1910-04-19

[Stage Direction]
*
errata

[Stage Direction]
Col. 8029, 4th line and 36th line, from bottom, Col. 8031, 28th line, from bottom, ' Kapilano
' Kapilano/ should read ' Kitsilano.' should read, ' Kitsilano.'
/
3iouse ol Commons Bebates

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 19, 1910.

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee on Bill (No. 95) respecting the Naval Service of Canada.
On section 2-interpretation; (b) 'department ' means the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I desire to move an amendment to paragraph (b) which will read as follows:
Strike out the words 'Marine and Fisheries' and substitute for the same 'naval service.'
This will give me an opportunity of explaining the resolution which I moved yesterday for the organization of the naval .service. In order to understand the amendment which I now suggest to substitute for * Marine and Fisheries ' the word ' naval service,' I propose to explain what the naval service shall be and what it shall consist of. At the present time the Department of Marine and Fisheries is loaded with several public services. There is perhaps no department of the government which exercises so wide a jurisdiction over different matters of public interest as the Department of Marine -and Fisheries. It has to deal, according to law, with:
Pilots and pilotage and decayed pilots' fund.
The construction and maintenance of lighthouses, lightships, fog alarms, buoys and beacons.
Ports and harbours, harbour commissioners and harbour masters.
Piers, wharfs and breakwaters, the collection of tolls in connection therewith, and the minor repairs on such properties.
Steamships and vessels belonging to the government of Canada engaged in connection with services administered by the minister.
Sick and distressed seamen, and the establishment, regulation and maintenance of marine and seamen's hospitals.
River and harbour police.
Humane establishments.
Life-boat service, and rewards for saving life.
Inquiries into causes of shipwrecks and casualties and the collection of wreck statistics.
Inspection of steamboats, examination of engineers, and inquiry into accidents to steamers and the conduct of engineers.
Examination of masters and mates.
234b	B-4
Registration and met sureraent of shipping, and preparation of return of registered shipping of Canada.
Meteorological and magnetic service.
Tidal observatioins on the coasts of Canada. Climatology of Canada.
Inspection of vessels carrying live stock from Canada to Europe.
Shipping of Seamen, shipping masters, and shipping offices.	.
Winter communication between Prince Pel-ward Island and the mainland by steamer and ice boats.
Hydrographic surveys.
Administration of deck-load law, and the subject of deck and load lines.
Removal of wrecks and other obstructions in navigable waters.	.
Sea coast and inland fisheries, the management, regulation and protection thereof, ana everything relating thereto and the payment of fishing bounties.	_
Deepening and maintaining the St. Lawrence ship channel from Montreal to the sea. Administration of Sorel snip yard.
Wireless telegraph service.
These the Department of Marine and Fisheries has assigned to it. In discussing the organization of the department with my hon. friend (Mr. Bro-deur) who now presides over it and whose continued absence -tram the House we still deplore, he thought it advisable, or he had in mind, at all events, to divide the department constituting two departments within the same department. What was obviously too much business for one department might perhaps not have been enough for two, but now that it is proposed to have a navy, it is- quite evident that it would not be possible to have the whole of this included in the same department. Therefore, the intention of the government is to create a new department to be called the Department of the Naval Service. Later on, when we come to the proper moment, I will move the following addition:
4a. There shall be a department of the government of Canada which shall be called the Denartment of the Naval Service, over which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the time being shall preside, and he shall be the Minister of the Naval Service.
4b. The Governor in Council may also appoint an officer who shall be called the deputy minister of the naval service, who shall be the deputy head of the department, and may also appoint such other officers and clerks as are requisite for the due administration of the business of the department, each of whom, shall hold office during pleasure.
This department shall be charged with the


Mr. SPROULE.: If it is proposed to establish a new department,'would not the proper course have been to introduce -a Bill to establish the department first?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the proper place is in connection with the Naval Bill. When we came to look into the matter closely it was found that it would be too much to place under one department. It was decided to have a separate department which would be presided over by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended to appoint another deputy minister for that department?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: The proposal is to create a new department with a new deputy minister but to have it under the control of one of the existing ministers.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes. Under the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
On section 4,
The command in chief of the naval forces is vested in the King, and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as His representative.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: Is this section not in direct contravention of the British North America Act, which provides that the authority should continued to be vested in the King? This presumes to direct how that authority, should be exercised, and is therefore adding something material to the British North America Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: This has been the law of Canada since confederation.


Robert Laird Borden: Section 15 of the British North America Act is as follows:
The command in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
As the hon. member for Hastings has said,

there is a certain qualification to that introduced in section 4 of this Bill, which undertakes to say how that command shall be exercised. There is no such qualification in section 15 of the British North America Act.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think the objection is not at all well taken. This Act is exactly the same as the Militia Act in regard to the power vested in the government of Canada. Here is the clause in the Militia Act:
The command in chief of the militia is declared to continue and be vested in the King, and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty, or by the Governor General as His representative.
The clause might perhaps have been improved and made clearer than it is; but since it has received the interpretation of parliament from the earliest days of confederation, we did not think it advisable for us to depart in any way from what has been the settled and well-understood principle of the constitution. Moreover, my hon. friend will find in section 9 of the British North America Act the same language repeated almost identically. I think my hon. friend from Hastings some time ago expressed the opinion that the interpretation of section 15 of the British North America Act was that the command of the forces should be exercised by the Queen and could not be delegated by her to the Governor General. At all events, if he did not exactly express that view, the press has done so. I would simply ask my hon. friend to look at section 9 of the British North America Act, which reads as follows:
The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
If the correct interpretation of section 15 is that the command of the forces is vested in the Queen and cannot be delegated by her to her representative in this country, it would follow that the executive government of the country, which is also declared by the constitution to be vested in the Queen, could not be delegated to her representative. That interpretation is simply absurd. From the very first day of confederation the executive power over Canada has been conferred by the Queen upon her representative in this country, and we cannot conceive that it would be possible to carry on the government otherwise. We cannot expect that under the constitution of Canada or the constitution of any of the self-governing colonies, the young daughter nations of the empire, the Sovereign himself would exercise authority directly in these countries. He can only do so indirectly by a representative. It has been done, and the action has never been questioned. That is the answer I have to give in regard to the language of this section, which follows identically what has been the custom of the country since confederation.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Is it not, in other words, a guarantee of responsible government that these clauses appear in various places in the constitution?


William Barton Northrup: The right hon. gentleman has evidently misunderstood my contention. I never contended that the King was unable to delegate authority. I quite recognize that he can, but that is a quite different proposition from this section, which undertakes to withdraw his authority from him. The view I advanced to the House was this, that the royal prerogative extended to the navy, whereas under the system in England the royal prerogative had been so whittled down by parliamentary Acts with regard to the army that it was not by virtue of the prerogative that the Crown controlled the army. Parliament in the old country has continually dealt with the army and the Sovereign has been a party to every Act of parliament so dealing with it. He stands in a different position with regard to the navy, and my whole argument was that inasmuch as the authority of the Sovereign over the navy is a matter of prerogative precisely the same power as his power to make treaties, and is not derived from parliament at all, therefore, this House could no more interfere with the Crown's prerogative with regard to the navy than it could interfere with its prerogative touching the treaty-making power.-


Wilfrid Laurier: Do I understand my hon. friend to mean that at the present time the navy is still under the prerogative of the Crown in England?


William Barton Northrup: Yes, I contend that the authority over the navy is vested in the Crown by mere prerogative, just the same as the treaty-making power.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member's contention can be substantiated at all by authority. At the present time, the prerogative of the Crown in England whether it concerns the army or whether it concerns the navy, is no longer in existence. The navy and the army of course are under the control of parliament. Up to the early part of the 19th century the Crown made good the right with the Commons and parliament to preserve its prerogative over the army, and navy, but I can only recall to my hon. friend that from the last 60 or 80 years, I should say for the last 100 years, the prerogative of the Crown, both with regard to the army and navy, has not existed for the will of the Crown, has been subject to the will of parliament in these matters above all others. George III, I 'agree with my hon. friend, tried to preserve his authority, but as democratic ideas advanced, he had to give away on this point, and the authorities are that in 1806, under the 'administration of Lord Grenville, the point was settled for ever. I have only to refer my hon. friend to Todd, who makes the point very clear.

This is what Todd says on page 383 of the first volume, speaking of the prerogative of the Crown:
The term ' prerogative ' may be defined as expressing those political yawers which are inherent in the Crown and that have not been conferred by Act of parliament and which accordingly continue within the competency of the Sovereien. except in so far as they have been modified or restrained by positive legislation. For the King's prerogative is a part of the law of the realm and hath bounds set unto it by the laws of England. All that is meant by 1 prerogative ' nowadays is the practical division which it is necessary to make between the duties of the executive and the duties of the legislative power.
Now upon this very point Todd has given the history of the ease. At page 121 my hon. friend will read this:
After the death of Mr. Pitt in 1806, the King was obliged to accept of an administration taken chiefly from the Whig party, in which he had no confidence. The ministry of 'All the Talents,' under the presidencv of Lord Grenville and Mr. Fox, was forced by political considerations upon the King. Before the arrangements were completed, a difficulty arose on a point of prerogative. During the negotiations Lord Grenville proposed to His Majesty some changes in the administration of the army by which the question was raised whether the army should be under fhe immediate control of the Crown through the commander in chief, or be subject to the supervision of the ministers.
The King at once contended that the management of the army rested with the Crown alone; and that he could not permit his ministers to interfere with it, beyond the levying of the troops, their pay and clothing.
Then at page 527, Todd proceeds as follows:
We have already seen that the control of the army and navy was the last of the prerogatives to be surrendered into the custody of responsible ministers. Even of late years there have been those who have contended that the administration of the military and naval forces of the kingdom should remain altogether in the hands of the executive without any interference with the same by either House of Parliament. But sound doctrine forbids a distinction to be drawn between the exercise of the royal authority over the army and navy and over other branches of the public service; upon all alike it is equally competent for either House of Parliament to tender its advice, and there can be nothing done in any department of state for which some minister of the Crown is not accountable to parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: What page is that? Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Page 527.


Mr. HUGHES.: Is the Prime Minister not confusing parliament with the cabinet? The point I have in view is this. At the time the right of purchase of commissions was done away with in the army, Gladstone completely overruled parliament, claiming that it was the prerogative of the Crown acting on Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the advice of the minister, not the prerogative of the Crown as represented by the cabinet and the sovereign.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will remember that the action of Mr. Gladstone was very severely criticised at the time. I am an admirer of Mr. Gladstone, but even the best men can make mistakes. Mr. Gladstone bad been a Tory in his early days, and perhaps he was expressing his Tory ideas on that occasion. At any rate, I well remember that the action of Mr. Gladstone, which was approved by public opinion in one sense, was severely criticised from the parliamentary point of view. At this date I do not think that anybody can contend that the King of England can have any power, either with regard to the army or with regard to the navy, which he can exercise through anybody else except through his responsible ministers who are responsible to the parliament. This is the position we take in this instance, and we say that the 'Constitution of England was introduced into Canada in 1867. At that time the prerogative of the Crown was limited to the authority of parliament in the matter of the army and navy, and therefore we have jurisdiction over the same.


Samuel Hughes: Go back to the early part of last century. The contention then was that the control of the army and navy was the personal prerogative of the sovereign independent of the ministers or of parliament. That was contested, and the Prime Minister may remember that I had occasion formerly to bring before him an instance.
I think when Duncan was commander in chief of the forces he claimed the right to pass over the minister and go direct to the sovereign and consult him in all matters with reference to the army. Palmerston was Secretary for War at the time, I think, it was in 1810 that the commander in chief took that position, and from that time onward the control of the army and navy was regarded as the prerogative of the Crown acting on the advice of ministers, only indirectly responsible to parliament but not directly responsible to parliament. .


Wilfrid Laurier: I suppose my hon. friend will have no objections to the minister being responsible to parliament. At all events, as minister of the Crown, he becomes responsible to parliament.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Does the right hon. gentleman claim that the prerogative as regards, the militia forces was not contained in the Crown at the time of the union?


Wilfrid Laurier: 1867?


John Allister Currie: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is my contention, yes.


John Allister Currie: Has the Prime Minister read the Acts passed in 1861-62, passed by the British parliament? Todd is no auth-

ority on any constitutional question. The Acts speak for themselves and I would suggest that the right hon. gentleman read that Act. When he illuminates this House on constitutional questions of this kind, he should know the constitutional law, and not acquire his knowledge from some hazy authority who is very ill read and not to be judged as a constitutional authority.


Wilfrid Laurier: I never professed to be an authority on military matters, and I am quite willing to defer to my hon. friend on that point. But on parliamentary matters he will pardon me if I do not accept his views. As a soldier I would be quite willing to defer to him on any military affairs second, of course, to my hon. friend the member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes). I am quite willing to accept the views of my hon. friend on military matters, but in parliamentary matters he will excuse me if I do not accept his authority. The very fact he refers to, this statute of 1661-I am not familiar with the statute-but I must say the very fact that there was a statute passed upon the army and navy and militia in England is conclusive evidence that there is a prerogative subject to the. control of parliament. Anything that becomes subject to a parliamentary statute, is not a prerogative of the Crown, and further parliament has exerted its authority. I say positively thalt in 1867 at the time of the union, the authority of the sovereign and his prerogative over the army and navy had become very anceint history. Wherein did the power to command the army and navy rest previous to that? Before parliament, it rested with the King. It rested with the" King when parliament declared that it should rest with the King. But what I say is that everything that Is concerned with the navy has ceased in England to be the prerogative of the King, and has become a matter over which parliament has the supreme authority.


John Allister Currie: The right hon. gentleman seemed to be pretty hazy on the matter, but I agree with what he says as I understand it. As a matter of fact, the control was with the lieutenants of counties until the Act of 1662. The Act of 1852 reinvested authority and control over both the army and navy in the Crown. The right hon. gentleman can easily find that, if he will take the trouble to look it up.


William Barton Northrup: Without entering into the question of the comparative authority of Todd's utterances, I beg to quote a few words from Todd which the right hon. Prime Minister did not go on to read. Speaking of responsibility for the operations of the army and navy, he says, at page 528:
As the command of the army and navy is the peculiar privilege and strength of the executive power, and cannot be surrendered to parliament without a virtual overthrow of the monarchy, it is essential that the scrutiny of parliament into military affairs should be cautiously and sparingly exercised.
Nothing could be clearer than these words ' cannot be surrendered to parliament without a virtual overthow of the monarchy.' I agree with every word that the Prime Minister has said as to the exercise of the prerogative. We have an illustration quite familiar to us in the prerogative of pardon. Everybody knows that parliament has nothing to do with the pardoning of criminals; that is a matter for* His Excellency the Governor General. But in this matter the Governor General acts upon the advice of his ministers. If the prerogative of pardon be improperly exercised, the recourse of parliament is to punish the minister. That we can do-we can turn him out of office. But we have no control over his right to advise His Excellency. The same is true with regard to the navy. No doubt, the sovereign has the power, but some minster must take the responsibility for his act. As in the case of pardon, the sovereign has the right tc act without parliament interfering, but if he acts contrary to the wish of the people, parliament can only punish the adviser who has improperly advised the sovereign.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not entirely agree with the view that the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has expressed with regard to the prerogative. The prerogative of the Crown to-day is different from what it was five hundred years ago. In those cases in which the prerogative has disappeared, it has been lost in one or two ways; first, by the custom and practice of the constitution developed from time to time and, second, bv direct parliamentary enactment. I do not think it is accurate to say that the Crown has no prerogative in respect of a matter, because that matter has been dealt with by parliament. The Crown can consent to an Act of Parliament which infringes upon its prerogatives, and it gives up its prerogative by that very consent. But an entirely different question arises here from that which must be met in Great Britain. Great Britain is not limited as we are limited by a written constitution. Parliament in Great Britain, passing an Act which obtains the consent of the King, can do anything it may see fit to do with respect either to the army or the navy,-no man who has the slightest acquaintance with constitutional principles will deny that. But that is not the case with us. We are limited by a direct specific enactment. One part of that enactment -the British North America Act-section 15, provides as follows:



The command in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
What is the object of this section of the Bill which we are now discussing? Does it propose to limit this section 15 of the British North America Act? It does not repeat it in so many words, but repeats it with a qualification. If that qualification is inconsistent with the British North America Act, it can have no effect, because the British North America Act must prevail over every enactment of this parliament if the two be inconsistent. What, then, is the object of this section 4 in introducing a qualification to which I have referred? I do not, at the present moment, quite understand the Object of the government in introducing it. So far as some observations of the Prime Minister with respect to the use of the Queen's name in the British North America Act are concerned, you will notice that there are provisions in the British North America Act which contemplate the exercise of certain authority by the Queen, not upon the advice of the cabinet in Canada, hut upon the advice of her own cabinet. There can be no doubt about that. For example, section 26 provides:
If at anv time, on the recommendation of the Governor General, the Queen thinks fit to direct that three or six members be added to the Senate, the Governor General may, by summons to three or six qualified persons (as the case may be), representing equally the three divisions of Canada, add to the Senate accordingly.
I do not suppose that the Prime Minister will contend that he could add a qualification to that section and declare that the Queen should exercise that authority through the Governor General and by the advice of the cabinet here. That would hardly be a reasonable argument, it seems to me. I do not go into the question of control by parliament, because the parliament in Great Britain has control over the army and navy by virtue of its control over appropriations. No doubt, this parliament could have the same control; parliament *could refuse appropriations for a standing army, a militia or a navy, and in that way could exercise most effective control in this country over anv of these forces. But there is the distinction to which I have alluded in the fact that we are limited by a written constitution, and an enactment of this parliament inconsistent with the British North America Act can have no force against that Act.


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: I did not take any part in the debate on this measure at the earlier stages, and I should not do so now, but that the subject under discussion relates to Mr. R. L. BORDEN
questions which, -in the main if not entirely, are of a purely legal character. I should like to premise, in what I wish to say about the matter, that I am merely expressing my opinion about the law as a member of this House, and that I do not for a moment expect that any views I hold with regard to this subject should be received with any greater weight than would be attached to expressions of opinion on the point by any other lawyer who happened to be a member of this House.
I would like to say just one thing further by way of preface. A good deal has been said, in the course of the earlier stages of this debate, upon the subject of persona] loyalty or the attachment and devotion which every British subject ought to feel towards the Crown and towards the mother country. Some aspersions-I think I may without impropriety say-have been cast, in that regard, upon, not only the leader of the House (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the leaders of the political party on this side of the House, but upon that political party generally, or, at all events, some sections of it. I do not want to go into anything of that sort. It seems to me that this matter can be discussed, and ought to be discussed, without any question of that character being raised. I think that, personally, I am thoroughly and entirely loyal to the British Crown, to British institutions, and to Great Britain as our mother country. I think the same thing of the right hon. gentleman who leads this House, and of his compatriots in this country; and, with' regard to this measure, I only want to say that if I thought there was anything in it which, insidiously, secretly or colourably, was endeavouring to introduce the thin end of the wedge of any division between Canada and Great Britain, or to make for disloyalty towards Great Britain, or to make even for voluntary separation between Canada and Great Britain, I not only would not be supporting this measure, but I would not remain for one single hour in anv government that would introduce it into this House. I have said before now on that subject in this place that some of my friends referred to me sometimes as a political jingo, or a Toronto jingo, equal in that regard even to my hon. friend from Victoria find Haliburton (Mr. Hughes). I am quite content to accept that description. I believe that the hon. the leader of the opposition said not long ago, (I saw it reported in some newspaper), that he came from a race of men who were proud to say, that they had never lived under any other flag than that of Great Britain. I can say the same thing; and coming with such a family history, I think it would be a strange thing if I did not feel, as I have said, not merely

the warmest affection, but a personal devotion and loyalty to Great Britain, to British institutions and to the British Royal family.
Now if hon. gentlemen will do me the credit of believing that I am sincere in what I have said, premising that much, I wish to say a few words with reference to the argument which was presented on the question now under discussion by my hon. friend from East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) in moving the six months hoist upon the motion for the second reading of this Bill. He took the position that this measure was one which it was not competent for this parliament to pass because it constituted an encroachment upon the Royal prerogative, and was in direct contradiction to the provisions of the Imperial Act governing colonial naval defence. That was a statute passed in 1865, and my hon. friend relied for his argument with regard to its application to the present measure, upon the provisions of the third section of that statute. The statute recites the expediency of enabling the several colonial possessions of Her Majesty to make better provision for naval defence, and then it goes on in the third section to declare :
It shall be lawful for the proper legislative authority, with the approval of Her Majesty in Council, from time to time to make provision for effecting at the expense of the colony all or any of the purposes following:
Among them being the establishment of a navy. Now the argument of my hon. friend, as I gathered from what I saw reported in Hansard, was that we cannot in this country, being governed by the provisions of this Imperial statute of 1865, legislate in the way this measure proposes to legislate, unless we have in that behalf the approval of the imperial government, the approval of His Majesty in Council. The question in that respect seems to turn upon the consideration of the power of the King, upon the advice of his government for Canada, or upon the advice of the imperial government, as apparently is provided for in the Imperial Act of 1865 upon which my hon. friend based his argument. Now that statute was passed two years before^ the British North America Act. The British North America Act passed by the same imperial parliament modified the provisions of the statute of two years before in a very important degree. The statute of 1865 empowers any colonial legislature, with the approval of Her Majesty in Council, to make provision for the establishment of a navy. Then in 1867 the same imperial parliament passed the British North America Act in which, by section 91, they enacted that :
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and 2354
House of Commons of Canada, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to

Then coming to sub-paragraph 7 :

in relation to militia, military and naval
service and defence.
So we have the same parliament which, in 1865, had enacted that it should be lawful for any colony, (which may be said to have included Canada, therefore that it should be lawful for Canada), with the approval of Her Majesty in Council, to legislate for the establishment of a navy, saying two years later that it should be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, to do that identical thing. It seems to me that the argument is manifest that the later statute plainly empowers this legislative body, the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, to do the identical thing which, by the statute of two years before, it may be, could only be done with the approval of Her Majesty in Council. That view, it seems to me, is made abundantly clear by a subsequent provision of the Imperial Act of 1865, which possibly did not strike my hon. friend from Hastings as having a bearing upon the matter, but which it seems to me is very important in considering the purely legal aspect of the case. Section 10 of the Imperial Act of 1865 provides :
Nothing in this Act shall take away or abridge any power vested in or exercisable by the legislature or government of any colony.
So we have the very imperial statute which has, in section 3, given authority to establish a navy by a colony, proceeding to declare that where any power was vested in or exercisable by the legislature or government of a colony, nothing in this statute would take away any such power or abridge it. The power then, which is conferred upon the parliament of Canada to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to naval service and defence, is not taken away or abridged by the previous Imperial Act of 1865. That statute, which, of course, like any other public Act, is always speaking-speaking to-da,y, as my hon. friend read it, speaking a month ago when he addressed this House, does, at the same moment at which it declares the approval of Her Majesty in Council to be necessary, declare equally that no provision of that statute should take away or abridge any Canadian powers. It would seem to me, therefore, with all respect to the argument of my hon. friend, that the very statute upon which he relied as its basis affords a complete answer to it. Just one other reference to that statute as having a bearing upon the provisions of this particular legislation. A good deal

of criticism was, at the earlier stages of this discussion, devoted to the provisions of sections 17 and 18 of the Bill before the House. These sections empower the Governor in Council to place the naval force of Canada on active service at any time when it appears advisable, and empower him, in case of emergency, to place the navy at the disposal of His Majesty for general service in the Royal Navy. That step seems plainly contemplated by the imperial statute of 1865, .because, by section 6 of that statute, it is ' made lawful for Her Majesty in Council,' that is to say, for the British government ' from time to time, as occasion requires, and on such conditions as seem fit, to authorize the admiralty to accept any offer for the time being made or to be made by the government of a colony, to place at Her Majesty's disposal any vessel of war provided by that government.' That statute of 1865 contemplated the establishment of navies, or of naval forces, by any possession of the British Crown in any part of the world, applying, as I think every one will agree, to Canada, as Canada was then constituted prior to confederation, and it conferred authority upon the proper legislative body in Canada, with the approval of Her Majesty in Council, to make provision for the establishment of a navy, and it empowered further, by this section 6, the imperial government, to authorize the admiralty to accept any offer that a colony, to wit, Canada, might make to place her ships at the disposal of the admiralty upon occasions seeming to require it. But, when, two years later, the British North America Act was passed, and power to legislate on this very subject was conferred upon the Canadian parliament, not as before, with the approval of the British government, but simply upon the approval, advice and assent of the Canadian House of Commons and the Canadian Senate, it seems to me that the argument of my hon. friend, entirely built, as it is, upon the Imperial Act of 1865, falls to the ground.
Now, a larger question, perhaps-I do not know if my hon. friend views it .as a larger question-but the question of the royal prerogative is also one in regard to which goes beyond our powers. The language of section 15 of the British North America Act is apt, if I may venture to say so. I think it means exactly what it says, as statutes which aTe well drawn usually do, but it contains a phrase that English lawyers, at any rate, and 1 presume, civil lawyers as well, are very familiar with. Something is vested in the Queen. The word ' vested ' has its special force and meaning that lawyers are familiar with. We speak of property, of real estate, as being vested in a certain man, as being possessed or owned by him. That word would be a proper word to describe the manner in Mr. AYLESWORTH.
which the public, ungranted lands of the Crown in Canada are held. The Crown lands of any of the old provinces of Canada, of Ontario or of Nova Scotia, are vested in the Queen, or in the King, as the case may be. We perfectly understand the meaning of the phrase. The grant proceeds from the King. It is a relic of the old feudal system when the lord, or the over-lord, owned all of the ungranted lands in his dominions, but no one would for a moment suppose that that precludes the parliament of the colony in which such lands lie, or the executive government of that colony, from dealing with those lands. The control over them, the management of them, the administration of them are vested in the representatives of the people, although the legal title may be in the Crown personally^ so that one would speak of the land as being vested in the King. Well, now, it is exactly in the same way, I venture to think, that the same phrase is used in section 15 of the British North America Act:
The command in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
I would like to compare with that section, section 9 of the same statute, because we find in section 9 the concluding words identical with those of section 15. Section 9:
The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
There is no good reason, except for sake of clearness, why these two sections might not have been in one. The disposition of the two subjects dealt with by the respective two sections is identical. Certain things are declared to continue to be vested in the Queen. First we have ' the executive government and authority of and over Canada,' and likewise ' the command in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces of and in Canada.' If they were grouped into one in that way we would understand them perfectly because we have been familiar with it for forty years, and agree what the meaning of the expression with regard to the ' executive government and authority of and over -Canada ' is. That is vested in the Queen in exactly the same words as the command in chief of the naval force is vested in the Queen. But the executive government and authority of and over Canada is exercised by the Queen's advisers in this country, or by the parliament of Canada, each within its own functions and according to its own powers. What ground is there for attributing to the phrase ' is vested in the Queen,' when used with regard to the naval force, any other meaning than you would attribute to it, and which

we universally know it bears when speaking of the executive government and authority of and over Canada? How is that command in chief of the naval forces or that executive government and authority of and over Canada, which is declared by the British North America Act to be vested in the Queen, to be exercised in this country? The first preamble to the statute throws a great deal of light upon it. The provinces of Canada are to be federally united. How? With a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom, and whatever parliamentary restrictions there are in the United Kingdom, or whatever restrictions the parliament of the United Kingdom itself has power to impose upon the royal prerogative, such restrictions exactly, I maintain, this parliament^ as representing the people of Canada, has power similarly to impose within Canada. Just as, according to the constitution of the United Kingdom, the control of the naval forces is subject to parliamentary authority, is something in regard to which the minister of the Crown is responsible, so it is to be in this country, and the circumstance that by section 15 the command in chief continues vested in the Queen, does not, in my submission, prevent at all the administration of that force and the control and regulation of it being exercised by this parliament and by this eovernment of Canada.
It is not a new field of legislation that we are entering upon. I think that is an important circumstance always to be borne in mind. This proposed legislation repeals our existing naval law. By section 53 of the Bill, chap. 41 of the Revised Statutes of 1886 is repealed in so far as it concerns the active and reserve militia marine forces. That statute has never been repealed, it is still in force and it contains legislation on this very subject which has been upon the Canadian statute-book for years, which has never been disallowed or animadverted upon ithe imperial government It invited disallowance quite as much as this Bill would if there was any encroachment upon the authority of Her Majesty in Council, or of the imperial government or upon the royal prerogative. Section 3 of the Act as it stood in 1886 provided:
The command in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all military and naval forces, of and in Canada, is vested in the Queen
How is it to be exercised?
And shall be exercised and administered by Her Majesty personally or by the Governor General as her representative.
In 1868, when our Militia and Defence Act was passed, the provision was, by section 1:
As provided by the 15th section of the British North America Act, 1867, the command in chief of the land and naval militia and of all naval and military forces of and in Canada, is vested in the Queen, and shall be exercised and administered by Her Majesty personally or by the Governor General as her representative.
That enactment, put before the imperial authorities over 40 years ago, has never, to my knowledge, been so much as commented upon; it certainly has never been disallowed, and has never been viewed by the imperial authorities with any alarm or as constituting'any encroachment upon the royal prerogative or upon imperial rights.
We are certainly not going any further in the present legislation. The Act of 1868, repeated as it was in the consolidation of 1886, makes substantial provision for something in the way of naval forces in Canada. By section 12 the militia is divided into land forces and marine forces. The marine forces may be active or reserve militia marine, which is to be raised by enlistment or ballot, and which is to be composed of seamen, sailors and persons whose usual occupation is upon any steam [DOT] or sailing craft navigating the waters of Canada. Our present Militia Act has repealed the land sections of this legislation, but left untouched the sections with regard to the naval forces or the militia marine, and it is those provisions which it is now proposed to repeal by section 53 of the present Bill, because something else is substituted for that which previously appeared. The provisions of section 15 of the British North America Act were, I think, as much encroached upon by this previous legislation as by anything in the present Bill, but I think that there was no encroachment at all. because if we remember the position of the royal prerogative, as it has been declared by the highest authority to be at the present time, I think we will see what the meaning of the phrase is and what the full effect of section 15 of the British North America Act may be declared to be. The subject was considered, incidentally, it may be, but a very important pronouncement in regard to it was made by the Judicial Commitee of the Privy Council in England in the case of the liquidators of the Maritime Bank of Canada against the Receiver General of New Brunswick to be found in the appeal cases of 1892. At page 443 Lord Watson discusses incidentally this very subject, and I want to read a sentence or two from what he said. But to explain first how the question came up, let me say that the province was claiming certain moneys as a royal prerogative. It was a creditor of the bank which was in liquidation, and it claimed the right in priority to other creditors upon the ground that it represented the royal prerogative, and was entitled to the same rights in that regard as

the Dominion government or as the imperial government undoubtedly would have. Lord Watson upheld the view of the province, and in discussing the argument to the contrary, said it was based mainly if not entirely upon the circumstance that whereas the Governor General of Canada was appointed directly by the Queen, the Lieutenant Governor of each province was appointed, not by Her Majesty, but by the Governor General, who had also the power of dismissal; and he said that if the British North America Act had not committed to the Governor General the power of appointing and removing the Lieutenant Governors, there would not have been any room for this argument. That argument, he said, if pushed to its logical conclusion, would prove that the Governor General, and not the Queen whose viceroy he is, became the sovereign authority of the province whenever the British North America Act came into operation. Then he goes on to say with regard to this argument:
But the argument ignores the fact that by section 58 the appointment of a provincial governor is made by the Governor General in Council by instrument under the Great Seal of Canada, or, in other words, by the executive government of the Dominion, which is by section 9 expressly declared to continue and be vested in the Queen. There is no constitutional anomaly in an executive officer of the Crown receiving his appointment at the hands of a governing body, who have no powers and no functions except as representatives of the Crown. The act of the Governor General and his Council in making the appointment is, within the meaning of the statute, the act of the Crown.
Now, that is the language of the Privy Council of England, speaking through its members, the Judicial Committee of its own body-the action of the Privy Council of England is the action of the King himself. The order of the court in this very cause was the order of the Queen herself in council, advised by her advisers, and issuing her own mandate. We have it therefore, upon the highest possible authority in a matter of this character, that the meaning of section 9 of the British North America Act, the meaning of the expression that the executive government and authority over Canada is vested in the Queen, is that the Act of the Governor General and his council is the Act of the Crown. That is the way in which the executive government and authority over Canada is exercised by the Crown; and my submission is that in absolutely and precisely the same way the control over our naval forces, just as over our militia, while it is vested in the King, is to be exercised by the Governor General and his council. I do not suppose any one, even though we have a King at present upon the throne, would read these words in section 15 as meaning that the King person-Mr. AYLESWORTH.
ally was to take command of the navy anymore than of his army. It is 200 years nearly since any King of Great Britain was upon a battlefield in time of actual war. In the old days, we know, the King was the leader, the commander in chief, personally at the head of his forces, issuing his orders and taking charge of the military campaign. I am not prepared to say whether or not at the present day, if we happened to have a ruler who personally had warlike ambitions, or felt that he was competent to take personal command in chief of his forces, he would be entitled to do so. I am only seeking to point out that although the command in chief is by law vested in him, the way in which it is exercised is the constitutional manner in which the executive government of the country is exercised, through his representatives and upon the advice of his council. If it were not so, how could there be the responsibility which we know rests upon the minister and upon the government of which the minister is a member? If the command in chief of the naval forces is something which the government, or the member of the government who is the minister in charge of the naval forces, cannot exercise, how is he to be responsible? If it is something which is a personal prerogative of the King, then surely the minister who is powerless in the matter cannot be held responsible for the consequence of possible mistakes. I think therefore that no difficulties exist in the provisions of the present Bill when read in company with the controlling provisions of the British North America Act. The parliament of Canada has been declared in more than one instance by the authority of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to have, within the scope of its own powers as defined in section 91 of the British North America Act, absolutely the same jurisdiction and to the same extent, which the imperial parliament itself possesses; and just as the imperial parliament has power to legislate with regard to the control of not only the land forces, but equally the naval forces of Great Britain, so the parliament of Canada has power, and in virtue of the provisions of section 91 of the British North America Act, to legislate in regard to the navy that we establish or the ships that we build or buy.


William Barton Northrup: I am very glad we have reached that stage of this discussion where we can calmly and dispassionately discuss the question before the House as a purely legal question; and while I differ from the hon. gentleman, I propose for the sake of argument to admit the first part of his argument, and see where it lands him and the government. The hon. gentleman admitted that apart from the British North America Act, the statute to which I referred, 28-29 Victoria, provided that such a colony

as Canada could only pass such a Bill as this if it were in accordance with orders made by the King and council; but the hon. gentleman said that apart from that, the wording of the British North America Act gives Canada a power which withdraws it from the control of the Colonial Defence Act. He has referred to the words of the statute. Now let us look at the words of the statute and see the practical working out of it. Section 91 of the British North America Act says ;-
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons to make the laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the
The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.
Without another word being said, and the courts held that that authority might properly be exercised by the Governor General on the advice of his responsible ministers. Take clause 15 of the British North America Act:
The command in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces of and in Canada, is hereby declared to con-
The same argument would apply there, and why would it not apply to clause 4 m this Bill before the House. If we read:
The command in chief of the land and naval forces is vested in the King.
provinces.
Therefore, he said, power having been given by the British North America Act to Canada to legislate on these four subjects, militia, military, naval service and defence, therefore we have power to legislate without regard to the motherland.
I admit that for the sake of argument while I dispute it as a matter of law. Reading down the list of subjects, dealt with by section 91, we find that No. 2 3 is copyrights. Exactly the same argument applies to copyrights; this country has an exclusive right to legislate with regard to copyrights without regard to the motherland, but yvho does not know that we tried to do so and failed because we have no such power. I go to No. 25 in the list of subjects "and I find that just as we have power to legislate, with regard to the militia, military, naval service, and defence, so we have a power to legislate with regard to the naturalization of aliens. This House has a power to legislate with regard to naturalization, but will the Prime Minister pretend for a moment to say that we have any such power under the sun. It is provided by an imperial Act of 1879, but all we have a right to do is to give a limited apologetic form of naturalization to those only within the borders of Canada. Yet the words of this section 91, are so complete that if the argument of the hon. gentleman is sound with regard to naval matters it is equally sound with regard to each of the three, and being certainly and demonstratively wrong, with regard to the latter two, I submit it falls also to the ground in regard to subsection 7- Now, another point. He referred to the judgment of the Privy Council to show that under section 9 of the British North America Act precisely the same powers had been held by the Privy Council to belong to the Governor General as are given to him by this clause. I do not think the right hon. gentleman appreciated the force of his own argument. In section 9 it is declared:
-and stop there, what is the object of inserting those other words? I am not going to insult the intelligence of this government by suggesting that_ they are cumbering the statute-book with words that are utterly meaningless, and yet it is quite clear that the Privy Council has admitted that without these words the clause would allow the Governor in Council to administer the law. Why then put these words in? They are either superfluous, being already provided for, or they are void, having no power.


An hon. MEMBER.: Ultra vire3.


William Barton Northrup: Why, therefore, cumber the statute-book with words that are either superfluous or void. There is only one reason that I can understand why they are there. It would be impossible to read clause 18 in this Bill if we had not those additional words added in clause 4. If we left the command of the fleet vested in the King it would be rather absurd for the Governor in Council to place it at his own disposal if he liked. But we are to have two distinct bodies, the King on the one hand, and the government to control the navy on the other; and then we begin to see why these words which are either superfluous, or void, are introduced.


John Allister Currie: As an ordinary layman it is a little rash perhaps for me to project myself into a legal argument of this kind, but having had some connection with the military side of life, perhaps I can take a cooler view of a question of this kind, than the legal gentlemen who have discussed it. Now the only way to get at the root of a question of this kind is to get right down to the foundation and find out whether in the beginning of things or at any stage of the procedure the command of the army and navy was vested either in the King, or in the parliament of Great Britain and Ireland. In the year 1661 Charles was restored to his throne.



M. J. A. CURRIE.

[Stage Direction]
By this means they establish a constitutional check on the Crown or on what is known as the prerogative of the Crown. Now, that right was given up by the parliament of England by the Acts of 1852, 1858 and 1876. And the sole right to command the militia and the whole army to-day rests with the King. We never had the right, nor had the parliament of England, to declare that ,the King had not the sole command. But what does this command consist of? It consists of issuing commissions and orders and moving the forces. It is quite true-I acknowledge that it is per- . fectly right-that this parliament has the authority to establish a navy, to arm it, equip it, man it. But when it comes to ordering that navy, or moving it, or saying what it should do, that is within the prerogative of the King. There are various prerogatives of the King. There is, for instance, the prerogative relative to real estate, water-powers, and that sort of thing. But this is an arm of the King-the army and navy is an arm of the King. It is true, and has always been true, as the learned gentleman has quoted, that we could establish a navv. He states that the British government, or naval department of the government, should have the right to accept ships from the colonies. Quite true. But the King has had the right to accept ships from his subjects from time immemorial, and letters of marque have been issued to privateers, as everybody knows. As I said there is nothing to prevent this parliament from establishing a navy, arming, equipping and manning it; but when it comes to the question of appointment, of moving and ordering that navy, that rests with the King as I have shown by the clause I have read from the Act of 1661 which has never been repealed, and certainly could not be repealed by Act of this parliament. But what does this Naval Bill propose? It proposes by order in council to assume to pass a law, to issue commissions and order and move this navy, to compel this navy to act and fight	or	retreat as .it wishes.	Tomy mind	knowing a	little about	military law,	as	it was	necessary for meto know,	it	seems	absurd for	this
parliament to assume that such a power exists, for there is no ground for such assumption. While it is quite true that the army and the navy may be moved by the Crown without respect to either the English parliament or this parliament, there has never been any question that this would be done on the advice of the minister, and, in this case, the minister whose advice would be sought would be the Minister of the Marine here. But, in case of necessity arising there is no doubt that the absolute command to this navy is in the King, this having been declared by the highest authority of the realm, parliament itself over four hundred years ago. Can we, a small por-

tion of the British empire, propose to remove that authority and that power of command?
Now, Sir, this question assumes a very grave aspect, because I think the enactment here proposed does not show that respect for the dignity of the Crown which we, as a parliament, and as good British subjects ought to show. The question of the right of command should not have been raised in connection with this navy? I asked the Minister of Justice to quote the words of the statute of 1886. And the House has waited for his reply. This is the clause:
The command in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval forces of and in Canada is vested in the Queen and shall he exercised and administered by her personally, or by the Governor General as her representative.
I	wish hon. members to note the words * as her personal representative,' because that expresses exactly the idea that was contained and is well recognized by the English law. In Great Britain, for instance, the pay of the army and navy is by royal warrant, and not by vote of supply as is done here.
The other question brought up by the minister is the right of the Crown in civil matters. This is not a civil matter. It is the armed power, not the civil power we are dealing with. Even in the matter of the civil power the King is supreme. _ His prerogatives have, however, been limited by statutes and the interpretations of the courts. His prerogative, however, exists. It is the same as his right in real property. We all know that all real property is vested in the Crown, and that we as citizens have only the use of Teal property. But the command of the army and navy is on an altogether different basis. The old statutes of 1661 never having been repealed 'by England, whereby the parliament of England declares the control of the marine and naval forces of the empire and all its dominions to be vested in the Crown is to be challenged at this late day. For that reason, in my opinion, it would be better to modify this section and not try to set up a new principle of constitutional right.
' Mr. CONGDON. The hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) is endeavouring to revive a doctrine that cost one King of England his head and another his throne. There is nothing clearer m the British constitutional system than that these prerogatives of the Crown were usurpations, brought about by the arguments of lawyers-such arguments as we have listened to to-day. These lawyers were trained in the unmitigated tyranny of the latter Roman empire. Their doctrines were written on the statute books of many European kingdoms, and, if carried into
effect, would have made the British empire worse than any oriental despotism that ever existed. Because you find that, as a result of these refinements, the King is represented as perfect, as immortal, as legally ubiquitous, the fountain of honour, the vicegergent of God, and responsible to Him above, owning all the land in the country, and as even invisible. In conflict with this, you have the corrections introduced, into the British constitution by actual practice. The Roman lawyers might indite their doctrines as strongly as they liked, but the barbarous Germans, amongst whom they endeavoured to propagate these ideas, refused to recognize the arguments and corrected the proposals in practice. It is the old confusion of the King as an actual person with the King as a body politic. As a corporation sole, of course, the King has all these powers. In that sense, it is true, as>
said by Louis XIV, ' L'etat c'est moi. For the King in that sense is the state. He does not exercise these rights m his own person, but, since the Bill of Rights, since the Act of Settlement, by the advice of his ministers responsible to parliament. ^ The real question here is whether His Majesty shall exercise command and control of the Canadian navy solely and wholly upon the advice of British ministers responsible to the British parliament which in turn is responsible to the British people, or shall exercise these powers on the advice of his Canadian ministers responsible to the parliament of Canada in its turn responsible to the people^ who pay the expense of the navy both in its original construction and subsequent operations. It seems to me that to contend in this late day that the colonies are to do nothing in the shape of defence without handing over the control to imperial ministers, is to discourage all parts of the empire, except Great Britain and Ireland from doing anything in the way of contribution to Imperial defence.
Mr. LANCASTER.: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Congdon) is to be congratulated on his frankness in stating the issue. I agree that the issue is as he has stated. I do not agree that we have the right to practically amend the British North America Act. I have said what I thought about this matter on the second reading, of the Bill, and I am confirmed m my opinion and strengthened in it since, and have discussed it with gentlemen more learned than I am, and I have no doubt the latter part of section 4 is ultra vires of this government, and the British government would have a perfect right, and it would be their duty to the empire, to disallow that section. We have a constitution in this country which gives us full

power in domestic matters, but we have no constitution that allows us to butt in, so to speak, upon imperial matters. We have been politely told by the imperial government, when we undertook to suggest what they should do in respect to the government of Ireland, that we had better mind our own business, and we were told so correctly. We are now here to-day undertaking to say that the British North America Act should practically have words in it that it does not contain. The British North America Act is similar to clause 4 of this Bill, if you stop at the word King,' but we undertake to add that the command m chief of the naval forces shall be invested in and exercised by His Majesty, or by the Governor in Council, as his representative. We have no right to say that as loyal citizens of the empire- and I make no insinuation against the loyalty of any one who thinks we have such a right. But, speaking for myself, I dare not do it; we dare not do it, because we have no authority to put into the hands of the government of this country a right to do something which the British North America Act never said they should have a right to do as loyal citizens of that great empire. I cannot agree with the conclusion of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Congdon) who frankly says what _ he believes, and says that tnis is the issue before the country to-day I agree with him that it is the issue but I take strong grounds that we have no legal right under the British North America Act, outside of any question of loyalty to the United Kingdom, to say that that Act puts a prerogative in the Governor General of this country as dis-tmguished from the imperial government.
At one o'clock, committee took recess
Committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. DOHERTY.: I do not wish to detain the committee very long with any observations of mine. In so far as my position towards this legislation is concerned, I have already endeavoured to make it clear that such objections as I have to it do not rest upon the particular wording of any section; they are very much broader than that. Personally, I would be disposed to leave to the government the entire responsibility of the form in which they express their intention with regard to the establishment of this navy. In connection with this section, however, it seems to me that we are wasting our 'time in discussing what is the proper meaning of section 15 of the British North America Act, and defining where the command lies, unless it is contended that the general provisions of section 91, which give to this parliament power to legislate with regard to militia and defence, confer


Edward Arthur Lancaster: .power on us to place the command ot the forces somewhere else than where section 15 places it. I propose to ask my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) a question. What I would like to ask the Minister of Justice is whe-t"er I should understand him to argue that the effect of the provision of section 91 of the British North America Act conferring legislative power with regard to militia and defence was to confer on this parliament any power to place the command of any force, either naval or military, elsewhere than where section 15 places it?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think there is nothing inconsistent in the two sections and that full effect can be given to both.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I believe certainly that full effect can be given to both, but what I would like to understand is whether the Minister of Justice takes the position that under section 91 this parliament can, if it so determines, legislate to place the command of the force elsewhere, than in His Majesty, whatever meaning' is to ,be attached to the words 'His Majesty'.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The phrase 'command of the forces' is perhaps confusing. If the hon. gentleman means to ask, whether, in my opinion, parliament can authorize the appointment of a general or admiral who would have command of the forces then I would say certainly I think so.	'	'


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, but that does not answer my question. I presume it is because I do not make myself understood. What I would like to get quite clear is whether in the opinion of the hon. minister section 15 is not legislation of the imperial parliament determining where, for all time, at all events, as far as the subsequent action of this parliament is concerned, the command of the forces shall be; I do not mean to say the actual command in the sense of naming a general, but the control of the naval force of this country, and possibly the appointment of a general.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think that certainly section 15 is an absolute determination of the matters there dealt with, but the hon. gentleman, I am sure, is not losing sight of the view expressed by the Judicial Committee to which I referred in the case of the Maritime Bank that the command or control was to be exercised by the government of the country.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I take it then to be agreed that whatever may be the meaning to be attached to the phrase ' declared to continue and be vested in the Queen ' as found in the British North America Act, it is settled that this parliament cannot step

in and by any enactment, for instance bv this Act, provide that the command shall be vested somewhere else than in His Majesty, or, as it states, in the Queen.
I do not want to question the interpretation put upon section 15 by the right hon. First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) or the Minister of Justice, though I must confess that it did not seem to me that one of the arguments made in support of that contention was very conclusive. It was argued that because under section 9 which provides that the executive government of Canada shall be vested in His Majesty it was held, and I have no doubt that it was rightly held, that that meant that the executive government of Canada was vested in His Majesty, represented by the Governor General, in Council that holding settles the meaning of the words ' the Queen ' in setcion 15. I do not dispute that holding at all, but in so far as it was argued that because in section 9 the words ' Her Majesty ' or ' the Queen ' were to be taken as meaning ' Her Majesty' through the Governor in Council it necessarily followed that the same expression in section 15 meant the same thing, that did not seem to be quite conclusive. Because it is to be pointed out that section 15 deals with the command, not merely of the military forces of Canada, but deals with the military forces of and in Canada. Now, at the time of the passage of the British North America Act, and for a long time subsequent, we had in Canada regular forces of Her Majesty. We may not for the moment have these, but there is no reason why we should not at one time or another have within Canada the regular forces of Her Majesty. Section 15 determines, without making any distinction between the two, that the command of all forces of and in Canada shall continue to be vested in Her Majesty. I hardly think it would be argued that the effect of that section was to place the regular forces of Her Majesty in Canada under the control of the Governor in. Council and in the same section the Queen, or her Majesty, as constituting the commander of the regular forces, could hardly be held to be a different personage from the Queen as _ constituting the commander of the militia. I do not propose to argue from that in support of either one or the other proposition as to what is meant by 'Her Majesty'. All I desire to point out is that the argument by analogy from section 9 does not seem to me to be at all conclusive, and I think it may further >be pointed out as showing that those who were in the beginning called upon to deal with the interpretation of this section recognized the then existence in Canada of regular forces of Her Majesty, which they did not in any way pretend under this section
came under the control of the Governor in Council, that in the original Militia Act-and I am not certain that this is not carried on in the Act to-day-that_ you have a special provision that Her Majesty might in certain cases place the militia under the command of the commander of her regular forces in this country. Now the commander of Her Majesty's regular forces was not the officer of the Governor in Council, there was a separate commander of the militia forces. But as I said I do not desire to argue for or against the pretention that the control of our own militia may have been intended to be in Her Majesty in Council in Canada; that is to say Her Majesty as represented by the Governor General in Council in Canada. All I wanted to point out is that the argument made in support of the propositioii does not seem to me to be as conclusive as it apparently seemed to the gentleman who invoked it.
It seems to me that the discussion by this House of what is meant by the provisions of the British North America Act is quite nugatory. We have not power by legislation here to determine what that meant, and it seems to me that we have not properly speaking, power to determine where the command of the forces of this country rests, that is determined by the British North America Act, and as was pointed out by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Northrup) if the British North America Act means, as it was contended on the part of the government, that the command is vested in His Majesty through the Governor General here and vested in him in council, that is so, whether we make an enactment on the subject or not; and if, on the other hand, it does not mean that our enacting that it does will not alter the state of the law. Apparently this parliament in taking upon itself as a matter of substantial legislation to determine where the command lies is taking on itself to determine something which the parliament of the United Kingdom by the British North America Act has determined for all time to come. In that connection one may safely say that that was the view of it entertained by the authors of the original Militia Act and they might perhaps be correctly enough described as having been at the same time the authors of the British North America Act. At least the minister who was primarily and particularly responsible for the Militia Act, the late Sir George E. Cartier, may fairly be described as having been one of the authors of the British North America Act, and it is a noteworthy thing that when they came to enact the Militia Act, the first one enacted under the British North America Act they did not ask parliament to determine on its own authority where the command rested, they enacted a section 1 which recited that the British North


Charles Joseph Doherty: 


Robert Laird Borden: I am also disposed to take the view that the government must accept the responsibility of legislation of this kind-of course that goes without saying. The point of my objection was precisely that which has been emphasized by my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty), inasmuch as this parliament has no legislative authority to qualify or limit the language- of section 15 of the British North America Act, it ought not to undertake to do it. Indeed I have some support in- that from a former Minister of Justice, although apparently none from the present Minister of Justice. I observe what took place when the Militia Act was before this House in 1904, during the discussion on section 4 which read:
The command in chief of the militia is vested in the King and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty, or the Governor General as his representative.
The hon. member for Victoria and Hali-burton (Mr. Hughes) who has brought the passage to my attention, inquired:


Samuel Hughes: In what does this differ from the old clause?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: The word personally ' is left out.


Mr. FITZPATRICK.: I would suggest that this whole section would be dropped. It is absolutely unnecessary and in any event would have to be altered. Section 15 of the British North America Act provides:
The command in chief of the land and naval militia, and of all naval and military forces, of and in Canada, is hereby declared to continue to be vested in the Queen.
That does away with the necessity for this section.


Frederick William Borden: Let the section stand.


Mr FITZPATRICK.: If it is to stand, I would suggest this modification. Instead of reading, ' The command in chief of the militia is vested in the King/ it should read, as in the words of the British North America Act, is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the King/ Because we are not conferring upon His Majesty authority over the army. That authority is conferred by the constitution.


Wilfrid Laurier: This seems to be a wordy warfare. I rather agree with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick) that there is no necessity for the clause. I think we might allow it to stand in the meantime.
That was the view expressed then.
Then let us remember once more that the authority of the imperial parliament is one thing, and the authority of this parliament is another thing so far as the prerogative of the Crown is concerned. The imperial parliament under modern conditions can deal with the prerogative of the Crown in any way that it sees fit, but this parlia-

inent cannot do so where it is limited by the terms of the British North America Act.
A gentleman whose opinions on constitutional questions were quoted very freely in this parliament in 1905 in connection with the Autonomy Bill, and who- has since been appointed to be a judge of the highest court of one of the provinces of Canada, speaks on the very subject we are now discussing-I am quoting from _ Clements' work on the Canadian Constitution at page 253. He is dealing with the prerogatives of the Crown and section 9 of the British North America Act cpioted by the Prime Minister, and he says:
The power (1) to disallow colonial legislation; (2) to appoint the Governor General; (3) to appoint a commander over the military and naval forces of Canada; (4) to make international arrangements which will bind Canada; and (5) to hear appeals from Canadian courts in her Privy Council (j); would seem to be about all the common law prerogatives of the Crown in connection with colonial affairs, over which colonial legislatures have no legislative power.
Nothing could be much more explicit or definite than that. He classes interference with the command of the militia and naval forces in the same category as the power to appoint a Governor General of Canada or the power to disallow colonial legislation, or the power for His Majesty to hear appeals from Canadian courts before the Judicial Committee of his Privy Council. These are all placed in the same category.
I do not know by whait pretense we can undertake to practically amend section 15 of the British North America Act.
The prerogatives of the Crown have been very tersely described by Professor Dicey in a passage quoted in the late work of Mr. Lowell, president of Harvard University on the Government of England.
The authority of the Crown may be traced to two different sources. One of them is statutory, and comprises the various powers conferred upon the Crown hy Acts of parliament. The other source gives rise to what is more properly called the prerogative. This has been described by Professor Dicey as the original discretionary authority left at any moment in the hands of the King; in other words, what remains of the ancient customary or common law powers inherent in the Crown.
He points out that the distinction is not always easy to draw because the prerogative of the Crown has sometimes been amplified by statute, and in some of the statutes which do modify it additional prerogatives have been conferred on the Crown itself. He points out, however, that these are not what are commonly known as the prerogatives of the Crown, but special statutory powers created by parliament, and conferred upon the Crown. The prerogatives in regard to the army and navy are very well understood. I realize that a
constitutional writer in a work published only a few years ago declares that in Great Britain the army and navj are the creatures of parliament. So they are the creatures of parliament in one sense that they could not exist at all except for the annual appropriations voted by parliament, and so far as the army is concerned, it could not exist except by virtue of the^ annual ^enactment of the Army Act which provides for discipline within the army. That is not the case with regard to the -navy. So they are the creatures of parliament in that sense, but the old common law prerogative of the Crown to hold the command of the army and navy has not been taken away. Indeed, the prerogatives Qf the Crown in Great Britain are somewhat more extensive to-day than many people suppose. There is a well known passage in this work of Lowell, cited from Bagot:
' It would very much surprise people,' as Bagehot remarked in his incisive way, ' if they were only told how many things the Queen could do without consulting parliament.' . [DOT] [DOT] Not to mention other things, she could disband the army (by law she cannot engage more than a certain number pi men, but she is not obliged to engage any men); she could dismiss all the officers, from the General commanding in chief downwards; she 'could dismiss all the sailors, too; she could sell off all our ships of war and all our naval stores; she could make a peace by the sacrifice of Cornwall, and begin a war for the conquest of Brittany. She could make every citizen in the United Kingdom, male or female, a peer j she could make every Parish in the United Kingdom a ' university ; she could dismiss most of the civil servants; she could pardon all offenders.
And all of us remember that the beginning of Civil Service reform in Great Britain was through the prerogative of the Crown, and not through any Act of parliament. The measure could not be put through parliament in Great Britain as parliament at that time was opposed to it, and the real beginning of civil service reform in Great Britain was effected by the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown:
In a word, the Queen could, hy prerogative, upset all the action of civil government within the government. We might add that the Crown could appoint bishops, and in many places clergymen, whose doctrines were repulsive to their flocks; could cause every dog to be muzzled, every pauper to eat leeks, every child in the public elementary schools to study Welsh; and could make all local improvements, such as tramways and electric light, well-nigh impossible.
He sums it all up so far as the army and navy are concerned, at page 22 by saying this; On page 22 we read: 'As head of the army and navy it (that is the Crown) raises and controls the armed forces of the nation and makes regulations for their government, subject of course to the statutes,

and to the passage of the annual Army Act.' That is the situation in Great Britain. Parliament can modify that situation, and we can modify that situation in this country, but only within limits, and so far as we purport to qualify the limits set upon our power our action would be inoperative.


Samuel Hughes: Is the Prime Minister going to pass section 4 after hearing read the statement of Sir Charles Fitzpatrick?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think I can satisfy my hon. friend very easily upon that question. The British North America Act gave a new entity to this country and provided that the executive power was vested in the Queen, the sovereign of the day, and the legislative power was vested in the Queen, in the Senate and in the House of Commons. That Act was passed, it came into effect, and we have had the advantage of having had parliamentary interpretation of the powers vested in parliament upon this very question, that is to say, in whom should be vested the command of the naval forces and military forces. I shall have to quote once more section 15 of the Act: ' The command in chief of the land and naval militia and of all naval and military forces of and in Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the Queen.' I have not apprehended exactly what was the meaning of hy hon. friend from Hastings (Mr. Nor-thrup), 'but I think he stated that the command, as far as the navy was concerned, was vested in the King, and under the conditions of things prevailing in Great Britain, under the constitution, could not be delegated to anybody, not even to the Governor in Council.


William Barton Northrup: No, no.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps not. At any rate, that is the way I interpreted; it. Perhaps I may quote the constitution of Australia upon this point. Section 51 is analogous to ours and vests in the Australian parliament the naval and military defence of the Commonwealth and of the several states and the control of the forces. Section 68 is in these words: 'The command in chief of the naval and military forces of the Commonwealth is vested in the Governor General as the Quen's representative.' The Act is clearer in this respect than ours, because it says in so many, words that the command is vested in the Governor General. But though clearer on this point, it is not more effective than ours. Now, from the early days of confederation we have had the interpretation of parliament upon this clause, and the first interpretation is to be found in the Act which has been quoted by several of my friends on the other side, and later by my hon. friend from 8t. Anne's (Mr. Doherty). These words are to be found in the very


Robert Laird Borden: first Act on this subject, which w'as drafted by Sir George Cartier:
The command in chief of the militia is declared to continue and be vested in the Ring:, and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his personal representative.
Now,^ it is to be noticed here that the word ' personal ' was introduced in the section, though it pretended to follow and to keep close within the language of the British North America Act. The word personal ' was interpolated for reasons as to which I have not been able to satisfy myself in any study I have been called upon to give to that question. But it is not of very great consequence. In later legislation on the same subject, the word [DOT] personal ' was eliminated. The Act, the Militia Act of 1867 came to be revised, not in the general codification of 1896, but by this parliament in 1904, and there the section was interpreted again, and interpreted in these words: 'The command in chief of the militia is declared to continue and be vested in the King and shall be exer-i cised and administered by His Majesty or by the Governor in Council.' My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) has just quoted a discussion which took place on this question in this House._ He quoted the observation made at the time by the Minister of Justice (Sir Charles Fitzpatrick), that the section was unnecessary, because the matter was provided for in the British North America Act, and that they could not depart from the terms of the British North America Act. So far as I know that is the only opinion which he quoted, and as I understood him, the matter was allowed to rest there. But though the Minister of Justice of the day stated, in the 'Opinion which was read by my hon. friend (Mr. Borden), that the clause was not necessary and should be eliminated, the clause was allowed to remain in the Bill.


Samuel Hughes: It is changed, though.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, In what respect?


Samuel Hughes: The words ' declared to continue and be ' were inserted.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that that changed the condition at all. In the clause which is adopted in this Bill, and which is in these words:	' The command in chief of the naval forces is vested in the King and shall be exercised and administered by His Majesty,' this parliament does not pretend to go back upon anything which is declared in the British North America Act. The only words which are eliminated are these: ' the command in chief is declared to continue and be vested.'


Samuel Hughes: Might I point out that *when Sir Charles Fitzpatrick asked that the clause stand, it read then :in the Militia Act the same as section 4 in this Act now reads, but when it was represented to the House it read as it now stands in the Militia Act with these extra words.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does my hon. friend think these words make the clause any stronger?


Samuel Hughes: I am bowing to the opinion of S'ir Charles Fitzpatrick.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry I have not been able to read the whole discussion. If the point is simply this, that in the opinion of my hon. friend instead of reading as it does to day ' the command in chief or the naval force is vested in the King,' it should read ' the command in chief is declared to continue,' I do not know that it would make much difference, and for my part I would have no objection at all. If he insists upon these words, I will ask it to stand and will consult the Minister of Justice upon this point. For my part I do not think it makes any difference at all whether the clause reads as it is here, ' the command in chief of the naval force is vested in the King,' or whether it reads 'the command in chief is declared to continue and be vested in the King.' This seems to me to be a distinction without any difference. Of course we cannot change the law of the British North America Act; we are bound by it. And whether we recognize it in so many words or not makes no difference.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection to make this in conformation with the Militia Act and I move that m the first line of section 4. after the word k be inserted ' declared to continue and be.


John Allister Currie: Why not insert the words of the original Militia Act?


Wilfrid Laurier: This Militia Act was adopted after long discussion, as appears from the quotations that have been made, and as it is the latest utterance of parliament on the subject, I think we should adhere to it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not wish to persist too much, but I still do not think that this alteration meets the objection as it presents itself to my mind. It seems to me an entirely illogical proceeding for this House to enact something, whether by declaration or by _ substantial enactment, something which is already law, made the law by a parliament different from this, a parliament whose legislation this parliament has absolutely no power to alter. It seems to me we might as well, in any other Act, enact some section of the British North America Act dealing with the same subject. Now putting upon the statute-book such an enactment, prima facie, is a declaration on our part of the power to deal with the matter. Yet, we all seem to be agreed that we cannot determine that matter in this House, it having been once for all determined by the British North America Act. It is true, as stated by the leader of the opposition, and as apparently held by a. former Minister of Justice in regard to a similar matter, that it may possibly do no harm. But it would seem to be more rational for us to proceed under the law that governs us and not to make a pretense of enactment on the subject.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) remembers the line of Tennyson as applied to the British constitution about broadening * slowly down from precedent to precedent.' We have several precedents in dealing with this business, and I feel that we cannot do better than adopt the language used by parliament when it last dealt with this question.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It has been suggested that the weakness of this idea of broadening down from precedent to precedent is that, sometimes-in fact, the present is an instance-the principle is quoted in support of the idea that when you have once done wrong, you have for ever forfeited your right to do right.


William Findlay Maclean: Is it not good practice to regard the constitution as something progressive? There is nothing wrong in Canadians suggesting in their parliament the right to limit the prerogatives of the Crown. If Canada is similar in constitution to Great Britain, and if the parliament of Britain can limit the prerogatives of the Crown, is it wrong for Canadians to assert the same power? I, for one, am not afraid to take that view. I prefer to see a constant assertion, in all these constitutional provisions, more and more of the right of Canada to equality in legislation with the mother country. ' If the mother country has greater freedom than we have in regard to this question or any question, I say that, as a daughter state, we ought to assert that right, maintain it and achieve it. And I take it that these changes are in Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the line of constitutional progress and in the line of asserting the right to control and responsibility in these matters.


John Allister Currie: Constitutional progress is one of the questions that we should gravely consider when we are dealing with a great national question of this kind. Any one who knows anything about our constitution and the circumstances surrounding its creation, knows that it was a creature of circumstances, and it was sought by it to amalgamate into a whole certain interests of a deep national character, and certain guarantees were given. Now, whenever I see a Bill introduced into this House which attempts to vary the prerogative or rights of the King, or which attempts to decide questions in this House which might pertain for instance to the rights of minorities, it is time for us to take careful heed whither we are going. There is no question but that this Naval Bill, as has been plainly stated, is intended to set up what is practicallv a purely local force for Canada, and every clause throughout this Bill attempts, and does it successfully, to limit the prerogative of the Crown to any control over this local force. I can foresee a time, perhaps it may be not far in the future, when a majority in this House having control of this iron flail in the shape of a navy, may use it as a whip to force a minority into submission along certain lines which that minority might not consider constitutional. For that reason we should endeavour in every way to safeguard the rights that are guaranteed under the British North America Act, and not set up another empire within an empire with an armed force at its disposal, when thati armed force which would be entirely under the control or under the command of a single man, the premier in this country. That is a danger which I see in this Bill, and it is a very serious, one. Under this Bill, the proposed navy will be entirely under the command of the premier for the time being.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


John Allister Currie: I wish the premier to understand that I see a grave constitutional danger in permitting any premier of Canada to have the right to use an armed force in this country over and above the right of the King. The King has always been the guardian, the safeguard and the buckler of minorities, not only in this country, but in other countries of the empire. The King has invariably stood between the people and injustice, between the people and their governors, as is shown by the history of the mother country for three or four hundred years. Now, this danger arises under this clause, in this very Act, and under it there is no guarantee but that a a Prime Minister, with a brute majority at)

his back, may at some future date cast to the winds every principle of the British North America Act, and use this navy as a weapon to drive minorities into doing! something against their will and against the guarantees that they have by the constitution. I think minorities would be safe if the Bill followed the words of Sir George E. fcartier. That gentleman had sustained great struggles, and had fought great battles on behalf of certain interests in this country. When the right hon. leader of this House proposes to remove any of those safeguards, I say he is not doing justice to every section of the community. While there may be no danger, whilst he is Prime Minister, still no man can be assured of a long tenure of life, nor can he expect to rule forever, and the danger may come after be has gone.	[DOT]


Wilfrid Laurier: I am glad the hon. gentleman recognizes that so long as I am Prime Minister he will not have reason to deplore the evils which he sees coming on. But I must say that in thi$ matter we do not depart from the language of Sir George E. Cartier; on the contrary,! it is a fact that the language in this clause! is in accordance with the best traditions of Sir George E. Cartier, and with his language also.	1


John Allister Currie: Why not then follow the exact words of Sir George E. Cartier?


Samuel Hughes: I want to ask the First Minister a question; there may be something in it and there may not be. Does he maintain that this parliament has the right to create a navy independent of the imperial navy for war purposes? I am free to admit that this parliament has conferred upon it by the British North America Act power to recognize a Canadian militia, which, of course, would be controlled by; parliament. But when it comes to creating a navy which means a force to take part, in war against a foreign nation, does thq First Minister maintain that this parliament has authority to create a Canadian navy?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is my pretention, and I think that has been the pretention from the first day of confederation.
Section 4 agreed to.
. Sir WILFRID LAURIER. I now move the amendment of which I gave notice this morning about the organization of the department :
Section 4a, There shall be a department of the government of Canada which shall be called the Department of the Naval Service, over which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the time being shall preside, and shall be the Minister of the Naval Service.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Wilfrid Laurier: I now move the following as section 4b:
Section 4b. The Governor in Council may also appoint an officer who shall be called the deputy minister of the naval service, who shall be the deputy head of the department, and may also appoint such other officers and clerks as are requisite for the due administration of the business of the department, each of which shall hold office during pleasure.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 6,
Robert Laird Borden: I would like to get some information as to the construction and purchase of the vessels that are contemplated. I would like to know where they are to be built, and when; also, what is to be the character of the plant, where the guns and arms are to be manufactured, and generally some information respecting matters that have not been touched upon to any extent so far.
S'ir WILFRID LAURIER. I stated in the debate which took place on the second reading, that it was the intention of the government, if at all practicable, to have these ships built in Canada. I cannot speak definitely upon that because this is a matter which. I think, cannot be definitely determined to-day, but it is our intention to ask for tenders, and we will be guided by the tenders which we receive as to whether or not they shall be built in Canada or whether we shall build them abroad.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no determination yet?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Robert Laird Borden: The government has no definite idea as to what place within Canada it will select?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not think it will be possible to make any selection to-day. That would depend on whether the tenders we receive are satisfactory.


Mr. DANIEL.: Where will the headquarters of these vessels be when they are purchased or built?


Wilfrid Laurier: The headquarters of these vessels will depend upon their distribution. I stated this morning that at the present time we have several ships which are doing protective service in connection with fisheries. I have no doubt that in the course of time these ships will be superseded by the ships we are going to build. Some of these ships are doing duty on the shores of Nova Scotia, and one is in the Bav of Fundy. It would not be possible to determine their headquarters at the present time.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Has the government determined where the headquarters of the

74.35

' Niobe ' will be? I think she is to come out this summer.


Wilfrid Laurier: The ' Niobe ' will be located in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and will do duty as a training ship, but I do not know yet where her headquarters will be.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In view of what I have learned as to her coal consumption, I think it would be a good plan to have her headquarters at Sydney, or where a coal mine is available. I understand that her consumption of coal is from 15 to 17 tons an hour. Of course, that means a very large consumption of coal, and I think Sydney will perhaps be a better place than the Gulf of St. Lawrence.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am happy to say to my hon. friend that his information is altogether wrong.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In reply to the statement of the Prime Minister I may say that I obtained it from the ' Naval Annual,' one of the publications that I can find in the library at any time, and I will take the opportunity of getting the book and reading it to parliament so that the right hon. gentleman will be able to know the authority from which I quote. I can give the authority to the Prime Minister.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well, And I will give mine at the same time to my hon. friend.


Mr. BLAIN.: I hope the government will not lose sight of an important question that the right hon. gentleman's friends spoke about when the Bill was up for discussion on a previous occasion; that is, that the enormous amount of money that will go out of the treasury of Canada shill be expended within the limits of Canada, using our own raw material and paying this money to our own Canadian workmen. The right hon. the Prime Minister, speaking this ifternoon, has not been very encouraging upon that line. We could gather from his remarks that it is quite possible indeed that in the construction of the navy this money might be expended in another country. He has stated that tenders will be asked for, and that when the tenders are received consideration will be given to them and i decision will be arrived at by the government. That is all very well, but I may say that the people of Canada will be altogether disappointed if the government do not arrange their policy of construction that the raw material and labour shall be found in this country and the wages paid to our own Canadian people.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: I am glad to hear supporters of the right hon. gentleman call out ' hear, hear ' to that, because it is certain-


John Waterhouse Daniel: ly one of the points that the Canadian people are considering at this moment, and for myself I am free to say that if the impression had not gone out to the people of Canada that such a policy would be pursued the people would be denouncing the government in stronger terms than they are for attempting to construct a Canadian navy. I am an ardent supporter of home industry, and I hope the right hon. gentleman and the government will consider carefully before they attempt to give contracts for the construction of these vessels outside of Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am delighted with the progress that the idea of the navy is making. I am delighted to see that my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) is getting better light. I can assure him that we shall do everything possible to meet the very sensible views that he has presented this afternoon.


Samuel Hughes: Would we not have a larver share of the work of construction if we were to make our navy a part of the imperial navy than we will have if we build a separate navy?


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not any conclusion has been come to with regard to the construction of these vessels. Has the government done anything at all except to purchase the 'Niobe' and to negotiate for the 'Rainbow'?


Wilfrid Laurier: There have been some negotiations that have not been official, and in that way we have received some suggestions and offers upon this subject, but there is nothing official, and nothing has been done.


Robert Laird Borden: Do the government propose to advertise for tenders?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, that is our view.


Robert Laird Borden: When will that be done?


Wilfrid Laurier: Probably after we have prorogued, and when we have had time to breathe a little.


William Findlay Maclean: Are negotiations under way with any of the dock yard companies?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Robert Laird Borden: Has the 'Rainbow' been purchased'?


Wilfrid Laurier: It has been understood that the 'Rainbow' will be purchased as soon as the money is voted by this parliament. The negotiations are completed.


Robert Laird Borden: $250,000 was mentioned as the purchase price; I do not know whether that is correct or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Richard Blain: Where was this vessel constructed, and from whom is it agreed to purchase?


Wilfrid Laurier: It was purchased from the Admiralty. It is one of the war vessels, and it is to do service in the waters of British Columbia.


Mr. BOYCE.: Is it not a discarded vessel?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Robert Laird Borden: What kind of a vessel is it? I do not understand that it really is a vessel of any fighting value.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have the information somewhere, and I will come back to it later on.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good. I would like to know who is correct, the Prime Minister, at page 3049 of 'Hansard', or the Minister of Militia and Defence, at page 3413. One puts the cost of the naval fleet and establishment at $4,-
253,000	and the other at $3,680,000. The difference between these two amounts is $573,000, enough to pay the interest on something over $15,000,000. Surely there must be some way of finding out who is right, and who is wrong. Both cannot be right, but, of course, both may be wrong.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Sir Frederick Borden) is always Tight. I am likely to be the one that is wrong.


Robert Laird Borden: Are we to take that for granted?


Wilfrid Laurier: Until furthei orders-yes.


Robert Laird Borden: But we want to know.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Sir Frederick Borden) will have the information in a moment.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have the information to which I referred, and I find it in a publication called 'Fighting Ships, 1907'. by Jane, I have no doubt the book is familiar to those who are acquainted with admiralty and naval affairs, and it refers to the earlier Diadem class, which consists of four ships-the 'Diadem', 'Niobe', 'Europa' and 'Andromeda'. A foot note with regard to the coal consumption of these vessels is as follows:
Coal consumption. These ships all burn more per indicated horse-power than the 236J
older Diadem, and at 16,500 horse-power consume 15 to 17 tons an hour.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have my own information somewhere, but I have so much I cannot lay my hand on it at the moment.


Richard Blain: The minister did not commence very well in reference to having this money expended in Canada or these vessels constructed here. This seems to be one of the smaller type of vessels, and if he intends having the larger vessels later on constructed in Canada, I hope he will not take this as a precedent, because vessels of this class could be constructed in Canada, the wages paid to Canadian workmen, and the material procured in Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very good, I will take a note of that.


Robert Laird Borden: I observe that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries at the conference of 1907, as reported at page 141 of the English Blue-book said:
We have taken over, or are going to take over, the Halifax and Esquimalt dockyards -in fact we are in possession already from the 1st January of the Halifax dockyards. I do not know exactly how much those dockyards were costing the British admiralty- or the one at Halifax, hut I may say we have assumed all the obligations in connection with those dockyards, and we have provided specially that the amount which the British admiralty was to pay as an annual subscription to the graving dock at Halifax would be paid by us instead of by the British admiralty.
So far as the dockyards at Halifax are concerned, I have observed in the report that it is used at present altogether for storing supplies. I think my hon. friend from Victoria described it as a glorified junk shop. Is it the fact that the Canadian government are paying the amount that would otherwise be paid by the British admiralty on account of these dockyards?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am informed negotiations have not been completed yet.


Robert Laird Borden: But there was nothing said about any negotiations. The words are:
We have assumed all obligations in connection with those dockyards, and we have provided specially that the amount which the British admiralty was to pay as an annual subscription to the graving dock at Halifax would be paid by us instead of by the British admiralty.
That was the reason put forward at the conference of 1907 for doing nothing, a direct statement of fact, and I am endeavouring to ascertain whether that statement of fact is true or not true.


Wilfrid Laurier: The question is one of administration of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I am prepared to discuss the Bill, but 1 cannot give the information asked by my hon. friend until I obtain it from the Department of Marine and Fisheries..


Robert Laird Borden: The minister spoke somewhat disparagingly of the Australian dockyards, and spoke of the generosity of Canada in regard to these two. Apparently he was not accurate. His words at page 3403 ' Hansard,' and the Blue-book at page 26 do not agree. He was inclined to be severe on me because I criticised the language of the Bill. I am more astonished to find that his statements do not agree with the Blue-book.


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall take note of all the questions and endeavour to satisfy my hon. friend's curiosity.


Samuel Hughes: What is the status of a rear admiral or commodore of the first class as compared with a similar position in the imperial navy?


Wilfrid Laurier: None that I know.


Robert Laird Borden: I have endeavoured to make an estimate based upon the returns brought down as to what the cost of this navy would be in the first ten years.. I only put this forward as a tentative estimate in order that it may be corrected by those who have official knowledge, who would know much more about it than I would, and whose statement I am prepared to accept. I have founded the estimate, as far as I could, on what has been brought diown, and upon the financial estimates made by the Minister of Militia. According to the statement of the Minister of Militia, at page 3416 of ' Hansard,' the estimated cost of the upkeep for all purposes would be $6,685,000 for the first four years. The cost of the ' Rainbow ' is not included, I put that at $250,000. That brings it to $6,935,000. Looking at the next page I find that the com, of eleven ships will be $11,730,000, and assuming, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, that these ships are to be constructed in Canada, we should add, according to the statement of the Prime Minister, 33 per cent of $9,940,000 for the increased cost of construction. That amounts to $3,313,000. The total of these two sums is $15,043,000. The total then of the sums up to date is $21,978,000. The upkeep for six years, according to the Prime Minister's statement, would be $25,500,000. If the estimate of the Minister of Militia is to be accepted you would strike about $3,000,000 off that, but I am disposed to take the higher estimate. The headquarters staff for six ad-Mr. R. L. BORDEN.
ditional years-because four years have been provided for in the estimate I first gave-would be $3,000,000. The total of these sums is $49,478,000. Then you add interest and depreciation, say for an average of six years at 3 per cent, a low estimate, $8,906,040, or a total of $58,484,040. I submit that as an estimate fairly dedueible from the information already brought down, but I submit it only in a tentative sense, and in order that the Minister of Militia or the member of the government who has these matters in hand may criticise it and correct it.


Frederick William Borden: I would have supposed that these matters could be better discussed on the items in Supply covering this service.


Robert Laird Borden: My reason for going in them is that the minister himself went into them in his speech.


Frederick William Borden: My speech will be before parliament just as much then as it is now.


Robert Laird Borden: Except that upon the estimates it could not be referred to, it would be another debate.


Frederick William Borden: The question will be before the committee. As to my statement of annual cost, every one will understand that was not my estimate but the estimate of the officers of the department of Marine and Fisheries at that time. I simply gave it to the House for what it was worth, and it was the best calculation that could be given at that time. It will be noted that this statement was made in connection with it:
This estimate is only approximate. It will probably be found that it is rather an over estimate than an under estimate.
The estimated expenditure was given as to the ' Niobe ' including cost of recruits, pay, victualling, &c., and the headquarters staff, &c. My hon. friend has read from the unrevised ' Hansard '. There was a serious mistake in the printing of the table which I gave, which was corrected, and will be found corrected in the ' Revised Hansard.' As to these matters of detail I may say again that while I think they were approximately correct it will be more appropriate to discuss them when the question of the vote to be granted by parliament is under consideration.
My remarks upon Australia were made in this connection. Unfavourable contrasts as between what Canada was doing, and what Australia was doing had been made, and I pointed out and read from the Blue-book to prove that Canada for one thing had taken over the Halifax and Esquimalt works. I assumed that we were paying all expenses connected with the docks, and all

the naval property at Halifax and Esquimau, and, I was pointing out that while we were doing this, and while we were not claiming or expecting any assistance from the mother country, Australia was receiving a substantial amount of money every year, and she had only agreed ultimately to take over the naval docks some time m the future. That was the point I made. Canada had agreed to do that, and would do it, and as a matter of fact was doing it while Australia was to do the same thing some time in the future.


Robert Laird Borden: As the minister properly went into these items on the second reading of the Bill, it is clear that the same subject may properly be considered in committee, but we could not criticise the minister's speech in the estimates as it would not be the same debate. I do not want to be under any misapprehension as to Halifax and Esquimalt. The minister himself stated in this House in reply to a question from myself on J anuary 17:
With regard to Esquimalt the naval yard at that station is still under the imperial authorities. The machinery is lying idle, but well looked after. The same is to he said as regards the buildings. The station has, however, been reduced to two gun vessels and one survey ship.	,	, .	.
With regard to Halifax, the machinery m the workshops is looked after, though the parts are not assembled for working.
It seems almost farcical to say that the government had taken over the dockyards when the dockyard's haid beejn In that conditon for nearly three years after the statement was made in the colonial conference in 1907 which I have already quoted to the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will the hon. gentleman give me a reference to the page?


Robert Laird Borden: I have quoted from page 141 of the English blue-book of the Colonial Conference of 1907.


Mr. G. TAYLOR.: The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) has proved I think conclusively to the Prime Minister the quantity of coal which this steamer would burn per day. He has shown that it would burn 17 tons per hour. The Prime Minister said he had mountains of information but he could not give a reply to my hon. friend from St. John. Now, I want the people of Canada to understand what they are going into. The authority which my hon. friend the member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) quoted that this steamer will burn 17 tons of coal per hour, is undoubted. There are 24 hours in a day, so that would be $2,040 per day, and for one year it would he $744,600. Now that is just an example of what we will have to pay. It is proved from the English blue-book what the
steamer burns and what is the cost to the government of their other steamers. If he will add up the figures, he will find that for this steamer the coal hill will be $744,600 a year.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
George Taylor: This business government I hope will keep her busy.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is because we are a business government that we will not do anything so foolish as that. _ When it comes to war time, and God forbid that we should ever come to that, we would have to steam her at full capacity.


Robert Laird Borden: In order to escape.


Wilfrid Laurier: We will have to burn as much coal in war time as will keep her at her full capacity, but we are not in that position at the present time. We are living in a time of peace. This vessel will be used as a training ship and my information is that the consumption of coal will be the average consumption.


Mr. J. D. REID.: The hon. Prime Minister has not given the total estimate of what it will cost to maintain and operate this steamer for 12 months.


Wilfrid Laurier: I can get that and I will give the hon. member the information. The upkeep for one year?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very good I will give that.


John Dowsley Reid: The cost of operating and upkeep including coal and all.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The right hon. the Prime I Minister stated that the 'Niobe' was 1 launched in 1902. If that statement is

7443
correct there must be two very similar vessels of the same name in the Royal navy, because the information given by the right hon. the Prime Minister is similar to what is observed in Janes' 'book. In that book it is stated to have been launched in 1897, and the statement made by the Prime Minister just now was that it was launched in 1902. Either there are two vessels of the same name, and similar in many respects in the Royal navy or the information given by this book is wrong or the information of the right hon. the Prime Minister is wrong. Here are the dimensions of the ' Niobe ' as given in this publication which is looked upon as a standard publication: Displacement, 11,000 tons; sheathed and coppered, with a complement 'Of 677 men; water line length, 450 feet; beam 69 feet; maximum draft, 27i feet; length over all, 460J feet. And here is her armament: 16 six-inch wire guns of 40 calibre; 12, twelve pounders; of 12 cwt. and two 12 pounders of 8 cwt.; 12 three pounders; 2 maxims and 2 submerged torpedo tubes, and other things of that kind. That is the description, given in this work, of the 'Niobe', the vessel I presume that this government is bringing out here as a training ship. If this is not the vessel, I th;nk we ought to know what vessel the government is bringing out, because this Niobe is one of the 'Diadem' class and I refer the Prime Minister to the statement of the Minister of Militia when introducing this subject, he spoke of the 'Niobe' being of the 'Diadem' class. The first vessels of the 'Nio'be' class were the ^Diadem', the 'Niobe', the 'Europa' and the Andromeda . Now, as to what other vessel in that class was built in 1902, I have no information, and I think the matter is worth a little information.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand there is no difference. The ship was commissioned in 1902, it might have been commenced earlier.


John Waterhouse Daniel: It was launched in 1897.
I understood you to say it was built or launched in 1902.
_ Sir WILFRID LAURIER.	Commissioned, I understand.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I understand now she was commissioned in 1902.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is what I am told. I an^ not the Minister of Marine, and I take the information which is given to me.


Mr. H. H. McLEAN.: I might call the attention of the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) to the naval Blue-book for 1909.^ There the 'Niobe' appears in the Diadem' class, in which there are eight vessels, and in one place it states when Mr. DANIEL.
she was built, in another place, when she was launched, and then there is a date, 1899, when she was completed, and 1902, when that class was completed.


John Waterhouse Daniel: When she was commissioned.


Hugh Havelock McLean: The confusion may have arisen in this way, that 1902 was put here as the date when she W'as completed along with the date of 1899 when *she was launched. Apparently, the figures differ in the different books. One book gives the date of launching as 1899, but Brassey's 'Naval Annual' makes it 1897, and completion 1899.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have no doubt that the figures given are quite correct. She was launched in 1897 and completed in 1899, and, I presume, not commissioned until 1902. No doubt, there were more vessels than these four of the 'Diadem' class. And, apparently, the four built after this first four were not as heavy consumers of coal as these four, of which the 'Niobe' is one. The 'Diadem', the 'Niobe', the 'Europa,' and the 'Andromeda' were all great coal consumers, and when run at full power they consumed from 15 to 17 tons of coal per hour.


John Allister Currie: Did the Prime Minister make any inquiry, before this ship the 'Niobe' was purchased, to ascertain how many people were injured by defect of her machinery and boilers, and as to the amount of money it has cost the British government to keep her machinery and boilers in proper repair?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not aware that any such inquiry has been made. It may have been made, but I do not know. All this information that hon. members opposite are asking for I do not myself possess, and I will have to inquire. But I am told that the 'Niobe' was thought so well of that she is flying the flag of the rear admiral.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Who examined or inspected her for the Canadian government with a viewr to purchase?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that she was inspected for the Canadian government. We accepted the inspection of the admiralty.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: She was bought without inspection?


Wilfrid Laurier: Without inspection other than that given by the admiralty, and the statement made by the admiralty which we accepted as correct.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Has nobody seen her?


Wilfrid Laurier: She -his been seen by Admiral Kingsmill time and again; he knows her perfectly well.


John Allister Currie: Is it not a fact that the ship had reached the limit of her usefulness in the British navy, that the cost of her upkeep was very great and everything about her antiquated? The Prime Minister has stated that her guns were of 40 calibre. As I understand it, no vessel now is armed with guns of less than 50 calibre. Another thing, I understand that she is fitted with Belleville boilers. Now, these boilers are no longer used in the British navy. As a matter of fact, we have had two ships on the lakes with Belleville boilers. These were vessels of the Great Northern Railway Company-the J. J. Hill road-the Northwest and the NorthLand, and, as a matter of fact, these boilers were constantly out of commfission, tubes bursting and scalding people. That class of boilers is now antiquated, and no longer used to any extent in the navy. In fact, they constitute a grave danger, so that it is now all the navy can do to get a stoker to go into the stokehole with Belleville boilers because of the danger of being scalded to death. The annual upkeep of this machinery is something that the government should have inquired into. What is the use of getting a vessel the upkeep of whose machinery in a few years will cost as much as would pay for the machinery of a new ship? The right hon. Prime Minister knows that even the new vessels that have been bought cost from $40,000 to $50,000 a year for upkeep. What is the use of buying junk? In a short time, this vessel would have been thrown out. She would have been taken out to sea, her guns thrown overboard, and the vessel herself brought back and sold for junk for $5,000 or $10,000. But this government pays hundreds of thousands, if not millions, for this kind of stuff.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not
think that the information of the hon. member (Mr. J. A. Currie) is coreect. He is a land warrior, not a sea warrior. And he gets his naval information from the lakes, apparently. The 'Niobe' was bought for a training ship, and I understand she will serve the purpose admirably, and that the price we pay for her, $1,075,000, is a very cheap price. We have got more than value for our monev. Of course, I do not pretend to speak with authority in these matters. The ship has steamed many miles within the last three months, and is still in active service. I do not know that a vessel commissioned in 1902 ought to be regarded as fit only for the scrap heap in 1910. However, as I say, I do not speak with authority. The only thing I know is that the purchase of the ship has been advised by the officer in charge of the department at the present time, who is our expert officer, who knows all about the 'Niobe' and certifies that she is an admirable ship
for the purpose for which she has been bought.


John Allister Currie: Who is that officer?


Wilfrid Laurier: Admiral Kingsmill.


Robert Laird Borden: Was she bought as a training ship or as a fighting ship?


Wilfrid Laurier: As a training ship.


Robert Laird Borden: How many men can be trained on board this ship or on the 'Rainbow'?


Wilfrid Laurier: Four hundred and forty men and forty officers can^ be trained on the 'Niobe' and 'Rainbow' together.


Hugh Havelock McLean: I would direct the attention of the hon. member for North Simeoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) to the volume I have here which will give him full information respecting the 'Niobe.' If he consults that, I think he will be quite satisfied that the government is not buying a piece of junk. For instance, she is put down here as a protected first-class cruiser-this is the latest naval annual, 1909-and the vessel would not be so entered unless she bore that class. That is her present position in the navy, a protected first-class cruiser.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman wants us to take the authority of the Navy Annual. I would advise him to look up the Navy League Annual, where he will find this ship at the bottom of the list. That means that in another year she goes off the map altogether. The hon. gentleman knows that perfectly well.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Annual wives 325 men for the ' Niobe,' and 90 fof the ' Rainbow,' making a total of 405 men that can be trained on these two ships.


John Dowsley Reid: How were these vessels purchased? Did the Minister of Marine and Fisheries negotiate the purchase himself? It is a well known fact that the government have been purchasing vessels on the other side these last few years instead of purchasing them in Canada. Last session, when I suggested that Collingwood or Toronto should get the contract for the vessel that was ordered for the fishery protective service, the Finance Minister told me that the reason the government could not have it built in Canada was because the tender price in Canada was $15,000 more than the contract price for which they were getting the vessel in England. And yet the government were practically receiving about $15,000 in duties. I will give you the reason why I ask this question. I understood at the time, I think from the Minister of Marine and Fisher-

ies, that his department had negotiated directly with the builders in England for these vessels. You can imagine my surprise when, during the present year, I wad speaking with a ship-builder in England, from whom I understood that the negotia tions were made through a gentleman residing in the city of Montreal, and that five per cent commission was allowed on the purchase of the vessel in England. Now, that vessel I think cost about $300, 000, and $15,000 of a rake-off is going to some one. That amount is exactly equal to the excess of the tender for building the ship in Collingwood. Now, it seems to me that the reason the government purchased that vessel in England was in order to give a rake-off to some one, and there would be no way by which we could find it out. When this comes up another year, I am going to try to find it out. Perhaps, now that I have mentioned the matter, the recipient of the rake-off will pretend to refund the money. I shall bring it up again, because there is no reason why the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or some of his officials. his deputy minister, or some one else, could not go to England and negotiate the purchase without employing this man in Montreal. Probably the Prime Minister will say that this is only, hearsay. Now.
I got it from a ship-builder, and he said that it was all right, there was no Teason why the government should not pay a commission. You would think that the government were capable of going to Eng land and negotiating the sale. Here is a vessel, the ' Niobe,' costing over a million dollars; if five per cent commission is paid on the sale, it will make enough to enable some one to retire for the rest of his life. I would like to know whether that has been done in this case, the same as it has been done in the case of other vessels purchased by the Marine and Fisheries Department, for instance, in the case of the notorious ' Arctic.' When that vessel was purchased, everybody knew, it was public-property, that there was $10,000 in it for some one. If there is going to be a rake-off of five per cent on the purchase of all these vessels for the navy, some one will get $150,000 in his pocket.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will be heart-broken, I am sure, when 1 tell him that there was no commission whatever paid on the purchase of this vessel.


John Dowsley Reid: How do you know?


Wilfrid Laurier: 
John Dowsley Reid: The right hon. gentleman does not prove his case. He says himself that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries caused inquiries to be made. That is. exactly what he did in regard to the other vessels that were purchased last year and the year before, he caused inquiries to be made. This gentleman from Montreal is the man who makes the inquiries, he is sent over to England and inquires from the admiralty, and he tells the admiralty. I will sell this vessel if you will pay me live per cent commission. The Prime Minister knows well enough that at the time the English government were pur-

chasing supplies for South Africa, they paid five per cent commission on those supplies. I would like to know who is the gentleman that made the inquiries.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will tell my hon. friend. Here is the report of Admiral Kingsmill on which the whole order in council was based. My hon. friend has no confidence in this government, but at all events we should hope that he would have confidence in the British government. Does he suggest that they are going to be subjected to a procedure of this kind? Does he expect that they would lend themselves to a proceeding of this kind?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think there is anything wrong as far as the admiralty are concerned. They wanted to get rid of an old war vessel. I cannot see why the Prime Minister should suggest that I am censuring the admiralty. If they wanted to get rid of an old vessel they certainly have aright to pay a commission if they wish. If Admiral Kingsmill went to_ negotiate the transaction it is all right, but the Prime Minister has not told the committee whether it was some other person outside of the admiralty, *or the minister himself, that went to the admiralty and made that deal. I would like to know whether that is the fact.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am prepared to state that there has been no intermediary of any kind in the transaction.


John Allister Currie: I may say in justification of my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid), that it is the invariable custom of the admiralty to pay a commission of five per cent as a matter of course. Whether they have done so in this case or not I do not know. If anybody sells some junk for them he gets a commission. The question that my hon. friend asked was pertinent if anybody negotiated the sale of this ship to the Canadian government, is the government aware whether he got a commission from the British navy or not, or if there was any commission taken from the cheque payable by the Canadian government? The hon. gentleman knows that in the case of the South African stores a commission was paid by the war department.


Frederick William Borden: It is not correct to say that a commission was paid by the war office. There was no commission paid by the war office. The expenses incurred in doing any work that was done for the war office in connection with the South African war were paid, but nothing more. But, as regards this particular matter, I think my hon. friends ought to give us their authority. It is rather a serious charge to make that there is a commission somewhere, hidden, covered up, in connection with this transaction, of five per cent. I am prepared to say, from what I know
of the transaction-I had nothing directly to do with it-that all the negotiations in regard to this vessel have taken place between the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the government of Canada, and the government of Great Britain, or the first lord of the admiralty, and that when the vessel is paid for, if parliament votes the money, the cheque will be sent for the full amount, whatever it may be, direct to the treasury of the British government.


John Dowsley Reid: The Prime Minister found fault with me because I found fault with the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The record of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, I think, in the past is evidence


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


John Dowsley Reid: The evidence that has been produced with respect to the Department of Marine and Fisheries justifies any person in having a little suspicion of this transaction.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: With reference to the call of * order,* I will say that the hon. gentleman is at- liberty to refer to the Department of Marine and Fisheries by way of illustration, but not for prolonged discussion.


John Dowsley Reid: You are right, Mr. Chairman, and I shall not attempt to discuss it, but what I want to say is that it has always been a mystery to me why the Prime Minister took this naval service out of the regular Militia Department and put it into the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I cannot understand what the Department of Marine and Fisheries has to do with the naval service. Why should it not be under the Minister of Militia? Does the Prime Minister want to tell the people that the Minister of Militia is not qualified to run that part of his department? Does he not know anything about the naval service? If he is not fit to administer that service he is not fit for the position that he occupies in the Militia Department. Why are you dividing the whole thing up? Why should not the two be put together under one head? What does the Minister of Marine and Fisheries know about the running of a man of war? I should think that the administration of this fleet should be under the Department of Militia. It seems to me that this was done for some purpose, and I would like to know what it is. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has more work now than one minister can attend to. lie has to attend to the fisheries protective service. That is all right enough. He has quite a lot of vessels with which to do that. You are going to make the Minister of Marine and Fisheries responsible for a naval service that he cannot look after. It will

look nice to see the Minister of Marine, who never served a day in the militia, going down and sailing one -of those great big men of war around and telling them what to do, and the Minister of Militia sitting in his office afraid to go on hoard, because he has nothing to say about it.


Frederick William Borden: I am very much obliged to my hon. friend for the confidence which he seems to have in me, but I must say to him that I believe the method adopted is approved absolutely by the admiralty. I might say further than that, going back to 1898, when the Defence Committee was appointed to inquire into the defences of Canada, and an expert report describing the condition of the defences of Canada was made and submitted to the Colonial Defence Committee in England, and after it had been fully; considered by the war office, and the admiralty, because it was referred to both, certain notes upon this report were sent to this government from the admiralty advising that if, and when a naval department should be established in Canada it should be placed under the Department of Marine and Fisheries, one of the reasons being that there existed already in that department a fisheries protection service which might be looked upon as the nucleus of a navy, and it would be decidedly in the public interest, and the admiralty itself should prefer that this course be taken. Now, 1 agree with my hon. friend-and it has been stated by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister-that the Department of Marine and Fisheries is a very comprehensive one, and has a great many different branches and a great deal of work to do. That was the reason why a department of the naval service has been created as a separate department for the time being at any rate to be under the control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and in that naval department is included the services which were referred to by the admiralty as being the nucleus of the navy, namely, the fisheries protective service and two or three other services which properly belong to a department of this kind.


John Dowsley Reid: I am surprised at the minister making, as an excuse, the statement that the naval authorities in England were perfectly satisfied with the government deciding to put this under the Department of Marine and Fisheries Why should they object? They do not care what department it is put under, but now the minister states there will be separate department^ for this service. If the department is entirely separate from the Department of Marine and Fisheries, does the minister not think that he could have managed it just as well and have had all the militia business together in one de-


John Dowsley Reid: partment? I was surprised that the Prime Minister nudged the Minister of Militia to rise and reply to this instead of mak ing his own excuse. I would have expected the Prime Minister to do that. I think the whole thing is a question of patronage. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries will have the patronage of all this service and he wanted to cut the Minister of Militia out of a little of this patronage and give it to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. That, I think is why it was put under the Department of Marine and Fisheries. It does not seem right to me, and I have heard many people wondering why this was done. The people of Canada would like to know from the Prime Minister why this course has been adopted. It is well known that the Minister of Marine is not a militia man whereas the present Minister of Militia is and all future ministers of militia should be militia men.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend commenced his remarks by charging a rake-off. He has now come down to patronage, and I hope he will end by being thoroughly ashamed of himself. Can he not suppose that sometimes men may be actuated by honest motives?


John Dowsley Reid: Certainly.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very well, then why does he not commence now and assume that we are actuated by honest motives in this? My hon. friend could take charge of this department, the minister who has charge could do it just as well and there is no reason why there should be any suspicion in my hon. friend's mind as to why the department should be allotted to one man or the other. But my hon. friend has it in his mind that there are to be rake-offs and charges of corruption. I invite him to the closest possible scrutiny, I invite him to be on the lookout, and to watch and be prepared to criticise every item of expenditure. I have only to say that the suspicions to which he has given expression are altogether wrong. There has been no middleman at all in this transaction, the transaction was simply on a report of Admiral Kingsmill, our adviser. The transaction has been completed, the money has not been voted and when it is, it will go direct from one government to the other, and that will be the last of it.
Mr. ARMiSTRONG. I wish to ask a few questions for the information of the nub-lic. Rumours of different kinds are floating around the House and some of them have appeared in the press. For instance, how long was Admiral Kingsmill in the employ of the British admiralty? Why did he leave? How long was he in this

country, and what was Iris occupation r What general fitness has he for purchasing ships for the navy? I would like any general information that the Prime Minister can give, because he is a man who will occupy a very important position in this country, and it is due him and the people that we should know whether he is still in the employ of the admiralty or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon friend asks me more information than 1 ever cared to ask for. I know that Admiral Kingsmill is a Canadian; he has received a nautical education in England, he has been in the imperial service and we obtained him from the imperial authorities We asked him to come over to Canada to be our chief adviser in this matter. This is all I can say to my hon. friend.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: The Prime Minister cannot say why he left or anythin" about the position he now holds?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, I cannot.
The higher training wrill continue for a longer period.


Robert Laird Borden: Will the 'Niobe' and the 'Rainbow' afford ample accommodation for all the men who are to be trained from year to year?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is what I understand.


Samuel Hughes: Why is there a departure from the usual custom of placing in the Bill an oath to be taken on enlistment?


Wilfrid Laurier: There is to be one, the same oath as in the Militia Act.


Mr ARMSTRONG.: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the present Admiral Kingsmill is the man who ran the battleship Dominion ashore at Gaspe at the time the Prince of Wales came out to Canada in 1901.


Wilfrid Laurier: Admiral Kingsmill' was in command of the * Dominion at one time. Whether he had an accident or not I do not know.


John Allister Currie: What rank does he hold in the imperial admiralty?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not aware His whole services are given to Canada. He has the rank of rear admiral.


John Allister Currie: Has he the rank of read admiral in the British service?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


George Taylor: How many men is it expected' will be in training, say in the next four years?


Wilfrid Laurier: The first year 228, the second year 414, the third year 448, and the fourth year 355.


George Taylor: What does the min ister estimate to be the cost for the boatd of men on the vessels for a year?


Frederick William Borden: The figures I have given for upkeep of the Niobe
are;
For the first year	
Second year	 itn'nnn
Fourth year	 150,000
For the 'Rainbow' the figures are:
For the first year	$110,000
Second year	
Third year	 115,000
Fourth year	 115,000


Robert Laird Borden: How long will the period of training be?


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand the regular training will be three years.
On section 9,
The Governor in Council may organize and maintain a permanent naval force.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: I want to draw the attention of the House to the difference between the Act of 1868 and the Act o 1904 and the present Act. Under the Act of 1868 and from that time to 1904 the whole control of the militia was vested in Her Maiesty. She had the power not only of calling out the whole militia for service m this country or in a foreign country, but also of enrolling, clothing, furnishing horses and all other material for the service. Under the Act of 1904 we altered that as much as we could by an Act of parliament, and under the present Act we are doing the same We are taking the control from His Majesty, except the prerogative, which, as the hon. member for Ste. Anne clearly pointed out, we have no power to legislate upon, and are vesting the control in the Governor in Council. I am not saying whether that is good policy or bad policy; I am not arguing the question at all; I am simply drawing the attention of the House and the country to the fact that the control of the militia in every respect, which under Cartier's Act of 1868 was vested in Her Majesty, is vested now, by the Act of 1904 and the present Act, in the Governor General in Council, with the sanction to some extent of the parliament of Canada.


Frederick William Borden: I suppose the idea in 1904 was to bring the wording of the law into agreement with the practice which my hon. friend and his government had followed for many years before that

time. It is true that the words ' Her Majesty ' can do so and so were used, but by full agreement of the House, without any dissent, the words ' Governor in Council ' were substituted which was in accordance with the practice which existed and in accordance no doubt with the intention of the original Act. [DOT]


Wilfrid Laurier: It is suggested that all the words in the second line after ' naval service ' be erased. It is thought it would be preferable to have this covered by regulation than by the rigid law of a statute.
On section 14, conditions of discharge from service.


John Graham Haggart: It was neither the practice nor the intention of the original Act. The intention of the original Act was plainly to invest the control in Her Majesty, and with regard to the practice. Her Majesty at a certain time in this country called out the militia, or a certain portion of them, without consulting the executive. It was done as a matter of right, and instructions were given to the commanders of the various districts.


Wilfrid Laurier: When?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is suggested that with the view of improving the language of the section, that the words ' but an increase may be granted whenever in the 18th line, be struck out and the word ' unless ' substituted.
On section 18, naval service men be at disposal of His Majesty in emergency.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to know what will happen in case of war or in an emergency if the Governor in Council does not make any such order.


John Graham Haggart: In 1866, at the time of the Trent affair.


Wilfrid Laurier: That was before confederation. The Trent affair was in 1861.


John Graham Haggart: At any rate, the power was in Her Majesty alone. That was the practice from the time of the conquest of the country down to 1867, and under the British North America Act the control of the militia was vested in Her Majesty. By the Act of 1904 and by this Act it is transferred from His Majesty to the Governor in Council or the Executive of the country,
On section 10,
The Governor in Council may authorize the engagement of officers and seamen in the naval service upon such terms and conditions as may be prescribed, and may from time to time fix the maximum number that may be so engaged.


Wilfrid Laurier: I desire to add the following subsection to cover the point raised by my hon. friend from Victoria :
(a) Every officer and seaman shall take and subscribe the following oath upon engagement to serve in the naval service:
I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear (or solemnly declare) that I will be faithful Kim,1' trU6 al,e"lance to His Majesty the
(b) Such oath may be administered by any commissioned officer in the naval service.


Samuel Hughes: The Minister of Militia has suggested an amendment in section 10 which has not been added after the words ' naval service.'


Frederick William Borden: That is to be covered by other words.
On section 13, relief from duty and retirement from force.


Frederick William Borden: 


Wilfrid Laurier: Then the navy does not take part in the war, but remains in inactive service.


Robert Laird Borden: Unless this country is independent you can never avoid taking part in a war. These ships are not on land. They are on the sea and the sea is one. It surrounds the world and all the continents. The ships of the enemy are on the sea and our ships are on the sea. I could understand how land forces might be kept in Canada when war was being carried on, although not in Canada. I can understand how they might not take part in such a war, but how our naval force can be kept practically neutral, in time of war, with a naval power, utterly passes my comprehension.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The Prime Minister said when England is at war, Canada is at war.


Wilfrid Laurier: Undoubtedly, when England is at war, Canada is at war, but it does not follow that Canada is bound to take part in all the wars in which England is engaged. These wars may be verv far from Canada. These wars may be of such a character that Canada might have no interest in them. They might be of serious moment or they might be insignificant. If the government of the day does not perform its duty according to the light of the people or of any citizen, the government can be attached, but in this matter as in all matters the government of the day are disposed to do their duty, and they do it at their peril and subject to their responsibility to parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: If our naval force was efficient and adequate, the whole fate of the empire might be decided while the government is making up its mind. The whole thing might be over in 10 days or two or three weeks and the abstension of an adequate Canadian naval force might
745V

decide the fate of the empire adversely. But apart from that tremendous consideration, I do not see how this thing is practicable. I understand thoroughly, and every man in this House understands thoroughly, that there may be some little frontier war in India or with some savage foe in Africa of which we know absolutely nothing in this country, and in which we would have absolutely no part. In such a case, we are technically at war with that country where-ever it may be, but so far as active participation in a war of that kind is concerned, we might have no active part in it whatever,
But I am not talking of that kind of war. 1 am talking of a war in which the empire might be engaged in a struggle with one of the great naval powers. For my part, I do not see how it is possible, in the first place, to work out this scheme which is proposed by the government. I do not see how it is possible for this reason. When our ships are on the high seas they will I presume, be flying the flag of the empiie, the British flag.
An lion. MEMBER. Will they?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not ask any question about that. I take it for granted.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: 
Mr HUGHES.: I desire to add a word to what the leader of the opposition (Mr. R L. Borden) has said. Suppose that one of these ships goes beyond the three-mile limit in time of trouble, who is responsible for her? Is the British government going to assume responsibility; or will it be the Canadian government? And, if so, what is to be the consequence? I maintain now, as I stated when I first addressed the House on this matter, that this Dominion has no authority to create a fleet that will go beyond the three-mile limit of the coasts of Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no quarrel with hon. members on the other side who take exception to the proposition involved in this section. It is an essential part of this legislation. Are we going to be automatically involved in all the wars in which England may be engaged, or are we to be allowed to have some judgment and some say in the matter? That is the proposition. We must have a naVy-i take it that all parties agree to that now, I follow the discussion in this House with some care, and, as I analysed the speeches, particularly those made to wards the end of the discussion, it seemed to me that every one was based upon the opinion that we must have a national navy of our own. True, there was some question as to whether we should have it now, or later, but I do not think that any body maintains that Canada, having reached a population of nearly eight millions, can go on indefinitely without a navy. There are men in the city of Ottawa who can recall the time when there was not a uniformed policeman in this I city. But Ottawa has grown, and the

policeman is a necessary part of our civilization. In the same way, armies and navies are part of the civilization of any country; we cannot dispense with them It is our duty, then, to have a navy, tiny though it may be. I am sorry that I cannot hope that it will remain a tiny navy: it will grow; it will have to grow. At all events, I lay it down as a simple national duty, one that we must discharge, to have a navy. What is to be the character of that navy? Shall it be a national navy or not? Hon. members on the other side tell us, if I understand them aright, that, automatically, this navy must go into war the moment there is a declaration of war against Great Britain. I believe that these hon. gentlemen cannot maintain that proposition. If I understood the leader of the opposition, (Mr. R. L. Borden) aright, he himself did not make the statement unqualifiedly in the expressions with which he has favoured the House. I understood him to say that there might be some insignificant way in which our navy would not be called upon to take part.


Robert Laird Borden: I said there might be a war in India or with some tribe in Africa which we would not hear about, and in which no navy would participate. ' But I asked the Prime Minister what would take place in case of a war with a great naval power.
' Sir WILFRID LAURIER. The proposition, as I take it, involves the great mistake of assuming that a young country like Canada, should at once rank side by side with an old nation like England with duties and responsibilities equal to those that England has. Of course, if England were engaged in a life and death struggle -no, I will not say in a life and death struggle, but in a war which would tax her resources and put her in peril, or put her supremacy in peril-or, I would not say, m peril but in the balance, in the scales of destiny-then there could be no doubt that Canada, in a wave of enthusiasm, as I said on a former occasion, would carry every daughter nation to the assistance of Great Britain with all the resources at her command.


Samuel Hughes: Is not the Prime Min-lster aware that the King of Prussia, in 1870, and for years before 1870, had absolute authority to call out the troops of Bavaria, Wurtemburg and Baden?


Wilfrid Laurier: That has no relevancy to what I am saying. There is no doubt there may be cases in which, fortunately, the naval supremacy of Great , rl-in may be chal]enged. If, which God forbid, such an occasion should arise, then this navy of ours, small as it is, with all the resources of Canada behind it, will be I


Wilfrid Laurier: placed at the command of England. But '.here are wars in which Great Britain may be engaged which will not tax her resources, which will not put her in peril, and in which, in my humble judgment, it would be folly for Canada to take any part at all. I instanced, in discussing the first reading of this Bill, the Crimean war. I state now, as I stated then, that it would be folly for Canada to take part in such a war as the Crimean war.


Samuel Hughes: Why?


Wilfrid Laurier: Because, as we know, everybody knows, the war in the Crimea was a causeless, senseless, useless war. Of course, it added to England's glory, for Britons remember with pride In-serman, and still more Balaclava. But I say without hesitation that glory that is glory alone, is too dearly bought with war. the war. of the Crimea was without cause and it proved to be without result-in my judgment, though others may not agree with me. My hon. friend may .say that Canada should take part in such a war. I say, no. That is a matter upon which we can each have our own opinion. But I will go further. In 1881 there was a movement in Egypt under Arabi Pasha to free that country from the Khedive. I do not pass judgment at all whether it was a wise or unwise movement, but I call the attention of the House to the fact. England and France joined in a note to the powers that they would maintain the government of the Khedive. France withdrew from the trouble, but England went to war. She sent a fleet to Alexandria which bombarded Alexandria; she sent her army and reestablished the government of the Khedive. Will any one tell me that Canada would have had any cause to take part in such a war as that? What reason would there have been for Canada to send her fleet, if she had had one, to take part in that war in Europe? There would have been no cause whatever. But England thought that she was bound to take part in such a war, and she did take part in it.
Well, Sir, I will not try to sail under false colours in this matter, I will say that in my judgment, if such a war were to occur again, there would be no reason whatever why Canada should go forth and take part in a war like that. But my hon. friend may say: What will Canada do in case England is engaged in a war which will tax her resources, a war which may be concluded in ten days' time, what should Canada do under such circumstances? The question is: Who is to determine whether the war is of such a character that Canada should take part in it? If you say that Canada is to take part in all the wars in which England may be engaged, then I have nothing more to say. But I maintain my position, and will maintain it, and

let the people of Canada judge between us.
If you say that there may be occasions in which Canada would have no reason whatever for taking part in a war, the question arises, when, and where, and who is to determine that? I answer that the question is to be determined by the men who, for the time being, are responsible for the welfare of Canada. My hon. friend will say: But what will happen if our ship is on the high seas and it is attacked? Sir, if it is attacked it will defend itself, and I have no doubt will give a good account of itself.


An hon. MEMBER.: By running away.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does any one believe that the men who are on that ship will run away?


Samuel Hughes: I was only quoting from the right hon. gentleman's own organ, which said that the boat was built to escape.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend should not bring up such a petty argument as that in a matter of this kind. We are discussing a grave subject. I say this, that if it should happen that our ships were attacked on the high sea, no matter under what government, no matter under what provocation, or without any provocation, I hold that under such circumstances any ship built in Canada, manned by Canadians, and sailing (the British flag, would give a good account of itself.


Robert Laird Borden: Would the right hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question? Suppose a Canadian ship meets a ship of' similar armament and power belonging to an enemy, meets Per on the high seas, what is she to do? I do not ask now what she will do, if attacked; but will she attack, will she fight?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that she would fight, I do not know that she should fight either. She should not fight until the government by which she is commissioned have determined whether she should go into the war. That is the position we take, my hon. friend takes a different position. He says that without any question, under all circumstances, we are bound to send our ships into the war. We take a different position, and we say: Let the country judge between us.


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


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


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


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


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


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


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


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


Robert Laird Borden: The position of the Prime Minister is that ships flying the British flag should meet an enemy on the high seas and not attack them. That is a new tradition for the British navy.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: I was alluding before six o'clock to some curious conditions which might be brought about as a result of the provisions of section 18 in view of the interpretation that the Prime Minister has placed upon that section. I would like to allude to one or two more. As I have already pointed out there are, of course, wars in which Canada would not be expected to participate, such as small frontier wars, and wars in which no navy would be engaged. In these it could not be expected that the Canadian naval forces would take any part. The British naval force would not take any part in them. Then there are operations such as those to which the Prime Minister alluded-the operations in Egypt in 1882, when the naval force upon the spot acted under the directions of the home government and acted without any formal declaration of war. Then there is a third-class of wars, those to which allusion was also made before six o'clock, wars in which the naval forces of the em-

pire would require to be exerted to the full, wars in which disaster might occur unless the naval forces of all the great dominions of the empire should take their due and proper part. Now, the Prime Minister, as I understand it, says that the Canadian naval force shall take no part in any such wars until after the government of Canada shall have taken the matter into consideration and determined whether or not it be a war in which it is proper that the Canadian naval force should take part. Until that declaration is made, under section 18, the Canadian naval force shall take no part. That is apparently the fair meaning and that is the interpretation placed upon it by the Prime Minister. I pointed out before six o'clock some curious results of that. One curious result is that the Canadian naval force will be, so to speak, neutral until that order in council has been made. The Prime Minister has distinctly stated that it will not attack a ship of the enemy, even if war shall have been declared unless and until an order in council has been passed. Therefore, it will not co-operate with the other naval forces of the empire. That is his direct and unequivocal declaration. He said if a Canadian ship were attacked it would resist, it would fight, but unless a Canadian ship were attacked it would take no part. I inquired whether that neutrality, because it is nothing less than neutrality in a war in which the empire is engaged, would extend to the ports and harbours of Canada, so that, pending the period during which no order in council was made, ships of the enemy could come for the purpose of obtaining supplies, and, if necessary, refitting, to the ports of Canada exactly as if Canada were not part of the empire at all. My right hon. friend did not give me any answer to that, and I do not see, why, if our ships are to be neutral, our ports and harbours should not be neutral too. If we are to assume the. status of a neutral power in such a ease in one respect 1 do not know any reason why it should not be legitimately followed by assuming the status of a neutral power in every other respect. Well, let us look at the conditions to which the declaration of the Prime Minister will bring us. He says that our ships will defend themselves if attacked, but if not, they will not attack a ship of the enemy. Every one who has studied modern conditions knows that nearly every great nation of the world, at all events, certain great naval powers, have merchant ships with guns in their holds. These ships, upon_a declaration of war, and such declarations come very suddenly under modern conditions, mount the guns they have in their bolds, hoist the naval flag of their country and prey upon the commerce of any other nation against which war may have been declared. Suppose that one of these ships Mr. E. L. BORDEN.
mounts her guns, flies the flag and proceeds to prey upon British commerce under the very guns of a Canadian cruiser; according to the declaration of the Prime Minister that Canadian cruiser would not interfere until an order in council'has been passed. Suppose that a Canadian cruiser upon the high seas in sight of British ships should observe those British ships to be attacked by the cruiser of a nation which had suddenly declared war against Great Britain, a Canadian ship is not to attack unless she is attacked herself. Then, I presume, she is to remain idly by while British ships are captured by the cruiser of the hostile power, and all this for the reason that no order in council has been passed at Ottawa. A British merchant man might very well appeal, one would think, to a ship of war flying the British flag for protection, but, under circumstances such as those the only answer that the Canadian ship could give would be that she could take no part whatever until an order in council had been passed at Ottawa, and pending that she must assume the status of a neutral vessel. All this seems to be very unworkable; it seems very absurd. But, further and more important than all that; it would simply have the result I have indicated; it would simply mean a declaration of complete independence from the rest of the empire. That is all it could possibly mean. Therefore, it seems to me, for these reasons, which I have very hastily and cursorily alluded to that section 18 as interpreted by the Prime Minister is, in the first place, unworkable if we are to remain in the empire, and, in the second place, if it is worked out on the lines indicated by the Prime Minister, then it means that Canada on the day and on the occasion when that section is worked out in that way ceases to be a part of the British empire and becomes an independent nation.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Robert Laird Borden: The Prime Minister has not quoted me in a way in which I deske to be understood ot in the way in which I spoke. I said there were wars in which neither the Canadian naval forces nor the British naval forces took any part, and, of course, in such wars any question arising under section 18 becomes absolutely immaterial, because neither the Canadian naval forces nor the imperial naval forces are to be called upon nor can be called upon. I will tell my right hon. friend where I draw the line. I say that in any war where naval forces can be engaged, the Canadian naval force ought to be exactly in the same position as the imperial naval force; in a war of the empire, the Canadian naval force ought to be classed exactly in the same category as the other forces of the empire. 1 say that is the only practical and workable theory on which you can devise a scheme for maintaining a greaf naval force of the empire if the empire is to hold together,
I shall take up one or two matters to which my right hon. friend alluded. He says, in the first place, that there always will be a declaration of war. I have looked into that question pretty thoroughly, I have looked into the modern textbooks, and the modern doctrine is that no declaration of war is necessary. Japan made no declaration of war, she committed an overt act of war, and the declaration, if there was any, came afterwards.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear. Mr. R. L. BORDEN. And the modern rule seems, to he that no declaration of war is necessary. When the relations between



two countries 'become strained, each one must be prepared for an overt act of war, and Japan was sustained by the opinion of the Whole civilized world in tire course which she took in attacking the Russian fleet before there was any declaration of war.
My right hon. friend says we will be in exactly the same position as the royal navy. I take issue with my right hon. friend. Let us take the two cases, first the case of an overt act of war before a declaration of war, some wanton act committed by a foreign fleet. Some such thing did bring about very strained relations between Great Britain and another naval power about eight or ten years ago in the North Sea. Every one remembers the occasion when some British fishing vessels were fired upon, and I think some of them sunk by the fleet of another power. Take an occasion of that kind. You have a Canadian cruiser attached for the purpose of manoeuvring or training to a British squadron. You have that British squadron engaged at once in battle with a hostile fleet, and the admiral -flies the signal to engage th)e enemy. What is the Canadian ship to do? She is to turn about and run away, and the -ships of the empire are to engage the enemy. Thi-s is the result of the right hon. gentleman's proposal. That is the case where there is no actual declaration of war. I take the _ other case to which the Prime Minister has alluded, where there has been an actual declaration of war, and hostilities between the two fleets immediately follow. Again, I say the Canadian naval force is not in the same position as the royal navy. After the declaration of war has been made and hostilities have been entered into by the opposing fleets, every ship of the royal navy is bound to obey the command of the commanding officer and enter into engagement with the enemy. The Canadian fleet is not bound to do anything of the kind; it is bound not to do it until an order in council has been passed at Ottawa. Therefore, it is of no use to say that under such circumstances the Canadian fleet is in the same position as the royal navy, and no argument can possibly alter that fact- I think I have taken up all the points that seem to be of importance brought out by the Prime Minister, and I still adhere strongly to the view that this is^ not only an absolutely unworkable proposition, but an absolutely dangerous proposition as well.


Mr FIELDING.: May I ask my hon. mend, would a British ship engage in any hostilities with a ship of another nation without receiving instructions from sonic competent authority, whether there was a declaration of war or not?


Robert Laird Borden: I think such cases have arisen and may arise.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Mr. FIELDING.: I do not think ships of the British navy usually engage in hostilities without receiving instructions from the proper authority. The proper authority would 'be the commanding officer; the proper authority to him would be the Lords of the Admiralty; and if the British Admiralty can give directions, surely the Canadian authorities can give directions too. The telegraphic facilities are as open to the government of Canada as to any body else, and with the modern facilities which science has given to us for communicating with vessels wherever they may be, I would not think there were any such difficulties as my hon. friend suggests of our not being able to get into communication.


Robert Laird Borden: I was basing my remarks on something which the Minister of Finance seems absolutely to have overlooked. The Prime Minister has laid it down definitely and explicitly that there may be great naval wars in which the Royal navy will take part and in which the Canadian navy will take no part, because the necessary order in council will not be made.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not hear the first part of my hon. friend's remarks, but I understood that he himself admitted that there might be wars in which it would be desirable that Canada should engage, and there might be other wars in which it would not be so desirable.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, never.


John Allister Currie: Would the hon. gentleman apply his rule to the case of the British-Chinese war? There a part of the British fleet acted and brought on a war without anv instructions from home.


William Stevens Fielding: There may be peculiar circumstances which are exceptional, but as a general rule no ship of the British navy engages in hostilities with a ship of a foreign power until instructions are received from a competent authority. There seems to be little room for difference on this clause. To my mind it is essential to the purpose of the Bill. It has been pointed out that 'emergency' referred to in this clause means not only actual war, -but 'invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended'. Suppose there were an insurrection in -Saskatchewan. I am using an argument which I heard an hon. friend use this afternoon, so that it is not mine. That would be an emergency in the meaning of this Act. Would it be desirable that automatically we should instantly send our ships away to join the British navy? That would not be reasonable. Suppose the British government gets into difli-culty with one of the petty republics of America. We know what happens: it sends

down a couple of ships and the whole difficulty is settled. Great Britain in a case like that, would not want the help of the Canadian navy. Would you send the Canadian ships in such a case to join the British navy? To come closer home to Europe, suppose Great Britain should unhappily-it is hardly conceivable-engage in a war with Switzerland, an inland country, with no navy. Great Britain might feel bound to declare war against Switzerland. Would it be necessary in such an event that we snould automatically send our ships to join the British navy? These are all, I grant,, extreme cases, but extreme cases are possible in the matter we are now discussing.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: If the Canadian navy were under the British admiralty, does the hon. gentleman suppose that it would ask that the Canadian navy be sent to England under such circumstances as he has mentioned?


William Stevens Fielding: But why should we place it under the control of the British admiralty? I say that this clause deals with occasions when it is not necessary or expedient for any British purpose that the ships of Canada should be sent to join the Royal navy. But I will carry the argument further. I am going to suppose a war with a great power. Let us suppose that that German scare, which kept so many hon. gentlemen opposite awake at night during the early part of this session, results in a war with Germany. I say that the people of Canada, who have built and paid for these ships, are the persons to determine, through their constituted government and parliament, what part they shall take; and therefore I stand for the principle laid down in the clause, that the right of the people of Canada through their government to determine that question shall be maintained as it is in this Act. But while I maintain that that right is necessary and proper, I have no doubt as to the manner in which that right would be exercised. I say that whenever the British nation shall become involved in a war with a great power, I do not stop to consider whether it is a just or an unjust war-so long as we are part of the British empire, I care not what government is in power in Canada, it will be its duty instantly to join and help the mother country; and I say the government in power in such a crisis, be it Liberal or be it Tory, which will fail to respond to that sentiment, will be swept out of existence, and will deserve to be. All the same it is well that we should recognize, as we do in this Bill, that if we are to engage in these wars, we are going to engage in them, as we have done in the past, by the free voluntary action of the Canadian government and the Canadian people.
237i


Robert Laird Borden: And so we would be doing it by a free and voluntary act of the Canadian people if we said that the Catnadian naval force should be part of the naval force of the empire in time of -war-a free act of the will of the Canadian people. Why does my hon. friend the Minister of Finance desire to becloud the issue in that way? If this parliament does that, it does it as the representative of the Canadian people, and speaking for the Canadian people. That is the free act of the Canadian people in the one case, just the same as it would be in the other case. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance speaks of war with Switzerland or a war with some inland power. The ships of the royal navy would not be engaged in such a war. The ships of the Canadian naval force would not be so engaged. One might remark in passing that the Swiss navy is about the only navy that our own supposed force could safely fight, so far as one can judge.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: But when Britain is engaged in a naval war, it might be that not 25 per cent of her own fleet would be engaged in active hostilities; on the other hand it might be the whole of her fleet. I am not asking that the Canadian navy should be sent to feoutn America, or to Egypt, or China on some trivial pretext. I am not asking or suggesting that; but I say that the only workable scheme is to declare that in time of war the Canadian naval force is part of the naval forces of the empire.
Some hon. members. Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see any middle course. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has perhaps not fully appreciated the attitude which the Prime Minister has taken. The Minister of Finance said: I would not stop to consider whether the war was just or unjust. The Prime Minister said: I shall very carefully consider whether the war is just or unjust. If the war, according to my appreciation, is a just war I will send the Canadian naval force to take part in it. If the war, according to my appreciation, is an unjust war, or one that does not specially concern the interests of Canada, then I shall take good care that the Canadian force shall not take a part in that war. Again, I say it is an unworkable theory, and more than that, a dangerous theory and a theory which, if persisted in, can have only one result and that is the severing of the ties which now bind this country to the empire.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend has drawn upon his imagination if he reaches the conclusion from anything I have said on this occasion that we would judge as to the justness of the war

in which England might be engaged. I never said anything of the kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not say that I would stop to consider whether a war in which England might be engaged would be just or unjust, but what I stated this afternoon and what I repeat, and what my hon. friend will have to consider himself, is that the condition of Great Britain and the condition of her daughter nations are absolutely different as to the causes of a war in which she might be engaged. England is engaged in all parts of Europe, all the time and almost every day considering whether or not the horizon is clear or is not clear. It has been the case in the past and no doubt in the future she will be engaged upon some kind of petty, war or a war perhaps of more or less importance in which we can have no interest at all, but in which we should have a very considerable interest. I cited the war in the Crimea this afternoon, and I cited also the war in Egypt. These were wars in which England was engaged and in which in my humble judgment, we would have absolutely no interest and take no part. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) says that the Canadian navy should be at all times part of the imperial navy. Well, I repeat if my hon. friends on the other side entertain this view, I have no fault to find, but I do not share that view. This is the point of issue with my hon. friend. He admits that there might be a war in which we would have to take no part. The strength of the case is such that he had to make such an admission, and it is an admission that is patent to everybody that England might be engaged in a war in a part of the world in which the Canadian organized force would have no reason to take any part at all. It is possible that a case might arise in which hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House might consider we should take part and in which hon. gentlemen on this side of the House might think we should take no part. I gave the case of the Crimean war and I was taken to task for that. I was told it was disloyal on my part because I stated that Canada would have no reason to take part in any war such as the Crimean war. That is a point on which we might differ. A more glaring case was the case of the Egyptian war. The British government sent a fleet, an act of war, to Alexandria, and it bombarded Alexandria. Will any one tell me in this House that Canada should have taken part in such a war?


Mr. LENNOX.: Sure.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well I say no, and there we are in conflict. My good friend (Mr. Lennox) says we should take part in such a war. I say on this sidi
Sir WILFRID LAURIER
of the House that we should not take part in such a war, and who is to judge as to whether we shall, or shall not. If we take the true Tory view maintained by my friend (Mr. Borden) that a Canadian navy should be part of the imperial navy under all circumstances, my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) would be right. But if we take the other view, that we should not act mechanically on this question, but that we have a right to judge for ourselves whether it is or is not in our interests that we should take part in a war, then of course of necessity we must have the control in our own hands. Sir, there is only one question, upon this point. The Canadian people have an aversion to war. The Canadian people will not be drawn lightly into war, and the Canadian people will not be drawn into such a war as my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) thinks they should be drawn. But the Canadian people will under all circumstances gladly go into a war when the supremacy of Great Britain is in peril. How is tnat to be determined? There is only one way of determining those questions, and it is by the will of the government, the will of parliament, and the will of the people.


William Findlay Maclean: There is a middle course that suggests itself to me, and it may be the way that will be worked out practically. While we may not specifically put in this Act of parliament that automatically the Canadian navy is a part oi tne British navy, we can by a temporary Act of the government, or by an order in council declare that the navy may for the time being be considered as a part of the British navy. That would give thi3 government an opportunity to revise the situation. As a matter of fact I believe that is the way it will be worked out, that when England is at war, a temporary order in council will be issued saying that the navy is to be considered a part of the British navy. It appears to me that it will work out in that way, namely, that Canada can keep control of her navy by setting out in the statute that it shall not automatically be part of the British navy, but that it can by temporary order in council be made a portion of the British navy.


Mr. BURRELL.: 
Mr. TALBOT.: Not at that time


Martin Burrell: It may have been at another time. But the Prime Minister s contention is that in the case of a war with Great Britain or any other power, there should be authority in the parliament of Canada, and the Governor in Council to decide whether that war is of sufficient importance for Canada to take part in 'it or not. He does not seem to take into consideration the moral effect upon other nations of our hesitating, and discussing when Great Britain is at war. The British navy, is the great safeguard of the empire, on which the defence of the integrity of the empire-which the Prime Minister sometimes seems to think so anxious, should be defended-depends. Does not he think that those most likely to know whether assistance is necessary or not, are the central authorities of the admiralty, and that we could safely leave to those authorities in Great Britain to say whether they want our assistance or not instead of limiting in this cumbrous roundabout way, leaving it to the Governor in Council, and to the Canadian parliament involving serious delay? If we could trust those who are in authority in the councils of the empire at all, surely we could trust them to say whether they want our assistance or not. They would not call upon Canada to send their vessels unless Great Britain's supremacy were threatened. The Prime Minister says that if Britain s supremacy were threatened, the Governor in Council, and this parliament would decide to go to her assistance. But he does not seem to realize that, in naval wars in these times, after such a discussion it might be too late to do any good. Eor my part then, it is inconceivable that any part of the British empire, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or any other flying the British flag, should, in case of war, stand on one side until the question has been threshed out whether we should take part or not. And, if we are not to fly that flag, the sooner we know it the better.


Mr. MACDONALD.: I would like to ask the hon. member (Mr. Burrell) a question.
In the event of the Canadian navy being placed at the disposal of Great Britain, would it be Canada that would have to provide the money that would purchase the supplies and ammunition necessary to operate these vessels?


Martin Burrell: I dare say it might. But I do not think the question is very much to the point. My hon. friend (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) knows perfectly well what the British attitude was in the Boer war-they gave a pretty generous supply. The hon. member's question would reduce it to the argument that we who pay for the ships should have the final say reducing it to a matter of dollars, altogether too low a level, in my opinion, when the supremacy of the British empire is challenged. I do not think these questions would arise, and I dio not, think they are relevant.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Of course, the hon. member may propose to wipe away with a wave of his hand what might mean milions to the Canadian people. But he forgets that a parliament exists in England in which a ministry has to be consulted before war is declared. The principle upon which that right 'is exercised through government is at the very base of governmental administration everywhere for the government must provide the funds to carry on the war. The- hon. gentleman says that in Canada it is a matter of indifference who is to pay the money necessary to operate the navy. But _ we must be practical. We cannot soar into realms of patriotism and forget that war is an intensely practical matter in which blood and money are concerned. If Canada is to supply the men and the ships, she must supply money before the force can be operated. And, if the money is to be supplied by Canada, how is it to be obtained except by executive act of the government of the day supplemented by parliament. And, if the government has to act, this section of the Bill is absolutely necessary in order that the power committed to the executive of the day to determine whether the necessary supply shall be given may be exercised. That is the case with the British government, and the enactment before us is neither more nor less than placing in this law the same principle that has guided the administration of affairs in England.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not know that the government could get money by executive action. I thought it was a matter of parliamentary appropriation. The hon. member (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) seems to be introducing a new constitutional principle.
.7475


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: Let us clear that up. Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) mean to say that there is any way by which money can be got from this parliament, or from any British parliament, without the executive coming to parliament and asking for a vote?


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, they must come to parliament; that is just what I have said. But the hon. member said they got money by executive act.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: No.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman has reduced the question of participation in a war in which Great Britain is concerned to a question of dollars.


Andrew Archibald MacDonald: And does the hon member (Mr. R. L. Borden) forget that altogether?


Robert Laird Borden: If a war should be a _ pretty expensive one, Canada will not join with the rest of the empire, but, if it is to be a cheap war, one that would not cost more than ten or fifteen millions, Canada will hoist the flag and pitch in at once. Of course, that is not a very high standard of action, but it is the one which the hon. member would establish. I would like to know what Canadian merchant vessels on the high seas would do in the meantime. They would require to be protected by some naval force. That is another question I would like to ask the Prime Minister. Canada has some ships on the high seas. If the empire is engaged in war, these ships will be liable to capture. If the war does not commend itself to the judgment of the Prime Minister, he will not have an order m council passed. Of course, our ships will be protected by the British navy, whether the order in council is passed or not, but they will not be defended by the Canadian navy unless there is an order in council. That is another extraordinary situation which would grow out of this section 18. ^ I do not know what the Prime Minister's action would be.


Wilfrid Laurier: The conundrums of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) do not puzzle anybody but himself. What would be the position of the British navy in such a situation? True, we have ships on the high seas. Great Britain has far more than we have. ' War ' under this measure means war or insurrection real or apprehended. It is quite possible that our ships might be attacked before there was a declaration of war. The hon. member has said that a declaration of war is not necessary. In modern practice, it is not necessary, I admit. But, in the case of war between civilized nations, they do not usually give up natural relations of amity and peace until they have sent away the ambassadors and put themselves in a state of war. Well,


Robert Laird Borden: then, our position is exactly the same as the position of the imperial navy. The hon. member supposes that our ships are attacked-of course that would force us into war.


Robert Laird Borden: I mean our merchant ships.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes,-that
would force us into war. In our day nations are forced into war most unwillingly. They are anxious not to fight and fight only under great provocation. The hon. gentleman says that I intended to be the judge of the justice of a war. I believe that to-day England would not go into an unjust war, that in the condition of civilization we have reached she would not go to war unless she had been provoked to a degree which would rouse her blood. In such a case as the hon. member has supposed, there would be no reasoning-we should have to act. That is, if our ships are attacked, we should have to go into the war.


Robert Laird Borden: A very large part of our merchant shipping is registered not in Canadian registers but in British. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) would find himself involved in some very fine distinctions. A ship is captured on the high seas; if she is a ship with a Canadian register, we are forced into war and the order in council goes through; but if she is a ship with a British register, then, according to the Prime Minister, we will not go to war, and there will be no order in council. But suppose a ship built with Canadian capital and registered on the other side as a British ship. I do not know what fine distinction he would make about that-


Wilfrid Laurier: Nor do I.


Robert Laird Borden: Would that force us into war or not? The Prime Minister candidly admits that he does not know what he would do.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend makes very nice distinctions and raises many objections in order that he may destroy them. He tries to make the reductio ad absurdum. He put a question and I answered it. We may be drawn into war bv the attack of an enemy. I should rule the day, but it would have to be met.


Robert Laird Borden: But the right hon. gentleman says he will preserve a discretion. In some wars he will permit the naval force to engage, but in others he will not permit them to engage. I am trying to find out what principle will guide him in the matter, and I have not been very successful up to the present time. I say there is only one principle on which we can safely act, and it is* this; when the empire is I at war we are at war, when the naval forces I of the empire are engaged the Canadian

naval force must be available for co-operation in that war. That is absolutely the only safe principle on which any scheme of this kind can be worked nut The moment you begin to split hairs and say: We will fight if one of our ships is captured, but will not fight if a British ship is captured; we consider this war just or that one unjust; we consider this war in the interest of Canada and the other as not in the interest of Canada; -the moment you get down to hair-spliting distinctions of that kind, you embark upon a path, which must, under section 18, lead to the complete separation of this country from the rest of the empire.


William Stevens Fielding: I accept the principle the hon. member lays down that when Britain is at war Canada is at war, and therefore it is not for the Governor in Council or for this parliament to say-in that sense-whether we should be at war or not.
If Great Britain is at war with any other nation, Canada, as part of the empire, is at war. But it does not follow that in every one - of these cases we shall, automatically or otherwise, place our ships to engage in that war.


Mr R L BORDEN.: The Prime Minister distinctly said that after war had been declared, and before this order in council was made, a Canadian ship meeting a ship of the enemy would not attack it, would not fight it, but that she would only *fight if she was first atacked. Then I put this question to my right horn friend, and I put it to the Minister of Finance: Supposing a Canadian ship sees aformgn cruiser capturing ships carrying the British flag and no order in council lias been made, what is the Canadian cruiser to do.


William Stevens Fielding: My answer to that is that my hon. friend is entirely mistaken in creating any distinction between a Canadian ship and a British ship. Th r is, in this relation no such thing as a Canadian ship on the ocean; every ship of Canada is a part of the British fleet flying the British flag, subject to all the laws ol Great Britain.


Robert Laird Borden: Why not put that in the Bill?


Mr FIELDING.: It is not necessary to put it in the Bill. There are some things so simple and so easily understood that they need not be stated. I say at once that if Great Britain engages in a war with any nation, and if that nation can get at us, they have a right to punish us because we are part of the British empire, unless we are strong enough to fight them off. But' let us use an illustration bup-pose the British government proclaimed war against the Republic of Liberia. We are immediately at war, the whole British empire is at war with Liberia, Canada is
at war with Liberia. But is there any particular reason why we should ordetr Canadian ships to go off and help the British government to fight Liberia? Lne thing is preposterous and ridiculous, this clause enables us to distinguish between times when we are needed to assist the British empire, and times when there is no such need, and surely that is right. Now, as to the question of whether a war is just or unjust, I have already said mat while I think we should insist upon the right of the people of Canada who pay the money-and I hope my hon. friend from British Columbia will not find fault if I refer to money, a Minister of Finance must think of such things-I say the people of Canada who have to pay the money are the proper persons to decide, through their competent authority, the Governor General in Council, and later through parliament, through1 the voices of the people, whether their ships should engage in that war It it be a petty, insignificant war in which Britain is engaged and needs no help, then our ships will not take part in it, not because we are not at war with Liberia, but because Great Britain does not need any help to look after it. But if you come to a really great war, if you some to a war in which the commerce of Great Britairi, and that means the commerce of Canada, is being attacked on the ocean, or liable to be attacked on the ocean, I say then that Canada should instantly go to the relief of the mother country. While we, by this Bill would simply maintain our right ot judgment, I have not the shadow of a doubt how that right would be exercised,
I do not believe there would be much discussion whether the war was a just war or not-we would have a right to consider that, and it is right that we should maintain that position. But until we have developed some system by imperial federation, that magnificent dream-and we are all the better for dreaming it. Though we may fail to accomplish it-but until we have developed some system in which the various over-seas dominions shall have a voice with regard to the making of war, we must be content to accept the war-making machinery which now exists in the Britisn empire. There will come a time, I have no doubt, when, in the development of the British system, Canada and the various great over-seas dominions will be consulted; nav, I believe they would even be consulted now before any great war would be undertaken by the British empire. There will come a time probably when they can be consulted in a more formal manner, but until that time shall come, until we have a constitutional right to take part in making a declaration of war, it seems to me that as loyal citizens of the empire we must be content to accept the judgment of the government of the day in

England, be it Liberal or be it Tory, which is the constituted authority to declare when the empire should engage' in war. My belief is, it is only an opinion-and the opinion of every other member of the House is as good as mine-it is my opinion that whenever that time does come, I care not what government may be in power in Canada, when we shall have on the statute-book the right to determine whether or not we may send our ships to the help of the British navy, I have not the shadow of a doubt how the people of Canada will exercise that right. They will not stop to ask whether the war is just or unjust, for it will then be too late. It will be enough for them to know that the great empire of which we form a part is engaged in war, and then, in the words of the resolution of March last, every resource of the Canadian government and the Canadian people will be placed at the disposal of the empire.
*v,^rn/r^'" LHRRIE. I like to listen to the Minister of Finance because he can always sound the trumpet and beat the drum so loudly on questions of this kind But let us get down to facts. The question put by the leader of the opposition to the right hon. gentleman is a question that Should be answered. Let me assume that the British empire is at war with Liberia Now, everybody knows that the republic of Liberia has no great fleet, or that it has no fleet of any consequence. Let us assume that the Canadian government has considered the question of whether wd uu re	war with Liberia, and they
shall decide that we are not at war with Liberia, according to the principle laid down to-day by the Prime Minister. Now this is something that might easily happen, something like the warship ' Alabama, the history of which we all remember. There is nothing to prevent a fast cruiser being sent by a foreign nation to Liberia and turned over to the Liberian government, commanded by Liberia to start out on a cruise of destruction against British commerce. Now, the case of the * Alabama, flymg the Confederate flag, is analogous how, we will follow the reasoning of the hon. gentleman. Great Britain is at war with Liberia, but Canada is not at war with Liberia. That fast cruiser commissioned by the Liberian government makes its way where it would naturally the North Atlantic, possibly, prob-aMy, to the Gulf of St. Lawrence. When it reaches the Gulf of the St. Lawrence it comes under the observation of a Canadian warship. The captain of the Canadian warship sees this ship flying the flag of Liberia and says: Well, we are not at war with Liberia, and I have no right to attack this ship until such time as the Can-Mr. FIELDING.
adian parliament is summoned, or an order in council is passed to that effect. Whilst this warship of Liberia is under observation, it sights a British ship, say one of the Canadian Pacific railway steamers, which I understand are registered under British registry. 'The Liberian warship attacks this British merchant ship, fires at her, captures her, and the Canadian warship look on, and the captain says: I dare not fire a shot or interfere in any way, because Canada is not at war with Liberia. This Liberian cruiser-it is a possibility, bear in mind, a modern possibility-make a prize of this Canadian merchantman which is under British register. Well, it continues its career a little further on, still under the observation of the ' Niobes ' and the ' Rainbows,' and it runs across a Canadian vessel that is registered under a Canadian register. It fires on the Canadian merchant ship, calls her to halt, the ship refuses to halt, the cruiser fires upon her, and kills a few men, and take the Canadian ship a prize. Then, of course, the Canadian warship would be justified, possibly, in taking action, under the old idea that there is a difference between hostilities and a declaration of war, in other words, that would be a case of hostilities, and the Canadian warship would proceed to fight the battle out with the Liberian warship, and would take the Liberian warship a prize and haul her into a Canadian port. Then again, under the laws of war, would the Canadian seamen be entitled to prize money? There are all kinds of conditions arising in that event, and these are all actual possibilities. The only clear cut way is to brush aside this argument that the Canadian fleet must be under the control continuously of the Canadian government, and that it could exist Without being in the state of war when England is at war. The Liberian government, or the government of Hayti, might commission a vessel of this kind to make war on Great Britain. Vll these things have historical analogies, and I have instanced the case of the ' Alabama. Would it be right for a Canadian war vessel to refrain from firing on a Liberian war vessel if attacked? Everybody knows that a declaration of war and hostilities are altogether different things. The Chinese war was begun by a British warship boarding a Chinese junk. One or two of the greatest wars in history were commenced without any declaration of war even by the British navy. In fact, the war between China and Japan was commenced by a Japanese war vessel firing on a Chinese troop ship without a declaration of war having been made. Would a Canadian warship be entitled to remain idle if a British merchant ship were attacked by a foreign cruiser when there was no declaration of war?


Wilfrid Laurier: I think under such circumstances we would declare war


John Allister Currie: Who would declare war?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Canadian government; we would pass the order in council


John Allister Currie: Do you think the captain would have to lie-to until he communicated with the government?


William Stevens Fielding: All those ships have wireless.


Mr. EDWARDS.: In the event of war between England and some foreign power, and in the event of the Governor in Council deciding that Canada would not take part, would the Prime Minister consider an attack, by that foreign power, on any of Canada's vessels, a violation of international law?


Wilfrid Laurier: I would not see any violation of international law in that, because if England were at war we would be at war, and liable to attack.


John Dowsley Reid: The Prime Minister agreed to give me some information as to the annual cost of maintaining and operating the ' Niobe '.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will give it to my hon. friend before we get out of committee.
On section 19; calling of parliament when naval service on active service,


Wilfrid Laurier: That section 19 be amended by inserting the word ' two ' after the word ' the ' in the 40th line, and adding the letter c s ' at the end of the word ' section'
He said: It will then read:
Whenever the Governor in Council places the naval service or any part thereof on active service, as provided in the two preceding sections, &c.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Wilfrid Laurier: I have another amendment to move as section 19a as follows-
When the Governor in CounciL declares that an emergency has arisen in which it is expedient for the public * service that Ills Majesty should have control of any dock, shipyard, pier, wharf, machine shop, repairing or salvage plant, factory, warehouse, store or other building, the minister may by warrant under his hand empower any person or persons named in such warrant to take possession of the same in the name and on behalf of His Majesty, and to use it for the service of His Majesty in such manner as the minister directs, and all persons, officers, servants and employees employed thereon shall
obey the directions of the minister in connection with the management or operation ol the same.	.	.	.
2.	Such warrant shall remain m force so
long as in the opinion of the minister tiie emergency exists.	,
3.	There shall be paid to any person whose property is taken possession of in pursuance of this section out of moneys to be provided by parliament such full compensation for any loss or injury he so sustained as is agreed upon between the minister and the said person, or in case of difference as is fixed upon reference to the Exchequer Court of Canada.
4.	Where any property is taken possession of under the provisions of this section all contracts and agreements between the persons whose property is so taken possession of and the directors, officers and servants of sucn person, or between such person and any other person in relation to the working or maintenance of such property, which would it such possession had not been taken, have been enforceable by the said person shall during the continuance of such possession be enforceable by His Majesty.
This is taken from the Militia Act.


John Dowsley Reid: I should think the Prime Minister would have given some notice of that. It is impossible to understand it from just hearing it read.


Wilfrid Laurier: The amendment is obvious, it is taken from the Militia Act, it is the law of all nations, and it is recognized by evsrybody.


John Allister Currie: As I understand it the clause will impress the men in any of these works to work for the government.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the clause.


John Allister Currie: Not only take possession of the property but of the workmen and compel them to work for the government whether they want to or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: So it does, war is not always pleasant.


John Allister Currie: I should think that in justice to the workmen so impressed, provision should be made in the Act referring to pensions and annuities to grant to any workman so employed, who happens to be injured, the same annuities or pensions as would be granted to an. enlisted man.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have no objection to that.
On section 20; constitution of reserve.


John Dowsley Reid: How are the men selected?


Wilfrid Laurier: That clause is also taken from the Miiitia Act.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand the admiralty select their own men; in this

country the government, I suppose under a patronage list. Will they be selected by Kear Admiral Kingsmill so that they will be taken irrespective of politics, the best men possible?


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend will join the service, we will be glad to take him as a reserve man. He cannot be forced, no one will be forced, and I dare say my hon. friend might join himself.


John Dowsley Reid: The Prime Minister knows that only a limited number are taken, only about 400 men. There will be many more applicants than can be taken and I have no doubt influence will be used, to get men into the service. In any militia force there should be a system by which there would be no possible chance of politics creeping in. I feel that this is a case in which the recommendation of party politicians should not be considered.
_Sir WILFRID LAURIER. It is a very wise suggestion.


John Dowsley Reid: I hope the minister will act on it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Mr.   J A. CURRIE@: As I understand the men volunteer to serve in this navy, but after they have volunteered they are in the same category as men who have enlisted for an indefinite time in the British navy.


Frederick William Borden: No, they enlist for a certain period.


John Allister Currie: 12 vears is the period in the British navy, I understand Does the Prime Minister not think, in view of the fact that we are establishing this navy and that it is necessary for us possibly to have a larger number of men than the enlisted men, he should seriously consider the methods adopted in other countries to acquire that large number of men? Our navy is small, they are virtually training ships. In the German,'navy tor instance, they have three categories the active or standing navv. composed chiefly of petty officers and officers, the naval militia, in which men serve three years in the navy and automatically <*o on the reserve, and then there are those men who will volunteer to serve in the navy m the same way as the volunteers in the militia. Suppose it is impossible to get men to serve in the navy, for instance to replace deserters in time of war, what steps will the government take to 0et men. Will any clause 'be inserted to [DOT]permit of forcible enlistment or balloting as is provided for in the Militia Act' Mr. J. D. REID.


Frederick William Borden: That balloting provision of the Militia Act is never exercised except in time of war. I suppose it never would be used.


Mr.   J A. CURRIE@: The minister knows it has oeen exercised in the militia of .Pat Britain, in fact it was exercised here in the war of 1812. It is within the realm ot possibility and in making legislation of kind it is useless to close our eyes and make a sham law, we should make a law that will be of real use in time of trouble. The time to pass such legislation is in time of peace.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend, I am sorry to say, can never be a moderate man. He goes from one extreme to the other. At the outset he was very much opposed to this Bill, and now he wants to go in for compulsion. I have to say to him that we do not propose anything of the kind, we do not propose to put any compulsion in this Bill. We take our chances on that, and I really believe that this Act will be so popular that we will not have to use compulsion to bring people m 'but to keep them out.


John Allister Currie: I do not see why one section of the armed forces should be dealt with differently than with any other and so I would suggest that the Prime Minister withdraw the compulsory ballotin'* clauses from the Militia Act. Every maS who wears the uniform in this country realizes that he is liable to service and every young man realizes that he is bound.
* J sfh?,"ld ther.e be anV exception in the case of the navy?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend says we should remove the compulsory clauses from the Militia Act. Considering that for 100 years there has been no compulsory balloting in this coun-[DOT]fyvWe,i.shal not remove it, we shall let it lie there as a dormant section of the Act not to be called on for another 100 years.
i ,Mr- A- CURRIE. The Prime Minister should be logical. He says he never expects this fleet to fight. Then if he does put that clause in what harm can it no?
On section 23, target practice.


John Allister Currie: I notice that rifle ranges are to be used for this naval service. Is this navy, amongst its many wonderful conditions, going to be placed on wheels so that it can go ashore and prac-


Wilfrid Laurier: I3 my hon friend serious or simply joking?
T,^r . 'I , 4; CURRIE. I am very serious.
The right hon. gentleman and the Minister

of Militia know that at the various naval stations there are armed forces of infantry, and small arm ranges. Why should these ranges be duplicated when they can be used for nothing? .


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that in England the navy has its own targets, and ranges everywhere.
On section 24, property vested in His Majesty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What is to be understood by ' moneys subscribed by the naval service?'


Wilfrid Laurier: This means private property in the mess, silver or anything of that kind.


John Allister Currie: I think the commission might also be issued by order m council.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend
is not satisfied yet. I propose to add a new section after 26, and I hope this section will meet with the approval of my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie). I move that between sections 26 and 27, the fol lowing be inserted:-[DOT]


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is moved that in the 17th line of section 28, there be inserted the words ' tidal survey.
On section 33, training and pay. [DOT]


Wilfrid Laurier: I want to make a slight alteration there, I move that the word 'pay' be struck out and the words 'capitation or other remuneration' be substituted.
Mr. .1. A. CURRIE. Should it not be remuneration or allowance?


Wilfrid Laurier: The words suggested to me are ' capitation or other remuneration.' The section will then read,
' naval volunteers shall receive such training and capitation or other remuneration as may be prescribed.'


John Allister Currie: Such training did you say? 1 think there is some error, is there not?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, the word is capitation.


John Allister Currie: I still fail to see that that clearly expresses the idea intended to be conveyed. I could understand it, if it meant that the men were to receive capitation grants or pay or allowances.
26 (a). When an officer or seaman is killed in active service, or dies from wounds or disease contracted on active .service, drill or training, or on duty, provision shall he made for his widow and family out of the public funds at the prescribed rates.
26 (b) Every case of permanent disability arising from injuries received or injuries contracted on active service, drill or training, or on duty, shall be reported on by a medical board and compensation awarded under such regulations as are made from time to time by the Governor in Council.


John Allister Currie: Does that cover cases where men are impressed, who are not enlisted men?


Frederick William Borden: It will cover the cases mentioned by my hon. friend, a persons engaged.


John Allister Currie: In the navy there is a difference between able seamen and the artisan. I think the gentleman who is giving you information will tell you that there are different branches.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN 'Seaman' includes petty officers and all other per sons engaged.


Mr SPROULE.: Would the provisions contained in 26a and 26b apply to ^ose engaged in the fishery protection service as well as to officers and seamen in the navy proper?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, after they have been four years engaged.
On section 28, application of R.S.C., c. 111.


Frederick William Borden: That is the idea.


John Allister Currie: But the word ' capitation ' does not express anything. Capitation might be his share of the grub on board.


Frederick William Borden: Remuneration is understood.
On section 34, active service in emergency,

increase of pay for merit. &c.


Wilfrid Laurier: In line 45 we wish to make some correction. The words ' but an increase may be granted whenever ' should be struck out and the word 'unless' inserted.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is moved that in line 44 the words ' rate of pay ' be struck out, and the word ' remuneration ' be inserted instead.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 35, relief from duty.
Wilfrid Laurier: We propose to strike that out.


John Allister Currie: Why?


Frederick William Borden: It is to be provided for by regulation.


Wilfrid Laurier: The next sections have to do with pensions. We do not propose to go on with that part of the Bill now. We "do not expect to organize the pensions until the rate of pay is established. The question of payjiasjiot been fully

considered yet. We cannot adopt the pay of England-we must make it higher. That is a subject for consideration, and we shall not proceed with that part of the Bill until another session.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, it is proposed to strike out the four sections.


Wilfrid Laurier: They are printed in italics and should have been presented by resolution. They are not a part of the Bill.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Sections 36, 37, 38 and 39, being in italics, do not form a part of this Bill.
On section 40,
There shall be an institution for the purpose of imparting a complete education in all branches of naval science and tactics.
[DOT]i. buck institution shall be known as the naval college of Canada, and shall be located at such place as the Governor in Council may determine.
On subsection 1,


Wilfrid Laurier: It is proposed to add the word ' strategy ' naval science, tactics and strategy.'
,*^F' A. CURRIE. Would the Prime Minister explain the difference between tactics and strategy?


Wilfrid Laurier: In case, I would have to apply to friend (Mr. J. A. Currie).
such a my hon.


William Cameron Edwards: I have heard it inti-^a-t Fhe_ naval college was to be established at Kingston. It is thought that it would be nice to have the naval college and the military college side by side. The cadets could fraternize. There is a strong impression that the naval college is to be located at Kingston.


Wilfrid Laurier: What would my hon. friend advise as to that?


William Cameron Edwards: I should be happy to advise if the Prime Minister would take the advice.


Wilfrid Laurier: I should be quite ready to take the advice, but I do not know that I c-ould follow it. I think the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) would like to give his advice also.


John Allister Currie: I think the obser-yatlon of the hon. member for Frontenae (Mr. Edwards), is quite apropos. We have over four thousand seamen on the ^reat
*^SL, When you comPare that number with the very small number we have on the ocean, exclusive of the fishermen, and when you consider the number of ships on the lakes and the need for technical education of these seamen, also when you consider the splendid force that they would provide in case of an emergency if they had a slight training, I think the question is one that ought to receive the serious at-tent-ion of the Prime Misister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be better, instead of saying ' There shall be an institution, to say ' there shall be a naval college '?


William Findlay Maclean: 
Frederick William Borden: Sixteen and upwards.
My- SPROULE. It does not matter, if the form can be improved. I think it would i .IP110!1 better to enact directly ' There shall be a naval college.'


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not km that my hon. friend's drafting would preferable. The draughtsman who was charge has put it this way. The meant is the same, after all.
On subsection 2,


William Cameron Edwards: Would not a part of the instruction of the naval cadets be in line with that of the military cadets? Could not part of the instruction for those training for the navy be given by professors in the military college?


Frederick William Borden: I should think not. It is not done in England.
On section 43, requirements for admission.


Richard Blain: May I ask if the repor abroad is correct that this college is to bi established at the city of Halifax?


Wilfrid Laurier: There are excellent reasons why it should be at Halifax Does not my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) think so. The matter has not been determined yet.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


John Allister Currie: I would ask again is it not a fact that in the British naval service it is only after an officer has been a midshipman for two years that he de-mdes whether he shall go into navigation scientific or the gunnery department and specialize in that department?


Frederick William Borden: I think so.


John Allister Currie: Then, why should this section specify that the service up to that age shall he the same for all of them?


William Cameron Edwards: I asked if part of the training would not be practically the same as for the military cadets, but the Minister of Militia did not answer.


Frederick William Borden: I think I answered my hon. friend. I understand that it would not be, and .in England there is noi .such training of these military and naval cadets together.


Mr. JAMESON.: Will admission to the naval college be by nomination, or will it be open to any person who makes an application?.


Wilfrid Laurier: I suppose we will follow the practice- of the military college, an application will have to be made.


Frederick William Borden: Entrance to the military college is by competition, ' the cadet who makes the highest marks
to fit young men for service as officers in the navy.


John Allister Currie: Will a certain number of commissions be secured in the Royal Navy for graduates of this college?'


Frederick William Borden: At first we shall require the services of all the cadets here, but later on there may be an exchange made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended, when we have enough graduates of our own naval college to fill all the positions, to bring m *Rfwal Navv of England?


Frederick William Borden: The intention is to educate those young men for the naval service of Canada.


Clarence Jameson: I understand there is a certain number of cadets oil the Dominion ship 'Canada'; will these cadets pass automatically into this college, or will they be required to undergo a certain excomes in first.


Richard Blain: Is there a medical examination for entrance to the military college, and will the examination to the naval college be uniform with it?


Frederick William Borden: Presumably.
On section 44-period and conditions of service.


Mr J. A. CURRIE.: That is a little different from what it is in the military college. The minister undertakes that where a "pupil is educated in this naval college and passes his examination, he must serve a certain length of time in the Canadian navy. Now, there is no such condition attached to the Royal Military College service. Will the minister explain why there is a difference?


Frederick William Borden: They will ,ass automatically, but they will have to lass an examination for their commission.
On section 45-regulations for naval service generally.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER This is a complement of section 9, which says that Governor in Council may organize and maintain a permanent naval force, while this section gives the Governor m Council power to make regulations therefor.


William Findlay Maclean: It should be
make such other regulations


Wilfrid Laurier: That section 45 be amended by inserting after the word ' organization the . word 'training,' and after tlm word 'efficiency


Frederick William Borden: The Royal Military College was established at a time when there was no permanent force at all in Canada. The object was very largely to give an opportunity for military training and a course of teaching which would fit young men to enter civil life, or the engineering professions, and at the same time give them instructions in military matters which would be of use when they became part of the active militia. An arrangement was also made with the imperial authorities by wffiich six or seven commissions were given every year to the best men coming out of the Royal Military College. The position now is entirely different. We are starting with a permanent militia, we have no officers at all, and this course is to be limited to the preparation of cadets for the naval service and that only. The object of this college is purely
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 48; Acts of United Kingdom, and ' King's Regulations ' to apply.


John Allister Currie: It says the ' King's Regulations and admiralty instructions now in force '. That would mean the ' King s Regulations ' in force to-day, but not at any. future date.


Frederick William Borden: Why not
strike out the words ' now in force '?


Samuel Hughes: Why limit the ' King's Regulations '?


William Findlay Maclean: It is not the intention to apply those subsequently in force. We want those words in.


Frederick William Borden: They ars constantly changing their regulations.


William Findlay Maclean: You will have to change them by order in council hereafter. 1 think it is right as it is.


Frederick William Borden: In the militia we are governed by the ' King's Regulations ' and when the ' King's Regulations change, if they are inconsistent with our regulations, they have no effect. Otherwise they are operative and we change our own orders in council if we wish to adopt them. Why not strike out the words ' now in force '?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that if you made it read ' the parliament of the united Kingdom in force ' and the ' King's Regulations and admiralty instructions in force ' it would then suffice for all time.


John Allister Currie: Leave out the word now .


Frederick William Borden: That section 48 be amended by striking out, in line 40, the words ' and now in force ' and in line 41 the words ' now in force.'


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty about that is that it might be construed to bring into force Acts passed by the United Kingdom which have been repealed. I imagine that the words ' now in force ' were inserted for that reason.


John Allister Currie: 
John Allister Currie: That would be a better wording.


Frederick William Borden: 
Wilfrid Laurier: I move to add after section 53, the following as section 53a:
The schedule to the Department of Marine
SDd 1Sfhe?esiAot' Eevised Statutes of Canada 1906, chapter 44, is amended as follows - Clause 5 by adding thereto the following: Except steamships and vessels belonging to the naval service.
Clauses 15 and 20 are repealed.
Clause 28 by adding thereto the following: Except the fisheries protection service which is under the control and management of the Department of the Naval Service.
Clause 24 by adding: Except such matters as are under the control and management of the Department of the Naval Service.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Wilfrid Laurier: I move to add as section 53b:
The Governor in Council may transfer to the Department of the Naval Service, any officer, clerk or emplovee of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, whether or not such officer, clerk or employee is at present connected with any one of the branches of the latter department which is by this Act trans-terred or assigned to the Department of the Kaval Service, and the money voted by parliament for the financial year ending 31st March, 1911, applicable to the payment of the salary or the increase of salary of anv such officer, clerk or employee shall be available tor the payment of his salary or increase of salary m the Department of the Naval Ser-viee in the same manner and to the same extent as if such officer, clerk or employee had not been so transferred.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You transfer them without consulting the Civil Service Commission?


Wilfrid Laurier: These officers are already in the service, but they are transferred from the Department of Marine and Fisheries to the new department; their qualification is established, they are simply transferred from one department to the other.


Samuel Hughes: Why limit it to the Department of Marine and Fisheries? Could there not be in another department an officer who might be very useful in the naval service? *


Wilfrid Laurier: We transfer to the Naval Department several services

which are now in the Marine and Fisheries Department. That is the only change.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But you have formed another department, and the officers of that department must be put under some classification, I assume. Will it not be necessary that that shall be done either under the Civil Service Act or by some provision in this Act?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, because they come under the same classification that they are under to-day. There is no change whatever except that instead of being in the Marine Department they will be in the Naval Department.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot see the object of transferring men from the Marine Department. as I take for granted that the staff there now are all required for the Marine Department.


Frederick William Borden: There is now the Fisheries Protective Service, which is a complete branch by itself. That branch as a whole is transferred to this new department. There is no change other than that.


John Dowsley Reid: Then all the vessels called fisheries protective vessels will be in this naval service?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


John Dowsley Reid: Including those on the upper lakes?


Frederick William Borden: Yes, everywhere.


John Dowsley Reid: In case officials of the Militia Department knowing something about military work are required in this Naval Department, there is no method of transferring them. The Minister of Militia is not taking power in this Bill to give these officials a chance in this new service; he sits idly by and does not attempt to protect them. I think the militiamen should be looked after a little better. The Prime Minister is looking well after the Marine and Fisheries Department, and all the patronage has to go through that department. I think this is unfair to the militia, and they should understand that they are not getting a chance in this new department. The Prime Minister has not given me an answer to the question I asked this afternoon about the cost of the upkeep of the steamship 'Niobe.'


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is not half as badly off as I am, because there are about a dozen questions which I asked which have not yet been answered.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am glad to be able to answer the question of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and,
perhaps, in so doing, I shall answer the question of my hon friend from Grenville also. With regard to the question about the drydocks, we have paid $10,000 for the Halifax drydock and have been paying for two years. The admiralty simply asked when we would take the Esquimalt dry-dock, and the reply was that it would be convenient to do so after the Navy Bill was passed and there would be money for its upkeep as a naval yard.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many new officials is'it anticipated will be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is anticipated-and provision will he made in the supplementary estimates for that purpose -the Navy Department will be composed as follows:
Office of	| Deputy Head.	P2 i	< 1 <M	PQ i 01	< CO	PQ CO	| Messengers. 11	Total.i	i	1	i	4i	1	i	2	5i	1	i	1	4Records and Correspondence.	2 1	2 1	5 21	1	21	1	21	1	22	2i	2	2	9	2	9	2	28


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the Civil Service Act apply to these various classes in this new department without any amendment to the law or any provision in this Bill to bring them under it?


Wilfrid Laurier: It will apply to these. Of course, several officers of special qualifications will be appointed. All the clerks, etc., will be appointed under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, that is, by competition.


John Dowsley Reid: The Prime Minister has not answered my question with regard to the estimated cost of the upkeep of the steamship 'Niobe.'


Wilfrid Laurier: The approximate upkeep of the Niobe for one year is as follows: Cost of nucleus crew and training personnel, $267,000; victualling and medicine, $60,000; clothing gratuity, $15,000; upkeep, $140,000; total, $482,000.


John Dowsley Reid: That includes fuel?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, that inI eludes coal.


John Dowsley Reid: Well, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) said the coal would cost over $700,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: That shows how little confidence should be put in Mr. Taylor's estimates.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it means that the vessel is never going to get up steam.
Goderich public building of $4,960 lapsed, $10,000.
addition-revote


Mr. PUGSLEY.: This is to make provi-s'ou J01' an annex to the public building, t?iL0r an deration of the interior fittings the Post office as requested by the Post Office Department.


Richard Blain: When was this building erected?	5


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall the Bill be reported?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the Prime Minister has answered all the questions he was asked.


William Pugsley: I am sorry I cannot give that information to my hon. friend just now Unfortunately, though I have sent for the chief architect, he has not yet ar-


Wilfrid Laurier: Have I not?


Robert Laird Borden: I think perhaps the Prime Minister had better let the Bill stand in committee and look over ' Hansard.'


Wilfrid Laurier: I think not. I will answer the questions of my hon. friend to-morrow morning.


Robert Laird Borden: Very good that will answer. But the Prime Minister should look over * Hansard " and answer on Thursday.


Richard Blain: It is of very recent construe-*1011.


William Pugsley: Comparatively recent Goderich is a growing place, business is increasing and these improvements are absolutely required by the Post Office Departigoo*' rhey were asked for as long ag0 83
Guelph armoury, $3,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete payments in connection with the erection of tho armoury.
Bill reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman, we had reached the item for a public building at Fort William. The item is $1,500. This work is under way and we are asking for $1,500 towards the completion of the work. It will still leave about $1,000 to complete


Mr. BRADBURA.: I would like to ask tho hon. minister a question. I learn from the reply the hon. gentleman gave in answer to a question of mine regarding Winnipeg pier, that the contract has been let. Now, I am in receipt of a wire to-day asking me to ascertain whether the work is going to be pushed forward.
-^r- PUGSLEY. Yes, the works will be pushed forward as rapidly as possible.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the minister when he intends to start building in Kemptville. The site, I think, was purchased.
D'	What is the total cost
of that armoury?


William Pugsley: 
William Pugsley: The original contract was $80,000, and then there was an additional storey erected costing $34,825. Then there was the electric wiring, $1,825- heating apparatus, $4,000; electric light fixtures, $885; and then there was an addition to the heating apparatus, $3,250; an addition to the electric wiring, $511; a contract for interior fittings, $3,300; and a payment for supervision of the architect, who got 2 per cent commission.
+d+i Pi	the same contractor
get the whole of these contracts?


William Pugsley: Oh no, not all. For the electric fixtures, MacPherson & Co are the contractors.


William Pugsley: There is no item in the estimates for Kemptville, but the matter is under consideration. Beyond that, I am not able to inform my hon. friend.
Mp?nn'V'0qu? Post office addition-revote of $3,600 lapsed, $4,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make certain improvements to the public building which seem to be very much needed.


Wilfrid Laurier: 


John Dowsley Reid: How much did the original contractors get out of it?


William Pugsley: Their contract was for $80,000. The additional storey over the gun shed went to the same contractors and they had also the electric wiring $1,825, and the contract for the apparatus $4,000.


John Dowsley Reid: storey put up for?
What was the extra


William Pugsley: It was put up for exercise and drilling purposes. The Militia Department seemed to think it necessary.


Samuel Hughes: And for the officers, was it not?


William Pugsley: For the officers as well.


John Dowsley Reid: What I cannot understand is this. The Militia Department first submitted a memorandum to the Department of Public Works stating that they wanted an armoury at Guelph, and the department gave them a plan of the building and let a contract for $80,000; and then a month or two afterwards, I suppose, they come along and say: 'We want another storey costing $34,000 or about half as much more money as was to be spent on this building as first estimated. Now, the Minister of Public Works at the time-I do not know whether it was the present minister or not-informed this House of the amount it was intended to spend on this building and the members here, and the public took it for granted that the statements made by the minister as to the amount in the estimates was absolutely correct. But, instead of that, every year the expenditure on the building, is from fifty to one hundred per cent more than that stated in the information given.


William Pugsley: The building of the additional storey over the gun shed was not contemplated when the original contract was entered into. I hesitated for a good while, but I was pressed very strongly to put on this additional storey, and, after getting all the information we could, it seemed as if it was the reasonable thing to do.


Mr.   .T. D. REID@: Who pressed the minister to put on the extra storey?


William Pugsley: I was pressed most strongly by the 'member for the constituency. He represented that there was a very strong feeling among the people that we should do this.


John Dowsley Reid: But, merely because the member for the constituency asked for it, that is hardly a reason for adding almost fifty per cent to the expenditure. Here was a building being erected at the request of the Militia Department. A contract is entered into for $80,000. Then, an additional storey is put on simply because the hon. member representing the constituency asked for it, though the cost was almost half the original contract and though the Militia Department has not requested the change. The Militia Department was to use this building, and the Minister of Public Works would have been justified in refusing the request of the member for the constituency until the Militia Department requested a change. I think the minister 238
is open to censure for failing in this way to recognize the Militia Department.
Mr. BLA1N. At page V-79 of the Auditor General's Report, I find, under the title * Guelph Armoury ' this entry
Clerk of works, W. A. Maliony, services, 2 per cent: commission on accounts examined.
I do not recollect any case of a clerk of works being paid by a commission on the accounts he passes.


William Pugsley: Sometimes architects are employed to supervise construction and they are paid a percentage.
Mr. BLAIN But he was clerk of works.


William Pugsley: He is an architect. That is why he was paid a commission. It is the usual way where architects are employed.


Richard Blain: 1 have been a rather close student of the Auditor General's Report, and it strikes we that this is rather a ne-w departure. I understood that the clerk of works had a daily remuneration for the number of days he was at work. Among the accounts passed by Mr. Mahony, I notice, that of Taylor-Forbes Co., putting in two boilers. This gentleman examined these accounts and is paid a percentage.


William Pugsley: Not for examining the accounts, but for supervising the construction of the building, which, of course, involves the certifying of the accounts.


Richard Blain: I see it stated also that Mr. Mahony is charged with:
Five per cent commission on accounts for plans and superintendence.
I feel confident that this is a new departure.


William Pugsley: In some instances architects have been employed to prepare plans and superintend, and I think 5 per cent is the usual fee given to these architects.


Richard Blain: Did this clerk of works prepare the plans?


William Pugsley: I am not sure of that. But the amount paid him is not large, though he was paid 2 per cent on the accounts-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did not he get 5 per cent on any plans?


William Pugsley: Hon. members will see. that the total paid him is only $1,254.57, while 5 per cent on the total cost would have amounted to something in the vicinity of something like $7,000.


Richard Blain: But he was paid some in a former year. This item says ' less paid in 1905-6.'


William Pugsley: I am not able to give my hon. friend information on the point he has raised. If he will be good enough to let me do it later, I shall be glad to get the exact amount paid to Mr. Mahony and also the basis on which he was paid?


John Dowsley Reid: Let the item stand.


William Pugsley: I would be quite willing unless it were thought desirable to close up the Ontario list of buildings if we could. However, I have no objection one way or the other.


Richard Blain: Did the minister state that Mr. Mahony prepared the plans for this building?


William Pugsley: I am not able to state that to-night.


Richard Blain: Is not that a new departure? to pay a percentage to a clerk of works for examining the accounts?


William Pugsley: The percentage is not paid for examining the accounts.


Richard Blain: It says here, ' commission on accounts examined.'


William Pugsley: That would be on the amount of the accounts. But it would mean that the supervising architect also supervised the work to which these accounts appertain. He would then be allowed his commission of 2 per cent on the expenditure.


Richard Blain: Is not that a new departure.


William Pugsley: In some cases, a supervising architect is employed. When 5 per cent is paid, he draws the plans and supervises the construction of the building. It may be that in this case-I have not the information with me to-night-Mr. Mahony drew the plans and was supervising architect. That is not often done. Ordinarily the plans are prepared in the department.


Richard Blain: Surely the minister does not say that the clerk of works prepared the plans for this building.


William Pugsley: Mr. Mahony is stated to be the supervising architect, therefore he is not clerk of works in the ordinary sense.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see a difference between a supervising architect and a clerk of works. You pass the plans over to the clerk of works, and he is a supervising architect, he must be enough of an architect to understand the plans and see that the structure is put up according to those plans. To a clerk of works the usual price paid is about $3 a day. But you commence to give him a percentage. Architects charge from two to five per cent, but in the latter case they drew all the plans, and also supervise the erection of the building. Mr. BLAIN.
I do not remember seeing or hearing of a case of this kind in the Public Works Department.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend may perhaps call to mind that during the session of two years ago there were one or two cases where outside architects had been employed to draw plans, there was some discussion over it, and some hon. members, I remember particularly Mr. Fowler, took the ground that outside architects should not be employed. The defence which I made was that at that time, there was a good deal of pressure upon the department in connection with public buildings a large number of which were under way, and I think in two instances outside architects were employed. In those cases they were employed upon these terms, that for preparing the plans and specifications, and supervising the work of construction, they were allowed five per cent. But I am not able to say at this moment, without the chief architect being here, whether these plans were prepared by Mr. Mahony or not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then it would be better to leave this item until you get the information.


William Pugsley: I have no objection.


Mr. RUSSELL.: Did this man receive any other money for his services besides the two per cent, or did he receive pay as clerk of works and the two per cent extra?


William Pugsley: Any percentage would cover his entire fee.
Harriston-public building-revote of $2,980 lapsed, $15,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to know why these are called revotes. I think he ought to give us the year that this money was voted originally, and also some information as to why the money was not spent. On this one page alone- there are no less thgn fourteen revotes. That is a new way of presenting them to the House. No doubt there is a purpose in it.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend will look at page 58 of the estimates he will see there is a column for revotes. In that column the only amounts which are contained are those in respect of which there were votes at the last session of parliament. The other items are simply put there in order to inform the committee that there had at some time been a vote for this specific public work which had been allowed to lapse. These amounts were voted in the session of 1908, and they were not used. The object of putting them in is to inform the committee that there had been at a previous session of parliament a vote

for this specific public work which had not been used. This public building at Har-riston is required for a post office and customs house. We have paid for the site to the town of Harriston $2,556, to Matthew Hastey, $450, and other travelling expenses, $18.45, making $3,018.45. The appropriation which we had during that session was $5,000. Deducting that from the appropriation leaves. $1,981.55. There must be a misprint here as to the amount which lapsed, it should be $1,981.55.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: All these revotes were voted in one year, and lapsed. That confirms what I have often said when the estimates were being voted. That year I asked if it was seriously intended to go on with all these public works that year, and I was assured it was. I wanted to know if it was not intended to pad out the estimates preparatory to a general election, and if it was seriously intended that these public works would all be commenced that year. The very fact that we have so many of them on one sheet, all revotes, all for the same year, and now revived, rather seems to me to indicate that the government have possibly another general election in view.
I would like to ask again if it is seriously intended that these votes shall be used the present year. It seems to me the system we are confronted with this year in the estimates indicates that we are padding out the list again, we are padding out the estimates again with many revotes that should not appear in them at all. There is no justification whatever for putting a vote in the estimates for any public work that is not intended to be gone on with during the present year, and I can hardly imagine that many of these will be taken up, because they are new works, during the present year. Although the money was voted in 1908 none of it has been spent up to the present time, but now it is intended to vote it again for 1910. I think that is a pernicious principle. If that is going to be the rule in future, why do you not give us the votes that lapsed twenty years ago as well as two, four, or five years, because there are many cases in which we have not spent the amount that has been voted? Why do you take up the votes that lapsed in 1908, and bring them into force while the votes passed in 1905 or 1906 do not appear at all? There is some purpose behind it, and the only purpose I can see is to provide for the possibility of a general election. It is a pernicious practice and should not be allowed, and we ought to have some better explanation of why it has been thought proper to change the established form that we have had heretofore and bring these votes in again. The money voted last year and not spent should appear in the revote column. All the money
238*
not spent goes back into the consolidated revenue fund, and .should remain there until voted again.


William Pugsley: As my hon. friend has such a strong view upon this question I would have supposed that he would have expressed himself as being against the first item that we reached, and which was exactly similar to this. It was the item for' Gananoque and when it was called my hon. friend called ' carried ' at once.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member did not open his mouth in regard to it.


William Pugsley: There is a revote of $3,600, exactly the same as in this case. We took this amount in the session of 1908, but it was not expended. We are now asking for $4,000, and for the information of the committee we show that $3,600 is the amount which has lapsed. I will say to my hon. friend, and I am sure it will be very consoling for him, that as far as I am aware there is no danger of a general election in the near future. I have never heard anything of the kind, and my hon. friend need not be alarmed upon this subject at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is a very innocent consolation.


William Pugsley: I have no doubt that it is a consoling thought to my hon. friend, because I would expect that he would contemplate a general election with a good deal of fear and trembling.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is the very reverse.


William Pugsley: In Harriston it is bona fide intended to go on with this work and we have placed this amount'in the estimates for the present year. The reason that this building was not gone on with last year was that we used the small vote which we got for the purpose of purchasing a site. It was expected that at the last session we would ask for a larger amount to go on with the building, but in view of the declining revenues we asked the House to bear with us for another year and assist us in economizing. We did succeed in cutting down the estimates of the Public Works Department several millions of dollars, but in order to do it we had to let these public works stand over. Now that the revenues are reviving we have thought it only right that we should implement the assurances which were given to the House in 1908 when we asked for votes for these different public works. We intend to proceed with them during the present year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At the time the estimates for the year were made up the revenue was showing a perceptible decline, it could have been as well foreseen when

the estimates were made up, and if the desire was t-o economize these votes could have been kept out as well as put in. Therefore, that is not a good argument. The minister says that I did not object to the vote for Gananoque. It was called so quickly that I did not know what the estimate was, and it was declared carried immediately. Some one said ' carried ', but it was not I. I have brought this matter up twice before, and I have got no satisfactory answer. This was never done withoiit being first considered by some of the cabinet ministers. Estimates should never be voted in that way without being considered, and a conclusion arrived at as to whether it is wise to do that. I do not think a reasonable explanation has yet been given why this practice has been adopted. I think the explanation is that these estimates were padded out in anticipation of a general election, and that it was not intended at that time to commence any of these public works. No one can reach any other conclusion that that. If a public work is not needed a vote for it should not be put in the estimates. If it is needed then the money, or a portion of it, should be spent, and the work commenced, and it would save a great deal of trouble and time in the House asking questions if money was not placed in' the estimates that it was never intended to expend.


William Pugsley: In this case we actually bought the land, which is pretty good evidence of our bona fides.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is so much to the good, and shows evidence of a desire to go on. Wttat are these public buildings in Harriston?


William Pugsley: The building is for post office and customs purposes.


Richard Blain: From whom was the site purchased?


William Pugsley: The larger portion of the site was purchased from the town of Harriston, and a small piece of land from Mr. Matthew Hastey, to whom we paid $450. We paid the town $2,550.
Mr. SPROULE; What wTas the (total price of the site?


William Pugsley: The site, including $18.45 travelling expenses, cost $3,018.45.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Howr much land have you bought?


William Pugsley: Approximately 80 feet 6 inches on Elora street, and 77 feet on Maitland street.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the 3ize of Harriston?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


William Pugsley: In, 1901 the population was 1,637; postal revenue, $4,168.86; customs duties, '$29.06; money orders $8,738.47; money orders paid, $16,356.51.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Have you an outport of customs there?


William Pugsley: It must be one.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: And the collections are only $29 a year?


William Pugsley: It is very small; it is an outport of Guelph.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In my hon. friend's riding there is a revenue of thousands of dollars, but no outport.


William Pugsley: He hopes to get it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That hope is not shared by the minister.


William Pugsley: I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is this building to cost?


William Pugsley: We will endeavour to keep the cost down to $15,000 or $16,000 for the building completed and furnished, not including the land.
Kincardine-public building, $4,500.


William Pugsley: This building is nearly completed. The total cost is estimated at $29,600.


Richard Blain: What qualifications ha-Angus Kerr, clerk of this work?


William Pugsley: We do not appoint any man inspector of public buildings unless he is experienced and thoroughly competent for the work.


Mr. TOLMIE.: Mr. Kerr is a first-class carpenter.	-


Richard Blain: Was it upon my hon. friend's recommendation he was appoint-


John Tolmie: Certainly.


Mr. GOODEVE.: The clerk of works on the Guelph armoury was paid a commission of two per cent, and on this building I see the clerk was paid $3.50 a day.


William Pugsley: When the clerk of works is an architect we allow him the usual two per cent commission.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who made application for this building?


William Pugsley: It was urged very strongly by the hon. member who represents the constituency, and the interest the town took in it is shown by their giving a site free of cost. It is required for post office and customs and examining warehouse purposes.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: The clerk of the works who is not an architect receives much more than the architect, he gets about ten per cent. You are paying him five times what you pay an expert architect to supervise the building.


William Pugsley: Of course the architect gets his commission no matter whether it takes a long or a short time to erect the building, while a clerk of works is paid by the day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I could understand the locality and the men applying for a build-in<r and I do not see anything wrong in either, but I do think that where a building is intended for the use of any department there should be a request from that department, because they know better than any one else the need for a building in a particular locality and whether it is possible to secure a suitable building for the purpose.


William Pugsley: The Militia Department always does apply.


Richard Blain: What is the total amount paid to the architect and the clerk of works?


Mr PUGSLEY.: Nothing was paid to the architect; the plans were prepared by the chief architect. I have not the amount paid to the clerk of works, but I can get that if my hon. friend desires it.
Kingston post office-addition to building and alterations, $25,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for the construction of two stories addition to the Kingston post office building, and also alterations in the interior fittings, &c. This is asked for by the Post Office Department.


William Cameron Edwards: Can the minister inform us when he expects to commence that work?


William Pugsley: The plans and specifications will be prepared and tenders called for early in the coming season. I think I can assure my hon. friend that the work will be started early in the coming season.
Kingston Royal Military College-improve-merits, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision towards the erecting on the college grounds of a covered skating rink and drill hall combined, for use in wet -weather and in the winter time. The proposed building is to be 235 feet long by 120 feet wide. This is asked for by the Militia Department.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like to know the object of tearing down the stone cottages formerly occupied by the servants
of the Military College. Is it intended to build on that site?


William Pugsley: This rests entirely with the Militia Department, and I am not able to give the information; but, if my hon. friend desires it, I will get it from the Minister of Militia.


William Cameron Edwards: The reason I ask is that it occurred to me and some others that those buildings might, with a very small expenditure, be made use of for ordnance stores, to take the place of the building you are renting in Kingston, and will be for the next five years at, I believe, $1,000 a year, and I doubt if the building itself cost more than $10,000 or as much when first erected. Is it the intention of the government to erect a building in Kingston to take the place of the one they are renting?


Mr PUGSLEY.: I am not aware of its being the intention. That_ is a matter that would rest with the Militia Department.
Leamington-public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the completion of a public building which is now under construction. The total estimated cost is $32,278.49, including the site, heating, electric wiring, fittings, furniture, lock boxes, &c.


Richard Blain: Has the minister _ before him a list of the newspapers in which the advertisement asking for tenders for this building was inserted?


William Pugsley: No, I am sorry to say,
I have not, but I shall be glad to get it for my hon. friend.


Richard Blain: I ask for that because I see that the hon. gentleman paid $362 for advertising for tenders for this small building.
Listowel-public building, $15,000.
Mr. PUGSLEY". This is to provide for the erection of a building for post office and customs purposes.


Richard Blain: On whose recommendation was this?


William Pugsley: It has been urged very strongly by Dr. Rankin, the present member, and Mr. Hay. The site has been bought, consisting of lots. 1, 2 and 3 on the corner of Main and Dodd streets.


Richard Blain: On whose recommendation was the site purchased?


William Pugsley: I am not sure, but our custom is to send an expert from the department to select a site, and I have no reason to suppose that was not done in this instance.


William Cameron Edwards: Is the minister able to tell me whether the building used for customs purposes in Kingston is a rented building or belongs to the government?


William Pugsley: It belongs to the government.


William Cameron Edwards: The reason I ask is that in many of these places you are putting the post office and customs house in one building, and I thought that if the building used for customs purposes at Kingston were not owned by the government,- it would be well to follow that rule there.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much is the building at Listowel expected to cost?


William Pugsley: From $20,000 to $25,000 in addition to the site. The population in 1901 was 2,693.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did the town supply the site?


William Pugsley: No, we bought the site.
Mitchell- public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This building is for post office and customs purposes. The lot fronts on two streets-on one 75 feet and on the other 105 feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is mis building
to cost?


William Pugsley: This would cost about the same as the one in Listowel.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: About $25,000.


William Pugsley: $20,000 to $25,000. In 1901, the population was nearly 2,000. It is a town which does quite a business. I see the postal revenue is upwards of $4,000; money orders issued, $22,549; money orders paid. $14,548. It is quite a prosperous town. There are five mills there and two banks.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You can find towns by the dozen quite as large.


Joseph Russell: Did I understand the minister to say that the department was going to spend $25,000 on this building.
1 understood that he had decided to spend from $10,000 to $15,000 on these small towns.


William Pugsley: I was figuring upon a more expensive building for Mitchell somewhere about $20,000.


Richard Blain: Customs and post office?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is there a customs out-port there?


Mr PUGSLEY.: There is a customs office there at present. It is the outport of Stratford.	1
Mr. PUGSLET


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What were the collections last year?


William Pugsley: I have not the customs revenue.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What do you pay the customs officer there?


William Pugsley: He is paid by the Customs Department. I would not have that information. We rent a building for him at present as -well as for the post office.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would be some additional information to enable one to understand the importance of the place. Now, you mentioned a place where the total collection in the year was $26, and I take it that the customs officer would he paid $300 or $400 for collecting that $26. It seems to me to be unjustifiable to establish a place like that as an outport of customs, especially when you can find other places all over the country in large numbers where ten, fifteen or twenty times as much is collected, and where they have not the advantage of being outports of customs


William Pugsley: I hope the hon. member is not applying his remarks to Mitchell.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not talking of Mitchell. I was talking of a place mentioned by the minister where they collected only $26 a year.


William Pugsley: The fact that we have rented buildings there would be some evidence that in the opinion of the Minister of Customs it is desirable to have a customs officer. I find that the building now proposed was asked for by the town council, also by the board of trade, who impressed upon: me very strongly the inadequacy of the accommodation afforded to the public by the building at present used for the post office and customs office. The building occupied was, it was alleged, unsuitable, and the upper room for the customs house was also unsuitable. The London post office inspector visited the place and made a report to the conclusion that a public building was regarded by the people and also by him as very necessary in the public interest.


William Stevens Fielding: A comparison between the amount collected and the salary of the collector is apt to be misleading. There are points where it is necessary in the public interest to keep customs officers, though you would not collect a penny. So the mere fact that a small amount is collected and a considerable sum is spent in collection, would not necessarily convey the impression that the appointment of a customs officer is a mistake. I am not applying that to this particular case, but generally. There are points where it is necessary to keep a customs officer for the pro-

tection of revenue and he may collect very little.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would think that these points are on the frontier. They would not be ordinary villages in the country that are not on any lines of navigation or on any of the main lines of railways carrying trade from one country to another. Now, I am not objecting to the establishment of a customs house at Mitchell if it is needed -but I do think it is quite indefensible in a small place like that cited here within the last half hour, to establish an outport of customs where only $26 is collected in the whole year.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Mitchell is in the riding I represent, and as there appears to be some ignorance as to the position of Mitchell, and as to the necessity for a collector of customs, I may say that the town has been for a long time considered worthy of a collector of customs. The present collector, Mr. Cull, was appointed about 20 years ago, so that for a long time back, Mitchell has been considered worthy of having a customs outport.


Samuel Hughes: It is a good little town.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Yes, it is a good town. Its population does not increase very rapidly, hut like other towns in Ontario, it is improving steadily. I cannot give you what the customs collection is but I should think it is considerably more than the salary that is paid to the officer, and that I think would be $700 or $800, for he has been a long time in the service. "While other t owns may have very strong claims, it certainly has strong claims to better post office and customs accommodation than it has. The post office was in one of the shops in the main street and was very small and cramped and poor in quality. There appeared to be no particular site in the town where a better building could be obtained, but the town council and the Board of Trade urged that the requirements were such that a better build ing should be supplied, and they offered at a small cost a portion of the main square on which their market hall stood. The arrangement was made in that way, the town moving their town hall to one side and giving for a small price the most im portant position in the town for the post office. That is the condition of affairs there, and with regard to the recommendation, I may tell my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) that the movement was entirely a local movement in Mitchell, the Board of Trade first initiating it and the town council following it up. At a later period, I was applied to to urge upon the Public Works Department the needs and requirements of Mitchell. I informed the minister pretty much in the terms I have just stated of the requirements, and I still
think that the town should get what the Public Works Department is now proposing to give.


Samuel Hughes: It is a good little town.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may be a good little town. I am not objecting to that at all, nor am I objecting to the expenditure. 1 know something about the town, but take for the purpose of comparison such towns as Georgetown, Bronte, Shelbourne, Dundalk. These are towns of about similar size, doing quite as much business as Mitchell, but there is no information about these being supplied with a customs house, nor are they made ports of customs. The complaint I have is that, while, in many places of considerable inportance where collections are made of thousands of dollars, the place is left without an outport of customs, in other places where, not so much money is collected, there is a customs branch and a public building. I am not complaining that there should be a building at Mitchell, but asking for information as to that place. I had reference more particularly' to the case we had under consideration a short time before where the collections were only $26. There is another feature of it to which the member for the constituency drew attention which, to my mind, is a much better justification for putting up this building.
I have always contended that, where you could get a suitable building to rent at an amount less than would pay the interest on the money necessary to put up a public building, you were not justified in making the expenditure necessary for a public work. But this, I understand, is not the case in Mitchell; a suitable place is not to be had for rent. That would be a strong reason for the construction of a building.
Mount Eorest-public building-revote of $1,330 lapsed, $15,000.


William Pugsley: In this case the site has been purchased. The building is for customs and post office purposes. The amount of postal revenue is $4,873; money orders issued $19,751, paid $26,593. It is urged strongly that the present accommodation is very insufficient.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought they had a post office there?


William Pugsley: No, a very poor building. Accommodation for the public is only 19 by 14 feet.


Richard Blain: In what county is this?


William Pugsley: In Wellington North. Mount Forest is a thriving manufacturing town.


Richard Blain: What will the building cost?


William Pugsley: About the same as the one at Mitchell-$20,000.


Richard Blain: It is urged by the sitting member, I suppose?


William Pugsley: Yes, and he presented requests from the Board of Trade and the municipal council.


Richard Blain: I was wondering what the hon. minister was doing for ridings represented by the opposition. Could he give us a list of buildings in Ontario erected in such counties?


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman will look over the list, he can judge as well as I. I might remind him of Toronto with its public buildings, harbour improvements and so on, Then there is Uxbridge; who represents the county in which Uxbridge is situated?


Richard Blain: The hon. minister will know. I have not noticed many in the list. I assume that the minister finds us rather indifferent in pressing our claims and would like us to press them more vigorously before giving us these public works. 1 will not urge it now, but I hope that at some future time the minister will give us a list of the counties represented on this side of the House in which he is constructing post offices.


Samuel Hughes: In the absence of the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), the first Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) I may call the attention of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) to the fact that a monument to Samuel de Champlain was promised to Fenelon Falls some years ago.
Niagara Falls-armoury-revote of $10,000 lapsed, $50,000.


William Pugsley: The city has offered to provide the site for this building.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What Is this building to cost.


William Pugsley: We have not yet received the sketch plans from the Militia Department. Niagara Falls is an important place.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This seems a rather loose way to ask the House to vote money. We do not know whether we are committing ourselves to an expenditure of half a million oi twenty ttiousund. Before estimates are submitted, one would think, data would )e furnished to the minister which he would present to council. If this were before us, ve would know to what we are committin" the country.


William Pugsley: The expectation of our department. is that the cost will not exceed the amount we are here asking for, $50,000


William Pugsley: But we have not yet received the plans from the Militia Department. It may be that they will ask for something involving a larger expenditure than this, in which case it will be a matter of negotiation between us.


William Cameron Edwards: Would it not be better to leave these militia items until the Minister of Militia is here.


William Pugsley: I have no objection.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The third reading of the Naval Bill, the third reading of the Civil Service Bill, and immediately after that a motion will be made for Committee of Supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.55 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, April 20, 1910.