1909-11-22

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Hon. Chief Justice Sullivan and the Hon. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, two of the judges selected for the trial of election petitions, pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, certificates and reports relating to the elections for the electoral district of Kings, Prince Edwafid Island, and the electoral district of Queens, Prince Edward Island, by which the said election petitions were dismissed and the sitting members declared duly elected.



HOURS OF LABOUR ON PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. PUGSLEY  A.@: VERVILLE (Maisonneuve) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 21), respecting the Hours of Labour on Public Works.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Explain.


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

Mr.  A. C.@: MACDONELL (South Toronto) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 22) to amend the Dominion Elections Act. He said: The Bill is a repetition of a Bill that I introduced last session. It has two provisions. One is to dispense with the $200 deposit now necessary to be made by a candidate. The other asks that the general election day throughout Canada be made a public holiday.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 23) to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, 1907. He said: This Bill is a copy of the Bill which I introduced towards the close of last session, and time was not afforded to reach a conclusion upoh it. Its object is to amend the Industrial Disputes Act in several more or less important respects. First, it asks that the authority which the Act now requires to be obtained from a labour union desiring to strike, in the shape of a meeting, and the proceedings consequent thereon in the way of notice, &c., &c., be dispensed with. That is found expensive and cumbersome, and not conducive to the best working out of the Act. The next provision deals with the fees that are payable to the arbitrators. I have not inserted any fees here, leaving the amount to be considered by the government. At present the chairman receives a larger fee than the other members of the board, although he performs no greater service. The present fee is $15 per day. It is thought that a general charge of $25 per day for every member of the board would be reasonable, especially in view of the fact that most of the sittings are continued well on into the night. A further amendment is proposed to section 57 of the Act, which provides that only investigations regarding intended changes in wages and hours of labour can take place. It is desired that these should be extended to any conditions affecting employment. Then, at present the onus of proceeding with an investigation does not rest on anybody. That is found to work hardship, and the provision of the Bill is that on those who set the Act in motion by giving notice of a desire or intention to effect a change in working conditions, shall rest the onus of proceeding with the appointment of the board of arbitrators, and that no change in the conditions shall take place after the notice is given. At present the conditions can be changed by either party up to the time the board is appointed. That is found to work hardship, certain interested parties taking advantage of the delay between the serving of the notice and the appointment of the board to change the conditions of labour. The spirit of the Act is that no change in the conditions of labour shall take place after the notice is once given, when the parties are at arms length and the issue is on.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 24) to amend the Rail-9
way Act. He said: This is to amend section 341. The lion. Minister of Railways recollects that during last session, when his general Bill was moved to the House, I sought to have adopted then the amendment I now propose. Under section 77, no discrimination is allowed a railway company, and section 341 gives the company the right to issue family commutation and other cheap rate tickets. The question has arisen, both before the Railway Commission and in the courts, as regards the right of a railway company to discriminate against a locality by withholding the issue of these cheap rate tickets in any locality, and it is to make the matter clearer and prevent discrimination against localities or persons that I introduce this Bill. The Railway Commission have considered that there is a conflict between section 341 and section 77, and the Act should be amended so as to make it clear.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Hon.  L. P.@: BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 25) relating to the water carriage of goods. He said: The object is to declare illegal conditions put in bills of lading by which the shipowners free themselves from any liability arising out of their fault and negligence. The Bill was before the Senate two years ago and made the subject of an investigation. It was passed through that Chamber last year and sent here, but sent unfortunately too late for us to take it up. The other provisions in the Bill aTe concerning losses in case of accidents or force majeure. It provides also that shipowners shall have - the right to remove inflammable and explosive goods which may have gone on board without their consent.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Does this comprise all the provisions of the Bill that came to us last session?


Mr. BRODEUR.: Yes, it is almost word for word the Bill passed by the Senate last year.


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

Robert Laird Borden: Might I ask the hon. the Minister of Railways when we may expect the return for which I moved some days ago-papers connected with the resignation of Mr. Lumsden. I was under the impression they would be brought down without any motion.


Mr. GRAHAM.: The returns are all ready and will be here to-morrow.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. SINCLAIR :: How many owners or managers of lobster factories or canning establishments for packing lobsters holding licenses have failed, on or before September 1, 190!), to send to the minister the return called for by section 78 of the Fisheries Act, and what are their names and addresses ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Licensees are required to send the returns in question to the different inspectors of fisheries, who arrange the information in the form of statistics, which are forwarded to the department at the close of the fiscal year. The department has not been informed of failure on the part of any cannery licensee to forward the required return.
PAT OF MACHINISTS, &c., ON INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.


Mr. STANFIELD:: X. What is the standard pay for machinists, pipe fitters, boiler makers, and day and night foremen, in engine-houses on entering the service of the Intercolonial?
2.	What are the statutory increases for subsequent years for each of these classes?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:: 1.	The present rates in schedule are:
Machinists, 26c. per hour.
Pipe fitters, 21c. per hour, according to class of work.
Boilermakers, 27c. per hour.
Day foremen, in engine houses, $70 to $105 per month, according to station.
Night foremen in engine houses, $56 to $80 per month, according to station.
2.	There is no statutory or other provision for increases for subsequent years.


RURAL FREE MAIL DELIVERY.
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	How many rural free mail delivery routes are in actual operation?
2.	How many routes have sent petitions to the government asking for mail to be delivered to them?
3.	What is the total number of rural free mail delivery boxes erected or disposed of by the government, and the number in actual use on routes?
4.	What has been the total increased cost to the Post Office Department since the establishment of rural free mail delivery in Canada?
5.	What action, if any, has the government taken with a view to granting to all the people living in thickly peopled portions of Canada, a system of rural free mail delivery similar to that in operation in the United States and other lands?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	186.
2.	197.
3.	3,628.


Mr. GRAHAM.: 4.	$13,372.48 per annum for mail service. Miscellaneous expenditure to 31st October, 1909, $13,528.02.
5.	The department is not considering the question of rural delivery as given in the United States or any other country, but is devising a scheme of rural delivery suitable to conditions in Canada at the present time.


PUBLIC WHARFS LEASED.
Mr. FOSTER:: What public wharfs have been leased under the Act passed in 1909, to whom leased, and under what conditions?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: None.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC CLASSIFICATION.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Have the questions in difference between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners as to classification of the material dealt with in the construction of parts of the eastern division, been adjusted or determined?
2.	If not, what steps have been taken, how far has the matter proceeded, and bow does the matter now stand?
3.	Have the engineers reported the result of their investigations? If not, what is the cause of the delay?
4.	Will the government lay the papers in connection with this matter upon the tabi9 for the information of the House?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.
2.	Chief Engineer Grant of the Transcontinental Railway Commission and Chief Engineer Kelliher of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company have agreed on Mr. Collingwood Schreiber as third arbitrator and are proceeding to arbitrate the matters in dispute as provided by the National Transcontinental Railway Act.
3.	The arbitration proceedings have not been completed, and consequently no report has been made by the arbitrators.
4.	The correspondence on the subject of these arbitration proceedings will be included in the return ordered by the House in response to the motion of Mr. R. L. Borden, M- P.


QUEBEC BRIDGE.
Mr. SPROULE:: 1.	What consideration is the Quebec Bridge Company to receive for their interest in that corporation when the government takes over the undertaking and franchise to construct the bridge?
2.	Has an agreement been reached between the government and the company as to the exact amount in cash or its equivalent that the company is to receive for its interest in undertaking and franchise?
3.	Is the bridge to be erected in the same place as the first one, and will the present abutments be used for that purpose?

4.	What kind of bridge is intended to be erected, a suspension or cantilever?
5.	What is the approximate cost of it to be?
6.	Will any portion of the work done for the bridge which collapsed, be utilized for the new bridge? If so, what is the approximate value of it?
7.	When is it intended that the new bridge is to be completed?
8.	Will the province, or the city of Quebec be appealed to for assistance by way of subsidy or otherwise to assist in the cost of construction of the new bridge?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	See Statutes, Chap. 59, Statutes of Canada for 1905, under which bridge was taken over by the government.
2.	Yes, under provision of statute.
3.	The bridge is to be erected at the same site, the south pier will be used in part but must be enlarged, a new pier will be sunk to the rock on the north side, the other piers will require to be rebuilt.
4.	Bids will be asked for both cantilever and suspension.
5.	It is not in the public interest to give out approximate estimates of cost at a time pending the receipt of tenders.
6.	Yes, it is expected to utilize certain parts, but the value cannot be determined until the plans are finally settled.
7.	Pending the receipt of tenders it is impossible to fix a date. '
8.	The city and province have already contributed.


TRADE RELATIONS WITH GERMANY.
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	What is the total value of agricultural products exported from Canada to Germany?
2.	What action, if any, has this government taken to improve our trade relations with Germany?
.3. Is the government aware that representatives of the German-Canadian Economic Association are travelling through our land with a view to improving our trade relations with that country, and is it the intention of this government to assist them in the work they have undertaken?


Hon. WM. PATERSON:: 1.	The total value of agricultural products of Canadian origin (not including animals and their produce; exported from Canada to Germany during the fiscal year 1908-1909 was $303,414.
2 and 3. The government do not deem it expedient to enter into negotiations respecting commercial relations with any other foreign countries until all matters connected with the treaty with France are disposed of.


GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC CLASSIFICATION.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Were the differences as to classification and other matters existing between the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company and the
Transcontinental Railway Commission on the 16th of March, 1909, and at that time submitted to Mr. Lumsden, Mr. Kelliher and Mr. Schreiber for determination, adjusted, determined upon and reported before the resignation of Mr. Lumsden from the position of chief engineer?
2.	If not, what has been done and how does the matter now stand?
3.	If the questions in difference have been determined what is the result, or will the minister bring down the report or findings and lay them upon the table of the House?


George Perry Graham: All the information sought by this question will he found in the correspondence to be brought down in response to a resolution passed by this House on motion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden).


LEASES OP GOVERNMENT PROPERTY IN FRONTENAC.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	How many acres of government land in the township of Pittsburg, county of Fron-tenac, have been leased to the Hon. Sir R. J. Cartwright ?
2.	How many years has the said lessee had the land referred to, and what rental does lie pay annually for the same?
3.	Have any fences been erected on said lands by the government in recent years? If so, by whom and at what cost?
4.	How many acres are in the adjoining farm, formerly occupied by the late Robert Dunlop, and what annual rent did that gentleman pay the government?
5.	When was the last payment of rent made on each of the properties mentioned?
6.	Are there any arrears of rent from either property? If so, what amount?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	So far as the Department of Militia and Defence is concerned, no portion of the government property in the Township of PittsbuTg, in the county of Frontenac, is leased to Sir Richard Cartwright. About Seventy-five acres were originally leased to Sir Richard Cartwright in 1868 or 1869 by the Imperial Government. This property is now under lease to Lady Cartwright.
2.	The above seventy-five acres have been leased to Lady Cartwright on the 30th of January, 1905, at an annual rental of $59.35. One hundred acres which formed part of the property originally leased to Mr. Robert Dunlop were, at that tenant's death, in August, 1906, leased at the same rental formerly paid by Mr. Dunlop, $42.96 per annum.' Only a part of the lands in above leases are fit for tillage, a large proportion being exceedingly rocky and stony.
3.	Considerable sums have been expended in properly fencing the property, but the entire cost has been defrayed by the tenant.
4.	In addition to the 100 acres above referred to, some 441 acres of the adjoining land, being part of lots 20 and 21 in the

western addition of the Township of Pittsburg, were also leasdd to Mr. Dunlop, at a rental of $11.87 per annum. The Department of Militia and Defence resumed possession of this parcel of land in November, 1907, and it now forms part of the Barrie-field camp grounds.
5.	(a) The last payment made by Lady
Cartwright was received at the department on September 27 last, and covered the rent due on the whole 175 acres for 12 months ended the 30th of September, (b) The last payment made by the Dunlop estate on the 125 acres formerly under lease to the late Mr. Dunlop was received at the department October 29, 1906, and covered the rent due for the six months ended September 30, 1906.	(c) The last payment
made on the additional 444 acres formerly under lease to the late Mr. Dunlop was received at the department January 28, 1908, and covered the rent due for the seven months ended October 31, 1907.
6.	No.


SERVANTS' QUARTERS AT R. M. C.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	When were the servants' quarters'at the R.M.C. completed?
2.	What was the total cost of the said quarters ?
3.	When were these cottages first occupied?
4.	How many of the cottages are at present occupied?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: ' 1, I presume this question relates to the quarters recently erected for the accommodation of teachers and instructors in the Royal Military College, some having the rank of non-commissioned officers, and others being civilian instructors in connection with the college. The buildings were completed and inspected by the Department of Militia and Defence on October 25, 1909.
2.	Total cost to date, $90,995.40.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 3.	These cottages were oocupied from Saturday, the 13t,h instant.
4.	All the cottages are at present occupied.


BRIDGE AT KINGSTON MILLS.
Mr. EDWARDS:: 1.	When were tenders asked for the construction of the bridge at Kingston Mills?
2.	From whom were tenders received, and what was the amount of each?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded, and when?
4.	When was the work completed, and how much has been paid on it to date?
5.	What is the total cost of the work?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	April 16, 1909, by newspaper advertisement.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN
2.	Tenders were received from the following contractors for the abutments and approaches at schedule rates, viz:	_
The Jenks-Dresser Co., Ltd., Sarnia, Ont.
James McGrath, Montreal.
Fallon Bros., Cornwall.
Patrick Kennedy, Ottawa.
Tenders for a steel riveted highway bridge were received from the following contractors, as foliowis, viz.:
Jenks-Dresser Co., Ltd., $2,000, plan A; $1,475, plan B.
Dominion Bridge Co., Montreal, $1,690.
Hamilton Bridge Works, Hamilton, $1,340.
The lowest tender in each case accepted.
3.	The contract for the abutments and approaches vtas awarded Fallon Bros., Cornwall, at their tender price, viz, $3,690.55. The contract for the superstructure was awarded The Hamilton Bridge Works at their tender price, viz, $1,340, on the 15th June, 1909.
4.	Work was completed on 10th October, 1909. Total payments to date, $3,969.10.
5.	Total cost cannot be stated, as the final estimate has not yet been received by the department.


PORT BRUCE HARBOUR.
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	What amounts have been expended upon harbour improvements at Port Bruce, Eigil county, Ontario, in fiscal years 1904-5, 1905-6, 1906-7, 1907-8 and 1908-9?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to make any further improvements in the said harbour during the present fiscal year?


William Pugsley: Fiscal Year.	Construct'n and Dredging.	Repairs.	Total.1904-05 .	$ cts. 975 54 4,947 76 2,122 00	$ cts.	$ cts. 975 54 4,947 76 4,999 83 665 11 5,846 251905-06 .	1906-07 	2,877 83 665 11	1907-08. ...	1908-09 	5,846 25	
13,891 55	3,592 94	17,434 49
2.	Some additional work is still to be performed to decking of pier.
RURAL MAIL DELIVERY IN ELGIN. Mr. MARSHALL:
1.	How many rural mail delivery boxes are installed in East Elgin?
2.	What is necessary to be done to secure a rural mail delivery box?

3.	What extra remuneration do the mail carriers receive respectively, and who attends to the delivery and removal of mail from the rural mail boxes in East Elgin?
the table without a motion being moved therefor ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for Postmaster General):: 1.	One hundred.
2.	Upon a receipt of a properly signed petition for rural mail delivery from the residents along and contiguous to the existing mail route the department will proceed at once to organize the service.
3.	(a) $1 per box per annum, where the service is performed daily or more frequently; 75 cents per box per annum for semiweekly and less frequently than daily; 50 cents per box per annum for weekly or less frequently. (b) The contractors for the several mail routes on which boxes have been erected.


RIFLES AVAILABLE FOR CADET CORPS.
[Stage Direction]
These negotiations are not yet concluded.
STRENGTH AND EXPENDITURE, PEIi-MANENT FORCE.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	What establishment has been fixed for the Permanent Force at Halifax, Fredericton, Quebec, St. John, P.Q., Ottawa, Kingston. Toronto, London, Winnipeg and Esquimalt i
2.	What is actual strength of the Permanent Force at those stations?
3.	What was the expenditure at those stations during the fiscal year on the Permanent Force, excluding any sums chargeable to Capital Account?
4.	What amounts were expended at those Stations chargeable to Capital?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 


Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	How many rifles have the Militia Department on hand which are available and suitable for issue to both Junior and Senior Cadet Corps ?
2.	What are the patterns of such rifles and the total length and weight thereof?
3.	Have any applications for rifles been received from any Cadet Corps which have not been complied with? If so, to what extent?
4.	Are a sufficient supply of such rifles on store charged to keep pace with the rapidly growing requirements of the quickly expanding cadet system throughout Canada?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 
TRANSFER OF ESQUIMALT.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Have the negotiations with the imperial government for the transfer of the Naval Station at Esquimalt to the Canadian government been yet concluded? If so, will the papers in connection therewith be laid on
1.	Present establishment of the Permanent Force:
Halifax	1,297
Fredericton	 84
Quebec	 381
St. John, P.Q	 99
Ottawa	 86
Kingston	 338
Toronto	 257
London	 91
Winnipeg	  106
Esquimalt	 131
2.	Strength of the Permanent Force, November, 1. (The date of the last return) :
Halifax	1,219
Fredericton	 77
Quebec	 357
St. John, P.Q	 99
Ottawa	 86
Kingston	 316
Toronto	246
London	 [DOT]	86
Winnipeg	 98
Esquimalt	 126
3.	The annexed statement marked ' A ' shows the expenditure for the whole of the Permanent'Staff and Permanent Force for pay and allowances, provisions and supplies at all stations.
There is also annexed herewith a statement marked ' B ' showing direct expenditure for repairs to barracks, &c., occupied by the Permanent Force.
It is not practicable to give the amount expended on stores, transport, and clothing as these votes are general for both the permanent and non-permanent militia. It may be stated, however, that quite two-thirds, if not more, of the stores vote and clothing vote is expended on account of the non-permanent militia.
4.	None.


Statement B.: -Expenditure for repairs to Barracks occupied by Permanent Force for fiscal year 1908-9.	'
authorized to discuss with the Postmaster General of the United Kingdom the subject of cable rates between Great Britain
and Canada.
Station.	Expenditurein connection with Barracks.
London, Out		$ cts. 589 00
Toronto, Ont		4,184 00 3,008 00 46 00
Kingston, Ont		
Montreal, Que		
	5,653 00 5 212 00
	
Halifax, N.S		31,392 00 2,377 00 1,699 00 3,843 00
	
Winnipeg, Man. 		
Esquimalt, B. C			
	
	58,003 00
ABSENCE OF POSTMASTER	GENERAL


ON OFFICIAL BUSINESS.
[Stage Direction]
2.	The Prime Minister.

Mr. URIAH WILSON:: 1.	Is any record kept by any department of the government of people emigrating from Canada? If so, how many people have emigrated from this country during the past fiscal year ?
2.	If not, is it the intention of the government to establish a system of keeping a record of this nature.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	No.
2.	Not at present.


Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	Is the Postmaster General away from the Capital on official business? If so, what is the nature of the business, and when is he expected to return?
2.	What minister is acting for the Postmaster General during his absence?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Yes, the Postmaster General is away from the capital on official business. In response to an invitation from the Swiss government, he was appointed to represent Canada at the inauguration of a monument to be erected in commemoration of the forming of the Postal Union. He was also I Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.


TREATIES WITH THE UNITED STATES
Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	How many treaties have been made or entered into with the United States by the government since 189(5?
2.	What are the dates of such treaties and in respect of what were they respectively entered into ?
3.	How many of these treaties and if so, which, have been submitted to parliament for ratification, and how many of such treaties have been brought into operation with the consent of the government only?
4.	If any of such treaties were not sanctioned by parliament, why were they not so sanctioned f


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY.: Since 1896 there have been entered into between Great Britain and the United States, twenty treaties or conventions, of which eight relate more or less directly to Canada. These are:
(a)	Convention relating to the mutual extradition of fugitive criminals. Signed at Washington, December 13, 1900.
(b)	Convention for the adjustment of the boundary between Canada and Alaska. Signed at Washington, January 24, 1903.
(c)	Convention for the adjustment of the boundary between Canada and Alaska. Signed at Washington, April 21, 1906.
(d)	Arbitration convention. Signed at Washington, April 4, 1908.
(e)	Convention respecting the protection, preservation and propagation of food fishes in waters contiguous to the United States and Canada. Signed at Washington, April 11, 1908.
(f)	Treaty relating to the demarcation of
the International boundary.	Signed at
Washington, April 11, 1908.
(g)	Treaty oroviding for the conveyance of prisoners of Canada or the United States through the territory of the other, also providing for reciprocal rights in wrecking and salvage. Signed at Washington, May 18, 1908.
(h)	Agreement for the submission 'to arbitration of questions relating to fishing on the North Atlantic coasts.	Signed at
Washington, January 27, 1909.
None of these treaties were laid before the parliament of Canada for ratification. Because under the British Constitution the treaties in question did not require parliamentary sanction.


THE ALL-RED ROUTE.
Mr. MONK:: 
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	No.
2.	In the condition revealed by the report.
3.	No.
4.	The government has not been advised of any such actions by the imperial authorities.
5.	Matter under consideration


LAND OPEN TO HOMESTEAD SETTLEMENT.
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	How many acres in the surveyed areas of land in the Northwest, including Manitoba, are open to homestead settlement?
2.	How many acres in the unsurveyed areas of the above are estimated as available for homestead settlement?


Mr. OLIVER:: .
1.	Area surveyed excluding Parish and River lot settlements, Forest reserves and Indian reserves, 142,574,308 acres; area alienated at the 1st November, 1909, 101,285,781 acres; leaving a balance of 41,288,527 acres open to homestead settlement.
2.	It is impossible to say how many acres in the unsurveyed area are available for homestead settlement as a considerable portion of this country has not been explored.


MEDALS AWARDED FOR HEROISM.
Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	Has the government awarded or recommended the Edward medal, instituted by His present Majesty for heroic deeds done by miners or quarrymen, in connection with the recent disaster at Extension,. British Columbia?
2.	If so, how many such medals were awarded or recommended?
3.	To what person or persons were such
medals awarded or recommended, and for what deeds?	1
i.	What department of the government has charge of this matter, and on whose recommendation or advice were such awards made or recommended?
5.	What inquiries were made by the government to properly ascertain the names of the parties entitled to such medals, and from whom were such inquiries made?


Hon. MACKENZIE KING:: 1. No.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answer to the first part of this question. The Department of the Secretary of State. The second part is answered by the answer to No. 1.
5.	Inquiries were made of the member of parliament representing the district in which the disaster occurred.


BARRACKS AT LAMBTON.
Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to place in the estimates an appropriation for the erection of the new barracks at Lambton, to take the place of Stanley Barracks, Toronto? If so, what is the amount of the appropriation ?
2.	When was the site at Lambton acquired,
and what has been the cause of the delay in proceeding with the work?	,
3.	Does Stanley Barracks afford sufficient accommodation for the officers and men stationed there?

4.	What is tlie amount of rental and other additional expenses payable by the government during the current year, for accommodation or quarters outside of Stanley Barracks because of their insufficiency?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	$100,000 included in estimates for 19101911.
2,	3 and 4. To be answered by the Department of Militia and Defence.
SIR FREDERICK BORDEN:
1.	Appertains to the Department of Public Works.
2.	The property was conveyed to the Crown bv the city of Toronto by deed dated February 15, 1909. The delay in proceeding with the work is due to there having been no appropriation for the purpose.
3	and 4. No. There are 75 all ranks in Toronto for whom no quarters are available. The total amount of lodging allowance paid to them is $14,825 per annum.


NORTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES BEFORE HAGUE TRIBUNAL.
Mr. MACDONELL:: 1. When does the government expect the North Atlantic Fisheries dispute to be submitted to the Hague Tribunal?
2- By what counsel will Canada be represented on this occasion ?
3.	Has the government retained the services of Sir Robert Finlay, and will he appear for Canada on that occasion? If not, why not?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH:: 1. In April or May next.
2 and 3. There will not be any separate representation of Canada before the tribunal. It is expected that upon the oral argument His Majesty's government will be represented bv the Attorney General of England and by Sir Robert Finlay and probably by one or by two other counsel, but who such other counsel will be has not yet been decided. The government of Canada joined with the government of Newfoundland in asking that Sir Robert h inlay should be retained. He has been retained and if available as counsel when the time comes will no doubt appear in that capacity.	[DOT]
ALIEN LABOUR LAW. Mr. MACDONELL:
Bis 'J, the intention of the government to abolish the Alien Labour Law, on the ground that it is useless in its present condition?
2.	Hag the government received any request from the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada to this effect?
3. What is the intention of the government with regard to either the enforcement of the Act"or its repeal?


Mr. MACDONELL.: 


Mr. KING:: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


PURCHASING AGENT FOR INTERCOLONIAL.
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	Has the denartment created a purchasing agency for buying supplies for the Intercolonial railway, at Ottawa?
2.	If so, what is the personnel of the same, salary and former experience of each member of such agency?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1. Yes.
2 (a) Louis Lavoie who entered the service in October, 1894, as clerk in the general manager's office, and where he remained until 1901, when he entered the office of Track Expert Horn, as general clerk, on the reorganization of the railway yards. In August, 1902, Mr. Lavoie entered the office of the late General Superintendent Price, as chief clerk and was employed in that capacity until September, 1905. Since that date, in the general manager's office as all round assistant in transportation work. He is an expert stenographer and typewriter, with a good knowledge of the English and French languages and is thoroughly familiar with railway work. Mr. Lavoie's present title is 'Purchasing agent' at a salary of $150 a month.
(b)	O. O. Leblanc entered the service as clerk in the Purchasing and Stores Department in March, 1884, his present sal-June, 1888, salary $100 a month.
(c)	F. H. Kinnear, clerk in the Storekeeping and Purchasing Department since June, 1898, salary $100 a month.
(d)	George Harshman clerk in Stores and Purchasing Department since 28th July, 1899. Salary $85 a month.


SURVEYS IN TOWNSHIP NINE, PROVINCE OF MANITOBA.
Mr. STAPLES:: 1.	Has the government done any re-su rv :y-ing in township nine, range ten, west of first, province of Manitoba, recently? If so, what was the nature and the extent of the work?
2.	By whom was the work requested?
3.	When did the work begin?
4.	How long did it last?
5.	Who was in charge of the survey party?
6.	Did the surveyors alter or change any of the stakes or lines? If so, what alterations were made?
7.	How many persons were employed during the work?
8.	What is the total cost of the resurvey?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1. The lines in township nine, range ten, west of the principal meridian, have been retraced recently. All the section

lines were retraced and marked on the ground. The Assiniboine river was also surveyed across the township.
2.	The work was requested by John Kerr, Eldrage Precious, Frank Precious, Albert Catt, Hy. Precious, Alex. Dobbin, C. Pullman, Robt. J. Pullman, J. Wilkinson, W. G. Ross, Wm. T. Grogan.
3.	The work began at the end of April.
4.	The work lasted about three months.
5.	C. F. Aylesworth.
6.	The returns of the survey not having been received, the question cannot be answered.
7.	Twelve persons and the surveyor.
8.	The accounts of the surveyor not having been received, the question cannot be answered.


THE ROSS RIFLE.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Was any certificate or other document issued or given hy any person at Militia Headquarters, or belonging to the Militia Department, .or any other person, which caused the Ross Rifle, Mark II, double star to be admitted by the National Rifle Association of Great Britain for use in the last Bisley competition ? If so, by whom was such issued, and what was the nature thereof ?
2.	What is the cost to the Militia Department of Ross Rifle Mark II.,- double star?
3.	Is the Ross Rifle Mark II., double star, regarded by the Militia Department as a service weapon?
4.	Is this pattern the one which will govern future purchases for issue to the Militia as its service weapon?
5.	What contract has been made with the Ross Rifle Company for the supply of rifles of this issue, including dates, numbers, payments, &c. ?
6.	Who are the twelve individuals to whom rifles of this pattern have been issued, and under what regulations were such issues made?
Sir * FREDERICK BORDEN. In answer to the first part of this question I would say that as far as I can ascertain, there is no certificate or other document in the Militia Department, or which has been issued through that department, which would answer- to the description contained in this question. However, I, myself, while in England, in July last, wrote a personal letter to the commandant of the Bisley team, Col. Bertram, and, as I told Col. Bertram that he could make such use as he chose of my personal letter, it is possible that this is what the hon. member refers to and, if so, I am delighted to have the opportunity of satisfying his. curiosity. The letter is as follows:
Waldorf Hotel, Aldwych,
London, Eng., July 12, 1909.
Dear Colonel Bertram-Having read the correspondence, including the letter of Lt.-
Col. Crosse, relating to the use of the Mark II*# rjge by the Canadian Bisley Team, this year, I have no hesitation in saying that the rifle issued to the team by the Militia Department is in every respect of the same pattern as the rifles of same mark, duly and previously authorized by General Order, now being manufactured for and issued hy the Department. You are at liberty to make such use, as you may see fit, of this letter.
. Wishing you every success,
I remain,
Yours very truly,
(Sd.) F. W. BORDEN.
Lt.-Col. A. .Bertram,
Commandant, Canadian Bisley Team, Bisley.
2.	The cost of the conversion of the Mark II rifle to Mark II** was $11 per rifle.
3.	Yes.
4.	It is expected that both mark II and
mark II** patterns will be manufactured and issued to the Canadian troops in such relative quantities as may be deemed advisable.	_
5.	The only order given the Ross Rifle Company for this pattern of rifle was by letter dated April 29, 1909, for the conversion of 500. Delivery under this order was completed on September 29, last, and the rifles have been paid for.
6.	The rifles were issued to the following:


Colonel S.: Hughes, M.P	 1
W. H. Sharp, Esq., M.P	 1
W. D. Staples, Esq., M.P	 1
Vickers Sons & Maxim	 2
J. A. Sexsmith, Esq., M.P.. .. 1
W. Price, Esq., M.P	 1
J. Arthurs, Esq., M.P	 1
J. D. Taylor, Esq., M.P	 1
H. Clarke, Esq., M.P	 1
F. B. Carvell, Esq., M.P	 1
Captain Swift, Inspection Staff. [DOT] 1


PITT MEADOWS, B.C.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:: 1.	Has the government made arrangements for the granting of a large area of public lands on Pitt Meadows, in New Westminster District, in British Columbia, to any person or persons, on terms differing from those obtainable by applicants generally under the provisions of the Land Act?
2.	If so, what are names of the persons,
their occupations, the acreage and the price per acre ?	.
3.	(a) Is there any settlement in the neighbourhood. (b) If s'o, what is the average price of land there?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	W. A. Rannie, contractor, 6,821-2 acres at the rate of $1.50 per acre.
3.	(a) Yes.
(b) The department has not the information at hand.


MILITARY COURTS OF INQUIRY.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Have officers or soldiers of the Canadian Militia the right to cross-examine witnesses and to procure evidence before Courts of Inquiry as established by the rules of pro cedure under the authority of the Army Act:'
2.	If so is the government aware as to whether any such right has been curtailed or diminished by the regulations established by the Governor in Council under the authority of the Militia Act, paragraph 77, line 910?


Mr. WORTHINGTON.: I would like to call the minister's attention to the fact that the last line of the question should read ' under the authority of the Militia Act, 1904, paragraph 77, line 9.'


Frederick William Borden: I have the answer here according to the way the question was put. It is as follows:
1.	Yes, in so far as the rules of procedure are not contrary to the Militia Act and regulations made thereunder.
2.	Yes.


LAND ENTRY OF THOS. G. WARWICK.
Mr. LAKE:: 


Did Thos.   G.@: Warwick pay the value of the improvements performed by A. R. Mudie on the S.W. quarter of section 24, 38,10, W. 3rd M. within thirty days from the 19th May, 1909, in accordance with the decision of the Minister of the Interior? If not, was his entry cancelled and notice given to Mr. Mudie to make re-entry within the usual 30 days?


Frank Oliver: On the 3rd of June, 1909, the agent of the Dominion lands at Saskatoon was instructed to notify T. G. Warwick that if he did not, within thirty days, pay the value of the improvements upon the southwest quarter of section 24, township 38, range 10, west of the third meridian, made by Mr. A. R. Mudie, his entry would be cancelled. On the 16th idem, the agent notified Mr. Warwick accordingly. On the 16th of July, 1909, Mr. Warwick paid the sum of $60, being the value of 30 acres of breaking done by Mr. Mudie. Mr. Warwick having complied with the conditions, his entry was not cancelled.


PRE-EMPTIONS AND PURCHASED HOMESTEADS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LAKE;
1.	What has been the total acreage of preemptions and purchased homesteads sold since the 31st December, 1908, to date?
2.	What total amount of money receivable by the government does this represent?
3.	How much has been paid on this acreage during the above period?
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	1,937.696 acres.
2.	$5,833,376, with interest to date of payment.


Mr. OLIVER.: 3.	$33,504, being entry fees and first instalments on account of purchased homesteads. This statement is for the period extending from the 31st December, 1908, to 31st October, 1909, which latter date is the date of the last returns received from the Dominion land agencies.


IMPERIAL CONFERENCE, 1909-FRENCH VERSION OF PROCEEDINGS.
Mr. PAQUETTE:: Is it the intention of the government to give to the members of the House, before the debate on naval defence, the official French version of the Imperial Conference of 1909?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have to observe that this matter is not under the jurisdiction of the government but of the House itself.


FISHERIES COMMISSION.
Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	Has the Fisheries Commission which lately sat in the west completed its report?
2.	if so, when will such report be brought down?
3.	Will all the evidence taken be also laid
on the table?	.


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	No.
2.	Commissioners are now engaged in its preparation and report will be brought down when completed.
3.	Yes.


FRENCH TREATY.
Mr. MONK:: Is there a provision in the existing treaty between France and Canada, respecting trade, for terminating the treaty upon notice or otherwise? If so, what is the effect of the provision ?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: The French treaty of 1893, now in force, contains a provision that either party may terminate the treaty after twelve months' notice. There is a further provision that if Canada should increase the duty on certain wines the French government may terminate the treaty immediately without notice.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a return showing the number of passes issued on the Intercolonial railway from October 1, 1908, to October 1, 1909, whether annual, return trip or trip, to whom issued, the authority and upon whose recommendation the passes were issued and reasons for the issue, the several points at which these passes took effect and the destination, and also a copy of the agreement entered into by the various railways of Canada regarding the nonissuing of passes-Mr. Stanfield.

For a return showing: 1. The applications made to the Railway Board for protection of railway crossings under the provisions of chapter 32 of the statutes of 1909, an Act to amend the Railway Act, and (a) the cases in which these applications have been granted, (b) in which they have been refused, when refused, and the reason for refusal.
2.	The names of the persons in each case making the application.
3.	The cases in which the board of its own motion made an order for the protection of crossing under said Act.
4.	The appropriations made by the board out of the Railway Grade Crossing fund under said Act, and the crossing in respect of which such appropriations were made.
5.	The character or description of the crossing in question, and the character, description and cost in each case of the construction work of protection ordered or directed by the board.
6.	The amount in each case ordered or directed by the board out of the said fund and by the railway company and municipality or other party to the proceedings.
7.	The cases in which the work ordered to be done (a) has been completed, (b) in which it is under construction, (c) the cases in which the municipality has been submitted to or complied with the order of the board, and (d) cases in which the municipality has refused to comply.-Mr. Lennox.
For a return showing the areas sold or leased as oil lands in the northwest, giving the amount sold or leased, the date when, and the parties to whom sold or leased, and if leased the various assignments, if any, made thereof, and the dates of the same.-Mr. Foster.
For a cox^y of all letters, telegrams, applications, contracts, lease or leases and correspondence with regard to Lac du Bonnet fishing.-Mr. Campbell.
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, applications. contracts, and correspondence with regard to the taking of spawn for the fish hatchery at Snake island, Winnipegosis for the years 1907-1908 and 1909.-Mr. Campbell.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LENNOX moved for a copy of the resignation of the late Senator Merner and all letters, correspondence and papers in connection with the resignation.
Wilfrid Laurier: There is no
such correspondence in existence.


Mr. LENNOX.: No resignation?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Dropped.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND TUNNEL.
Mr.  A. B.@: WARBURTON (Queens, P.E. I.) moved for:
A copy of all memorials, reports, correspondence and documents in the possession .if the government not already brought down, relating to a survey of a route for a tunnel under the Straits of Northumberland between the province of Prince Edward Island and
the mainland of Canada, and also relating to the construction of such tunnel.
He said : Mr Speaker, this is a question which has been often brought before the parliament of Canada, although it has not been presented during the present parliament until now. Last year, owing to the fact that there was a serious falling off in the revenues of the country, I did not myself consider it an opportune time to move a resolution which if adopted might mean the expenditure of a considerable sum of money, and consequently I deemed it better to wait for a more convenient time when the revenues of the country would be buoyant and when those in charge of the finances might be in a more melting frame of mind and better prepared to give the people of Prince Edward Island assistance in this direction. At all events the question has been ventilated in the press and in parliament for years. Permit me to say that in my humble opinion the method adopted by some of its advocates, and the press, particularly in the press of Prince Edward Island, has not been characterized by that common sense which would have been better for the tunnel. We have had speeches on the hustings and editorials in the newspapers which have brought ridicule upon a worthy scheme and which to some extent at least has made it a laughing stock. In consequence of this I find it more difficult to remove the wrong impressions created by the absurd declarations which have been made by would be advocates of the scheme, than in gaining the sympathy of those in parliament and outside of parliament when I submit facts. As you were aware, Mr. Speaker, some 19 years ago the government of Sir John Macdonald to.ok steps towards getting a survey of that part of the Straits of Northumberland where this tunnel is to be built. So far as that survey ivent it was useful, but it did not go far enough and was so imperfect that it would be quite impossible for any one to tender for the construction of a tunnel on the data which it furnished. The survey was made by a Mr. Palmer, of England, who was said to be an expert in this branch of engineering. I met Mr. Palmer in those days in Prince Edw'ard Island, and whatever the cause of it was there seemed to be a great deal of friction between him and those who were then actively interesting themselves in the project. However that was, the survey was not made to the extent we had expected. Possibly we were looking for too much and possibly, and very likely, our imperfect knowledge of that sort of'work did not enable us to form a just estimate of the extent of survey that should be accomplished for the sum of money appropriated for it. Of course, I recognize that laymen are apt to he led astray when they come to con-

sider questions which require great engineering skill. However, upon the information reported to him by Mr. Palmer's survey, Sir Douglas Fox made a very important report. It does not require any words from me to add to the fame of Sir Douglas Fox as a great engineer. I shall, with the permission of the House, read certain extracts from the report of Sir Douglas Fox and from the correspondence with the late Senator Howlan, and I shall read these extracts in order to explain to the House perhaps more fully than has been explained in any former discussion the position which is taken by a great many of the people of Prince Edward Island and the mainland, and the position which I myself take now.
Sir Douglas, in the opening of his report, gives us this information. He said:
,Tlie greatest depth of water is shown as being 96 feet at high water, with a rise of tides of six feet at springs and three feet at neap, and the speed of the current as not exceeding three knots, with two hours of slack water each tide.
The distance from shore to shore is given as about 13,200 lineal yards, or say from shaft to shaft 13,500 lineal yards, exclusive of land approaches on either side, of which about 2,000 lineal yards would be in the tunnel.
Mr. Palmer further reports that the shores upon either coast are well adapted for railway approaches, varying from 15 to 35 feet in height above high water mark, with a mean altitude of 25 feet, the soil being of a red clayey nature. It appears also that the higher land on Prince Edward Island shore falls away towards the interior which will, therefore, shorten the approaches on that side.
That section of the report bears more upon the nature of the particular material through which the proposed tunnel would run. Then he took up the question of the stratification, upon which he reported as follows:
Upon the all important question of stratification on the proposed alignment, Mr. Palmer quotes the following opinion, given him verbally by Mr. Francis Bain on the occasion of his visit:-
Mr. Bain was a somewhat noted geologist in that section of the country

' In his belief, a bed of red clay shale, varying in thickness from 50 to 80 feet extends right across the Straits of Northumberland. It lies almost horizontally upon a carboniferous or gray sandstone base, and is said to contain small occasional lenticular masses of fine red sandstone.'
Mr. Palmer adds, as the result of his own investigation :	' The geological outcrop on
either shore in which the strata are distinctly visible, the formation of the surrounding country, the stratification seen in neighbouring wells, combined with the opinion of Mr. Bain, the geologist who is a native of the island, and has a knowledge of its entire formation, proves that a most favourable and impervious stratum does exist for subaqueous tunneling.


Mr. WARBURTON.: some such survey however, as Sir Douglas Fox, recommends, is made, it will be out of the question to expect that this tunnel agitation will not continue to be a sort of irritation and annoyance from one end of the year to the other.


An hon. MEMBER.: What is the distance?


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: The distance under water is not more than seven and a half miles. It has been customary in correspondence and newspaper articles and in discussions on the floor of this House to quote letters written by the late Sir John Macdonald and the right hon. the leader of this House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) as well as speeches by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and others. I must frankly say that I have never been able to see a great deal of force in quoting speeches or letters of that kind. They are valuable to this extent that they show the good feeling of these hon. gentlemen and their willingness to help us; but however eminent these hon. gentlemen may be, however high they may stand in the service of their country and in the confidence of their respective parties, and however eminent they may be m the history of the country, such quotations are not "the best way in which to impress this matter upon the attention of the government and the House. I have long come to the conclusion that the strongest argument one can use on behalf of any public work is the argument that it is for the best advantage of Canada, I do not think it wise to argue on purely sectional grounds and say:	I
want this thing for my province because it is my province. For my part I want this tunnel, not only because it will be to the advantage of Prince Edward Island, but to Canada as a whole. Anything that tends to the consolidation of this Dominion tends to its welfare as a whole. Anything that tends, for example, to unite the island of Vancouver with the main land by material as well as theoretical bonds, by permanent and continuous bonds, does to that extent -and it is to a very considerable extent- strengthen the bonds that unite the various parts of our nation. On that ground, I urge this matter on the attention of the government and the House. You cannot exnect Canada as a whole to be contented and progressive so long as there is a festering sore in any part of it. Every day we hear of applications to the government for assistance to improve transportation facilities in various parts of the country. In many cases these improvements will be confined to certain provinces, but nevertheless, they have a great bearing on the general prosperity of the country. Canada is now building the great transcontinental. That railway will be of very little practical use Mr. WARBTJRTON.
to us down in Prince Edward Island, yet four or five years ago, I went to defeat on that question and am prepared to go to defeat on it again-not because the railway is of much use to us in Prince Edward Island but because it will bind together the various parts of the country and make of us one nation. The greatest question before the country and to-day is that of consolidation, and transportation is the largest element in that respect. In the speech of His Excellency, he mentions the proposed road to Hudson bay. That road will be soon undertaken ana built. It will be of no earthly use to us in Prince Edward Island but will be of great benefit to our fellow Canadians in the west by enabling them to get their produce to market more expeditiously and cheaper, and for that reason, although the road is of no benefit to my constituency, I shall give the project my support. Then there is the proposed expenditure on the Welland canal. It is important to the trade of Montreal and the west that the Welland canal should be deepened and broadened. Although we in Prince Edward Island are outside the track and influence of that canal and can derive no great benefit from it, I am going to support the project for the reasons I have given.
I have here a summary of a speech de-livefed by the Minister "of Railways at Stayner, in February, 1908, which appeared in newspapers, and in which he spoke of the Trent Valley canal. I do not propose to give his speech in extenso, but merely a brief summary to this effect:	The Minister of Railways defended the spending of money for transportation facilities because the people in that way obtained higher prices for their products. The price of products he added, was governed largely by the speed with which they could be got to market. When the transcontinental railways were completed, he said, the country would still not have sufficient transportation. Again dealing with the Trent Valley canal project, he said the country had been long committed to that scheme and the present government had said it would be built. He added:
If I stay where I am as Minister of Railways I am going to build that canal through to the Georgian bay.
He also referred to the building of better storage facilities on the eastern side of the Georgian bay and elsewhere where they were needed. I think he might have gone further and added a number of other works for the benefit of Canada, not that they are of benefit to Prince Edward Island, had they been brought to his mind.
It is this question of transportation to which the minister so well referred that affects us. We have a very fertile part of of Canada. We have very little poor land on the island; I suppose it is not as fertile

as the more fertile parts of Manitoba, Alberta or Saskatchewan, but taking the average of those provinces it is quite as fertile, and we have very little land that is not fertile. Our land is very nearly all owned by farmers, it is worked by the farmers and their families, and they raise an enormous quantity of produce on - those farms. Our population is from 45 to 50 per square mile, arid we require facilities not only for freight' traffic, but also for passenger traffic. We do not complain about the summer facilities; we do not mind crossing over the Straits in the summer, but we do object to getting stuck in the ice in the winter as we have done in the past. If we could manage to get a line of steamers crossing over in winter that would keep navigation open throughout the season-and this I believe to be possible, as I shall endeavour to demonstrate to the House on a future occasion-we would not complain, but I am assuming that the winter conditions will continue as they have been and that we will still be exposed to the danger of having to cross the Straits on the small ice boats. It is for that reason that I am bringing this matter before the House to-day. I wish to commend it to the consideration of the government. As you can see it is not a very difficult matter to give us this service. I am not asking the government to build the tunnel, I am merely asking them to take such measures as will show whether or not it is practicable to build the tunnel. I am simply asking that the preliminaries shall be carried out in order to enable us or any other practical man to judge what can be done or ought to be done. I do not think this is asking too much. I feel sure that in this matter we will have the sympathy of members on both sides of the House. If they can see their way clear to assist us in this matter I have confidence that they will do so and therefore, without taking more of your time, I shall move the resolution standing in my name.


Mr. J. W. RICHARDS (Prince, Prince Edward Island).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words in support of the motion made by my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Warburton). The question of transportation between Prince Edward Island and the mainland is of great importance to the people of that province. This position I think will be generally admitted at least by those who are familiar with the conditions which exist in that part of Canada. It is true that our means of communication in the winter season have been greatly improved of late years by reason of our having steamers generally capable of breaking the ice in the winter season. The present administration have done a great deal in that regard; they have put on the ' Minto,' a powerful boat which has done very good service;
and recently a new boat called the * Earl Grey,' costing something like $500,000 has been put upon that service. It remains to be seen how far she will be successful in keeping up continuous communication during the winter. We have every reason to believe from the pains taken in the construction of that boat and from her great power and improved design, incorporating the latest improvements with regard to breaking ice, that she will do a great deal to keep up communication in a more regular way than has been possible in the past. However, during a very severe winter, and *we have these occasionally, I am of the opinion that it would be very difficult for any boat, no matter how powerful she may be or what her design, to keep up regular communication in winter and for this reason we are looking fox some means by which continuous communication can be maintained.
It is not necessary for me to repeat what my hon. friend (Mr. Warburton) has said with regard to estimates and opinions that have been published by so eminent an authority as Sir Douglas Fox. It is beyond question that since he made that estimate the science of tunnelling has advanced greatly, and to-day the work of constructing a tunnel can be done at a much lower cost than would have been possible fifteen or twenty years ago. Tunnelling is not a new thing. In the State of New York there are tunnels of great length and in- Ontario large tunnels are also to be found. Tunnelling is practicable in other parts and I have no doubt that it would be practicable between Prince Edward Island and the mainland of Canada.
Prince Edward Island, as many of you are aware, is a very fertile little province. As has been stated, it has a larger population to the square mile than perhaps any other province in the Dominion. We have a large export trade, and what has been done in giving us winter steamers has greatly increased our winter trade, so that our exports during the winter months are nearly as large as they are during the summer, and for this reason there is great necessity for having some better means of transportation. I shall not go into particulars as to the size of this tunnel or other features that have been touched on by my hon. friend, but shall simply say that we want to know whether or not the construction of such a tunnel is practicable and that we think the time has arrived when this question should be settled one way or the other. To my mind the only way in which that can be done is to have a report after investigation or survey. At every election this question comes up and we are all in favour of a tunnel, but so far nothing has been done, and the question has caused

a pood deal of agitation, I would not say turmoil, in the province of Prince Edward Island. It has been a burning question there for some years, and I agree with what has been very properly said, that in order that there should be a feeling of good will and peace and harmony among the provinces of Canada, in order to consolidate them, if on no other ground, we are entitled to have this question of the practicability and cost of the tunnel set before our people. If it can be done at a reasonable cost, at such a cost as the province would expect to have expended for that work, then I say we should have it, but it is most important and highly desirable to our people that the question should be settled one way or the other. I cannot complain of the large expenditure made in western Canada because I am well aware that the expenditures made there under a careful administration such as we have are necessary and are for the building up of this great nation of ours. At the same time, our people take the view that while these expenditures are being made in other parts of Canada, we in Prince Edward Island contribute our share to these expenditures, and we are entitled to some consideration in the matter of the construction of public works, and especially in the construction of the tunnel. The survey made there some years ago, so far as it went, was probably of considerable service; hut since that time 1 am informed by engineers who are capable of passing an opinion on such subjects that improved means have been discovered of making surveys of that character. I would, the e-fore, urgently call upon the government to take up this matter seriously. The people of Prince county whom I represent are very deeply interested, because one end of this tunnel would most likely be constructed from Cape Travers in that county. I can assure this honourable House that this is a burning question in that province, and our people are most anxious that some steps should be taken with a view of satisfying the public with regard both to the cost and the practicability of the construction of a tunnel. I feel that we have the sympathy of the members from the other provinces of Canada, especially from Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and whatever support we get from them will strengthen the hands of the government in at least ordering a survey. I can only express the hope that at an early date the government will see its way clear to take some steps to have an investigation on the lines I have indicated. It is a work which would do much for Prince Edward Island, the garden of the gulf, and would do much to bring about a better state of feeling among the people because as has been very well said, we are the only province in which there Mr. RICHARDS.
is a feeling of irritation and annoyance. I shall say no more on the present occasion, but I hope before the session is over to have another opportunity of dealing at greater length with this important question.


Mr. A. L. FRASER (Kings, P.E.I.).: I wish to endorse what has been so well said by my hon. friend. from Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Warburton), and from Prince, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Richards) on this question. There are no two sides to it in our province, upon this subject at least we are at one. I am sure that seventy-five per cent, perhaps ninety-live per cent of the people of our province desire to have the conditions of confederation carried out if at all possible. One of the conditions under which our province entered into the confederation of this great Dominion, and perhaps the chief condition, was the promise of continuous communication with the mainland. We have that in our bond, and we desire to see it carried out by the Dominion government. If that is a condition that cannot be carried out, then we w'ant to know it as soon as possible. At present it is, as my hon. friends have pointed out, an ever recurring subject of turmoil and trouble at every election, whichever government is in power; I think it is the same with both parties. On the eve of every election certain parties go down there and promise, or half promise, that this tunnel shall be constructed, but when the election is over we hear very little about the tunnel until the next election is coming on. Under these circumstances our people are getting discouraged. We trust now, seeing that we are some distance from an election, that this government will at once undertake to ascertain whether a tunnel can be constructed at a reasonable cost. It has been said that such a tunnel would cost an enormous sum of money, some people have placed it as high as $150,000,000. We will not ask for a tunnel if it costs half that amount. The people of our province do not wish to be unreasonable, we do not ask for any thing unreasonable, we only ask this government to make a proper effort to ascertain what the tunnel is likely to cost. We trust that at this present session the government will set aside a certain sum to have a thorough survey made. We do not want a survey that will be barren of any reliable and useful information, we want a complete survey made, cost what it will, and we want the survey made as soon as possible. This is a question that should not enter into politics, because it is an obligation about which there can be no question. We feel that the federal government should carry out the condition under which we became part of this great Dominion, and that we are entitled to this tunnel. We contribute our full share to the public exchequer, indeed some people argue

that for many years past we have contributed more to the treasury at Ottawa than we are getting back in any shape. It has been figured out pretty closely that we are contributing a larger sum each year, more than we are getting back. Now if that is so, it must be plain that we are entitled to to see this matter taken hold of seriously by the government. Without saying any more at the present on this subject, I have great pleasure in endorsing what has been said by my hon. friends from that province, and I hope that the government will take heed to it and act upon it without delay.


William Stevens Fielding: The question that has been brought to the notice of the House by my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Warburton), my hon. friend from Prince, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Richards), and my hon. friend from Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Fraser), is, I am well aware, of the deepest interest to the people of Prince Edward Island, and they are quite right when they claim that it ought to be regarded as a matter of general interest to the people of the Dominion. It is a good many years since this question was first brought before the House of Commons. Perhaps it would not be too much to say that in the earlier days the matter was regarded by many members as somewhat impracticable, and possibly even visionary; and for a long time it was hardly treated with the seriousness that our friends from Prince Edward Island desired. But I am glad to recognize the fact that the progress of engineering science in recent years has brought into the realm of practical affairs many projects which years ago would have been regarded unfavourably, and I am inclined to think that one of the matters that has been brought within that realm is the question of a Prince Edward Island tunnel. The subject has been brought before the House from time to time, and I must in justice to my hon. friends say that in no case when I have been present, or when I have read the debates, has it been presented better than to-day. It has been presented to-day forcibly, reasonably and with great moderation, and 1 compliment my three hon. friends for presenting the matter in that way. If I have to dissent from anything that has been said, it is in view of the words uttered by the hon. member for Kings who treated this matter as an obligation under the Confederation Act, Frankly I do not agree with my hon. friend.
I do not think that this is an obligation under the Confederation Act. I do not think the government of Canada, either of one party or the other, has failed in its obligation to the people of Prince Edward Island to carry out the conditions of confederation. But though I differ from my hon. friend in that respect, that does not in 10
the slightest degree affect my disposition to sympathize with Prince Edward Island, and to help the people of that province in this matter. I am disposed to think that if it can be had at a moderate cost the people of Prince Edward Island should have this tunnel, not because it is an obligation of confederation, for I humbly think it is not, but because they may fairly ask it in order that they may keep pace with the progress of the times, and that they may receive a share of the benefits of the great growing time in Canada irrespective of whether it is an obligation of eonfedera-ton or not. I look upon Prince Edward Island as one of the fairest provinces of the Dominion. In many respects it is one of the happiest provinces of the Dominion. It is an island almost entirely devoted to agriculture, settled by a fine farming population, by a very intelligent people, and there is no part of the Dominion of Canada, nay, there is probably no part of the world, where the blessings and comforts of life are more evenly distributed than they are among the good people of Prince Edward Island. Nevertheless, the population does not grow. Occasionally, indeed, there are indications that the population is falling away and our island friends are naturally very much disturbed on that account, They think their chief difficulty is this question of transportation. In the past very large figures have been quoted as the probable cost of this work. I am glad to hear my hon. friends from the island say that all they ask is that this matter shall be thoroughly and impartially inquired into and if the tunnel can be built at a moderate cost they think the work should be done. To that' sentiment I most heartily subscribe, and I am quite sure that the government will have that feeling towards it. There have been some surveys in the past. I suppose that each of them in its day served the purpose, it was the best that could be had ; but I quite agree with my hon. friends that the matter should be taken up more vigorously and more seriously, and that we should endeavour to get a reliable and thorough survey by the best engineers, and if, as a result of that survey, it is found that this important work can be constructed at a moderate cost, I for one, would promise my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island my most hearty and cordial support.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John City) moved :: For a copy of all reports, correspondence and other papers relating to the condition and maintenance of the buoy on the Old Proprietor Ledge in the Bay of Fundy since January 1, 1908; also of all reports, correspondence



and other papers relating to the establishment, equipment, maintenance and operation of the life boat and life saving station at Seal Cove in the Bay of Bundy; also copy of all instructions issued to Captain Lugar in connection with the inquiry into the wreck of the ss. ' Hestia,' and of the findings and report on said inquiry.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in making the
motion which I have just read calling for the papers which' the motion calls for it will be necessary for me, to some extent, to call to the minds of the members of this House the unfortunate and disastrous wreck which took place in the Bay of Fundy on the night of the 24th, or early in the morning of the 25th of October last. The wreck of the steamship 'Hestia' is, as far as my memory goes, the most disastrous wreck, in so far as loss of life is concerned, that has ever taken place in the Bay of Fundy. The crew of the steamship numbered 41, and, in addition, there were four passengers, making 45 in all. Of these 45 persons, 39 went down to a watery grave. The facts given simply and shortly, are these:	On the evening of Sunday, 24th
October, the steamship 'Hestia' rounded into the Bay of Fundy, passing the Lurcher Light about eight o'clock. At half past twelve she sighted the Gannet Rock light and at ten minutes after one in the morning she rushed on to the rocks known as the Old Proprietor reef, passing at that time, in order to get into that position, within 30 or 40 feet of what is known as a gas or whistling buoy erected to guard against that very reef and known as Old Proprietor buoy. We all know that the life of a sailor is at all times a dangerous one, that he constantly takes his life in his hands. He is exposed to the danger of collision in darkness and fog. He is subject to the dangers both of wind and waves, of storms and hurricanes even when he has plenty of sea room on the broad Atlantic or on any other ocean, but as he nears the land and approaches his destination there is no doubt that the anxiety of the navigator increases very greatly, more especially when he approaches the shore at night time or in thick weather. This Sunday evening that I have referred to it was raining, clearing at intervals, with some mist, with a north-easterly wind, bearing to some extent on the starboard bow of the ship and tending to drive her to the westward of her course. The fact that these dangers when approaching the coast are very considerable for the navigator is well known and has long been recognized by all maritime nations. The consequence is that they have and are spending a great deal of money to provide suitable aids to navigation where they are needed in the shape of lighthouses, buoys, fog whistles, whistling buoys, floating buoys and very many other aids that human ingenuity has devised in Mr. DANIEL.
order to point out the right course or as a warning beacon to ward off the ship against the hidden dangers, or dangers of any kind, that may be provided against by a light or such other aid to navigation. The principal aids to navigation are all listed and charted so that all the captains and men responsible for the navigation of vessels may become acquainted with all these lights and aids. When coming into any region they have on their charts a statement of these aids and are able to look for them when they require to do so as their course develops and they go on their path towards their proper haven. If it is necessary, as of course it is, that all these things should be made known and the information placed in the hands of people who ought to have it, the navigators or captains, then surely we will readily understand that it is much more important, that where anything happens to these aids to navigation, when the light goes out, or a buoy goes adrift, that these men who go up and down the great highways of the sea should be made acquainted with all accidents of that nature and with any changes that may be made in the listed lights and buoys around any particular coast.
The course which is generally pursued when anything goes wrong with these lights is, for the Marine Department to notify the British Board of Trade which issues a monthly bulletin to be placed in the hands of navigators so that they may be informed of any changes which take place; and not rely on these lights being in' their accustomed places. In the Bay of Fundy we have such fixed lights as the Gannett rock light, and there are also these automatic gas whistling buoys which are not fixed on lighthouses but which are equally important to the navigator. Such a light was placed on what is known as the Old Proprietor reef. Off the southern coast of Grand Manan there is a very dangerous reef mostly covered by water which on the eastward juts out on the course which is taken by vessels going to St. John and other ports on the bay. This sunken reef at its outermost end raises its gnarled and scarred surface above the water and it is called the Old Proprietor rock, and for years there has. been a high mast on that rock. Some years ago the St. John Board of Trade petitioned the Marine Department to place a lighthouse on that rock, but the request was refused on the ground that the expense would be too great. However, on account of the great danger of this reef the Department of Marine placed, a mile or so to the southward of the rock, one of those automatic whistling buoys supplied by Messrs. Willson, of Ottawa, and which I think cost $8,000. This buoy was for two or three years in commission and was regularly listed and charted. It was one of the most important lights in the Bay of Fundy

and had it been in working order on the. night of October 24, or the morning of October 25, there would not have occurred that disaster by which thirty-nine persons found a watery grave, and among them two little Scotch lads who were coming out to settle in this country. It was most pathetic to read in the account of that wreck that *when these two little lads were overturned in the boat the voice of one of the little ones in his Scotch accent was heard to cry out over the wateis:	Oh, mother,
mother, save me, I am drowning. But these two little boys, together with two other passengers and the thirty-five hardy sailors, including the captain and all of the deck officers, except one, were drawn down in that waste of waters on that night. I say, Sir, and I say it calmly and coolly, that in their death they were the victims of either the inaction or the indifference or the incapacity of the responsible officers of the Marine Department. Had the defect in that buoy been remedied, it would not be in my power nor in the power of any one to point an accusing finger at the Department of Marine. But, Sir, the agent of that department knew as long ago as January the 22nd last, ten months ago, that the light was out or that the buoy was adrift. Now, what action was taken? They put an advertisement in three of the St. John papers and they inserted that advertisement three times and it read:
Tlie Old Proprietor gas and whistling buo.v has been reported as being either adrift or the light out. It will be attended to as soon as possible.
. Signed J.
Jan. 26, 1909.
E. LEGERE, Acting Agent
So far as I know that was the only notice given in printed form, but I understand that the agent of the Donaldson line in St. John was. verbally notified that there was something wrong with the buoy. Now, was that buoy attended to as soon as possible as stated in the advertisement? Is it necessary to take ten months to put right one of these gas buoys? I put a question to the Minister of Marine on the point and the minister allowed himself to be made the mouthpiece of an answer which stated that the weather conditions and press of more important affairs would not allow of that buoy being attended to. But, Sir, only a week after the wreck took place that buoy which for ten months lay there neglected, was towed into St. John harbour and tested opposite Partridge Island. All summer long, for ten months, the weather conditions would not allow the department to put this buoy right, but in the stormy month of November, in less than a week after the wreck they could go out there and tow it into harbour and set it in order.
Why was not the ' Lansdowne ' sent to attend to this, matter? I would like to ask the minister, so that when he speaks on this subject he will be able to say whether there is any regulation in the department to the effect that that steamer should only leave port when it had several jobs to attend to. I understand that the acting agent at St. John, when asked why he did not send the ' Lansdowne ' there, gave that as one of his reasons. I know that day after day and week after week the ' Lansdowne ' was lying in the harbour at St. John, and might easily have been sent during the summer months when the weather was fine. It is ridiculous for the minister to say that the weather conditions were such, in one of the finest summers we ever had, that the steamer was unable to go to that buoy. When I heard the minister give that reply, I was astounded. I do not think that even for the purpose of screening his department,, which he might naturally be expected to desire to do, he should allow such a ridiculous answer to be put into his mouth as that for ten months in the year the weather conditions in the Bay of Fundy were such that a steamer oi the size of the 'Lansdowne' should not go and tow up a buoy of the size of that on the Old Proprietor ledge. The thing to my mind is utterly absurd and farcical. He also says that press of more important business prevented. I would like the minister to say what that more important business was. I would like to call his attention to the fact that that buoy is considered the most important among all the aids to navigation in the whole Bay of Fundy. What did Captain Gillies say on that very point in the investigation which was held? He said:
The neighbourhood of the Grand Manan has always been acknowledged to be the most dangerous locality in the whole hay.
There is the statement of a practical navigator; and yet the minister says that he spent nearly the whole year in looking after more important business while this steamer was lying in the harbour of St. John. To give you some idea of the importance of these aids to navigation in the Bav of Fundv, and the necessity of having them kept in the best possible condition, let me remind the House that in the year 1908-9 there was exported from the city and port of St. John alone for transatlantic ports no less than $24,564,840 worth of goods. I would also like to give the House an idea of the number of vessels trading up and down the bay. I will read from the annual report of the St. John Board of Trade the figures for the last three years 1906, 1907 and 1908, of the arrivals and clearances of the port of St. John:

Arriv'ls	1906.	1907.	1908.	No.	Tons.	No.	Tons.	No.	Tons.Steam . Sail.... Coastwise .	474 980 2,403	827,514 116,664 411,735	339 677 649	747,090 78,574 244,832	393 940 829	978,277 105,319 282,723Totals..	3,957	1,355,913	1,665	1,070,496	2,162	1,366,339Clear- ances.	Steam.. Sail.... Coastwise..	305 1,027 2,651	565,520 111,112 685,123	247 692 720	531,654 77,819 456,403	283 963 939	667,521 108,000 614,596Totals..	3,983	1,361,755	1,659	1,065,876	2,175	1,390,115
Besides the tonnage entering and leaving the port of St. John, there is the shipping business of all the bay ports on both the Nova Scotia side and the New Brunswick side. Not that all the vessels take the easterly side of the Grand Manan in going inwards and outwards, but all the large steamers do, and pass this Old Proprietor ledge. This buoy was known for ten months to be defective, and that' fact is entirely responsible for the wreck of the ' Hestia.' In this connection I wish to read letter of the only deck officer whose life was saved after the wreck, that is, the third officer, S. A. Stewart. On the 2nd of November this letter was published in the St. John 'Globe'. It is headed:
Aids to Navigation in Bay of Fundy-Strong
Statement by Third Officer of ss. ' Hestia.'
Seal Cove, Grand Manan, Oct. 31. To the Editor of the 'Globe ':
Sir,-I inclose herewith a letter from the third officer of the stranded steamer ' Hestia,' setting forth his views and expressing his feelings in this matter. We would ask you to publish the letter in your paper as early as convenient to you, as we think it would he of interest to the general public and possibly remedy a great evil.
Unless something is done the insurance rates will certainly increase on Bay of Fundy trade, which will act against St. John, New Brunswick.
WILLIAM H. LOGAN, Salvage Officer, Salvage Association,
London.
M. V. Gillies,
Supt. Donaldson Line.


Did Thos.   G.@: Stewart, third officer of the ' Hestia,' speaking of the stranding and subsequent happenings of that vessel and her crew, says:
The night we stranded there was a strong northeast wind with thick rainy weather, clearing at intervals, short high sea running. We were steering a mid-channel course up the Mr. DANIEL.
bay, and our frequent soundings of over a hundred fathoms were satisfactory-
About half an hour after midnight on Sunday, October 24, Gannet Rock light was sighted, but owing to weather conditions accurate distance off could not possibly be established. The captain kept the ship on her course, evidently looking for the Old Proprietor buoy. At 1.10 on 25-10-'09, the ship struck on the outer part of the latter named ledge, where when the tide rose she fell over on her side and was completely submerged at high water. Myself, the second engineer and four seamen are all that remain alive out of a crew of 41 men.	_
I find since being brought ashore here that the light keepers in Gannet Rock lighthouse saw the ship passing, also that there is a large whistle and lighted buoy between the Gannet Rook and Old Proprietor shoals. All seamen entering the Bay of Fundy are compelled to depend upon these aids to navigation and if they were not there would not enter the bay under such weather conditions as existed on the night in question.
1 feel, on behalf of myself and my brother officers and the many men who have lost their lives, also in the general interests of shipping trading to Bay of Fundy ports, that a strong protest to the department responsible for the lighthouse and buoyage system should be made through the public press, against the existing conditions of the aids to navigation on this dangerous coast.
My direct complaint is that the Old Proprietor Ledge buoy has heither light nor fog signal, whereas it is listed as having both. It is also well known locally that this buoy has been in this condition for months; while it is known that the ' Hestia ' must have passed within a few feet of this buoy it will readily be conceded that had it been lit or its whistle sounding the ship would have been warned and cleared easily the ledges upon which she was wrecked. Doubtless the captain, after seeing the Gannet, was looking for this buoy. Can any one imagine a worse trap laid for any man than a buoy listed as marking dangerous ledges, and having a light working at stated intervals, also an automatic whistle signal, whilst neither whistle nor light exist? It is simply a trap worse than any ever thought of by even the old time wreckers that are now but a winter's tale. It is impossible to describe one's feelings when he finds that what he thought was his great factor of safety has proved his ruin.
In the bitterness with which one looks upon the dreadful loss of life that certainly would not have been if those responsible for the conditions of the Old Proprietor Ledge buoy had attended to their ordinary everyday duties; for there is not a shadow of a doubt the loss of the ' Hestia ' is due to the long neglected conditions of this buoy.
Again, the keeper of the Gannet admits he did not fire a warning gun because he was afraid he might awake the doctor. Can anyone imagine a man, keeper of an outlying lighthouse, seeing a vessel standing into a probable danger, and not warning her because he thought the doctor misrht mistake the signal as being intended for him. A few explosive signals from the lighthouse would have been quite sufficient to warn this ship and

save her from destruction; still they were not given, although the keeper admits seeing the vessel and thinking her too close in, because they might call the doctor; and the vessel was allowed to go to her end. Is there any way of describing such stupidity or incompetence? Will the Canadian people allow such things to be? Let them try to think what it would mean if this accident had happened to one of the large passenger vessels plying to St. John, particularly when it is known that there is no life-saving station in the neighbourhood. There is supposed to be one, but it now consists of a boat unfit for use and without a crew. We were from 1.10 a.m. on Monday until noon Tuesday in a helpless and perilous position before any one came near the ship. Notwithstanding our being but four miles from the Gannet Rock lighthouse and making distress signals night and day; especially Monday night, which was clear and fine with all shore lights plainly visible, and during which bonfires were burnt on board the wreck almost continuously.
I would pray that the people of Canada may insist that those who are responsible for the coast lighting and buoyage system will keep that system in order or not put buoys out at all, so that there may not be traps added to a profession which already bristles with difficulty and much danger.


S. G. STEWART,
[Stage Direction]
Third Officer ss. ' Hestia.'
Seal Cove, October 81, 1909.
That is the statement of the only surviving deck officer of the steamship ' Hestia.' With regard to the conditions of this light, let me refer to the evidence taken at the investigation. Here is the evidence of the first witness, Oolin MacVicar, able seaman. In reply to a question put by Mr. Boyer, who was counsel for the department, he said:
That he had seen the Old Proprietor buoy from the ship as she lay on the rocks on Monday morning, but heard no whistle from the buoy nor was any light visible thereon Monday night.
The next witness was Andrew West Morgan, second engineer of the wrecked vessel, who was saved. He said:
During both Monday and Tuesday the .buoy on the Old Proprietor reef was plainly visible during the daytime about a mile away, but he heard no whistle from it, nor was there any light upon it at night.
The next evidence I will give is that of the gentleman whose letter I have just read, the third officer :
The witness was of the opinion that the captain expected and hoped to take up the Old Proprietor buoy. Had the light on the buoy been burning, the accident could not have happened, since they must have passed within a few feet of the buoy.
That is the evidence of the third officer.
Mr. Holden, continuing the examination of Stewart, asked him whether, in his opinion as
a navigator, the ship would have gone on the rocks had the Old Proprietor buoy light been burning to which Stewart gave a decided negative.
Mr. Holden went on to ask him this question:
I will ask the witness whether the fact that the light supposed to be on the Old Proprietor buoy has been non-existent during the whole summer, has been officially brought to the notice of mariners.
The answer is:
Never in any form.
Then there is the evidence of Captain Gillies with regard to the neighbourhood of Grand Manan being the most dangerous in the whole locality. There is no need of citing more evidence of that nature; it is all of the same kind and it must be of the same kind because it cannot be denied.
One would suppose that under these circumstances, when it was shown that this buoy had not been lit or its whistle sounding, and that this had been known for almost a year, a strict investigation would be held into the matter. You would also suppose that there would he some investigation into the cause of a wreck in which 39 lives were lost and an attempt made to ascertain whether all was done that should have been done to put that buoy and keep that buoy in its proper position and every possible effort made to succour the survivors. But what was the result? We have had a so-called investigation but, Sir, an investigation that was incomplete and literally farcical in its denouement. From all that I can learn Captain Lugar, who was chairman of the commission, stated on the streets of St. John before he had taken a particle of evidence that the cause of this vessel going on the rocks was because the compasses were deviating on account of her cargo of iron. According to the press, orders were given that there should be held a secret inquiry into this most disastrous wreck. I believe there was some secret inquiry but that did not by any means commend itself to the common sense or the ordinary judgment of the people down there and there was an immediate agitation for a public inquiry. Then it was stated there would be a public inquiry. It would be expected that the public inquiry would be held in the port of St. John where every available witness was -at hand to be subpoenaed. But what was done? Suddenly we were told that the inquiry was to be removed to Montreal. Why? It was stated that the survivors were there. As a matter of fact the survivors were not there. The survivors were taken there after it was given out that the inquiry was tb be held there. Then it was stated that Montreal was more central.
[Stage Direction]
More central to what? To the centre of Canada. Then why not take it out at once to the city of Winnipeg? When you take it to Montreal you are taking it away from the men who were in the ship, from the pilots who would be able to give information and from the keeper of the lighthouse, from those who had gone down in tug boats to the wreck and rendered what assistance they could, from every one who was there ready to give his testimony. What was the resuit? Why Sir, I think with all honesty that we can only come to the conclusion that this so called investigation was not intended to investigate, it was intended more to screen the officials of the department responsible for the condition of this buoy. Otherwise it would appear to me and I think to every reasonable man that an investigation intended to be thorough, intended to be what it was called, would have been held right down there in the midst of those who were in a position to give true and honest testimony, and in the nearest place to the scene of the wreck. There were the survivors, the representatives of the steamship company, the pilots, those who had been off to the ship, the lighthouse keeper, and all of them were there ready to testify and easily accessible. But the inquiry was removed to Montreal. What was the result? We get a finding such as one would have expected, if the statement I have made with regard to Captain Lugar before the investigation was correct and I believe it was. The finding reads:
The court is of the opinion that the cause which led to the foundering of the steamship ' Hestia ' on the Old Proprietor ledge were An error in the compass, due probably to what is known as Gauss's error, aided probably by the fact that the vessel carried a cargo of 800 tons of iron.
The statement he made before he held any investigation at all, whereas the evidence in that investigation did not give Captain Lugar the slightest reason for saying that there was any error in the compass of that ship. All the evidence I have seen, and of course I have only seen the evidence reported in the newspapers, is to the effect that the compasses were all right and that before that ship left Glasgow she was swung, the compass was tested and the deviation was found to be extremely slight. What other evidence have we that the compasses were true? Why Sir, the very fact that that ship sailed from Glasgow to the mouth of the Bay of Fundy on her direct course, without any going to the right or left. If her compasses had been wrong, would the ship have made the mouth of the Bav of Fundy just as she expected to do and at the time she expected to get there? That fact of itself is enough to show that the compasses were in proper order and it is supported by the evidence of the surviving officer that the ship was swung in Glas-Mr. DANIEL.
gow after her cargo had been placed On board and her compasses were found true. That is enough to show that the finding was not warranted by the evidence or by the facts.
I want to say this: Supposing the compasses were out of order, there is no doubt the vesesel was off her course. Is that any excuse why the light and the whistle of the Old Proprietor buoy should be out of order after having been ten months in that condition? What is the need of a buoy on the Old Proprietor, or anywhere else, if a vessel is in her course and everything is going well and right? These aids to navigation are wanted when things go wrong, and not when they go right. I have called attention to the fact that this board has stated that the compasses were wrong. Secondly, it says :
The neglect of the master to take soundings when in sight of the Gannet rock. .
3.	Allowance was not made for the tides and the set of the wind.
4.	An error of judgment on the part of the master in allowing his ship to get the bearing of the Gannet Kock light to southwest of west nagnetic. It must be borne in mind that the ship was only five and a half miles from Gan-net rock when she struck.
Now, Sir, there are the facts as I have learned them from the finding, and I think I have shown the common sense and judgment of this House that that finding was not borne out either by the evidence or by the facts.
The other point I wish to bring before the House is that in that finding no mention whatever is made of the fact that the Old Proprietor buoy light was out, and that the whistle was not sounding. Now, what sort of an investigation is that? Here you set out to find the cause of the wreck, and the actual and veritable cause of the wreck is not mentioned at all. It was utterly impossible for that vessel to have gone on the Old Proprietor rock if that buoy had been lighted or the whistle sounding. It is idle to say that the ship's compasses were out, or that the master had not been making his soundings as he ought to have done, or that other things had happened, when, if the one requisite thing had been done, the wreck would never have taken place. If the man, or men, or officials, responsible for the proper condition of that light had attended to their duty, these 39 people, little boys and grown up men, would now be enjoying life with the rest of us, instead of being buried under the waters of the Bay of Fundy. That is the charge which this wreck, this unnecessary wreck, brings against the Department of Marine and Fisheries. -
Another point I wish to bring out is that the commissioners state that these other things would be the subject of a later inquiry, that is, with regard to the buoy, and

with regard to the coolness of the lighthouse keeper and other matters of that kind, and I hope that when the minister gets up to speak he will be able to give a satisfactory assurance to this House and the country on those points. I can assure him that the greatest interest is taken in this matter, more especially by those who are interested in the ownership and in the sailing and operation of ships, and by those who aTe interested in the maritime affairs of this country, and in the proper operation of the buoy system, and the system of marine aids generally upon which we have been spending so much money for many years past. To these people this is a most vital question. I do not think the people will be Dut off with any such farcical so called investigation as we have been treated to so far, but will insist, and I hope will obtain, a proper and serious investigation into all these matters. Why, Sir, if a man lost his life through violence on land, there would be an inquest held, and some attempt would be made to find out how he came to his; death, who was responsible for it. But here are 39 lives wiped out within an hour or two, and no attempt is made to ascertain why all these people were drowned, and why only six were saved out of the whole number of crew and passengers. I hope the minister will explain these matters, because I can assure him that the people of the maritime provinces are losing confidence in the department over which he has the honour to preside. It will not do for him to allow any want of confidence in that department to exist, more especially in regard to the operation of aids to navigation, and the buoyage system on that extensive coast, and indeed on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. I hope he will be able to satisfy this parliament and this country that he intends to have this matter properly investigated, and whatever is wrong, to have it righted. With regard to the acting agent of marine at St. John, who appears to be the responsible party, I have nothing to say, I have never met him, I do not know him. The only facts I know are those that I have been trying to present this afternoon. But I do not mind saying this, Mr. Speaker, that if Mr. Fred Harding had been retained in his position as agent of that department, and in the post from which he was removed, so far as I can see, without proper cause, the department at Ottawa would not have remained for ten months without being made acquainted with the condition of that Old Proprietor buoy, nor would that Old Proprietor buoy have been allowed to remain ten months in that condition without being remedied.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Speaker, I may say that there is certainly no objection to the motion which has been made by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Daniel) being adopted. I will be very glad indeed to bring down all the papers concerning this unfortunate accident to the ' Hestia,' and at the same time the papers concerning the establishment of the life-saving station on Seal Cove. I do not think there were any special instructions given to Capt. Lugar, but I will bring down all the instructions special instructions given to Capt. Lugar, which may have been given to him of a general character.


John Waterhouse Daniel: And the different instructions which, I understand, he received-instructions fox a secret inquiry in the. first place and after that a public inquiry in St. John and later in Montreal?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly, I shall be very glad and besides I will say a word or two later on in my remarks in regard to that phase of the question. I may say that I am very glad that my hon. friend has given me an opportunity of putting before the public the side of the department in regard to this question.. I do not want to find any fault at all with my hon. friend for having brought the discussion before the House, because I know that this matter has received the attention of the public especially in St. John and in his province, and I suppose that he felt it was his duty to bring the matter before the country. Generally speaking, I am not much in favour of having these questions of wrecks discussed publicly in the press or before parliament and I will tell my hon. friend why. There has been in late years very serious discrimination by the insurance men against our Canadian ports, so much so, that to-day there is great difference between the insurance rates charged for a vessel going to Portland and for a vessel going to St. John, or Halifax, or to the St. Lawrence. There might be some reason for this discrimination with regard to the St. Lawrence because vessels have to navigate a long stretch of water and it might be found that accidents occur more frequently than in the ports of New York, Boston or Portland. But, in view of the improvements that we have made, in view of the aids to navigation we have established in the St. Lawrence, I think I may affirm now that, the accidents that occur in that part of the country are very much less in number than those that happen on some other routes where shipping is carried on to the same extent. But, though I deprecate the discussion of these accidents, because they

become too prominent sometimes before the public and because they justify, to a certain extent, the underwriters charging higher rates, I feel that in this case my hon. friend was perfectly justified, in view of the discussion which has taken place in his province and especially in his own city, in bringing the matter before the public.
As far as the department is concerned, I am also very glad to have the occasion of discussing this question because I think I may say to my hon. friend and the House that the rumours that have been set in motion, the charges which in some cases have been made of negligence on the part of the officials, are charges that cannot be substantiated. The officer who was largely responsible for carrying out the work in the St. John district is Mr. Legere, who was acting agent at the time. Mr. Legere is certainly a very good officer. He was assistant engineer in the department under Col.'Anderson and I must bear testimony to his character as an officer. I think I cannot do better than quote what is to be found in the last report of Col. Anderson, in which he states:
Tile assistant engineers appointed to attend to details of construction in the several outlying portions of the Dominion have rendered me valuable assistance and I wish again to bear testimony to the efficient work done by Mr. Legere in the maritime provinces.
Mr. Legere is supposed to be one of our best officers. He has been acting assistant engineer for some time and has given entire satisfaction. When last year, on the report of the persons who were making inquiries into the department, I had to take action and suspend the agent in St. John, we looked around and we thought the man who was best qualified to take the place temporarily -was certainly Mr. Legere and he was appointed in St. John as acting agent. My hon. friend has attached a great deal of importance to the gas buoy on Old Proprietor ledge not being lit when the accident happened in the month of October last. I may say that it is not customary for mariners or navigators to rely upon those gas buoys; in fact, if, in a place like the Bay of Fundy, or south of Nova Scotia, you rely entirely, or to a large extent, upon the gas buoys which are there, you will find it is very difficult because one of the greatest problems that we have to deal with in the department is to keep these buoys in proper order. I will take the opportunity later on to read part of a report made by Mr. Legere concerning the work which he has done there since January last and it will be seen from that report how difficult it is to keep these buoys in proper condition. It is no wonder. The tide is very high, the winds aTe sometimes very strong, and the conditions are such that it is very difficult to maintain these buoys in proper Mr. BEODETTR
condition. This is true not only of these buoys but of the buoys that we have as aids to navigation in different parts of the country. In our list of lights and fog signals issued on the first of April, 1909-and the same will be found in previous reports -we have this notice:
Mariners must bear in mind the fact that gas buoys are unwatched and if extinguished some time may elapse before a tender can reach them to repair or relight. Their lights cannot therefore be depended upon in the same way as those shown from watched light lighthouses.
. (Sgd.) G. J. DESBARATS, Acting Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Not, only in Canada, but in every country in the world and especially in Great Britain, mariners are warned against relying too much not only upon gas buoys, but also upon light houses because accidents may happen to them. In our case we ought not to be too greatly blamed, because in Canada the government of the country renders the light service gratuitously, whereas in England no vessel can enter a harbour without being taxed light dues for the light in that harbour. Now, here is a company which has taken us to task-I should not say the company because I have had no serious complaint from the company-but here is an agent taking us to task who is probably himself largely responsible for the accident that has occurred. Let us see whether the department should be held responsible. I shall give the result of the investigations which have been held later, but I may say now that I regret to find that the agent of the company is trying to put upon the department the responsibility for this accident. The Donaldson line itself has not made any representations to us in that respect; their agents in Montreal have never made any complaint, but on the contrary the correspondence will show that the work we have done has received their appreciation. There is one thing to which I must call the attention of the House and of the public, and it is: We are providing aids to navigation, we are building lighthouses, we are putting in gas buoys, spar buoys, fog alarms, wireless telegraph stations, and equipping in every way, shape, and form, our navigation system on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. But we must expect that those engaged in the shipping business shall take the necessary steps to utilize the aids to navigation which we supply. In this case, just a few miles from where the accident happened and where such loss of life occurred there is a wireless station-I join in the sympathy my hon. friend has expressed for that loss of life; I am sorry for it, and perhaps more sorry than he is-but I say that if the company had put a wireless telegraph apparatus on their steamer so that they could communi-

cate with the wireless apparatus which we are maintaining at Partridge Island and other places in the locality, the loss of life would not have occurred. Even if the vessel had struck on the rocks she could have communicated with our station at Partridge Island and we could have sent vessels immediately to their assistance. Therefore I say that if the company or its agent find fault with us, I think they are also at fault for not having equipped their vessel with a wireless system. The question is engaging the attention of the American authorities and of the British authorities now, and it should also engage our attention in this parliament, as to whether the steamship companies which are plying to our ports should not be bound to establish a wireless system on their vessels so that loss of life would be prevented, as it would in this case had the steamer been so equipped. Now, the agent of this company at St. John seems to have started an agitation over this accident. Let me say that the agent or his office in St. John was notified that this light was out and I presume he failed to communicate it to the owners of the ' Hes-tia ' or to the master of that ship. There is no evidence to that effect that I know of, but at all events the 'Hestia' was in St. John several times since that notification and the agent should have notified her master that the light was out. I do not know whether he has done so or not. But not only did we notify the agency of the company at St. John, but our acting agent also thought well to publish in the newspapers the following notice which I do not remember that my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) read.
* Mr. DANIEL. I read the advertisement.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The advertisement was published on the 25th of January, 1909 in the newspapers of St. John, Yarmouth and St. Andrews, and it read as follows:
St. John, N.B., January 25, 1909.
Notice to Mariners:-The old Proprietor gas and whistling buoy has been reported either adrift or light out. It will he attended to as soon as possible.
(Sgd.) J. A. LEGERE, Acting agent, Department of Marine and Fisheries, St. John, N.B.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the first question we have to discuss is what has been the cause of the accident. My hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) says the department is entirely responsible for the accident and he lavs the entire blame on the negligence of the department. I must take issue with my hon. friend in that regard. Before condemning the department, as he has done, I think he should have waited until the papers were brought down. From them he would have found that the accident was not due in any shape or form to the negligence of the
department or of the acting agent at St. John. How did the accident occur? An investigation has taken place. The result of that investigation will be placed before the House, when it will be found, that the accident was in part due to what is called Gaus-sin's error. On that point I might mention the evidence given by one of the survivors of that unfortunate accident, Mr. John Mackenzie. He stated that he was an able seaman to the ss. ' Hestia,' but had lost all his papers. He had been at sea 16 years, 13 of which he had served as an able seaman. It was his first voyage on this ship. She left Glasgow on October 10, and she stranded about ten minutes past one on Monday, October 25. He was at the wheel from 6 to 8 p.m. the previous day. Could not remember the course he steered by the compass; it was given in degrees.
He considered the 'Hestia' was a very bad vessel to steer. She would sheer some times more than a point off her course.
Some of his friends who had made the previous voyage in her advised him strongly not to go because she steered so badly. Here is a man who was on the ship and who makes that extraordinary statement. But, Mr. Speaker, I will not rely entirely on the evidence of that man. I will take the chart itself, and will show to the House that the accident was entirely due to the causes mentioned in the judgment rendered by the commissioner, Capt. Lugar, and the two assessors, Capt. Francis Nash and Capt. Richard Jones, men of a great deal of experience in marine matters. The first cause assigned for the accident is what is called Gauss's error. This, I may say, is an error that ocurs in the following circumstances. When a ship has been for several days on a course, let us say an easterly or westerly course, the soft iron of which the ship is constructed becomes magnetized. The ship in fact becomes a large magnet. In this instance the magnetism of the ship was increased by the fact that she had 800 tons of iron on board. This magnetism does not affect the needle of the compass while the same course is continued, that is, so long as she goes from east to west, from west to east, from north to south, or from south to north. But if at the end of several days the ship's course is changed, as happened in this case, the magnetism of the ship tends to draw the needle to the position in which the ship had been during the previous course. There are two ways in which this error can be remedied-taking the bearings or making soundings. In this case we have no evidence to show whether on the southern coast of Nova Scotia the bearings could be taken or not; but the soundings could have been taken. The soundings appear to have been taken. Now, the chart in my hand shows first that the boat should go from east to west until it reaches Seal Island, where we have a light-

house or a lightship. It should then go in a northwesterly direction until it comes nearly opposite Yarmouth, when it should go straight north in order to pass the Lurcher lightship, when it reaches a point where there' are fifty fathoms of water. Then it should take a straight course to St. John between Gannet rock on the west and Brier Island on the east. We have there two lights, the Brier Island light and the Gannet Rock light. The latter is _ of the second order, that is to say, the third best class of light in the world. I may say that the best class of light in the world is to be found at Cape Race in Newfoundland, a light which has been erected by the Marine Department here. The first order light is similar to one on Sambro near the entrance to Halifax harbour, and the second order light is the one erected at Gannet rock. By the chart of the Admiralty, the vessel, on leaving the Lurcher lightship, should go nearer to Brier Island than to Gannet rock. There is a great distance between the two, but the two lignts can easily be seen. What happened in this case? The captain did not follow this course but evidently got out of his course. If he had been in his right course, and had taken soundings, he would have found a depth of 100 fathoms or more. He went near to Gannet Rock, and instead of directing, his ship towards the northeast, he let her go towards the northwest, and in a few hours she was on the Old Proprietor ledge. The commissioners have taken the evidence, and they conclude as follows in the report signed by Capt. Lugar and the two assessors. With regard to Capt. Lugar, he is certainly one of the most experienced navigators in the country. He has a certificate of the British Board of. Trade, and my hon. friend knows well that the British Board of Trade never gives a certificate except when they know that the man to whom they give it is capable of doing the work. That court decided as follows:
This court is of opinion that the causes which led up to the loss of the ss. 'Hestia,' on October 25, 1909, on Old Proprietor ledge, were as follows:-
1.	Error of compass due probably to Gauss's
error. This vessel had in as cargo about 800 tons of iron.	.
2.	Neglect of soundings when in sight of Gannet Rock light.
There are places, where this vessel was supposed to go, where there are'100 fathoms of water. If the captain had taken proper soundings in approaching Gannet Light, he would have found that there were in some places there only eighteen fathoms, ten fathoms, forty-five fathoms and forty-three fathoms of water. Why did he not change his course instead of continuing west? Was that because, as a witness said, Mr. BRODETJR
the vessel steered badly? Why should the department be held responsible for that?
3.	Not sufficient allowance made for set of ebb tide and strong wind.
The wind was coming from the north east and was supposed to bring the steamer on the Grand Manan and the ledges surrounding. What did the master do? Instead of directing his course north-east just in front of the wind, he went on the other side and came on the rocks.
4.	Error of judgment on the part of the master in allowing ship to get the bearing of Gannet Rock light to the southward of west magnetic. It must he borne in mind the ship was about 5J miles from Gannet light when she stranded.
That is a term absolutely nautical which I shall not undertake to discuss. The ship was about five miles from the Gannet light when she stranded. Here is the decision given by three men, one having a certificate of the British Board of Trade, and the two others being master mariners, and they say the accident was due to the causes I have just mentioned. My hon. friend has said that a secret investigation was held. If he will look over, the Shipping Act he will find that there are two kinds of investigations-the preliminary investigation and the formal investigation. The preliminary investigation is held in private. It is not necessary that the commissioner should act as a court. He simply goes around collecting information and then reports to the minister and advises whether an investigation should be held in full court or not. Capt. Lugar is our wreck commissioner for the maritime provinces, and his instructions are, whenever an accident occurs, to investigate the facts immediately and find out whether a formal investigation should be held or not. A formal investigation is held in order to give a hearing to any of the parties implicated because nobody, under the British constitution, can be convicted without being heard. If it be found at the preliminary inquiry that the captain of the vessel is responsible or other persons on the vessel, a formal investigation is held, but in this case the master unfortunately was lost. There was so much talk however about the accident that I thought it advisable to order a formal investigation in order that the public should be made aware exactly of what happened.
My hon. friend called the first investigation a secret one. That is not what it is called in the Shipping Act. It is called a preliminary investigation and is for the purpose of discovery. My hon. friend goes further. He asks: Why did you hold the investigation in Montreal? Well, the accident happened on the 25th of October. On the 27th, we were notified. My hon. friend will find in the papers, when they come down, that immediately on representations being made by the agents of the vessel, we

ordered two government steamers to go to the rescue-the ' Curlew ' and the ' Lands-downe I received thanks from the agents for this assistance. Immediately Captain Lugar left under special instructions for Yarmouth to attend the coroner's investigation, and he reported to us on the 5th of November. He held his preliminary inquiry on the 2nd and 3rd of November. We did not lose any time. He examined all the witnesses who could give information at St. John, and of course he heard the survivors of the accident. Immediately he made his report. On the 4th of November we got the following request from Robert Reford & Company, agents of the Donaldson Line:
Captain Lugar intends holding informal investigation, 10 a.m. Friday, into loss of ss. ' Hestia.' Can we have representation at that inquiry? If our request is not in order, could you arrange hold full, formal investigation while crew are here. Reply wire.
On the 5th of November I appointed Captain Lugar as wreck commissioner in the following words:
Ottawa, Nov. 5, 1909.
I, the honourable Louis Philippe Brodeur, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, by virtue of the powers vested in me under section 781 of the Canadian Shipping Act, chapter 113, Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and amending acts, hereby appoint you a commissioner to hold a formal investigation into the causes which led to the grounding of the ss. ' Hestia ' on the 25th October, 1909, at Old Proprietor ledge, Grand Manan, New Brunswick.	-


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: On the same day we received from Capt. Lugar, at St. John, a telegram stating that the crew were leaving for Montreal. His message read:
St. John, N.B., Nov. 5, 1909.
Yonr wire with authority from minister too late to stop crew leaving for Montreal. Before holding formal inquiry suggest wait my preliminary report. Hold crew of six survivors in Montreal. The Donaldsons' superintendent wants this formal investigation to be b'g thing; want their lawyer attend and call outside evidence.


Sgd.   LUGAR@: When we were informed on November.5 that these men were coming to Montreal we gave instructions immediately to Captain Lugar to proceed to Montreal. We were afraid that the members of the crew would leave Montreal early the next week for the other side, we wanted the investigation to be absolutely complete and what did we do? We simply gave instructions to have the investigation held in Montreal in order that these men might be at our disposal. In fact they were sent to Montreal and were examined there so that the reason assigned by my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) for not holding the investigation in St. John falls to the ground.
My. hon. friend has stated that at one time a request was made to us for the erection of a lighthouse station at the Old Proprietor ledge and that the department decided not to build it because it would be too expensive. I do not know whether the last statement is absolutely correct, as I have not been able to ascertain the facts since my hon. friend made that statement, but I may say with the knowledge I have of lighthouses of the same kind that it would cost about $150,000 or perhaps $200,000 to build a lighthouse at that place. Besides that what would be the use of such a lighthouse there? The Gannet Rock light,
I understand, is not more than four or five miles from this spot. Some years ago when our lights were of an inferior character a request for such a light would have had more force but now that we have lights like the Gannet Rock light that can be seen for 15 miles, what would be the use of putting another light four or five miles from there? It would be absolutely useless to spend $200,000 for that purpose and I would call my hon. friend's attention to this fact; I am sure he will agree with me that such an expenditure would not be justified under the circumstances. However, I shall inquire into the statement he made, I shall have my officers make a report and if it is found that the erection of a light there might prevent wrecks I will be very glad to favourably consider the erection of a light.
My hon. friend stated also that he heard that the 'Lansdowne' is sent only when there are several matters to attend to. I may say he is entirely mistaken in that respect. As soon as it is reported to the agency of the department that something is wrong with any of our buoys or lighthouses, he has instructions to attend to it immediately and the 'Lansdowne' is supposed to go at once.'


John Waterhouse Daniel: I did not make the statement. I stated that it was reported that the agent had made that statement and given it as an excuse, as one reason why the 'Lansdowne' was not sent to repair this buoy.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is certainly not the report that was before the department. Our report says that the agent has done his best to have the ship go there to attend to that light.
My hon. friend has also stated that the Gannet Rock light keeper did not show any sign of distress because he was afraid to disturb the doctor who was on shore. I do not know where my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) got that statement but I have the evidence before me and it appears that the Gannet Rock light keeper never knew of the accident, did not see the vessel passing there. Here is the report of Captain Lugar:

Gannet Rook did not see steamer passing_ or wreck till nearly 30 hours after the stranding on account of rain and fog.
By that statement we see that the charge against the Gannet Rock lightkeeper that he did not warn that vessel falls to the ground.
The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) says that the department has put in my mouth some statements which on their face are ridiculous. It appears that they declared the other day that pressure of more important business prevented their attending to the buoy at Old Proprietor ledge and my hon. friend went on to say that the port of St. John occupies a very important position. that a large amount of business was carried on through that port and that it is ridiculous for me to state that pressure of more important business prevented attending to that buoy and he intimated that I had stated that St. John was not an important port. My hon. friend may be sure that I realize that the port of St. John is certainly one of the most important ports that we have in^ this country. I am well aware that this port in the winter has been doing a very large amount of business, and it would be certainly a mistake on my part to say anything disparaging as to the importance of that harbour. Not only I but the department realize the importance of the port of St. John. We have done a great deal to improve the service there and my hon. friend has only to look at the chart issued by the Admiralty to find out what we have been doing there in the way of aids to navigation. If my hon. friend goes back only ten years he will not find in the harbour of St. John one half the aids to navigation we are giving there to-day. He will not find any of those gas buoys or the improved lights at Partridge Island, Gannet Rock, Brier Island, the Lurcher Lightship or Seal Island. So it would be very unfair to me to state that I did not realize the importance of the harbour of St. John and I suppose my hon. friend did not intend to put that in my mouth. What the acting agent at St. John stated was that although he was willing and anxious to see that this Old Proprietor ledge buoy was lit, his services were required on more important business, as I shall explain immediately to my hon. friend.
The gas buoy at Old Proprietor ledge is very near the Gannet rock light. There are on the other side of the channel where vessels pass places called the Northwest ledge and the Southwest ledge, and the Yarmouth Fairway buoy. These are places where vessels are passing continually. What occurred ? When instructions were given to the 'Lansdowne ' to go up there and light that buoy, it was found that the buoys at these ledges had gone adrift. My hon. friend will realize im-Mr. BRODEUR.
mediately how dangerous it is to leave buoys adrift on the sea in that region, because if you leave them adrift, and a navigator understood them to be in the proper place, a grave accident might occur. There was on one side of the channel, and on the other side a buoy which was not lighted. So there was no particular danger as to that buoy. But there were on the other side of the channel other buoys which were lighted and which were adrift, and if those buoys were not attended to there might be serious consequences to the trade in that section of the country. Then what did the acting agent do? I think it is due to that gentleman who has been devoting himself so faithfully to his business, to read his report on that matter. It is rather _ long, but since he has been attacked I think it is only fair that his report should be laid immediately before parliament before this discussion ends. My hon. friend will see by it the difficulty ' with which this government had to contend, and the serious situation in which he was placed. Most of those buoys were adrift. There had been during a considerable portion of the year very heavy winds and gales blowing at that place, and when the buoys went adrift it became absolutely necessary for him to look, not only after the Old Proprietor buoy, but also after the others. My hon. friend will also see in that report that he tried several times to reach the Old Proprietor buoy during a period of four months, and the gales were so heavy that he found it impossible to reach it and relight it. This was a very serious situation, and I cannot understand why, in face of the difficulties which those officers had to encounter, in face of the duties which those captains had to perform in keeping these aids to navigation in proper shape, we should insult them by charging them with dereliction of duty. I will read that report. It is dated November 6, 1909:
1 beg to submit the following report in answer to yonr telegram of October 30, 1909.
The light on the Old Proprietor gas buoy was reported out, or gone adrift by the keeper of Gull Cove light, January 22, 1909. On January 23 I ordered the ' Lansdowne * to sea, and am inclosing a copy of my letter to tbo captain. You will note at the time the Old Proprietor was reported out that the Yarmouth Fairway was adrift.
My hon. friend knows what the Yarmouth Fairway buoy is.
The agent at Halifax, Mr. Parsons, having wired me as follows, on January 21, 1909.
' Cacouna ' reported Yarmouth Fairway adrift 19th, 10 miles W.S.W. Seal island. We marconied ' Lady Laurier ' ' Shelburne ' rescue. If possible you place another buoy Fairway, we bringing buoy Halifax. Inform board of trade.

My hon. friend will admit that the Yarmouth Fairway waa a very important buoy, more important than the others.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the minister mean the Board of Trade there?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know whether it is the Board of Trade there or the Board of Trade of a Canadian city, but I suppose it is the British Board of Trade. Then he goes on:	.
You will note that I arranged to send a Trinity bell buoy to replace the one adrift at Yarmouth Fairway.
In the meantime the Southwest ledge, Brier Island, buoy was reported adrift on January 23, 1909, by the signal agent at Westport, N.S., an in his telegram he stated* ss. ' Westport ' had gone out to tow it in, but later he advised me that the steamer had returned without the buoy.
On January 27, Capt.'Bissett wired that the Old Proprietor was in position,-
Capt. Bissett was the captain of the * Lansdowne.'
-but the sea was too heavy to light lamp, stated no word of South West ledge buoy yet- strong gales and heavy sea. Search was maintained, and on January 30, the South West Ledge buoy was located, one moori HL' stone gone. On Friday 3, Capt. Bissett wired that the South West ledge had been placed in position.
My hon. friend knows what the North West ledge is; That is a very dangerous place near Brier Island. Vessels, according to the information I have in my hands, are passing there, and if that buoy had been adrift or nearer the shore, some vessels might have come to grief. It was more necessary to look after that buoy.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that a light buoy?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, the North West ledge and the South West ledge are two light buoys.
The North West ledge had been reported out, some time during the latter end of December, 1908, and an effort was now made to nave this buoy attended to. On February 5, Capt. Bissett wired that he had placed the hel1 buoy at the North West ledge, but could not take up the gas buoy.
In the meantime, on February 2, I received telegrams from Mr. Tremaine of Halifax, stati,ng that the Yarmouth (S.W.) Fairway automatic gas buoy was still at Abbott's Harbour, having been towed there by the ' Ralph.' E. S.' on January 22. This buoy had been reported to the Halifax agency.
On Friday 6, when I saw poor progress at North West ledge, I wired Capt. Bissett, stating he had better proceed to Abbott's harbour and to attend the South West Yarmouth and do the North West ledge on the way hack; also wired him on February 3, as follows:- ' When through with Brier Island, proceed to Abbott's Harbour and if gas buoy Yarmouth (S.W.) Fairway not damaged and can be
moored in position, do so. Also upright Can-dlebox and another upturned buoy whose name you may find locally.
On February 6, I received a telegram from the caotain stating he had just returned from the North West Brier Island gas buoy, with no chance to take hold of it. Asked if he should wait and finish there, or proceed to Abbott's Harbour.
On February 8, I received a further telegram from the captain at Westport, stating that he had been out tp the North West Ledge buoy, but that it was blowing hard from the northeast and he could not get near it owing to heavy sea. He also stated the buoy to he one mile west of true position, and that on the previous day the chances looked favourable for this day, also advised he would proceed to Abbott's Harbour first chance, and that he had only 25 tons of coal in bunkers.
On February 8, Messrs Hugh Cann & Sons, of Yarmouth, N.S., wired me that the Yarmouth North West automatic gas buoy found adrift had been towed to Yarmouth by their boat.
My hon. friend, I suppose, would not deny that this part of the bay is very important too, because there are vessels running every day, if not every day, several times a week, between Yarmouth and Boston, and it is of the utmost importance for the coasting trade that these buoys should be kept in proper position.
On the 10th of February, I received a telegram from Capt. Bissett, as follows:-Arrived here last evening, got buoys alongside and moorings on board, wire in had condition, chain fair, stones gone. Reported here that buoy at Abbott's Harbour is South West gas ' Fairway. Want 60 fathoms (11-in.) chain and shackles and two (2) stones for buoy here. Can you send by * Senlac ' ?
I endeavoured to send these stones and moorings by the ' Senlac,' but was notified that this could not be done. I then wired the captain February 11. ' Cannot send stones by ' Senlac. Yarmouth Southwest Fairway buoy at Abbott's harbour should be properly secured. Better do this and then return to St. John harbour for gear.'
1 also received a letter from Yarmouth, dated February 10, a copy of which I am attaching.
On the 13th, Capt. Bissett wired me as follows, from Yarmouth: ''Visited Abbott's harbour yesterday, found buoy was secured. Could not turn up candlebox bell-buoy, sea too heavy to-day, strong gales southwest and think proceeding first chance.'
The ' Lansdowne ' then returned to St. John, coaled, took on needed gear, and was ordered to sea on February 19.
Here is a month which was spent for the purpose of locating these buoys which were more important than the one at Old PropTiettor ledge for he reason which I have given to the House.
I am inclosing a copy of my order to the captain. You will note that the Lurcher lightship had to be coaled and then the buoy work was detailed, which had to he attended

to. The Old Proprietor was one of the buoys mentioned in my instructions. The ship did not get away until February 22, and on the 24th the lightship was supplied with coal and all the water she could take.
On February 26 I received a telegram from Yarmouth, as follows: ' Do you wish me to go to the Lurcher lightship No. 15 with pay sheets before handling buoys? Moorings for two buoys on board, weather very bad.' I replied on the same date, ' Want you to tend to buoys first, if weather suitable, you may run over to Lurcher when replacing Yarmouth northwest gas buoy.'
On February 24 the agent at Halifax wired me as follows:	' Blonde Bock buoy drifted,
towed into Wood's harbour. ' Lady Laurier ' going west next trip, can replace unless your ship _ undertaking work. Please advise.'
This telegram was received late in the evening of the 24th, and I answered it on the 25th as follows: ' Will endeavour to replace Blonde Rock buoy, but wish you would order 'Lady Laurier ' to do so, subject my confirmation to her by wireless. Advise me when she leaves.'
I am under the impression that I held conversation over the phone with Mr. Parsons, but at any rate I wired Capt. Bissett on the same date as follows:
' Blonde Bock buoy towed into Wood's harbour, make endeavour to replace before doing Yarmouth Southwest Fairway, as in my opinion Blonde Bock is more important than Southwest Yarmouth.'
Not hearing from Capt. Bissett, I wired him at Yarmouth, March 2, as follows:
' Please advise me where you are, and whether any further work has been done since the Lurcher was supplied with coal.'


Robert Laird Borden: Was the Old Proprietor buoy unlighted during all this time?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: Why did he not give notice to the public that his representation that it would be attended to at once was not being fulfilled?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He did give notice on the 22nd January that the buoy was not lighted.


Robert Laird Borden: Did not the public notice state that it would be attended to at once?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As soon as possible.


Robert Laird Borden: But a month had gone by without any attempt being made to remedy it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, because he could not go there. Then he went there, but he could not light the buoy.


Robert Laird Borden: Why did he not notify the public?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend has missed the point; he could not light it.


Robert Laird Borden: It is the minister who has missed the point.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, I will read it again:
On January 27 Capt. Bissett wired that the Old Proprietor was in position but the sea was too heavy to light lamp, stated no word of southwest ledge buoy yet.
He went there, but he could not light it.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the original notice given to the public?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was to the effect that Old Proprietor gas or whistling buoy has been reported with light out, and that it will be attended to as soon as possible. He gave instructions immediately. He gave instructions on January 23, February 19, on May 3, and on May 15 to relight the buoy. On May 20 the captain found that he could go near the buov, lout that as the upper part of the buoy was out of order he could not light it. He reported that fact to the agency and he wanted to get a new buoy to replace the old one. There were two spare buoys at that time at St. John, the number that we generally keep there. What happened then? Immediately after that a buoy went adrift from near Brier Island and it had to be replaced immediately by one of these spare buoys. Then, he happened to get a No. 11 buoy and he thought that No. 11 was too heavy. Accordingly he asked that a No. 9 buoy be got. He telephoned Mr. Parsons at Halifax and got a No. 9 buoy. Unfortunately, that buoy had_ no superstructure, so that he had to give instructions to have a superstructure made. That work had to be done at Owen Sound and it took some months to get that superstructure because it is something that is not kept in store by the manufacturers here. Therefore, four months elapsed before he could go near the buoy, and when he saw the buoy he found that it could not be used in the condition in which it was then. He ordered a new buoy, but it took the time I have just mentioned to procure one for this place. The new superstructure arrived about the beginning of September, and it was immediately sent out there. At the same time this same trouble occurred that had occurred before, that is to say, that the buoys of the north-west and southwest ledge of Brier Island went adrift and he had to attend to these. The Lurcher lightship also required attention, and this prevented the ' Lansdowne ' from being able to place the buoy at Old Proprietor ledge before the month of October. These are the main facts which have been brought out by the agent. I could read over this report and the House will see how difficult it is to deal with these buoys in the Bay of Fundy. The tide is very heavy, the winds and gales are very serious, and it is a question whether we should continue the buoys in that section of the Bay of Fundy.

If we were sure that no accidents would happen, well and good, but experience has shown us how difficult it is, especially in winter, to maintain these buoys in the Bay of Fundy. This problem is now engaging the consideration of the departmfent. But to come back to the first point, I would say that if the vessel had followed the proper course, if she had followed the course she should have followed, of making proper soundings or if the officer in charge had taken into consideration the error in his compass I am sure there would be no accident and that the loss of life that we have to deplore to-day would not have occurred.
Now, my hon. friend has found fault with me because Mr. Harding has been removed from the agency at St. John and he says that if Mr. Harding had been there no such accident would have happened. My hon. friend knows the circumstances and I do not know why he brings this question before the House now. It was a painful duty which I had to perform, but in view of the report which has been made by Mr. Justice Cassels no other course was open to me than to superannuate Mr. Harding. I do not need to read the report as doubtless my hon. friend is conversant with it, but Mr. Justice Cassels says this:
No agent can faithfully perform the duties entrusted to liim of letting contracts, supervising works and certifying accounts, &c., where he is under financial obligations to those dealing with him, as representing the department, in the manner described in the evidence.
Mr. Harding was a very sick -man at the time and we had to superannuate him. I think my hon. friend, on giving the matter more consideration, will find that I acted in that case with the utmost justice in regard to Mr. Harding.
Now Mr. Speaker, I do not need to take up further of the time of the House. I think I have answered the accusations which have been made by my hon. friend (Mr. Daniel) against the department and shown that the department cannot be considered at fault under the circumstances. We have done our best to discharge our duty. 1 was not here at the time myself, but of course I am responsible for everything that happened, and I admit there is something that requires fuller information. I am going to get that information and if it is found that some officers have not discharged their duties properly and have not made to the department the reports they should have made I will have to take the steps that a minister should take. I deplore as much as my hon. friend does the serious loss of life; I am probably more sorry than he is, but I think he will render us the justice of saying that the department is doing everything possible to keep these aids to navigation in proper shape so as to give
to navigators proper protection and that in so doing we are discharging our duty to our country.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it not usual to give the British Board of Trade notice with regard to aids to navigation?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The only mark shown on this Admiralty chart on the Proprietor rock ledge is a red beacon which is in existence; the gas buoy does not appear on this admiralty chart.


Robert Laird Borden: That does not answer the question. Is it not usual to give notice to the British Board of Trade?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know that any notice had been given.


Mr. O. S. CROCKET (York, N.B.).: It must be evident to every hon. member who has followed this debate thus far that the Minister of Marine has completely failed to meet the case which has been so clearly and convincingly made out against the department by my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel). After all that the minister has said these facts stand out conspicuously uncontroverted: First, that this Old Proprietor buoy was established by the department ostensibly as a necessary protection against this dangerous ledge; secondly, that it was charted so that mariners were led to rely upon it as a guide; thirdly, that the buoy-which was provided, I believe by the department's friend, Mr. Willson, to whom reference has been made by the Civil Service Commission, at a cost of $8,000-was defective; fourthly, that the light went out in January last; fifthly, that the acting agent of the department at St. John inserted an advertisement in three of the St. John newspapers for three days, stating that the light was out and that it would be repaired as soon as possible; sixthly, that no notice was given to the British Board of Trade according to the usual custom and practice so that any mariners other than those under whose notice these local advertisements came were apprised, and as to these latter they were given to understand that it would be repaired as soon as possible; seventhly, the light was allowed to remain out and the buoy to remain defective for nearly ten months; eighthly, that the light was out and the whistle not sounding on the night of the wreck of the ' Hes-tia,' and ninthly and lastly that the ' Hes-tia ' wras wrecked on the very ledge which this buoy was established to protect shipping from. It does seem to me that in view of these facts which stand uncontroverted after the speech of the minister, the department cannot hope to escape responsibility for this lamentable catastrophe. The minister has referred to the findings of the commission which was appointed to investigate this wreck and he relies on these findings

as exonerating the department from all blame. These findings were first, that the wreck was due to an error in the compass, what is called Gauss's error, of which the minister gave the House such an illuminating explanation; second, that there were no soundings taken and that a mistake was made in taking the bearings of Gannet Rock light five miles away. These are the findings upon which the minister relies to excuse the department for all responsibility for this disaster. Do any of these findings touch the questions: That the Old Proprietor buoy was defective, that no notice was given to the British Board of Trade; or do any of them touch the question as to the ten months delay in repairing the buoy? Notwithstanding the local notice which was given by the agent at St. John, not one single thing was done to repair that light and put it in a condition that it could be relied upon as a safe guide to mariners for over nine long months. 'It seems to me that this House has never heard of sucn a flimsy pretext as that given to it by the minister for the non-repair of this buoy. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries wouid have the members of this House believe that for nine months it was impossible because of adverse weather conditions in the Bay of Fundy to repair one of these Willson automatic gas buoys. Was ever a more self-evident arrant absurdity placed before this House and before the public than the statement which the minister placed on ' Hansard ' the other day? As has been pointed out by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) the weather during the past season in the Bay of Fundy has been perhaps the most favourable that has bem experienced for many years and one cannot believe that during this lengthy period it was impossible for the department to accomplish the repair of this buoy. Then the minister advances another reason for the non-repair of the buoy from January 23, until late in the month of October, and that is that there were other important duties which were engaging the attention of the officers of the department. The minister has read a very long report from Mr. Legere, the acting agent of the department at St. John telling what he had done for the replacement and repair of different lights in different parts of the Bay of Fundy, but it will be observed from the extracts which the minister read from the report that only one effort was made to get to the Old Proprietor buoy and that in the month of January. It is true that the report of the agent which he read showed that the agent of the department was very active in his efforts to find the floating buoys which had been reported adrift in other quarters. But certainly nobody who heard that report can conclude that he took all proper measures to repair this very im-Mr. CROCKET.
portant light at Old Proprietor ledge, the non-repair of which, without any question, was responsible for the disaster which occurred. It may be that the compass was defective, as the minister has endeavoured to make the House believe; but I do not think that he read from the evidence which he had in his hand any testimony which would bear out that statement. The hon. member for the city of St. John this afternoon quoted the testimony given by the witnesses at Montreal, showing that the ' Hestia ' had been swung at Glasgow and the compass tested before she had left that port, and that no material variation had been found. That testimony was given by one of the few surviving officers of the crew. The very fact that the vessel made the Bay of Fundy as she did is pretty strong evidence that the compass was not so defective as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would have the House believe.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is quite the reverse. It is because the same course had always been followed; but when the vessel came to change its course, it could not do it properly without having new bearings taken.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Whether the compass was in error or not, what difference does it make as to the liability of the department for the non-repair of the Old Proprietor buoy, the buoy that was placed to pro- . tect vessels from the very rock on which the wreck occurred? The same remark applies to the other findings of the commission and the other grounds advanced by the Minister of Marine as to the failure of the ship's officers to take proper soundings. In that respect also, I think the hon. member for the city of St. John read this afternoon evidence that soundings had been taken, and also evidence with reference to the taking of the bearings of Gannet Rock light, a light which was five miles distant from the scene of this wreck. It seems to me that none of these facts excuse the Department of Marine and Fisheries from liability or responsibility for this wreck. To my mind it admits of no manner of doubt that had that light been working, and had he whistle been sounding as it should have been, on the night of this wreck, the wreck would not have occurred; and in that view, I think it is impossible for any unbiassed mind to acquit the department of responsibility as the minister has sought to induce the House to do. It did seem to me that the excuse advanced about the officers of the department being engaged with more important business was one which under the circumstances the officers of the department should have refrained from putting upon the records of this House. I understand, from the statement which the minister has made, that the other more important business referred

to was the looking after the other buoys and aids to navigation at the other points in the Bay of Fundy that he mentioned. But, Sir, when one recalls the pitiful cries of the poor -little boy from Scotland, to whom the hon. member for St. John made reference, within a few hours of his destination, 1 Mother, save me, I am drowning/ and when one thinks of the fearful scenes which were enacted m the darkness of that cold and stormy night, when thirty-nine precious lives were sacrificed to, what I think has been clearly shown to have been the neglect of this department, one wonders at the callousness and the heartlessness of the officers of the department in putting such a statement as that upon the records of this House: ' other more important business on hand/ Mr. Speaker, it was not long ago when a Royal Commission appointed by this government exposed to the people of this country the inefficiency, the incompetence and the corruption which characterized the administration of this department. That commission exposed those conditions in very strong language which will not soon be forgotten. But I venture to say that those conditions which characterize this department have been brought home to the people of the maritime provinces at least, by this lamentable disaster and loss of life with an effect which no language, however strong, can produce, and which no such sophistry as the Minister of Marine has addressed to this House to-night will alter.


Mr. W. F. TODD (Charlotte).: Mr. Speaker, as the House has been occupied for several hours in the discussion of this resolution, which has been moved by the hon. member for the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel), I feel it fitting on my part that I should say a few words in regard to this wreck. Representing the county in which these waters are, and in which the Old Proprietor ledge is situated, I feel that it is due to my constituency that I should say a few words on this subject. The hon. member for the city of St. John, followed by the hon. member for the county of York (Mr. Crocket), would lead this House to believe that almost a murder had been laid at the doors of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. There is nothing whatever in the evidence to justify such blame being placed upon the department, I think the blame for the wreck should be rather placed upon the captain and the other officers of the ship. Any one who looks at the map of the coast of the Bay of Fundy, with its high tides and the small opening at the mouth, will understand that there is naturally a great current in that water. He will also see that from Brier Island light to the light at Gannet rock, two of the best lights in this country, there is a breadth of nearly thirty miles of water, in which this 11
ship was fully nine miles out of her course. So that I believe the judgment of this House will bear me out in saying that there must have been something vitally wrong with the compass of that ship. It is said by the hon. member for the City of St. John (Mr. Daniel) that the compass was tested when the vessel left the other side, and he asked if the vessel was so much out of her course on account of a defect in the compass, how she could have found the mouth of the Bay of Fundy. Well, she was only nine miles out of her course, and still there was an opening of thirty miles between Brier Island and Gannet Rock light. It is altogether too fine a point to pretend that if the gas buoy of Old Proprietor ledge was not working, that was sufficient reason for the captain of the ' Hestia ' paying no attention to Gannet Rock light and changing his bearings and shifting his course.
I regret that the hon. member for the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) in his anxiety to make a point against the government, should have cast reflections on the shipping facilities of his own city. We are all trying to build up a winter port in the great city of St. John. Have we not heard over and over again in years past from our sister provinces and the other side of the water that the Bay of Fundy is a tortuous, difficult course for vessels? Should not the hon. member for St. John city rather uphold the advantages of the Bay of Fundy than decry them? I think he would be doing his duty by his constituency much better by urging this government to build up the harbour and equip it with better lights and every protection possible. But instead, he appeals to the House, followed by the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket), and with tears in his voice he repeats the-cries of the two Scotch boys who met a watery grave. One of them, he said, in his last moments, as he sank below the water exclaimed in agony: Mother, save us. But as a medical man, has my hon. friend not often heard that cry for help from patients drifting towards the rocks of Eternity? And because he as medical adviser could not save them, are w'e expected to hold him responsible for their death? I think it would better become the hon. gentleman and the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) to work for the improvement of the harbour of St. John and the better equipment of the Bay of Fundy with aids to navigation than try to arouse prejudice and belittle their own port approaches as they are doing. I would suggest to the Minister of Marine that instead of trying to establish a lighthouse as requested by the hon. member for St. John, he should have , a submarine bell, placed in 10 fathoms of water near the Old Proprietor ledge and an electric light on the spindle



on said ledge, connected and worked from White Head Island, by the proper cable. This in my opinion, and that of many living near to this dangerous reef, would remove all danger to vessels or steamers at this point.


Robert Laird Borden: This subject has been so thoroughly debated that very little remains to be said. I do not think it will do for the minister to take the ground that he and his department are absolutely absolved by any amount of censure cast upon the captain and the officers who are no longer alive to defend themselves. Whether or not the compass was out, whether or not the captain took sufficient soundings, it is perfectly clear that this wreck would not. have occurred and these lives would not have, been lost if that light had been in proper working order. I do not think any one who has listened to the minister and who has read the reports in the public press could entertain the slightest doubts on that point. True the gentleman who acted as chairman of this board of inquiry took the ground that no great reliance should be placed on these floating lights and Captain Gillies, the superintendent of the Donaldson line, retorted that certainly no one would rely in the future upon floating lights in Canadian waters. But it seems rather peculiar that the course of events should have been what it was. This light became extinct about the 22nd of January, 1909. A notice was sent- not apparently in the ordinary course so that it would reach the mariners -but was pubilished in the local newspapers in the city of St. John. I do not know whether Captain Gillies was correct in the observation he made that no navigator would hereafter rely on our floating lights, but I did observe that in the course of the inquiry he said that no official notice had been given the mariners with regard to it. The minister will know best whether or not that statement was correct. Capt. Lugar, the chairman, remarked:
But the fact that the light was not burning was published in all the Halifax newspapers.
To which Captain Gillies replied: Perhaps, but not in the official notification issued to the mariners by the government.
Even if it had been published in those official notifications, one would suppose that the department, finding that the light could not be replaced within reasonable time, would have given timely notice in some official communication so that it would have reached the mariners; but for ten months that light was absolutely extinct and no more notice given of that important fact than the notice published in the local newspapers.
These new gas buoys were heralded by the Department of Marine and Fisheries as Mr. TODD.
a most important advance. To such an extent did this go that on January 31, 1906, the deputy minister of the department gave a certificate to the United States government with regard to them. According to the report of the Civil Service Commission, that certificate was in these words:
This department has had in the past considerable difficulty in carrying out its policy of providing an efficient buoy lighting system and has taken great pains to test and investigate the Willson buoy, with the result that it has been fully adopted; and the department purchases no other types. It is regarded as a distinct improvement on all others which the department has used. I can therefore recommend it to your Board.
This was a most distinct and unqualified recommendation of this buoy from the Department of Marine and Fisheries of Canada to the government of the United States. This efficiency comes to be tested in a portion of the Bay of Fundy that is regarded as having a special need of every possible aid to navigation that can be devised. The light goes out on January 22, 1909. Perhaps the minister can state when the buoy was placed there?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I could not state exactly, I suppose two or three years ago.


Frederick William Borden: I suppose it had been tested before being placed there, yet it goes out and as I understand the whistling apparatus also becomes defective and for a period of nine months both those defects remain absolutely without any remedy or correction. I would not say that this is an efficient buoy for the purpose unless it is of such a character that it can be repaired within a reasonable time and unless the materials and means for repairing it within a reasonable time are available, because, as Captain Gillies very well says, it would be far better to have no light at all than to place a light there and allow it to go out without giving any notice to mariners, the natural reliance on the light, operates as a complete and perfect trap to navigators who are traversing that portion of the Bay of Fundy.
I am not very much concerned with the fine-spun theories about the compass which have been enlarged upon by the minister and to which so much importance has been attached by Capt. Lugar. I think it would not be possible to arrive at any correct conclusion on that subject unless we had the evidence of the captain and officers of the ship who are now no longer here to testify. As far as the taking of soundings is concerned, it is evident from the testimony that soundings were taken as late as 11.30 o'clock that night.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Some soundings were taken during the day on the south coast

of Nova Scotia, but he did not take any soundings when near the rocks.


Robert Laird Borden: Soundings were taken every half hour according to the evidence of one of the officers, he himself reading the log after each sounding. A sounding was taken about 11.30 p.m., when the depth of water was 100 fathoms.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They continued two hours after that without soundings.


Robert Laird Borden: Those soundings were taken at least as late as 11.30 p.m., and it would seem inconceivable under the circumstances, with the condition of the weather and the position in which the vessel was, that the captain would cease taking soundings when he had taken them every half hour up to that time.
I see that Captain Lugar has rejected what would seem to me to be important evidence. On the dead body of one of the seamen, who was steering the ship, was found a memorandum indicating the course he was steering, a written statement of the course he was directed to steer. I would consider that good evidence, I think it would be received in a court of law and why Captain Lugar, chairman of the board, should have seen fit to reject that evidence is not very clear to me. Further than that, counsel for the steamship company asked especially that as the causes of the wreck were being investigated the Court of Inquiry should be adjourned to St. John. N.B., where men familiar with all the local conditions might be summoned to give evidence in order to make the result of the investigation more accurate and more clear. I do not see why that course was not pursued. The evidence of the survivors of the crew had been taken; the object was to discover the cause of the accident and the wreck, and when counsel for the steamship company asked that the court should be adjourned to a locality near where the accident had occurred, where men familiar with these tides which have been enlarged upon, men familiar with all the difficulties of navigation, could be summoned and might have thrown some light on the subject, the chairman airily put the request aside and said there was no occasion to take any such course. Does the minister approve of that course? Does he not think that some light might have been thrown on the circumstances attending this wreck by adopting that course? I am putting altogether aside the conduct of those on shore and dealing only with the causes of the wreck. It does seem clear that some light might have been thrown on the circumstances of the case by calling men familiar with the difficulties and the navigation of those waters.
The minister has spoken of insurance rates and has deprecated in a mild way the 114
discussion of these matters in the House of Commons. The tone and spirit in which my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) introduced this subject in the House indicated a sincere desire on his part to do only that which was in the public interest and in no way to create prejudice or cast discredit on the navigation of these waters. As far as that is concerned, I think the circumstances brought out in the inquiry, the fact that this buoy remained ten months unlighted and with its whistling apparatus out of order, would do much more to cast discredit on navigation in the Bay of Fundy than anything that could possibly be said in this House.
I do trust that the minister will not permit the matter to remain in its present position, that a further inquiry will be had and tljat he will be able to come down to the House later on and give us some assurance as to the continuous efficiency of these buoys. One of the chief causes he has urged to the House in defence of the inconceivable delay of nine months in repairing this buoy is the fact that so many other buoys had got out of order and gone adrift. Something must be wrong. Either the buoys are not adapted for the waters of that coast, cannot properly be secured; or are otherwise inefficient, or else there is some neglect on the part of some official of the department. The two things cannot stand together. If the buoys are of the proper type, if they can be made fast, if they are efficient and if the officials of the department do their duty then no such condition of affairs could have occurred in those waters as that which the minister himself has exposed to the House this evening in making his defence in this matter. I sincerely trust that some further inquiry will be held and further explanation will be given and that those who are interested in the navigation of Canadian waters will be able to understand that the course which has been pursued and the conditions which have arisen in this matter are not likely to occur again.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and I cannot at all agree that he has made it clear that the acting agent did his duty in this matter. He read a long report from the acting agent. But that report, as I understood it, and as I heard it read, only accounted for four or five months of the year, and stated what he was busy about during those months. But there was a long hiatus between the end of the four months and the end of the nine months. What was he doing the other five months after he had been so busy during these first four months? I also noticed the fact that when the Fairway buoy at Yarmouth got adrift he notified the Board of Trade. Why, Sir, when this buoy went

wrong, if the agent of the department, _ or the department itself, had taken the action which they should have taken, and had sent an official notification to mariners, then I say the negligence of the department in taking nine months and more to remedy the defects of this buoy, would not have been so reprehensible, in fact would not have been reprehensible to any extent, because they would have discharged their . duty and notified the mariners, sea captains and others that when they came into these waters they could not expect to find that Old Proprietor buoy.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The acting agent did better than that, he notified the owners, the agents of the ' Hestia.'


John Waterhouse Daniel: He gave verbal notice to the agent of the Donaldson line. 4
Mr. PUGSLEY Of this very line.


Mr DANIEL.: Yes, of this very line, in January, nine months ago. And what was that notification? A notification to the effect that the buoy was adrift, or the light was out, and that the defect would be remedied as soon as possible. So when it comes to the fall of the year, October or November, had not those captains, those mariners, those navigators, a right to suppose that the defect had been remedied long ago? That is the point of the whole matter-the fact that not only was this defect allowed to continue, but that those who ought to have been acquainted with the fact were not put in possession of it, or still worse, that the notification given was a deceptive one, as it only stated that the buoy was adrift, or the light out, and that the defect would be remedied as soon as possible. Now there is one point in the minister's speech that I was glad to hear, when he says that he intends to have a further investigation. I think it is absolutely necessary to have a further investigation, and I hope that investigation will be thorough and rigid, and cover all these points with regard to which evidence is so necessary, namely, the need of life saving stations and crews, of life boats, the quality of life boat and all those needs in the Bay of Fundy. The minister also spoke about the difficulty of keeping the buoys in a certain place in the Bay of Fundy, and he said he was considering whether the department ought to continue to keep those buoys going. My opinion, formed from the evidence that was given at this investigation, is that it is far better to have no buoys at all than to have buoys listed and put on the chart, and then when you come to the place where you expect to find them, they are either adrift, or there is no light, or whistle or anything of that kind. Such a thing as that" is simply a lure to destruc-Mr. DANIEL.
tion. Far better to have no buoys at all on those exposed positions than to expect them and then find nothing there when you get there. That is the complaint we have to make.
Now before I sit down I want to refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Todd). The hon. member for Charlotte reproached me because I made a reference to a disaster in the Bay of Fundy and had drawn the attention of the country to the fact that the Department of Marine had been remiss in its duty in looking after the lights at the Old Proprietor rock. Sir, when he was saying that he reminded me of a bird, I believe a very stupid bird, an inhabitant of South Africa. That bird, when it is pursued and wants to hide itself, simply buries its head in the hush or in the ground, and thinks that because it cannot see any one no one can see it. That appears to me to be the position the hon. member for Charlotte would like me to take. He wants me to say nothing about this, to conceal it, and he thinks that then nobody else will know anything about it. But if we were to take that course the defect would never be remedied. That_ is not the position I take. I take the position that the proper course to take under these circumstances is to make this thing so public that it will never occur again, that the department will act in a more rigid and conscientious manner in future than it has been doing in the past, and then the navigation up and down the bay to and from the city I have the honour to represent, will be safer than it ever has been in the past.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  F. D.@: MONK (Jacques Cartier), moved:
For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, reports and written representations in tlie hands of the government, or any department of the same, concerning the commercial or trade mission to Japan of W. T. R. Preston, as Canadian Trade Commissioner for Canada, and of the report of said commissioner, as well as all other reports and despatches received by the government in connection with the execution of said mission.
He said: The object of this motion is to bring before the House all the correspondence that has taken place between the government and Mr. Preston, as well as between the government and any persons in Japan, or between the government and the British ambassador, or any representative of other governments in Japan, during the execution of the mission confided to Mr. Preston by the government. I think that

correspondence will prove very interesting and instructive. As I understand the events that have taken place since Mr. Preston went to Japan, he was entrusted with the mission of opening up direct relations between the commercial houses in Japan, the commercial rvorld generally of Japan, and our own people, in order to establish direct trade relations between the two countries, in consequence of the treaty which was recently concluded between Japan and Great Britain, our adhesion, in other words, to the treaty concluded by Great Britain with Japan some ten or twelve years ago.
From what I have been able to cull from the newspapers, what has been published since Mr. Preston "went to Japan and since his return, that mission was altogether marred, or came to very little, and the circumstances appear to be as follows:	It
would seem that in Japan, since that country has endeavoured to develop commercial relations with occidental countries all over this part of the world a certain number of commission merchants have established themselves in Japan and they have succeeded in implanting there a system by which all commercial relations must take place through themselves. They object to any direct relations and they have sedulously spread all over the world the idea that the Japanese commercial houses are not to be trusted but that through them and only through them can safe commercial relations be had with the Japanese merchants. Of course, the arrival there of Mr. Preston under the circumstances was anything but welcomed. He was considered as an intruder, arriving there presumably for the purpose of breaking up this system that existed in Japan. But, he was welcomed by the Japanese. The Japanese merchants are anxious to develop direct commercial relations with Canada and with all parts of the world. They are people with whom commercial relations can be safely maintained just as well as with other people and the moment Mr. Preston began there the execution of his mission and endeavoured to establish direct relations-between the commercial men of Japan and Canada he became, so to speak, the butt of the attacks of these commission houses and, as far as my information goes, these commission houses, being- confined principally to English and American firms, solicited the intervention of the British ambassador to cause Mr. Preston to cease his campaign. I understand that the correspondence will show that. Correspondence took place between His Majesty's representative in Japan and the Canadian government either directly or through the Home government. I am not sure as to that, but it has been stated in the papers that the claim was made on behalf of the English commission houses that Mr. Preston was interfering with their business,
that he was disturbing commercial security and solidity in Japan and that it was desirable that he should be recalled. I think that is a point of very great importance upon which the House should be very fully informed. I have reason to believe that the objections from the commission houses, not only the English commission houses, but others as well, were forwarded to the Canadian government or to the imperial government, to be, by them, communicated to the Canadian government. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) will probably know whether these allegations are well founded or not, but steps of various kinds were taken in order to secure the recall of Mr. Preston and his mission there was not only interfered with but was nullified by the influence that I have just referred to. This information has come to me from the newspapers and I think it is very important that the House should see that correspondence that we may know exactly what Mr. Preston did there and what his reports stated as to the possibilities of establishing direct trade communication with that nation, because there is no doubt that we have an immense possible commerce not only with Japan but with all those Asiatic countries. We are therefore interested to know why that mission was brought abruptly to a close and what was the result of the mission itself. I think it is even more important why we should know why that mission came to an end, what were exactly the influences which were brought to bear, the representations that were made against or for Mr. Preston by the associated interests, by those commission houses established there and on his behalf by other commercial bodies, chambers of commerce and Japanese interested in his mission. I think the idea is covered by my motion. I have prepared a motion somewhat longer but I mislaid it. The motion that I had originally prepared after I had seen this matter formulated in the newspapers was to this effect:
Copy of the correspondence between the Department of Trade and Commerce and the late Commissioner of Trade in Japan, Mr. Preston, on all subjects arising out of the controversy between Mr. Preston and foreign commission merchants in Japan during and subsequent to his stay there.
Copy of correspondence between the government of Canada and the British Ambassador in Japan respecting or in any way relating to Mr. Preston's appointment to Japan, the discharge of his duties there or connected with the controversy arising in Japan from Mr. Preston's advocacy of direct trade between Canadians and Japanese.
Copy of correspondence between the government of Canada, the British and the United States and the German Ambassadors and Mr. Preston on subjects growing out of the advocacy of direct trade between Canada and Japan.
Copy of all correspondence, loose paper clippings, memorials from Japanese or For-

eign Chambers of Commerce in Japan, or with the Colonial Office in London, touching or relating to the subject matter referred to herein.
I may say to the House that although it seems to me that it is covered by the motion I gave notice of this one is fuller and may be substituted for that which appears on the notice paper if the House will admit of the substitution. As I am informed Mr. Preston was actually recalled. I do not believe that the reason of that recall was that he was not carrying on properly his commercial mission, but that he had fallen upon a mare's nest there, had stirred up a great deal of trouble, and that, in reality, it was that opposition to the execution of his mission which brought about his recall -all the more reason why the House ought to be fully informed of all the circumstances. I understand also that since Mr. Preston's return, or simultaneously with his recall, another commissioner, a Mr. Harris, w*as named to replace him. It is stated in the newspapers that Mr. Harris rather inclines to the views, or falls in with the ideas, of those who think that direct commercial relations with that country are difficult because it has been stated in the public press that Mr. Harris has written a letter from Japan to a commercial house here stating in effect that the Japanese, in matters of business, are not to be trusted. That is what the newspapers state is the purport of his letter. Then there would be an absolute contradiction between the representations and reports made by Mr Preston and the statement or representation made by the new appointee. A newspaper has stated that in that statement which he communicated to a commercial house here the new representative had not the support of the government. All this, it seems to me, is rather confusing and it would be very interesting for us to have the whole of the papers before us because this is a singular case that has never, to my knowledge, come to the notice of the government since we attempted to establish direct relations and I think the House will find some interesting data if these papers are all brought down. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will substitute this rather longer motion hut in effect it is the same as that on the Order Paper.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not sufficiently acquainted with the matters to which my hon. friend has referred to justify me in making a reply to his observations. I quite realize that the matter is a proper one for inquiry and I would have no objection to the notice which appears on the Order Paper. It may be that on further consideration we would have no objection to the motion he now presents, but if my hon. friend thinks there is a substantial difference between the two I would suggest that he drop the motion on the Order Paper and substitute the Mr. MONK.
other by way of notice. If the motion on the Order Paper is substantially what he wants I think he had better take it and any papers dealing with the matter which can properly be brought down will be produced at an early date.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am induced to accept the suggestion of the Minister of Finance because I understand there are a considerable number of papers and I do not want to have delay. Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that some of these papers might not properly be brought down, and if so I would remark that this is not a confidential or state matter and that none of the papers relating to it can very well be withheld.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not wish to indicate that to my knowledge there are any papers that should not be brought down, and my remark was intended only to put in the usual general saving clause. I am not unmindful that in international matters it frequently arises that there are some papers that cannot be brought down. It was with that general thought in my mind, and not with any particular reference to these papers, that I made this remark.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Civil government.']
Robert Laird Borden: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that if the Minister of Railways were in his place I would direct his attention to a resolution of the Board of Trade of Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, wdiich has been sent to me relative to the railway service between Windsor Junction and Dartmouth. It is stated that a change lias been made in the arrival and departure of trains which has been found very inconvenient. Perhaps the Minister of Railways will take this as an intimation that I will call his attention to the matter at an early date.
Mr.. FIELDING. I will see that the attention of the- Minister of Railways is drawn to the remarks of the hon. gentleman.



Frederick Debartzch Monk: I ask the government if it is intended soon to give effect to the law which has added three judges to the Superior Court of the province of Quebec. The Council of the Bar of Montreal has recently passed a resolution asking for the immediate appointment of these three judges. Is it the in-

tention of the government to comply with the wish of the Bar of Montreal at an early date?


William Stevens Fielding: I would ask my hon. friend to renew the inquiry when the Minister of Justice is in his place.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Public Works Department, salaries, $358,537.50.
William Pugsley: Six additional employees in the department are provided for next year. The total increase in salaries is $5,182, which is largely made up of the salaries of these six officials and the statutory increases to the others.


Mr. SAM HUGHES.: Are there any who did not receive the statutory increases?


William Pugsley: Not in the first division, they are all entitled to it in that division. Mr. J. A. Robillard, Mr. J. A. Blain, Mr. G. M. Hutchinson, and Mr. G. Perley are promoted from the second division (subdivision A) to the first division of subdivision B. Then there is Louis Coste, who was in this division, and who has been transferred to the outside service. My hon. friend will know that he is connected with the International Waterways Commission.


Mr. BLAIN.: What is his salary?


William Pugsley: $25 per day during the time he is actually engaged in the services of the government. In the 2nd division, subdivision ' A,' there are twenty-three statutory increases at $50.


Samuel Hughes: Were any of the officers of the 1st division, subdivision ' B/.not given the statutory increase?


William Pugsley: Yes, there are apparently two.


Samuel Hughes: Why not?


William Pugsley: Because they were not recommended as entitled to receive it. Under the Civil Service Act it is optional with the deputy minister to recommend them or not. In the 2nd division, subdivision 'A,' there are twenty-three statutory increases at $50, four at $25, and one at $12.50, making a total of $1,262.50. There are seven promotions from subdivision ' B ' to division 'A' of the 2nd division. This makes a total of $14,062.50. From this is to be deducted the salaries of four employees promoted from the first division, subdivision ' B,' the salary of Mr. Lucas who resigned, and half the salary of Mr. McLaughlin, which was paid by the Railways and Canals Department, a total of $10,025, leaving an increase in this subdivision of $4,037.50.


Samuel Hughes: How many in this division were passed over without getting the increase?


William Pugsley: Four.


Mr. SAM SHARPE.: Have the promotions been made on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission?


William Pugsley: They will have to be made in the report of the Civil Service Commission that they are entitled thereto.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are they proposed promotions or have the promotions already been made?


William Pugsley: They are proposed promotions.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are they made as the result of competitive examinations?


William Pugsley: No, the promotions are not made as the result of competitive examination, except in the lower division. They are made on the recommendation of the deputy minister and the certificate of the commission that the persons recommended are qualified to be promoted.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are there any new appointments in that department?


William Pugsley: Two or three are contemplated.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are they to be appointed on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission?


William Pugsley: Yes, they will have to be, unless of course officials are promoted from a lower division, in which case there would be vacancies in the lower division to which appointments would have to be made on the recommendation of the commission. In the 2nd division, subdivision 'B,' there are forty-seven statutory increases at $50 and four at $25, and there are to be two promotions.


Samuel Hughes: Who are they?


Mr. PUGSLEY  A.@: Dostaler and T. G. Bell. In the third division, subdivision 'A,' there are twenty-three statutory increases at $50 and one at $25, and there are to be nine promotions from subdivision ' B ' to subdivision ' A.' There are some reductions and some transfers, making a total increase in that division of $4,900.


Samuel Hughes: Let us have the names of those promoted.


William Pugsley: Miss M: E. Sylvain, V. Lepage, C. A. Narraway, Miss A. Valade, Mrs. M. L. Roy, M. Laframboise, F. O. Hamel, J. E. Kennedy and A. A. Rivard. In the third division, subdivision ' B,' there are three statutory increases at $50, and seven at $25.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does the minister designate those who -are proposed for promotion, or how comes he to have their names there?


William Pugsley: They are proposed subject to the certificate of the commission. There is a new appointment in this division-Miss McPherson, who was appointed after examination and on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission.


Samuel Hughes: Has the Civil Service Commission recommended for promotion those whose names the minister has read?


William Pugsley: These are what the deputy minister believes are the proper promotions. All the commission has to do is to certify that the parties are qualified for promotion.


Samuel Hughes: I presume the commission will be pliable.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If the initiative is not taken by the. Civil Service Commission with regard to competitive examination, what is the advantage of this over the old system?


William Pugsley: No new appointment, except in some special cases, can be made to the service except upon competitive examination and the recommendation of the commissioners.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: No advantage with regard to promotion.


William Pugsley: No, except that they must certify that the person whom the deputy recommends is qualified.


Samuel Hughes: Does the hon. minister find that those appointed by the Civil Service Commission are much better than those appointed in the good old way oi political pull. I must say I believe in the old way.


William Pugsley: I must say I was not here when, the good old way prevailed.
Department of Finance and Treasury Board salaries, $113,500.


William Stevens Fielding: There is a decrease here. The number of officials is the same, and it is contemplated that we shall have one promotion to the higher grade under circumstances exactly as "described by the Minister of Public Works. The promotion is made subject to the approval of the Civil Service Commissioners as to the officer's qualification. We are contemplating the retirement of one or two gentlemen by superannuation, and younger men will come in at the foot of the ladder so that there will be some saving.


Richard Blain: Are the recommendations for superannuation made by the Civil Service Commission?
Mr. PUGSLEY


William Stevens Fielding: No, they are made by the minister, with the concurrence of the chief adviser. The apjjlications come to the Treasury Board, and the facts of age, physical condition and other circumstances are reviewed before a decision is given.


Samuel Hughes: Who is the officer to be-promoted?


William Stevens Fielding: We contemplate the promotion of Mr. Saunders who has been in the office for many years.
Department of Mines, salaries, $174,689.


Samuel Hughes: Does the government intend establishing an institution for the better testing and reducing of ores?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: It is contemplated by the director of mines to have a plant in Ottawa. The building is being erected. Possibly the production of gas from peat will be tested the coming summer. To what extent we wiil go in providing plant for the testing of ores is a moot question, but we are not losing sight of it.


Samuel Hughes: Has the hon. gentleman's officers taken notice of the possibility of using peat exhaust or coal in what is termed suction gases or producer gases?


William Templeman: That is being investigated. An officer leaves in a day or two to visit an experimental plant in New Jersey for the purpose of acquiring information and he will make a report. The total increases in civil government over last year is $19,675, made up of statutory increases $3,625, increases by promotions $1,450, additional- appointments $14,600. We have an additional clerk in the department proper, an additional mining engineer in the mines branch and a statistical clerk. In the geological survey, two additional geologists at $2,100 each and two draughtsmen at $1,200 each. The total increase in the number of officers for the next financial year is 10.


Samuel Hughes: Has the minister lost any of his geological survey officers in recent years?


William Templeman: Yes, we are losing one at the present moment.


Samuel Hughes: And the minister knows why?


William Templeman: With the concurrence and approval of the Civil Service Commission, I propose to recommend these increases by promotion to council. In this way we propose to increase the salaries of half a dozen of the senior geologists.


Samuel Hughes: Does not the minister think the salaries he pays to his first-class officers are not adequate to retain good men?


William Templeman: Quite true. In the Geological Survey we have half a dozen geologists who have served from 25 to 35 years They are in subdivision B of the first division, the maximum of which class is $2,800 The geologist who is likely to leave us now has been thirty odd years in the service. He is receiving $2,300 or $2,400 and he has been offered $4,000 to take charge of the Mines branch of the province of Quebec. While he was reluctant to sever his connection with the department where he would be entitled to superannuation in a few years and where he was carrying on congenial work, we were unable to offer him a larger salary at the moment, but his name is here as one of those proposed to be promoted in the event of his not accepting this position in Quebec. His increase would be $460 to bring him into subdivision A where he would go up from $2,800 to $4,000. 1 desire to put all six of the senior geologists into subdivision A of the first division where they will ultimately go to $4,000. It is absolutely impossible for the Department of Mines to retain well qualified technical men unless we can pay them larger salaries. We have lost half a dozen men who have gone to private enterprises and it is for the purpose of giving fairly adequate salaries that this increase is made. In providing for these additional positions, we are anxious to have the vacancies so that we may secure good men if opportunity presents itself.
Department of the Secretary of State, salaries, $56,412.50.


Charles Murphy: There is a decrease here of $1,375 due to the transfer of one of the officers and the death of another. These vacancies will be filled by new appointments at the minimum salaries of the divisions.
Department of External Affairs, $14,875.


Charles Murphy: It will be observed that the number of officials has been increased by four, comprising three clerks in the lowest division and one messenger. The work of the department has increased to such an extent that, it will be necessary to make these appointments in the lowest division and also to secure a messenger.


Samuel Hughes: Who is the head of this department?


Charles Murphy: Mr. Joseph Pope.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Will these appointments be made as the result of the Civil Service examinations?


Charles Murphy: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Who is the officer in subdivision A?


Charles Murphy: That is Mr. Walker, transferred from the Governor General's office.


Samuel Hughes: Who is the next one in subdivision B?


Charles Murphy: Mr. Brophy.


Robert Laird Borden: Does this department make any report?


Charles Murphy: The department was only organized on the 1st of June last. It will make a report.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.	.


Robert Laird Borden: What business for to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: Civil government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 23, 1909.