay wharfage dues ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The Public Works Department builds a wharf when it is required,, and then it is handed over to the Marine* Department which takes control of it. appoints a wharfinger and collects the tolls.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: Does any one collect dues at this wharf ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The Minister of Marine is not here just now.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I have no objection to the government building a wharf, but the Richelieu and Ontario Company are rich enough to pay for the use of it.
Quebec-Bonaventure East, breakwater, $5,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that to complete the work ?
Mr. II1 MAN. The work is under contract for $15,690 ; the contract was let on the 27th of April last.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then why do you only
take $5,000 ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is a further amount in the supplementary estimates.

Quebec-Caplan, breakwater, $5,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The contract for that has been let; it amounts to $13,700. There is a balance to complete in the supplementary [DOT]estimates.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These are all let by public tender ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes.
Quebec-Chambord wharf, $8,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: Tenders are advertised for and according to the estimate this is the full amount. This is on Lake St. John.
Quebec-Champlain-wharf, including repairs and additions, $8,200.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this for ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is asked to provide for the purchase and repairs to a wharf. The matter is now with the Department of Justice.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who are you purchasing the wharf from ?


Charles Smith Hyman: From Messrs, Arkoff and Champlain.


James Clancy: How is it divided ?


Charles Smith Hyman: $1,000 is to be paid for the purchase of the wharf and the balance for improvements on the property.
Quebec-Chateau Richer, harbour improvements, $3,000.


David Henderson: Is this vested in the Crown, or is it private property ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It will be vested in the Crown.


David Henderson: It is not acquired yet?


Charles Smith Hyman: The actual deed is not passed, but an agreement has been made for the purchase from a private individual.
Quebec-Deschambault wharf, $9,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is proposed to call for tenders and the plans are almost ready. The estimate given by the officers of the department for completion is $11,000.


George Taylor: How did you come to spend $5,000 on this last year ; that would make it $14,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: The $5,000 last year was for repairs to the present wharf, and this is for an extension.
Quebec-Father Point-landing pier, $40,-


Charles Smith Hyman: The contract for this work, amounting to $44,300, was let on the 23rd of May, 1904, and the work is to be completed next year.
Quebec-Grande VallSe-pier, $20,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: 


William Humphrey Bennett: Does this complete the work, and what is the total cost ?	,
M" HYMAN. This is to complete the work. The amount of the contract is $53,900. The estimate of the total cost is $58,000.


George William Fowler: How much has been paid ?


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Haughton Lennox: How much was spent last year ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Up to the 30th of June last year, $22,559.25. The expenditure during the last fiscal year was $12,000 odd.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that there was some trouble about the proprietorship of the land.


Charles Smith Hyman: That has been settled. The ownership has been vested in the Crown.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much did we pay for the land ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Nothing at all.


Andrew B. Ingram: What is the importance of the expenditure at this place ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Of course, the vote that is being asked this year is simply to complete a work which is under contract.


Andrew B. Ingram: But we are spending a large sum of money, and there has never been a satisfactory explanation give to this House in regard to this Grande Yall6e pier. It is simply a matter of politics. The vote was put in the estimates to satisfy a political friend, and it is an expensive way of doing it. We on this side of the House are frequently taunted in the country with allowing estimates to pass this House without reasonable criticism. I wish to say to lion, gentlemen opposite that in allowing these estimates to pass as they are doing to-night, we are not doing our full duty ; but if hon. gentlemen want to get through before the snow flies, I suppose we shall have to let them go through holus bolus. I do not want to stay here all summer ; but if I am taunted in the country for allowing the estimates to go through, I shall have my answer.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I never heard of a pier costing $58,000 in my life. What is this for ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This is a wharf.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: What is the use of the government building a wharf for a man who carries on lumbering operations ? In the first place, the gentleman got his property cheap enough, and he could very well build his own pier or wharf. Why does the government do so much for one man and so little for others ? If a poor farmer was to come here and ask for $10,000 to clear up a farm he would be kicked out of the House but if a man comes here who is worth a

[DOT]whole lot of money and asks for $58,000 to help him in his business you turn around and give it to him, and then you go to the country and say that the opposition is detaining the House. Who is to blame ? It is the minister or the ministers. Whenever some one goes to any minister to ask for a thing of that kind, if the minister did his duty he would say to that man : Clear out. I will not give it to you. That would be the proper course but it is not done in that way. Whenever the government is afraid that they cannot carry a county they are going to bribe that man and that county if they can do it. That is the way it is done and X know it and I can prove it.


George William Fowler: This I understand was a matter of contract; in order to get a candidate in a county in the eastern townships it was necessary that this wharf should be built and X suppose the government is simply carrying out its bargain. That seems on the face of it to be a rather commendable thing to do.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend knows where Grande Vallee is. It happens to be a place on the lower St. Lawrence on the north shore of the Gaspd peninsula and if my information is correct that is the only wharf on the whole south shore of the St. Lawrence, between Perce and Matane, a distance I am sure of several hundred miles. It is the only wharf in the whole of that locality. This is rather an important place. My hon. friend is aware that quite recently an important lumbering industry has been established there and it is for the purpose of affording the people on that shore some *place to which they can have access for their boats that this work has been done. It is perhaps also in the knowledge of my hon. friend that there is not a single mile of railway in the whole of Gasp6 or for several hundred miles on the south shore of the St. Lawrence from Father Point down to Gaspe.


George William Fowler: 
Richard Blain: Is there a post office at this place.


Charles Smith Hyman: I am informed there is a post office.


David Henderson: How many people are living around this wharf ? What is the population of the place ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I do not know how many people are living in this immediate locality, but I do know that this locality is now being developed by lumbermen who have gone in there and to whom this work is a necessity. But in addition to that the people living in the locality who frequent that coast are entitled to some consideration. Here you have hundreds of miles on the south shore of the St. Lawrence without any means of access. We want to open that country, and create facilities if facilities do uot exist and if there is not population in there we want to draw it. We can only do that in so far as we provide proper facilities for them.


David Henderson: The Minister of Justice seems warm on this. He must certainly feel a deep interest in it. I would be sorry indeed to withhold from these people anything to which they are entitled, but it is a well known fact that this whole transaction savours very much of a big political job. That has been admitted for years and that is the reason why we look with a good deal of suspicion at any additional grant of money to these people. I think the minister should come out frankly and tell us how


'7771 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
many people live In that section, and liow many lumber firms there are who are interested in it. So far as my recollection goes we have never heard of anything but the one lumber firm being interested in the construction of this pier. That was the firm of gentleman referred to by the member from New Brunswick, who gave ns a little of the inside history of this transaction. Is this government going on year after year expending additional sums on this pier simply for the same purpose that was in view when it was originally suggested ? If it is, I think it is time the committee should call a halt and until we are given at any rate some assurance that we are spending this money for a proper purpose. There may be a very large range of coast on which perhaps no public money has been spent ; there is a large range of coast that could not be improved even by a very large expenditure of money. We know little of the character of the country down there. We do not know anything of the extent of this lumber industry. It has been looked upon for the last two or three years as a mere farce, and I think we should have some information as to the number of people living there, the number of lumber mills there and the number of industries that are being carried on in this place. There are plenty of other portions of the country where large industries are carried on which would be glad indeed to have an expenditure of this kind. I want to be perfectly fair to this county, I think it is the county of Gaspe. But we want to know that the money is being spent for a legitimate purpose and not simply to gain a party advantage, which we were led to understand some years ago was the reason of the whole transaction.
Mr. BOURASSA.: I happen to be in a position to give the committee some information as to this place, because I have been there. There is quite a village at Grande Vallfie-a church, a post office, and a population which has been waiting for communication for years and years. The reason they did not get it before this industry was established there was because the wharf was to be more costly than those of almost any other place in the district. The people petitioned for years to get communication I have been there a couple of days, and have seen the freight gathered by the boat that passes once or twice a week, and I know that this wharf will be a great relief to the people there. Since the establishment of a wharf the village has been increasing in population. Not only is this industry a thriving one, giving employment to the people of the village and thereby increasing population, but since the wharf is being built settlement is going on as it never did before. Formerly the people had no local markets and they could not get to Quebec with the;" produce. They have now both their local market and communication with Quebec.


David Henderson: Speaking without regard to party, and as one who has no interest in the industry, I can say that this wharf is one of the most useful made by the government on that coast, the whole of which I have visited.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We were told last year that there were no farmers there.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: They are just going in.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Oh, oh.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: My hoh. friend is laughing. But if he knew that country well he would not laugh. I represent a similar county myself, and I understand the conditions. There is a seignory there, and the government townships are a little distance from the coast. The government could not see their way to making an expenditure, because the people would not go in on the government townships before the seignory was settled. It is only after the seignory land was settled that the Quebec government could get the settlement to go into the back townships.


Mr. TALBOT.: There is a population of 400 in the village.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: In the village itself. The wharf is more costly than it would otherwise have been because of the sandbank at the mouth of the river, which prevented boats going up and loading there, and people have to go six miles to a smaller place to get their goods shipped and to receive goods that come in.


George Taylor: Last year we were told there was not a wharf within a hundred miles of this place. And now the hon. gentleman says the people have to go only six miles.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: There are places within six or eight miles where the small sailing boats go. But the steamers do not stop there.


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is a steamer that plies between Montreal and GaspS, calling at Quebec and other points. And, between Matane and Gaspe, this is the only place they can call. There are small ports where the sail boats go.


Richard Blain: I am sure we are much obliged to the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) for the information he has given us. I do not wonder that he spoke of the growth of the town. We were told that its population was 300, and very soon after a voice from the back benches said that it was 400. Evidently it is growing very rapidly. At the same time, I notice that the total revenue from the post office there for twelve months was only $97.17.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is for the twelve months ending 30th June, 1903, I suppose. I have just told the hon. gentleman the population was increasing very rapidly, especially since last year, because it was only last year

the boat began to stop and people began to go In. I was there when the first or second boat stopped there in the month of August.


Richard Blain: These towns do not spring up quite so rapidly as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bourassa) suggests. I have just stated that the postal revenue there for the last fiscal year was only $97.17. The hon. gentleman I am sure will not regard that as a great revenue. However, I will not pursue that point. What amount of dues is paid by those using the wharf ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The wharf is not yet com pleted, much less transferred to the Marine and Fisheries Department. Therefore, no dues have been paid,


Mr.   BBAIN@: Is it the intention to collect dues at this wharf ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The law provides for that. When the wharf is completed and transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the collection of dues will be pro, vided for.


Andrew B. Ingram: I understand that the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) is a scientific farmer. Probably he would like to farm in that district. Would he describe the country for us ? I suppose it is nice and level-a beautiful country ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) wish me to go into the landscape painting business ?


Andrew B. Ingram: I am sure the hon. gentleman will be able to find a beautiful landscape view there. The hon. gentleman was not in the House when this item came up first, and nobody seemed to know about it. I believe that the government had no authority to build this dock where they did, for the land belonged to private parties. That is the reason why this expenditure was brought about in the first instance-it was a political reason. Hon. gentlemen opposite can colour it as much as they like, but that was the fact. I can understand that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick), with an election in view, would try to put the best face on it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was shown last year that the land in that seignory belonged to one individual, and there were not even highways to the wharf. It was shown that the owner was a gentleman who was carrying on this lumber industry. The hon. member for Labelle speaks of bringing in produce to the wharf, but it was shown that there were no highways to the wharf, and the people could not get there without trespassing on private property, all the land belonging to the owner of the timber limit and the mill. We might as well be honest about it, and say fairly and frankly that this is a political job which is costing us about $58,000.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The great maritime road which runs through the counties of Rimouski and Gaspe, runs through this seignory and close to the wharf.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How far ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Half an arpent-just a few feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But there is no high way ?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is a highway-the provincial highway.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But for the trade to the wharf there is no highway ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is a road, vested in the Crown.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When ?


Charles Smith Hyman: Now-since last year.


George William Fowler: Is there a good road built ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I presume there must be a road. They are bringing the material to the wharf.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister does not know that as a matter of fact ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It is a matter of fact, as I am informed by the officers of the department, and that is the only way a minister can get information on these subjects. The materials for the wharf are being carted on this road.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: And I have driven on the road myself.
Quebec-Grondines wharf, $7,500.


Charles Smith Hyman: This vote is asked to make provision for the completion of the proposed reconstruction and enlargement of the present wharf. The estimated cost of reconstruction and enlargement is $5,000. Improvement to bridges, stone lifting. &c., is estimated to cost about $10,000.	$7,500
have been expended on the wharf and there is a revote of $2,500.
Maritime Provinces-Harbours, rivers and bridges-general repairs and improvements, $20,000.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: This item appears to have a very wide scope. Where are these harbours, rivers and so forth ?


Charles Smith Hyman: This vote is taken for emergency repairs. It is often found that wharfs become damaged through storms or otherwise, and this general vote is taken to make those repairs. It would not be expedient to wait for a special appropriation.


Haughton Lennox: Would the minister state what was done last year with the $20,000 then voted ?


Charles Smith Hyman: I have a long detailed statement here of small items which I will read if the hon. gentleman desires.


Haughton Lennox: Give us the large items amounting to $4,000 or $5,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: There is no item in the whole number anything like that amount.


David Henderson: Was there anything more than $20,000 spent under this head ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No, there is nothing to be taken out of this year's appropriation.
Quebec-Lake St. John-dredging, $4,000.


Richard Blain: How is the dredging done On this wharf ?


Charles Smith Hyman: There is a government dredge there, and this vote is taken to pay for its maintenance.


David Henderson: Since the departments have been rearranged, has the Marine Department taken over the dredging plant belonging to the Public Works Department, or will it be necessary for the Public Works Department to supply itself with an entirely new outfit of dredging plant and all the paraphernalia necessary to carry on their operations, or will they borrow from the Marine Department, or is it the intention of the Public Works Department to purchase or construct new dredges ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The transfer which has taken place from the Department of Public Works to the Department of Marine and Fisheries which require dredging covers only the St. Lawrence channel. When that work was taken over the dredges that were transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries were the dredges which were at the time working in that particular branch. The transfer affects in no way the policy of the Department of Public Works in regard to dredging generally, nor will the transfer of dredges that were taken over affect in any way the question of dredging generally, which belongs to the Public Works Department.
Quebec-Laprairie ice piers and protection wall-works of reconstruction and repairs, $15,500.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is a new work, and this sum is estimated to complete it. The total amount of the contract is $29,650.


Richard Blain: Do you expect any revenue from this ?


Charles Smith Hyman: No. This is a protection work from which there will be no revenue.


Richard Blain: Why is a work of this kind required and who will be served by it ?


Charles Smith Hyman: These works were built a number of years ago, and this is practically a revote for their protection.


Richard Blain: Did they get out of repair altogether ?


Charles Smith Hyman: They were decayed, this is practically a renewal.


Charles Smith Hyman: 


Richard Blain: Has there ever been any revenue from this place 1


Charles Smith Hyman: This is purely and simply for protection. I am informed this particular work protects the whole village of Laprairie which otherwise would be flooded.
Quebec-Lotbinitre wharf, improvements,


Charles Smith Hyman: This work is under contract, and this vote is expected to complete it. The total amount of the estimate was $19,800. The Public Works Department is obliged to construct all the wharfs, and after a wharf is constructed it is handed over to the Marine and Fisheries Department.


Richard Blain: When the committee are asked to vote a large amount of money we should have some information from the hon. gentleman in respect to the revenue.


George William Fowler: What is the estimated .revenue ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The question of the revenue derived from a wharf lies entirely with the Department of Marine and Fisheries. As far as this department is concerned we have no estimate of the revenue.


Thomas Earle: I simply rise to suggest that if we are to get the information we are entitled to with reference to items of this sort it will be necessary for the hon. Minister of Public Works to have the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries here to give it. We have no opportunity of getting that information unless we get it upon the items we pass. It is absurd to tell the committee that the government have no information to give us on matters of this kind and if it is necessary the hon. gentleman should have the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries present or the item should stand.


George William Fowler: It seems a very strange thing that the Department of Public Works should decide upon the construction of a wharf without having any information as to the estimated revenue to be derived from it if it'is usual to get a revenue from these wharfs. 1


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes,, wherever it Is possible.


George William Fowler: That ought to be one consideration upon which you agree to construct the wharf. One thing is the accommodation of the public, another is the advantage to that portion of the public which is served by the wharf and another is the advantage to the general .public by means of the revenue derived from the wharf when constructed. This is the only opportunity we have of getting the information, and I think the hon. gentleman should have it.


Charles Smith Hyman: The hon. gentleman will understand the difficulty of arriving at any

estimate In a matter of this kind. It is purely a new work and until the work is completed it would be almost impossible to arrive at any estimate that would be of any value to the committee.


George William Fowler: I can hardly agree with that. It seems to me that you could easily estimate the revenue to be collected from the importance of the place, the amount of business that is done and the amount of shipping that comes there.


Charles Fitzpatrick: My hon. friend (Mr. Fowler), twho, I know, has gone up and down the river very frequently between Montreal and Quebec, will have noticed on the south side of the river .St. Lawrence after leaving the harbour of Quebec and getting above Cap Rouge that the country is very populous. Lotbini6re is about twenty miles above St. Nicolas and above Cap Rouge, and taking the whole country from St. Nicholas, or from the harbour of Quebec, there is no railway within thirty miles of the (settlement on the river side. The Drummond county railway and the Grand . Trunk pass in the interior, and I am sure there must be at least twenty miles at some points from these settlements on the river front to the line of railway inside. These are probably -the most prosperous parishes we have in the province, in the district of Quebec at all events. These are parishes which are thickly settled. The river front looks like a village extending over the whole territory once you leave the harbour of Quebec. Lotbiniere is the centre of that district, and in addition to being a very important farming centre from which centre farmers come down to Quebec in the ferryboats three times a week, there is a large brickyard in that locality. It is a very important brickyard. I know that some of the bricks from that yard have been sold in Ottawa.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that where the brickyards are on the St. Lawrence 7


Charles Fitzpatrick: That is one of them ; it is on the south side of the river. There is an immense beach at that place. There? is a rise and a fall of tide in that locality of from fifteen to eighteen feet and when the tide goes down all the villages along there are inaccessible. This wharf will be located at about the centre of the most thickly settled portion of that beautiful country. I ,can understand that my hon. friends may say that in so far as Quebec is concerned we are very well supplied with wharfs and that our demands are numerous, but you must realize that the old settlement of Quebec is on the river front. All the villages and churches are on the river front and once they leave the city of Quebec the lines of railway on both sides of the river diverge and go inland. The Canadian Pa-2475
citic Railway does not run a long the north shore of the St. Lawrence until it comes almost to the neighbourhood of Three Rivers. It is the same thing on the south side with the Drummond county and Grand Trunk. To enable these people to get to market it is necessary for them to have this convenience and I know that market boats coming to Quebec at times, in order to take advantage of the tide, are obliged to leave the night before. These people would be able if they were provided with these facilities to come to Quebec within an hour and a half or two hours whereas they are'obliged at the present time to leave sometimes the night before to get into Quebec in the morning and they are obliged to wait until the next night to get back because they can only go back when the tide suits. My hon. friend from (Dorchester (Mr. Morin) knows these facts as well as I do. He lives among these people .and it is under these circumstances that we appeal to hon. gentlemen opposite to allow these items to go through, because they will surely realize that they are works of absolute necessity in so far as the people in the neighbourhood of Quebec are concerned.


David Henderson: I am sure we have been delighted with what the hon Minister of Justice has told us. It has been very in-teresFmg to me ,and I have no doubt to others but I do not wish the hon. Minister of Justice to think for one moment that we have any objection to these wharfs being built. I think there is necessity for them, but we would like to know about them. We would like to know for what purpose the money is being put that we vote and I think it was a reasonable question as to what revenue was being derived from this wharf. I am not sure that there is any revenue derived. ,


Charles Fitzpatrick: There is no public wharf at that place now.


David Henderson: I thought this was for .repairing an old wharf ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: No, this is for a new wharf.


David Henderson: Personally I am pot opposing these people getting the improvements that are necessary , to carry on their operations wherever there is a population that would call for them. I think that parliament is here to provide for the necessities of the people, but I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Justice what the policy of the government is in reference to such wharfs. Are they free ; or is there toll charged vessels which may load or unload goods at these wharfs ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: I am not here to explain the policy of the government but I can tell my hon. friend that under the law the Department of Public Works is merely a contracting department.


David Henderson: I quite understand -thait.


Charles Fitzpatrick: When a wharf is deemed necessary the Department of Public Works build the wharf and after it is built it is transferred for its management [DOT]and control to the Department of Marine ,and Fisheries and the Department of Marine and Fisheries are obliged to .collect tolls. I have a very small wharf at Beau-port and I have endeavoured time and again to get that wharf transferred to the municipality which would take control of it and be .responsible for the repairs ; but on looking into the flaw I find that it is not within .the power of the Department of Marine and Fisheries to transfer these wharfs because they are public property and they cannot hand them over. If my hon. friend will look at page P-134 of the Auditor General's Report he will find lists of the wharfs in the different provinces and the revenue derived from each of them.
/ Mr. FOWLER, ,The item as it .appears *states that it is for improvemerits. The bon. Minister of Justice says there is no wharf there. Is this a new work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The explanation of that is that there was .an isolated block built and this is .to connect it with the shore arid' make a wharf.
Quebec-Magdalen Islands, breakwaters and piers, $20,000.
Mr. iLENNOX. Will this complete the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The engineer tells me that this will complete the work, but it may be necessary to ask another small amount.
Quebec-Murray Bay-increasing height of wharf, $4,000.


George William Fowler: Why have you to increase the height of the wharf ? Is the water higher than it used to be, or did you make a mistake the first time ?


Charles Smith Hyman: The wharf was originally not built high enough and in heavy weather the water flows over it.
Quebec-Newport breakwater, $10,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is under contract.


David Henderson: Where is it V


Charles Fitzpatrick: Gaspe county.


David Henderson: I thought Grande Vallee was the only expenditure in Gaspe county.


Charles Fitzpatrick: Gaspe is a promontory tiiat juts on the St. Lawrence and the Bay de Chaleur. Grande Vallee on the St. Lawrence side and Newport is on the Bay de Chaleur side.


David Henderson: Are there farming operations on the other side as well ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: 


Charles Fitzpatrick: Of course. It would do my hon. friend good to visit that country. He would find in Bonaventure and Gasp6 on the Bay de Chaleur side as fine a farming country as there is in all Canada.
Quebec-Perce wharf, $9,000.


David Henderson: Where is that ?


Charles Fitzpatrick: Gaspe.


David Henderson: I am glad we are doing something for Gaspe. By the way, the minister is constantly saying that some of these items are departmental. I would-like to know on what authority the department goes on making expenditures. We have constitutional government in this country, and it is the minister who is responsible, but it would appear that the minister knows nothing about this expenditure.


Charles Smith Hyman: I did not say that I knew nothing about it.


David Henderson: I understand it is an expenditure recommended by the engineer, and it would seem as if the department was run by the chief engineer and not by the minister.


Charles Smith Hyman: The word departmental is possibly a word of my own. There is a resident engineer in charge of the public works in each district, and he reports that certain repairs are necessary, and the chief engineer brings these reports before the minister who considers whether the repairs should be made or not. The responsibility is altogether on the minister. VV hen I say departmental I mean that the report. has reached the minister entirely through the channel of the resident engineer in charge of these works.
Quebec-Pointe St. Pierre-breakwater, $6,000.


George William Fowler: Where is that ? I understand there are a great many places of that name in Quebec.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is in Gaspe county. This is under contract, the total cost is $24,000 of which $22,000 is the amount of the contract and there is something for superintendence.
Quebec-Rimouski, extension of piers, &c., $30,000.


Charles Smith Hyman: This is for repairing the present piers ; it is a very important place.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much did you expend last year on mat ?


Charles Smith Hyman: When these estimates were prepared no money had been expended, but during the fiscal year there were $75,000 expended.


Haughton Lennox: Will this $30,000 complete the work ?


Charles Smith Hyman: It will complete these- repairs.


Haughton Lennox: Is there something else in view 7


Charles Smith Hyman: An extension and several other improvements have been asKea ror, and the applications are before the department. This is all that has been asked for and all that the department will spend in the meantime. It completes the repairs on that wharf.	-
Quebec-RiviSre du Loup (Fraserville) harbour improvements, $20,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What improvements are being made here 7


Charles Smith Hyman: As a matter of fact, this vote is taken in anticipation of the expenditure, to enable the department to enter into a contract. There has been some difficulty in regard to acquiring the site.


Mr. GAUVREAU.: Is it the intention of the minister to go on with this portion of the work at an early day 7


Charles Smith Hyman: The whole question in regard to the harbour is under the consideration of the department, including the question of acquiring the site.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Where are you acquiring the site 7 it is private property 7


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes. There is already one wharf there, the approach to which is owned by the government. The report of the engineer is in regard to another wharf; but before that can be started it is necessary to acquire the property in order to get an approach to the wharf. These two wharfs are intended to form a harbour of refuge after dredging between the two wharfs.


Haughton Lennox: There appears to have been $3,500 of last year's vote expended-How did that occur 7


Charles Smith Hyman: That would be on repairs to the other wharf.


Haughton Lennox: That is not what the vote was for. The minister will not say that under the expression harbour improvements we are voting money for repairs.


Charles Smith Hyman: Yes, I will say that under the wording of this item it is quite in accord with the custom of the department to spend a certain amount of money for repairs.


Haughton Lennox: Then I submit the custom of the department ought to be changed. It is quite unfair to the committee to use the word ' repairs ' at certain times, indicating repairs that are to be executed, and then, under the head of harbour improvements, at the sweet will of the department, to spend money for repairs. There should be a reasonable definite meaning to the language employed. If that has been the practice of the department, it is just as well that
it has come to light, and I think it should not occur again.


Charles Smith Hyman: In this particular instance, besides the repairs, it is intended to improve the harbour by building a new wharf. Where the item is for repairs only, it is so stated. When it is for harbour improvements, these may include repairs.


Haughton Lennox: What are we to understand by this particular item 7 Is it for improvements only or for repairs 7


Charles Smith Hyman: It may Include both.


Richard Blain: What amount has been used for the purchase of land


Charles Smith Hyman: The matter is under negotiation between the owners of the property and the department. There has been no decision arrived at.
Quebec-Ste. Famille - extension of pier,


Charles Smith Hyman: There is a contract in this case amounting to $17,764. The total probable cost will be $19,500. In addition to this vote it will require $13,500 to complete.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What was the $4,000 spent for last year 7


Charles Smith Hyman: It is a question of estimates, $4,000 was ' not expended. At the time the estimate was made up, it was expected it would be.
Quebec-St. Godfroi de Nouvelle-breakwater,


Richard Blain: What about this one Mr. Chairman 7


Charles Smith Hyman: That amount is under contract. The contract was $19,300, the total probable cost $21,300. There is $6,000 in the main estimates and the balance in the supplementary estimates.
Quebec-St. Jean des Chaillons wharf-


Richard Blain: What is this 7


Charles Smith Hyman: Tenders have been called for. There are $5,000 in the supplementa-ries for it, and the total estimated cost is $28,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suggest that we have done a good day's work and as some of our friends who are absent wish to discuss some of these remaining items, I think we should adjourn.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow.


William Stevens Fielding: We may take some of the Bills still on the order paper but at

an early stage we will go into supply and continue the estimates of the Minister of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.35 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 28, 1904.