1910-04-20

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GUTHRIE moved that Bill (No. 119) to incorporate the International Waterways Canal and Construction Company be withdrawn, and that the fees paid thereon be refunded less the cost of printing and translation, in accordance with rule.
Mr. SPROULE.: While I do not rise to oppose this motion, I think it would be a proper thing to do to penalize the parties who had the Bill in charge for bringing such a Bill before the House. It is only one of a number that has taken up a lot of valuable time in this and previous sessions, and if these parties are going to exploit these things, bring in Bills of this kind, keep the House from week to week spending a great deal of time in protecting the interests of the country and then make application to have the fees refunded, they should be punished by not receiving a cent.


[Stage Direction]
Motipn agreed to, and Bill withdrawn.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 211) to incorporate the Pioneers Loan Company.-Mr. Turriff.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 212) to amend the Govern-

ment Annuities Act of 1908. He said: This is to correct an error in the recent proceedings of the House in connection with a measure dealing with this Isubject. We had before us a Bill from the Senate to which this House in Committee of the Whole made an amendment, striking out a certain clause in the old law which had become unnecessary. By some error the Bill stands recorded as having been reported by the Committee of the Whole without amendment. The consequence is that an amendment which the Senate intended to make, but which they overlooked, and whicli this House intended to make, by some error has not been made, and now requires to be dealt with. The effect of the Bill now introduced is simply to repeal the section of the old law, as was intended and explained to the committee when we had tlie other Bill before us.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. J. P. TURCOTTE:: 1.	How many war vessels went up tlie St
Lawrence river to Quebec in the summer of 1908?	,	,	, .
2.	What was the tonnage and the draught of water of each of these vessels?
3.	To what nation did each of these belong?
4.	How many war ve-sels were anchored at the same time in the roadstead of Quebec in 1908?
5.	How many of these war ves e.s went up to Montreal ?
6.	How many of these war vessels, by reason
of their draught of water, were unable to g* up to Montreal?	,
7.	What war vessels, by reason of then draught of water, were ob-tructed in their navigation between the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Quebec?
8.	What effective means did the Canadian
government, provide in 1908 to prevent these war vessels, or one of them, from going up the River St. Lawrence to Quebec under a hostile flag? .	.
9.	What effective means did the Canadian government provide in 1908 to prevent these war vessels, or one of them, from making descents upon each of the parishes situated on both sides of the River St. Lawrence, from the Gulf up to Quebec, and taking possession of every part of the country ?
10.	What effective means did the Canadian government provide in 1908 to prevent these war vessels from seizing upon Quebec?
11.	Was the city of Quebec fortified so as to sustain a seige in 1908?
12.	Could the city of Quebec at the present time prevent a hostile fleet from seizing its citadel; and what were the effective means it provided then to organize its defence.
13.	In case one of the larger war vessels which visited Quebec in 1908 had met with a serious accident, could the Canadian government place at its disposal in the port of Quebec or in any place whatever on the River
St. Lawrence, a dry dock or a maritime workshop for the necessary repairs?
14.	What rank did the city of Quebec occupy in 1908 as a stronghold?
15.	Is the Canadian government more prepared in 1910 than it was in 1908 to defend Quebec from the possible invasion of an army by way of the St. Lawrence, anil in what do these defence works consist, made since 1908.
16 What measures does the Canadian government intend to take for the purpose of protecting Quebec against the sudden attack of an army by way of the St. Lawrence, and to provide for the repairs of the largest vessels which frequent the St. Lawrence.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY:: 
CANADIAN INLAND MARINE.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO :: 1.	What was the total number of steam and other ships, respectively, of the Canadian inland marine at the end of the fiscal year,
1900?	,
2.	What is the corresponding number and tonnage at the end of the fiscal year 1910. or for which the records are complete.
3.	During the same period, what number,
tonnage and kind of said inland marine "as built in Great Britain, United States and Canada, respectively?	.	,
4	What dry docks in Canada have received government aid, or are entitled to or have applied for same, and what is the size and estimated cost of each dry dock and the amount of such aid or proposed aid?
5	Is it the intention of the government to ask for legislation or other authority to provide for an increase in the present statutory

amount of such aid to any special dry docks, or to aid any ship-building company, and has any application been made therefor or negotiations m respect thereto? If so, what are the names of such applicants and the nature or the applications P


Mr. MURPHY :: 
NEW WESTMINSTER PENITENTIARY FISH CONTRACT.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR :: 1.	Has a contract been made for a supply of fish to Now Westminster penitentiary for 1910-11? If so, to whom and at wliat prices?
2.	Were tenders asked for? If so, to w-lioin were they addressed, was any date fixed for their receipt and by whom were the tenders opened?


Mr. MURPHY :: 1.	The contract has been awarded by the acceptance of the low-est tender, but the department has not yet been notified that the contract is actually executed, and in these circumstances it is not in the public interest to announce at present the name of the firm or the prices involved.
2.	On February 20, quotations were asked, by the purchasing agent, from : Royal City Fish Company, St. Mungo Canning Company, Bensing & Ayling, Fraser Fish Company, M. Monk & Company, and British Columbia Packers Association, all of New Westminster. No exact date was fixed for their receipt. The quotations were addressed to the purchasing agent. Montreal, and opened by him on March 23, 1910.



PAYMENTS TO L. F. CLARRY.

Mr. LENNOX :: 


Has L.   F.@: Clarry, lately of Hastings, been paid for his services as agent or solicitor of the Department of Justice in connection with the investigating titles to lands alleged to be flooded or drowned in the townships of Alnwick, Percy and Asphodel, and in the village of Hastings? If so, when and what amount ?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM :: Nothing has yet been paid Mr L F Clarry by this department in this connection.
751"



THE PILOTS' ASSOCIATION.

Mr. DELISLE:: 
Hon. W. S. FIELDING:: 1. Decayed pilots' fund..	..
Pilots' expense account..
.$55,623 52 . 1,139 79
.$57,063 31
Total	 [DOT][DOT]
2. Decayed pilots' fund	...
Receipts. Expendituie.
1901-5	
$1,697	20	$4,139	5/iqosi;;	
6,110	16	5,980	841906-7 (9 mos.)	
3,299 13	4,861	551907 8	[DOT][DOT] 6 035 02	7,061 521908-	9.!	I!	
7,617 70	6,917	53
1909-10 (accounts not closed.)
Pilots' expense account-
1901-5	$ 72 41
1905-	6	
86	031906-	7	
88	bo1907-	8 '	
300	61;;	20145	25 001909-	10 (accounts not closed.)
3. $56,911.37 (April 18, 1910).



OBSCENE LITERATURE.

Mr. BOYCE:: 
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX:: 12 3 and 4. The records of the Toronto post office indicate that a number of books posted at Paris, France, addressed to the Antiquarian Book Company, 5 Jordan street, Toronto, which had been transferred to the customs for examination, &c., were returned by the customs officer with an intimation that they were considered obscene. They were consequently forwarded to the superintendent of the chief Dead Letter Office, Ottawa, in special dead
returns as follows:	_ ,,	,
June 8 1907-4 books. Fair and Gallant Ladies.' vols, 1 and 2.	' Morbid Manifestations,' vols. 1 and 2.
June 19, 1907-1 copy of ' Aphrodite,' 1 copy of * Morbid Manifestations, 1 copy of ' Chastisement of Monsour.'
July 2nd, 1907-2 copies of Weird Women, vols. 1 and 2.
July 13th, 1907- Fair and Gallant Ladies,' vol. 2.
These books were returned to the French post office as non-transmissible through the Canadian mails. The department subsequently received a comunication from the Post Office Department, Washington, transmitting two special reports of Inspector Anthony Comstock, together with a circular mailed by the Toronto Antiquarian Book Company, advertising alleged obscene books. This correspondence was referred to the Post Office Inspector at Toronto, who submitted the case to the Crown Attorney, by whom information was ^laid against Messrs. S. J. Skill and J. E. King, managers of the Toronto Antiquarian Book Company, which resulted in their conviction before His Honour Judge Winchester, on the 3rd January last.
5.	Yes.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND RAILWAYS.

Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Was a survey for a branch line of railway made in the autumn of 1908. from Montague, in Kings county, P.E.X.. to a point or points on Murray Harbour railway m Queens
county ?	.	,
2.	Has the report of the engineers been received by the Railway Department ?
3	If so, will it be included in the return asked for bv one of the members for Queens, P E.I., respecting the engineer s report ot the survey of the New London branch lines, surveyed also in th* autumn of 1908, and previously?	,	,, .,	.
1 If not therein included, would the minister give the result of the survey, favourable or otherwise?	.
5.	How many trial lines were surveyed r
6.	Does the * government intend to proceed with the construction of these lines or any of them? If so, which of them, and when?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:: 

THE GOVERNMENT RAILWAY BOARD.

Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	Does the government intend to increase the number of members on the board of control of the Intercolonial? If so, when will the government do so?
2.	Does the government intend to give the province of Quebec a representative on the said commission?


George Perry Graham: I announced on a previous occasion in this House that it was the intention of the government to appoint an additional member to the hoard of management of the government railways That additional member will be from the province of Quebc, through which a large portion of the Intercolonial runs.



LORD KITCHENER.

Mr. CURRIE:: 
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 

MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL-SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

Hon.  V. S.@: FIELDING presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1911 On motion of Air. Fielding, His Excellency s message, together with his Estimates were referred to the Committee o'f supply.
-Mr. GRAHAM.



WARSHIPS ON THE GREAT LAKES.

Arthur Cyril Boyce: I would like to ask the Prime Afinister whether the report is correct that there has been a ruling by the United States government that the construction of any part of the proposed Canadian navy or any warship on the great lakes would be an infringement of the Rush-Bagot treaty, an whether he has been officially informed of that ruling?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Neither officially nor otherwise.



THE HOUSE OF COAIAIONS STAFF.

Air. J. A. CURRIE (North Simcoe).: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to refer to a notice of motion which is on the order paper with reference to the reclassification of the staff of the House of Commons. When that question comes up for discussion in the House I would like the Prime Alinister to have the opinion of the Department of Justice as to the legality of tire proposed schedule, also an official report from the Civil' Service Commission, and also from the deputy Alinister of Justice, and such other papers bearing on the subject that we will be able to discuss this subject intelligently. I know the right hon. gentleman does not wish to do anybody any injustice.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE-ST PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.

Air. BRADBURY.: Air. Speaker, I wish to speak to a question of privilege 4. few evenings ago, when I had the honour of addressing the House on the surrender of St. Peter's Reserve, I stated that, an account had been rendered by one E. Rayner, who claimed that, his work was to have cost something like $500, and when the account was rendered to the Department of Indian Affairs, the department refused to pay it. I pointed put that this money had been paid, and I su^-gested that the extra land that- had been given to the chief and councillors had been used for that purpose. This was the only part of the serious charges which I brought before the House against the department that the hon. Alinister of the Interior, in his three hours speech replying to me, attempted to refute. In that "attempt, he denied the accuracy of my statement in regard to the extra land which the chief and the councillors had received, and in doing so quoted what I understood him to say were the official figures from his department, and he asked the House to accept them rather than the statement made bv myself. The facts, AH. Speaker, which I intend to lay before the House are shown by a sworn return of J. 0. Lewis, an Indian agent at Selkirk, which I have here of the payments to the)Indians of the $5,000 which

the deputy superintendent general of Indian Affairs, Mr. Pedley, had promised them if they voted for the surrender. This return gives the names of each man of the band and the number of his children and the amounts the different Indians received of this $5,000. So that there can be no doubt that each family was fully represented under the head of such family, and ttie head of such families was there to make the familv look as large and numerous as possible,' so that his share of the $5,000 would be as great as possible. This I am sure will not be questioned by any lion, member of this House. Then Mr. Speaker, this pay roll which I hold in my hand shows beyond any doubt the number of children each councillor and the chief had. I will now read to the House the headings under which the members of the family are accounted for. I will also read the declaration attached to this pay roll. I have, Mr. Speaker, in my hands the pay roll for the distribution of the $5,000 that Mr. Pedley took to St. Peter's Indian reserve and distributed among the Indians _ after they agreed to the surrender and it is headed in this way:
Treaty No. 1. St. Peter's Band, paid at St. Peter's Reserve, September 23, 1907. Land Fund.
The different headings follow. It is made out in regular form showing how many men, women and children there were. It starts with men, women, boys, girls, males and females. We will take just one of these men in question. We will take the chief, Wm. Prince. According to this sworn return we find that he had just himself and his wife. He received $18.60 out of that fund. That money was paid by Mr. Pedley himself according to the book. Wm. Henry Prince according to this sworn return had two of a family, and got $14.60 and that was paid by Mr. Pedley. Each of the councillors received their money directly from the hands of Mr. Pedley. Now what I rose in my place this morning to correct was the statement made by the hon. minister denying my statement that the chief and the councillors had received more lands than they were legally entitled to under the surrender. The hon. gentleman denied that fact and he says, and I am quoting from ( Hansard of the 14th:
My hon. friend explained that Mr. Rayner had got back the extra money that he had paid to the Indians, because the chiefs had got a certain proportion more land than they were entitled to under the terms of the surrender. That is to say that Chief William Prince got 20 acres more, and the several councillors a certain number of acres more, in the neighbourhood of 20 apiece over and above what the terms of surrender called for. Chief Wiliam Prince was entitled to 212 acres by reason of his extra allowance as chief, and bv reason of the number of members in
liis family, and he received actually 215.53, that is 31 acres more than his allowance. Councillor Harper was entitled to 232 acres, and he got 233-16. Councillor James was entitled to 200 acres, and he got 206 -88. Councillor Henry Prince was entitled to 168 acres, and he got 172-50. John Prince was entitled to 136 acres, and he got 136 acres. The explanation is that in the laying out of the lands when the survey was made, the lots ran into one or two acres more than the allowance called for, and the block was allowed to go as it was surveyed. My hon. friend stated last night that these people received in the neighbourhood of 20 acres at least more than they were entitled to, and that this_ extra allowance of land was in some way, which he did not explain, used to repay Rayner the money that he said it was rumoured had been paid to the Indians.


George Henry Bradbury: The minister has given the amount of acreage. I would like him to tell the House how many of a family each man had.


Mr. OLIVER.: Chief William Prince had two of a family, Councillor Harper seven, James William five, Henry Prince three, and John Prince one. My hon. friend said last night that these men got about an average of 20 acres apiece more than they were entitled to. The figures I have given the House are the figures given to me by the officers of the department, and I am sure my hon. friend will pardon me if I say I am rather willing to accept their figures than the figures he has given, and that I ask the House to do the same.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but a question of personal explanation according to Bourinot, must be confined purely and simply to personal explanation of the language used. I could read the authority, but I suppose it is hardly necessary. The hon. member cannot return to the debate on the St. Peter's Indian Reserve for the minister could not speak at this point so the hon. member will confine himself strictly to his personal explanation.


George Henry Bradbury: I am nearly finished. It is absolutely necessary that I should state these facts to the House before I can make a proper explanation. What I wanted to point out, Mr. Speaker, on my responsibility as a member of this House, was that this actually gives a correct statement as to the families of the chief and councillors, and this fact is sworn to by J. O. Lewis, Indian agent. Now' let us see


Mr. FIELDING.: I really submit to my hon. friend that he should not persist further in the light of the Speaker's ruling. What he means to say is that he has a difference with the Minister of the Interior, and he is trying to make a case out against him. I might have a difference with an hon. member opposite in a matter discussed some days ago, but surely I could not be allowed under a personal explanation to revive the debate.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I may read what Bouri-not says on the matter :
There are certain cases where the House will permit a member who has already spoken to a question to make some further remarks by the way of explanation before the debate finally closes. For instance, when a member conceives himself to have been misunderstood in some material part of his speech, he is invariably allowed through the indulgence of the House to explain with respect to the part so misunderstood, and this privilege of explanation is permitted without leave being actually asked from the House. But such explanation must be confined to a statement of the words actually used when a members language is misquoted or misconceived or to a statement of the meaning of his language when it has been misunderstood by the House; for the Speaker will call him to order the moment he goes beyond that explanation and replies to the remarks of members in the debate.
*1 SPROULE- I respectifully submit this, that the hon. member (Mr. Bradbury) made a statement to this House which was denied and he is endeavouring to explain the grounds upon which he made that statement and if necessary he is prepared to quote from official documents upon which he grounded his statement. That is justification for an explanation. Further I ivould think it would properly be a matter of privilege and quite within his rights to do what he proposes. He is not dealing with any other one who took part in the debate except the one who contradicted his statement.


William Stevens Fielding: I might have had a discussion with my hon. friend some weeks ago and the hon. gentleman might have contradicted something I said. Would I be at liberty under cover of personal explanation to revive that discussion? I do not think so. I do not wish to press the point, but I am afraid that we shall lose the order of the House.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I recollect one occasion when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) did the very thing which he says now cannot be done.


William Stevens Fielding: What was it ?


Robert Laird Borden: During a controversy which the hon. member (Mr. Fiekl-ing) had with Sir Charles Tupper in this House. He came into the House afterwards with a letter from Mr. H. M. Whitney, I think it w'as, intended to corroborate his statement of the case, and introduced it into the debate, doing exactly the thing he says should not be done.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the hon. member s (Mr. R. L. Borden) case is not happily chosen, speaking from memory. 1 may not state the facts exactly, but my recollection is that the discussion referred to arose on a tariff or fiscal measure. And, Mr. FIELDING.	[DOT]
when, at a later stage, on a new motion, the subject urns again before the House. I referred to the letter spoken of. But I did not, on a question of privilege, undertake to do anything of that sort, I think that my hon friend, if he will consult the record, will find that he is mistaken.


Robert Laird Borden: The procedure may have been as the hon. minister states; I have not a sufficiently clear recollection of the case to contradict him. By my recollection is that he was not corrected in the course he took. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury), I take it, could again bring up the whole matter on motion to go into supply.


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see any reason why he should be driven to that. He has only a short explanation to make, as I understand it, endeavouring to put himself right on a matter in which he conceives himself to have been misrepresented.


William Stevens Fielding: But he is assailing another member.


George Henry Bradbury: I have no desire to infringe on the rules of the House. But the Minister of the Interior (Air. Oliver) criticised the statement I made the other night in language which calls for some explanation from myself. He characterized my statement thu3 :
May I add my humble appreciation by say-mg that I believe never, since this chamber was erected, has there been delivered in its walls such a persistent and sustained tirade oi unwarranted assertion, of unwarranted insinuation, a tirade that, in its gratuitous inexactitude, is an offence against the privilege of parliament [DOT] and an insult to its intelligence.
Now' I hold that, as a member of this House, I have some rights here. I have a right to justify what I said in the House.


William Stevens Fielding: With the hon. mem-er's permission, I would respectfully suggest that he is endeavouring to justify himself in a matter arising out of a previous debate. Unless there is some thing in which he has been misrepresented or something of that kind-
Some hon. AIEAIBERS. Oh, oil.


William Stevens Fielding: No, the hon. member has not a right to proceed in this way on a question of privilege. His statement must be confined to a personal explanation. The hon. member must see that his speech will challenge a reply-


George Henry Bradbury: No.


William Stevens Fielding: Then the hon. member wants to have it one-sided. Unless that is his wish, I have only to point out that

what he says is likely to challenge a reply, and so we lose the order of the House.


George Henry Bradbury: I am simply making a statement correcting what the minister (Mr. Oliver) said in. regard, to the statement I made before. He said that when I stated that the chief and councilmen had received more land than they were entitled to, I stated that which was not in accord with the facts. I have laid before this House this return which is sworn to by the Indian agent, which is absolutely correct and proves the correctness of my statement and the incorrectness of the minister's "explanation.


Mr. FISHER.: If I may be permitted to interrupt, the hon. member (Mr. Bradbury) says he has a right on a question of privilege to justify a statement he made in a former debate. I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the question whether the hon. member can do that on a question of privilege. As I understand it, he has a right to correct a statement of his own or to make a personal explanation, but not to justify his former argument. The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) has pointed out that the hon. member for Selkirk will have an opportunity, on going into supply, to bring up this question. That is perfectly right. And the only objection to his bringing it up now is that he _ is violating the rules of the House and indulging in a procedure which has been, I regret to say, somewhat abused.


John Allister Currie: The hon. member has risen-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr Fisher) has the floor.


John Allister Currie: I rise to a point of order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


John Allister Currie: I am speaking on the question of order.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) desires to interrupt me, but I claim to be heard as I have the floor.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member (Air. Fisher) cannot speak on a question of privilege for the hon. member for Selkirk (Air. Bradbury) has the floor on that question. He (Mr. Fisher) can only speak on a point of order. That is my point of order.
Some hon. AIEAIBERS. Order, order.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for North Simcoe rose to a point of order. The Alinister of Agriculture should have taken his seat at once.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: If Air. Speaker says I am out of order, I will sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If hon. members will permit me, I would suggest that the hon. member for Selkirk (Air. Bradbury) ought to confine himself to a personal explanation. If he is anxious to carry the matter further, he can do so when we go into supply. I think that is the sense of the House.


George Henry Bradbury: I desire to fall in with the suggestion of the Chair, having no wish to violate the rules of the House. But at present I merely wish to clear myself of the charge made by the minister-
Air. CONA1EE. And reopen the debate.


George Henry Bradbury: Keep quiet. It will be necessary for me to show exactly how much land these Indians get. I can do that in a few minutes. William Prince, chief-
Some hon. AIEAIBERS. Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the hon. member must confine himself to a personal explanation. If he wants further opportunity he will-
Air. BRADBURY'. It is utterly impossible for me to explain the position without submitting the facts I have here. William Prince, chief-
Some hon. AIEAIBERS. Order.
Air. BRADBURY, -and his wife-
Some hon. AIEAIBERS. Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the hon. gentleman (Air. Bradbury) had better be allowed to conclude his remarks.


George Henry Bradbury: Air Speaker, I was saying when I was interrupted that Chief William Prince had a wife and on her account he was entitled to>
16 acres of land. Under the terms of the treaty he was entitled to 180 acres for himself, a total, 196 acres. ATet according to the minister's statement, he received 215 acres, or 19 acres more than he was entitled to. William H. Prince, councillor, had a wife, on whose account he was entitled to 16 acres. He himself was entitled to 120 acres, or a total of 136 acres. According to the statement of the minister, he received 172} acres, or 36} acres more than he was entitled to under the treaty. John Prince, councillor, had no wife, and was entitled to 120 acres. He received 136 acres, or 16 more than he was entitled to under the treaty. James Williams, councillor, had a wife and three children, on whose account he was entitled to 64 acres, together with 120 of his own account, a total of 184 acres. But he received, according to the minister's statement, 206J acres, or 22:1 acres more than he was entitled to. William Harper, councillor, was according to this

sworn return, entitled to 16 acres on account of his wife, and 16 for one child. I may say in passing that the man had no wife; his wife was dead, and 120 acres for himself, he was entitled under his claim to only 152 acres. He received, according to the minister's statement, 2321 acres or 801 acres more than he was entitled to. In these extra allotments four men received, not a hundred acres, as I stated to the House before. I was too moderate, for they did receive 174 acres more land than they were entitled to under the terms of the surrender, and I am now satisfied that that land supplied the money to pay the chief and council for betraying their band. The facts entirely justify my statement and proves the hon. minister entirely wrong.


Frank Oliver: If it is my privilege


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The minister can speak on a question, of privilege, or give a personal explanation.


Frank Oliver: I have no explanation to make, but my hon. friend has seen fit to revive a discussion which took place the other clay, and it seems to me that if he wished to revive it he had much better have done it when the estimates were under discussion and when all these questions could be threshed out. If I am privileged, however, to continue this discussion-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Under the circumstances the minister would do better to let the question stand, unless he wishes to avail himself of his right to give a personal explanation.


Frank Oliver: I have nothing to explain. and nothing to apologize for. I do not wish to break the rules 'of the House for the purpose of keeping up a discussion which, it seems to me, occupied as much time of this House the other day as was fairly warranted under the circumstances; and unless my hon. friend can find some new matter to bring to the attention of the House on this occasion, I would suggest to him that he be merciful, even if he is strong.



RULES OF THE HOUSE.

John Allister Currie: Before the orders of the day are called-I understand a committee of this House has been appointed to revise the rules of the House, and we have been waiting now for about Ifour months to hear from that committee. There is a certain vague rumour going around the corridors that in a few days, after the work of the House is nearly 'all done, the rules will be brought in here with a closure in them. I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the amended rules might not be placed before the House so as to give us an opportunity of discussing them before the session closes, and deciding whether it is necessary to have the closure.


George Henry Bradbury: 


Wilfrid Laurier: I am happy to inform my hon. friend that this committee will have its last sitting on Saturday, and the report will be brought down on Monday. I think my hon. friend will find the rules quite satisfactory to this House.



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 205) to amend the Civil Service Act.-Mr. Fisher.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAL'RIER moved the third reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the Naval Service of Canada. He said: I promised my hon. friend the leader of the opposition yesterday to give him some information. which I now present to the House.
Robert Laird Borden: I have expressed my views at considerable length on two occasions with regard to the measure that is now before us for the third reading; for that reason it will not be necessary for me to inflict upon the House any lengthy remarks at the present moment. I do not intend to go over matters that I have already debated; there are, however, one or two considerations which I feel it my duty to present to the House before the third reading is passed. I have not found an absolute wealth of information available with regard to the details of this measure. Yesterday I put a number of questions to the government which, owing to some confusion in the arrangement of their documents, they were not able to answer at the moment. I cannot see that the memorandum which I have received from the Prime Minister this morning is very illuminating, as it consists for the most part of a reference to matters that have already been set forth on the pages of ' Hansard.' In fact, so far as the details of the measure are concerned, I would be inclined to think that the government are wandering in a sort of Serbonian bog in which there is not much light respecting the proposals that are before the House.
Now the problem of co-operation in the defence of the empire is undoubtedly a very grave one. Two considerations present themselves immediately when that question is before us. The first consideration is how we may best give aid in what I consider to be the present emergent condition of the empire; the second is what will be a reasonable basis of permanent cooperation by Canada in the naval defence of the empire. So far as I am concerned.
I have endeavoured to keep those questions absolutely distinct, as I think they are distinct in themselves. Ever since we first discussed this question on the floor of the House in the month of March, 1909, it. has seemed to me that an immediate and effective aid to the empire in the present emerg-

ent conditions can only be accomplished, or at least can best be accomplished, by placing a certain sum of money at the disposal of the imperial ^authorities of Great Britain as represented by the admiralty, and inviting them to make the best disposal of that money, in their judgment, for the purpose of increasing the united naval strength of the empire I have set out my views on that matter in the resolution which I moved in this House on the second reading, and I need not repeat my observations thereon. I shall come to one or two details of the government measure in a moment. I desire to say at this juncture that I regard the subject of permanent co-operation by Canada in the naval defence of the empire as one that should be properly submitted to the people of this country before any plan of permanent co-operation is entered upon by Canada. Some very strong criticism of our position in that regard has been made by the Prime Minister, by the Minister -of Militia and Defence and by other hon. gentlemen opposite. 1 have not observed anything in those criticisms which alters the opinion I have expressed. If I were inclined, I could quote this morning from speeches made in the past by the Prime Minister himself upon the proposal to build the Canadian Pacific railway, from speeches made by the Minister of Militia and Defence himself upon that proposal and upon other proposals; I could quote the remarks hnd the votes of those hon. gentlemen in this House, who, in respect of matters that had 'been canvassed in this country for years, declared that measures should not pass parliament until the actual proposals had passed through the ordeal of a general election, that they should only be passed by a parliament that came back with a mandate from the people in that regard. For example, although the proposal to build the Canadian Pacific railway had been before this country for no less than 8 years, and had been discussed upon every platform in the country, both of these hon. gentlemen voted in this House for a resolution which declared, 'that the contract should not be ratified till after the people had had _ the opportunity of expressing their opinion through the medium of a general election.' As neither the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Militia said a single word in support of that motion they must be regarded as concurring in the arguments used by one of their supporters at that time, who made the motion on their behalf.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Was not that expression of opinion given in face of the fact that a much more favourable offer to build that railway had been made by another company?


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman may be correct or not correct in that re-
239	REVISED
gard. The point of my contention is that he declared ' that the contract should not be ratified till after the people had had an opportunity of expressing their opinion through the. medium of a general election.' That parliament had been elected to a certain extent on that issue, and I will invite my hon. friend to consider the reasons to which he committed himself for his silent vote. Mr. Bechard, who made that motion, speaking for his colleagues, used the following language:
'I contend this whole subject should be laid before the people for their decision at the polls. The ground on which I base my contention is that in a question of such great consequence for the weel or woe of the country, the people should have an opportunity of pronouncing on this new policy and scheme submitted by the government. True this Pacifio Railway question has been before the people for years, and that it has been the settled policy Qf the country to build a road connecting the eastern with the western provinces, and that this road should be continued to the Pacific coast; but it is equally true that the policy now before us to attain that end is completely new to the people. . . .
'We do not know what is the real sentiment of the people at present with reference to this scheme. . . .
* I believe it is difficult for any of us to say what is the real sentiment of the people with regard to the question, and I think that the only way of ascertaining it would be an appeal to the judgment of the people.'
I say that every one of these considerations is an infinitely stronger consideration why the mandate of the people should be sought at a general election on the present occasion than it was when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Militia voted for that particualr motion in 1881. This proposal has not been before the people at all. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister cannot deny that. What was his attitude in 1907 at the imperial conference? His attitude-and upon that attitude he went to the country in 1908 -was exactly the reverse of the policy he has presented to the House in this Bill. He declared at the imperial conference of 1907, in language which has been quoted over and over again in this House, in language as explicit and forcible as it would be possible for any man to use, that he would have absolutely none of the policy that he is presenting to the House today. So I say as far as our position is concerned in seeking the mandate _ of the people at a general election with regard to a basis of permanent co-operation for the defence of the empire, we had nothing to retract. We stand, as we have always stood in that respect, on two considerations-first, that the emergent conditions of the empire do demand immediate and effective aid, and, in the second place, that before a basis of permanent cooperation in the naval defence of the em-



EDITIOX.

[Stage Direction]
pire is entered upon, the people of this country have a right to be consulted and to give their mandate.
A great deal has been said about the resolution of March, 1909, and at the risk of wearying the House I wish to say one or two words in that connection. It has been charged over and over again by hon. gentlemen on the othfer side of the House that the Conservative party in opposing this Bill, is departing in some way from the terms of that resolution. I desire to challenge that statement as directly as it can be challenged in parliamentary language. I say that those who have departed from the resolution of 1909 are the hon. gentlemen on the treasury benches. Can there be any doubt upon that? Let me invite once more the attention of the House to the following clause which was contained ill that resolution:
The House will eordiallv approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to the security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
In order to ascertain whether or not the proposals of the government follow the resolution of March, 1909, it is necessary in the first place to ascertain whether those proposals are along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the last imperial conference, that is, the conference of 1907. Those lines were laid down and declared in the clearest- possible terms by Lord Tweed-mouth, at that time the First Lord of the Admiralty. This is what he said:
The -only reservation that the admiralty desire to make is that they claim to have the charge of the stragetical questions which are necessarily involved in naval defence, to hold the command of the naval forces of the country, and to arrange the distribution of ships in the best possible manner, to resist attacks and to defend the empire at large whether it be our own islands or the dominions beyond the seas.
We thoroughly recognize that we are responsible for that defence. We want yon to help us ill that defence. We want vou to give us all the assistance you can, but' we do not come to you as beggars ; we gladly take all that you can give us, but at the same time, if you are not inclined to give us the help that we hope to have from you, we acknowledge our absolute obligation to defend the ivmg s dominions across the seas to the best of our ability.
No question there, as to whether the emergency in question affects the British isles or not, no question there of going to the help of any of the Dominions beyond the seas provided the war is just
Frederick William Borden: or provided the interests of the British empire as a whole are concerned, but a broad, loyal, generous declaration that whatever may be the emergency the mother country will gladly come to the aid of the Dominions beyond the seas.
What is the reservation which Lord Tweedmouth claimed in that statement?
The only reservation that the admiralty desire to make is, that they claim to have charge of these strategical questions whicn are necessarily involved in naval defence, to hold the command of the naval forces of the country, and to arrange the distribution of ships in the best possible manner to resist attack and to defend the empire at large, whether it be our own islands or the dominions beyond the seas.
How is that carried out by the proposals of the government? Can any/ man, taking a reasonable view of this Bill say that it is on the lines suggested by Lord Tweedmouth in the quotations I have just read?
I have here section 18 of the Bill. The section provides:
In the case of an emergency the Governor in Council may place at the disposal of His Majesty, for general service in the Royal navy, the naval service or any part thereof, any ships or vessels of the naval service, and the officers and seamen serving in such ships or vessels, or any officers or seamen belonging to the naval service.
What is the meaning of that proposal? The Prime Minister has set forth its meaning in the debate in committee. I shall not attempt to give the committee the whole of his observations, but I shall read one passage which I think ought to be placed before the House in connection with the quotation I have already made. On page 7626 of the unrevised 'Hansard1 I find:


Robert Laird Borden: Would the right hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question? Suppose a Canadian ship meets a ship of similar armament and power belonging to an enemy, meets her on the high seas, what is she to do? 1 do not ask now what she will do if attacked, but will she attack, will she tight ?
Sir I\ ILFRID LAITRIER. I do not know that she would fight. I do not know that she isliould fight either. She should not fight until the government by which she is commissioned have determined whether she should go into the war. That is the position we _ take, my hon. friend takes a different position. He says that without any question, under all circumstances, we are bound to send our ships into the war. We take a different position, and we say: Let the country judge between us.


Robert Laird Borden: Would our ports and harbours be neutral like our fleet until an order in council had been passed?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not understand what my hon. friend means by asking if they should be neutral.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand the

Prime Minister to say that our ships would not fight until they were ordered to do so, and, therefore, they would in effect be neutral until the Governor in Council had made an order that they should participate in the war. Have I misstated my hon. friend's position ?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.
You e,ould not .have anything much plainer or more explicit than that.


Robert Laird Borden: Then, inasmuch as our ships, under the conditions mentioned, will be practically neutral, I would like to know whether our ports and harbours will also be neutral in the same way?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not understand what my hon. friend means by asking if they would remain neutral. If he means after an enemy has come into our harbour, then it will be time to resist them with our fleet.


Robert Laird Borden: But if our ships do not attack the enemy when they meet the enemy on the high seas, on the same principle, may not the enemy's fleet come into our harbour without resistance or attack, without any fear of aggression, surely that can be done, it is feasible for the country owning those harbours to maintain neutrality on the high seas?


Wilfrid Laurier: That would be a question to determine any time that a warship entered a Canadian port.


Robert Laird Borden: The position of the Prime Minister is that ships flying the British flag should meet an enemy on the high seas and not attack them. That is a new tradition for the British navy.
I do not think there can be any misapprehension as to the position of the two parties in this connection. The Minister of Finance and other hon. gentlemen opposite have endeavoured to becloud the issue. I am not proposing that the naval forces of Canada shall be sent to every little war. Great Britain may be engaged in naval wars in which not one-tenth of her naval forces would toe called upon to act. What I contend for is the principle [DOT] that in time of war there shall be one united naval force for the whole empire and that naval force shall be available to meet any enemy that may assail the integrity of the empire. Suppose it were declared that the naval forces of Canada should be part of the naval force of the empire in time of war. It is conceivable that there might be a naval war in which Great Britain might not require or demand any assistance whatever from the naval force of this country. But there is something beyond and above all that. If the naval forces of the mother country and all the dominions form part of one great united naval force of the empire in time of war what follows? Any enemy assailing the British empire knows that it must meet those forces in time of war, that they are available for attack or resistance, for upholding the integrity of the empire and the supremacy of its 239J	J
sea control. What is the other alternative? Under the proposals of the government what may an enemy anticipate? It may anticipate that it will have to meet the naval forces of the mother country plus a potential order in council^ which may not come into force until the integrity of this empire shall have been destroyed. That, Sir, is the difference between the two proposals as it lies in my mind and I, like the Prime Minister, am ready to leave to the country to judge which proposal is truly in the interests of Canada, and in the interests of the whole empire.
The proposals of the government seem to me in one aspect to be absurd and unworkable, but in another aspect they are dangerous and revolutionary. In so far as they are not unworkable they are dangerous; in so far as they are not absurd they are revolutionary because it is absolutely inconceivable that if Great Britain were engaged in a naval war and the Canadian naval force acted as if it belonged not to the empire or to Canada but to some neutral country, such a condition would not lead or at least conduce to the early separation of this country from the British empire. I would recall some of the illustrations adduced in the debate yesterday. A Canadian ship is on the ocean, no order in council has been passed, war has been declared or an overt act committed and hostilities have actually commenced; a Canadian ship is on the high seas, flying the British flag, a cruiser of the .enemy approaches, the Canadian ship is not to attack or to fight unless she is attacked. Within sight of her, on high seas, a cruiser of the enemy may toe capturing vessels flying the British flag. Under the statement of the Prime Minister, the Canadian cruiser will not interfere because no order in council has been passed. Is such a position tenable is it. not absurd, is it not dangerous and revolutionary? Can it have any other outcome than to bring about the separation of this country from that empire whose flag flies over us to-day?
The Prime Minister seems to consider that it is possible that our ports and commerce shall also be neutral as our fleet would be under his own statement until that order in council has been passed. That would only emphasize the position I have already taken. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance says that if Great Britain became involved in any great or serious war no government in this country could live unless it sent the Canadian naval force to the assistance of the empire. Well, there are one or two considerations to be regarded in that connection. I pointed out before, and I repeat it to-day. that a delay such as that which took place at the

hands of this government in connection with the South African war might spelt disaster to the whole empire; and although condign punishment might be visited upon a government which hesitated in such an emergency, it would be small consolation to us afterwards that certain gentlemen should be driven from the treasury benches or even out of public life, when in the meantime the fate of this empire had been decided by a great naval battle in which no Canadian naval force took part. So I do not think the -question can be met in that way.
I desire further to say that if by the free act of this parliament the naval forces of Canada were placed at the disposal of the admiralty of some central authority in time of war, that would not in the least interfere with our autonomy, the danger of which has been so greatly on the minds of hon. gentlemen opposite. That course would be taken by. the free will of the people of Canada expressed through their representatives in parliament. It would, in fact, be more the act of the people of Canada than the passing of an order in council, as proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite.
I am desirous, Mr. Speaker, that this country shall co-operate upon some permanent basis in the naval defence of the empire. I do not see how it is possible for us to remain within the empire without taking some responsibility in that regard. What will the proposal of the government work out to? If we are to abstain from taking part in some war which may concern Great Britain or other dominions of the empire chiefly, will Great Britain, on the other hand, when our Pacific coast may be assailed, say that she will take no part on our behalf, and that her navy shall remain in the North Sea?
I am disposed to think that there is only one way of dealing with the naval forces of .the empire, and that is to have them united under some central control, and let the world know that those united forces are available for the maintenance of the sea supremacy of the empire in time of war. They may not be called upon when certain wars-occur, even wars involving the employment of the naval forces; but the mere fact that they are available is the important consideration. This is the principle I stand for and the principle I desire to see carried out, It is desirable, in the first place, that we should co-operate upon some permanent basis. It is desirable, in the second place, that if the conditions of the empire at the present time are emergent, we should bear some immediate and effective aid to the empire as a whole. I still maintain, notwithstanding all the arguments that have been advanced to the contrary, that the proposal I submitted to


Robert Laird Borden: the House involves the true principle in that regard; and that the true solution, the wise solution, of the great problem that is before the people of Canada today would be, in the first place, to bring immediate and effective aid in the manner I have already indicated to the House on the second reading of this Bill, and, in the second place, to mature more carefully and wisely the proposals for permanent co-operation by Canada in the naval defence of the empire-to bring these proposals into parliament and discuss them, then to submit them to the people at a general election, and after that to have them carried into force according to the mandate and the direction of the free people of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Speaker, with the exception of the few remarks I made yesterday in Committee of the Whole,, I have not yet taken any part in this discussion. Now that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, by his speech lias reopened the whole question, I ask the permission of the House to make some observations which, perhaps, I might more fittingly have made at an earlier stage, but which, in the desire to shorten the discussion, I refrained from making. The question before us to-day is one of the greatest importance, perhaps the most important that has ever come before the parliament of this Dominion. Some may think that it involves a new principle; but if we look more closely into the matter, we shall discover that what we are doing to-day does not involve a new principle, but is merely an enlargement of a principle which the people of Canada have long accepted and had in operation. It is the history of all colonies that in their earlier stages they must look to the mother country for support; but as a colony grows in population and strength, it naturally takes upon itself some share of those responsibilities which in the earlier stage have to be assumed by the mother country. Canada has passed through that stage. In her earlier days she had to look to the mother country, as all other colonies have had to do; but as she has grown in wealth and in population she has taken upon herself those responsibilities which a self-respecting country should be ready to bear whenever she has the ability to do so. And so in the progress of time we have taken upon ourselves some share of the obligations in regard to our military defence. We had our military organizations, more or less efficient, in the various provinces before confederation, and at the time of the union there was a sort of understanding that Canada should recognize her imperial responsibilities by expending a very considerable sum for us in those days, roughly estimated at $1,000,000, for the mainten-

ance of her militia organization. From time to time progress was made in that direction until to-day we are spending some $6,000,000 or $7,000,000 a year in the maintenance of our militia system. Now, when we undertake to apply the same principle to the naval organization, the House will see on reflection, that it is not the introduction of a new principle; it is simply an extension of an old principle, an extension which we ought to make by reason of the fact that Canada is growing more rapidly in wealth, in population and in all her resources. Whatever differences there may be amongst us on matters of detail, we all recognize the fact that we belong to a world-wide empire, and that the maintenance of that empire requires a great naval force; and when the time has come that the naval organizations of other countries seem to be coming nearer to those of Great Britain, that the supremacy of Great Britain on the sea may seem to be challenged, or, if it is not challenged, the moment may not be distant when it w ill be challenged, the overseas dominions will be wise to take upon themselves some share of responsibility in naval affairs, and the only question is one of detail as to what is the best form in which that assistance can be rendered. It is too much to expect that the British islands, with their comparatively small population, shall forever bear the burdens of this great naval organization.
I accept in the fullest degree, that if we are to be citizens of this-great empire, and share in all its glory, and in all its prestige and all its power, we must be prepared to share in its responsibilities. It is a burden and we must not be too niggardly as to the amount we may be called upon to spend for such a useful, such a noble and such an imperial purpose. I want to call the attention of the House now to the question of the differences of opinion that exist between us as to the proper methods of dealing with this question. If we are all agreed that Canada must take up her share of responsibility, then we come to the consideration of the best method. Now, it is a pity that there should be differences of opinion amongst us to-day. There were none a few- months ago. I really do not think that there are good reasons for such differences of opinion. However that may be, I think we shall do well to again place on record the resolution of the House ot the 29th of March, 1909:
This House fully recognizes the duty of the people of Canada, as they increase in numbers and wealth, to assume in larger measure the responsibilities of national defence.
The House is of opinion that under the present constitutional relations between the mother country and the self-governing dominions, the payment of regular and periodical contributions to the imperial treasury for
naval and military purposes would not, eo far as Canada is concerned, be the most satisfactory solution of the question of defence.
The House will cordially approve of any necessary expenditure designed to promote the speedy organization of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with and in close relation to the imperial navy, along the lines suggested by the admiralty at the iast imperial conference, and in full sympathy with the view that the naval supremacy of Britain is essential to tile security of commerce, the safety of the empire and the peace of the world.
The House expresses its firm conviction that whenever the need arises the Canadian people will be foimd ready and willing to make any sacrifice that is required to give to the imperial authorities the most loyal and hearty co-operation in every movement for the maintenance of the integrity and honour of the empire.
I think that resolution should be quoted again and again, because I believe that on the 29th March, 1909, it correctly expressed the sentiments of the Canadian people; and now at the close or near the close of this long debate on this important measure, I . venture to read it once more and to say that the words of that resolution to-day express the deliberate judgment of the people of the Dominion of Canada. The House, in this resolution, recognized the necessity of participating in the naval movement. The House distinctly declared its conviction that the payment of a money contribution was not the most satisfactory way.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: The House declared in favour of a Canadian naval service in co-operation with the imperial navy, the service which this Bill proposes to give to the empire. The House declared the readiness of the Canadian people whenever the need arises to make any sacrifice that may be necessary for the maintenance of the empire. It was the unanimous declaration of the Canadian parliament, a notice to the world of the determination of Canada to stand by the empire when a case of need should arise. We would plead to-day, if it were possible, for the same unanimity which characterized the parliament of Canada at that moment. The need of co-operation with the imperial navy is frankly recognized. We are without experience in such matters, but it is both sensible and patriotic that we should communicate with the admiralty and profit by their larger knowledge and by their greater experience, and that is exactly what we have done. The fact that we do not do all that the British government may have desired us to do, is by no means a proof that the policy we are pursuing is not entirely consistent with their views. On the contrary, so far as we are able to know, we are entirely in

harmony with the wishes of the British admiralty. We are proposing a scheme which the imperial authorities themselves laid down for our advice and our guidance.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: By no means.


William Stevens Fielding: Let us see what the British government asked us to do. Their first proposal was for a monetary contribution. That was the first suggested. No one doubts that that would be the most convenient form of assistance from the home point of view of the British admiralty, and it is now claimed that our government should respond to this demand. It was not so claimed in the resolution of a year ago. But, Mr. Speaker, Canada has been on record for years against monetarv contributions for naval purposes in that form. At the conference of 1902, Lord Selbome, who was then first Lord of the Admiralty, made a similar suggestion. The proposal tor a monetary contribution was emphatically rejected by the Canadian ministers attending that conference. Lord Selborne's memorandum submitted to the conference has references to contributions from the colonies, and then it says:
Sir Wilfrid Laurier informs me that His Majesty's government of the Dominion of Canada are contemplating the establishment of a local naval force in the waters of Canada, but that they were not able to make any offer of assistance analogous to those enumerated above.
. That was the declaration the Prime Minister of Canada made on behalf of the government and parliament and people of this Dominion. At a later stage, the Canadian ministers submitted a memorandum which has been read in this House before, and only a part of which I will read now:
have had discussions in parliament, from time to time on various matters of a more or less imperial character, but down to the time of the present session, down to the opening of the discussion when hon. gentlemen opposite took such a strange course at variance with their action of a year ago, the wisdom of that declaration by the Prime Minister of Canada was never called in question. We have had two general ejections since that declaration was made.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Never was heard of.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is right. They never heard of it. We have two general elections in which hon. gentlemen opposite had an opportunity to arraign this government-two appeals to the grand jury of the country. They have had these opportunities to appeal to the people and challenge the wisdom of this declaration. Now, my hon. friend from Manitoba (Mr. Schaffner) comes here to-day and confesses that in these two general elections he never heard of it.


Mr. BURRELL.: Will the hon. Minister of Finance inform the House whether he or any of his friends or any of the government supporters ever heard it brought up?
i Mr. FIELDING. Never brought up? There never was a reason for bringing it up. It was simply consistent with the whole policy of Canada whereby we are prepared to do whatever is best to the utmost limit of our power to help the empire. But we propose to do it in our own way, consistent with the position of Canada as a daughter nation of the empire.


Martin Burrell: 
William Stevens Fielding: It is all right.
^ the hon. minister (Mr. Fielding) would not mind answering another question that I think is quite relevant, I would like to ask what did the government do to inform the country as to their attitude at the conference of 1907?


William Stevens Fielding: When I say it was never brought up, I mean that it was never brought up at a general election. It was brought up in the reports of the conference laid before this parliament and- s-mt to every member. It was brought up "in the 3ense that we bring up any matter bv giving the records to parliament, and inviting public discussion and critcism. The declaration of the Prime Minister of Canada was the expression of the will of the Canadian people-just as the resoultion of March 29 of last year was an expression of the will of the Canadian people; the only difference between us and hon. gentlemen opposite on

that point being that we have stood to our guns while these hon. members have not stood to their guns. I say, Sir, that, with that record of the conference before the country for all these years, with hon. members opposite looking for every possible ground of attack upon this government in view of the general election, with these hon. members running from one end of the country to the other-as was their right and duty-to arraign this government for its faults, when we find that, during all these years, no man ever raised the question, we have the most complete evidence that the action of the government of Canada was the action of the Canadian people as a whole.
The British government's next suggestion was for a fleet unit on the Pacific. Now it is important to emphasize the words ' on the Pacific '. In many cases-in most cases-when reference is made to. a_ fleet unit, these words ' on the Pacific ' are omitted. The suggestion was that a fleet unit should be established on the Pacific. Now, we are all proud of the great importance of our Pacific coast, yet it is the simple truth to say that the greater body of the Canadian people are tc be found nearer the Atlantic than to the Pacific. A naval policy which simply provided a fleet unit on the Pacific and ignored the Atlantic coast might be a policy to be talked of by the advocates in Downing street of a particular theory, but it is not a policy that could be presented in a manner acceptable to the Canadian people. If we were to 'sstablish a fleet unit on the Pacific, that would be followed, inevitably followed, by a fleet unit on the Atlantic, and the cost of these two fleet units would be enormous. I have not made up the figures, but I think it will be admitted that if we had undertaken to establish two fleet units, one on the Pacific, and one on the Atlantic, the cost would have been a great deal more than hon. gentlemen opposite would be disposed to approve. So, the idea of a fleet unit on the Pacific was not a practical one, it was not one that hon. members on the other side, I believe, would be prepared to adopt.
Thus, these two suggestions were, offered -first, a cash contribution, and second, a fleet unit on the Pacific. I have given the reasons which led our government to think that neither of these proposals could be accepted. The admiralty' had anticipated the possibility that we would not be able to agree with their views. They felt bound to present these views, but they had an intimation-not from us, but in the light of their own knowledge and experience-that these proposals might not be found satisfactory. A memorandum was prepared by the admiralty before the conference of 1909. It is well to observe that, though this appears in the records pf 1909,
it was prepared by the admiralty, in advance of the occasion.
It has, however, long been recognized that in defining the conditions under which the naval forces of the empire should be developed, other considerations than those of strategy alone must be taken into account. The various circumstances of the oversea dominions have to be borne in mind. Though all have in them the seeds of great advance m population, wealth and power, they have at the present time attained to different stages m their growth. Their geographical position lias subjected them to internal and external strains varying in kind and intensity. Iheir history and physical environment have given rise to individual national sentiment, for the expression of which room must be found. A simple contribution of money or material may be to one Dominion the most acceptable form in which to assist in imperial defence. Another, while ready to provide local naval forces, and to place them at the disposal of the Crown in the event of war, may wish to lay the foundations upon which a future navy of its own could be raised.
One might think that this was a memorandum prepared by the Canadian Minister of Militia, it reads so like an expression of Canadian opinion. I think it worth while, therefore, to call attention to the fact that this is the British admiralty memorandum:
A third may think that the best manner in which it can assist in promoting the interests of the empire is in undertaking certain local services not directly of a naval character, but which may relieve the imperial government from expenses which would otherwise fall on the British exchequer.
Canada did that. Canada undertook certain expenditures at Halifax and Esquimau, which largely relieved the British taxpayer from expenses which would otherwise have fallen upon them. '


Robert Laird Borden: If I may be permitted, I asked about that yesterday, but I have not received any satisfaction yet. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) would allow me to ask now: What were those expenses?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot give the figures at this moment, but, whatever the amount, they were expenses entailed upon the British treasury through the army and navy by their garrisoning of Halifax and Esqui-malt. These being assumed by the Canadian government, to that extent, Canada took upon herself burdens which up to then had been, and otherwise would have continued to be, burdens of the British taxpayer.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not wish to interrupt, but perhaps I may be allowed at this stage to say that, I would like to have an understanding before the session closes, as to the position at Esquimalt, both as to the amount and as to control. I say thi3 because the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) on the 17th of

January, I think it was, stated, in answer to a question of my own, that Esquimalt was still under the control of the imperial authorities.


Frederick William Borden: Not the garrison.
Mr- FIELDING. My recollection is that while it had been agreed that the stations should be taken over, some time elapsed before the documents passed which would give the technical control to Canada. But that it not involved in my present statement, and I do not pretend to give this as information, because it may not be exact. I continue to read from the admiralty memorandum:
The main duty of the forthcoming conference as regards naval defence will be, therefore, to determine the form in which the various Dominion governments can best participate in the burden of imperial defence, with due regard to varying political and geographical conditions. Looking to the difficulties involved, it is not to be expected that the discussions with the several defence ministers will result in a complete and final scheme of naval defence, but it is hoped that it will be found possible to formulate the broad principles upon which the growth of colonial naval forces should be fostered.
While laying the foundations of the new Dominion navies to be maintained in different parts of the empire, these forces would contribute immediately and materially to the requirements of imperial defence.
That is the memorandum of the admiralty as to the various methods in which the over-seas dominions might contribute to imperial defence, and the closing words that I have quoted are worth repeating:
While laying the foundations of the new Dominion navies to be maintained in different parts of the empire, these forces would contribute immediately and materially to the requirements of imperial defence.
That is what the government of Canada are doing.


Mr. COWAN.: Will the minister read the next section of that report?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not the report,
I have an extract from it which I made, because the extract bears upon the subject I am considering. The admiralty quite understood and appreciated that the different sections of the empire might not be able to act upon a uniform plan, but that each might wish to adopt its own methods, and that one of the methods whereby they could assist in imperial defence was by the creation of local naval forces, and that is what we are .doing.


Mr. LANCASTER.: To be under the immediate control of the imperial government.


George Henry Cowan: I have the report here, I will send it over.


Robert Laird Borden: 


William Stevens Fielding: I am sure my hon. friend has not any section which is at variance with what I am reading, because it is not the habit of the British admiralty to write one paragraph and then write another one to contradict it.


George Henry Cowan: I understood the minister to say that the reason why he did not read it was because he did not have it before him.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I said it did not bear upon the question I was discussing. What is the section my hon. friend wishes me to read?	'


George Henry Cowan: Section 5.


William Stevens Fielding: In the opinion of the admiralty, a Dominion government desirous of creating a navy should aim at forming a distinct fleet unit; and the smallest unit is one wrhich, while manageable in tune of peace, is capable of being used in its component parts in time of war.
In the carrying out of that suggestion it was proposed that a fleet unit be placed on the Pacific, and this government took the responsibility of saying that a fleet unit on the Pacific was not a system of a local naval force which would be satisfactory to the people of the Dominion of Canada, and that position we take to-day.


Mr. BRISTOL.: I would ask the minister to read just three lines more in paragraph 11 of the same memorandum beginning at the first line.


William Stevens Fielding: As the armoured cruiser is the essential part of the fleet unit, it is important that an Indomitable of the ' DreadnoughtJ tvpe should be the first vessel to be built in commencing the formation of a fleet unit.


Edmund James Bristol: I thought that, taken in connection with section 5, this might give the minister some light.


William Stevens Fielding: The information it gives is that which I gave the House some time ago, that the admiralty would have preferred a fleet unit on the'Pacific; that was ' their proposal, let us not get awav from that.


Edmund James Bristol: If the minister will pardon me-if I understand the memorandum, what the admiralty is recommending is that if possible fleet units should be placed on the Atlantic and the Pacific, but failing that, if a single fleet unit is to be commenced, they recommend the building of a Dreadnought first.


William Stevens Fielding: My recollection is that the admiralty did not propose a fleet unit on the Pacific and one on the Atlantic. They knew that the cost of the=e two fleet units would be enormous, and they did not make the proposal that Canada should assume that burden. They did .

propose a fleet unit on the Pacific, and the view of the government was that a fleet unit on the Pacific would require another fleet unit on the Atlantic, that the people of Canada would not be satisfied with less. My hon. friend beside me has handed me a memorandum containing Mr. Asquith's statement in parliament:
As regards Canada, it was considered that her double seaboard rendered. the provision of a fleet unit of the same kind unsuitable for the present. It was proposed accordingly.


George Henry Cowan: Considered by whom?


William Stevens Fielding: It was considered by the conference, I would take it. Mr. Asquith was stating to parliament the results of the imperial conference; and if my hon. friend has any communication from Mr. Asquith which enables him to say that what Mr. Asquith meant is not expressed in this memorandum, I have no such communication.


Edmund James Bristol: I do not want to interrupt the hon. minister, but I want to understand him. I understood the minister was arguing something about a fleet unit on the Pacific, and he said in connection with section 5 that it was certainly the opinion of the admiralty that the Dominion government should provide for a distinct "fleet unit. They did not say on the Atlantic in that memorandum, but on the Pacific, and they said: 'If you start to build a fleet unit, the first thing is to build a Dreadnought'.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend will find in another part of the document that the proposal of the admiralty was a fleet unit on the Pacific. These two fleet units would cost an enormous sum of money, and even the British admiralty did not ask Canada to do it.


Edmund James Bristol: The minister is making his whole speech on the recommendation that the admiralty said there should be a fleet unit on the Pacific. I would like to know where that is.


William Stevens Fielding: It- will be found somewhere in the records.
My hon. friend a moment ago said it was a question of the maximum amount that would be expended, and does my_ hon. friend think that this parliament is not expending enough? That has been the trend of many of their speeches.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I said the minister was leading this House to believe that a fleet unit was not being put upon the Pacific because the admiralty suggested that it should not. I understand the reason a fleet unit is not being put upon the Pacific is because the Canadian representatives at that conference did not want it.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think the reason is because the admiralty did not want it, because I have already stated that the admiralty did suggest a fleet unit on the Pacific; but for the reason which I have stated, the government of_ Canada thought that was not a naval policy which would commend itself to the people of Canada.
At one o'clock House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


William Stevens Fielding: 
William Sora Middlebro: If I understand the result of that conference, it is that the maximum would be given by each dominion for the assistance of the empire, and the maximum of each colony is that that which was suggested by each colony-	,	, . ,


William Stevens Fielding: Then is my hon. friend leading up to the point that we are not giving0 enough in money value?


William Sora Middlebro: That we are not giving what was recommended by the admiralty.


William Stevens Fielding: That does not deal with the question of the maximum amount.
Sir FREDERICK	BORDEN. Hear,
hear.


William Stevens Fielding: To guard against
mistakes, I propose to read from the proceedings as set forth in the Canadian Blue-book at page 26:
The Canadian representatives explained in what respect they desired the advice of the admiralty in regard to the measures of naval defence, which might be considered consistent with the resolution adopted by the Canadian parliament on the 29th March, 1909.
It- is to the next paragraph that I wish to call attention because it is the one which bears on the question:


William Stevens Fielding: 
George Henry Cowan: What about your leader?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend says what about my leader. He had better say, what about the leaders of the lory party.
I sav that the right of any man m this country to declare his opinion in favour of independence is absolutely beyond question, and while I have no sympathy however with it, I would say without the slightest hesitation, that were we not allowed to express our opinions in this matter, we would be unworthy of our position as Canadian citizens. Why, Sir, is it forgotten-that a distinguished Canadian, a predecessor of my own in the office of the Minister of Finance, was so well known as an advocate of independence, that when, some years ago, the imperial authorities offered him imperial honours, he declined to accept those honours until he could make it clear that, in doing so, he would not cease to exercise his right to advocate, if ho wished, the independence of Canada? l will go further. I say that when a man wants to advocate in a constitutional way, that which I would hate, the annexation of this country to the United States, he has a perfect right to do it. And, in doing it he would not cease to exercise his freedom as a British subject.


Mr. HUGHES.: Might I suggest that the difference is in legislating for independence rather than speaking for it.


William Stevens Fielding: There has been no proposal anywhere to legislate for independence nor do I expect that my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) will ever see such legislation proposed in the parliament of Canada. But I -was speaking of an extreme case, the extreme case of the advocate of annexation.
A great Englishman came over to Canada some years ago and settled in the city of Toronto. He is the one man whom I know in the Dominion of Canada who thinks that the manifest destiny of this Dominion is to become a portion of the American republic. I do not think I do him injustice when I state that he has long entertained that opinion. And those who know Goldwin Smith know that the thing he
thinks is the thing he will speak. But. though he entertains this opinion, he is recognized as one of the noblest citizens of Canada, and when, a few days ago, he was stricken with illness, a telegram came from King Edward to inquire about the health of his old friend, Goldwin Smith. This is the freest country in the world: let us see to it that we make no attempt to muzzle any one, who, in a constitutional way desires to speak the thought that is in him.
Though I mention these things, I have no sympathy with independence, and I would not think of sympathizing with a man who.advocates annexation. The point I want to make is that nothing is to be gained by attempting to muzzle the people of Canada and prevent them from advocating anything that, in their judgment, will make for the good of Canada.
We occasionally hear reference to South Africa and the dreadful things that happened in connection with the sending of the troops to that country. One would think that the South African war was the first one that had occurred to which the attention of the Canadian people had been drawn. It is not so. There was another war of considerable importance not many years ago. There came a moment when the heroic Gordon laid down his life and Khartoum fell. The heart of the empire was stirred; the heart of the whole British world was stirred. Australia felt the inspiration and thought that something might be done. And what of Canada? Did Canada move? It wTas not a Liberal government that was in power at that time, it was the Conservative government of Sir John Macdonald. And yet not a hand was lifted for the benefit of the empire, not a move was made. But individuals took action. General Laurie, a gallant Canadian, who represented my own constituency, and though one who differed from me in politics, always a good Canadian and a w'arm personal friend, went to Sir John Macdonald and said he would like to be instrumental in raising a force to go to the Sudan. Colonel Williams, a gallant Canadian who afterwards lost his life, tendered his services. What did the government do? Let them answer in their own words. On March 16, 1885, Mr. Blake asked the fol-< lowing question in this House
Whether any offer has been made by the government of Canada, or whether any offer has been made by any individual through the government of Canada, to equip and send a military contingent to the Soudan at the cost of Canada or of individual Canadians? Whether any offer of military assistance at the oost of the British government has been made by the government, or by individuals? Whether any reply has been received to any such offers? and wThether the correspondence will be laid on the table?
To these questions, Sir John Macdonald replied:



WILLIAM B. D. DALLEY,

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
On February 13 following, Sir Saul Samuel, agent of New South Wales in London, wrote to the Secretary of State at the Colonial Office:
I have the honour to transmit for Lord Derby s information a further message in relation to the proposal of my government, in which it is stated that they will defray all expenses in connection with their offer.
Observe the difference. The New South Wales government tendered a force, and then, for fear there was any misunderstanding, they sent a message in which they said they would defray all expenses in connection with their offer. But when a telegram w'ent from the Canadian government, they took good care to make the matter so clear that there would be no mistake: Laurie, Williams and Melgund can all have a shy at it, bu't- not a penny out of the Canadian treasury. Let us see'how this occasion was treated in Australia. A despatch from Sydney, New South Wales, on the 3rd of March, 1885, had the following:
To-day was observed as a public holiday in celebration of the departure of the New South Wales contingent for the Soudan. The event is regarded as not only one of the greatest in the annals of the colonv, but as possessing a deep historic interest as the first occasion in which Australian troops have shared in the defence of the empire. From the date on which the colony's offer was accepted to the hour of the departure of the contingent public enthusiasm has been maintained at its utmost tension. The number of volunteers has reached six times the required strength of the force; and there lias been a continuous flow of contributions, in money mid in kind, from all quarters, and the latriotic fund now amounts to £45 000 The troops were reviewed on Saturdav by Lord

Augustus Loftus, Governor of New South Wales, in the presence of 50,000 spectators. On Sunday special services were held for the volunteers in the Anglican and Roman Catholic cathedrals, sermons being preached by the Primate and the Roman Catholic Archbishop.
To-day the streets forming the line of route from the barracks to the Circular quay, a distance of two miles, were lined by immense numbers of spectators, assembled from all parts, and forming a dense mass. The troops were escorted by 600 sailors and marines from the men-of-war stationed here, and by all the available local forces, and were accompanied by the Governor, the ministers, and the principal officials of the colony. The procession formed an imposing spectacle, and the popular enthusiasm was unbounded, the progress of the contingent being greeted with loud cheers and the frequent expression of good wishes from the assembled multitude.
That is what Australia did. Canada sent a message: 'Not a man, not a penny.' But there are other ways besides naval and military in which help may be given to the empire. Great Britain is in a much larger degree a nation of peace than she is a nation of war. She is a trading nation, and he who helps the trade of Great Britain is doing much to help the empire; that is what the Britisher thinks of it. Well, some years ago a good Conservative introduced a high tariff policy into this parliament, and among the criticisms of that measure in some quarters appeared the statement that a policy of that character designed to shut out British goods might tend to weaken British connection. Then the recognized organ of the Conservative party in the city of Toronto published in article in which it said that ' if this policy tended to weaken British connection, so much the worse for British connection.' That was the utterance of the recognized organ of the Conservative party at that time. Now, let us compare that with the Liberal record. This government had not been very long in office before it set itself to improve our commercial relations with Great Britain, and it brought down before this parliament what is known as the British pTeference. The Conservative government had put up the tariff in order to shut out British goods; this government endeavoured, so far as they could without damage to home industries, to give the British merchants a chance in Canada. And what then? Hon. gentlemen opposed the British preference from the beginning down to this moment.
An hon. MEMBER.: No.


William Stevens Fielding: Who says: 'No'?


Mr. HENDERSON.: I did not say: ' No,' I said: ' Oh.'


William Stevens Fielding: I am glad my hon. friend has explained, because when he says ' Oh,' I think that would be a confir-240
mation of my statement; whereas if he had said * No,' that would have been a denial of my statement. Yet, I repeat that^ the Conservative party has opposed the British preference from the year 1897 down to the present time.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Stevens Fielding: Are these ' Ohs,' or are they ' No's.'?	1 am afraid now some of
these ' Oh's ' may find their way into the 'Hansard' as 'No's.' Well, the hon. gentleman did not always oppose it in an open way, they kept up a sort of guerrilla warfare against the British preference. If they had a policy on the matter at all, it was that of demanding what they called a mutual preference. They were going to bargain, and huckster, and haggle with John Bull. They wanted to say to John Bull: 'You cannot get a preference in this country unless you first give us one.' Where was their loyalty? The hon. gentleman knows that if that policy had prevailed, there would have been no British preference in Canada to-day; and he knows also that the British preference granted by this Liberal government was regarded as an epoch-making event in the history of the British empire. He knows that in taking that step Canada led the way in which she has since been followed by New Zealand, in which she has been followed to a limited extent, and will be to a larger extent, by South Africa; he knows that_ the British preference brought down in this legislature many years ago has been regarded by every imperial statesman as a big contribution to imperial unity.


Samuel Hughes: Would the Finance Minister be good enough to tell us why the preference was granted to Britain?


William Stevens Fielding: It was granted to Great Britain because it suited us and suited Great Britain as well. It was a relief to the Canadian taxpayer, whose taxes were reduced; it was an advantage to the British producer, because it gave him a better chance to send his goods into the Canadian market.


Samuel Hughes: When this government sent an expedition to Washington, after preaching annexation to the United States for a great many years, and when their delegates were kicked out of the city, had their reception in Washington anything to do with the British preference?


William Stevens Fielding: When my hon. friend brings in the foolish story about preaching annexation, he shows what a weak position they occupy on that question.


Samuel Hughes: Does the Finance Minister deny that the fact that the delegation to Washington was turned out of the city



empty-handed, had anything to do with the British preference?


William Stevens Fielding: 
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I wish to know whether the Finance Minister is to be permitted to deliver a budget speech on the motion for the third reading of the Naval Bill?


Mr. TURRIFF.: It hurts, eh?


William Stevens Fielding: If I may be permitted to answer, I would say no.


James Davis Taylor: Unless the Finance Minister is speaking to the point of order,
I ask your ruling.


William Stevens Fielding: I wish to debate the point of order. I state that the hon. gentleman has put an improper proposition. He has asked if on the Naval Bill the Finance Minister is to be permitted to deliver a budget speech. I submit that there is no such question before the House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Of course the question of relevancy always applies, but this is a Bill concerning the relations of Canada to the empire, and in the eighty-four speeches to which I have had the honour of listening the range has been so wide that I would not like to interrupt the minister. I Mr. HUGHES.
Of course the rule of relevancy always applies.


James Davis Taylor: I submit that when a members raises a point of order his individual rights are not interfered with by the fact that other members have broken the rule. I think we are entitled to have a decision as to whether or not this is relevant, because some of us are becoming very impatient at the length of time we are being kept here this session.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The rule of relevancy would of course apply, but I find in Bouri-not that an illustration is always permitted. How far that illustration may go is for judgment at the time. I suppose the hon. minister will confine himself to the question before the House.


William Stevens Fielding: The quotation from the speech of the Prime Minister many years dgo in regard to independence has no particular bearing on this question, but it has been repeated again and again, and we took no exception to it. It was legitimate. The sending of troops to South Africa has no particular bearing, but it was repeated fifty times, and we took no exception to it. It is perfectly legitimate We did not find fault and my hon. friends should not find fault now when a little wholesome history is being presented to them. We find that the other day


George Henry Cowan: If history is the theme, might I ask the minister to deal with the subject of the repeal of the union which he advocated in 1886?


William Stevens Fielding: I think it would be perfectly in order, but if a man should talk of it as my hon. friend would like to he would do a very silly and foolish thing, and he would have his own answer. We settled that question ir. Nova Scotia where the people know a great deal more about it than my hon. friend. It is no disparagement to my hon. friend to say that I have fought that question out, I won't say with better men, but with stronger men than he is.
I have said, Sir, that Great Britain, as a trading nation, is more interested in the arts of peace than in the arts of war, and that the party or the government or the people who help to strengthen the trade relations with Great Britain are doing more for the empire than some others who are constantly shouting about loyalty. I noticed the other day in a Conservative paper a telegram from Montreal which mentions the name of an hon. gentleman who is not in the House at the present moment. The despatch reads:	-
Montreal. March 8, (Special).-Do away with the British preference and contribute $3,000,000 to the imperial navy is the policy advocated by Rudolphe Forget, M.P. for Char-

levoix, who left town this evening to give his vote on the navy Bill.
My hon. friend was rather more consistent on the question than some others have been. He certainly has not done much shouting about the British preference, and he would be in a better position to do away with it than some other gentlemen would be.
I noticed in connection with our German relations-and this is only an illustration for a minute-that a very estimable citizen of Toronto, whom we once had the honour of claiming as a fellow member of this House, my good friend, Mr. W. R. Brock, on the day it was announced that we had come to better trade relations with Germany, good strong Conservative that he was, announced that that arrangement was better than sending ten Dreadnoughts to Great Britain. If the re-establishing of friendly relations with Germany was better than sending ten Dreadnoughts to Britain, how many Dreadnoughts would measure the value that has been granted the empire by the British preference?
It was not a Liberal government which lagged behind in 1885; it was a Liberal government which did not lag behind, but which sent the troops to South Africa a few years ago, and we who know the whole history of that better than hon. gentlemen opposite, know how much the empire owes Sir Wilfrid Laurier in connection with that. It was a Liberal government that established the military college at Kingston; it is a Liberal government that will establish a naval college in Canada under this Bill. I have said, and I repeat that if you want to find the record of what has been done for the empire in Canada vou have to find it in the records of the Liberal party.
We are submitting this naval scheme to parliament with the firm conviction that it is a scheme which will deserve and receive the support of the Canadian people. It maintains the right of the Canadian government to control Canadian affairs in naval and military matters in time of peace. It provides the machinery whereby we may, in the event of war, instantly turn over that navy to more active service as a part of the imperial navy. We say we retain the right to deal with our own ships, and who else should have that Tight? We say that the scheme is in harmony with the wishes of the imperial authorities, although it does not go as far as they would desire, because the cost of what they would desire is beyond what we think is within the reasonable means of the Canadian people. It is in harmony with the best judgment of the House of Commons as expressed at a moment when it had withdrawn itself from partisanship, and was prepared to recognize its great responsibilities to the nation. Not only is it in harmony with the view of the Liberal party 2404
-I have no right, perhaps, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition may say it i3 presumption on my part to say what the Conservative party thought of it, but I will read from a Conservative authority, a high authority, a man who says that this policy is in harmony with all that is good for the Canadian people. and all that is desired by the British people. The quotation is not new, but there are some things that are good enough to bear repetition. I shall read from the remarks of Mr. A. W. Atwater, K.C., of Montreal, an ex-Conservative minister of the province of Quebec, who has recently returned from England. I am quoting from that good Conservative newspaper, the Montreal * Gazette ' and so there is no danger that the thing was turned the wrong way:
What the Englishman admires is a fellow who can stand up for himself, and what I found they admire in Canada is the effort she' is making to build up a fleet of her own. They admire and respect the capacity of Canada and any nation or dependency to look after itself. Hitherto there has been a patronizing air about the English with regard to Canada, because they knew that if we got into trouble they would have to look after us, but if Canada gets her own navy and can look after herself that will all change. The sooner we get our own navy the better-it is a necessity that must come, and there is no use delaying it. We must look after ourselves in a naval way just as we do in military matters. There is no doubt that is the feeling amongst the English people, and they regard it is a matter quite outside the domain of party politics, as it should be/
So, said Mr. A. W. Atwater, K.C., ex-provincial treasurer, who returned on Monday evening from a two months' stay in England, during which he witnessed the general elections, and had ample opportunity to gauge public feeling on this and other important matters.
The general opinion I got during my stay in England,' said Mr. Atwater, ' was that we should earn the respect of the people of the mother country more by showing our ability to defend ourselves than we could by any mere money contribution, unless it was to a very large amount and a permanent contribution. And that would not commend itself to many Canadians, nor could it be advocated by any party here. The opinion of all observers of imperial affairs was that they would have more respect for any portion of the empire which prepared to defend itself than for one which proposed to give a more or less-probably less-adequate sum toward the upkeep of the imperial navy.
' And with this I quite agree,' said Mr. Atwater. ' As a matter of keeping our own sqlf-respect, as well as the respect of the mother country, we should secure our own navy, and the sooner we get it in good working order the better. It will take a long time to do this, even with the assistance of England's enormous experience in naval affairs. And it seems to me that Canadians should join in this work irrespective of all party affiliations.

This naval project, said Mr. Atwater, was attracting much attention in England, and the people there were struck with the idea of the overseas dominions building ships and manning them with their own crews for imperial defence. In just the same way the mother country was deeply impressed with the manner in which Canada and the other Dominions sent their soldiers to fight in South Africa, where a mere money contribution would either have gone unnoticed, or been regarded as a pusillanimous manner of accepting the duty of defending the empire. Great Britain was very wealthy, and a contribution of even ten million pounds would be a mere matter of empire bookkeeping, and would not tend to reduce their taxation. But actual physical participation in the empire burden fired the British imagination, and excited their admiration.
Mr. Atwater properly called attention to the manner in which Canada responded to the need of the empire in South Africa. Then, as now, no doubt, there could have been found men, who would have said: ' Send over a few million dollars and put it in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.' Speaking from memory, we spent some two or three millions on that occasion. Now, suppose we had sent these two or three million dollars over, as the leader of the opposition proposes in the case of the navy, and dumped it into the imperial treasury, we might have got a vote of thanks for it in some way, but would it have made any lasting impression? It might have compromised with the British government for the moment, it might have satisfied these people who think that everything can be done by the payment of money, but the glorious story of Paarde-burg would never have 'been written.
For generations we have had the practical control of our military affairs, and who shall say that it has weakened our ties with the empire? On the contrary, it is an instrument drawing us closer to the' empire. Every step we take in military affairs is taken in co-operation with and under the advice of the highest imperial officers. As it has been with the army, so it will be with the navy. This Canadian navy, beginning in its modest way, will be established in harmony with all the traditions of the Canadian people; it will pTove to be an instrument binding us more closely to the empire, and assisting us to do that duty which every loyal Canadian should desire to see performed.


Edmund James Bristol: Mr. Speaker, I would hardly have thought that at this late period of the session, and at this particular stage of the Naval Bill, the Minister of Finance would have felt it his duty to deliver to the House that bottled-up campaign speech which he so enthusiastically declaimed. And, I am more than surprised that an hon. gentleman of his learning and his position in


William Stevens Fielding: 
Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry to say, so far as Canada is concerned, we cannot agree to the resolution, We took the ground many years ago that we had enough to do in our respect in that country before committing ourselves to a general claim. The government of Canada has done a great deal in that respect. Our action was not understood, but I was glad to see that the First Lord of the admiralty admitted we had done much more than he was aware of. It is impossible, in my humble opinion, to have a uniform policy on this matter; the disproportion is too great between the mother country and the colonies. We have too much to do otherwise; in the mother country, you must remember, they have no expenses to incur with regard to public works; whereas, in most of the colonies, certainly in Canada, we have to tax ourselves to the utmost of our resources in the development of our country, and we could not contribute, or undertake to do more than we are doing in that way. For my part, if the motion were pressed to a conclusion, I should have to vote against it.
Further down he said:
It can be passed if there is a majority. For my part, I must vote against it.
So we find the right hon. the First Minister expressing himself as absolutely opposed to the establishment of a local naval defence, or anything else that might help the British empire as such. And in the face of this documentary evidence we have the Finance Minister making a campaign speech intended for distribution among the English-speaking .Liberals of this country, and stating that for the last 8_ years the Liberal party have had one policy on naval matters. Of course, we have already had in the speech of the First Minister the necessary material for the province of Quebec. The points that are essential to secure the good-will of the people of Quebec have been particularly emphasized in two regards. In the French press it has been pointed out that this naval force is a maritime police; one of the hon, members of this House has declared himself in


Mr. BEATTIE.: Whose is- that?


Edmund James Bristol: made that argument he was not a young man in the exuberance of his youth, expressing half-baked opinions; he was 48 or 50 years of age, an age when a man should have settled opinions if he is ever going to have any.	I want to say
tnat if the right hon. the First Minister does not now feel and does not now believe as he did in 1891 he could well have said so; in justice to himself, in justice to the great people whom he represents, and whom he adorns, he could at least have said to the people of Canada that he had changed his views. But so long as that statement stands on the public records of this country, on the pages of 'Hansard,' and so long as it has never been disclaimed, so long is it open to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to express their well grounded fear that the policy of the Prime Minister is one which will tend and ultimately lead to the separation of Canada from the British empire and to the independence of this country which the right hon. gentleman has stated to be the goal of his ambition. It is their duty to call the attention of their fellow subjects to the views the First Minister entertained at the time he was about 50 years of age, and which he has not so far denied, and which, if they were carried out, would lead to the dismemberment of the British empire.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there was another matter on which the Finance Minister waxed eloquent, and on which my good friend the Minister of Militia and Defence, when he was making his speech-why, I almost thought something was going to happen to him because he emphasized it with a vigour to which he is altogether unaccustomed; he stretched out his hands and he asked in a tone of consternation: Are you going to send $25,000,000 of Canadian money over to England? Why you would have thought he was going to drop dead at the very idea. Since when has it become a crime for Canada to buy in England what she at present cannot build for herself. England is our best customer. England, a country against which we had a balance of trade last year of $61,000,000, a country , which buys more goods from us than . any other country in the world; England, which for over a century and a half , has been helping us to build up this , nation; England, that has spent so many ] millions of pounds in fortifications for the -protection of this country; England, that ] allows us to make our commercial treaties; ( England, who has afforded us military and | naval protection for so many years, re- < lieving us of an immense cost on that ac- { count, when even the peace loving people f of the Enited States are spending on an ] average for pensions and a navy, $30,000,000 t a year for every eight millions of people c or $300,000,000 for their whole population t


Edmund James Bristol: g And here is Canada in the opinion of the i- Finance Minister and Minister of Militia
0	groaning over the prospect of spending
1	$3,000,000 a year for national defence; and r hon. gentlemen opposite nearly die of f apoplexy when it is suggested that, in a
-	case of emergency, when there is a war of t naval construction going on upon which I the unassailable supremacy of the British , navy and the life of the empire depends. 3 Canada should stand with New Zealand I and Australia in contributing Dreadnoughts i and show to Germany that we are one with ) the rest of the empire, that we believe in
-	one fleet, and that we will fight under one t flag and for one union. Now, Mr. Speaker,
that is not all, that is not even the amus-* ing part of it to my mind. Supposing you ' wanted a gun to shoot a man with, would 1 you go and buy a row boat? Now, what is needed to-day and now is Dreadnoughts,
[DOT] and how are we going to get them? We cannot at this moment build them in Canada. But we won't spend the money of Canada for a Dreadnought, which is needed, but we are going to buy some other kind of a boat which is not needed. Here are British statesmen on both sides of politics saying that Dreadnoughts alone will count; here is the First Lord of the Admiralty saying that it is vitally essential that we should aim at a fleet unit and that a .Dreadnought is the first thing to build-and that the colonial fleets should be under one general command in time of war, and here are the people of Canada still discussing this matter at the very moment that a crisis is existing as to the naval supremacy of the world, and we will not buy in England a weapon, viz.: a Dreadnought which is needed, but we _ are going to buy something different which is not needed. Did any one ever hear anything more absolutely illogical and absurd? Of course, if hon. gentlemen opposite have any guarantee that Germany is going to sit down peaceably and wait for thirty years until our navy matures, why then we need not be in such haste. But if we are to believe the statements of English statesmen, and the incontrovertible facts I have just indicated, of what earthly use will be our little fleet of wasps and hornets? Now, let us see for a moment what Canada has a't stake? Let us see what the unassailable supremacy of the British fleet means to us. We have got
15,000	miles of coast line to defend; we have got an export trade of about $260,000,000 and an import trade of $300,000,000 to defend; we have got-, according to our shipping returns, 93,372 tons of shipping to defend: we have our constitutional rights and liberties as granted under the British North America Act to defend; we have a trade with the mother country now which shows a balance in our favour of $61,000,000 to defend; we have to defend our commer-

cial and transportation interests, for the development of which we have borrowed a billion dollars from England, and for which we are borrowing $200,000,000 annually; we have the financial credit of Canada to defend; we have the prestige of British connection to defend; we have to maintain uninterrupted the peace of this country in order to enable us to carry out our national development without war and bloodshed; we have our national honour and self respect to defend; we have our national existence as a free British people to defend; and we have our homes, our people and our country to defend.
Will any gentleman in this House tell me that this so-called fleet of wasps and hornets will protect any of these things in the slighest- degree? If you want to get at the meat of this matter you must keep before you, and the people of Canada must keep before them, what fate confronts Canada if the British navy fails? That is the point. What have we got at stake if the British navy loses ? We have everything. I have indicated in outline everything that appeals to the manhood, the self-respect and decency of every man in this country. I charge the Liberal party of this country and its leaders with misleading the people of Canada by brushing to one side all the statements which have been made throughout this debate, quotations from British statesmen and others, on the emergency that exists in the relations between England and Germany.
I charge them with not informing themselves, as statesmen, they could do of the real fadts and of not disclosing the true facts to the people of this country and the facts to-day are even worse than in March, 1909. It is esential for the argument of the other side that they should make light of the real facts and of the real emergency because what they propose is of 'no use for the emergency that confronts the emnire. But the English people are not squealing, they are alive to what their duty is and are going to defend this empire of which they are proud.
But does that make it any less the duty of Canada to do her fair share? And the people of Canada are ready to do their share?
It was amusing to hear the hon. minister speak about their sending men to South Africa. There _ is no man in this country who is informed on public affairs who does not know that the Conservative party, and, thank God. the people of Canada as a whole forced the hands of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and his government. It was a soontaneous outburst on the part of the Canadian peonle which swept the government of the dav off their feet, and I am glad they had the good sense to obey that spontaneous outburst. But, does my hon. friend and
those with him value money more highly than they do life? It would appear so. They were willing to send three regiments to take part in a war in South Africa, but they are not "willing to spend a dollar in England for a Dreadnought, which is the only weapon that will help the British people to-day. When it comes to money they are very canny and very close, but human life-oh, that is an incident. I cannot emphasize, I wish I had the power to put more fully and plainly than I have done what in my humble opinion I believe to be the duty of the Canadian people at this juncture. I am not advocating this as a matter of party politics, I am trying to place the exact record before the people as to what the admiralty, the very best admiralty the world possesses, wanted the people of Canada to do. They wanted a fleet unit, and if they could not get that they wanted a Dreadnought and said it in unmistakeable terms. My hon. friend did not take this point, but the leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1 laboured for hours over the question of Canadian autonomy. You would have thought that the gift of a dollar to buy a Dreadnought, which, when we were able to man it with Canadian sailors would have been given to us to man as surely as will the Australian Dreadnought be given to Australia, would destroy our autonomy. When Australia offered to build a Dreadnought in England, England said:	We will be glad to accept your
offer, but as soon as you are ready to man it we will give it to you. Does any one believe they would treat Canada differently, that we would not man the Dreadnoughts with Canadian admirals and sailors as fast as we were able? Thank heaven we have Canadians in the British navy to-day well capable of handling a Dreadnought and we have many men in Canada who would soon be able to do so. There is no Conservative who does not wish that state of affairs to exist, that there should be Dreadnoughts manned by Canadians and built in Canada. But they wish first, last and all the time to do their share as citizens of the British empire, to protect the great empire to which we are all so proud to belong.
With reference to autonomy, the hirst Minister seemed to forget that we are not a nation, although he delights to say we are, in any other sense than that we are developing a national spirit and as men want to do our share in the world. We have our rights to-day under the British North America Act. Does anybody in this country suggest or believe that if we choose to devote money to the aid of the sufferers in Paris or in the California earthquake, or to build Dreadnoughts in England we are not exercising the power of responsible

and then he need not fear a raid, because Britain would not be at war until the order in council was passed by the British government, and surely Germany never would think of being so rude as to attack a British warship before thev received notice of the order in council. This Canadian government does not know what war is. War is something too serious to wait for an order in council; war does not even wait for parliament to be convened. Do we not know that eminent British statesmen consider that today England is in a state of siege because she does not know what hour Germany may attack her. They may not say it in so many words, but day and night in every shipyard in Great Britain they are building their ships and they are spending every farthing they can spare in that country to build these ships. Look at the attitude of Australia. In December, 1912, Australia will have a whole unit manned by Australians ready to move into the fighting line whenever the empire calls. What a shame it will be to the Canadian people when the day of battle comes, as come it will, and when there will be no Canadian Dreadnoughts in the fighting line when the Nelson of that day hoists the signal: Britain expects every son of the empire to do his duty. For my part, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Canadians are a brave, an unselfish and a virile people; I believe they are British to the core; I believe they understand that the British navy has been the means in the past of permitting Canada's great national development to continue -unimpeded. If we had not the strong arm of Britain behind us, what would prevent this country being overrun with Japanese or Chinese immigration? But, Mr. Speaker, there are some people who think that a Monroe doctrine is going to protect them.
I have pointed out to these oeople that if Canada were a part of the United States to-day, it would cost us $30,000,000 annually -to pay for naval defe.nce and military pensions. Are we a poor country? Are we so poor, in money and in national spirit, that we would draw back from the request of the British empire to contribute two fleet units? Why, it is a mere bagatelle when you consider the natural resources of this country on which the Finance Minister can so eloquently descant. The country is willing to do its fair share. All that Canada wants is a statement from her public men of what its fair share is, and there is not a man in the country, whether he is of French, English, Irish or any other descent, who is not willing to do his fair share for the defence of the British empire.
Now, I have spoken at greater length than I intended, because I feel that this is the Mr. BRISTOL.
most important question which the people of this country have had to consider. I believe it goes to the root of our national existence and national destiny. I believe that no true Canadian wants to see, at some period within the next ten years, Canada out in the cold, while the other colonies are fighting for the empire. We have to do our share just as New Zealand, Australia, and Great Britain herself are doing. There i3 no use in meeting an emergency with a shotgun when it requires a cannon; or to build a torpedo boat when a Dreadnought is needed; let us have the right weapon for the right thing at the right time. That is what the people of Canada want to-day, and that is what the Conservative party are advocating. We have not objected to going before the people with our policy; we are ready to go now, and we challenge the right hon. gentleman, and those who sit behind him to go to the country ana ask the people whether they want a tin pot navy, a wa3p-and-hornet navy, an order in council navy, or to do something that is going to be of real assistance and real benefit to the British empire at this crisis.
I have no doubt what the answer of the people of this country will be.
I believe, whether they are of French, English or Irish extraction, they are Canadians first, and British subjects above all; and they wish to see Canada go on and prosper, not as an independent country, but as a part of the great British empire to which we are proud to bglong.
I believe they are able to look forward a half century; they are able to see that Canada occupies a central position in the British empire, that it will _be a country of from fifty to one hundred million people, that the centre of population of the British empire will eventually be in this country, and that the day will come when Great Britain will be contributing to the Canadian navy and not Canada to the British navy. That is an aspiration which everybody in this country has a right to look forward to. There are some who are willing to risk this destiny, who believe that in case of war Canada can remain neutral on land and sea. Anything more absurd was never heard or suggested in a civilized assembly. When Britain is at war Canada has to be at war. Hundreds of orders in councils could not protect her navy or make it neutral or prevent it being attacked by an enemy of Britain at war with that country so long as our fleet flies the Union Jack. But what is she doing to-day? In advance of war she is not merely building something of no use to the British n&vy, but is 8,ctu3.11y tying her own bands and giving notice to the world: You can come and blow us up if you can do it before there is an order in council passed by the Governor in Council of Canada,

and what power contemplating now with Britain could afford to take the chance of such an order in council being passed or not passed? How much safer to blow up our navy in advance of an order in council?
I want our hon. friends to contemplate what it would mean to us if British supremacy did not exist on the seas.
I have indicated some of the things that Canada has at stake; but I want to say that we have everything to lose. If there is one thing more than another that Germany desires it is colonies; if there is one country more than another that Germany wants it is Canada. I am going to read from ' Blackwood's Magazine ' of January, 1910, the concluding portion of an article partially quoted earlier, one of the most informing articles on the subject under discussion, as it gives a complete statement of German intentions and German resources and needs. With reference to the possibilitiy of war, it says:
There is an irresistible force driving Germany on. It is not merely sentiment, it is not. merely the Emperor's personal ambition and pride. The greatest motive power is the rapid growth of the population, which makes room for expansion an absolute necessity for the nation.
Then it says with regard to Germans going to other countries:
arm alone, and if our navy is not equal to the herculean task tfhat shall be imposed upon it, we shall lose colonies and empire.
This article is in one of the be3t and most conservative British magazines; and in my humble judgment it accurately, and in a' very moderate way sets forth the true facts' as to what is before the people of Canada, and the British empire. It will not do for people in this country to sit comfortably in their chairs and say: Shut their eyes and England can pay the bill, because she has more money than we, and any way she has to. That policy will not do and cannot go on. If this country is ever to become a great nation, it must bear the burden of nationhood its people must look beyond the coast lines of Canada; they must as Canadians and British subjects take a broad view of their mangificent destiny and of their duty to the great empire to which we are all so proud to belong. If we adopt and carry out such an imperial policy, we will be serving the best interests of Canada, we will develop a true national spirit, we will advance the interests of peace and civilization throughout the world, and we will assure for future generations of Canadians and British subjects British liberty and British institutions now and for all time.
YEAS:
They are found in large numbers now in every foreign country and colony. But those Germans who thus emigrate to lands peopled mainly by other nationalities have a great tendency to become absorbed into the population among whom they dwell, to lose their language and characteristics, and to become denationalized. This does not suit the views of German patriots. Societies have been formed for the preservation of Germanism abroad, but anything they can effect will not permanently alter this radical tendency; and the aim of German statesmen is not to Germanize men who have emigrated to countries under rule and belonging to other races, but to obtain countries of her own as a field for the overflow of her teeming and evergrowing population.	_
The Germans looked to South Africa falling into German hands; but that hope has been disappointed. Brazil, with a large German population, was a tempting bait, but the Monroe doctrine has barred that route, and the time for a quarrel with the United States is yet far distant. If Germany is to obtain colonies, there is only one nation from whom they can be taken. Great Britain holds Canada, Australia, South Africa, and the best parts of Africa in the east and west. To paraphrase Mr. Ellis Barker, Great Britain has all the territory she wants, and she strives only to preserve in_ peace what she has won by war. But Englishmen must be simple if they believe that Germany will rest satisfied with the fact that Great Britain has practically all the colonies in the world while Germany has none.
Whenever Germany is ready, the British colonies must and will be her aim. And in that day we must rely upon our own right
Messieurs
Allard,
Allen,
Aylesworth
Beauparlant,
Beland,
Black,
Borden (Sir Frederick),
Brown,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonish). Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Ccngdon,
Ccnmee,
Currie (Prince Edward),
Delisle, lh mers,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
Fcrement,
Kthier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
F<ltier,
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Ceofirion,
German,
Gervais,
Lovell,
Low,
Macdonald,
MacNutt,
McCoig,
Mo,Coll,
McCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McMillan,
M arcile (BagOt), Martin (Ste. Mary's), Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
M'olloy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Paterson,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Rankin ,
Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross (Middlesex), Ross (Rimouski), Rutan,

Girard,
Giaham,
Guthrie,
Harris,
Harty,
Hedging,
Punt,
King,
Knowles,
Ivyte,
La fortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Naprerville), Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Leurier (Sir Wilfrid), Turgeon, Lavergne,	Turriff,
Law,	Verville,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Sperry,
Talbot,
Templeman,
Tobin,
Todd,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turcotte (Quebec County),
LeBlano,	Warburton,
Lemieux,	White (Victoria),
Loggie,	Wilson (Laval).-1
 NAYS Messieurs.
Armstrong,	Macdonell,
Arthurs,	McCall,
Barnard,	McCarthy,
Beattie,	Magrath,
Best,	Meighen,
Blain,	Middlebro,
Blondin,	Nantel,
Borden (Halifax),	Northrup,
Boyce,	Owen,
Bradbury	Paquet,
Bristol,	Perley,
Broder,	Porter,
Burrell,	Reid (Grenville),
Campbell,	Rhodes,
Cowan,	Roche,
Crosby,	Russell,
Crocket	Schafiner,
Crothers,	Sexsmith,
Currie (Simcoe),	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Daniel,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Doherty,	Smyth,
Donnelly,	Sproule,
Edwards,	Stanfield,
Elson,	Staples,
Fraser,	Stewart,
Goodeve,	Taylor (Leeds),
Haggart (Lanark),	Taylor (New
Haggart (Winnipeg), Westminster),	
Henderson,	Thoburn,
Herron,	Thornton,
Jameson,	Wallace,
Kidd,	White (Renfrew),
Lalor,	Wilcox (Essex),
Lancaster,	Wilson (Lennox &
Lennox,	Addington),
Lor tie,	Wright.-70. PAIRS. Messieurs.
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Brodeur,
Murphy,
Oliver,
Stratton, Gordon (Kent), Sinclair,
Clarke (Essex),
Bickerdike,
Devlin,
Foster,
Hughes,
Barker,
. Gordon (Nipissing), Osier,
Monk,
Chisholm (Huron), Ames,
Forget,
McAllister,
McLean (Sunbury), Prowse,
Smith (Stormont), Boyer,
Gladu,
Lachance,
Maddin,
Clare,
Lake,
Lewis,
Worthington,
Marshall,
Price,


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time, and passed.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['Yes.']
Mr. O. S. CROCKET (York, N. B.).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair I desire to submit to the House a matter which has been before the Public Accounts Committee, and which, I think, demands the very serious consideration of this House, inasmuch as it involves, if I may be permitted to use the language of a Sabbath editorial of the Toronto 'Globe' in this connection, ' not only the methods but the honour' of the chief spending department of this government. I refer to the purchase of the property at Richibucto, N. B., which is known as 'the saw-dust wharf' and so described in the Auditor General's Report. Briefly, the department bought this property from one Thomas O. Murray on the eve of the last general election, and paid $5,000 for it; Mr. Murray bought the property for the purpose of selling it to the department and paid $700 for it; so the department paid Mr. Murray over seven times the price which Mr. Murray paid for the property; in other words, the department provided Mr. Murray with a rake-off or a profit of $4,300 upon a seven hundred dollar investment.
Nowu Mr. Speaker, if nothing more were to be said in connection with this case than the simple statement of this indisputable fact, it is enough to condemn the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley). But the matter assumes a far more serious aspect when we consider the character of the property, the conditions which exist at Richibucto, the history of the transaction from the beginning down to the registration of the deed by which the title of the property is vested in the Crown, the conduct of the Minister of Public Works after the matter became a public scandal and the unprecedented defence which he assayed to make of the transaction before the Public Accounts Committee. These considerations present a train of circumstances which establish beyond doubt | that th'e transaction was a positive


Edmund James Bristol: fraud, deliberately planned from, the beginning for a corrupt purpose, and make it impossible to acquit the responsible minister of the department of complicity in it. Indeed, there is evidence which indicates that the Minister of Public Works was the originator of the transaction.


Mr. CARVELL.: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) kindly permit me a moment? Will he be* good enough to point to that part of the evidence?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I propose to spread upon the record the evidence in support of every statement that I make. And I think before I


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. member will pardon me


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, sit down.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) will not permit me to ask a question, I do not wish to do so, but I do submit that when he states


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mr. CARVELL

When he states that
there was evidence that the minister was implicated


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) wishes to ask me a question I am content that he should do so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like the hon. gentleman to point to the evidence which shows that the Minister of Public Works was implicated in a sale such as my hon. friend has mentioned.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) has not asked me a question, but has expressed a desire that I should point to the evidence. Mr. Speaker, that is just precisely what I propose to do. But, before proceeding to do that I think it would be well for the House to have some knowledge of who this Mr. Murray was and who he is, inasmuch as he is one of the principal actors in the drama. Mr. Murray, I may say-and the evidence shows-was, and still is, manager of the Kent Northern Tailway, a railway which runs from Richibucto to Kent Junction on the Intercolonial railway, a distance of about 28 miles. He was also one of the campaign managers of the Liberal party in Kent county and, indeed, the party boss in that constituency. He has figured in practically every government expenditure that has been made in the constituency for some yearS past. He was, and the evidence which was taken shows that during the season of 1908, he [DOT] was, employed and paid by the Public Works Department at the rate of $3 a day as
foreman or conductor of some wharf repairs which the government had undertaken at Richibucto-paid for 71 days, and while still continuing to perform his duties as manager of the railway. If the shingle roof of the public building wanted repairs, it was Mr. Murray who got paid for doing it. If the brick-work in the %alls wanted pointing, it was Mr. Murray who sent his bill in to the department and got paid for it. If there was a sewer to be excavated or a coal bin built, it was Mr. Murray who was paid for it. And every work that the department undertook in Richibucto seems to have been placed in Mr. Murray's hands. In fact, in the summer of 1908, the Department of Public Works, presided over by my hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Pugsley), made a blanket contract with Mr. Murray to perform all sorts of work in connection with the public building and round about it. They gave him a contract to do masonry work, to do carpentry work, to paint a wire fence, to provide locks for water-closet doors, and to varnish the front doors of the building. Mr. Murray was not a painteT, nor a mason, nor a carpenter, nor had he even a store, nor owned a single article for sale, yet this is the gentleman the Department of Public Works did all its business with in the village of Richibucto, and this is the gentleman who was the vendor of the famous saw-dust wharf which the Minister of Public Works was so pleased to buy at a price of $5,000.
Now, in order that there may be no doubt, about the question of Mr. Murray's connection with the party organization in that county, I am going to quote from the evidence, for I do not intend, in this matter-inasmuch as I contend that it involves the Minister of Public Works personally-to submit a statement or an interpretation of the evidence without putting upon the record the evidence in connection with every contention that I make. In the first place, as to Mr. Murray being one of the campaign managers I desire to quote from the evidence of Mr. Wm. D. Carter, who was the agent of the Justice Department-nominated as such by the Minister of Public Works-in connection with this transaction, and a witness friendly to the minister. At page 99 of the evidence, Mr. Carter says this:
Q. You are one of the party managers for the county of Kent, are you not?-A. I do not know about that, I take an interest in it.
Q. And a very active interest?-A. Yes.
Q. And you are associated with Thomas O. Murray and Geo. W. Robertson?-A. And several others.
Q. But more particularly with them and
IJ. D. Irving in the management of the last campaign?-A. Oh, no, with others.
Q. Will you say they did not take as promi-



nent a part as any? Geo. W. Robertson, Thomas O. Murray and J. I). Irving?-A. I would say the two latter took a prominent part, I do not know that Mr. Robertson did.
Q. Who do you say took a prominent part? -A. Thos. O. Murray and J. D. Irving.
Q. And do you say Geo. Robertson did not? -A. No, he was quiet, I thought.
Q. Did he not canvass actively and consult with Mr. Murray and the rest of you?-A. Ilf was on the committee and in the committee rooms, but he was very quiet.
Q. Sometimes the most effective men are the most quiet men?-A. That may be, I am not criticising him at all.
That is the evidence of Mr. Carter. Now, there is also the evidence of J. D. Irving who was produced as a witness on behalf of the Minister of Public Works, or in defence of this transaction, and who was a contractor under the Public Works Department. Mr. Irving was asked, at page 131:
Q. You are the same J. D. Irving Mr. Carter alluded to yesterday in his evidence?-A. Yes.
Q. As one of the campaign managers in the county of Kent?-A. Yes.
Q. Associated with Thos. 0. Murray and Geo. W. Robertson?-A. Yes.
Q. You do not deny that at all?-A. No, I do not.
So it must be taken as an established fact that Geo. W. Robertson, and Thos. O. Murray, the vendor of this property, were active supporters of the Liberal party, and were in charge of the management of the last campaign. Now, with reference to the character of the wharf, because I think that throws a flood of light upon this transaction, and upon the bona tides of the Public Works Department in deciding to acquire it. The evidence is, and there can be no dispute as to this, that this property for which the department paid $5,000 was nothing less than a dilapidated ruin of a wharf built upwards of forty years ago upon an old mil^ site, and was composed of sawdust and mill refuse. The outer edge of the wharf was washed away to low water level. That was the evidence given by the resident engineer of the department. It was practically nothing else than a part of the beach "sloping down from a bank of decayed sawdust and mill refuse, and it was absolutely unfit for wharfage purposes or for service of any kind. Now, I will give the evidence upon that point of Mr. Murray himself, the vendor of the property, which will be found at page 16, and who sold the property to the government:
Q. Is it of any service in its present condition for the purposes of a wharf?-A. No, I do not think it is.
Mr. O'Leary, from whom Mr. Murray bought the property at $700, was apked:
Q. Is it of any service for public purposes?- A. Absolutely of no service as a wharf or for any public purpose. There is nothing more than a point of land there.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Then there is the evidence of Mr. Andrew Loggie, of the firm of A. & R. Loggie, a firm which has received from the Public Works Department since the present minister took charge of that department, the sum of $144,000 on dredging contracts, some of which were illegally awarded to that firm by the Minister of Public Works. Mr. Loggie was produced as a witness on behalf of the Department of Public Works, and this is the. gentleman, I may say. that offered to buy thia property for $5,500. At page 185, Mr. Loggie testifies:
Q. Is that wharf, in its present condition, fit for shipping purposes or any other purposes?-A. It is fit for some other purposes.
Q. Is it fit first for shipping purposes? -A. No, I would say the front would have to be improved and built up and made- so that shipping could be taken from there. I w ould say it was not as it is now.
So that fact must also be taken as established, and established by two witnesses friendly to the minister, that this wharf which the department bought was absolutely unfit in its existing condition for the purpose for which it was acquired. Furthermore, that wharf had been lying useless and idle for ten or fifteen years previously. It was nothing more than a barren waste, which had been put to no use and was capable of no use. Mr. Loggie admitted that fact also on the same page:
That it was useless and idle and had remained useless and idle for ten or fifteen years perhaps.
Now, that was the condition of the wharf, a property built up of sawdust and mill refuse, of no service, absolutely unfit for the purpose for which it was acquired, and that property remains in the same condition to-day as it was when the department bought it nearly three years ago, upon the pretense that its acquisition was necessary at that time in the public interest. The property had been owned for ten years by Mr. Richard O'Leary, of Richi-bucto, and I may say of Mr. O'Leary that he is one of the most successful and best known, and shrewdest busines men in the province of New Brunswick. He was the largest property owner in Richibucto, and one of the largest property owners in the county of Kent. There is no business man in the province of New Brunswick who is better or more favourably known than Mr. Richard O'Leary. He had held this property for ten years idle and useless. He had acquired that property from a half brother. Wm. O'Leary, who has been living in Montreal for some ten years past. The property devolved upon Wm. O'Leary and his three brothers upon the death of his mother. M*. O'Leary testified that he, in settling up his mother's estate, sought to dispose of this property, that he spoke to his half brother, Richard O'Leary, to see if he would buy the property. Mr. APRIL 20, 1910
Richard O'Leary said that he did not want it, and he told him to apply to Andrew Loggie, the same gentleman to whom I have referred. Mr. William O'Leary went to Mr. Loggie. and asked him if he would buy this property, he offered it to him for $1,000. Mr. Loggie absolutely refused it, stating that he had all the old property around Richibucto that he wanted. Then Mr. William O'Leary sold the property to Mr. Richard O'Leary for $400. That was in the year 1902.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Is the hon. gentleman now professing to give uncontradicted testimony?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am giving the evidence of William O'Leary.


William Pugsley: Which is entirely contradicted.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And I am going to refer to the contradiction which the minister apparently has in his mind.


William Pugsley: I thought the hon. gentleman was giving uncontradicted testit-mony.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I did not say uncontradicted.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman started out that way.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I will deal with the contradiction on which the hon. minister relies. In the first place, O'Leary's statement will be found at pages 94 and 95:
Q. You say that on the death of your mother this property devolved upon yourself and your three brothers?-A. The three other brothers.
Q. Did you make any effort to make, a sale of the property ?-A. Yes.
Q. In closing up the business of your mother's estate?-A. Yes.
Q. You might just state, Mr. O'Leary, what you did in reference to that?-A. Well, as we had property in Richibucto, this sawdust wharf, I offered the sawdust wharf to my brother, Richard, but he said he did not want it, and he told me that we might be able to get $1,000 for it including the Hartnett store

And I might say the Hartnett store had been sold before the Public Works Department acquired the property.
-my father had paid that some time before, but he said it was not worth that now, and 1 said to him: ' If you do not want it for your business, I will sell it to Loggie.'
Q. What Loggie was that?-A. Andrew, A. and R. Loggie. And he said: ' Try it,' and if he gives you $1,000 for it, take it. So I met Mr. Loggie.
Q. Is that Mr. Andrew Loggie?-A. That is Mr. Andrew Loggie.
By Mr. Carvell:
Q. How long ago is that, do you say?-A. It was in 1902. I asked Mr. Loggie if I could sell him the sawdust wharf, and he said: ' No,' that he did not want it at all. I asked him if it would tempt him if I offered it for $1,000, and he said: ' No.' I said: ' Will you make 2414
me an offer for it?' And he said: * No, I have enough of this old property around here now, I would not want it under any consideration.'
That is the evidence of William O'Leary of Montreal. The contradiction to which I assume the minister refers is the evidence of his friend, Andrew Loggie. That is at page 221.
By Mr. Carvell:
Q. Now, did you read the evidence of Mr. William O'Leary, given before this committee, in which he states that he wanted to sell this sawdust wharf property to you for some $800?
Mr. O'Leary's evidence was that it was for $1,000.
A. Yes.
Q. What do you say to that?-A. I say that it is not true, absolutely not true that William O'Leary offered me that property.
By Mr. Reid:	.
Q. Did he never have any conversation with you about it?-A. No, Sir, I don't remember any conversation whatever.
Q. Do you swear he never had any conversation?-A. That is my impression.
Q. But will you swear he never had any conversation with you about this wharf?-. I will swear as far as I remember that Mr. William O'Leary had no conversation with me about this wharf.
Q. Will you swear you did not have any conversation ?-A. He might have. I don t think he had.	.
Q. He might have had?-A. He might have had, but I don't think so.
This is the contradiction referred to by the Minister of Public Works. It is the only contradiction offered in the whole case, and the House will observe that his evidence was based on a question not in accordance with the evidence of William O'Leary, whose evidence had reference to an offer of $T,000. It must be clear to any one who has heard the statement of Mr. O'Leary and the statement of Mr. Loggie in contradiction, that the contradiction is very weak coming from a man like Andrew Loggie who is under such tremendous obligations to the Minister of Public Works. So I think that in the mind of any unbiased person at least, the positive affirmative testimony of William O'Leary will be preferred to the negative and very weakly negative evidence of the witness on whose testimony the Minister of Public Works is wholly relying. Furthermore. Richard O'Leary actually made a contract for the sale of this property in 1905 for $500 to Mr. Frank Ingersoll. Inger-soll made a deposit of $50, which he forfeited and the purchase was not completed. The evidence on this point is at page 40:
Q. Prior to your giving to Mr. Murray the option on this property, had you ever offered it for sale?-A. The property has been for sale since 1897.
Q. Had you offered it publicly for sale?-A. I never had a public auction for selling it lu anybody.

Q. Did you ever advertise it for sale?-A. I sold it once to Prank Ingersoll, of Grand Manan, to put up a smoke house, a smoke house for herring.
Q. How long ago was that?-A. In 1905. I sold him the property for $500. Mr. Ingersoll paid me $50 on account and rued the bargain; he would not take the property at $500.
I think that is conclusive evidence as to the value of this wharf, bearing in mind what I have said that Richard O'Leary is one of the shrewdest business men in New Brunswick, the largest property owner in Richibucto, and more interested, therefore, in the appreciation of property in that town than any other person. He had bought it for $400 in 1902, he had made a bargain for the sale at $500 in 1905, and actually sold it to Thomas O'Murray in 1908 for $700.
It must be borne in mind that Richibucto is a small village. The evidence was that the population of Eichibucto was less than 700. That is the statement of Richard O'Leary at page 28 of the evidence. That statement was not contradicted by any of the witnesses put on the stand to defend the transaction. Murray was asked about it, but he would not deny it; he admitted it was less than 1,000. Mr. Stead, resident engineer of the Department of Public Works, would make no statement as to population, and Andrew Loggie, to whom I have referred, who was brought here at the instance of the Minister of Public Works to support the case, stated that he did not think the population was 1,000.


William Pugsley: I deire to "correct the hon. gentleman. Mr. Andrew Loggie did not come up here to support the transaction, so far from it, he was subpoenaed by the hon. gentleman himself and came here in answer to the subpoena.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Well we will dispose of that right away. I quote from page 68 of the evidence:


William Pugsley: I am willing to postpone the further examination of this witness until to-morrow, but I would like that a subpoena be issued for the attendance of Mr. Andrew Loggie.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


William Pugsley: One moment-hon. gentlemen opposite are applauding just a little too soon.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: One moment-I want to correct the hon. gentleman. He has only referred to a part of the proceedings. It is true that Andrew Loggie was subpoenaed at my instance, but he sent a telegram-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The rule is that a member cannot be interrupted without his consent.


William Pugsley: I desire to correct a statement the hon. gentleman has made.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. minister can only do so with the consent of the hon. member who has the floor.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to do that; it is for the hon. gentleman to grant permission or not.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The Minister of Public Works will have ample opportunity to present his case later on.


William Pugsley: Then, I understand the hon. gentleman refuses to consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is the evidence with reference to the population of Richibucto. Thirty or forty years ago Richibucto was a very important shipping point and a large lumber business was carried on there, but about twenty years ago the business began to decline so that there is not nearly as much business carried on there to-day as formerly. This was the evidence of Mr. O'Leary at page 4b:


Mr. DANIEL.: When you were a small boy were there any vessels of large size using it?
A. Yes, it was a large shipping port and I have heard my father say that as many as 100 vessels at a time were at Richibucto and now you will not see any. The lumber has been out out and there is very little shipping of lumber done at Richibucto now; I do it all myself.
In those days the government owned no wharf there, and the private wharfs built by private citizens were sufficient to accommodate the business which was much larger than it is at present. There is a report of the resident engineer of the Department of Public Works which throws further light upon the question, as to whether the purchase of this wharf was necessary in any respect in the public interest. That report will be found at page 57 of the evidence. I may say in reference to this, that in 1908 the Department of Public Works was requested by the member for the county to take up the question of acquiring the wharf at Richibucto which had been the property of the municipality. Some twenty-five years ago the municipality built a wharf for public purposes which is still known as the municipal wharf. The municipality leased that wharf to the Kent Northern railway for $50 a year, but the municipality claimed it was not in a position to keep this wharf in a proper state of repair, and the Department of Public Works was requested to take this proper-



[Stage Direction]
ty over and maintain it for public purposes. In the spring of 1908, Mr. Geoffrey Stead, resident engineer, was directed to examine this wharf and report, and I shall cite the important part of this report which is dated the 10th of March, 1908:
The municipality of Kent county built over 25 years ago a public wharf at Richibucto consisting of an approach 443J feet long and 24 feet wide, a pier head about 115 feet long and 75 feet wide, and an extension to the pier head 121i feet long by 40 feet wide. The wharf is composed of cribwork with a floor of cedar poles covered with about 1 foot of ballast and surfaced with gravel, etc. There is about 13 feet of water at low water O.S.T. along the outer face deepening to 8 fathoms in the channel about 40 feet out from the wharf. The range of spring tides is 4 feet.
For some years the wharf has been leased to the Kent Northern railway and used for the import of coal and shipping' lumber, tan-bark, fish, etc., by rail.
The lumber shipments at Richibucto have varied in late years from about 2,150,000 f.b.m. to 11,200,000, which formerly went direct to England. A large part of this is now carried by rail to Ontario and also to St. John and Halifax for shipment from there by steamer. The lumber and tanbark-about 400 to 500 cords of the latter yearly-are brought to the wharf by scows and piled there until cars are available. The wharf has been repaired at various times, but it is beyond the means of the county council to keep it in proper repair and it is therefor becoming unsafe for traffic and especially for the engine or the Kent Northern railway. It is the only public wharf at Richibucto and is much used. It seems reasonable therefor for the department to take it over. In view of the very probable acquirement of the Kent Northern railway by the Intercolonial, which would then be obliged to own or lease the wharf, it would be a good investment for the government to secure it now on the present reasonable terms.
That wharf was offered to the department at $1,500; it was a completed wharf, and had been in use right down to that time, with the tracks of the Kent Northern railway upon it. The House will observe however, from Mr. Stead's report that he had difficulty in finding reasons for recommending the purchase of it as necessary for shipping purposes, and he puts his recommendation upon the ground of the probable acquisition of the Kent Northern railway by the government, and that he had in his mind that that wharf, for the sale of which the purchase of which the department had a proposal, was sufficient not only for existing needs, but for all needs which would arise in the future if the government should adquire the Kent Northern railway which they have not up to the present time. I may say that Mr. Stead estimated that it would take $11,500 to put this wharf in repair, and the wharf was taken over during the summer, and the department entered upon the work of repairing it, and extending it. Mr. Stead was asked this question :
Q. When you wrote that to the department on the 10th of March did you not have in your mind the fact that that wharf would meet all requirements, not only for the time, but for many years to come and did you not have in view the acquisition by the government of the Kent Northern railway and gave that as a reason why it might be advisable to buy the municipal wharf?
A. It is true, I have stated it there.
That is the evidence of Mr. Stead, showing conclusively that when he was request-* ed to examine and report on this wharf, he recommended this purchase, not because* there were existent requirements for it, buti because it was understood that the Kent Northern railway might be taken over by tlie government and it would be advisable for the government to acquire the wharf so that they might meet the requirements that might arise in the future. Then, at page 58 Mr. Stead was asked:
Q. Did you have in your mind on the 10th of March when you made your report on the municipal wharf the acquirement of the sawdust wharf?-A. No.
I think these facts estaoiish that there was certainly no need of the purchase of this wharf at Richibucto in view_ of the fact that the government was acquiring and1 taking over the municipal wharf which the report of its own engineer shows would answer not only all existent requirements, but all contemplated future requirements. That brings me to the history of this transaction, and in that connection I am going to refer to the evidence of Richard O'Leary, the gentleman from whom Mr. Murray purchased this wharf. His evidence in brief is that Mr. Murray first approached him on the subject in the month of April, 1908, but not with a proposition to buy the wharf. Such a thing was never suggested. Mr. Murray had been employed by the government to construct a sewer from a public building which was opposite property through this property to the Richibucto river, and Mr. O'Leary had sold to Mr. Murray a sewer right through the property for $100. Mr. Murray went to Mr. O'Leary in April, 1908, and reported to him that the sewer had not been built satisfactorily and that it was necessary that a new sewer should be constructed, and asked him if he would be willing to sell another sewer right to him or the government on the same terms. Mr. O'Leary said he was quite willing to do so. On the 4th of May, Mr. Murray called Mr. O'Leary up by telephone and asked him if the other offer in connection with the sewer right still held good, and told him that he was going to Ottawa and would see the minister about it. That is the evidence of Mr. O'Leary in reference to the conversations with Mr. Murray. Mr. Murray
[Stage Direction]
came to Ottawa and was in Ottawa in the month of May, and saw the Minister with Mr. George W. Eobertson. Upon their return to Richibucto, Mr. Murray went to Mr. O'Leary and for the first time proposed to buy the property outright. Bear in mind that when he left Richibucto he had nothing more in his mind than the purchase of a sewer right through this property. He stated that he was going to speak to the minister. He came to Ottawa and saw the minister. Immediately on his return he approached Mr. O'Leary and said 'What will you take for the whole property?' In OTder that there may be no mistake about this, I am going to read the evidence, because I submit that if Mr. O'Leary's statement in that connection -is true, the conclusion is inevitable that the proposal for the purchase of this property came from the Minister of Public Works. This is Mr. O'Leary's evidence at page 25:
Q. You might just state, Mr. O'Leary, what took place between you and Mr. Murray previous to the execution of this deed on the 19th of May?-A. Mr. Murray was in my office one day during the month of April and told me that the sewer they had run from the public building was not giving satisfaction, and I said it was strange that the chief architect should make such a bad job of this sewer, but that I would he glad to sell them another sewer right at the same price as I got for the last.
Q. What was that?-A. $100. Mr. Murrev said that in all probability he could get another sewer put through, and asked me if he could have anything lie could get for it over $100. I told him that lie could.
Q. Is that about all of the conversation?- A. No, that is not all of that conversation. At the same time I said, ' Tom, what is the matter with your father up there at the pub-lie building, he won't burn any light? ' He said, '1 do not know anything about it at all.' And 1 said, ' It hardly pays us to light the building; we will have to he taking it out altogether if they do not burn a little more than they are.' So that on that matter you see there would not be enough made in the proposition to give him a rake-off at his own house or in any other way.
Q. Then that statement was not true?-A. That statement is absolutely false.
Q. Did you ever mention $400 or any other price?-A. Never any other amount than $100. On tiie morning of the 4th of May, Monday morning, Mr. Murray called me up by phone, just when I was at breakfast, 8.30 a'.m., and asked me if I remembered our conversation in reference to the sewer, and I replied that 1 did remember very well, he said, ' Does that still hold good? ' And I rplied, ' It does, Tom.' He said, ' The reason I am asking you is that I am going to Ottawa this morning, and I will ask the minister while I am up there about it.' I said, ' All right, all I want out of it is $100.'
Q. That is all that took place before he went to Ottawa?-A. Yes. Immediately after coming from Ottawa-he had told me that he was going to Ottawa, and I saw by the papers that lie had gone-after he returned from Ottawa he came to my office, and the Mr. CROCKET.
first question I asked him when he came in was, ' How did you get along about the sewer ? * And he said, ' What will you take for the whole bloody property?' I said, 'I do not know, Tom, do you mean the whole sawdust wharf ? ' And he said, ' Yes, the whole thing.' I said, ' I am willing to divide with you anything you can get over $1,000 for it.' He said, ' No, I want to make some money for myself; I want to make an outright purchase.' I said, ' All right, on an outright purchase you can have it for $700 or $800.' He said, ' Can I get the deed made out at that? ' I said, ' Yes, and you can have the property for $700 or $800.' When going out of the office he asked me if I would object to have the consideration in the deed $1,000, and I said, ' Not the slightest.' He said, ' Carter is in St. John, and I will go and get James to make out the deed.' I knew that W. D. Carter was the solicitor for Murray. Mr. James brought the deed down to me at my office and I signed it, and he took it up to my house and my wife signed it there. While Mr. James was in the office, I said, ' Now, see about the money consideration before you hand the deed over to Muarry.
Q. Lou said that to whom?-A. To Mr. James. He got me to sign the deed and took it from my office to my house and my wife signed it. Mr. Murray then came down to niv office in the evening, towards teatime, and said, ' Can I get that deed ? ' I said. ' Of course you can as you pay the money.' He Sri i1 c?nnot: Pay .the money until I go to St. John, but you will be sure of the money, you need not worry about that, I want that deed to take to St. John with me to get the money. I had an idea that Mr. Murray had not the money at the time, because his obligations to me were fairly heavy along other lines. I said, * I think I can see a way out of it; we will have a mortgage drawn out and we will deposit the mortgage in the record office to go on record if the deed is registered before I get my money.' Mr. Murray agreed to that and Mr. James drew- up the mortgage. Mr. Murray was going to St. John the following morning and wanted to take that deed and mortgage along with him, and Mr. James, a few minutes before the train left, got Mr. Murray and his wife to sign the mortgage, and on his way down left the mortgage in the record office with Mr. Sayer, with instructions regarding its registration. Mr Sayer called up by phone and told me what Mr. James had told him, and I told him that was correct and that he was to put the mortgage on record if the deed was filed before I got my money. Mr. Murray went to St. John, he took one day to go down, he was one day there, and took one day to come hack. He brought me in $600 and laid it down on tlie desk, and I asked him, 'What this $600 was for, and he said it was for the wharf. 1 said, ' You are mistaken.' He said, ' You said $600.' I said, ' No, that is a mistake, I said $700 or $800, but I will make it the minimum of the figures. 1 stated $700.' He said Take $600 now, and I will give you the other hundred as soon as I turn it oyer.' I agreed and I got my bookkeeper to make an entry in the cash hook which reads-
Then he gave the entry in the cash book That is the evidence of Mr. O'Leary, and

if that statement is true, it becomes absolutely impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Minister of Public Works was personally responsible for the proposal of this scheme. Because the evidence as 1 have pointed out shows that before Miirrav came to Ottawa, in May, 1908, he had nothing in his mind but the purchase of a sewer right'through his property for $100, and it was not until he had been in Ottawa, until he had seen the Minister of Public Works and had returned to Richi-bucto that he proposed to Mr. O'Leary the outright purchase of the property. Now it becomes therefore very important to determine whether this evidence of Mr. O'Leary is true or not. It It is true, I say, it raises the conclusion that I have mentioned. Now in the first place, Mr. Speaker, we know that every statement in Mr. O'Leary's evidence with, reference to the construction of the sewer, to his having sold the sewer right to the government for $100; we know that was true. It is a matter of record and cannot be denied. We know furthermore that it was true that there was a proposal from Murray for the acquisition of a new sewer right for the government. That is also true. We know it is true that every statement he made with reference to the consideration of these properties, with reference to the payment of money and with reference to the execution of deeds was true. All these things have been confirmed absolutely by documentary evidence. So that the one point and the only point in reference to which Mr. O'Leary's statement was contradicted by Mr. Murray refers to matters which were entirely between Mr. Murray and himself and on which no other testimony could be given. Mr. Murray, however, had to confess and did confess on the stand that the substance of Mr. O'Leary's evidence was true. The one point was that he contradicted the statement that Mr. O'Leary had spoken to him about the purchase of a sewer right until after he returned from Ottawa. Now, I am going tp place against O'Leary's evidence the evidence of Mr. Murray so that the House can judge which of these witnesses is speaking the truth. Mr. O'Leary's evidence is to be found on pages 7 and 8.
Q. Now, Mr. Murray, just state what took place between you and Mr. O'Leary on your return from Ottawa in regard to the sale of this property by him to you?-A. Well, the way it originated was, I went into Mr. O'Leary's office one afternoon and we got talking about one thing and another in general, and finally the conversation led up to the lighting of the public buildings.
Q. At Richibucto, that is the post office building?-A. Yes, and the way it started was, my father is the caretaker of that building and Mr. O'Leawy thought he was not getting revenue enough from it, he furnishes the
lighting and he has Spoken to my father about it at different times.
Q. Mr. O'Leary is the owner of the electric light plant?-A. Yes, and he had spoke to my father about burning more light, and my father told him he would not burn more than was necessary, he would not burn it outside of office hours, and that he was acting in accordance with the orders of the chief architect. Mr. O'Leary asked me to use my influence with my father to burn more light.
Oswald Smith Crocket: -The witness has a clear recollection with regard to something that has no reference to this inquiry at all.
Witness.-You ask mo the question.
The Chairman.-Go on Mr. Murray.
A. (Continued). And he said that he would (rive me a show on my own electric light account for my own private building. I told him: 'No, I would not do a thing like^ that on my father, who was an old man now. So, with that he led me on to the public building sewer, and he asked me to go in with him on this and he would halve up on that.
tt. What is that?-A. He asked me to go m with him on this public sewer right of way, and I said: 'What would you charge for it? And as near as I can recollect he said either $400 or $600. I said: 'That is an enormous charge, and I do not believe they would pay it. If you ask $400 or $500 for a right of way, how much would you take for the whole property?' He replied: '$700.' And I said:	You
would?' He said: ' Yes.' And then I said: It is sold.' With that we went out and got the land surveyed off and had an attorney diaw
the deeds.	,	,	, ,
Q. And that is all that took place between vou with regard to the sale of that property? -A. Yes.	.
Q. Hid you not know that the price Mr. O'Leary asked for the sewer right was $100?- A. No, Sir.
Q. Will you say that is not a fact?-A. 1 will, as far as I am concerned.
Q. You know, do you not, that he had sold a sewer right to the government for $100; that is a right to lay a sewer from the public build-j,,<r through this property to the river two or three vears before? You knew that, did you not?-A. I knew that, yes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would ask any; member of this House if he believes that statement of Thos. Murray on its face. I declare that that testimony is false on its face for the reason that Mr. Murray knew that O'Leary had sold the sewer right for $100. He asked him if he would sell another and a similar sewer right to the government for the same purpose, and he exnected the members of the committee to believe that Mr. O'Leary, who had sold a sewer right previously for $100, would ask $400 for the same thing sold to the government two years before for the same purpose.


Robert Laird Borden: And he was willing to sell the whple property for $700.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes. He asked $400 for the sewer right, the right to lay a sewer requiring only the width of a few feet of this property from Water street to

the river, and when told that that was an enormous price, and asked what he wanted for the whole property of 726 feet he said $700. Now, if any juryman in this country would believe that evidence, I would not be disposed to regard him as sane, and I do not believe there was a single member of the Public Accounts Committee on either side of the House who, in his own conscience, believed the evidence of Th-ote-. O. Murray in that respect. I say that the evidence is false upon its face.


Mr. J. D. REID.: Perjury.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Apart from that inconsistent and absurd statement, I say this as a member of this House, that this same Thos. 0. Murray committed a criminal offence against the Public Works Department as foreman or conductor of the wharf repairs at Richibueto. He obtained money from the Public Works Department on _ false pretenses upon an absolutely fictitious account, and the Minister of Public Works knows it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Do you mean to say that the minister knew of it before?


Oswald Smith Crocket: No, I say he knows it now, and he has known it for weeks.
immediately before he took the train at Richibueto he called upon Mr. O'Leary and told him he was going to see the Minister of Public Works. Now, then we have furthermore the evidence of Mr. Murray himself that he did not come to Ottawa. He came with a gentleman named George W. Robertson, who, as I have already shown from the evidence I have quoted, was also a Liberal party campaign manager in that county. These two gentlemen saw the Minister of Public Works, and as that is important, I am not going to rely upon my memory of the evidence, but will read it as it appears on the record:
By Mr. Crocket:
Q. Are you unable to state that you were m Ottawa in the month of May? A. I am not, I was here in- the spring some time, but 1 do not know just whether it was m April or May, it was somewhere around then but I do not know when it was; X have no record and I do not remember the date, but I was here all right.
Q. It was before you bought the property from Mr. Murray?-A. Mr. O'Leary.
Q. From Mr. O'Leary, I mean. Was George W. Robertson of Richibueto with you? -A. He was in Ottawa at that time.
Q. Did you see the Minister of Public Works?-A. No, sir.
Q. Will you say that you did not see the Minister of Public Works?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I see there is a regular procedure for a personal charge against a member. 1 called the attention of the House to that last year. There is a regular procedure laid down, if the hon. member wishes to lay a charge against the Minister of Public Works.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am referring to Thos. Murray and discussing his evidence. I say Mr. Murray committed a criminal offence.


William Pugsley: The hon. member takes care to insinuate, not to make a charge.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The evidence is now before this House. It has been before this House for some weeks, for the examination of the Minister of Public Works, and if he has not examined and reflected upon it, he has not done his duty as Minister of Public Works. I say with reference to this gentleman that he has committed a crime and is liable to imprisonment for the offence he has committed upon a department of this government. And yet it is the evidence of this gentleman which will be relied upon to contradict the evidence of Mr. Richard O'Leary, the gentleman from whom Murray bought this property. So I submit, Mr.'Speaker, that it must be taken for an established fact that Mr. Murrav went to O'Leary in the month of April, that he spoke to him about this sewer right, that he came to Ottawa in the month of May. 1908, that Mr. CROCKET.
The hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. D. D. McKenzie) was delighted that he had said he had not 3een the minister, so he said:
He has said so.
By Mr. Crocket:
Q. I wish to be careful about that?-A. Did I see the Minister of Public Works in Ottawa ?
Q. Yes?-A. Certainly I saw him while in Ottawa.
Q. While you were in Ottawa with G. W. Robertson?-A. Yes.
So, there is the evidence of Mr. Murray himself, He first denied that he had seen the Minister of Public Works. And then when he thought by my question that I could disprove his statement, he suddenly admitted that he had seen him. But while Mr. Murray admitted that he had seen the Minister of Public Works with G- W. Robertson, he denied that he had discussed the matter with the minister, and for proof of that I am going to refer to page 114:
Q. You have already stated that you and Geo. W. Robertson came up to Ottawa?-A Yes.
O- And that you saw the Minister of Public Works here, and you subsequently stated that when you saw the MiniAer of Public Works with Geo. W. Robertson you did not discuss or allude in any way to the matter of the Richibueto wharf?-A. No, sir, I did not Q. That , is right, is it?-A. That is correct. Q. Will you tell me what you and Robertson came to Ottawa to see the minister about?


KENT NORTHERN RAILWAY,
[Stage Direction]
(Sgd.) Per G. w'. R.
seen the Minister of Public Works?- A. And the same gentleman who went to St. John.
Is not that rather singular, that this letter should be addressed in the name of the Kent Northern Railway Company by-George W. Robertson, who had been to Ottawa, and seen the Minister of Public Works on the very day that O'Leary makes ms bargain with Murray? Now I want to call the attention of the House to the terms of that letter, and I want the House to bear m mind that at the time the minister leceived that letter, he had before him and under consideration the report of Geoffrey Stead, his resident engineer, of the 10th of March, upon the acquisition of the municipal wharf; he had that then under consideration. This letter states :
At present the government owns no wharf accommodation in this town. The Kent Northern railway runs to deep w-ater terminus, but cannot accommodate the public.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of 1 ubhc Works had not been cognizant of the intentions of Robertson and Murray could he have failed to mention in his reply that he already had before him a report upon the subject of wharf accommodation at Richibucto? It seems to me that was a natural thing for the minister to do, and what the minister or any person in his situation would almost necessarily have done, were he not a party to the transaction. Furthermore the letter says:
r>
,IH! wtmd asb yon to send your engineer to Richibucto to look over an available site suitable tor wharf accommodation.
In that connection the witness, Mr. O Leary, was asked:
,9' D? J0lI,7Sa'T>
'i16 "biting at the foot of the letter G- W. R. is Geo. W. Robertson's?- A. Geo. W. Robertson's, yes.
Q. Is that the same Geo. W. Robertson who was mentioned yesterday?-A. The same gentleman who was mentioned yesterday.
Q. As having come to Ottawa with Mr. Mur-Mr. CROCKET.
Observe that the letter does not indicate any particular property, it does not designate the sawdust wharf or any other wdiarf. The Minister of Public Works had this report before him, and I ask if it was not a reasonable and natural thing for the minister to ask what property was meant, or intended, or suggested. But what is his reply, on the 23rd of May:
Dear Sirs,-I am in receipt of your favour ol the 21st instant, and in reply, I beg to say that the matter of increased wharf accommodation at Richibucto will have my careful consideration, and I will give directions that a report be secured upon same.
(Sgd.) WM. PUGSLEY.
No mention there of the report of the 10th of March, which it seems to me would necessarily have been made had the minister not been cognizant of the plans of George W. Robertson and Thomas O Murray. On that very day he issues an instruction to the chief engineer to have a report procured upon the matter of this letter without delay. On the 28rH May, the third day after Murray got *1S deed from O'Leary at Richibucto, the Minister of Public Works directs

that an engineer be sent down to look over a suitable site, which had never been indicated to him by correspondence, but which apparently was the sawdust wharf, and which I think the letter itself and the reply show the minister knew was the sawdust wharf. Now, another feature is this, that the member for the county was never consulted. In the case of the municipal wharf it was the member for the county whose recommendation was asked, the matter was referred to him. In this case the Minister of Public Works accepts this letter written by Mr. Robertson, and without communicating with the member for the county, the minister issues an instruction to the resident engineer to proceed to Richi-bucto I ask if that is not another very significant piece of testimony which goes to° connect the Minister of Public Works with complicity in this transaction from the beginning? Now then there was a testimony by Mr. Stead, the resident engineer, showing that before he went to Richibucto in pursuance of the instruction from Ottawa, he knew what property was intended. That evidence is on page 53:
Q. You knew that referred to the sawdust wharf, did you not?-A. I knew when I went
tllQrl?You knew when you went there that you were to make an examination and a report upon the sawdust wharf, did you not. A. When I went to Richibucto I did. I hat is when I was there I did.
O And you knew when you went there that it was the sawdust wharf, the purchase of which was contemplated?-A. I found it out when I got there.	,,	0
Q. You did not know before you got there. -A. I do not know. It may be that 1 had asked about other property it was proposed to purchase in Richibucto.
Q. It may be that you asked before you went to Richihucto?-A. On receipt of the chief engineer's letter.	, , ,
Q. You asked whom?-A. I would probably have telephoned-I would very likely have telephoned Mr. Robertson.
O. Yon say that very likely you would have telephoned to Mr. Robertson?-A. Yes, on receipt of the letter.
Q. That is to Geo. W. Robertson, who was referred to yesterday ?-A. Yes.
Q And before you went to Richihucto, you think vou had a telephone conversation with Geo. W. Robertson?-A. I don't say that I did, it is a probability.
Q. You suggested that?-A. Yes.
Q You have no doubt, Mr. Stead, that you did?-A. I might just arrange to have him meet me, but I cannot say.
Q. Did vou not charge for a telephone message to Richihucto in connection with this matter before you went there?-A. It will be seen if I did.	, ,	,	,
Q. Well, you suggested that you telephoned to Robertson?-A. Yes, it is probably a correct suggestion.
So the resident engineer of the department, having received a letter from thchief engineer without indicating what wharf was to be examined, knew just who to consult before he went to Rim11" bucto. He telephoned the man who had seen the Minister of Public Works, and who had written the letter to him. Then . Mr. Stead went to Richibucto, he was there on June 3 and 4 and made an examination of this wharf. On the 4th he received an offer from Mr. Murray. That offer is to be found on page 12 of the case.
This is the offer you made.
Richihucto, June 4, 1908.
Mr.   J.@: 
THOMAS MURRAY.
[Stage Direction]
Within 16 days after Mr. Murray had acquired the title to the property for $700, the Department of Public Works was offered it for $5,000, accepted that offer, and paid Mr. Murray that amount for the wharf. Then the evidence of Mr .Murray as to what took place between himself and Mr. Stead is very^ interesting. Mr. Murray's version -of it is at page 12.
O. Did you ever ask any more than $5,000? -A. No more than $5,000, no, Sir. .
O You never asked any more than $5,000. Did you receive a reply from Mr. Stead in reference to that?-A. I cannot say whether I did or did not.
So Mr. Murray stated that he never asked more than $5,000 in his negotiations
with Mr. Stead.	.,
What does Mr. Stead the resident engineer say? At page 51, we find:
O Now, was $5,000 the amount that he mentioned to you in the first place as the sum he wanted to get from Hie government or did he mention any other sum?-A. There was mention of ten thousand.	, a
Q. There was mention of ten thousand.-
A Yes	[DOT]
Q. By Mr. Murray?-A. Yes, I think so.
Q. He mentioned ten thousand first. A.
VQ.' Did you hear Mr. Murray give evidence
yeQ^ Did ynif hear' Mr. Murray state that he never asked any more than five thousand?- A. Yes
Q. Notwithstanding that you heard Mr. Murray swear to that yesterday, you swear to the contrary to-day ?-A. Yes, I have recollection of having heard ten thousand mentioned.
O Then you say that Mr. Murray was wronf in his statement?-A. Yes, I think so.
O You say that he asked ten thousand; was that his first figure?-A. Yes, his first figure as far as I know.
Q. You declare that do you; was there any talk of fifteen thousand'?-A No.
[Stage Direction]
Q. Why did he write the minister that there
was?
William Pugsley: 
Oswald Smith Crocket: 
Robert Laird Borden: How long before had it been bought for $1,000?


Oswald Smith Crocket: 
Oswald Smith Crocket: Please let me know if wharf matter passed council, this matter important to Mr. LeBlanc. Please rush it.
(Sgd.) THOMAS MURRAY.
Now, Mr. Leblanc was the Liberal candidate then running for election in the county of Kent. He is the present sitting member for that county. I want to say in this House that I do not believe Mr. Leblanc knew one thing about what was going on in connection with the purchase of the property until after the election and the purchase was completed. Mr. Murray was asked what that telegram meant and on page 14 he was asked:
Q. You sent that (referring to the telegram) ? Now, who is the Mr. Leblanc referred to in that telegram? Is that the member for Kent?
-A. Very likely it is.
Q. You have no doubt that it is. He was a candidate in the general election that was then in progress, was he not?-A. Yes.
Q. Will you tell me what this means ' Important to Leblanc. Please rush it ' ?-A. No,
I cannot answer that just now.
Now, there is the author of the telegram, the_ sender of the telegram asked in the committee what he meant when he sent that telegram to the department, ' important to Leblanc '. And he says he does not know what he meant. Well/ Mr, Speaker, I think I know what he meant, and I think every member of this House knows what he meant. It meant to. provide a campaign fund for corrupt purposes for the election in the county of Kent. And it could only mftn that, because the purchase -of the wharf, it is clear, would not have aided Mr. Leblanc, for we have the evidence of Mr. Carter, another campaign manager, who acted as the agent of the Justice Department, and who stated m his evidence that he deliberately withheld the registration of that deed for a period of six weeks until the election was over, because he did not want the people to know about it. So there is only on,e con-elusion to be drawn from that ' important to Leblanc ', and that is that it was not purity purposes at any rate that the writer of that telegram had in hi3 mind. Then the order in council as a matter of fact was passed on the 11th September, and of course there is a report from the minister recommending this as very reasonable, that $5,000 appears to be a very fair and reasonable price, and the order in council goes through. Then, Mr. Speaker, another significant thing is that there is a letter here on file from the Public Works Department to the Justice Department asking that the purchase of this property be placed in the hands of Wm. D. Carter, one of the campaign managers as I have shown. This letter from the Secretary of the Public Works Department to the Deputy Minister of Justice is in these words:

I am directed to say that the Hon. Mr. Pugsley asks that this purchase be placed in the hands of Mr. W. D. Carter, of Richibuoto, who has already acted for your department in the purchase of another wharf known as the municipal wharf.
In pursuance of this request, Mr. Carter was authorized to act, and as a result became joint payee with J. Murray upon the cheque for $5,000. It would look as if it were a precautionary measure, this cheque being made payable to W. D. Carter, and Thos. O. Murray.


William Pugsley: That is the universal course.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Certainly the universal course. But I say we have a specific request from the Minister of Public Works that in this case W. D. Carter, one of the campaign managers should act as agent of the department and that had the effect of having the cheque issued in the name of Mr. Carter and in the name of Mr. Murray, so that Mr. Murray could not get the money without Mr. Carter knowing it. Now, I am going to refer to the evidence of Mr. Carter with reference to the registration of the deed, lest it should be said that, by not quoting the evidence, I was not placing the case fairly before the House. I refer to page 100. Mr. Carter received this letter from the Justice Department :	.
Sept. 29, 1908.
W. D. Carter, Esq.,
Barrister, Richibucto, N.B.
Sir,-Referring to your letter of the 25th instant, I have the honour to state that the deed appears to be satisfactory in point of form, and I return it with the object of having it registered. I am applying to the proper department for a cheque in payment of the purchase price.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant,
Deputy Minister.
So, he was requested to register this deed by letter of 29th September. On page 100 his evidence appears as follows:
Q. And you held that deed over for a month, until the election was over, before recording it?-A. I held it for about a month, yes.
Q. When was the deed recorded? On the 2nd November I think.
The election took place on October 26.
A. That is what is stated there and I presume that it is correct.
Q. Will you explain why you did that?- A. Well, there were two reasons. The first reason was that I was very busy at the time, and the second reason was that I did not put it on the records because I did not want to at the time.
Q. And why did you not want to?-A. I did not want to because there were some people making inquiries about it and I did not want them to get the satisfaction of getting the information.
There is the statement of the agent of the Department of Justice that he deliberately withheld the registration of this public document so that the public would not be informed until the election was over.
Now, we come to the disposition of the money. The cheque issued on October 6. It was cashed at the Royal Bank at Rexton, and was back here in the Royal Bank at Ottawa with the certifying stamp, on the 12th of October. Mr. Murray's evidence in that connection is very interesting-pages 14 and 15:
Q. Now you have told us, Mr. Murray, that you got this cheque dated on the 6th of October, and it wa9 back here and received at the bank in Ottawa on the 12th of Octobei. You got that money at the Royal Bank of Canada at Rexton, N.B.-A. Yes.
Q. Did you retain that money for your own use?-A. Certainly.
Q. $5,000?-A. Yes.
Q. You say that you obtained that for your own use?-A. Yes.
Q. Are you positive as to that, Mr. Murray? -A. Am I positive? Yes.
Q. Where did you deposit it?-A. I did not deposit it at all.
Q. you did not deposit it at all?-A. No.
Q. What did you do with it?-A. I took it home and gave it to my wife.
Q. Do you know of her depositing it?-A.
-No.
Q. Did she deposit it?-A. No.
Q. She has not deposited it? Did George W. Robertson get any of that money?-A. Did who?
Q. George AV. Robertson ?-A. Did lie get any of it ?	.
O VacP-A. T riaid him a bill I owed him


UUl Ul u.
[Stage Direction]
Q. liow much was the bill?-A. I do not remember.
Q. Was it $2,000 you paid him?-A. I do not remember now; we have so many dealings one way and the other that I cannot recollect.
Q. I thought you said your wife retained that money?-A. So she did, that was what I said.
Q. But you tell me now that you paid a bill to George AV. Robertson and you cannot say whether the bill was $2,000 or not?-A. No, I cannot say; I have so many dealings with him that I cannot remember.
Q. AVhat was the bill for?-A. I do not remember what it was for now. I have been dealing with him for 10 or 15 years now, and it is pretty hard to recollect individual transactions.
Q. AAras it $3,000 you paid him?-A. No, I never owed him that much.
Q. But you are not able to say whether it was $2,000?-A. No.
Q. And you cannot say what that was for? - A. I cannot say offhand.
Q. Did AV. D. Carter get any slice of this?
-A. No, sir.
Q. Are you sure of that? Did you pay him any hill?-A. No, sir.
Q. Did Mr. George Jardine get a piece of it?-A. No, sir.
Q. Did you owe him any bills?-A. No, sir.
Q. Was George AY. Robertson the only man
[Stage Direction]


than shared in this with you?-A. That shared in it?
Yes, shared in this money with you ?- A. Hell, no, he is not the only man.
Q. Who else?-A. Why, the public at large, any man that I owed. If I owed a man anything I paid him, I did not give it to him as a gift.
Q. Did you pay any other $2,000 bills?-A. No.
0 George IV. Robertson was the treasurer ot the election fund down there, was he not? - A. Not to my knowledge.
Q. Was not lie one of the party managers?
-[DOT]V. He might have been, but I do not know-.
Although Mr. Carter proved that he was a member of the committee.
Q. When did you pay the $2,000 to him ?- A. Sometime after I got it.
Q. Before the election, did you not?-A. I do not remember.
Q. Will you swear you did not pay him before the election?-A. No, I will not.
Q. You know that you did. do you not?- A. Know what?
Q. rou know that you paid Robertson that money before the election?-A. No, I do not. .. y i.ou do not?-A. No, I do not, because it i did not know about the time I paid him t cannot say. I have no recollection.
V- H°w did you pay him?-A. How did I pay it? I paid him money, counted it out to him.
Q. You counted the money out to him5-A res, sir.
Q. You got this money you say from the Royal Bank at Rexton?-A. I did.
Q. In what denomination were the bills small or large?-A. I do not know. 1 expect they were $o or $10 bills.
That is a very suggestive fact, Mr. Speaker-that in the month of October, 1908, payment was made of this $5,000 cheque in $5 and $10 bills.
Q. And you paid Mr. Robertson' that large sum of $2,000 in bills?-A. I did not say what amount, and I do not remember, I cannot say.
Q. You will not say that it was not $2,000? -A. I cannot say what amount it was.
Q. Did you pay him the same money that you got out of the bank at Rexton?-A. I did.
Q. The same money?-A. Yes.
Q. That was the same money that you paid to your wife?-A. Yes.
Q. And you got it back from her?-A. Yes, I got it back from her.
There is one other quotation on page 17:
By Mr. Crocket:
Q- You have told us in reference to the distribution of the money and all that you have been able to say is that you gave George W. Robertson an amount, vou are not able to say whether it was $2,000 or not; what did you do with the balance of it?-A. I paid my debts.
Q. You paid your debts to whom? That was whose debt you paid to Robertson ?-A. I paid whatever debts I mieht have, I cannot remember the others.
Q. You cannot remember?-A. No, I cannot Mr. CROCKET.
Q. But all the money is disposed of?-A. Yes.
Q. Mr. O'Leary himself was a creditor?- A. Yes.
Q. Did you discharge your debt to him?- A. I do not remember whether I paid him now on account or whether I paid him in full.
So, that is. the evidence with regard to the cashing of the cheque, and the disposition of the money. 1 do not think it requires very much comment in order that members of this House may see the effect of it. Think of a man going to the bank and getting a five thousand dollar cheque cashed in five and ten dollar bills, not depositing it in the bank, carrying it to his home, keeping it there for two or three weeks, and within a week or a fortnight, he could not say exactly, but during the election campaign, paying an account of $2,000 to a member of the Liberal committee in five and ten dollar bills. I say that this, in connection with the telegram from Mr. Murray to the department,"' Important to Leblanc,' establishes beyond question that the money was for corrupt purposes in that election. I believe there is not a member of this House who has heard that evidence or who will take the trouble to read it, but will be conxfinced in his own mind that that is the fact. I am satisfied that if this were left to any unbiassed jury, they would find that the money was paid in that way for the purpose of corrupting the electorate in the county of Kent.
That ends the transaction so far as the purchase and registration of the deed is concerned. But it does not, by any means end the evidence which this case 'discloses to connect the Minister of Public YYrorks with this transaction from the beginning. No sooner did this matter become a public scandal than the Minister of Public Works began to write letters. I am going to submit to the House one letter that he wrote, and ask what the House thinks seriously is the object of that letter. The minister in his evidence, at page 143, stated that the first intimation he had of any dissatisfaction with this transaction was from the member of the county himself. The Liberal member, his own supporter, was the first man that complained; the matter was such a scandal that the member for the county of Kent-as the Minister of Public Works admitted in his testimony-told him that it was a subject^oT criticism in the county. Air. Stead, the resident engineer, stated in his evidence, as will be found at pages 74 and 75, that he had heard criticisms in the county of Kent and at St. John, the agent of the Marine Department, Mr. Legere, who was a Kent county man, had criticised the transaction and told him there was much criticism concerning it. Then it became necessary for the Minister of Public Works to coxier up his tracks.
William Pugsley: I think the hon. gentleman should withdraw that expression.
I am rather disposed to allow great latitude. but if the hon. gentleman continues to make use of such observations-certainly he is not setting a very good example.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I withdraw it, I did not intend to make use of the expression. Rut I am putting in the letter and the evidence, and I will let the House pass judgment. The letter to which I refer was written on the 13th of January, and is to be found on page 61:
Dear Sir,-It has recently been brought to my notice that the wharf property at Richi-bucto purchased by my department for the sum of $5,000 had been acquired by the then owner for a very much less amount. As the price which he paid for the property would under ordinary circumstances be regarded as a fair criterion of its value, I should like you to furnish me with all information which you have regarding the property and its value, when you reported that the price of $5,000 was fair and reasonable.
I would also remind you that in your report to the department you made no reference to any previous transfers. This is information which should be in the possession of the department, because it might, as you can readily understand, influence the judgment of the officials as well as that of the minister in determining upon the purchase. In the future you will please keep this in mind, and report all previous transfers together with the considerations made within two or three years previous to your report, and also all other facts which might in any way afford information to the department as to the reasonableness of the price asked.
Now, first, with reference to that letter, there is a statement which looks like a reprimand to the resident engineer of the department for failing to communicate to the department a matter which the minister says in the letter it was of the utmost importance that the department should have, in order to enable the department to judge of the reasonableness of the price. If that were true, and so evident as to call for a reprimand from the minister to the resident engineer in the month of January, 1909, it was just as evident in the month of June, when he had the report before him. The minister must have observed that the engineer had failed to report the price of the last transfer, yet not a word of it until months after this transaction is completed, and then in this very smooth language he is informed:
It has recently been brought to my notice that the wharf property at Riehibueto purchased by my department for the sum of $5,000 had been acquired by the then owner for a much less amount.
I say the insincerity of that letter is evident upon its face.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I think the hon. gentleman is going beyond the bounds of parliamentary usage when he states that a letter written by the Minister of Public Works shows insincerity. Insincerity cannot be attributed to any member of parliament.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It must be borne in mind that I am discussing a report of the Public Accounts Committee, the evidence of which is for the consideration of every member of this House. The issue in this case is whether this was a bona fide transaction. I have already said that there is evidence which indicates that the minister was cognizant of this transaction from the very beginning, and that the transaction was put through for corrupt purposes. I am discussing the question with reference to that issue, and surely it is competent for me and for this House to discuss the evidence which is reported for the consideration of the House.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is competent to bring that evidence before the House, and it is competent for the hon. gentleman to discuss that evidence, but when it is brought up in this way, I do not think the hon. gentleman is at_ liberty to attribute wrong-doing to a minister or to any member of parliament. If he desires to lav charges, the method of laying those charges is known to him. But I do not think he is at liberty in this debate to attribute w'rong-doing to any member of the House.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I certainly bow to your ruling. But this is a case which does not arise in the usual way, because it is a case that has already been fully investigated, and we are discussing the evidence. It is not a question of making a charge, it is a question of dealing with a transaction which has been investigated by a committee of this House, and which has been sent to this House for its judgment.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I will read these words from May:
For the same reason no charge of a personal character can be raised save upon a direct and substantive motion to that effect.


Robert Laird Borden: There is this to be said about it. Suppose a witness gave evidence before the Committee on Public Accounts of a corrupt transaction, would a member discussing that evidence in this House, be bound to say that he did not believe that witness? Could he not argue that the evidence of that witness was supported? Suppose there were two witnesses, suppose there were half a dozen witnesses, suppose their testimony was corroborated by a written document, would any member, in discussing that, be obliged to

speak as if there was no written document and no corroborative evidence? I do not think, with all deference, the rule could possibly apply to a case where the evidence has been taken and where that evidence is being discussed.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The question is doubtless complicated. But at the same time I think that the hon. gentleman partly brings the trouble upon himself by the moment and the manner he has chosen to discuss it. The rule does seem clear, that if a charge of wrong-doing is to be made against a minister or any member of the House, it should be done by a substantive motion. The hon. gentleman has not taken that method. I think he is at liberty to discuss the evidence and to lay that evidence before the House; I am not clear that he is at liberty to make a charge of wrong-doing against a minister of the Crown or against a member 'of the House without a substantive motion. The rules of order governing all debates are not suspended for this debate.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am not making a charge, I am considering a matter which has already been fully investigated. If I made a charge in this matter I would simply be required to say that I, as a member of this House, am informed and believe that such and such a thing is true, then that would be referred to a committee of the House. I think this House has now upon its records a report from one of its committees which indicates that this is a corrupt transaction, and that the Minister of Public Works was involved in it from the beginning.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have quoted 'the hon. gentleman the authority under which I am acting. If the hon. gentleman has any contrary authorities I would be willing to hear them.


William Pugsley: Would you allow me to say one word? The hon. member charges that the Minister of Public Works is involved in this corrupt transaction from the beginning. The charge which the hon. member has -presented to the House by way of an amendment is a motion of want of confidence, he makes no stated charge against me. The hon. gentleman has not the courage to make a charge against me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) is raising a point of order, he is at liberty to discuss that point of order. But he is not at liberty to address the House on any other matter.


William Pugsley: Then I rise to correct a misstatement of the hon. gentleman.
Mr. R, L. BORDEN.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think at the present stage that could not be allowed. There is a point of order before the House which the hon. member may discuss.	.


William Pugsley: I will address myself a moment to the point of order. The hon. gentleman says that he is charging that the evidence shows that this is a corrupt transaction, and that the Minister of Public Works has been cognizant of it, and a party to it, involved in it, from the beginning. I say that the amendment which the hon. gentleman'has moved does not contain that charge against the1 minister. In order to enable the hon. gentleman to do what he is seeking to do he should accept your honour's suggestion, and he should have the courage to make a direct charge -against me, which I would be in a position to answer. If an hon. member of this House does that he takes upon himself-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: -the responsibility


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the hon. gentleman is departing xrom the discussion of the point of order.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has not done that. In this amendment he makes no charge against the minister.
Some hon. MEAIBERS. Order.


William Pugsley: That is why the hon. gentleman is not in order-


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I am not aware that there is any amendment before the House. It is not in my hands. Has the hon. gentleman an amendment?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I propose to move an amendment.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The nature of that amendment might make some difference in the situation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Referring to the point of order, the hon. member was discussing the question and dealing with the evidence before the House, simply stating that the evidence indicates so and so. That is all, and to my mind he is quite within his rights in saying so. That is all he said, and I respectfully submit that that is not outside the common amenities of debate in this House in dealing with a question of that nature when the evidence is before the House for consideration.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think in a matter of this kind I should not interpret the rule very broadly. I am inclined to interpret the rule broadly as far as liberty of debate goes on questions of debate generally, but where a question of personal character or wrong-doing or a charge of

that nature comes up in regard to a member, I think I should interpret the rule rather more stringently, and ask the hon. gentleman to comply closely with it. In that case, while I am perfectly willing that the hon. gentleman should lay the evidence before the House, I still think that if he wishes to proceed as far as laying a charge against the minister of insincerity or wrong-doing, he should proceed in the way indicated, by a specific motion.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I bow to your ruling. My statement was that the evidence that has been submitted to this House from the Public Accounts Committee proves, and to my mind, proves beyond a doubt that this transaction was a corrupt and fraudulent transaction, and I said furthermore that there was evidence and much evidence to indicate that the Minister of Public Works was cognizant of it from the beginning. That was the question I was discussing.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman-


Oswald Smith Crocket: I will withdraw thCj expression if you rule that 'insincerity is not within the rules. I have read the letter, and I ask the members of the House to consider if upon its face it is a reasonable letter to expect from the minister in those circumstances, addressed to the resident engineer. I was proceeding to say that if the letter itself did not establish it, there was evidence obtained from the resident engineer of the Department of Public Works to show that that was not a letter which would be considered one of the greatest sincerity. The evidence to which I refer is this: That letter is dated January 13, and it calls the resident engineer to task for omitting to mention this and not advising the department of the price at which Murray had obtained the property. The day before, on January 12, we have in this case a letter addressed to the resident engineer of the department from the firm of A. & R. Loggie at Richibucto, a letter written for the purpose of bolstering up this purchase. Is it not rather remarkable that the resident engineer of the Department of Public Works to whom this would look like the first intimation of complaint had, before the date of that letter, started to meet the complaint by getting a letter from the firm of A. & R. Loggie, these extensive dredging contractors with the Department of Public Works. The letter of Messrs. Loggie is at page' 182, as follows: Ricliibucto, N.B., January 12, 1909. Mr. Geoffrey Stead,
Chatham, N.B.
Yours of January 6 to hand and contents noted. In reference to the price paid by the government for the sawdust wharf at Richibucto, which we understand was $5,000, we think that the government got this wharf at
a bargain. We think a wharf of the size it is, and in a location so suitable, at the terminus of the railway, to be used as a site for a railway station, and for yard room, and for railway tracks and a shipping point for vessels to land and take cargo from the railway, that it is a good bargain, and that the government got real good value for the price paid for this wharf.
We think it was a very important thing for the government to secure this wharf at the price paid, as we know of no other wharf located so suitably for the uses of the railroad.
We would say if we had owned the wharf we certainly would not have sold it for $5,000 as we would consider it good value at a much higher price than the government paid for it.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd.) A. & R. LOGGIE.
That letter was written on January 12, and the letter of the minister to the resident engineer complaining of the matter apparently for the first time was written the day after Loggie had written his letter, and Loggie's letter referred to Stead's letter of the 6th of January so that Mr. Stead had apparently got some intimation that-there was a necessity of bolstering this thing up before he received the letter of the 15th of January. What did the evidence show? It was got from Mr. Stead after the greatest twisting and hedging, and I have no hesitation in saying prevarication that I have seen in my examination of witnesses in court or before any committee. Mr. Stead having denied at first, was compelled to admit that he had an interview at St. John on December 26, 1908, in reference to this matter with the Minister of Public Works. I say he denied that in the first instance when examined before the Christmas recess, and when he returned a diary was produced in which under date the 26th of December he had entered, 'interviewed Dr. Pugsley.'
I wish to read from pages 61 and 62 in reference to that:
Q. Is this the only communication that parsed between you and the minister in reference to this matter?-A. That is the only communication.
Q. Do you say that, Mr. Stead?
The Chairman.-What is the question?
Mr. Crocket.-If this is the only communication that passed between him and the minister in reference to this wharf matter?
A. Well, I really think it was.
Q. Will you say that it was? That that is the only communication you had with the minister with reference to this wharf matter? -A. Well, that is the only time I wrote to him.
Q. It is the only time you wrote to him, you talked to him. did you not?-A. I possibly did before that date, but I would l at b * quite sure.
Q. And you had several conversations with him, too, didn't you, before that date?-A. Yes, I certainly think I must have had.
Q. About this matter?-A. No.
Q. But did say you had talked to him about this matter before then

76.35


Oswald Smith Crocket: Q. And you entered it in your diary that you interviewed the minister?-A. Yes.
Q. Do you tell me that is all that was said? -A. It wasn't the exact words, hut something like that.
Q. And that is all you have to say about that?-A. That i9 all.
Q. So that the letter you got from the minister of the 13th of January did not surprise you very much, did it? You were rather expecting it, were you not?-A. Yes.
Q. You were expecting that letter and knew you were to get it, that is correct, is it not, Mr. Stead?-A. Yes, I think so.
Here is the resident engineer of the department, to whom this letter was written in terms of surprise and annoyance, for the purpose of giving it the appearance of calling him down, and declaring upon his oath that he knew that he was to get that letter. The letter, addressed by the minister to this officer with whom he had the interview, and to whom he had given directions to get all the information he could, says, ' I have recently learned.'


William Pugsley: Had you not better read the question further down?
Q. Until you received the letter from me had you any idea what its contents would be? -A. No, I was surprised when I did get it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Furthermore, Mr. Stead, in reference to the letter to the Loggies at page 79, said this:
Q. Did you write them in the autumn, as you said a moment ago, or did you not?- A. I have just said I think I did.
Q. You have not answered the question as to whether you did not write the letter of the 6th of January to A. & R. Loggie, because of what took place between you and the minister at St. John?-A. I suppose that had a good deal to do with it, but still I wanted that letter just the same whether I had seen him or not.
There is the statement that it was because of this interview at St. John that Mr. Stead on the 6th of January applied to the Loggies for a letter to bolster up this transaction: and yet on the 13th of January, the minister writes a letter to Stead in terms intimating that this was the tirst information he had of the transaction. All I want to say in reference to that is that nothing could be more transparent. This correspondence was put upon the records and upon the files of the department for public effect in view of the evidence that has been quoted. But that is not all. The letter of the Loggies, these dredging contractors, who have received nearly $150,000 out of the public treasury on contracts awarded to them by the Minister of Public Works since the present minister was appointed to that office, is put forward as a defence to this transaction-to show that they thought this was a good bargain. The House will observe that that letter was written in the very terms of Mr. Stead's own report. The evidence shows that although that letter was dated at Dalhousie on the 6th of January, 1909. Mr. Stead was at Dalhousie on the same day to see Mr. Loggie and talk the matter over with him. I am not going to quote further from the evidence, but the minister cannot deny that Mr. Stead stated that he was there, saw Mr. Loggie, arranged for this letter! and knew the lines on which it was to be written. This letter and the statement of the Loggies about the $5,000 was completely killed by the evidence before the committee. Wm. O Leary was brought up from Montreal and testified that the same Andrew Loggie, who said that that was a good bargain for $5,000 had refused to take the property when he was offered it at $1,000, saying that he had all the old property he wanted at Riohibucto. There was the further evidence that the Loggie firm had been doing business at Richi-bucto for 20 or 25 years, and had bought


Oswald Smith Crocket: 8 or 10 different lots running from Water street to the river at prices varying from $114 to $1,000, and most of them inculding buildings. The $1,000 purchase, of which evidence was given, was completed within a few months before, and included the Queen Hotel. So that it became necessary for something more to be done. Mr. Loggie must be brought to Ottawa, or rather it must be made to appear that the Minister of Public Works was anxious to have him brought to Ottawa, and on the 16th of December the minister asks that he be summoned as a witness, although he tried to make it appear to-night that Mr. Loggie was my witness, and that I was bringing him to support our end of the case.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, would I be permitted to say to the hon. gentleman that he is entirely misstating what took place?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The rule of the House, when strictly applied-of course, it has never been strictly applied-is that a member cannot be interrupted except for order or privilege or with his consent.


William Pugsley: Let me appeal to my hon. friend, might we not have this matter put right?


Oswald Smith Crocket: No, not in that way.


William Pugsley: Well, you want it wrong- alright.


Oswald Smith Crocket: This is the statement made by the Minister of Public Works on the 16th of December:
I am willing to postpone the further examination of this witness until to-morrow, but I would like that a subpoena be issued for the attendance of Mr. Andrew Loggie, whose name has been mentioned here. I think the members of the committee would feel as I do, that Mr. Loggie should be called as a witness. I think perhaps he had better be summoned after the holidays, so long as it is understood now that he will be called.
Does the minister say that he did not make that statement?


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman know that Mr. Loggie was ill and unable to attend, and the evidence was closed without him, and later on at the instance of the hon. gentleman himself a subpoena was issued for Mr. Loggie.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The statement I have read was by the Minister of Public Works.


An hon. MEMBER.: Is that the first suggestion?


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is the first suggestion to bring Mr. Loggie. Then the investigation was adjourned until after the holidays, and when it was resumed Mr. Geoffrey Stead was recalled and examined by Mr. Pugsley.

Q. Have yon seen Mr. Andrew Loggie lately, Mr. Stead?-A. I saw him a week ago, Mr. Pugsley.	,	, .
Q. I have received this telegram from him.
ThiS' is Mr. Pugsley's statement.
Dalhousie, New Brunswick,
January 18, 1910.
Hon. Wm. Pugsley,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Regret I am unable to be present at Ottawa 19tli, being confined to house for sometime with bronchitis and asthma; returning summons with doctor's certificate; will wire
you fully to-day.	ANDREW LOGGIE.
That is the answer Mr. Speaker to a summons from the Public Accounts Committee, a telegram to the Minister of Public Works in which he states that he is ill and that "he will wire him fully to-day. Now the next day the minister returns to the committee and produces another letter from the Loggie firm, dated January 18th He takes the stand himself and is questioned by Mr. Carvell.
Q. You are minister of Public Works?-A Yes.
Q. As Minister of Public Works, have you had an offer from any person or any firm for the Sawdust Wharf property at Riehibucto which was purchased by your department from Mr. T. O. Murray?-A. It having been stated by Mr. Stead in a letter which is already in evidence, and also stated, to me verbally that Messrs. A. & R- Loggie had stated that they would gladly give $5,000 for this property, I ask that a subpoena should issue to Mr. Andrew Loggie in order that he might appear before the committee.
Is that what the minister was referring to?


William Pugsley: No, you will find it later, when the evidence closed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: This is the letter:
Loggieville, New Brunswick,
January 18, 1910.
E. D. Lafleur, Esq.,
Chief Engineer,
Department of Public Works,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-With the hope that the Public Works Department will be willing to sell and dispose of the wharf property in Riehibucto, New Brunswick, sometimes called the sawdust wharf, and being desirous of purchasing the same for use in the prosecution oi our business, we hereby offer to purchase the said wharf property as described in deed from R. O'Leary and wife to T. O. Murray, dated on or about May, 1908, and to pay for the same the sum of $5,500 cash, for w l'!Cy amount we herewith inclose our certified cheque on the Bank of Montreal payable to the order of the honourable the Minister of Public Works. This offer to remain open for 30 days, and that a notice of acceptance or refusal be forwarded within that time. In case of acceptance, that a deed be executed and delivered to Andrew Loggie, Robert Loggie and Francis Loggie, all of Loggieville,
in the county of Northumberland, and province of New Brunswick, merchants, immediately on the expiration of that period. In the case of refusal of this offer that a notice of same be given immediately on the expiration of that period, and the certified cheque inclosed herewith be returned to the undersigned.
Yours sincerely, _ T
(Signed) A. & R. LOGGIE.
And then Mr. Loggie lias a certified cheque for $5,500. Did you ever hear of anything like that in your career, Mr. Speaker? Then Mr. Loggie_ continued ill, and it was very convenient in the interests of the Department of Public Works that he should continue ill. It was at my request ultimately, that Mr. Loggie was brought before the committee, because when we had this statement I was determined that we were going to find out what it was that brought about that letter.


William Pugsley: About two hours ago the hon. member stated he came up to bolster up the case.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have stated the facts just as they have occurred, and as they are on the Tecord.


Mr PUGSLEY.: Just as they have not occurred.


Robert Laird Borden: Look at page 90.


Oswald Smith Crocket: On page 90 the leader of the opposition calls my attention to a statement of the Minister of Public Works:


William Pugsley: Later on I will possibly ask for an adjournment so as to get Mr. Loggie here, that is after Mr. Crocket is through with the other witnesses.
The minister was very glad to drop it without seeking Mr. Loggie after what had developed, and we made many inquiries at several meetings, as many as half a dozen, of the Public Accounts Committee before we could get Mr. Loggie here, and it was ultimately at my request that a telegram was sent urging his attendance. It was not until the 24th February, that he was brought as a witness before that committee, and then we learned from Mr. Loggi; when he did come that this letter of the 18th J anuary, had been written by him after communicating with his brother Francis Loggie who, was living at Loggie-ville, communicating by telephone, and byletter. When he was asked for the letter he had not the letter. He thought it was none of our business, that it was a private matter, and when asked what had become of it he said he had burned it, the letter which showed just what had . put into his mind the thought of buying this property for $5,500 after, as the evidence of William O'Leary shows, he had refused it for $1,000. He said he had no communication with the Depart-


Oswald Smith Crocket: with attached buildings including a new ^stable and with the hotel as a running concern Mr. Loggie bought for $1,000. Mr. O Leary had bought the George McLeod property with 700 or 800 feet on the water, with a warehouse and store and wharf back of it, for $250. This was immediately adjoining his own property and in the centre of the business part of the town. This is referred to at page 122. Mr. O Leary sold another lot with a small dwelling house upon it, a lot with a frontage of 100 feet on the water for $400, also refeiied to at page 122. If anything were wanting to stamp this letter of Messrs. A. & R. Loggie as an absolute fraud is furnished by the evidence he gave himself. Think of business men living in Riehibucto, men who have carried on business there for from twenty to twenty five years, after having made purchases at prices such as I have quoted, sending a certified cheque for $5,500 to buy a sawdust wharf absolutely unfit for wharfage purposes _ and requiring if the" engineer's estimate is worth anything, thousands and thousands of dollars to nut it into shape for shipping purposes. But that is not all. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) took a very active interest in tins investigation. He went after Mr Richard O'Leary, and I suppose we shall have the Minister of Public Works after Mr. O'Leary


William Pugsley: Only to send his own letters after him.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But this can be said about Mr. Richard O'Leary that there is no businessman in the province of New Brunswick stands higher in public estimation than he does. The hon. member for Carleton wished to put up a job on Mr. O Leary. I do not mean mat in an offensive sense-just as lawyers sometimes do in dealing with witnesses-as to the value of his own wharf. Mr. O'Leary had said in reference to-his own private wharf he would not sell


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He would sell.
Mr. CROCKET

Would sell for $2,000.
It cost- him $1,500. He would not sell_


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Would sell.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes, would sell, I meant to say. I asked him what it was worth and he said not more than $2,000. Then when Mr. O'Leary came back, the hon. member for Carleton rose in the committee, and his cross-examination of Mr O'Leary begins with the production of a document. He proposes to buy this property from Mr. O'Leary.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes, and he said he had a cheque, but his was not certified.

Mr. O'Leary answered that if he wished to talk business he would see him outside. But think of the absurdity of a member of this House seeking to make the Public Accounts Committee a medium of negotiating a business transaction. Mr. O'Leary had said that the property was not worth $2,000, that he would sell it for $2,000, meaning of course that if he were selling he would not expect to get more and therefore would not ask more. It was known of course he would not sell his wharf unless he were willing to sell out his business at Riclribucto.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That was his estimate of the value.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Well, Mr. Speaker, it turned out that this offer was not made by the hon member (Mr. Carvell) on his own behalf. When Mr. Loggie appears upon the stand lie gives it away that this offer so dramatically made by the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) was on telegraphic instruction from this same Mr. Andrew Loggie. On the same date, 18th January, after he wrote the letter, and sent the cheque for $5,500 to buy this sawdust wharf, he sent a telegram to the hon. member for Carle-to offer to Mr. O'Leary on his behalf $2,000 for his wharf.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, $2,500.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And I just wish to refer to that evidence.


William Pugsley: Mr. O'Leary was not then so anxious to sell.


Robert Laird Borden: Was the Public Accounts Committee selected as the place for negotiating this transaction?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes. That is the instruction the hon. member for Carleton received, and Mr. Loggie stated that he was acting as his attorney, and expected to pay him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) be fair enough to put that exactly as it occurred in the committee? He ought to be fair enough.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am not done with this yet.	[DOT]


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I dq not like the insinuation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There is no insinuation against the hon. member for Carleton in this connection.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am very sorry that it i3 thought necessary to make the insinuation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is not an insinuation, but a statement. I am not in the habit of making insinuations. This is like other
evidence that Mr. Loggie gave. His sworn statement had to be contradicted by the member for Carleton. He was asked and
said that he expected to pay Mr. Carvell. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) remembers that distinctly. Then it was that the hon. member for Carleton, apparently thinking that Mr. Loggie had put him in a position of violating the law of parliament rushed out for the telegram. I told the hon. member for Carleton when he became excited over Mr. Loggie's statement that he was putting himself upon trial, that nobody else attached any importance to it. If Mr. Loggie intended that this should be a bona fide transaction outside of the Public Accounts Committee there was nothing that he need be afraid of, but if the hon. member for Carleton interpreted Mr. Loggie's instructions that he should do this as a member of the House, he was violating the law. I merely refer to it to show the lack of good faith with which this whole thing is fraught from the beginning to the end. Mr. Loggie's offer was not a bona fide offer. The hon. member for Carleton stated that he never even made a report to him. This is the telegram from A. & R. Loggie:
Chatham, New Brunswick, January 18.
G. B. Carvell, 51.P.,	.
House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario. Having noted in report of evidence of R. O'Leary his willingness to sell his own private wharf property at Richibucto for $2,000, we hereby authorize and empower yon to purchase said property from 51r. O'Leary for us at what he asks or any sum not exceeding $2,500 cash on delivery of deed in fee simple.
A. & R. LOGGIE.
Now, Mr. Loggie, before this telegram was produced, had stated that Mr. O Leary had made a statement in the committee that he did not believe. I asked him what that statement was, and he said it was that Mr. O'Leary would sell his own wharf for $2,000. He said that O'Leary would not sell the wharf for less than $8,000, that it was worth $8,000, and he knew he would not sell it for $2,000. Yet the instruction to the member for Carleton (Air. Carvell) is not under any circumstances to offer more than $2,500, $5,500 less than Loggie said that O'Leary himself knew the wharf was worth. The thing was simply a big bluff. And that telegram was sent the very same day, as I have pointed out, that he was after the sawdust wharf. This business man who had a wharf of his own which had been meeting all his requirements, who never made an inquiry for a wharf of any kind, suddenly blossoms into a wholesale wharf buyer as soon as this matter .comes before the Public Accounts Committee, and tries to buy two wharfs on one day for which he had no use, and one of which, this government wharf, he admitted was not fit to use. Now, Sir, that pretty well disposes of that offer. Then it was necessary for the Minis-

ter of Public Works to go one step further, that offer must be accepted in some way. So they produced before the committee some counter propositions, and informed us that they were selling two-thirds of this wharf at $3,500, and retaining one-third of it for the use of the public. Now that does strike me to be the most absurd and ridiculous proposition that was ever submitted to anybody for consideration. Here is a wharf which the Minister of Public Works will say it was necessary should be bought in 1908. If it was not, what did the Minister of Public Works buy it for? And yet they sell two-thirds of that wharf, thereby providing evidence upon which they at least may say it was unnecessary, and was not in the public interest. But what does Mr. Loggie say to that? He admitted that if the government sold that property to his firm it would defeat the very scheme which the resident engineer had in view when he recommended the purchase, namely, that it would provide a site for a railway station and terminals. Mr. Loggie was questioned upon that point and he admitted that the sale of the property to him would defeat that purpose, and would therefore be subversive of the public interest. Yet we are asked to take that as a genuine proposition.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman
must know that is not in the evidence. You will find that Mr. Loggie swears that 200 feet of wharf would give good accommodation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 
William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman read just a little further:
Q- Is not the original object deflated by selling this portion of the property to you"?
A. I do not think so, because they have reserved 200 feet of it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There i.i a straight question and answer, it would defeat the object they had in view, that was his first Mr. CROCKET
answer to me. As soon as he saw the point, and the position he had put himself in, he began to hedge, as other witnesses did that were produced on behalf of the Public Works Department.
Now I regret that I Lave occupied so much time of the House. But this has impressed me as a matter of serious importance, not because of the amount of money involved, which is comparatively small, but because it involves as I have said, and as the Toronto ' Globe ' has said, not only the methods, but the honour of the chief spending department of this government. For that reason I have thought it my duty to put upon record, not my statement or interpretation of the evidence, but the evidence just as it was given, so that members of the House may see for themselves, and draw their own conclusions. There is one other matter I want to refer to. In addition to Mr. Loggie there was another witness produced, Mr. J. D. Irvine. He was not called by myself, he was called by my hon. friend from Carleton who was defending this transaction before the Public Acoounts Committee, as he has been called upon to defend so many transactions of the Public Works Department in that committee, and he is deserving of the sympathy of the House in that connection. Now, Mr. Irving was asked as to the valuation, and I will quote from his evidence a line or two page 129:
Q. Suppose that you were in business in Richibucto as Messrs. Loggie are, and you owned that property, what would you sell it for?-A. Well, I do not know if I had it that I would sell it at all, unless I could get another one to replace it.
Q. It has been stated by Mr. Stead in that letter which he wrote, to me in answer to that request for information in regard to the knowledge which he had before reporting on the value of this proprty, that there was a party in Buctouche who said that he would not take $10,000 for it if he owned it, and he said, you are the gentleman to whom he referred. Did you tell Mr. Stead that?-A. Well, I did, I said that if I had it in the town of Buctouche, situated as it was there, I would not take it.
Further on:	[DOT]
Q. If you owned that property in Richibucto, would you take $5,000 for it?-A. No, Sir,
I would not, not by any means.
That was the evidence given to the Minister of Public Works. But in cross examination it turned out that J. D. Irving was, like Mr. Loggie, a gentleman who had been drawing large sums of money from the Public Works Department upon the certificate of Geoffrey Stead. He had a scow down there, of which he dared not place the valuation at over $150, for which he had received about $6(10 rent from the Public

Works Department. Here is more of Mr. Irving's evidence in his cross-examination, page 130:
Q. You spoke about having some wharf property yourself at Buctouche?-A. Yes.
Q. I think you said you had about half a mile?-A. In the vicinity of the water front.
Q. How much did you pay for your wharf property in Buctouche?-A. One wharf I bought for $220, somewhere about ten or fifteen years ago, I could not tell exactly.
Q. And you have a half a mile of it on the shore?-A. I have close on to half a mile, 1 think.
This gentleman who said that if he had this property in Buctouche he would "not sell it for $10,000, had actually bought his own wharf at Buctouche with half a mile of shore for $220.


William Pugsley: Which, at page 134, he says is yielding $500 a year income.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is the evidence that we have adduced before the Public Accounts Committee in support of 'this valuation, the evidence of A. & R. Loggie and J. D. Irving. I think if that evidence has any effect it is only to confirm the abundance of evidence which this record contains that this transaction is, as I said at the outset, a positive fraud, deliberately planned from the beginning, and I say to the Minister of Public Works that if this evidence does not convict him of complicity in this transaction it certainly involves him in the gravest _ suspicion that has ever surrounded a minister of the cabinet with reference to a transaction of this kind. I think the evidence I have quoted establishes what I have said. I, therefore, beg to move:
That all the words after the word ' that ' to the end of the motion be left out and the following substituted therefor:-
The evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee and submitted to this House touching a payment of $5,000 to T. O. Murray in connection with the purchase by the Public Works Department of the sawdust wharf at Richibucto, New Brunswick, as set out at page V-188 of the Auditor General's Report for the year ending March 31, 1909, discloses that said purchase was a corrupt and fraudulent transaction which deserves the severest condemnation of the House.
On motion of Mr. Carvell, debate was adjourned.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Shall we go on with this debate to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 21, 1910.