1910-12-07

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the International Waterways Commission regarding the regulations of Lake Erie for the year 1910.

Hon. Wm. Pugsley.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MACDONELL moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 37) to amend the Dominion Elections Act. He said:	The Bill is
similar to the Bill which I introduced last session, and its object is to abolish the lection deposit, to declare election day to be a public holiday, and in cities, towns and incorporated villages to have the polls open from six in the morning till eight at night.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.	*
Mr. CONMEE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 38) to amend the Dominion Elections Act. He said:	This Bill is the
same as the one I introduced last year. Its object is to extend the franchise to railway train service men. In view of the fact that these men, in the ordinary course-of their employment, have to accompany their trains on election day, the object of the Bill is to permit them to vote wherever they may be able to do so, and to have their vote recorded in the riding in which they are domiciled and entitled to vote.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BICKERDIKE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 39) to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act, 1908. He said: It will no doubt be in the recollection of hon. members that in 1908 the Juvenile Delinquents Act was passed for the purpose of providing that juvenile delinquents should be kept separate from old case-hardened criminals, so that they would not be sent to a police station, a jail or a penitentiary. That Act provided for the protection of two classes, the children of Roman Catholics and the children of Protestants; but no provision was made for others, and my amendment is for the purpose of giving to any others, especially Jews, the same opportunity of protecting their children that Catholics and Protestants have under the Act.
Mr. HUGHES.: Are there any Jews in the hon. gentleman's riding?


Mr. BICKERDIKE.: There are a few.


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


Samuel Hughes: Did any non-military officers or servants of the state in Canada in their garb or robes of office take part in any procession or public gathering not under the auspices of the state and not a state function during the past summer? If so, had such officers the authority of the government, or of any member thereof, for so acting?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The government has no knowledge that any non-military officer or servant of the state under the control of the government took part in any such procession or public gathering.


DECORATION OF GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.
Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Did the government of Canada authorize or _ permit the decorating of any government building or buildings in Montreal during the past summer? If so, on what occasion, and what was the nature of such decoration?
2.	Upon what occasion does the British flag fly from such buildings?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	All government buildings were draped in commemoration of the King's death, in May last.
The post office and custom-house were decorated early in September, during the Eucharistic Congress, with flags and bunt-mg.
2.	Copy of notice sent to all caretakers re flags: ' Flags may be displayed on the public bulidings on the following days, nnd on special days, when so ordered by the department: March 17, St. Patrick's day; April 23, St. George's day; May 24, Victoria day; May 26, Queen's Birthday; June 3, King's Birthday; June 23, Prince of Wales' Birthday; June 24, St. Jean Baptiste day; July 1, Dominion day November 30, St. Andrew's day.


Samuel Hughes: May I be permitted to draw the attention of the hon. minister to the first part of the question, which I think was scarcely answered: ' Did the government of Canada authorize or permit?'


Mr. PUGSLEY.: I stated to my hon. friend that it had been done. I may say, as a matter of fact, that the authority was not given by the minister, I was absent at the time; but the authority was given by the officials of the department.
< ' - THE BANK OF MONTREAL.


Mr. SHARPE (N. Ontario):: 1.	Have any disputes arisen between the Bank of Montreal on the one hand and any department of the government on the other, which were referred to the Department of Justice for advice and for a report?
2.	If so, to what official of the Justice Department were the disputes referred?
3.	If any reports were made by the official or officials were these in writing, and are they private or open for inspection?


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: If the hon. gentleman could be a little more specific in the terms of his question, it would perhaps enable it to be answered. So far as the Justice Department is concerned, we are not aware of any such reference, but possibly there may have been one at some time long past, in regard to which either the Justice Department or the Finance Department would have knowledge.


SUPPLIES FOR THE SPEAKER'S CHAMBER.
Samuel Hughes: Referring to page number 19, Auditor General's Report, 1910, where are found the following items:-Tombola Sacred Heart Church, Ottawa:-Basket of flowers, $8; pipe case, $7; jardinere, $5; fancy chest of drawers, $5; bronze candlestick, $4; 4 cushions, $11; centre piece, $6; bags, 3 at $2; frame, $6; 2 shoe bags, $2.50; sundries, $8.35; a total of $68.85.
1.	By whom and under what circumstances were the above articles purchased?
2.	When and on what occasion were these purchased?
3.	By what authority were they purchased ?
4.	How were they paid for and when.
5.	Where are these articles now?
6.	Was there official authority given for these purchases?


Wilfrid Laurier: As appears in the Auditor General's Report, these articles were paid out of the appropriation of $54,402.20 for the service of the House of Commons under the heading [DOT] Sergeant-at-Arms' Estimates,' and therefore are not under the control of the government or any of its members.
The government is informed by Mr. Speaker that these articles were bought at a bazaar of the Sacred Heart Church, Ottawa, on the 24th November, 1909, by the authority of Mr. Speaker, and paid by cheques of the accountant of the House of Commons during the months .of November and December, 1909.
These articles are now in Mr. Speaker's Tooms.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds):: Referring to page 18 of the Auditor General's Report for 1909-10, where the following items appear:-' C. W. Lindsay, Limited, rent of piano April 1 to May 31, and October 28, 1909, to April 1, 1910, 7 months at $10,

tuning $11.50, polishing $3, packing $5, moving $2, cartage $9.50, a total of $101/ by whom and under what circumstances was this amount of the public money paid?
2.	If a piano is required by the government, would it not be more in the interest of economy to purchase one than to be renting?
3.	How much has been paid for the rental of pianos, and expenses for tuning, polishing, packing, moving and cartage, in connection therewith from the year 1896 to the 1st of December, 1910?
4.	What member or members of the government are in the habit of playing these pianos ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. member has the information in the Auditor General's Report that this sum was not expended under the authority of any member of the government, but the government is informed that this expense was incurred in connection with Mr. Speaker's rooms, and that the sums were paid by cheque from the accountant of the House of Commons.
It is understood that no piano was ever bought at any time for Mr. Speaker's residence, but one was rented.
The amount paid for the rental of the piano from the year 1896 to the 1st December, 1910, is $1,076.27.


George Taylor: That would have bought two or three pianos.


Wilfrid Laurier: It might. That is the result of following bad precedents.


George Taylor: I might draw the attention of the right hon. gentleman to the fact that he has not answered paragraph four.


Wilfrid Laurier: The government has no control over that matter.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds):: 1.	Referring to the Auditor General's Report for 1909-10, at pages 17 and 18, where the following items are found:-Berlinger Gramophone Company, Montreal, 13 gramophone records, $21.75; express charges, 65 cents; Orme & Son, 1 Victrolin gramophone, $230; records, $116.95; needles, $1.55; tuning, $2.50; a total of $373.40. by whom and under what circumstances were the above articles purchased?
2.	By what authority were they so purchased ?
3.	For whose amusement were those articles required ?
4.	What benefit do the people of the country, whose money is taken to pay for these articles, get in return for it?
5.	What member or members, if any, of the government, make use of this gramophone?
6.	Were these goods purchased by tender?


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. member has the information in the Auditor General's Report that these sums were not expended under the authority of any minister of the Crown, but the government is informed that this expense was incurred in Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds.)
connection with Mr. Speaker's rooms and that the sums were paid by cheque from the accountant of the House of Commons.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds):: 1.	Referring to the Auditor General's Report for 1909-10, page 17, where the following item is found:-Mrs. J. Gauvreau, Carleton, province of Quebec, 2 birds, $12; by whom were these purchased and for what purpose?
2.	By what authority were they so purchased?	[DOT]
3.	Was the Minister of Agriculture consulted as to the propriety of purchasing these birds?
4.	Were they sent to the Experimental Farm at Ottawa?


Wilfrid Laurier: The government is informed by Mr. Speaker that two stuffed birds were purchased by his authority and are now in Mr. Speaker's rooms.


George Taylor: The right hon. gentleman has not answered paragraph 3.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Minister of Agriculture is not here to-day.


George Taylor: 
Sir WILFRID LAURIER :: 1.	The articles from Gowans, Kent & Company, Toronto, and A. F. Bishop & Company, were purchased toy the order of Mr. Speaker and the Joint Committee on the Parliamentary Restaurant, for use in said restaurant. Those of Bell's Galleries, 30
Montreal, and Cuddy & Brodeur Company, Montreal, by the order of Mr. Speaker.
2.	On the authority just stated.
3.	These purchases were not made by tender.
4.	There was a discount of two per cent on $350.40 of the Cuddy & Brodeur Company's account, and the balance of $340.20 was net.
5.	The prices in the Gowans, Kent & Company's account were wholesale ; the other supplies were at retail prices.
6.	All these accounts were certified to by the clerk and sergeant-at-arms of the House of Commons.


HAWKESBTJRY AND GRENVILLE
[Stage Direction]
BRIDGE.	„
Mr. PERLEY :: 1.	Why has the government not gone on with the building of the highway bridge between Hawkesbury, Ontario, and Grenville, Quebec, in pursuance of the vote passed last session ?
2.	Will this work be proceeded with immediately? If not, why not?
3.	Is it intended to build this bridge at the head of the rapids so that it will start right at the village of Grenville on the Quebec side?


William Pugsley: This question can be best answered by my giving a memo, furnished me by the deputy minister of my department. That memo, is as follows;
With reference to the bridge across the Ottawa rivgr at Hawkesbury, Ont., the delay in JJim-Unatter has been on account of the approach to the bridge on the Ontario side. It seems that the most favourable site, and the natural crossing point, brings the Ontario end of the bridge to a roadway which runs through the Hawkesbury Lumber Company's property.
Although I do not think there is anything in writing, it has been understood all along, or at least expected, that the town of Hawkesbury would arrange with the Hawkesbury Lumber Company for a right of way through their property giving an approach to the bridge and, I may say, it is the custom for municipalities to do this.
I understand, however, that recently there has been some trouble between the town and the Hawkesbury Lumber Company in regard to the latter's assessment, so that their relations are not now friendly, which will possibly result in the town not proceeding any further in the matter. On account of the difficulty in securing the approach, other locations have been suggested and have been looked into, but, as stated above, the one referred to is the natural crossing.
Preliminary plans showing the exact location of the bridge piers have been prepared and superstructure plans have been adopted.
The most favourable time for proceeding with the work would be following high-water next year, say in June, and if a decision is come to regarding the location and the acquisition of the right of way thereto, detailed plans could be got out and a call for tenders made.


CANADIAN NAVAL SERVICE.
Mr. MONK.: On the 6th day of December last, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), in answering paragraph 3 of a question concerning the cruiser ' Niobe ' namely :
Had the 'Rainbow' been scrapped by the imperial authorities at the time of said purchase?
The hon. minister replied ' No '.
My question was founded on the authority of the ' Naval Annual ' of 1907, page 207, in which the statement appears :
The following vessels have been struck off the effective list, but the armaments have not in every case been removed:-
Third-class cruisers-'Andromache,' 'Apollo,' 'Intrepid,' 'Melampus,' 'Naiaid,' 'Pique,' 'Rainbow,' 'Spartan' and 'Tribune,' which were built under the Naval Defence Act.
I presume my hon. friend had not seen that authority when he said that the 'Rainbow ' had not been scrapped.


Mr. BRODEUR.: I do not think the ' Naval Annual ' says that it was scrapped.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have just quoted my authority.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It does not say that the ship was scrapped so that my hon. friend is absolutely mistaken. The ' Naval Annual ' is not an official publication, and in that book it is not said that the ' Rainbow ' has been scrapped. Besides I may inform my right hon. friend that there are under the Admiralty four lists. One is the royal navy list, the second is the auxiliary list, the third is the harbour list, and there is another which I do not remember. I shall get for my hon. friend all the information regarding that and wall give it in reply to another question he has on the Paper.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend say that the ' Niobe ' has not been scrapped?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly not ; quite the reverse. It is on the navy list today, as my hon. friend will find if he will consult it. He will also see that in 1907 when the vessel was purchased, it was in the auxiliary list and was carrying its armament, so that it was not scrapped at all.


ENTRIES OF FREE GOODS AT VANCOUVER.
Mr. BARNARD moved:: For a copy of all customs entries made at Vancouver, British Columbia, for goods entered free of duty by each of the following parties during each of the years 1901, 1902, 1903, 1901, 1905, 1906, 1907, 1908, 1909 and 1910: Robert Kelly, by himself, agent, or broker for him; Kelly, Douglas & Company, or agent, or broker, for them; and by any or all of the Mr. PUGSLEY.
departments of the Dominion! government; also by any other person, firm or firms, or broker, having been allowed to make free entry at Vancouver, British Columbia, during above years, declared as for supply to the Dominion government.


Mr. PATERSON.: Mr. Speaker, I might explain to the House that if these purchases were not for departments of the government, it "would be contrary to our usual practice to bring them down, inasmuch as the law requires that the business of individuals is not to be disclosed, this provision being made for very good reasons which one can understand; but I think in this case where the government [DOT] departments are concerned, the return asked for by the hon. gentleman should be given him.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: For a statement showing:-1. The names of all those engaged to date by the government in connection with the new Naval Department, whether for service at sea or for work in connection with the department, either for inside or outside 'service.
2.	The domicile of origin of those thus on-gaged, their previous occupation, rank ior grade in the British navy or elsewhere, and previous rate of pay or remuneration.
3.	The duties assigned, rank or occupation of those thus engaged in the service of Canada, and present salary and allowances.
He said: I suppose my hon. friend can supply the information called for by this motion to the House, before the Christmas adjournment. It would be a matter of a couple of days work in the department.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have been reading over the motion and I suppose it would be possible to secure the information in that time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Because it would be very convenient when we come to vote the estimates upon this particular branch of the service to have all that information before us. It would save the House considerable time.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The object of the motion is to acquaint the House with all the names and functions of the new employees we have been obliged, on account of technical qualifications, to secure in England or elsewhere, and to find out exactly their names and what the nature of the engagement is in each case, and by whom they were recommended.
In connection with this question I had intended referring at some length to the situation in this country of those who come here under special engagement to fulfil technical duties. When Commander Roper ar-

rived in this countrv I think he was guilty of considerable indiscretion in his public speaking in regard to the navy. The matter gave rise to some comment at the time/ but nothing of the kind has occurred since, and consequently I do not think it neces-sarv to insist unduly on what might be considered a pardonable offence. But we would like to know from the minister in charge of the department if the same rules that govern other civil servants in regard to discussing publicly political questions, rules that apply to the ordinary native employees, apply also to those who are engaged from England or elsewhere for this special service. Now, the incident is not of great importance, as I said before, because there has been no repetition of the error. But upon his arrival at Quebec Commander Roper gave an interview to a correspondent of ' La Presse,' in which he gave expression to views concerning the government naval project which I would consider, taken apart from all other circumstances, an indiscretion on the part of a public employee. Here in Ottawa he attended a luncheon of the directors of the Central Canada Exhibition, and he seems to haye spoken a great deal too freely there of those public men who have expressed any adverse opinion upon the navy, excepting members of the government and their followers. In a correct report of his speech in the Montreal ' Gazette ' of September 14, 1910, I find the following words :
He deprecated the use of the term ' tin-pot ' as applied to the navy, adding: tin-pot navy is otten, much too often, used, and I hav* been to some trouble to find out the origin of the term, and have come to the conclusion that it is used by some of those people who are in disagreement with the present programme regarding the navy, and I firmly believe that this disagreement arises chiefly through ignorance or want of thought.
Further on he says:
With regard to Canada's share in imperial defence, a large faction only

He calls the party sitting on this side of the House who were opposed to last year's navy programme, as a faction.
"had one aim in view, namely, the presentation of a couple of Dreadnoughts to the mother country. There arose other ideas, but whatever they were, a Dreadnought was invariably included, and so when these people found that the government proposal did not include a Dreadnought, they immediately designated it ' tin pot/ which, I think yoii will agree with me, is a contemptuous term to apply to a service which I sincerely trust and hope will in the near future be looked upon with gratification and pride by every soul who has the honour of calling himself or herself a Canadian citizen, and who is consequently a member of this great empire of ours.
Further on he comes down to details.
In ' Le Devoir/ about twelve days ago, a letter was published. This letter, amongst other things, stated that Mr. Brodeur is badly advised. As I have the honour of being one of the advisers, I am quite ready to inwardly believe the truth of that statement, though I am not for one moment ready to admit it outwardly. But when this letter goes on to definitely state that neither Mr. Brodeur or Ins advisers have considered a certain matter in connection with the navy, then I think it is time to object. How does this writer know what has or has not been considered? He cannot possibly know, and yet he goes and deliberately makes these statements in the press. Why? There can only be one object, and that is to throw disparagement on the navy and everything connected with it, simply because he does not agree with it. The letter is principally composed of inaccuracies which do not deserve answers, but which may be summed up as the imaginative vapourings of a pessimistic soul.
Now, when I reflect that I was the author of that letter I am disposed to think that this is not quite the way in which our public officials should be allowed to speak of men who are engaged in the discussion of political subjects. He states further on:
The chief object for the present, he said, was to train men for the navy. ' The wear and tear of a future naval war/ he added, ' on the human being will be terrific, and in my humble opinion cases will arise where the personnel will be beaten whilst the material is still available/
Also further down:
Now, I hold no brief for the Canadian government, I am talking as a naval officer. The government's policy as regards their navy may be right, or it may be wrong, but this I do say, and say with all the earnestness I can command, that this policy has been framed by the representatives of the people and is now law. Criticise the programme by all means, but do not let that criticism take the form of placing obstacles in the way of the navy and also dragging the navy into party politics.
, Mr. Speaker, these utterances by any other person would not be perhaps objectionable. But if you let them pass unnoticed you will thereby sanction the principle that public servants in this country may publicly criticise in fairly strong language-since it is a question here of ' the vapourings of pessimistic minds '-may criticise at public meetings the utterances of public men, and I have always understood since I have been a member of this House that that is something not to be tolerated. It is easy to see how far one would go if the principle was once introduced. As 1 have said, the matter occurred once only, and I am quite ready to believe that if, as I have reason to suppose, the official was warned by the chief officer of the depart-

ment, there will be no repetition of this error. But I give the case to the House in order to afford my hon. friend the opportunity of reassuring the House upon that point, and stating that all civil servants, whether native or coming from elsewhere, are absolutely upon the same footing in regard to the observance of those admitted rules.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I mav say to my hon. friend in regard to this motion that I will be glad to give instructions to have those papers brought down as . speedily as possible. I do not know how much work they will entail, or how much information the department may possess, but what we have we will produce. My hon. friend has taken the opportunity of this motion to ventilate a grievance which he has against Commander Roper.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: You can scarcely call it a grievance.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I thought from what my hon. friend said that he felt "aggrieved at what Commanded Roper had said. It is but perfect justice to Commander Roper to state that he had been very severely attacked by mv hon. friend in an article which he signed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend is quite mistaken; I never made any allusion to him at all, did not know him. I stated that my hon. friend was ill-advised in the choice of his advisers.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend thought it fit to attack the officers who have been in charge of the Canadian naval service, and the chief of the staff being Commander Roper, of course, that gentleman felt that those attacks were mainly directed against himself. Commander Roper, I may say, was occupying an important position in Great Britain. He has been there under Lord Charles Beresford for many years, and has proved a very good officer, so I was informed by the officers of the ad-mirality who agreed to loan his services to the Canadian government. When we required an officer to replace Commander Stewart, as chief of the naval staff, the name of Commander Roper was suggested as being an officer who would be loaned to us and who would be a very capable officer and having given very complete satisfaction. This gentleman, I may say to his credit, as soon as he came out to this country, he undertook the important task of advising the government as to how best the organization could be - effected in connection with the Canadian naval service. He has proved to be a very good officer so far. I have never seen anything which could be reproached to him


Frederick Debartzch Monk: in connection with the discharge of his official duties. My hon. friend is perhaps, a little to blame. He wants to throw the whole blame upon Commander Roper, but he should take to himself also a very large share of the blame for the occurrence which he has spoken of. Here are men who come out to this country, whose services are loaned to us by the British Admiralty, for the purpose of giving us advice as to the best way of organizing the service, and my hon. friend thinks it advisable to attack them.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend must really retract that word. I never attacked any officer, and I believe that when I wrote that article, Commander Roper had not arrived in this country. Any way, I mentioned no name. Why does my hon. friend persist in saying that I attacked him?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If the word ' attacked ' is too strong, then I will say that he has cast some reflections upon the technical officers of the department. I think he will not deny that. I have not the article under my * hand, but my hon. friend very likely has a copy of it before him, and he must remember that he was rather severe towards this officer.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I deny it totally. I attacked my hon. friend.


Samuel Hughes: Was Commander Roper authorized by the minister to make the statements he did?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I could not authorize
those statements because I did not see them before they were made. I simply want to sate the facts in justice to Commander Roper because he has been publicly censured, and I think it would be only fair to him, to put all the facts before the country. I have now in my hand the article published by my hon. friend. It is entitled:
Are we baffled?
This is what my hon. friend says:
Mr. McKenna has the assistance of the advices of the ' Sea Lords,' four valuable experts who advise him in the direction of the vast department which he presides. Mr. Brodeur seems to lack greatly of wise councillors.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think that is a very polite word to be used toward those officers who come out here and give us their time and advice.


Mr. FOSTER.: Translate it into English, please.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think I have a translation which is better than my own translation.


Mr FOSTER.: We will take the minister's translation.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am afraid my English is not very good and my translation may not be too good. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) started in his article to .make a comparison between the First Lord of the Admirality and myself, and he says:-
Mr. McKenna is assisted by a council called the sea lords, four scientific experts who advise him in the conduct of this great department over which he presides.	Mr. Brodeur on the other hand seems to be very meagrely supplied with wise advisers.
I think the words in French were a little harder than the words I have just given in English. But there is also another reference to my hon. friend where he gives some figures which show that those who are advising me do- not seem to know very much about their business.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Hear, hear.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend goes on to speak of the improved Bristols. Here is another quotation:-
What were these alterations or improvements? What were their objects? What was the improved Bristol?
Mr. Brodeur did not care, nor then, neither later. His counsel did not care, neither.
I think that is a somewhat serious reflection.


George Eulas Foster: What is the translation of that, please?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend is giving me a great deal of work.


George Eulas Foster: Well, the minister is paid for it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will try to translate for my hon. friend. My hon. friend will remember that in the report of the admiralty it was stated that we should build what are called improved Bristols. Then the hon. member for Jacques Cartier says:
What were these modifications -and improvements? On what points were they bearing? What was the improved Bristol? Mr. Brodeur did not pay any attention to it then nor later on, nor did his advisory staff.
My hon. friend goes on to make some statements as to what the improved Bristols were and how important it was that we should take that type, and he says that my advisers did not take the suggestions made by the admiralty. I think the language of my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is severe, and he seems to direct his attention particularly to Commander Roper.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It would be pretty difficult to discuss any department of government if one is not permitted to use such language as that.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I thought the hon. gentleman should have learned more about the subject before attacking these gentlemen who come over here to give us the benefit of their advice and experience.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the Minister of Marine and Fisheries approve of the language used by Commander Roper?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We must put the two things together. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) lays it down as a rule that a member of this House can severely attack an official and that the official must not say anything in return. With that rule I am not prepared to agree absolutely just now. The officers of the civil service are men just like ourselves; they have their opinions, their opinions should be respected, and they should not be unduly criticised. The statement was made that I was provided with a poor naval staff, and Commander Roper of that naval staff naturally resented it. I do not want civil servants to engage in our party warfare, hut at the" same time if civil servants are attacked even by members of parliament why should they not have the right to answer these attacks? I do not know why the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) went out of his way to say these disagreeable things in reference to these new men who came to the country under the circumstances I have described. I as head of the department was responsible for their official conduct and why take them ' a partie.'


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the minister approve of the conduct of this officer in this instance?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am stating the facts, and I think it is due to Commander Roper that the facts should be laid before the House. My hon. friend has simply stated what Commander Roper said, but he has not mentioned what provoked it, and I leave the House to judge whether under the circumstances Commander Roper should be blamed. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) had not brought the matter up in the manner in which he did, perhaps the speech of Commander Roper would not have been made. Commander Roper has explained to me that he thought that when he was attacked he had the right to answer, and as a general rule, if members of this House see fit to attack directly civil servants, the civil servants surely should have the right to answer?


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I was present at the luncheon of the directors of the Central Canada Exhibition when Commander Roper made his speech. I did not intend to bring the matter up in the House, nor did I know that my hon. friend

(Mr. Monk) intended to bring it up, but I am bound to say that the remarks of Commander Roper went much beyond the scope that has just now been mentioned by the Minister of Marine. I do not want to say anything harsh about Commander Roper. I admit at once that probably some considerable allowance - should be made on account of his being a comparative stranger in Canada and perhaps not thoroughly accustomed to the way in which matters of this kind are managed here.


Samuel Hughes: Or in England either.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Robert Laird Borden: 


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have called Captain Roper s attention to the word ' faction,' he has told me, by way of explanation, that the word has a very different meaning m England from what it has here.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: What was the difference?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: He says that in England it applies to a large number of people.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know what meaning may be attributed to that word by Commander Roper, but I regard it as a very unfortunate expression for him to use under the circumstances. He is not concerned in explaining or defending the policy of the department. That is a matter for the minister and the members of the government to deal with. He should not open his mouth on that subject, and the sooner the minister gives him or any other officer in the service To understand that, the better it will be in the interest of the officers themselves and also in the interest of the people of this country.


George Eulas Foster: I was quite surprised when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) took the ground he did this afternoon. What applies to the civil service in the conduct of his department applies to the civil service generally, and it appears to me that the minister has broken altogether new and altogether dangerous ground in the statements he has made. He has practically stood behind an officer of his department, who made these remarks evidently in reply to a letter which did not name Commander Roper or any other individual member of the service, but which was a criticism of the department itself. In that criticism the statement was made that the minister was poorly advised with reference to certain things. Now the minister stands behind his officer, and gives us to understand that the government also stand behind the position which he assumes. So . that if in this House I or anybody else attacks the Department of Public Works, the Department of Railways and Canals, and savs that the minister has been poorly advised in any undertaking, any officer or subordinate in either of these departments, according to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, has a perfect right to get up on a public platform and launch out into a discussion of policy and a denunciation of the member of parliament who made the criticism. Does the Prime Minister stand behind that doctrine? The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has enunciated it and supported it, and he says in effect that Commander Roper was perfectly justified in alluding to a matter of policy and discussing it in a public place and designating parties and individuals. It would be intolerable if that sort of thing were to be-

come a practice. There could be no such thing as criticism in this House or out of it, except with the contingency of any officer being at perfect liberty to go upon a public platform and designate those who made the criticism in any terms that he thought fitting and effective. I do not believe the Prime Minister stands behind such a policy. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is to-day following his old tactics; he is hiding behind the officers of his department. Ever since he has had a seat in this House that has been his practice, and he has seemingly not learned anything from the past. Now, the minister should be the defender of his own department. If one of his officers is attacked on the ground of lack of knowledge, lack of discretion or lack of attention, the officer is not to go on a public platform and attack the person criticising in return. It is the minister who is to defend his department and show if he can that he has been well advised and that his officers are doing their duty. I would like to hear from the Prime Minister as to what he thinks of a policy of that kind. We shall have a veritable bear garden if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is to be in the saddle very long.


Wilfrid Laurier: I respond with pleasure, and I would say frankly to my hon. friend that I do not believe he has properly apprehended the remarks of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It is true, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries said that Commander Roper was perfectly justified in saying what he did; but what I understood from the minister's remark was that Commander Roper might be excused for saying what he did. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) is quite correct in saying that the minister alone is responsible, and it would be intolerable if any member of the service were to reply on behalf of the government or even on behalf of himself to any criticism of the department or of himself. We have in the service some very estimable gentlemen, and if one of them thinks himself improperly attacked, in parliament or outside, his only recourse is to go to his minister and report that he has been improperly attacked, and ask him to undertake his defence. In this case I have read the remarks of Commander Roper, and I made allowance, as I think everybody would. Being a comparative stranger in the country, and feeling, rightly or wrongly, that he had been attacked, and that his honour was at stake, in a moment which we can forgive, instead of going to his minister, he undertook himself to come before Jhe pub-lie and answer his critics and defend the policy of the department. The only excuse I make for Commander Roper is that he was a perfect stranger. I understand that he is
a most estimable gentleman and I have no doubt he is a gallant officer and most competent in his profession; but, under the circumstances, I think he went out of his way, and while my hon. friend will not say that he was justified, he will at least admit that he might be excused, and by this time no doubt Commander Roper fully appreciates that in this country, as in England, the head of the department alone is responsible for its administration.


Mr FOSTER.: I want to be fully understood that I do not wish to be too severe on Commander Roper for this one lapse, and I quite agree with my right hon. friend that, for the reasons he has given, there was some excuse for his conduct; but what I was attacking was the position taken, whether designedly or not, by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), and that position is not sustained by the Prime Minister.


Samuel Hughes: I would just say a word in this connection. I would first point out that the use of the word ' faction in England, is the same as here, so that it has the same meaning in 'both countries. We know that a very convenient excuse on the part of the minister of Marine and Fisheries, when he has committed himself in any way, is to say that the true interpretation is different from the English; but now we have him resorting to a new excuse, and that is that the meaning in England is not the same as it is in Canada. Well, Mr. Speaker, there is no difference in the meaning in the use of the word * faction ' in tho two countrios. X understood the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), to say that civil servants were justified in having recourse to the public press or platform .to condemn any member of parliament or ether gentleman who chose to criticise a minister of the Crown or the administration of his department. That certainly was my interpretation of the minister's remarks, and I am very glad to find that the right hon. the Prime Minister had reprimanded him and set him right. But in England, Commander Roper-or whatever may be that officer s rank-would not dare to offer any criticism of any administrative act on tbe part of the British government; and one can only conclude that he must have been put up to do- that in this country by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Wilfrid Laurier: Order.


Samuel Hughes: That is the only explanation I can find for his language. Certainly no officer in the regular service or even in the militia service in the old country would dare criticise an act of the government. No doubt Commander Roper, being a member of the imperial service, knew his business better than to indulge

in such criticism unless he had been put up to do so by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My right hon. friend the Prime Minister, must hear a great many complaints against his colleague.


Wilfrid Laurier: None, except from my hon. friend (Mr. Monk).


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I should like to be able to believe that, because I take a warm interest in the welfare of the Prime Minister. I know that a great many must reach him, and one must be that his colleague is completely lacking in tact. Of his deficiency in that respect, he has just given evidence. My right hon. -friend, who is abundantly endowed with that quality, must have seen that I did not wish to make any regular complaint against Commander Roper, who is a new man and might consequently, have supposed that our civilization is not as advanced as it is. All I wanted was to prevent a recurrence of conduct of this kind; but instead of accepting the suggestion I threw out, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries thought he would do better by referring to newspaper articles which are not pertinent, just as the other day he quoted against my hon. friend from Champlain (Mr. Blondin), citations from newspapers that did not exist.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Does my hon. friend say that the quotation I have just read is not correct.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Most assuredly it is not. My hon. friend rose to defend himself, and in his defence he read an attack in a newspaper, which he said I had made on Commander Roper, but when called upon to produce that attack, he could not do so. What he read did not justify at all what the minister said. How could I have attacked Commander Roper at the time that article was published when I did not know of his existence, and when he had not even landed in this country? When Commander Roper's speech was published, I telegraphed to Ottawa to know what was his position in the public service. How then could I have intentionally criticised and attacked him as my hon. friend alleges? That .was not possible. But on this occasion, my hon. friend has simply followed the same tactics as on former occasions. When I said that the government officials had refused to furnish the report of the imperial conference of 1909, and laid letters to that effect on the table, my hon. friend the next day read telegrams or letters from the King's Printer in which he said he was forwarding me immediately some 12 or 24 copies of the Marine Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is referring to a past debate.


Samuel Hughes: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Only as incident to this. If mv hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had simply said that, in view of the manner in which I had brought this subject before the House, and in view of the fact that an infraction-for my right hon. friend admits that it was-of the rules of the service had taken place, he would take means to prevent a recurrence of such conduct. That would have been more useful to Commander Roper and his associates in the public service than to fall back on articles in ' Le Devoir ' in which my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries could find nothing to support his contention. Until my right hon. friend gets ministers who have a little more tact and discretion than his colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries


Wilfrid Laurier: I am quite satisfied.
Mr. MONK, -we may expect a recurrence of these disagreeable incidents.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: For a statement showing a. detailed statement of the amounts paid newspapers or companies publishing newspapers in Canada by the government for printing, lithographing, binding or other work, between the 31st March, 1910, and the 15th November, following ; the nature and price of the work executed in each case; whether, in each case, tenders for the work were invited, and in what manner said tenders were called for.
He said:	In view of the enormous loss
of money in the printing department this year, I was induced to find out what we have spent outside of the department on printing and lithographing and binding. I supDose there will be no . objection to this motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: Legitimate curiosity-carried.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Secretary of State).: I have no objection to this motion, but I would just correct my hon. friend in one point. The losses were not in the printing branch, but in the stationery branch.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: For a copy of the report of the Imperial Defence Committee of the Privy Council in England concerning the defence of the empire, communicated to the Canadian government, and of the despatches and correspondence exchanged between the imperial and the Canadian governments relating to the said report.

He said: The object of this motion is to secure, in order that they may become public property, the plans of defence which' were communicated to all the colonial governments long before the events which led up to the colonial defence conference of 1909. Perhaps the best way in which I can inform the House of the nature of those! documents is to read from a speech made by the Duke of Devonshire on the 3rd of December, 1896, at a meeting of the British Empire League. His Grace said:
I have found with very great satisfaction on my return to office, after an absence from official life of a good many years, the large progress which has been made in the consideration of the great question of imperial defence. A body is now in existence, and has been for many years called the Colonial Defence Committee, composed of representatives of the Admiralty, the War Office and the Colonial Office.
That body has made a complete study of the question of colonial defence as it affects every colony of the British Empire. It has studied the question from the point of view of each colony, and every colony, whether it be a Crown colony or a self-governing colony, is now in possession of the views of Her Majesty's government as to the nature of the attack-the possible attack-to which any of them may be exposed, and as to the means of defence which it is possible to oppose to such attacks. Every colonial government now knows what the imperial government is prepared to undertake in their defence, and what must be left to themselves to undertake. Now, although the instructions to this committee, and the plans which this committee has prepared, are, and must be, to a very great extent, of a confidential character, yet I am permitted to make a public announcement of the principles upon which those plans are based; so that not only the public at home, but every one of our colonial fellow-subjects should know how much it is that the government are prepared to undertake in the defence of the colonies, and the duties which in their turn they think ought to be undertaken by the colonies themselves. These principles are as follows:	The maintenance
of sea supremacy has been assumed as the basis of the system of imperial defence against attacks from over the sea. This is the determining factor in shaping the whole defensive policy of the empire, and is fully recognized by the admiralty, who have accepted the responsibility of protecting all British territory abroad against organized invasion from the sea. To fulfil this great oharge they claim the absolute power of disposing of their forces in the manner they consider most certain to secure success, and object to limit the action of any part of them to the immediate neighbourhood of places which they consider may be more effectively protected by operating at a distance.
It is recognized, however, that Her Majesty's ships engaged in hunting out and destroying the squadrons of the enemy may not be in a position to prevent the predatory raids of hostile cruisers on British ports. The strength of such an attack will vary in the different parts of the world according to the
strength of possibly hostile navies, the proximity of their bases and the troops that are or could easily be brought there in anticipation of war. It also varies from time to time with changing political combination. But it is improbable that this raiding attack would be made by more than a few ships, nor could it be of any permanent effect unless troops could be landed. In no case could a greater force than a few thousand men be collected and conveyed without such arrangements and preparation as would bring the operations under the category of those which the navy has undertaken to prevent.
Against a raid of the nature indicated, it has been considered necessary to make secure those places which are essential to the navy for coaling, refitting, and repairing. Ports for this purpose have been selected by the admiralty, and imperial resources in men and money available for use abroad have been concentrated on their defence. Apart from the harbours fortified for the navy, there are other ports which, though they do not enter into what may be called the general strategic scheme, are also liable from their commercial importance to predatory raids, and which require measures of defence for the protection of the special interests involved. The resources of places which, in the opinion of an enemy, would justify the very considerable risks which a raid on them would involve, are generally sufficient to admit of the provision of local defence by local means; and where the liability to attack and the resources to resist attack co-exist, it has been held to be the duty of the colony to make provision for adequate defence. In dealing with places of this nature the committee have advocated the creation of sufficient fixed defences to prevent their unmolested occupation by hostile cruisers, but more especially the provision of troops sufficient to deal effectively with such forces as an enemy must put on shore to enable him to secure any permanent advantage from his attack. Troops without works may detect an enemy and frustrate his object. Works without troops are useless and delusive. It is necessary to lay stress on this fact-as fortifications give an appearance and feeling of security which is not justified unless they are fully garrisoned by well-trained men and supported by mobile forces, and because expenditure on defences involving a heavy outlay at one time and little at another, can be more easily fitted into the exigencies of fluctuating budgets than expenditure on troops which must be constant to be effective.
I have quoted thus from the speech of the Duke of Devonshire in order to show exactly what was the nature of the defensive measures which, after a long study, this sub-committee of the Imperial Privy Council, or Imperial Cabinet, had seen fit to recommend. It has been adopted by the British government and by that government communicated to all colonial governments to whom that communication could be useful. In confirmation of this, I shall refer to a question which was put by the Earl of Minto in the House of Lords on February 11, 1897, to be found at volume 46 of the Parliamentary Debates in Eng-

land, and the answer to that question of the Earl of Minto by the Duke of Devonshire, in which he reiterates in substance what I have just quoted from his speech to the Imperial Navy League in 1896. After the Duke of Devonshire, then a member of the government, had answered Lord Minto. as reported in the English ' Hansard,' the Earl of Kimberley also joined in-although it was an answer to a question probably he had the right in that House to join in- and confirmed everything that had been stated by the Duke of Devonshire, and added in so many words that that had been for all time up to 1897 the policy of both parties in England as well as apparently the policy of the great dependencies to whom that scheme of defence had been *communicated. It must be apparent to the House that it is very important to us at the present moment, when we are called upon to discuss a different scheme of imperial defence, one which varies considerably from that outlined by the Duke of Devonshire to which I have referred, that which was evolved from the work of the special work of the Privy Council, that we should see that work, be able to refer to it and better understand the one which we have before us in carrying out the present policy.
I also wish to refer the House to the report of the Colonial Conference of 1907, the report which was printed in this country, at page 130 and following, where Lord Tweedmouth, Speaking to the delegates, suggests to them the advisability of cooperating with the British fleet in matters of defence. Lord Tweedmouth propounds no new scheme, he suggests to the colonies no more ample plan of defence, he merely refers to this very plan matured by the Imperial Defence Committee. Lord Tweedmouth, head of the admiralty, on that occasion said: We here at home will undertake to see to the sea supremacy, the supremacy of the admiralty of Great Britain upon the ocean, we will make that our own affair. The protection of the trade routes was also included in the scheme prepared by the committee of the Imperial Privy Council, that was a matter for the mother country. But Lord Tweedmouth insists upon what has been pointed out by the Duke of Devonshire: We want with you ports of refuge, dry docks, important stations for repairing, for coaling; you must undertake in the . dependencies to protect your shores against what the Duke of Devonshire calls any sudden raid or attack, you must be in a position to defend yourselves.
The point which I wish to make in asking for these papers, which I hope the government will see no objection to granting, is to say that in this country at no time has there been any objection to that particular scheme. We have always been ready in Mr. MONK.
the past, we assumed the defence of our own country years ago to the extent of what we could do. If we have spent, during the last 15 years, $60,000,000 and more on our militia and have not a more effective militia, it is surely not the fault of the country, but of those who have had the administration of those funds. In regard to our work upon the waters, my right hon. friend pointed out, at the conference of 1907, that we were policing our own territorial waters and protecting our fisheries, and that possibly we would be obliged to go further in the direction of protecting our coasts. I mean to say that there has never been in this country any objection to the principle of selfdefence. Those who have called us ' Do-nothing men '-


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not mean that my right hon. friend said that, though there are some of the smaller fry who have spoken of us as do-nothing men. My hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) who sits there smiling, is one of those, and there are others, newcomers. My hon. friend from Nanaimo does not know that for generations we have been ready in Canada to defend our own country, on land, and on sea so far as possible. But the difficulty my right hon. friend has today with regard to his policy-I am speaking of his policy before the election in Drummond and Arthabaska, Ibecause it has been changed a little since then-I am speaking of the policy laid down last session. Now he is gradually veering around to the old policy, which has never been denied in this country, and which was laid down by the Duke of Devonshire. I think I have* sufficiently made known the object we have in view in seeing these communications. We want to understand the history of this matter better than we do now. I do not suppose my right hon. friend is going to object that the scheme is of a confidential nature, because it is not now confidential, whatever it may have been at the origin. If there are parts of it which are not confidential, the Duke of Devonshire referred to that distinction ; we are at all events entitled to know as much as was imparted to the public on the other side, and by eliminating anything of a purely confidential nature we would still be in a position to understand what this plan was.


Wilfrid Laurier: When I read for the first time the motion of my hon. friend as appearing in the ' Votes and Proceedings,' I did not quite understand what he was aiming at. The words ' plans of defence '. suggest a delicate matter. My hon. friend knows that there are plans of defence which could not be communicated to parliament under any circumstances.

But now that I have heard him explain that what he wants is not a technical plan of defence-as to the existence of which I have no knowledge at all-'but what he wants, I understand, is information concerning a general contribution by the new dominions to the defence of the empire, which has been outlined and discussed at different times for the last Sixteen years. To this there is no objection whatever. Everything which is not of a secret nature and that can be brought down, will be gladly produced, because I am sure-I will not say I am sure, but I will say that when it is produced it ought to dispel many of the illusions under which my hoh. friend has been labouring for the last six or seven months, and which he has been endeavouring to communicate to the people of Quebec, particularly of those of Drum-mond-Arthabaska. He will find that there is no foundation for his suspicion that Canada is being drawn into the military armaments of England. Let me say in conclusion that I was highly pleased at the declaration which I now hear from my hon. friend, that his party has been ready at all times to contribute to the defence of the country-at all times except the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey) moved:: upon which they claim the right of recognition bears upon the question: Are their duties of a diplomatic character, or solely of a commercial character? For instance, at the present time, Mr. Foster, the able and distinguished consul-general of the United States at Ottawa, is one of the commissioners duly accredited by his country to negotiate a reciprocity treaty with Canada. A few months ago the negotiations for a better trade understanding between Germany and Canada were conducted on the part of Germany by the consul general of that country, Dr. Long, of Montreal.
Similarly, the recent trade conventions with Italy, Belgium and the Netherlands were conducted by the consuls general in Canada of these respective countries. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be well for the government to seek a revision of the Table of Precedence so that proper recognition may be accorded these gentlemen befitting their rank and station.
There is also another phase of this question to which I desire to draw attention. In the Table of Precedence set forth in the parliamentary guide there are 33 distinctively defined positions, commencing with the Governor General and coming down to retired fudges. It will be observed that in this list no reference whatever is made to the clergy of any denomination except-
Archbishops and bishops by seniority.
Why, in a country which has no state church, recognition is accorded to any one or two denominations and not to others is a mystery to me. It is bound to cause friction or unpleasantness among the churches.
But, apart from this single mention of the churches, some individual has set himself up as an authority and has added to the Table of Precedence. For instance, I find in the regulations, issued in connection with His Excellency's drawing room, that defined positions are given to gentlemen who are not referred to in the official table. In the ' Journal ' of November 16, page 6, first column, after defining the order in which presentation takes place, the order proceeds as I have already read it.
Let me point out that a very esteemed clergyman of the Roman Catholic church is specially honoured-the vioar general- and no one else, and he is put ahead of the sheriff of Carleton and the mayor of Ottawa. This I respectfully submit is an impropriety. Why is it, for instance, that the Rev. Dr. Herridge, one of the most brilliant minds in the Presbyterian church, or the Rev. Dr. Henderson, a most distinguished leader in the Methodist church, or Rev. Dr. Cameron, of the Baptist church, and other prominent clergymen are not recognized?
These are questions which, I think, call MR. SPROULE.
for an answer from the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who is responsible for the preparation of this order, and I would ask him to say why the representative of one church is selected for a snecial mark of vice-royal favour? In these lists the consuls general are named last. Therefore, it is little wonder, in view of the important duties that they are discharging, that they should resent being put down at the tail end of it. I would like to know who is responsible for making this out as it has been, and I respectfully submit that some means should be devised to correct these anomalies.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I can, to a large extent, sympathize with the views which have been expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule), and I may say that, in my humble judgment, the question is much iarger even than he has represented it. The Table of Precedence is now as old as confederation; I think it was promulgated in 1867, or 1868. It is full of inconsistencies and incongruities, and ought to be reformed at an early date. Indeed, His Excellency the Governor General has himself reformed it in many particulars. In regard, for instance, to the position assigned to the churches, only two churches are recognized in the Table of Precedence- the English church and the Roman Catholig church. All other denominations had been ignored. I may say at once to my hon. friend that in so far as he finds fault with the invitation extended to the Vicar general of the diocese of Ottawa, I do not think his objection holds good, because the Vicar general of the diocese was the administrator of the diocese, and it was in that capacity, in the absence of the bishop, that he was invited to the last drawing room.


Robert Laird Borden: In other words he was bishop for the time being.


Wilfrid Laurier: He was representing the bishop for the time being. In regard to the statement of my hon. friend as to Dr. Herridge, and Dr. Cameron-both eminent divines of this city and both gentlemen who are a credit to the community- not being invited I think the hon. gentleman is in error. Perhaps Dr. Herridge or Dr. Cameron were not invited themselves, but, although I have no information on the point I think that the heads of the Presbyterian church, the Methodist church, and the Baptist church were invited this year as for some years past. I do not know who is at present the moderator of the Presbyterian General Assembly, but whoever he be I am quite sure he received an invitation. I am sure also that the head of the Methodist body-if the Methodist body can be said to have a head-was also invited, and in the same way the representative of the Baptist church. I may say that His Ex-

eeiiency the Governor General, ignoring in this respect the Table of Precedence, and giving heed to what is undoubtedly the spirit of the Canadian people, has of late years taken upon himself to invite to his table on state occasions representatives of the different religious denominations in this country. I hope that will be satisfactory to my hon. friend. I must disclaim, however, any responsibility in this connection. It is not part of the advice which I have to give to His Excellency the Governor General. The Governor General has acted upon his own initiative and I know that in this, as in other instances he has corrected the Table of Precedence so as to make it more acceptable and more up to date than it was some years ago.
The motion of my hon. friend has special reference to the consuls general, and it reads:
For a copy of any memorials, correspondence, &c., between His Excellency the Governor General and the Colonial Office, or between any member of the government, and the Foreign Consuls General in Canada, relative to the status of the latter, at official functions, such as the Vice-regal Drawing Room.
The consuls general of the different countries residing in Ottawa, perform important duties. Their status at the present time, in view of our development as a nation-as I have sometimes stated-is at present undetermined and undefined. If the consuls general were in England, or in any country which has absolute independence they *would have no status whatever such as is contemplated in this motion. However, the consuls general perform with us very important duties; duties not only of a commercial nature, but even of a semi-diplomatic nature. Indeed, the development of Canada to its present status can hardly bo defined. I have often taken the view that vve ere now a nation, and in fact in many respects we have the power and the duty and responsibility of a nation. But, we cannot have under present conditions diplomatic agents amongst us other than the consular- agents who are entrusted by their governments with commercial functions. But, by the force of things these consuls general have become with us semi-diplomatic agents, and many of the consuls have realiy performed in Canada diplomatic duties. The American consul, Mr. Foster, has been acting for his government in what is a diplomatic function, and the consul of Italy and the consul of Germany were charged with similar duties last year. Ail this has been done without authority, and is contrary to the rules that apply among civilized nations, but it became a necessity because of the development of the larger colonies of the British Empire which have become practically nations. Now, I believe we should endeavour to determine by
law, or rather somewhat officially, what the rights and status, of the consuls general of the different nations are. Practically they are diplomatic agents as well as consular agents, and for my part I think it would be proper that at an early date their official position should be defined. I think we should have an understanding with the 'm-perial government that the consuls should be allowed semi-diplomatic recognition amongst us. This is a matter which I suppose concerns Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa as well as Canada, and probably it may be a proper subject for discussion at the next imperial conference. If there are any papers such as are called for bv the motion, they will be brought down


George Taylor: Did I understand the Prime Minister to say that an invitation had been sent to the head of the Methodist church if the Methodist church could be said to have a head?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Mi TAYLOR. (Leeds).: I would like to know what the Prime Minister means by that. I believe the Methodist church has a recognized head in this country.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will be very glad to give my own information on the matter to my hon. friend. I have always understood that the Methodist body was a very democratic body, and that some years ago they had a bishop but that the office has been abolished. There is, of course, a head of the Methodist church, and I have, had the honour of more than once to dine at the table of His Excellency side by side, with Dr. Carman, who is a good friend of mine.


Mr TAYLOR. (Leeds).: Yes, he is.


Wilfrid Laurier: And he is a very estimable gentleman for other reasons besides that.


George Taylor: And he is the recognized head of the Methodist church in Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: The recognized head of the Methodist church he may be, but my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) will pardon my ignorance for thinking that the Methodist church had no head, except that they elected a gentleman to be the president of their conference. I understood they were absolutely democratic in that respect, but if I am wrong, I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor), will correct me.


Mr. HAGGART. (Lanark).: I thought that the regulations with regard to the Table of Precedence were entirely in the hands of the imperial government and that we had nothing whatever to do with it. Is not that correct?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is correct.


John Graham Haggart: The prerogative of His Majesty is carefully guarded in that respect, and the only possible way in which we can make any change in the Table of Precedence is to make suggestions to the imperial authorities which suggestions may or may not be acted upon. We have to follow the order of precedence which is communicated to us.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: As a burning and shining light, in one of the large democratic churches


Wilfrid Laurier: Is the hon. gentleman speaking of himself?


Mr. HLTGHES.: Yes. As one who believes in the old principle of co-operative democracy rather than the principle of autocracy, I may be permitted to correct the first minister. The Methodist church has a president; in fact they have a general superintendent and an assistant superintendent for the whole of Canada. They have a president of each conference, and a chairman of every district, which is a much more important office than the Vicar-general would hold in the city of Ottawa, as the chairman of the Ottawa district is also administrator for the church in this locality.
Some years ago, when this matter came up, the late Hon. Sir John Thompson took the view which the right hon. the First Minister does, that in this Table of Precedence the heads of all the churches should be recognized officially.


Wilfrid Laurier: That has been carried out.


Samuel Hughes: Sir John Thompson's view was that the senior officer should take precedence, so that the moderator of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church on one occasion took precedence over archbishops and bishops of the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches. These are trifling matters, but they are annoying. If we are going to have this semi-officiai union of church and state in Canada, a thing which I have no use for whatever, it should be carried out in a spirit of fair play to all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is satisfactory to have the intimation of the right hon. the First Minister that it is intended to have this Table of Precedence revised at an early date and to do what many think is only simple justice to the consuls general in Canada. It seems to me that the greatness of the countries which these gentlemen represent demands consideration. To place men occupying these distinguished positions below the mayor of a city or the Mr. J. HAGGART.
sheriff of a county is hardly respectful to the countries they represent. The right hon. the First Minister, if I understood him correctly, intimated that he had nothing to do with this list. We hold the government responsible generally for everything ; and when we are in doubt, we hold the premier responsible, because we take for granted that he is the person above all others charged with seeing that everything is done rightly. If I understood him correctly, he said that we . did not interfere with the order of precedence as laid down by the Colonial Office. But this very list does interfere with it. Where that was made up I do not know. I am credibly informed that it was not made up by the Governor General. It was probably made up by some subordinate, and in that- list are included names not furnished by the Colonial Office at all. In the Colonial Office list there is nothing about the Vicar-general. The only reference to churches is where it speaks of archbishops and bishops according to seniority. Yet in this list published in the ' Evening Journal ' the Vicar-general is included, while there is nothing about bishops or archbishops at all. So that it is clear that an amendment has been made in the list by some person. Whether it has been done unwittingly or otherwise, it has been done improperly. There ought to be sufficient supervision over it by some one to insure that no injustice is done to any and that fair play is done to all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LANCASTER moved second reading of Bill (No. 2), to amend the Railway Act. He said : Mr. Speaker, the legislation that I am proposing has long been wanted in the country, and I understood from time to time that the government was going to introduce something of the kind. But as that has not been done, I have thought it my duty to bring it forward. It has to do with the lives of the people, so many of which are destroyed by the railways of the country. The number of deaths caused by the railways throughout Canada is still appalling, notwithstanding the efforts that have been made from time to time to diminish them. It is thought by many people who have spoken to me on the subject, and I am of the same opinion, that if there were investigations by coroners into all these fatalities, the number of deaths would probably be decreased, because if a servant of a railway were found guilty of negligence, he would be liable to be charged with manslaughter, and, knowing this, he would of necessity be more careful.

If on the other hand the victim is found to have been killed through his own carelessness, the public mind would be satisfied and be under no misapprehension about the facts. If anybody be found dead on private property, a coroner's inquest is always held. I am sorry to say, however, that many coroners are also physicians for railway companies, and if the coroner comes to the conclusion, from information he receives, and which is not under oath and which no one else hears, that an inquest is not necessary, he decides not to hold any. I do not wish to be understood as saying that the majority of coroners, when they decide not to hold an inquest, are not really convinced that an inquest is not necessary, but the fact remains that the evidence on which a coroner comes to such a decision is not given under oath and is given behind the backs of people quietly and secretly, and the information which might be forthcoming if an inquest were held, might be of such a nature that it would change the coroner's opinion. Neither do I wish to be understood as saying that the majority of coroners are in the employ of railway companies, but a good many are and no harm would be done-and great good may possibly be done -if legislation such as I propose be enacted. It might be well if I were to read the Bill:
Section 292 of the Railway Act, chapter 37 of the revised statutes 1906, is amended by adding the following subsection:
Whenever any person is killed, or receives injuries causing death, on the property of, or by or in a train of, any company, the coroner of the county in which such death or injuries occur, and resident nearest to the place at which such death or injuries occurred, shall hold an inquest on the body of the person so killed immediately upon receiving notice of such death.
Section 292 provides that where accidents occur the Railway Commission shall get a report from the railway company and provides further that the board may declare, by regulation, the manner and form in which such notice and report shall be given by the railway company.
Having had a great deal to do with the Railway Act since it was passed, I might here point out that it would be well if the whole Act were codified so that the subjects connected with each other might be grouped together in one part of the Act. At present you have to look through half a dozen portions of the law to find out all the provisions on any particular branch of the subject. Let me give an illustration. A year or so ago I had to argue before the Supreme Court that the Railway Commission had power to order stations to be established at the time of beginning the works by railway companies already running trains and operating them; and we had to discuss some 25 or 30 sections in different parts of the Railway. Act, out of some 400
sections, in order to arrive at a conclusion. There are, however, a couple of sections which are headed accidents, and that is where I thought it most likely people would look for the legislation I now suggest and that is where I ask to have it inserted. I would simply point out that in cases of fatal accidents, there could be no harm in having a public inquest held so that the jury might find out what caused the death Where a railway is not concerned, the result sometimes is an arrest for manslaughter because of the verdict of the coroner's jury, but we need not trouble ourselves about the effect of the verdict, because that verdict cannot be used in the prosecution or defence. It shows, however, that a coroner's inquest was held and thus allays the public mind.
There can be no serious results to anybody, as the verdict of a coroner's jury has no legal effect as tending to convict or excuse anybody, or in a civil action; but at such an inquest the facts can be made known, those who are acquainted with them can tell them publicly and we will not have the present condition in which it is possible for some one to see the coroner and load him up privately with a statement of the circumstances not given under oath. As a rule when there is a death from accident an inquest is held, and I do not suggest that generally in railway cases inquests are not held, but I have had complaints in my office of three deaths on railways in one year in the neighbourhood of St. Catharines where no inquests were held. The public are much dissatisfied. A coroner was notified in each case but in each case he said he had inquired from the railway officials and was satisfied that the persons were killed in a certain way and therefore he did not think an inquest necessary. That does not satisfy the public, publicity is what they want and that is denied them. The railway people, for their own salvation, should be anxious to have these inquests. If, at an inquest it is shown that the victim met his death through his own carelessness the verdict serves as a warning to other people, and children are warned by their parents and friends and the effect of the verdict pointed out to them. On the other hand, if it is shown that the railway is to blame, that thei switchman was not attending to his duty, that he was drunk or asleep at the switch,'' he is put on trial for manslaughter and because of the evidence obtained at the* coroner's inquest, he may or may not be convicted; but the public will be satisfied that something is being done in the direev tion of protecting them. Publicity is the great salvation and the great educator. No matter what the result of the investigation may be, full publicity, in my
[Stage Direction]
humble opinion, is what will benefit both sides and have a tendency to prevent these' fatalities. The public are not satisfied to have matters go on as they are. Deaths occur which are not investigated, and I thought it my duty to introduce this Bill because I think it would be wise legisla-i tion and, as I have said, it cannot hurt anybody.
Hon.  G. P.@: 'GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).- The object of this Bill is good, I have no objection to the ob7 ject which my hon. friend has in view. There has, however, been complaint in some parts of Ontario that coroners were too apt to hold investigations and people! have complained of. the expense of hold4 ing investigations in some cases where, there was really no reasonable doubt as to the cause of death. However, that would not apply in the case of railway accidents, I admit that. I agree with my hon. friend as to the codifying of the Railway Act but conditions are changing so rapidly, particularly in the west, that I have not rushed to suggest it, because I think quite a number of amendments to the Act will still be required to meet all the conditions. I agree that the Act is growing to such proportions that it is bet coming cumbersome, and even those who make the Act and try to administer it from day to day sometimes find difficulty1 in putting their hand on that part of the Act under which they wish to proceed. Coroners are the appointees of the provincial governments, not our appointees Could we pass an Act to compel the employees of some other government to work for us? The coroners' duties, the coroJ ners' reports and investigations, are all under provincial authority.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You order an inquiry in the case of an accident on a ship.


Mr. GRAHAM.: As I understand the provincial statutes govern the duties of the coroners, and if we pass a statute it might conflict with the duties imposed on them by their employers, the provincial authorities.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Does my hon. friend think it could possibly conflict in a matter that is entirely under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government, the control of Dominion railways? The trouble is that the provincial legislature' cannot legislate on anything that affects a railway.


George Perry Graham: Not that affects a railway, but they can pass an Act dealing with an accident caused by a railway, and do so every day. Their coroners hold inauests every day by order of the attorney general, and I hesitate to pass an Act taking the coroners in any way under our jurisdiction, Mr. LANCASTER.
when, as a matter of fact, they are entirely and solely under provincial jurisdiction.
Is there no way in which we could get at this trouble without interfering with the provincial authorities? I am in sympathy with the object of my hon. friend, but I would suggest that if he would call the attention of the provincial authorities to what he thinks is a deficiency in their law, and ask them to make it compulsory to hold inquests into deaths caused by railway accidents, that would simplify the whole matter. Or we can pass an Act not to interfere with the coroners, but to compel the railway to notify the coroner of every accident, as we now compel them to notify the Board of Railway Commissioners; or we could order and compel them to notify the attorney general of the province in which an accident occurs, and the attorney general could instruct his officers to hold an inquest. I have here -chapter 97 of the Revised Statutes of Ontario, an Act respecting coroners, so you see the coroners are their officials, not ours. Section 2 says:-
2.	Except as provided in the next two sections, no inquest shall be held on the body of any deceased person by a coroner until it has been made to appear to him that there is reason to believe that the deceased died from violence or unfair means, or by culpable or negligent conduct of others, under such circumstances as require investigation, and not through mere accident or mischance.
You see the Ontario Statute really limits them, tells them they must not rush to hold inquests unless they have reason to believe inquests are necessary.
Section 3 provides further:

3.	Upon the death of a prisoner, the warden, jailer, keeper or superintendent of the penitentiary, jail, prison, house of correction, lock-up house, or house of industry in which the prisoner dies, shall immediately give notice thereof to some coroner of the county, city or town in which the death has taken place, and the coroner shall proceed forthwith to hold an inquest upon the body except in the case of a death taking place in any county house of industry in which case such inquest shall not be necessary, unless after notification, the County Crown Attorney believes that such death took place under circumstances requiring investigation.
Now, if the provincial authority would put another clause in there saying that the coroner should proceed to hold an investigation wherever death is caused by an accident on a railway, the whole case would be covered without our interference.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: We have said that as to the provincial authorities.


George Perry Graham: They legislate as to the coroner's duties, not as to the railways, and whenever a man may be found dead.

the matter comes under the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities and the consideration of the coroner.


John Graham Haggart: The question that arises is whether the provincial authority has the power of making any such regulations. Is it vested in them or in the Dominion?


George Perry Graham: I think it is vested in the provincial authorities, without doubt, and in them alone. Now, let me tell my hon. friend why I think so. Very frequently inquests are held on the bodies of victims of railway accidents, and no one ever stops to ask whether the coroner is a Dominion or a provincial officer. In the town of Brockville accidents frequently occur, and the coroner at once holds an inquest, and the question has never been raised. It is not the railway that he is investigating, but it is the death of the victim, and the provincial authorities have a right to have their coroner hold that inquest, and they are the only authority that can command the coroner to do anything because he is their appointee. Now, here is section 7 of the Ontario Act :
It shall not be lawful for a coroner to conduct an inquest in any case where loss of life has been caused at or on a railroad, mine or other work whereof he is owner or part owner, either as a shareholder or otherwise, nor_ in any like case at or on a work where he is employed as medical attendant by the owner thereof, or by any agreement or understanding direct or indirect with the employees at or on such work.
It points out that no coroner can hold an inquest on a death that occurs on a railway in which he is personally interested, either on behalf of the men or on behalf of the railway.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But the coroner may say that an inquest is not necessary, and having said so, none is held.


George Perry Graham: I am not disagreeing with my hon. friend, I am pointing out that it is the provincial authority which controls the coroner. I would join my hon. friend in calling this to the attention of the provincial authorities throughout the Dominion, and asking them whether it would not be wise to make such a provision.


Mr. BARKER.: Would it not be well that when a death occurs on a railway the railway company should notify the county attorney, and leave the rest to the provincial law?


George Perry Graham: I would be content to do that. I want to meet the view of my hon. friend, if he would make his Bill so that the railway company must notify the county attorney, or the coroner, or the Attorney General of the province. I 31
think, perhaps, to notify the county attorney would be the quickest way to get at it, except in some districts where there are none. In that case they might notify the Attorney General. I feel like compelling the railways to call the attention of the proper authorities to the fact that a death has occurred, and it is their duty to order an inquest. We cannot order a coroner to do anything as he is not under our authority.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think you could notify the coroner. One of the duties of a coroner, when he is notified that a death has taken place, is to look into the circumstances and decide for himself whether an inquest is necessary.


Samuel Barker: The objection to that would be that the railway company would be suspected of selecting a coroner friendly to themselves ; whereas if they notified the county attorney, or any official of that character, there would be no suspicion of the kind, because the county attorney would see to the selection of the coroner.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would say, take the
nearest coroner. The objection I see to notifying the county attorney is, that great delays might occur, where you might have to notify a man living thirty or forty miles away from the scene of the accident. Perhaps no one knows where the nearest coroner lives, and as the body cannot be removed until a coroner reaches the place, delay and trouble would occur.


George Perry Graham: I am inclined to agree with my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr Barker), particularly in face of the Ontario statute, which says that any coroner who is a medical adviser of the men, or a medical attendant, or has any connection with the railway, cannot act. The nearest coroner might be one who could not hold an inquest, and then possibly he would report that none was necessary.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, my Bill says that he should hold one.


George Perry Graham: I think the safest way, would be to notify the county attorney, where there is one, and where there is not one, then the Attorney General of the province. That can be done by wire. I want to meet the views of my hon. friend in his object, but I think we would not have a right to pass legislation which would interfere with the provincial Act, or assume jurisdiction where we have none.


John Graham Haggart: The question is one of jurisdiction. When a coroner is holding an inquest he is acting as judge in a criminal case, and the rules and procedures in criminal cases are under the jurisdiction of the Dominion government. Then the question arises whether the juris-



diction is in this House or the provincial House. I am not clear upon the subject, and I want information. Since the judge is acting as in a criminal case, the rules and procedures of which are prescribed by the Dominion government, the question arises whether an inquest comes under that category or not, and whether the rules and procedures should be made by the Dominion or the provincial authorities.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I can scarcely agree with my hon. friend that the coroner is acting in a judicial capacity, though the result of his labours may have an important bearing upon a subsequent criminal charge. But it is clear that the duties of a coroner are those entirely of an investigating character. Nobody is upon trial before a coroner's jury. Frequently the result of the coroner's inquest is a verdict showing that the jury has not been able to come to a conclusion as to who the person may be, who is responsible for the matteT they are investigating. The office of coroner is a very ancient one, and the duties of a coroner are well enough defined by the courts in their decisions through the centuries during which that office has been known to English law. But under our Canadian system, nothing, I think, can be more clear than that the whole power of legislating in regard to the office and the duty of a coroner rests with the provincial authorities. They have exercised that power in some instances, possibly not in all the provinces-as to that, I am not aware. But in the province of Ontario the statute lays down many restrictions upon the action of coroners. Now it would conflict at once with some of those provisions if this parliament were to enact that in every case of death, occurring upon a rail- way, and by the way, this Bill, apparently, would extend even to a death resulting from natural causes, 'but certainly in every case in which death resulted by reason of an accident from a railway, there must be an inquest. The Ontario statute provides that it is only in certain circumstances that there is to be an inquest, and ought m,(, to court a conflict between an Enactment of this parliament and the provincial legislation? There are statutes on the subject in other provinces with the various provisions of which we are not familiar. We should very probably be running counter to some of those provisions if we were to enact this Bill in the shape in which it is presented and in these circumstances it certainly would seem an injudicious thing, and I would, with all deference, submit we should not pass such legislation, the necessity for which, I would respectfully submit, does not very clearly appear.
I am sure that hon. gentlemen in the House will agree with me in the knowledge, as a matter of personal experience, that in Mr. HAGGART.
the province of Ontario, at any rate, coroners' inquests in case of death resulting from an accident upon a railway are very frequent. I have a very vivid recollection of a railway accident some years ago in which I happened to have been, and in regard to which I appeared as a witness on the coroners' inquest on the occasion of the death of other passengers. As a matter of ordinary legal practice I know that it is-not, of course, an occurrence of every day, but a most frequent occurrence for inquests to be held in respect of accidents upon every railway, whether a Dominion railway or a provincial railway. I have never heard that there was any lack of these inquests, and I think that the statute of Ontario makes provision rather in the way of preventing inquests except where they are necessary. It seems to me that this would be legislation in the other direction. I think the evil which led to the passing of the Ontario statute was that frequently where death occurred there was a competition among foreigners for the fees-which resulted from the holding of the inquest and because that was not a seemly thing and because it was thought there ought to be some restriction shown about the holding of these inquests and that they should not be held as a matter of course, the Ontario legislation was passed providing that it was only in certain circumstances that they should be permitted.


Mr. CARVELL.: I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) will admit that the only power of appointing coroners rests with the provincial governments?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, I do not admit that. I say it has been done, but I also say that we can appoint them if we want to.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Any way the hon. gentleman admits that up to tne present time the government of Canada has never appointed coroners?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: That may be.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Suppose the nearest coroner were a provincial coroner and we order him to hold an inquest and he refuses; what will happen?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then, the next nearest one will hold it. I assume that if the nearest coroner refuses to all intents and purposes he is dead under the Act and that after him the next nearest one will act and he will be the next nearest under the circumstances. I do not think we need be afraid of a situation of that kind. It is manifest that the House is with me in thinking that this legislation is necessary. It is quite evident even from what the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) says and from the more frank statement of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) that legislation of this kind is necessary.

There is no reason to be afraid about jurisdiction. When was this government ever afraid about jurisdiction when they wanted to remedy-an evil or accomplish something which they said was for the welfare of this country? What did the leader-I will not say of the government-but of some of the members of this government-the much respected and well known Sir Oliver Mowat, say on one occasion? If there is any question about jurisdiction I am going to assume that we have jurisdiction and I am going to let the courts decide that we have not if they dare. We can appoint coroners if we want to. I am not suggesting that we should, but I am not troubled a bit by all this technicality about a coroner being appointed by the provincial government in a Dominion railway matter. I am not suggesting that we should have two sets of coroners! But, what about magistrates and justices of the peace? We do not appoint the magistrates and the justices of the peace, but they have to take the Criminal Code and, under hundreds of sections, they have to carry out the bequests of this parliament. Yet, every one is appointed by the provincial government. Jurisdiction! Why jurisdiction exists to carry out, under the decision of the Privy Council in several well known cases, anything that is necessary in order to carry out a subject matter that is within the jurisdiction of the Dominion parliament. We have jurisdiction over Dominion railways. We have the right then to exercise any jurisdiction supplementary to that, in assistance or furtherance of it, in order to carry out such an undertaking, just the same as we have the right to say that they shall cross the highways of a province with a Dominion railway. Why can this parliament allow a Dominion railway to cross provincial highways without the consent of the provincial government in whom, under the British North America Act, all the powers are vested with regard to these highways? Simply because it is necessary to cross these highways in order to carry out the object of the legislation, the creation of a Dominion railway. That principle has been decided over and over again and the Minister of Justice surely knows it. If the Minister of Justice is of the same mind as the Minister of Railways and wants to prevent what is admitted on both sides of the House to be an evil in the country, whv cannot he assume that we have jurisdiction and say to the coroner in the country :	In regard to a Dominion matter you
shall do so and so while you are a coroner. We do not appoint the coroner any more than we appoint the magistrate or the justice of the peace or several other officials who exist simply by the authority of the provincial legislature, but the magistrates and justices of the peace put in force the provisions of the Criminal Code, which is 314
Dominion legislation just the same as the Railway Act is Dominion legislation in so-far as Dominion railways are concerned and, of course, the legislation of this parliament only applies to Dominion railways.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not hear the observations of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth), but was it not laid down by the Minister of Justice six or seven years ago in connection with the-Election Act-


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Manitoba elections.


Robert Laird Borden: No, but the General Franchise Act, that it was proper for this parliament to impose duties upon a provincial officer and that it could properly do so with respect to matters over which the parliament of Canada had jurisdiction?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: That matter was very seriously debated at the time, -a great many arguments pro and con were-advanced in this House, and the final conclusion, as voiced by the Minister of Justice, was that such jurisdiction undoubtedly did exist in this parliament.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: There is no doubt of that, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice laid it down, as stated by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), that we had such jurisdiction, and in so doing he only did what all who are lawyers in this House, at all events, and I think most of the laymen, quite understand. It is a well known principle laid down by the Privy Council in several cases that we have the right to interfere, if you like, to use a strong expression, with provincial matters in so far as that interference is necessary in order to properly carry out legislation in regard to a subject matter over which we have control. That is exactly why we can allow a Dominion railway to go over a provincial highway without the consent of the provincial authorities. If we enact that a railway shall run from Toronto to Winnipeg, say, it must cross highways, and if the provincial government can prevent it doing so without legislation the result must be to render nugatory the Tights of the Dominion parliament.
We, therefore, have ordered the magistrates to do a number of things, and the magistrates are appointed by the provincial government. In view of the argument of the Minister of Justice, he will be surprised to learn that in the Criminal Code itself he tells coroners what they must do, and that being so, why cannot he tell them what they must do in the Dominion Railway Act? Section 667 of the Criminal Code says that these coroners, whom the Minister of Jus-

tice is afraid to overwork, must do certain things. It reads:-
Every coroner, upon any inquisition taken before him whereby any person is charged with manslaughter or murder, shall, if the person or persons, or either of them, affected by the (verdict or finding (is mot already charged with the said offence before a magistrate or justice, by warrant under his hand, direct that such person be taken into custody and be conveyed, with all convenient speed, before a magistrate or justice; or such coroner may direct such person to enter into a recognizance before him, with or without a surety or sureties, to appear before a magistrate or justice.
2. In either case, it shall be the duty of the coroner to transmit to such magistrate or justice the deposition taken before him iu the matter.
Here we have it set out In the Criminal Code what the duty of coroners shall be, and in that section coroners and magistrates are coupled together, and this Dominion parliament tells them what are their duties. I thought., in my simplicity, that when, in my Bill, I used the_ same words as are to be found in the Criminal Code, that the legislation I propose might be found to be consistent with Dominion legislation. But the Minister of Justice seems to take a different view, although I do not think any one who considers the matter will dare to say that we have no power to order an official of the provincial government to carry out the objects of Dominion legislation. I am sorry that this purely technical and unmeritorious objection is raised by the Minister of Justice, and if it is going to be insisted upon I shall have the termerity to divide the House on the question. I am not wedded to the language set out in my Bill; it- may be that the object I seek may be attained by other wording, but before I desist from pressing the measure I will have to hear some better reasons than those advanced by the Minister of Justice.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend will allow the Bill to stand we will confer about it and perhaps we can come to some agreement which will prevent our usurping the powers, as I think, of the provincial parliaments. I am in sympathy with the object my hon. friend has in view, but I do not think he should undertake to deal with the coroners.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have no objection to that so long as I have assurance that the Bill will retain its place on the Orderi Paper, or that it will be submitted as a government motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: It will keep its place on the Order Paper, and I move the adjournment of the debate.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I will not object to that so long as it is agreed that we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter again.


Wilfrid Laurier: It will remain on the top of the list.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MILLER moved second reading of Bill (No. 6) to amend the Interest Act. He said: This Bill is almost exactly similar to the Bill I introduced last year and which passed its second reading and the committee stage, and stood for third reading, but was not reached. It permits the mortgagor to pay off an overdue mortgage by giving one month's notice of his intention to do so, or by paying one month's extra interest by way of bonus. It applies only to an overdue mortgage; it is not retroactive, but only refers to mortgages made or renewed after this date. The Bill met with the favour of the House last session. It seems to me that a man should have the same right to pay off an overdue mortgage that he has to pay off an overdue note. Last session Mr. Osier, one of the members for Toronto, who has a good deal to do with financial and monev lending companies, stated that he could see no wrong in the Bill, and other leading financial men in Toronto have spoken to me in a similar manner. Last session the Minister of Public Works thought that perhaps the Bill might imply that no mortgagor, no matter what was or was not in his contract, could pay off an overdue mortgage unless by giving notice or paying the bonus referred to in this Act. Subsection 2 of the Bill removes that difficulty. Mr. Osier, among others, thought that the mortgagor ought not to be able to give notice repeatedly and, failing to carry out his expressed intention cause annoyance to the mortgagee. Subsection 3 provides that if the mortgagor gives notice and does not avail himself of it, that he should have no further privilege in that regard.
Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I would like to see that Bill go further than it does, and I would like to know what the hon. member (Mr. Miller) means exactly by paying off an overdue mortgage.


Mr. MILLER.: Mortgages are usually made for a term of five years and when the mortgagor has had the money for five years the term of the mortgage expires, and no matter what provision may be in his mortgage that may bind him to give three months' notice or pay three months' interest before he has the privilege of paying off the mortgage, the mortgage having expired he will have the right to pay off this mortgage

by giving one month's notice of his intention' or paying one month's interest in lieu of notice.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: As a matter of fact, almost all mortgages are drawn so that they may be paid off when they become due.


Henry Horton Miller: Oh, yes, but not afterwards unless by notice or bonus.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I think most of the mortgages in our country are drawn in that way. What I would like to see is permission under certain conditions to pay a mortgage before it becomes due. By way "of illustration, I will state what occurred in my own case last year. I bought some land on which a mortgage had been put the year before by the previous owner at a very high rate of interest, 8 per cent. When I bought the land I did not wish to pay 8 per cent interest. I wanted to pay off the mortgage, so that) I might, if I wished, put on another at a lower rate of interest ; but I was unable to do so. The consequence is that I have to continue paying 8 per cent on that mortgage for 5 years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would advise my hon. friend not to buy the land under those circumstances.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The hon. gentleman does not quite understand the situation. The mortgage was not equal to the value of the land, and I may have made a very profitable investment even with that mortgage on it. If such a provision as I suggest is not put into this Bill, I intend to bring a Bill into the House to admit of mortgages under certain conditions being paid off before they become due.


Henry Horton Miller: Loan companies, life insurance companies and other companies lending money on land mortgages have done and are doing a great deal to assist in opening up the western country, and it would be grossly unfair to them to enact the provision which the hon. member suggests, for this reason. Suppose the prevailing rate of interest in the west to-day is 7 per cent, and a man borrows money at that rate on a five years' mortgage. That is the best bargain he can make at the time. If money goes up to 8 per cent, the lender cannot, under any provision of the mortgage, demand from the borrower an additional one per cent ; but if the prevailing rate of interest fell to 6 per cent during the currency of the mortgage, the consequence of such a law as my hon. friend suggests would be that every borrower would pay off his mortgage, and the mortgagees would have their vaults full of money, with no opportunity to lend it. The privilege would be altogether onesided.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) has not evidently taken sufficient time to consider the prope sition he has made, because a contract is purely a provincial matter entirely under the jurisdiction of provincial laws. If A agrees to pay B 8 per cent interest for four or five years, that is a contract, oyer which this parliament has no jurisdiction what ever. My hon. friend from South Grey (Mr. Miller) is attempting to obtain his object by providing that after a certain notice is given, no further interest shall be chargeable. We cannot compel the mortgagee to take his money, but we can say that after a certain time he cannot charge more interest, because under the British North America Act this parliament has jurisdiction over interest.


Mr. McKENZIE.: Is not that merely over the rate of interest? Have we any right to make any stipulation as to the contract surrounding it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend has asked me a question which it might be somewhat difficult to answer, I think, however, that if we have jurisdiction to legislate regarding interest, we have jurisdiction to legislate on anything respecting interest. However, that is a matter which perhaps does not arise just now. I can only say to my hon. friend from Manitoba that if he only wishes to attain the object he has in view, the legislature of the province of Manitoba has" absolute jurisdiction to pass such legislation, and that is the source to which he should apply 'or it.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I do not intend to offer any violent opposition to the passing of this Bill, but I will say at once that I do not like it. I think it is interfering with the freedom of contract which might much better be left alone. I certainly believe in free trade, and equally I believe in the unhampered right of any person of full age and of sound sense to make his own bargains, and I thins mat any effort which a legislature makes to protect a man against himself is simply going to recoil upon the head of the very individual whom the legislature is trying to save. Now, what is going to be the effect of this legislation? Surely it is perfectly plain that if this Bill becomes law, every mortgagee will see that his money is paid when it is due or that he has a new agreement that will postpone the due day. A moneylender with his eyes_ open, who knows what the law is, is going to see to it that he does not subject himself to what is, practically a penalty, namely, the loss of his interest, if this Bill is to operate upon his particular transaction, and if you drive the money-lender to do that, you damage the very borrower to protect whom is the principal object of this Bill.


H71 COMMONS
Henry Horton Miller: How would you damage 'the mortgagor in that case? '


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: You damage the mortgagor by making the mortgagee harder upon him. The lender, if he knows that his interest is to continue running after the date for payment, will probably be perfectly content to leave things as they are, and not press the borrower, who has been unable to pay on the due date. But if the Bill should become law, the lender will know that, on notice being given him, lie is liable to be paid off summarily or to [DOT] lose the subsequent interest, and he will take care that he does not allow the date of payment to pass without exacting it or getting a new agreement postponing payment another twelve months or two years. So that you are going to force the lender to be less lenient than he would be if you liad not passed the legislation. I quite admit that the same remark applies to the legislation we have already and to which the Bill proposes an amendment. I am mot questioning our power to pass it. It "was thought by the wise men of some 20 [DOT]or 25 years ago, who passed the former Act, that we had power to legislate in that way notwithstanding that legislation interfered with the right of contract, and I am not going to discuss that question; but [DOT]granted that we have the power, I am strongly of the opinion that there is no necessity to exercise it, and that it would be injudicious to do so in the interests of the borrower himself. Surely in this day and generation every one knows that the -average borrower is on perfect equality with the average lender. The two are free alike to make their own contract, and there is just as much competition in the lending as in the borrowing. There is therefore no difficulty in the borrower getting a perfectly straighforward and plain ^contract to prove the relations with the lender. In those circumstances, to seek to impose a different contract upon him or to put the lender in any position which will force him to take some means; whereby he can secure himself at the expense of the borrower, would not, I think, he in the interests of the borrower himself.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like, to ask the mover of the Bill whether or not he has made any inquiry as to the laws prevailing in the different provinces with respect to mortgage contracts? This is legislation, not designed for one province but which will affect nine provinces, and I am not sure that it would be perfectly acceptable in all the provinces, having, regard to the laws and customs of each.


Henry Horton Miller: I have consulted legal gentlemen from all the provinces except She province of Quebec, and they all wel-


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: come the Bill and say there is necessity, fqr it, and that it would not in any way) conflict with the laws in any of the provinces.


Robert Laird Borden: I would think that this is a Bill which at least should be submitted to the attorneys general of the different provinces before we pass it, in order that we might know exactly what the views of the law officers in each province may be regarding its effect and operation. My recollection of law practice in Nova Scotia would not lead me to believe that this measure would result in any improvement of the conditions in that province, but I speak as one who has not been actively connected with such matters during recent years.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Our experience in the west is that the mortgagor looks after his part of the business.


Mr. TALBOT.: This is the second time the hon. gentleman has spoken.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the hon. gentlev man's name down as having spoken already, but he is at liberty to put a question.


Mr. SHARPE. (Lisgar).: I do not see that this Bill is going to be of much use in western Canada, because there the loan companies renew the mortgages the moment they become due. But the great difficulty we have in southern Manitoba, particularly this year, is, that the loan companies, after lending money for five years at six or seven per cent, and after the loans have run some two or three years, take the opportunity, when the borrowers, on account of poor crops, cannot meet the interest, to make them sign new agreements at a higher rate of interest. I do not think that is fair, and something should be done to stop it.


Henry Horton Miller: and is subject to its provisions, or it may be that when he discovers what has been inserted in the mortgage, a clause to which he would have objected, there is not sufficient time for him, if he should refuse to sign the mortgage, to make other arrangements and obtain the money that he must have by a certain date.
As to what has been said by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) in reference to consulting the attorneys general of the different provinces, that was not done in reference to section 10 of the Interest Act, which provides that a man, though he has contracted to keep the mortgage moneys for 20 years, may pay it off and the mortgagee must accept it at the end of five years, this has worked out well; it has wrought no confusion, it has not been objected to by any person or by any attorney general, and if it was not necessary in one case and no objection was taken to it I think it is quite right to suppose that no objection is likely to be found in this other parallel case.
The whole matter was threshed out pretty well last session, and, as I have said, many men of more experience than the Minister of Justice or the leader of the opposition- and I do not object to any statement made by either of them-but men of much larger experience, men who know more about the whole matter, h;ave_ stated to me that they find nothing objectionable or unreasonable in the Bill, and that it is in every way perfectly fair and right.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Shall the motion be adopted? In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.


Henry Horton Miller: I would like to ascertain the feelings of the House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Too late.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If five members ask for a division, I shall grant it.
House divided on motion, Mr. Miller.
Donnelly,
Edwards,
Elson,
Emmerson,
F raser,
Gilbert,
Goodeve,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hunt,
Jameson,
K idd,
King,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Lennox,
Toggle,
McAllister,
McCarthy,
McCoig,
McCoII,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
Mol-can (Hu ron),
Ross (Middlesex),
Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Schaffner,
Schell,
Sealey,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Sinclair,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stratton,
Taylor (New Westminster),
Thornton,
Tolmie,
Wallace,
Warburton,
White (Victoria, Alta.), Wilcox (Essex),
Wilson (Lennox and Addington),
Wright.-87.
NATS:
Messieurs
Allen,
Aylesworth,
Parker,
Beattie,
Brodeur,
Bureau,
Campbell,
Clark (Red Deer), Congdon,
Daniel,
Fortier,
Haggart (Winnipeg),
Harty,
Knowles,
Lachance,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), McKenzie,
Murphy,
Paquet,
Paterson,
Reid (Restigoucbe), Ross (Rimouski), Templeman,
Tureotte (Nicolet)-21.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to understand the meaning of the words in the first lines of this section:
YEAS:
Messieurs
Allard,
Ames,
Armstrong,
Barnard,
Beauparlant,
Black,
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyer,
Broder,
Carvell,
Cash,
Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Huron), Chisholm (Inverness), Clarke (Essex), Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe),


Henry Horton Miller: Major,
Martin (Wellington), Meighen,
Michaud,
Middlebro,
Miller,
Nantel,
Neely,
Northrup,
Oliver,
Pardee,
Perley,
Pickup,
Porter,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Rhodes,
Richards,
Whenever any principal money, interest or other money secured by mortgage made, or renewed, by renewal or extension agreement, after the passing of this Act is not paid, at the time when in the mortgage, or in any agreement for the renewal or extension of the mortgage, the same is stipulated to be due and payable, then, if the person liable to pay or entitled to redeem the mortgage gives the person entitled to receive the money at least one month's notice

I would like to understand the meaning of the expression contained in the first three lines.


Henry Horton Miller: ' Any principal money, interest or other money.' Well, that other money perhaps might be an insurance premium, or it might be taxes.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the meaning of the expression that immediate-

ly follows: ' By mortgage made, or renewed by renewal or extension agreement '?


Henry Horton Miller: Suppose a mortgage be made to mature on the 1st of January, 1911, then this Act does not apply. Should there be a new mortgage made on the maturity of that mortgage, that would bring it within the Act. In practice these mortgages are frequently renewed by giving a new mortgage, or by a renewal or extension agreement, which is not registered in the registry office, although each party may have a copy. Now by the renewal of that mortgage by extension agreement, I mean to bring it under the same stipulations as if a new mortgage had been taken.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the hon. member is frustrating the object he has in view. ' Made or renewed by renewal or extension agreement.' Suppose it is made by a new mortgage, that is a renewal.


Henry Horton Miller: If it is renewed by a new mortgage after the passing of this Act, then it certainly comes under the Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think this language means what the hon.. gentleman intended it to mean, judging from this speech.


Henry Horton Miller: It means that this Act does not apply to a mortgage made before the passing of the Act unless it is renewed after the passing of the Act.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What do you mean by 'renewed'?


Henry Horton Miller: By signing or executing a renewal agreement to extend the time whereby the mortgagor agrees to keep the money for a further period, and the mortgagee consents that he shall keep it for a further period. If that is done after the passing of this Act, although it is the same mortgage, and the old mortgage has not been discharged, yet the fact of that agreement being signed, brings that old mortgage within the Act, and gives the mortgagor the privilege of the Act when that second due date comes round, or when the maturity of the mortgage is reached.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The hon. gentleman makes it clear what he means, but I do not think that this Bill makes it clear. I do not think a court would say that this language means what he says. ' Whenever any principal money, interest or other money secured by mortgage made, or renewed by reriewal or extension agreement.' Now if it is not made or renewed by renewal or extension agreement, then the court will say that this Act does not apply.


Henry Horton Miller: No it does not, of course.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You are enacting here that subsection 10 is to be affected by the contents of 10a. But we start, with a new
section. By these words you have to be entirely within all the qualifications of that definition before the Act can apply. I cannot grasp what it does mean. Speaking as a lawyer, I do not believe that a court would put upon it any such construction as my hon. friend thinks that a court would put upon it. I think that is a very much restricted operation. You begin by interfering with the rights of contract. Now, the first principle of construction that a court of law would put upon it, is to limit the qualification as much as possible. By the complication of these words you will cause the court to say: This does not apply. If there is no question about the extent of this Act, then the qualification is not to apply, because, as I have said, it is an interference with the rights of contract, and the courts will say that it must be strictly construed. Now, the mortgage must be made or renewed by renewal or extension agreement. What i,s that to cover? Is that to cover every little agreement that a man has made for extension of time for the payment of interest on certain conditions? We know very well that the principle is not always paid when it becomes due, and it may be that the man does not pay the interest when it becomes due. It may be an extension agreement has been made, and yet that little "extension agreement is only to apply perhaps to a few dollars of interest. Is this Act to apply then? Perhaps the mortgagor forgets to pay the insurance premium, and under the Short Form Mortgages Act of Ontario, if he forgets to pay the insurance premium, the mortgagee can pay that premium and by special enactment, not in the contract, not in the mortgage which the man and his wife have signed, but by virtue of an Act which becomes of the same effect as if it was included in the mortgage, the mortgagee has a right to add that insurance premium as so much principal to his mortgage principal. Now, if he forgets to pay that, and the mortgagee pays it, then the mortgagee says: Well, you did not provide for this premium, it is past due, and I will extend the time for payment; then that additional principal becomes such by virtue of a clause of the Act. That is an extension agreement, that extends the time for payment of part of the sum. I voted for this Bill, but I am not in favour of making legislation that is going to get every farmer into a lawsuit with the loan company. The farmer is not going to get any benefit from it, and he will have to risk perhaps his whole farm by carryinig a case to the Privy Council to find out how far we have power to enact this legislation. The provincial legislatures deal with these matters, and while I am prepared to go as far as we can in using our jurisdiction to remedy an evil, I want to be careful that we are not going to get

the borrower into such a position that he will be encouraged to go into a lawsuit with the loan company, and after he has lost his farm, will find out that the Act does not mean what my hon. friend thinks it means. I think that we ought to recast this section so that the leader of the opposition, myself and other members of this House can all understand it to mean exactly what the hon. gentleman does, because, I am inclined to say, that I cannot be sure if the court will put any such construction upon it as the proposer of the Bill does.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The object of the Bill is simply to provide for the case of a mortgage not being paid when due, or at the time to which it has been extended by agreement. I appreciate the objection which has been raised toy the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) and I think that if we would recast just the first three or four lines it would obviate all this difficulty. I would suggest that it might be recast in this way :
Whenever any principal money or other money secured by mortgage made after the passing of this Act or hereafter renewed by renewal or extension agreement thereof.


Robert Laird Borden: I appreciate the object which tl^e hon. gentleman (Mr. Carvell) has, but I am bound to say that the drafting of this Bill, including some of the expressions that the hon. gentleman proposes to retain, seems rather of a slangy description. I do not know the practice in other provinces, but in the province of Nova Scotia, I have never heard the expression: 'Extension agreement.' When that came up for construction before a court of that province some of the judges might say that they had heard of extension tables but that they had never heard the term * extension agreement ' before.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is used in practice.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not used in my province.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is quite common.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it common in statutes and legal documents.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is very common in practice.


Robert Laird Borden: Is it used in legal documents?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes.


Robert Laird Borden: I have never heard it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have drawn up lots of documents containing it.


William Pugsley: You might get over it by calling it an ' agreement to extend the time for payment.'


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


Robert Laird Borden: I suppose the Minister of Public Works will appreciate the suggestion that I have made.


William Pugsley: I have never heard it called an extension agreement before, but I should think that you could say an ' agreement to extend the time for the payment of the principal money.'


Robert Laird Borden: Something of that kind so that we could have an intelligent idea of what it means. We might call it an extension agreement in debate if we desired to do so, but when we are framing a statute which has to be considered by the courts we should be more particular.
Progress reported.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, resolutions, memorials, reports, and all other papers in the possession of the government, not already brought down, regarding otter, beaver, or steam trawling, and the operations of the trawlers 'Wren' and ' Coquette ' in the waters of the Northumberland strait, or elsewhere, in Nova Scotia.- Mr. Chisholm (Antigonish).
For a return showing the revenue of the post offices of Acton Vale, Upton and St. Pie, in the county of Bagot, province of Quebec, since the year 1903 up to 1910 inclusively.- Mr. Monk.
For a copy of all applications, correspondence, and other documents in reference to sections 11, 12, 14, 22, 24, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 in township 10, range 22, west of the 4th meridian.-Mr. Wallace.
For a copy of all correspondence between the government of Canada or the Right Honourable, the First Minister, and the government of Manitoba or the Premier of Manitoba, referring to the demand of Manitoba for an extension of boundaries and an increase in subsidy.-Mr. Staples.
For a copy of Sir John Thompson's memorandum on the question of the rights of fishing in the bays of British North America, prepared for the use of the British plenipotentiaries at Washington in 1888, and a copy of the treaty agreed to and approved by the President.-Mr. Foster.
For a return implementing for the year 1910, the information brought down in answer to an order of the House of Commons, referring to the operations of the Mint, dated January 19, 1910.-Mr. Foster.
For a copy of all petitions, memorials and resolutions from individuals, boards of trade or other bodies and corporations, favouring or asking for a treaty of reciprocity with the United States; and also of all similar documents protesting against or unfavourable to the same, and a copy of all correspondence had with the government, or any member thereof, concerning reciprocity with the United States since the 1st of January, 1910-Mr. Foster.
For a return showing the names, respective ages, when appointed, and pay received, by the sessional employees of the House of Commons.-Mr. Sproule.

For a copy of all orders in council, correspondence, papers, maps or other documents, which passed between the government of Canada or any member thereof, and the government of Quebec, or any members thereof, or any other parties on their behalf, or between the government of Canada and the government of Ontario or any members thereof, regarding the extension of the boundaries of the province of Quebec, as set forth in an order in council dated 8th July, 1896, establishing a conventional boundary, therein specified. And also any correspondence, papers, documents,_&c., that may have passed between the aforesaid governments or members thereof, relative to the passing of an Act to confirm and ratify the aforesaid conventional boundary, which was passed in 1898.-Mr. Sproule.
For a return showing the total cost to date of wharfs at North Bay, Burks Falls and Maganatawan, Ontario; the name, date of appointment and salary of wharfinger in each case; the schedule of fees charged to public or others for use of wharf in each case; and a [DOT]detailed statement of receipts for each wharf for the years 1907, 1908, 1909, giving name of party paying and for what-Mr. Arthurs.
For a copy of all correspondence and other papers and documents that have passed between the government and any party or parties during the past year in connection with the dredging of the Napanee river; also any instruction given by the minister in connection therewith.-Mr. Wilson (Lennox).
For a copy of all papers, reports, valuations, plans, documents, contracts, advertisements, tenders, offers, and letters, relating to the sale and disposition of the property purchased by the government for a barracks site at Toronto, and recently sold by the government, generally known as the Baby Farm or property; and more particularly, all correspondence, valuations or opinions as to the value of the said property, and as to the method of disposal thereof; and also a copy of advertisements, number of insertions, and names of papers in which same appeared, in the possession of the Department of Militia, or any other department of the government.-Mr. Macdonell.
For a return giving a list of the special immigration agents appointed by the government since the 31st March, 1909, in what portions of Great Britain and Ireland, the European continent, or other country they are severally located, their addresses, their addresses when they were so appointed, the date of their appointment in each case, their respective salaries and expenses, and any commissions that may have been paid to each or any since their appointment.-Mr. Wilson (Lennox).
For a return showing what arrangements have been made with foreign countries by the Governor General in Council under the provisions of the Customs Tariff of 1907, without reference to parliament.-Mr. Ames.
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the government and the Phoenix Bridge Company in connection with the payment by said company of $100,000 in discharge of claims re contract.-Mr. Ames.
House adjourned at six o'clock, until Friday, December 9th, at 3 p.m.

Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What was the number of motions heard and the amount of business transacted by the Senior Judge of the united counties of_ Prescott and Russell, sitting in chambers in the city of Ottawa, since the 1st day of May, 1907, as County Court Judge, Division Court Judge, and Local Judge of the High Court for the said united counties of Prescott and Russell?
2.	Were there any moneys paid to the said judge by the Department of Justice since the said date for travelling allowance and moving or transportation expenses in connection with the holding of chambers by him at the said city of Ottawa? If so, what is the amount?
3.	What is the place of residence of the said judge, and what has it been since the said date?


Mr. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	The Department of Justice has no information on this subject and has requested the learned judge to supply the answer.
2.	Yes: $1,531.50 in all.
3.	The learned judge has been asked to say.


GOVERNMENT SINKING FUNDS.
Mr. FOSTER:: 1.	What was the amount legally required to be invested in the sinking fund for the fiscal years 1895 and 1896, respectively, and what was the amount actually invested in each of these years?
2.	What amount was paid in bounties under the acts authorizing the same up to and including the fiscal year 1896, and to what fund was it debited?
3.	What amount has ben paid since, and to what fund has this been dehited?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	1895, amount required and actually invested in Sinking Funds, $2,002,311.36.
1896, amount required and actually invested in Sinking Funds, $2,005,287.52.
2.	$873,105.80 charged to Customs Revenue.
3.	$1,388,614.81 charged to Customs Revenue.
$150,000.00 charged to Consolidated Fund Expenditure.
$18,154,390.36 charged to Special Account.


POSTAL SERVICE IN NOVA SCOTIA.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	How many post offices in Nova Scotia are accommodated with weekly mails only?
2.	How many by two mails each week?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	90.
2.	281.


RURAL MAIL DELIVERY.
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	How many rural free mail delivery routes are in actual operation in Canada?
2.	What action, if any, has the government taken with a view to granting all people living in thickly settled portions of Canada a system of rural free mail delivery similar to that in operation in the United States and other countries?
merit's intention of establishing a naval service and also in the public interest. The Admiralty did not offer the loan of a ship of the ' Niobe ' class and two ships of the ' Apollo ' class would not have provided sufficient accommodation for the number of recruits the government desired.


UNITED STATES MAGAZINES AND PAPERS.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	380.
2.	The system of rural delivery is now open on existing routes or routes that may be established, to all the people of Canada, on complying with the regulations and petitioning for the same.


Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	How many mail routes in East Elgin have the established free mail delivery?
2.	What is the number of mail boxes on each established route?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	7.
2.	Name of Route.	Number of Boxes.
Aylmer & Grovesend	 74
Aylmer & Port Bruce	 35
Aylmer & St. Thomas	 49
Bayham & Ingersoll	 28
Dexter & Union	 44
Kingsmill & Mapleton	 18
St. Thomas & Sparta	 40
Total	288


CANADIAN FISHERIES SERVICE.
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: Does the government allow certain weekly papers and magazines to enter Canada from the United States on more favourable terms than other papers and magazines coming from that country? If so, why are they so favoured and what are the names of said papers and magazines?


Wilfrid Laurier: No. The postal regulations governing weekly papers and magazines entering Canada from the United States are of general nature and are applied uniformly.


LEGAL SERVICES.
Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1 What amounts have been paid by the ev'eral government departments since 1st anuary, 1908, to the following law firms, or o any member thereof, and what has been n each case the nature of the service rend-red:	Messrs. Dandurand, Hibbard & Com-
>any, Montreal; Stewart, Cox & McKenna, lontreal; Smith, Markav & Company, Mont-oal- Hibbard. Bover & Gosselm, Montreal r


Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	When did the federal government take into its control all the expenses connected with the Canadian Fisheries Service?
2.	How much have we expended since that date in that service?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	At confederation in 1867.
2.	$16,663,402.88.


CANADIAN NAVAL SERVICE.
Mr. MONK:: 1. Why did the government purchase the ' Niohe ' and ' Rainbow ' instead of effecting the loan of the same, according to the suggestion made at the Imperial Conference, 1909, page 27, as follows:-
' Pending the completion of the new cruisers, an arrangement might he made for the loan by the Admiralty of two cruisers of the ' Apollo ' class, so that the training of the new naval personnel might be preceeded with at once.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These two ships were purchased as it was more in accordance with the govern-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Answer so far as the Department of Marine and Fisheries is concerned:-
1. A payment of $75 was made to the firm of Hibbard, Boyer &_Gosselin for legal services in connection with the investigation re SS. ' Hestia.'


AYLMER POST OFFICE.
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	What revenue has been received from the post office at Aylmer for the years 1908-09 and up to December 1, 1910?
2.	What is the total amount of money orders paid for during the same period?
3.	What is the total amount of money orders issued during the same period?
4.	What is the salary of the postmaster per annum at the Aylmer post office?


Wilfrid Laurier: Assuming that the questions Tefer to the Aylmer West post office, Ontario, the answers are as follows:-
1, 2 and 3:

Year ended 31st Dec.	Revenue.	Total Amount of Money Orders Issued.	>i I |V^ ' ** IV Total Amount of Money Orders Paid.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.1908	6,231 65	16,460 11	19,999 491909	
1st Jan. to Nov. 30,	7,017 65	19,531 92	18,193 371910	5,350 30	22,631 92	18,026 014.	Postmasters at offices of the class of Aylmer West do not receive fixed salaries, but are paid a percentage upon the legitimate collections of their offices, in return for which they are obliged to provide suitable premises and whatever clerical assistance may be necessary for the proper performance of the work. The present revenue of the Aylmer West post office entitles the postmaster to a sum at the rate of $2,254 per annum, in addition to which he receives the following allowances:-Forward duty	$126.00Rent	
350.00Night duty	
90.00
Also whatever commissions he may be entitled to upon the sale of money orders and postal notes and savings bank transactions.


COLLECTION OF CUSTOMS.
Mr. MARSHALL:: 1.	How much duty has been collected at Port Stanley from the Customs Department for the years 1908-09 and up to December 1, 1910?
2.	How much duty has been collected at Port Burwell from the Customs Department for the yea^s 1908-09 and up to December 1, 1910?
3.	How much duty has been collected at Aylmer from the Customs Department for the years 1908-09 and up to December 1, 1910?


William Paterson: 1, 2 and 3. The customs duties collected from 1st April, 1908, to December 1, 1910, at the undermentioned outports of customs
were	umuwo, via. .-
Port Stanley, Ont	$249,357.06
Port Burwell, Ont	318,214.69
Aylmer, Ont	 25,398.13
PEAT GAS.	.


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	What progress has been made in the generating of electric power from producer gas from peat?	,
2.	What is the process of preparing the peat?
3.	What is the price per ton of peat and how does its efficiency compare with coal?
4.	What horse-power can be generated daily in the experimental plant and at what cost?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	The installing of the peat gas producer and gas engine, electric generator and switchboard was completed March 21, 1910. From this date to June 1, seven tests were made to determine the fuel consumption per brake horse-power hour. The peat used during these tests was that made some three years ago at the Victoria! Road Peat Bog, and, although the fuel consumption-that is, pounds of peat consumed per brake horse-power hour-was very satisfactory, being between 21 and 2i pounds, the peat proved unsuitable ori account of its dryness and the large percentage of ash, which is accounted for by the fact that the peat was dug from d shallow part of the bog, which contained sand.
From June to the present date the plant has not been operated on account of the installation of the laboratory for the com centration of iron ores and the gas analytical laboratory, which is indispensable in connection with the gas producer tests. The concentrating laboratory is completed and the gas analytical laboratory will be completed in the course of a week or ten days. During this period, on account of the above work, tests could not be carried on.
The official gas producer tests with the peat manufactured at the government peat bog will be further delayed for a month or six weeks by the installation of a new gas producer which is designed for using bituminous and lignite coal, and, it is confidently expected, peat. The operation of this new producer will be more simple and satisfactory than the one already installed.
The work of testing the peat manufactured at the government peat bog at Alfred will be begun immediately upon the installation of this new producer and the investigations to be made will cover the behaviour of peat in these two producers. The results will be published as soon as possible after the completion of the investigations.
2.	The process adopted at the government peat bog for the manufacture of peat for domestic and industrial purposes is. the Anrep process, fully described in the report on Peat and Lignite, written by Mr. E. Nystrom, and published and distributed about two years ago, and in Bulletin No. 4, soon to be distributed, which contains a full description of the process employed at Alfred, in addition to maps and illustrations.
In short, the process consists in feeding the peat dug by hand to a pulping mill, which thoroughly macerates the material. The product, after passing through this' mill, has the consistency of porridge, and

in this state the peat readily parts with its moisture. From the pulping mill the peat is conveyed by small cars to the drying field, where it is spread out to the required thickness and cut into blocks. The peat is left here until sufficiently dry for use. The daily capacity of the peat plant at the government peat bog is 25 tons per 10-hour day.
3.	Allowing 140 days for a season's operation of a plant such as above described, using manual labour for digging peat instead of mechanical excavators, the cost per ton of air-dried machine peat, including	interest	on capital invested, amortization, oil and repairs, is as follows:
Cost of fuel on the field	 $1.40
Cost	of	fuel	stored in shed	 1.65
loaded on car	 1.65
in stack	 1.70
By the employment of mechanical excavators and the manufacture of peat on a large scale, the cost of production per ton should be considerably less than the) figures here given.
3.	The efficiency of peat compared with good anthracite coal is: 1 -8 tons of air-dried peat is equivalent in heating value to one ton of coal.
4.	Sixty horse-power can be generated daily at the experimental plant.
The cost has not been finally calculated, since no complete adequate tests have as yet been made.


HOUSE 0E COMMONS.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, December 9, 1910.