1910-02-14

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 139) respecting the Bay of Quinte Railway Company.-Mr. Talbot.
Bill (No. 140) to relieve Frederick Joseph Gustin McArthur.-Mr. Wallace.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FRANK OLIVER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 141) to amend the Indian Act. He said: There are only three clauses in the Bill. The object is to give definite effect to what has hitherto been understood to be the law, and in regard to which there seems to be some doubt which it is desirable to remove. The first clause relates to the occupation of Indian lfmds by others than Indians, and provides a mode of procedure whereby the Tights of the Indians may be established in case of their lands being entered upon by those who are not entitled to do so. The other two clauses are merely to protect the right of the Indians in any moneys that are due to them from the government.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
M". G. V. WHITE. Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to ask the government when the committee on the various waterways and water-powers will meet? This is a very important committee, and there has not been any meeting of the committee during the present session.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I will call the attention of the chairman to it.



THE 'SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN' AND THE QUEBEC BRIDGE.

Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM.: My attention has been called to a criticism of the plans of the Quebec bridge by the 'Scientific American', which is a leading scientific paper. The writer seems not to be aware of the fact that the plans provide for a suspension bridge as well as a cantilever bridge. I presume some hon. gentlemen may have seen this article, and I have referred it to the chairman of the board of engineers, who have charge of the construction of the bridge.



TRACHOMA IN REGINA SCHOOLS.

Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Interior to a matter which I consider of great urgency. I see a despatch in the 'Citizen' of to-day, from Regina, to the effect that trachoma has broken out in the schools of that city:
At present there are some ten c.ases discovered, but careful examination of all the children in the schools is to be made. The city health officer in reporting the matter to the city council attributed the outbreak to

laxity on the part of immigration authorities in permitting those infected with the disease, to land in the country.
I think this is a matter that demands the immediate attention of the Minister of Interior.


Mr. OLIVER.: I can onlv say that everv care is taken at the ocean ports to prevent the entry of immigrants suffering from this disease. But it is like all other diseases, it may pass inspection at a time when it is not in evidence, and break out later on and be communicated. I might mention that it is becoming a practice, to attribute every form of disease that may occur in any part of Canada, to the laxity of the immigration authorities. I would suggest with all due respect that the municipal and provincial authorities would do well to assume their own share in the suppression of contagious diseases.



MANITOBA FISHERIES COMMISSION.

Mr. BRADBURY.: I wish to call the attention of the acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries to the fact that apparently no action has been taken on the fisheries report laid on the table. I have had communication from some of the Selkirk fishermen asking if there are going to be any changes made, if the report is going to be implemented by new regulations. At this time of the year it is necessary that the fishermen should know if they are going to be allowed to fish next year.


Wilfrid Laurier: I will give an answer to my hon. friend on Monday.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Harbours and rivers, New Brunswick- Dipper harbour-extension of breakwater- pier, $14,000.
['Do you not think that, under our authority to control trade and commerce, we would have the right to build a railway between two points, though both were in one province, to carry on a through route trade? We have specifically provided that we shall have control of trade and commerce; and it seems to me, from the arguments I have heard, over and over again, in this House by very eminent legal men, such as the Hon. Edward Blake and the late Hon. David Mills, that we have a perfect right to build a railway anywhere, even if it were only five miles long and in the centre of a province.\nProgress reported.\nCONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS. [DOT]\nBill (No. 110) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-* Mr. Tolmie.\nBill (No. 97) respecting the Pacific and Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Tolmie.\nBill (No. 90) respecting the Central Ontario railway.-Mr. Stratton.\nBill (No. 107) to incorporate the Ottawa, Montreal and Eastern Railway Company. -Mr. Gladu.\t[DOT]']
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Pub-lie Works).: Mr. Chairman, the object of this vote is to provide for the extension of the breakwater pier at Dipper harbour. Dipper harbour is in the county of St. John. The total estimated cost is $19,530 for 186,000 cubic yards of cribwork and contingencies to be added making $21,500, of which we are asking $14,000. That is what we expect to expend during the coming year.


Mr. CROCKET.: Is the work under contract?


William Pugsley: No, we have not done anything and will not until we get the vote.
Dorchester wharf-level bed at outer end for vessels to lie on at low tide, $1,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide a bed outside the wharf at which vessels may lie Mr. SCHAFFNER.
in safety at low tide. As the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) knows, the river is a tidal river and while vessels will lie afloat at high tide, at low tide they have to ground, and it is very desirable to have a bed on which the vessels may lie. The estimated cost is $1,000. There is to be something in the nature of cribwork, 2,500 lineal feet, and some excavation, ballast poles and the like of that.
Harbours, rivers and bridges generally-repairs and improvements, $21,000.


William Pugsley: This is a vote that is usually taken to make repairs to wharfs and bridges generally for which there is no special appropriation. We took an appropriation last year of $24,000 of which we expended, up to the 1st December last, $10,975, leaving a balance of $13,000. Of course, whatever of that remains unexpended will lapse at the end of the year and we are taking the usual vote for the new year.
Kouchibouguac harbour-to complete work of closing new gap through beach and preserving the latter with breakwater, $1,500.


William Pugsley: This amount, we had hoped would be sufficient to complete the work, but I am sorry to say that I cannot give that assurance now, ^fcause by reason of a very violent storm recently I believe the work has been damaged, and I am not able to say to the committee just what amount we will require to finish it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the total cost up to the present time?


William Pugsley: The total cost has been $6,300. We had hoped that the total expenditure would not have exceeded $7,800.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How long has the work been in progress?


William Pugsley: It was commenced in 1908.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What is the object of it?


William Pugsley: There is a long bar extending right in front of the harbour of Kouchibouguac. There is one channel running through this bar into the harbour, but some years ago the tide broke through at another part of the bar and that interferes with the current of the main channel. It was damaging the harbour as it appeared to be likely that it would silt up, and the object of this is to close that unnecessary entrance which was broken through by the tide.


Robert Laird Borden: In what county is this harbour?


William Pugsley: In the county of Kent. Kouchibouguac is quite an important place. It is not only an important fishing locality
3393 FEBRUARY 11, 1910 3394	
but other business of considerable importance is also carried on. It is in the centre of an important lumbering district, and my report is that the value of the fisheries is about $50,000 annually. There has recently been erected a freezer of quite large dimensions and there are three lobster factories in the locality. Mr. CROCKET. Has the work been done by day labour? Mr. PUGSLEY. Yes. Mr. CROCKET. Who is the foreman? Mr. PUGSLEY. Mr. Atkinson. Lameque wharf-improvements, $2,000. Mr. PUGSLEY. This is to complete the enlargement of the wharf and the erection of a warehouse at Lameque in the county of Gloucester. The total estimated cost of the improvements is $7,000 of which we expect we will have expended by the 31st March, $4,999.63. We are now asking for $2,000 to complete the work. Mr. CROCKET. What depth of water will be provided? Mr. PUGSLEY. I regret that I am not able to give the depth of water, but I may say that passenger steamers go through. There has been established a line of steamers between points on the mainland of Gloucester and the islands also going over to the Quebec shore, and the steamers will call at this point, The water is deep enough for the steamers. The steamer will call at this point, so that the water is deep enough for that steamer. Lameque is an important place for shipping; it is estimated that the exports of fish alone amount to about $80,000 annually. There is a population of about 400. Leouardville, Deer island - reconstruction and extension of wharf, $7,000. Mr. PUGSLEY. This is to complete the contract. It is for the extension of a wharf formerly owned by the provincial government. The contract is for $9,895, and contingencies are estimated at $1,105. We estimate we will have expended up to the 31st March next $4,000, leaving a balance of $7,000, which we are now asking to complete the work. Lorneville-breakwater wharf, $10,000. Mr. PUGSLEY. This is to make a payment on the breakwater at Lorneville in the city and county of St. John, a very important fishing village. The contract is let by tender for $27,000. We add for contingencies $800 and for right of way $200, and owing to a change in site an additions! payment is made to the contractor of $1,150. Since these estimates were made up a very unfortunate accident has happened to the Lorneville breakwater. In a recent	storm, perhaps the most violent ever known in that locality, the outer end of the breakwater was carried away and broke through an apparent crust under the water, and settled down, leaving a place between the head of the wharf which was carried away and the main body which will have to be filled in and for which we will have to ask a supplementary vote. Part of the wharf was on rock and a part was supposed to be on the bed of the ocean. In this violent storm, either the foundation was undermined by the storm or it sank through by reason of the heavy weight. It is one of those unforeseen accidents which sometimes will occur. Mr. CROCKET. What is the extent of the damage? Mr. PUGSLEY. $15,000 or $20,000. Mr. CROCKET. The work had not been taken over by the government from the contractor? Mr. PUGSLEY. No; but the work was finished. I think we shall have to pay the contractor for it. Mace's bay-connection of pier-head with shore-to complete, $1,150. Mr. PUGSLEY. This is to connect the pier head now partly completed with the shore, a distance of 150 feet. Moncton wharf-enlargement of, $14,500. Mr. PUGSLEY. This is for cribwork construction, 160 feet long by 50 feet wide, and an approach from the shore of crib-work 90 feet long by 20 feet wide. The amount of the contract is $17,600 and, adding contingencies, we estimate the total cost will be $19,200. Mr. CROCKET. Did this government build the wharf that is being enlarged? Mr. EMMERSON. It is a wharf that has been in existence since prior to confederation. It has always been a public wharf, recognized as such, and looked after by the Dominion. It is in close proximity to what is known as the wharf railway track at Moncton. I trust that the Minister of Public Works will expedite the completion of this work, the delay of which has been the cause of serious complaints on the part of shippers and others who have to use the harbour of Moncton. Mr. CROCKET. Who has the contract for this work? Mr. PUGSLEY. Downey Bros., of Albert county. Mr. CROCKET. How many tenders were received? Mr. PUGSLEY. Seven. The amount of Downey Bros, tender was $17,600. Neguac-extension of wharf on Miramichi bay, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This work is proposed in order not only to give more wharf accommodation, but greater depth of water at the outer face, which is very much needed to accommodate the steamer which runs down the Bay from Newcastle and Chatham.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this cover the whole expenditure?


William Pugsley: No, it will leave a balance of about $800 for which we will have to make further provision. $2,800 is the total estimated cost.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was the original wharf built by the federal government?


William Pugsley: Yes, it was built between 1892 and 1894.
New Mills wharf, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to build a wharf at an important point in the county of Restigouche where a large lumbering business is being carried on. The total cost of the wharf is estimated at $12,000.


Mr. DANIEL.: What depth of water will there be?


William Pugsley: Five feet at low water and twelve feet at high water, spring tide.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will any dredging be required?


William Pugsley: We do not anticipate that any will be required.


Mr. HUGHES.: What is the population of New Mills?


William Pugsley: About 1,500.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this work be let by contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the government secured the title of the site on which it is proposed to build the wharf?


William Pugsley: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I suppose the site has been determined on?


William Pugsley: We have an offer from a party to sell for $100 the land for the site which has been selected. I have no doubt we shall accept the offer.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much land does the offer include?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell my hon. friend how much, but it includes what will be required for the right of way and the site of the wharf oh the shore.
Mr. PUGSLEY
Petit Roeher-roadway to breakwater piei* and repairs to approach, &c., $1,200.


William Pugsley: This is to grade and fence the right of way to the breakwater, and also to repair the approach, which has been damaged by storms.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How long is this roadway?


William Pugsley: About a quarter of a mile.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is the roadway on government property?


William Pugsley: It was bought from the authorities of the Roman Catholic church, and the title was vested in the Crown. We paid to Valerie Frenette the sum of $100, but we have not settled yet with the church authorities, who are asking $500 for their portion. The balance of the appropriations is for repairs to the approach.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the original cost of the breakwater?


William Pugsley: The total expenditure on it up to the 31st of March last year was $63,277.13.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When was it originally built?	*


William Pugsley: It was begun in 1903 and was completed in November, 1908.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the contract price?


William Pugsley: There was one contract to Mr. McGregor for $24,150, and another to the same man for $32,900.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That makes $63,000 for this breakwater. What was the length of this breakwater?


William Pugsley: An isolated breakwater was begun in 1904 and finished in 1905. To enable this work to be used as a wharf and to give better protection to the area inside, a second contract was entered into on September 4, 1907, for an extension to the shore. The construction was begun December 11, 1907, and finished March 31, 1908. I take it the length will be 450 feet in addition to the length of the isolated breakwater, which I am told by my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon), is about 400 feet, making a total length of 850 feet.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How is it there were two contracts, first one for $25,000 and then another for $32,000?


William Pugsley: The first was for the isolated breakwater which had no connection with the shore. Subsequently it was decided to make connection between the breakwater and the shore so as to enable the breakwater to be utilized as a wharf and give better protection to the harbour.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is there any revenue from this?


William Pugsley: That would belong to the Department of Marine and Fisheries. So long as the wharf remains in the Public Works Department no revenue is collected. The transfer of this wharf was made some time last year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What depth of water?


William Pugsley: 18 feet at low tide.
Pink Rock wharf, Shepody bay, New Brunswick-extension of, $5,500.


William Pugsley: This is to complete work now being carried on under contract. It consists of an extension of the wharf of 47 feet, also the construction of a pier head 75 feet bv 28 feet, also the construction of a detached breakwater, 100 feet by 25 feet, the object being to break the seas and protect the harbour. Amount of contract, $10,440, and superintendence, $560, making total estimate of $11,000, of which we expect to spend up to the 31st of March this year, $5,500. This will complete.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did not the government make an extension of the wharf before letting the contract of which the minister speaks?	*


William Pugsley: Yes, there was some work done of an extension of the wharf, I think about 70 or 75 feet, but it was found that that was not sufficient to give accommodation for the vessels going there, and I decided to do the additional work provided in the contract.


Mr. EMMERSON.: I think that was under a former appropriation. The present work has very little to do with that except in so far as that completed a certain work, and this is additional and other work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much will this make the total expended by the government?


William Pugsley: About $15,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: $11,000 under the contract?


William Pugsley: And $4,479 previously.


Mr. RHODES.: Does the government collect any revenue on the traffic over this wharf?


William Pugsley: No, it has not yet been transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Is it the intention to do so?


William Pugsley: When completed, it will be transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and they will collect wharfage.	.


Oswald Smith Crocket: This is the wharf concerning which I took occasion to say some days ago, when some other item was under discussion, that it was being built by this government for the exclusive benefit of the Albert Manufacturing Company and another company, of which Mr. C. J. Osman, a friend of the minister, is managing director. That statement aroused the minister to that indignation he so frequently displays.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend said something more than that. He said he presumed this was the result of a bargain with Mr. Osman, under which the Albert company were to give land over at Hillsborough for a public building and get this improvement in return.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I made a very innocent statement, I thought. We were discussing an appropriation for a post office at Hillsborough the minister announced that Mr. Osman had generously donated the site. I remarked that perhaps Mr. Osman was doing that in return for the wharf.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman call that an innocent statement?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I suggested simply that probably the honourable minister's friend was giving the site for the post office, in return for the wharf which the government was constructing for his benefit at Pink Rock. The minister characterized that suggestion as gross and vile concerning a man of the highest honour and integrity-expressions we hear so fre-* quently from the hon. minister. I say that not only was the suggestion I then made that the wharf was built exclusively for the benefit of the firm of which Mr. Osman is managing director, absolutely true, but that the wharf is. the property of the Albert Manufacturing Company. Furthermore, that a large portion of the expenditure was made by Mr. Osman under his own direction and control-he simply turned the bills in to the Department of Public Works, and some $2,000 or $2,100 was paid out of the treasury of this country to recoup Mr. Osman for this expenditure made by himself on. his own wharf. So, when the hon. ministej* (Mr. Pugsley) seeks to discredit the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) by intimating that he makes suggestions very recklessly, the hon. minister at least will not be able to rely upon the suggestion made in this case, for I have the proof at hand

not only to fully bear it out, but to prove much more than I suggested. And this is the kind of thing that is going on all over this country. The other nightl refer-t red to dredging done at Dalhousie, New Brunswick, to the extent of thousands _ of dollars for the improvement of the shipping facilities of the Dalhousie Lumber Company, of which the minister himself is ai stockholder. I have returns from the minister's own department which show that conclusively, and in such manner that the minister himself cannot controvert the statement that thousands of dollars have been expended from the public treasury to dredge the wharf of the Dalhousie Lumber' Company. The dredge was kept there in the summer of 1908, and again last year dredging along the front of that property at the public expense.
I desire to refer to the return which I obtained in connection with this matter of the improvements at Pink Rock, so that the committee may see that the statement that this so-called public work was not in reality a public work, but was for the improvement of private property and paid for out of the public treasury was strictly correct. I find, by the correspondence brought down, that on July 6, 1907, a letter was written by Mr. Geoffrey Stead, the resident engineer of the department, to the chief engineer, in which he states:
I have your letter of the 13th June instructing me to prepare a contract plan for the extension of the wharf at Pink Rock, Westmoreland county, New Brunswick, at a total cost of $16,700.
The wharf is' intended for the shipment of gypsum, and the length of the proposed extension is 275 feet.	_
I have just been in communication with Mr. C. J. Osman, M.P.P., owner or manager of the gypsum quarries at Pink Rock, who states that the 275-foot extension would be unnecessarily long and that 100 feet would be sufficient.
The 100-foot extension would require 69,000 cubic feet of cribwork, and at 7 cents per foot would cost $4,830.
Would you kindly authorize the construction of the shorter work instead of that originally proposed.
The extension could then be built by day's labour during the present season, which would avoid delay and enable the appropriation for the present fiscal year-$5,000-to be used.
Now, though the original estimate was for an extension of 275 feet, that was changed at Mr. Osman's request, he having stated that an extension of 100 feet would be sufficient. This enabled the appropriation for that year to be expended, and it was ex-1 pended by day labour-day labour done under Mr. Osman's own direction. And, notwithstanding that Mr. Osman there stated that 100 feet would be sufficient, and that the original estimate was too much, the minister has now communicated to the Mr. CROCKET
House the fact that Mr. Osman is getting, just exactly what was originally proposed. And it would seem that the change was made simply to enable this work to be carried along by the day labour system, with a foreman appointed by Mr. Osman and the expenditure made by him.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: How long has the work been going on?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Three or four years. Here is another communication which will bear out the statement that this work was for Osman's benefit. It is from the hon. member for Westmoreland (Mr. Emmer-son) to * My Dear Pugsley,' under date 4th April, 1908, and reading as follows:
You will remember that Mr. Osman has urged the construction or extension of a breakwater at Pink Rock, in Westmoreland county. If the work goes on, I would like Gideon S. McPadden of Johnston's Mills post office, Westmoreland county, appointed to the position of inspector.
Will you please give instructions so that this may not be overlooked when the time comes.
Then, there is a memorandum from the minister to the deputy minister dated April 7, as follows:	[DOT]
Kindly let me know if the work of constructing breakwater at Pink Rock, Westmoreland county. New Brunswick, is yet under way.
Then, on 21st April, 1908, there is another letter from Mr. Geoffrey Stead, resident engineer, to Mr. Lafleur, which is in part as follows:
I have received your letter of the 14th April, asking a report as to how the work at Pink Rock, New Brunswick, stands at present.
1 inclose a photograph which shows the whole wharf-the inner part 250 feet long, built by Mr. Osman, manager of the Albert Manufacturing Company and the New Brunswick Gypsum Company, and the outer section 75 feet long which is not yet complete.
The cost of the 75-foot section has been assumed by the department, as I have your authority to certify and forward the bills, but though I have asked for them several times I have not yet received them. The foreman has been away and I have just heard that the accounts will be sent to me in two da vs.
The cost of completing this section-
He then details an estimate amounting to $1,850. So, this work was in progress and paid for out of the public treasury without the resident engineer of the department having any knowledge whatever of the accounts, the whole matter placed in the hands of Mr. C. J. Osman, who made


William Pugsley: Not at all, but of Mr. G.
S.	McFadden.


Oswald Smith Crocket: If the minister will only be patient for a few minutes, I think I can show him that he is a little previous in

that statement. Consider the statement in this letter:
But though I hare asked for them several times I have not received them.


William Pugsley: From the foreman-read it all; he has not received them from the foreman.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Here is a further letter from the resident engineer to the chief engineer, dated 7th May, 1908:
Sir,-I have received your telegram stating, ' At request of minister, have wired Mr. Mc-Fadden, care of Johnston's Mills, Dorchester, New Brunswick, to go to work at once as inspector at Pink Rock, instructions to follow later. Please give Mr. McFadden whatever instructions may he required.'
The work at Pink Rock has been done by day labour under Mr. Oscar Downey, the foreman appointed by Mr. Osman of the Albert Manufacturing Company, before I had received instructions to certify the accounts.
Mr. Downey is now about to resume construction and complete the work by day labour. Would you kindly inform me whether Mr. McFadden will act as conductor, with Mr. Downey as sub-foreman-which would be satisfactory to Mr. Osman-the pay-lists being fairly large, as many as twelve men being employed at once; or is Mr. McFadden to act as inspector on the work as he would in case of a contract and send in liis account apart from the pay-rolls?
So there we have a statement from the resident engineer of the department that the work at Pink Rock had been done by day labour under Mr. Downey, the foreman appointed by Mr. Osman of the Albert Manufacturing Company, before the resident engineer had received any instructions from the department. Mr. Osman sent in to the Public Works Department accounts amounting to upwards of $2,000 expended by himself, a good part of it for goods furnished by himself, while the expenditure was entered in the Auditor General's Report as if the work had been done under the direction of the department. On the 13th of May, 1908, there is another letter from Mr. Geoffrey Stead:
I inclose herewith accounts amounting to $2,018,96 in favour of the Albert Manufacturing Company for the construction of a 75 foot extension to the wharf 226 feet long which they had already built at Pink Rock, N.B., and am requested by the company to ask that the accounts be paid at an early date as the work was done some months ago and money is scarce.
There is a letter from the resident engineer of the department, in which he stated that he is inclosing accounts of the Albert Manufacturing Company for $2,018.96 for extension of this wharf.
The accounts were paid immediately, and' it was entered, as I have stated, in the Auditor General's Report as if the exten-108
sion had been made under the direction of the Public Works Department, and many of these accounts, as I have said, being for supplies furnished by the company itself. Here is a letter from C. J. Osman to the Hon. Mr. Emmerson, dated June 26, 1908:
Dear Mr. Emmerson,-I am sorry to have to make further demands upon you in connection with the wharf at Pink Rock, as I confidently expected that the expenditure already made bv ourselves and the government would be sufficient for all requirements.
I have, however, taken down three of our steamboat captains to inspect the wharf and bed before putting their vessels on to load, and they all declined positively to risk their vessels unless the wharf was extended and a ' T ' or ' L ' built out to break the swell which is quite heavy at this place even with a southwest wind.
You will perhaps remember that this was the plan originally proposed in the first survey made by Mr. Scammel, C.E.
We have now over 2,000 tons or rock quarried and piled on and near the wharf and cannot induce a vessel to go for it.
Will you therefore try and get enough appropriation included in the supplementary estimates to extend the wharf 75 feet, and an ' I, ' or ' T ' about 60 feet added to this with a small block or crib on the roof just above the wharf end. This would then make a perfect little harbour, and I think can be all done for the original estimate of cost which was, I think, about $14,000 or $15,000, and up to this time only about $3,000 lias been expended.
This matter is of very great importance, and, therefore, I venture to ask you to take immediate action.
And we have this appropriation going through now, the balance of the appropriation, just on the lines, requested by Mr. Osman, and to the full amount of the original estimate which was altered at Mr. Osman's request, to enable the appropriation to be expended by himself without any check of any kind under the day labouT system. So the total expenditure as stated by the minister will amount to fully what it was estimated to be in the first instance. Then, here is a letter from Mr. Osman to the Hon. Wm. Pugsley, dated 26th June, 1908:
Dear Mr. Pugsley,-I find that the work as now completed at Pink Rock is insufficient for the requirements of the locality.
We have over 2,000 tons of plaster rock quarried and piled on the wharf and near it, and are very anxious to get it shipped, but we have been unable to induce the captains of the steam vessels now under charter with us to place their vessels in the berth, as they state that they would be in considerable danger; that before they would take the risk of loading at this place the wharf would have to be further extended about 75 feet, with a protecting L on the end, and a small breakwater on the reef a little above the wharf.
When Mr. Scammel made the first survey of this work, the wharf extension, an Tj was



included and the total estimate of cost was about $6,000, but being desirous of having the work done at as little cost as possible, I decided to excavate the bed alongside the wharf built bv us, and save a good deal of the proposed extension. This has been done as already stated hut is not acceptable to the vessel masters. The extension demanded now is considerably less than the work first proposed, and I should be much obliged if you can see your way clear to make provision for this further work in your supplementary estimates.
I have written to Mr. Emmerson upon the matter and am quite sure that he will give his warm and earnest support.
Perhaps you would also arrange for Mr. Stead to go over the work again, in which case if he will communicate with me, I will take him down in our boat and explain exactly what is now required, and I beg to assure you that every effort wall be made to cover absolute requirement with as small expenditure as possible.
Requesting your favourable consideration of this matter,
I remain yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) C. J. OSMAN.
To that there is a very courteous reply from the minister to Mr. Osman, dated. June 30:
Dear Mr. Osman,-I am in receipt of your favour of the 26th inst., having reference to extension of wharf at Pink Rock, and have referred the matter to my chief engineer, with directions that Mr. Resident Engineer Stead look into same and report.


William Pugsley: What is wrong with that?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Oh, nothing. The government did not lose much time, for on June 30, 1908, I find a memorandum from the minister to the chief engineer:
Kindly note letter of Hon. Mr. Osman, re extension of Pink Rock wharf, and direct Mr. Resident Engineer Stead to examine the work at once and report as to necessity for and cost of proposed addition.
Then, on September 11, the chief engineer writes Resident Engineer Stead as follows:
I enclose herewith file No. 321777, containing your report regarding the extension of the wharf at Pink Rock, N.B., the cost of which you estimated at $2,830, and would ask to let me have an answer to the deputy minister's query,1 as to whether this work would be done by day labour.
I may say that the vote of $5,000 in the estimates is for the building of an extension of 75 feet to the wharf at Pink Rock, built by the Albert Manufacturing Company and the New Brunswick Gyosum Company. This is the work for which you were authorized on the 10th August last, to prepare contract plans and specifications. Kindly let me know if the work mentioned in the inclosed report, the cost of which you placed at $2,830, forms any part of the proposed 75 feet extension.
Then comes a letter from Mr. Osman of the 12th of November, 1908, to the minister: Mr. CROCKET.
Hon. Mr. Pugsley,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Pugsley,-I am getting quite anxious about the wharf at Pink Rock, as we have a large cargo ready for shipment there, and have had it there all this season, but owing to the insecurity of the place, we have not been able to induce any of our steamers to go there to load.
Mr. Stead has, I believe, prepared plans for a small extension and breakwater block, which, I think, will make the place perfectly safe, and this work ought to be done as early as possible next spring, and as some funds from the old anoropriation are available, perhaps you could see your way clear to instruct him to have the work finished by day work the same as the other work was done at this place, as it will be necessary to get timber out this winter, and have it ready for early rafting, in order to get the place available for use next year. If you will be kind enough to interest yourself in this matter, I shall feel very much obliged to you.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd.) C. J. OSMAN.
On November 24, 1908, the minister wrote to Mr. Osman as follows:
Dear Mr. Osman,-I am in receipt of your favour of the 12th inst., and in reply beg to say that I have given directions to have the work at Pink Rock done without delay.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) WM. PUGSLEY.
There is a further letter from Mr. Stead on the the 27th November, 1908, to Mr. La-fleur, the chief engineer at Ottawa:
Sir,-I have received a letter from Mr. C. J. Osman, of the Albert Manufacturing Company, of Hillsborough, stating that he is very anxious about the Pink Rock wharf, as the company have a large cargo of gypsum tied up there which cannot be shipped till the proposed extension is built.
Mr. Osman writes. ' I would like also for you (if possible) to obtain the consent of the department to carry on this work by day work, and authorize Downey (the former foreman) to go ahead with it, in which case we will arrange with him so that he can get the timber in Hillsborough off our own land, which is the most convenient point at which suitable timber can be obtained, and we will make the cost to him much lower than it could be procured anywhere else. If, on the other hand, a contract is to be let, it is of great importance that it should be let at once. Perhaps you will be good enough to communicate with the department, and find out exactly how the matter stands.'
I have read your instructions of the 24t,h September to proceed immediately by day labour with the construction of a 47-foot extension at a cost of $2,830-the balance of the appropriation for this year being $2,839.51- and I informed Mr. Osman of this, but on account of the difficulty of procuring lumber and working at the site of the wharf late in the season, I have not been able to have the work started.
The first work was done by Mr. Osman with his own men, he charged actual cost, and at the Hon. Mr. Emmerson's suggestion, I en-

deavoured to have the work on the extension carried on in the same way.
It would be very desirable to procure lumber for the extension early this winter, i.e., before the heavy snowfalls, as it can then be bought most cheaply. Would you kindly inform me, therefore, whether I may procure only sufficient lumber for the 47-foot extension, or expend the balance of the appropriation for lumber for the whole proposed work -the estimated cost of which is $13,000; and also what answer I can return to Mr. Osman.
Yours obediently,
(Sgd.) GEOFFREY STEAD,
Resident Engineer.
The following is the chief engineer's reply to Mr. Stead, dated 30th November, 1908:
In reply to your letter of the 27th inst., regarding the work at Pink Rock, I have to inform you that you may procure sufficient lumber for the 47-foot extension which you were authorized on the 24th September last to construct by day labour, but not for any other work.
There is another letter dated December 12th, from the chief engineer of the department of the deputy minister, Mr. Hunter, as follows:
Sir,-I have the honour to inclose herewith a memorandum from the hon. the minister asking that attention be given to the work required at Pink Rock, as requested by Mr. C. J. Osman in the accompanying letter. The matter was referred to Mr. Geoffrey Stead, resident engineer, whose report I now have the honour to transmit.
Mr. Stead states that what is necessary is an extension of the wharf 47 feet long and 28 feet wide, with a pier-head or ' L ' 75 feet by 28 feet, and a detached breakwater 100 feet from the end of the ' L/ the estimated cost of the work being $13,000.
The estimated cost of the 47-foot extension is $2,830, and by your instructions Mr. Stead was informed, on the 30th ult., that he might procure sufficient lumber for this extension, which he was authorized on the 27th September last to construct by day labour but not for any other work.
So that I think, Mr. Chairman, it must be evident that the statement which was made that the extension of this wharf at Pink Rock was made for the benefit of the company of which C. J. Osman is a director has been pretty well confirmed by the quotations I have made from this return. Not only that, but far worse than the statement I made, it appears that the first year's expenditure of over $2,100 was made by Mr. Osman himself, who employed his own men to do the work, who purchased his own supplies, and who simply sent up to the Department of Public Works here these bills amounting to that sum of money which were paid out of the public treasury-


William Pugsley: He charged actual cost without any profits at all.
108*


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am not, at the present moment, discussing actual cost. I may have occasion to show what Mr. Osman's idea of actual cost was before I get through, by reference to some items in his accounts. This amount was paid out of the public treasury to Mr. Osman for work done by him without reference to the government and before the Department of Public Works had given any directions or instructions in the matter at all.


Mr. J. HAGGART.: Who certified to the amount that was paid to Mr. Osman?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Mr. Stead. He simply forwarded the accounts. Mr. Osman sent his accounts in to Mr. Stead.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman knows more than that. Mr. Stead certified to the accounts.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I said, that.


William Pugsley: No, the hon. gentleman said that Mr. Stead simply forwarded the accounts. He certified to the correctness of the accounts. ,


Oswald Smith Crocket: The hon. member for Lanark (Mr Haggart) asked who certified the accounts and I said Mr. Stead.


William Pugsley: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I said that Osman forwarded the accounts to Mr. Stead, that Mr. Stead forwarded them to the department at Ottawa and, of course, a certificate 'fair and reasonable' can always be got in every case in New Brunswick-just such a certificate as we had in connection with the Rich-ibucto wharf, and just such certificates a3 we had in many other cases in New Brunswick which were not in accordance with the facts.


John Graham Haggart: Would that not be
a criminal act?


William Pugsley: What would be a criminal act?


Mr. BOYCE.: Falsifying a certificate.


William Pugsley: Who said it was falsified?


John Graham Haggart: The money was paid through the Auditor General's Department on a false statement of facts.


William Pugsley: Even the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) has not made such a 'statement.


John Graham Haggart: Then I make the statement based upon his statement of the case.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has no foundation for making that statement, because, even according to the statemen

of the hon. member for York, what took place was that Mr. Osman furnished the accounts showing the material and expenditure on day labour, item by item.


John Graham Haggart: Do you mean to say that the Auditor General had any knowledge that he was paying over money that had been expended on this man's own wharf?


William Pugsley: It just shows that my hon,. friend has been entirely misinformed as to the ownership of the wharf. If rnv hon. friend will look at the agreement which is on file in the Department of Public Works he will see that the right to the wharf and the right to. collect wharfage on this wharf, which was built by the Albert Manufacturing Company, was taken over by the Crown and that the Crown owns all this extension which was made to it. This is the property of the Crown and the work was done properly in connection with this Crown wharf.


John Graham Haggart: But there was no agreement by which moneys were being expended under the direction of the owner of the wharf.


William Pugsley: This wharf is not owned by Mr. Osman. It is owned by the Crown.


John Graham Haggart: It is the extension that he owns.


William Pugsley: No. Under the agreement on file all the rights of the Albert Manufacturing Company in this wharf, except the solitary right to have their own vessels lie there, were transferred to the Crown. The right of way of the public and everything connected with it are vested in the Crown and this was an extension of a wharf owned by the Crown.


John Graham Haggart: I do not understand it.


William Pugsley: Of course vou do not, because the hon. member for York has not explained it.


Mr. DEPUTY  SPEAKEE@: The hon. member for York has the floor.


John Graham Haggart: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I was going to deal with that question. I made the statement that it appeared that that extension was built for the benefit of the Albert Manufacturing Company, of which Mr. Osman was the managing director, and that the first year's expenditure was made by him without any direction at all from the Public Works Department and that the money was paid out of the public treasury to pay his bills before there was any foreman representing the government or any inspector or anything else. In addition to that fact it ap-Hr. PUGSLEY.
pears that this property is not the property of the Crown, and if the minister made that statement this afternoon, he states what is incorrect. This wharf was the property of the Albert Manufacturing Company. It is quite true that there was a sort of sham agreement entered into to give this thing some colour, an agreement with Osman that he would graciously allow His Majesty the King to charge wharfage on all vessels other than his own, when the fact is that the wharf is so situated that there never had been and never will be any other vessel there, but the vessels of the Osman concern. That agreement that the minister speaks of is quite transparent, and any one reading it will see that it is of absolutely no avail. The minister stated in answer to my hon. friend from Algoma in reference to another proposed wharf extension in Ontario, that the government could not extend the wharf or make any expenditure upon a wharf without first acquiring a title to it. He made the same statement this afternoon before this item was reached that my hon. friend would understand of course, the government could not do such a thing unless it had acquired a title. In this case they have not acquired the title and there i3 no other agreement except the one I have named which amounts to nothing at all except that it provides that Mr. Osman will allow the King to charge wharfage, but the property remains in the Albert Manufacturing Company just as it did at the beginning, so that this is an absolute case of the public moneys of the country being used for the improvement of the private property of companies and of private friends of the Minister of Public Works. I referred the other night to the matter of the work at Dalhousie. These are only two samples; this thing is going on I have no doubt in the other provinces of this Dominion.


William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman I must ask you to see that my hon. friend confines himself to the item under discussion. We will come to Dalhousie later, and I will be glad to discuss it with my hon. friend to his heart's content.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I do not think the reference so far to Dalhousie is out of order, but a prolonged discussion would be.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I can quite understand that the minister does not want to hear more than one thing at a time.


William Pugsley: It tends to a clearer discussion and to coming to an issue.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I wish I had the time to give a series of the things of this kind that are going on in New Brunswick, but I ask the House and the committee to consider this as a sample of what is going on. It is time for the Committee of Supply of this House to shut down on this

kind of thing. There are hundreds of places in Canada urgently requiring money for legitimate public works. I have them in my own constituency. I referred to the case of a station required in Fredericton. The Minister of Finance admitted the absolute necessity for it, the Minister of Railways admitted its necessity, but last year we were' told there was no money for it. Yet here are $15,000 or $20,000 gping into the pocket of the Albert Manufacturing Company to improve their property, and $25,000 or $30,000 going into the pockets of the Loggies' to improve the property of the Dalhousie Lumber Company in which the Minister of Public Works is a shareholder. I do not object for a moment to legitimate expenditures. I believe where-ever there are cases in which expenditure is required, parliament should make liberal appropriations, but I do object to expenditures of this kind being made simply for the benefit of friends of the ministry and to improve private property at the expense of the taxpayers of the Dominion. The minister has referred to Mr. Osman's statement that his accounts were actual cost. I notice in the Auditor General's Report of last year a bill of the Albert Manufacturing Company to the Department of Public Works for work and supplies furnished for this work which was for the benefit of this company and among the items are: June 21, to towing thirteen small rafts of timber from Sodom Creek to Pink Rock at $12, $156; lumber at $9 to $16, $563; 3,866 iron bolts at four cents, $154.66; in all $873.74. The Albert Company there charged for towing $563 worth of lumber a distance of three miles, $156. I suppose that would be actual cost according to Mr. Osman's statement. The fact need only be stated to show that this is a most outrageous charge for the Public Works Department to pay- and that was certified by Mr. Geoffrey Stead, as so many other things have been certified from the province of New Brunswick. It is only one of many instances, but a very instructive one for the people of New Brunswick who are familiar with the locality and will be very much surprised to learn the full facts of the case.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am very sorry to have to puncture the very nice little bubble my hon. friend has created in res_pect to this matter. Did the facts in the case justify it there would have been some excuse for the language which he used, but I think my hon. friend has jumped at a conclusion. The facts are these, that the Albert Manufacturing Company, a company composed of American gentlemen very largely, if not wholly, have been operating gypsum quarries in the county of Albert for a great many years, I think somewhere about half a century. Within recent years Mr. Osman has been their manager and they have very successfully operated these
plaster or gypsum mines in that county. Some few years ago over in the county of Westmorland, which I have the honour to represent, there was discovered at Hard Ledge, near what is known as Pink Rock, a show of gypsum, and the people in that community were naturally very much excited and very hopeful as to results. The Albert Manufacturing Company went over and prospected the ground and took leases I think of the quarries. At that time the vessels which were in use in conveying this plaster from the quarries or wharfs at Hillsboro, at the head of the Bay of Fundy to Newark and other ports in the United States, were very small and no steamers were used to freight this plaster.
When the quarry was first opened it was only a prospecting operation, and the Albert Manufacturing Company, not Mr. Osman, expended a large sum of money in endeavouring to discover the extent of the gypsum deposit. Satisfied with the results, they, built a small wharf for small vessels and scows, so that they might ship this material from the Pink Rock quarry to their wharfs at Hillsborough in order that it might be marketed in the United States. They made some shipments in this way, but the people in Hard Ledge, where this Pink Rock quarry is situated, were not satisfied with this, as they were hopeful of the development of the gypsum quarrying interest at Pink Rock. It had been demonstrated that the quarry was rich in this product, and the first essential after that was to have transportation facilities; and to that end the people of that community circulated a petition, which I fancy is among these papers, asking the government of Canada to construct a wharf at that point. That petition was circulated to show that there was nothing political in this matter, that it was simply a business proposition and something in the interests of the people; and I want to tell my hon. friend from York that Mr. C. Lionel Hanington, whom he knows as being identified with the Conservative party, with others circulated this petition, which was sent to me as member for the county of Westmorland, with the request that I would use whatever influence I could to induce the Department of Public Works to come to some arrangement whereby the wharf could be built. Now, although that work has gone on and has reached a certain stage of completion, I want to say that it is not solely in the interest of the Albert Manufacturing Company. During the past season, incomplete as it is, it has afforded protection for many fishing boats, vessels and scows. In that immediate vicinity there are also grindstone quarries which are only awaiting development and transportation facilities. The first grindstones ever quarried in Canada were

quarried in that section of the Dominion. Those used around Hamilton, Oshawa and other places in Ontario in the early days came very largely from that section. It was upon the strength of this petition that the work of exploiting this gypsum industry was commenced. lit is now an established industry, affording employment to a number of men in a community where previously there was little employment. If this wharf and this harbour were not used by any other firm than the Albert Manufacturing Company, the facts would justify the government in constructing that wharf and creating that harbour in order that there might be established an industry of the size and character of the one which I have attempted to describe. Surely it is important, in the interests of that community, in the interests of the province of New Brunswick, and in the interests of the Dominion, that our gypsum trade shall grow and develop, that our export of gypsum alone should be expanded if it is possible to expand it. To show the extent of this business and of the export traffic connected with the plaster quarries of the Albert Manufacturing Company, I will read an extract from a paper which my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) hands to me, that seems to be apropos, that almost dropped from the clouds at this moment in order to demonstrate the importance of this industry:
Another section of New Brunswick enjoying development is Hillsboro, in Albert county, where gypsum is quarried. Last year was a most prosperous one for this industry, over 85,000 tons of crude gypsum being taken from the quarry and shipped to American ports, whilst 125,000 barrels of plaster were sent broadcast over the Dominion. Hillsboro is growing, and new public buildings of stone, besides residential and commercial structures are in process of erection or in prospect.
What has been realized in Hillsboro in connection with the plaster industry can reasonably be hoped for in the Pink Bock section, and the people were justified in having hopes and aspiration in the same direction, in order to develop this industry, in order that this gypsum quarry might be worked, it was necessary that this wharf should be enlarged and this breakwater constructed. If that were done alone for this industry, it could be justified. My hon. friend has sought to create prejudice against Mr. Osman. Well, take Mr. Osman's letters and there is not a sentence or an expression in them which does not indicate that he was simply anxious to serve the public interest by the development of this industry, and no one who knows Mr. Osman-and I appeal from one end of New Brunswick to the other-will speak of him as other than a most upright, good citizen and very able man. I am sure that my hon. friend the Mr. EMHERSON.
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) is to be congratulated oh being able to call Mr. Osman his friend. In this matter, with which I have been connected from the beginning, Mr. Osman had to be urged, in the first instance, to develop this industry at Pink Bock. Naturally, he was interested in the development of the quarries at Hillsboro. That business has been growing for years, and its character has changed. A few years ago small schooners came there and carried away their plaster. Now, large steamers are brought there and the wharfs at Hillsboro had to be reconstructed and changed in order to afford accommodation for these steamers. It must be borne in mind that the waters of the Shepody bay are not always to be seen in the river. They have a habit of slipping away and leaving the vessels high and dry on the mud banks, and it is very difficult to induce steamship owners to have their vessels lie aground. The change in the class of vessels which carry away this gypsum made it necessary to change the character of the wharf. Had there been no change in the character of the vessels, the wharf as completed in 1908 would have been amply sufficient, but since that time larger steamers have been found necessary, and it has become imperative to enlarge the wharf and give greater protection. As a matter of fact they could not induce steamers to go in there last year. The urgency of the case was such that Mr. Osman asked me to endeavour to induce the department to commence this work there and then by day labour in order that he might secure all the development of that industry at that particular place. Every letter from Mr. Osman shows him to be a man who is not working simply from selfish motives. Though the manager of the company, and naturally concerned in advancing the interests of the company, he could at the same time ask for these privileges without in any way interfering with the public interest. My hon. friend has spoken much of the charge for towing from Sodom creek to Pink Bock. If he knew the conditions as I do, he would say that the charge is only reasonable. Bemember that Sodom creek lies away over what was known as Shepody fiats, and you can only reach that creek at high water of the highest tide, and then, after you secure your load, you are kept there a tide, for you must have the top of deep high water in order to have egress from the creek. The mere matter of distance is nothing compared with the conditions, and it is these which make the charge very reasonable. My hon. friend read letters from me. I recommended a very excellent man, Mr. McFadden. He was a very good friend of mine, and I would not recommend any other. He was an excellent man, not only familiar with the construction of the wharfs and breakwaters, but also a good carpenter,

who had some 30 years' experience in the business. He was recommended as a foreman to see that this work was carried on in accord with the specifications and plans, and I venture to say that McFadden saw that the work was properly done. The original work was done under the charge of Mr. Isaac Downey.


Mr. FOSTER.: Who appointed Downey?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He was accepted as foreman by the department.


George Eulas Foster: While the work was going on?


Henry Robert Emmerson: No. The facts are these. Downey had done the work originally for the Albert Manufacturing Company. Mr. Downey is a man of many years ' experience in constructing wharfs and breakwaters on the mud flats of the Shepody river and Bay of Fundy. Mr. Osman secured him as a foreman, knowing his qualifications and ability. There is not a man at the head of the Bay of Fundy more capable in work of that character. When I was consulted, I felt it would be to the advantage of the department, if that work were carried on by day labour, to have a man of the standing and character of Mr. Downey in charge. The money was not forthcoming, and the Albert Manufacturing Company did pay it, and it was recouped to them.


George Eulas Foster: While the work was being carried on, and Mr. Downey was supervising it, was he supervising it for the company, or had he been already appointed, and was he supervising it for the department?


Henry Robert Emmerson: He was accepted as head workman for the department.


Oswald Smith Crocket: In the following year, after the payment of the two thousand dollars.
Mr. EMMERSON'. Not in connection with that; that was in connection with the first work that was done and paid for by the government The original work, the nucleus of a wharf, was constructed by the Albert Manufacturing Company, and as I understand it, that has never been paid for by the government. That is an investment that they made, that is a contribution that they made towards the development of this industry at that place, and they have never asked to be recouped. I think they might have fairly done so, I think if justice were done them in the matter of the development of this work, that amount should be recouped to them. But the additional work is being constructed, and it is proposed to build a further work, not only in the line of an L, but in the line of a breakwater to break the seas from the southwest that roll in there
from the Bay of Fundy. There are fishing establishments there, there are lumber mills, and they have never had the facilities for shipping. This is the first of the kind. There is not from the extreme point of the Cape Meranguin, which separates Chignecto basin and the Shepody basin, clear around the shores to the waters of the Dorchester river, there is not to be found any shipping facilities for eiuher stone or lumber, or agricultural products, or anything of the kind. In a distance of some 12 of 15 miles, this will be the only harbour, and will afford the only shipping facilities, or wharf facilities, or breakwater. I am sure that this is in the general interest of the country,
I am sure that it is a work that can be justified. It is not in any sense, I say it in all sincerity, a work for a private individual or a private corporation. It is not so recognized in the county of Westmorland. I make this challenge, that there is not a man on either side of politics in that section of Westmorland, either in the parishes of Dorchester or Sackville, who would hint at such a thing, much less approve the statement or the insinuation thrown out by the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) this afternoon. It is not necessary that I should defend the department; they need no defence, and if they did, the hon. the minister can attend to that part of the business. I am speaking here as a citizen of Westmorland who knows the facts and conditions, and I think it is but fair that hon. members of this committee should know the facts. There is nothing political, there is nothing savoring of favouritism to any friend, individual, or corporation.
Mr, CROCKET. It is not surprising that the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), who has been in this thing from the beginning, should attempt to defend this transaction in the House. He started out by saying that he was going to refute some of my statements, but I leave it to this committee to say whether a single statement of mine has been refuted by the hon. gentleman. It is true that he has elaborated upon the development of the industries of the province of New Brunswick, and has shown how important it is that assistance should be given to the development of such industries as that of the Albert Manufacturing Company. What has that to do with this case? My statement was that this expenditure was made for the benefit of the Albert Manufacturing Company-


Henry Robert Emmerson: And my statement was that it was made for the benefit of the people in that section of the country wherein the industry was being developed, and which could not have been developed without the construction of this wharf.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I was proceeding to say that this expenditure was made for the benefit of the Albert Manufacturing Company, and I relied for proof of that statement upon the returns which I obtained from the Department of Public Works itself. I have shown, all through the correspondence, that it was at Mr. Osman's request that the work was done; it was for the shipment of gypsum for the company and not only that, but the first expenditure that was made was made by the company themselves, and it was recouped to them out of the public treasury, for work performed entirely under Mr. Osman's direction before any inspector or contractor had been put upon it to represent the Public Works Department. So far as the member for Westmorland's statement is concerned that this wharf will be used by fishing boats in She-pody bay, that is entirely beside the question, because it is not such a wharf as would have been built for the accommodation of fishing boats. Is there any question, from the return I have read, that this wharf was built to suit the particular purposes of the Albert Manufacturing Company? I am as- anxious as any body to see industries in the province of New Brunswick developed, we are all anxious to see industries developed; but when companies are promoted to establish industries which are presumed to be profitable, is it the policy of this government to build wharfs for such companies? If that is their policy, then let us go on and grant bonuses out of the public treasury for these companies. But that has not been the policy heretofore-avowed, anyway, although it is the practice that has been adopted in many places, to make these grants for the promotion of the interests of private companies. Now my hon. friend sought, as has been sought in so many other cases, to justify this by stating that some Conservatives approved of this expenditure. I do not care whether any Conservative carried around a petition or not. The hon. gentleman sought to justify the Newmarket canal appropriation the other night, upon the ground that there was a Conservative or two in the delegation that appeared before him as Minister of Railways. Is that all the evidence this House wants to dispose of a statement of this kind, that some Conservative was in favour of the work?


Henry Robert Emmerson: That is to show that it was non-political.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have never been able to find in the returns any petition, it may be there is such a petition, but I am quite sure it is not in the return that has been brought down. Rut surely it is not enough to defend a transaction of this kind to say : that some people petitioned for it. I say 1 Mr. EMMERSON.
1 there is no manner of doubt, I make that ' statement upon the return furnished by the Department of Public Works, that the wharf extension was built primarily at the request of Mr. Osman for the benefit of the company of which he is a director, and this is what the hon. member has not been able to refute. But surely the hon. member for Westmorland does not seriously expect this House to take the statement he has made this afternoon with reference to this question as a refutation of the statements which are contained in an official return brought down by the Department of Public Works. Now my hon. friend has referred to Mr. Osman, following the line <?f his friend and successor in the Cabinet, and has spoken eulogistically of Mr. Osman.
I am not saying anything in criticism of Mr. Osman; I am criticising the Public Works Department. Mr. Osman, I assume, is like many other people-if they can get their property improved out of the public treasury they will do it, particularly if they have a pull with the minister in charge. The hon. member (Mr. Em-merson) has referred also to Mr. Downey. I was not making any reference to Mr. Downey's experience or capacity. I simply stated what the return showed-for I have my information, nor from any communication from that section but from the files of the department-that this work was carried on for the first year absolutely under the management and control of Mr. Osman and a foreman appointed by him. The expenditure was incurred in that way, much of it for supplies that appeared, from the Auditor General's Report, to have been furnished by the company itself. The accounts for these supplies were sent by the company to the Department of Public Works. Just as if the work had been carried on under the direction of the government which was not the fact. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) referred to the fact that Mr. McFadden was a very estimable gentleman. Of course, all these inspectors are very estimable gentlemen and are always able to get certi ficates of character from the member for the county and also from the minister re sponsible for the appoitment. I know nothing about Mr. McFadden except that the hon. member for Westmorland recommended him as inspector on a work long after it was begun, and that the minister of the day had him appointed as inspector and then, to suit Mr. Osman, a foreman whom he had appointed and who had carried on the work solely under his direction, was appointed as conductor or foreman of the work just as before. The engineer reported that this would be satisfactory to Mr. Osman and it was done to suit Mr. Os-

man's purposes. I read a letter asking if, when Mr. McFadden was appointed as inspector, he would go on and act the same as though a contract had been let, or act as foreman. And, though the practice is to appoint inspectors only where contracts are let, they appointed in this case Mr. McFadden the inspector to inspect the work which was going on by day's labour, with a foreman under him and a subforeman under him. So, the whole matter was worked through exactly as Mr. Osman, the friend of the Minister of Public Works, and of the hon. member for Westmorland, desired. Mr. McFadden got his job as inspector and Mr. Downey held on to his as foreman, just as before. The hon. member for Westmorland stated, and hon. members generally must have observed the statement that the company had built the wharf in the first instance at their own expense ' to develop their own property as they should have done. Why, then, should this House be called upon to furnish means to extend that property without, at least, the property being taken over and conveyed to the Crown as in other cases? I say that the transaction is indefensible, and notwithstanding the statement of the hon. member for Westmorland, is one which not only the members of the Conservative party but many Liberals in that district will disapprove. The hon. member (Mr. Emmerson) said that I could not find a man, Liberal or Conservative, in Westmorland who would find fault with this transaction. I -have many communications on this matter, from responsible people, calling my attention to the case and urging it as a case that should be brought to the attention of the House. It is very easy for the hon. member to make such sweeping statements, but those statements are not in accordance with the facts; and I believe- he knows it. In any case, the statement of the hon. member does not affect in the slightest degree the proof adduced from the official file that this work was entered upon at the request of Mr. Osman or the manufacturing company of which he is the managing director, that it was for their benefit, and that the work was carried on practically by them and under their direction and control and yet paid for out of the public treasury.


John Graham Haggart: I have listened carefully to this debate. I know nothing about whether this wharf was necessary foT the locality or whether it is only to suit private parties. What I was concerned in was the statement made by some hon. members in reference to the payment of money on the wharf. It seems that a certain sum of money was voted to be expended on a wharf in this locality. The gentleman who owns the wharf employed a foreman, Mr. Oscar Downey, to extend the wharf or make repairs upon it.


William Pugsley: Not to make repairs, but to build an addition.


John Graham Haggart: At any rate, he makes an expenditure of $2,100 upon the wharf for labour and supplies on this work. That expenditure was not under the control of the department. I would ask, is there any confirmation of the statement of the hon. member that Mr. Downey was appointed superintendent of this work by the department?


William Pugsley: Yes. I will explain, as the hon. gentleman has asked the question. When it was proposed to undertake this work by the day, Mr. Osman was requested to take steps to get material and proceed with the work, and Mr. Downey was suggested by him as foreman and approved by the department. What Mr. Osman did he did for the department, and not upon his own property or upon the property of the Albert Manufacturing Company, but upon the property of the Crown.


John Graham Haggart: My information is, as shown by the report, that $2,100 was paid out by Mr. Osman, part of which was in the payment of Mr. Oscar Downey, the foreman, and other men employed in the work, and part for supplies. Mr. Downey was confirmed by the department after the expenditure of the $2,100.


William Pugsley: I do not think that is correct. I may say, it is extremely inconvenient to argue in this Committee of the Whole matters relating to accounts which are now before the Committee on Public Accounts. It is contrary to the rules to do it. My hon. friend (Mr. Crocket), I am sure, has -been speaking of matters which do not appear even in the copy of the papers which he has submitted to the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson). I have looked them over carefully and find no statements to corroborate what he has said. The hon. member must have got some information from the examination of accounts which are now before the Public Accounts Committee. In that committee, witnesses can be called and the facts brought out. It is exceedingly inconvenient to discuss the matter when we have not the facts before us. I am sure that my hon. friend from South Lanark (Mr._ John Hag-gart) will see that. It is exceedingly, inconvenient to me, because my attention has not been called to the matter. It seems to me that the Committee on Public Accounts, to which these accounts have been referred, is the place where these matters should be discussed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: As to the statement of the minister that these things do not appear in the papers, I have the letter of Mr. COMMONS
Geoffrey Stead in which he makes the statement specifically that this expenditure was made by Mr. Osman, that Downey had been appointed by him, and that the accounts, aggregating upwards of $2,000, he had sent to the department to be paid, and a subsequent letter asking that the work he allowed to go on in that way.


William Pugsley: Am I not right in this, that in the copy of the papers which the hon. gentleman handed over to the hon. member for Westmorland there is no account contained?


Oswald Smith Crocket: The account itself is not there, but he says in his letter that he is inciosing the amount, and here is the account in the Auditor General's Report. Mr. Downey was not appointed until after the expenditure was incurred and paid by the department.


John Graham Haggart: Here is an expenditure of $2,100 paid in some way by the department. There must have been collusion between some of the officials, or the accounts could not have passed the Auditor General's Department. An improper payment comes under the criminal law. Any party can be prosecuted and punished for the payment of any sum of money out of the treasury of the country in such a manner as this has been paid. The Auditor General's Report would lead you to believe that this $2,100 was paid in the ordinary form. The Auditor General must have believed that Downey and the other parties were employed under the direction of the Public Works Department, and their payment authorized in the regular way, o.r he never would have paid the account. If this account is paid, it was because he was deceived by the Department of Public Works, or by some one who gave him the information. The point I want to emphasize is the improper payment of this sum of money. It is claimed that Mr. Oscar Downey was appointed before the expenditure was made. If he was paid before, why does Mr. Osman pay him. his wages? Why does he not come to the Department of Public Works for payment? Here we have the payment of the accounts of private individuals amounting to $2,100, and what I object to


William Pugsley: The payment to Downey and others does appear in the Auditor General's Report. I find in the report:
Conductor, Oscar Downey, 32 days at $2.50, $80.


John Graham Haggart: Exactly. It appears in the Auditor General's Report as a payment by the Crown to these individuals, when the fact is, if the statement of my, hon. friend from York is correct, the payment'was made by Mr. Osman before Mr. Stead issued the instructions from the de-Mr. CROCKET.
partment to commence the work. I am protesting against the irregularity of this payment. I am not saying whether this public work is necessary or not, because I am not acquainted with the locality. An expenditure for the benefit of a private individual may benefit to a large extent the country around. I am not criticising that at all, but what I am criticising is the expenditure of money voted by this House in the manner in which it has been expended by the Public WoTks Department.


William Pugsley: I think perhaps I ought to say a few words in reply to my hon. friend. I do appeal to him, and I ask him whether he has any facts before him, or are there any facts before this committee,' which would warrant him in saying that there has been some criminal conduct on the part of the officials of the department?


Mr.   J.@: HAGGiART. Yes.	i


William Pugsley: Has my hon. friend seen the accounts?


John Graham Haggart: I saw the accounts in the Auditor General's Report.


William Pugsley: Here is the Auditor General's statement:
Pink Rock, Shepody bay, New Brunswick: Extension of Wharf.
Inspector, G. S. McFadden, services
during May and June, 29 days at
$2.50	$	72 50
Conductor, Oscar Downey, 32 days at
$2.50	 80 00
Sub-conductor, Warren Downey:	10
days at $2; 4-in. planks, 10,477 ft. at $12; 10x10 hemlock, 1,728 ft. at $13; ballast, 44 -3 yds. at 80c.; scow and 2 men, 19 days at $8; sundry
outlay, $1.50	 357	14
Carpenters, 88:4 days at $2, 91 at $1.75 ; labourers, 24 days at $2,
237:5 at $1.50	 740	30
Albert Mfg. Company: rd. hemlock timber, 43,429 ft. at $9; sq. spruce and hemlock, 10,054 ft. at $13; bolts,
3,866 lb. at 4c.; towing timber, 13 rafts at $12; sundries, $41.54 .. ..	873 74
Small payments: rope, 20 lb. at 18c.,
110 at 16c.; spikes, 3 kegs for $10.50;
sundries, $5.11	
36	81King's Printer	
17	25

Let me ask my hon. friend what there is either in this account or in the copy of the papers which the hon. member for York has produced that shows that there is a single false or erroneous statement as to the expenditure or payment?


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman seems to have misunderstood what I said. This $2,100 was expended by a private individual on that wharf before instructions were issued by the department for the commencement of the work.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken.


John Graham Haggart: Well, then, there is a letter read by my hon. friend from York! in which Mr. Osman sends these accounts to the department and asks for the payment of them.


William Pugsley: I know my hon. friend is wrong in this


John Graham Haggart: Let us hear how I am mistaken.	1


William Pugsley: When he says that this work was undertaken by Mr. Osman without the consent of the Department of Public Works.


John Graham Haggart: There is no evidence of the department's consent.


William Pugsley: I beg my hon. friend's' pardon; there is. It is contained in the copy of a letter from Mr. Osman, which is on file, and which the hon. member for York had the opportunity of reading, but which he did not read. In that letter Mr. Osman asks to be relieved from the duty and that somebody be appointed to take charge of the work. My hon. friend from Lanark perhaps could not be expected to take the trouble to examine that letter. Perhaps he thought that he could rely on the statement made by the hon. member, for York.


Oswald Smith Crocket: So he could.


William Pugsley: If he had taken the trouble to read these papers he would have seen the statement that Osman, who had been authorized to take charge of these works, prayed to be relieved of the work and asked that somebody else be appointed to take charge of it.


John Graham Haggart: Will you state another instance in the history of the department in which the owner of a wharf was told to go on with the extension of that wharf, hire labourers and do it at the expense of the government?


William Pugsley: There is where my hon. friend has been misled again. My hon. friend treats it as if this extension were on the property of Mr. Osman, that it was work which was being done for Mr. Osman, or for Mr. Osman's company. As to this my hon. friend is entirely mistaken. When I became Minister of Public Works I found these facts:	The Albert Manufacturing
Company had built a wharf 225 feet in length and 20 feet in width. I found that there had been a petition presented on behalf of the residents of Rock Port, Hard Ledge, Grand Anse and Pink Rock, in Westmorland, representing that this wharf should be extended and that greater accommodation and greater facilities should
be given to the public. I found that petition had been presented by the hon. member for Westmorland, who had urged very strongly that this improvement should be made. Now, then, I determined that I would act upon the request of these petitioners, and I may say that as long ago as 1906 or 1907, before I became Minister of Public Works, there appeared an appropriation in the estimates for this purpose. I decided to carry that out. It was supposed that the cost would be $13,000 or $14,000 or $15,000. Mr. Osman was of the opinion that by making. a short extension of some 47 feet the necessary public accommodation would be got, and he suggested that instead of going to the larger expenditure we should make this smaller expenditure. What did we do before we undertook it? I felt that it was not proper that we should make any extension or addition to this wharf unless we had control over it on behalf of the Crown. Mr. Osman, on behalf of the Albert Manufacturing Company, did not feel that they should deed to the Crown, free of charge, this large wharf, 225 feet in length, "and in the end this agreement was made. My hon. friend will find it in the copy of papers submitted to the House. What was the agreement? It-was that the Albert Manufacturing Company should give to the public a free right of way over this wharf and that the Crown should be entitled to collect wharfage from all vessels except the company's vessels using this wharf, and that, so far as this 225 feet was concerned, the company bound itself for all time to keep that part of the wharf in repair and as a return for that use of their wharf it was agreed that the company should be free from wharfage so far as the government wharf and the old wharf were concerned.


Mr. SPROULE.: Is it an agreement of purchase and sale?


William Pugsley: It is a very good agreement from the standpoint of the Crown. The result was that instead of paying out iany money for the 225 feet of wharf the Crown gets it for nothing; it builds its end as an addition and the public get a free ,right of way over the other part, which the company keeps in repair, and all the Crown .does is to build the extension.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there a conveyance to the Crown or only an agreement ,of the two parties to the contract that one shall do certain things and the other certain other things?


William Pugsley: It is a conveyance of an interest, a free right of way to the public over this whaTf.


Oswald Smith Crocket: A conveyance of a right of way?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There is an agreement?


William Pugsley: It gives a free right of way.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And the right to charge wharfage on all other vessels except their own?


William Pugsley: Yes, not only vessels lying at the new wharf, but lying at the old wharf, except those of the company.
Mr. hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) with that unhappy faculty he has of seeing something suspicious in everything which is done by a political opponent, suggests this extraordinary fact that Mr. Osman after it had been supposed it would be necessary to build a wharf which would cost $15,000, actually suggests it would be well to reduce it and bring the cost within the appropriation of $5,000 for that year. And so, said the hon. member, that that work might not only go on at once and be done by day labour-


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is what the correspondence says.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend knew perfectly well that Mr. Osman gives an explanation in one of the letters he had in his hand. He said that at that time he supposed the extension of 47 feet would be sufficient by dredging out a berth for the vessels beside the wharf, and that it would not be necessary to go to the further expense, but he says that the masters of three ships which the company had chartered to load plaster refused to go to the wharf because it was not extended out far enough and did not afford sufficient shelter, and that is the reason and the only reason why the plans were afterwards changed, and we went back to the original design to build out 75 feet and also build a breakwater to make a safe harbour. And yet with the copies of the letters in his hand, the hon. member thought it was proper to make the insinuation-


Oswald Smith Crocket: I read the very letter.
Mr. PUGSLEY

and that is the time
I was obliged to ask the hon. member to raise his voice so that we on this side of the House could hear him.


George Eulas Foster: Could the minister give the dates when the extension was asked, when the department decided to carry out the extension of the work, when the work commenced, and when Mr. Downey was appointed?


William Pugsley: I have not all these particulars now but can procure the dates. The application was made in 1906; the project was submitted to the chief engineer to build an extension on July 30, 1906. The work was begun in 1907, and 1908 when I think it was decided to build only the 47 foot extension.


William Pugsley: 


George Eulas Foster: When was that order given.


William Pugsley: Some time in the fiscal year 1907.


George Eulas Foster: These dates will tell the whole story.


William Pugsley: Later on, I think in the following year, it was decided to build the extension when it was represented by Mr. Osman that vessel owners had refused to come to the wharf. I think the reasons given by Mr. Osman were amply sufficient and that we were justified in deciding to make the extension because it would be useless to expend that money unless the public could be accommodated. I do not iutend to go into the details of these accounts beyond saying that it will be found there is a letter from Mr. Osman, in which, speaking of the timber, he says that if the timber is cut off the company's land it will be got at a lower cost than elsewhere, and I am sure that those who know Mr. Osman will corroborate what the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) has said that he would not have any desire that he or his company should make a dollar out of supplying timber or anything else for this wharf.
I invite members of the committee who feel an interest in this matter to take the account to be found at page V-187 of the Auditor General's Report and look at the prices charged and then determine whether or not any excessive price has been paid. I find that for hemlock, 10 x 10, we paid $13 a thousand. I think no one will say that that is not a reasonable, that it is not a cheap price.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is not the price that is paid but the principle, the man buying from himself.


William Pugsley: Round hemlock timber at $9 a thousand. I venture to say $3 a thousand less than it could be bought from any one else. Square spruce and hemlock, 1,054 feet at $13. No one will say that is not a reasonable and fair price. It does seem to me that when you bear in mind that Mr. Osman undertook this work at the request of the responsible head of the department, that he undertook it, as we then thought, in the public interest and that it is not suggested that a single dollar has been paid beyond a fair and reasonable price, and when it is remembered that every account was certified to by the resident engineer in the usual way that the prices were fair and reasonable, I do not see what my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) has to complain of. He says that this is a sample of what is going on in New Brunswick. Let me say to my hon. friend that if he is not able to produce any stronger testimony that

there is any improper expenditure on the part of the department he will make but little headway in the province from which we both come, and where we are both reasonably well known. I see nothing in this account in regard to which any reflection can be made on the department.
Just a word in regard to another suggestion made in reference to myself. He thought it necessary in the discussion of this item to go a good many miles away to Dalhousie in the county of Restigouche, and to state that the Department of Public Works was dredging out and improving a wharf property which belonged to the Dalhousie Lumber Company of which I happen to be a shareholder. I can appeal to my hon. friend who represents the county of Restigouche (Mr. Reid), a gentleman who stands as high as any other member of this House, as to whether or not the dredging work which was done there was done solely for the benefit of the Dalhousie Lumber Company. The dredge employed by the department was doing the work of improving the harbour of Dalhousie. Well, it is not my fault that I happen to be interested in the Dalhousie Lumber Company. It happened that some years ago I did take some stock in that company. It is my misfortune that, as I have made a little money from time to time, I have not laid it up in savings banks or bought bonds with it, but have invested it in industrial enterprises and in property in different parts of the country. Let me give to my hon. friend a pointer of which he may avail himself when we come to discuss harbour improvements for the city of St. John. Let me tell him that I happen to own property in that city, and he can make as strong a point in regard to the improvements there as he does in regard to the improvements in the port of Dalhousie. From the fact of my owning property in the city of St. John, improvements made in that port will to a certain extent benefit my property as that of every other citizen of that city. Let me give him another pointer. I happen to own property in the Northwest, and when my hon. friend goes back to his constituents, let him tell the people in the back country that all this development which the Minister of Public Works is seeking jointly with his colleagues to bring about in the Northwest, is really going to confer a benefit upon him, and thht it is a dreadful thing that he should be interested in properties in various sections of the country which are likely to be benefited by the development which is taking place. But let me tell my hon. friend I am not going to stop making improvements in my department wherever I can develop trade, improve the facilities for doing business, make the people more prosperous and enable them to carry on their undertakings to better advantage, because those improvements may indirectly benefit myself as one interested in the community where the work is going on or having some interest in the country at large.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister in reply to a statement made by the hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. Haggart) asked what evidence there was that the $2,018.96 set out in the Auditor General's Report had not been paid in the regular way to the parties therein named. I have already laid before the committee the evidence from the files of the department, namely, a letter from Geoffrey Stead of the 13th of May, 1908, in which he incloses the company's account, amounting to the very sum set out in the Auditor General's Report, and calls attention to the fact that the expenditure was made by the company who were asking the payment to be made to themselves.


William Pugsley: In this very return which my hon. friend had in his hand, does not Mr. Osman say that he had undertaken this work at the request of the minister, and then asks to be relieved of it and to have some one else take it?


Oswald Smith Crocket: If there is such a statement, it did not come under my notice. It is entirely new to me that Mr. Osman was asked by the Department of Public Works to construct the extension of their own wharf. If he was, it is very much worse than the case already presented. If the Department of Public Works, without calling for tenders, simply authorized the owner of the wharf to huild an extension of his own wharf, and placed the matter absolutely in his control, how is it that the account is set out as it is in the Auditor General's Report? Surely the minister must be mistaken, because if Mr. Osman had authority to do that, the payment would appear as made to him. There is no question, from the return brought down, that this money was expended by Mr. Osman or by the company of which he is managing director, and that account was forwarded to the Public Works Department, and was paid out of the public treasury just as if the work had been constructed under the direction and supervision of the department. The minister has taken occasion to refer to the statement I made in reference to the dredging that was done at Dalhousie, and has stated that he is the owner of considerable property at St. John and in the Northwest, and that there would be just as much justification in my making the statement that he was benefited by the expenditure of his department in the city of St. John and in the Northwest as at Dalhousie. Surely the minister does not expect to deceive this House by such a

statement as that. At Dalhousie the dredging was done in front of and beside the wharf of the Dalhousie Lumber Company of which the minister is a stockholder, while other work was neglected.


William Pugsley: What other work was neglected?


Oswald Smith Crocket: The dredge was employed month after month in 1908 and in 1909 dredging at the wharf of the Dalhousie Lumber Company, while the dredging at the deep-water public wharf was neglected to the detriment of the public interest.


William Pugsley: I just wish to tell my hon. friend-and if the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Reid) be here, he will corroborate me that no other work of equal or greater importance has been neglected. I know that the Dalhousie Lumber Company ships from fifteen to twenty five million feet of lumber every year. They have a large mill and employ quite a large number of people. I do happen to know that they have an enemy there, a man who tried to block their enterprise from the time they started, and who is allied politically to the hon. member for York. He is possibly the man from whom my hon. friend has been getting certain information, but I can assure the committee that it has never been brought to my notice that any dredging of any kind in the harbour was of more importance to the public interest generally than the dredging done since I have been Minister of Public Works.
Pointe du Chene, New Brunswick-repairs to and stone slope along base of breakwater, $3,000.


William Pugsley: This is the point of connection between the railway and the island steamers. This is work which has to be done every year.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much was spent last year?


William Pugsley: I have reason to suppose that the whole $5,000 has either already been spent or will be spent by the 31st March next. That is the estimate of the chief engineer.
Quaco harbour-part reconstruction and extension of east pier, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This includes reconstruction of the head block of the pier at the east side of the entrance, also an extension of the pier, and a further length of sixty feet of crib-work.


George Eulas Foster: What will be the whole
cost?


William Pugsley: About $50,000.


George Eulas Foster: What is the business done there now?


Oswald Smith Crocket: 


William Pugsley: General business-lumber, fish, manufacturing, and this is required as a harbour of refuge.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the work under contract?


William Pugsley: Yes, to Charleson and Burns of Ottawa. The amount of contract is $32,900.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much has been paid on account?


William Pugsley: There was expended to the 31st September, 1909, $25,633.
Richibucto Cape-breakwater wharf, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is for building a breakwater about six miles above the mouth of the river. The breakwater is 375 feet long, of which 225 feet is 15 feet wide and 150 feet is 20 feet wide; pier head 200 feet long on the inside face, and 30 feet long. The inside face is 25 feet in width. Crib-work estimated 220,000 cubic feet. Cost $17,600 when completed. Total estimated cost with contingencies $20,000. The expenditure last year was $9,080, we expect to spend this fiscal year $5,000, and are asking $5,000 more, making a total of $19,118.


George Eulas Foster: What public purpose will this work serve?


William Pugsley: It will afford safe anchorage and- give a landing place at a point nearest to a very valuable fishing ground. It will be the best harbour of refuge in that vicinity. It is also the centre of a good farming country. The yearly catch of lobsters is about $15,000 to $16,000 and herring about $12,000. There are forty-one boats engaged in the fishing industry, and they require a harbour of refuge.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was not the work done last year, completely washed away?


William Pugsley: I have no intimation to that effect.


Oswald Smith Crocket: My information is that the whole work done last year was completely washed away by a storm, and furthermore that the work done the year before was washed away last year.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is misinformed entirely.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have a letter to that effect. The work of last year was completely destroyed by a storm, and every year's work is regularly swept away the following year, so that this expenditure is simply a waste of public money. This letter was written very shortly after the stomi occurred. If the department wants to construct something, it would do better to

take a large appropriation and put up something that will stand the test of the weather and not go on making these expenditures from year to year to no purpose. This is like other expenditures made in that county-simply to put into the handis of political heelers public money. The object of the appropriation seems to be more for the purpose of circulating money among those who are doing party service than for any public benefit. It is very remarkable, if this work has been swept away by a recent storm, that the department has not heard of it. Although in one sense it is not so surprising, since the work has been in the hands of the persons who have been desirous of seeing it carried1 on simply for the purpose of participating in the expenditure. Mr. J. D. Irving has also been receiving large amounts of money on account of this work. Reference has been made, to the fact that this same gentleman has been drawing $2 a day for a scow worth $50. He had been receiving that rental year after year, for a scow which cost hmi $150; in four years he has received over $600 rent from the government. This same gentleman has been selling hemlock stumpage for the purpose of this work. I understand the logs are cut by men employed by the government, and paid by the government, and Mr. Irving receives $4 for what he pays the local government 40 cents for. The men employed by the government do all the cutting and do all the work that is involved in the removal of the logs, which means that he gets $4 for stumpage for which he pays only 40 cents to the government.	.


William Pugsley: I hope my hon. friend will seek to verify the statements, which may come to him from time to time. I am sure he has been the victim of a good deal of exaggeration. Now he made a similar statement with regard to Richibucto Cape some days ago, and my deputy informs me that he has made inquiry and he finds my hon. friend was entirely misinformed with regard to it; and he is not unlikely to have been misinformed also with regard to the breakwater at Richibucto Cape. We have no information in the department that the breakwater has been washed away. With regard to Mr. Irving selling material for a breakwater, I make the same remark. This is before the Public Accounts Committee. It appears in the reports of 1908, and if the hon. gentleman thinks that too much money has been paid to Mr. Irving or anybody else, I would invite him to have witnesses before the Public Accounts Committee to that effect.


Oswald Smith Crocket: With regard to the statement I made, I received it from the largest property owner at Richibucto Cape


William Pugsley: What is the name?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Mr. Richard O'Leary. He would have more interest in this work than any one else.


William Pugsley: Is that the gentleman who wrote that letter to Mr. Waterbury?


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is the same Mr. O'Leary, from whom Thomas O. Murray bought the sawdust wharf for $700, to sell to the government for $5,000.


William Pugsley: A wharf in Tespect of which no man from Richibucto, with the exception of Richard O'Leary, could be produced and swear that the property was not worth $5,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I do not propose to discuss the Richibucto wharf now, we will have occasion to discuss that in more detail later on-. But the minister asked me to verify these statements. I have made statements here in reference to expenditures in Kent county, based upon information received from that county. I have afterwards had the opportunity of examining witnesses, upon oath, in reference to those statements, and in every case, I may say the information which I had received was completely borne out by sworn evidence, even though some of it had to be extracted from unwilling witnesses. Unfortunately when Mr. Irving was on the stand, I omitted to question him about the item of hemlock stumpage, but I have no doubt had I done so, my information in this matter would also have been verified.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 113)1 respecting the Manitoulin and North Shore Railway Company.-Mr. Tolmie.
On section 2,-time for construction of railway, Sudbury to Little Current, ex-i tended.
Mr. W. R. SMYTH.: I opposed this section as it was introduced in committee. My reason for doing so was that I thought the time should be made in accordance with the provisions of a Bill passed in the Ontario legislature, at its session of last year, relating to this company, which limited the time for the completion of the entire line from Sudbury to Little Current to not later than the 31st of December, 1911. Before the committee I urged the modification of the Bill, and the promoters, I am glad to-say, saw the reasonableness of my contention and acceded to the view that the time-should be extended only two years. I make this remark because of the fact that in a

newspaper that published the proceedings of that committee it is stated that I opposed the granting of the extension for two years and wished to have it made three years.1 Of course, exactly the reverse was the case.
On section 12,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it intended that they should be controlled by the Railway Act with regard to the commencement and completion of the railway? There is nothing in the Bill as to when they shall commence.


George Perry Graham: That is covered by the General Railway Act.


Mr. SAM. SHARPE.: Would not that include the bridge and tunnel as well?


George Perry Graham: The Railway Act might not cover the bridge and tunnel.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Is there a clause declaring this to be a work for the general advantage of Canada?


George Perry Graham: No, this is a new charter. There is provision in the Railway Act that they shall commence within two years, complete within five and make an expenditure of fifteen per cent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about it being declared a work for the general advantage of Canada? It crosses from Quebec to Ontario, and you do not give it any powers of amalgamation.


George Perry Graham: There is a difference of opinion as to the necessity of that, particularly with reference to a new charter. I do not think it makes a great deal of difference whether you declare it to be a work for the general advantage of Canada or not. If you were taking over a provincial road and making it a Dominion road it might be necessary to declare it, but we are giving a new charter, and I do not think it is necessary to make such a declaration.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose we chartered a short road within a province, would you reregard the fact that we were giving it a federal charter as bringing it under the provision which would declare it to be a work for the general advantage of Canada without saying so? The giving of a federal charter does not make it a work for the general advantage of Canada. Its crossing from one province to another might probably do that, but the giving of a federal charter would not.


Mr. LENNOX.: In the British North America Act I think it is declared that a work which is interprovincial, is, without any declaration whatever, a work for the genera] advantage of Canada. Where it is not clear we may make a declaration when we find the facts warrant it. In this case it would not appear to be necessary.


George Perry Graham: There is apparently a good deal of difference of opinion among Mr. W. R. SMYTH.
legal gentlemen as to the necessity of making a declaration even when a road is all in one province and where we are giving it a Dominion charter. We have been in the habit, where it was in one province, of declaring it to be for the general advantage of Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We do that where it is crossing two or three provinces as well.


George Perry Graham: When we are taking over a provincial undertaking we always do it.


Haughton Lennox: We do it lots of times, any way, whether it is necessary or not.


George Perry Graham: Yes. There is a question whether it is necessary or not, but perhaps it gives greater security.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I think we do it uniformly in almost every Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In almost every Bill, and it seems to me that it would be better to adopt one principle or the other. If it is unnecessary to say so we should keep it out of all; if it is necessarv to say so in all we should put it in all.


George Perry Graham: As there is a difference among legal men concerning it, the question might be raised when the company went to finance its road that there might be some trouble between the provincial and the federal jurisdiction. When the clause is in there cannot be any difference of opinion.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What supervision will the department have with regard to the construction of the bridge? It might interfere with navigation.


George Perry Graham: Under the Act no bridge can be constructed over a navigable stream until the plans are submitted to the Department of Public Works.
Bill reported, and read the third timd and passed.


WESTERN POWER COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 86) respecting the Western Power Company, Limited.-Mr. J. D. Taylor.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: I would ask that the Bill stand.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: The language of this Bill, as it is reported by the Railway Committee, seems to be unusual and objectionable. The frame in which the Bill is cast presents, to my mind, still more objectionable characteristics, and I should hope that it would be possible to meet the views of the promoters without adopting this form of legislation. The situation is that this Western Power Company is incorporated under letters patent of the Dominion. I have not seen the letters patent and they are not recited with any fullness
,3433

in the preamble of the statute, but I assume that the reason for obtaining? letters patent to incorporate this company from the Dominion, was that its operations were not intended to be limited to any one province. At the present time all the operations of the company, I understand, are within the territorial limits of British Columbia.
What the company desires is to obtain power to carry on in connection with its undertaking the construction and operation of a line of railway or tramway, with the accompanying telegraph or telephone lines, for some 6 or 10 miles, between the powerhouse and other works of the company. The way in which it is proposed to accomplish that purpose by this Bill is to authorize the company to lay out, construct and operate these proposed additional works, as the company may from time to time be authorized to do so by the legislature of British Columbia. In other words, the form which this proposed legislation takes is that parliament here should empower this company, its own creature, to take powers from the provincial legislature such as that legislature might choose to confer upon it. I think that would be an altogether anomalous, and to a great extent a contradictory proceeding. My idea is that when any company is incorporated by this parliament, no matter for what purpose, that company must thenceforward look to this parliament alone for any legislation it may need for the purposes of its undertaking. Certainly no provincial legislature could diminish or cut down the powers which this parliament might confer upon a company which it incorporates. No more could it extend such powers. This parliament, having created a corporate body, this parliament alone, in my opinion, must thenceforward have legislative jurisdiction with regard to that corporate body. This company, it is true, was not incorporated by special legislation of this parliament; but it is to all intents and purposes in the same position, having been incorporated by letters patent of the Dominion; and in my view it. is a matter of propriety, if it is not a question of jurisdiction, whether any other legislature than thi^ could give to the company so brought into existence any enabling legislation. However, that may be, if I am wrong in that view, and if it can be that a company incorporated under Dominion authority may still receive something in the way of additional powers from a provincial legislature, it would certainly be improper that we should authorize the granting of such additional powers by a provincial legislature without knowing beforehand what those powers were to be-that we should confirm before-109
hand, as it were, and without seeing what we were confirming, legislation hereafter to be passed by some provincial body. The Bill as it comes before us proposes that this parliament should empower the company in question to lay out, construct and operate railway lines according as the company may from time to time be authorized so to do by the provincial legislature. I think we certainly ought not to legislate in the dark, and to. empower a company to operate lines that we know nothing about, and that may or may not be of such a character as would commend themselves to this parliament if the particulars of the proposition were before the House for consideration. In that situation I certainly should press that this legislation receive further consideration, and that it should be studied by those who are promoting this Bill, with a view to finding some other shape in which the company which desires this additional power should be given it than in this particular form, which to my mind has so many objectionable features.


Mr. BARKER.: I think the Minister of Justice did not hear what I am told was said by the gentleman whose name is on the back of the Bill, that he was willing to allow it to stand. I think we all, after what we have heard, would desire the promoters to consider the matter further before the final discussion on the Bill. I say that more particularly because some years ago I took similar objection to a Bill introduced by a gentleman on the other side of the House who wanted powers adopted by this parliament which had been conferred by the provincial legislature, and who rather objected to our inquiry as to what those powers were. I objected to it very strongly, and in the sub-committee on that Bill I was found fault with because I did so. The question was afterwards submitted to the Prime Minister, who found, on looking into the whole question, that the powers asked for were so objectionable that the Bill had to be withdrawn. I do not kntnv anything about the merits of this particular Bill; but having taken that stand at that time, I agree with the Minister of Justice that we ought to be careful, and I understand that the hon. gentleman whose name is on this Bill is willing that it should stand.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I took practically the same objection before the Railway Committee as that taken by the Minister of Justice to-night, and my suggestion was that the Bill should be referred to a sub-committee, having in mind the very Bill referred to by my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker). It seemed to me that would expedite the passage of the Bill, and I think it would expedite it now to refer the Bill



back to the Kailway Committee rather than to allow it to stand on the order paper.


James Davis Taylor: I did suggest, before the discussion commenced, that this Bill should stand. My object 'being to make just such an arrangement as has been suggested. I may say that the promoters of this Bill are in the rather embarrassing position of the old gentleman in the fable who tried to please everybody and pleased nobody. I hope the same result will not follow. The object of the promoters is very simple and very innocent. They have, as has been stated, a charter under the Companies Act, and they are dealing with power secured from the federal government. They want to construct and operate a tramway which is essential to the carrying on of their construction works. Their whole desire is to arrive at that object in the simplest way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why do you not give them power to build under a federal charter?


James Davis Taylor: I may say that when this Bill was before the Railway Committee, the suggestion was that they should be empowered to build such lines as they might be authorized to construct by legislative or other competent authority, and with the desire to satisfy the committee, that was changed to read 'under the authority of the legislature of British Columbia'. AH that the company desire is that they may be put in the position that any private individual would be in who had money enough to build that railway. Such private individual would not require to come to this parliament at all; but this being a corporate company, and not being empowered to engage in the construction or operation of railways, they took this step. I may say that I entirely concur in the suggestion of the Minister of Justice that the Bill should stand in order that an arrangement satisfactory to everybody may be arrived at.


Mr. CONMEE.: I think there are other objections. It would create a precedent that I think should not be created.. We give to this company power for all time to get such additional powers as the legislature may give to them. It is true, the legislature may guard the public interest, but the undertaking is entirely out of the control of this parliament. The Board of Railway Commissioners have not that control over it that they have over other lines. I think the best plan would be for the promoter of the Bill to refer it back to the Railway Committee to deal with it as was suggested in that committee before.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: An amendment to the clause has been drawn by the promoters Mr. EMMERSON.
and has been submitted to my hon. friendf the Minister of Justice, and I believe it is satisfactory to him. It practically strikes out the whole of clause 1 and enacts that subject to the provisions of the Railway Act the company may lay out, construct! and operate a line of railway. They also insert the usual clause which makes this practically a railway Bill, declaring it to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. Perhaps the minister will express an opinion on the proposed amendment, as I understand he will not be here next week.
Mr. AYLESW7ORTH. This proposition, so far as the form of the legislation is concerned, is entirely free from the objections which I have just been suggesting to the Bill as it came from the committee, and so far as the merits of the legislation go, I have no word of objection to offer to the company obtaining the additional powers it desires. With reference, however, to the proposal to insert in the Bill the declaration that the undertaking of the company is a work for the general advantage of Canada, that is a declaration which I think we are all agreed had better be sparingly made. With regard to a company which is incorporated by the Dominion, I cannot see how it has any appropriate place. It is, of course, only this parliament which can make that declaration. No provincial legislature can make it. This parliament must be its own judge of the propriety of making that declaration with regard to any undertaking; but the whole effect of making it is that from the time it is made, no other body than this parliament has any power to legislate with reference to that particular company. Therefore, it is a declaration which it is appropriate enough to make when we are transferring some provincial undertaking to our jurisdiction, but which has no propriety whatever in the case of a company which we are incorporating, and which, therefore, never was under any. other jurisdiction than that of this parlia-t ment. I cannot see any use that it has, because without it any legislation which this company was at any time to obtain would have to be obtained from this parliament, because it is a Dominion company, and if it is useless and inappropriate, I scarcely see the object of inserting it even though it might be unobjectionable.


Samuel Barker: I hesitate to say a word, against the opinion expressed by the Minister of Justice, but there seems to me to be this question involved in what he has just said. We sometimes pass Acts of parliament relating to companies; with power to construct railways wholly within a province, almost local concerns; but we have been in the habit, a very bad one, I think, of taking a railway which upon the face of the charter is a local railway under thd

jurisdiction of a province, and removing it to the jurisdiction of the Dominion, by simply declaring it to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. We have done that deliberately, wantonly, and, if I were to use a legal term, I might say maliciously. If we are to understand that' hereafter no Bill shall pass the Railway Committee merely because these magical words are put into it, and that every applicant for a railway charter shall he required to show that the railway is a work for the general advantage of Canada, I should be very glad to know that and to follow it up, But I am afraid we shall have to go back a great deal on the legislation that we have been enacting in the past, and will have to forget that for years we have been creating corporations to build railways that we have no right whatever to deal with.


James Conmee: Do I understand the hon. member to contend that this parliament has not the right to incorporate a railway within a province unless we declare it to be a work for the general advantage of Canada?


Samuel Barker: I assert, without a shadow of doubt, that again and again we have taken upon ourselves in this parliament to deal with undertakings which we have no more right to deal with than the declaration of faith. We have been creating companies to construct railways over which we have no right or jurisdiction whatever, and have enabled ourselves to do that by declaring the work to be for the general advantage of Canada.


James Conmee: Suppose we gave a
charter without making that declaration?


Samuel Barker: In many cases it would not be worth the paper it is written on.


James Conmee: I do not agree with you.


George Perry Graham: Possibly I may be
charged with being somewhat of a sinner in that respect, but there is only one body I know of in Canada which really regulates the rates of railways, and that is the Board of Railway Commissioners, and it has been my desire, so far as possible, to bring any railway that was going to do any kind of general traffic under that board. A question has been raised as to jurisdiction, but my standpoint is to get the greatest beneiit to the public; and wherever it is possible to have a railway doing a general traffic brought under the control of the board, I shall go as far as I can to have that done.


Mr. ROCHE.: There are provincial boards.


George Perry Graham: They have not regulated many rates so far.


William James Roche: They are created for that purpose.
109 J


George Perry Graham: The Board of Railway Commissioners are doing good work along that line. I am under the impression that a decision or an opinion has been given recently that it is questionable whether the board has the right to regulate the traffic, even if it be through traffic, when the charter was granted by a province. If that be the case, we ought, whenever possible, to bring these railways under federal jurisdiction and get control of their rates and operations.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you not think that, under our authority to control trade and commerce, we would have the right to build a railway between two points, though both were in one province, to carry on a through route trade? We have specifically provided that we shall have control of trade and commerce; and it seems to me, from the arguments I have heard, over and over again, in this House by very eminent legal men, such as the Hon. Edward Blake and the late Hon. David Mills, that we have a perfect right to build a railway anywhere, even if it were only five miles long and in the centre of a province.
Progress reported.
CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS. [DOT]
Bill (No. 110) respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-* Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 97) respecting the Pacific and Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Tolmie.
Bill (No. 90) respecting the Central Ontario railway.-Mr. Stratton.
Bill (No. 107) to incorporate the Ottawa, Montreal and Eastern Railway Company. -Mr. Gladu.	[DOT]


SECOND READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 136) respecting the St. Clair and Erie Ship Canal Company.-Mr. McColl.
Bill (No. 137) respecting the Erie, London and Tillsonburg Railway Company.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Richibncto wharf-reconstruction of approach and headblock, $5,000.
['I do not see why we should use one phraseology as regards railway Bills and another phraseology as regards private Bills of this kind, and I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.\nProgress reported.']
William Pugsley: This amount is required to make further provision toward the repairs necessary to render safe this wharf which was purchased from the municipality of the county. It was purchased for $1,500, but was not in good state of repairs. The total estimated cost of the improvements is $11,500. Expended in 1908-9, $2,299, and there will be expended to the 31st March next, $3,156, and we are asking now $5,000, leaving $1,000 more to complete the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is not intended to complete it during the present year?


William Pugsley: We could not do so unless we asked an item in the supplementary estimates. We may possibly do that.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I would like to know from the minister if it is the intention to continue Thos. O. Murray as the foreman of this work?


William Pugsley: It is too far ahead to determine as to that. We shall not determine it until toward the spring _ when we make our preparations for continuing the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The reason I ask is that, Thomas 0. Murray, I have no hesitation in saying, perpetrated a fraud upon the public treasury as conductor of that work. We have the proof of the fact that Mr. Murray, when conductor of the work, sent in a bill to the government for 60,000 feet of logs in the name of John Dumas, at $12 per 1,000 feet, half of which he purchased from Richard O'Leary, of Richi-bucto-


William Pugsley: I call my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) to order, Mr. Chairman. If the committee have finished and made their report, he can discuss the matter, but while it is before the Public Accounts Committee, I submit, it is not in order to discuss it here. Certainly it is very inconvenient to attempt to discuss it here for we have not the papers. I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Allow me to say, Mr. Chairman, that if the minister takes that ground the item will havff to stand.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: It is a well known rule that when . a matter is under consideration of a committee by action of the House', it is not in order, in other proceedings, to discuss the procedure of that committee. I have no official knowledge that any such matter is before the committee. The hon. member (Mr. Crocket; has not proceeded far enough in his remarks to enable me to judge whether they are pertinent to the question or not, so I do not, for the present, rule him out of order.


William Pugsley: I am ready to be guided by the statement of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) himself. If he says that the matter is not before the Public Accounts Committee I will take his statement. But my information is that it is before the committee and the committee has not reported upon it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That does not debar me from making this statement-that Mr. Mr. PUGSLEY.
Murray, the conductor of this work, sent in a bill to the Public Works Department in the name of John Dumas for 60,000 feet of lumber


William Pugsley: Order. I will take your ruling upon the matter, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) admits that the matter is before the Public Accounts Committee.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: So far as I have heard the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) I am not yet in a position to rule his remarks out of order. But I would ask him to make his remarks as relevant as possible and to bring them to bear upon the item before the committee.


Oswald Smith Crocket: It is this very item that I am discussing. I say, in the presence and hearing of the minister, that Mr. Murray, the conductor, or foreman of this public work, has perpetrated a fraud -a criminal offence upon the government of the country-that he sent in a fictitious bill to the Public Works Department for lumber for which he paid only $6 and $7 a thousand, and for which he received $12 a thousand. I am simply astonished at the statement of the minister that, having that knowledge-as he must have it; as I know he has it-he will not be able to determine for a year or two whether Mr. Murray is to be continued-


William Pugsley: I did not say a year or two, I said a month or two.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understood that the work was to go on-


William Pugsley: It will be during the spring of the present year.
Mr. CROCKET-that he would not be able to determine until the work was to be resumed whether this man was to be continued. I ask members of this House what they think of this government employing men capable of such conduct as that? I make this statement now so that the minister will understand that he takes the full responsibility if he is going to allow this kind of fraud to be continued in the province of New Brunswick. This is the same Thos. O. Murray who bought the 'Richibucto wharf, the 'sawdust wharf' which has been mentioned, at $700, and immediately turned it over to the Public Works Department for $5,000.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) certainly will not help his cause, as a man never helps any cause by distorting the facts. He has made the statement that Mr. Thomas O. Murray immediately turned over this wharf to the government for $5,000. That, Sir, is absolutely incorrect. It is true-although it is out of order to refer to what has taken place in the Pub-
3441	FEBRUARY 11, 1910	3442
lie Accounts Committee-it is true that it appeared that Mr. Murray had bought the wharf property for $700 from Mr. O'Leary, and that the government, having in view the possibility that it might be required, had the chief engineer make an examination of the property. Mr. Murray gave to the engineer an option on the property. But the government did not determine to buy it for several months after that, and not until it was twice reported on, and not until the chief engineer of my department and myself were perfectly satisfied that the property was a good bargain at $5,000. I do not hesitate to say here to-night, and I do not hesitate to say anywhere, that the government got a good bargain for the sum of $5,000. And I want to repeat a remark I made before the recess, that it is an extraordinary thing that, although the hon. gentleman had all the witnesses here from Riehibucto, although he had here one of the most, prominent citizens of Riehibucto, he did not venture to produce a single witness to testify to the value of the property except Mr. Richard O'Leary, although witness after witness was produced to testify that, the nropertv was well worth $5,000), one witness put in the value as high as $10,000. It is a fact which, I think, ought, to have great weight with this committee that the hon. gentleman was not able to produce a single witness from the town of Riehibucto, with a population of about
1,000,	except Mr. O'Leary, who would question the value of the property, and who was prepared to say that it was worth one dollar less than $5,000. So far as that property is concerned, I have no hesitation in defending anywhere the purchase which was made by the government. That, however, is beside the question.
The hon. gentleman has asked me to give an assurance to-night that Mr. Thomas Murray.will not be appointed foreman of this work. The hon. gentleman has chosen to make a statement as to what took place before the Public Accounts Committee, he has made a charge based, as he says, upon evidence before that committee, that Murray has been guilty of a fraud and a criminal act against the government. Sir, I have learned during the course of my public career, not to judge people until the tribunal which is called upon to try them has made its report, and I decline to-night, until that committee has reported the evidence, until I have had an opportunity oi examining it, and until this committee hat-had an opportunity of examining it, I decline to express any opinion as to the conduct of Mr. Murray, who was the foreman of the work. I have not made any appointment of a foreman, I have not decided to make Mr. Murray foreman of the work for the coming year. When I do so, if I act improperly, my conduct will be open to question by the hon. gentleman, as well as
by other hon. gentlemen. Now then, my hon. friend states that Mr. Murray fraudulently put in bills for $12 per thousand foT lumber wrhich only cost $7. I do not know what is the evidence before the committee; I was not present at all the meetings of the committee, though I was at one or two of them, so I did not hear all the evidence. But I have been informed that the average* cost of the lumber was $12 per thousand, that some of it was bought at the^ lower price of $7, some of it cost $15} but it was all put in at the average price of $12 per. thousand, which would be the average cost of the total quantity of lumber. I do not know whether that statement is true or not, and I am not prepared to discuss it until the committee makes its report and has been discharged from the performance of its duty in connection with that matter. As I have already said, I have come to no conclusion to appoint Mr. Murray. The matter has not been up for consideration. All I am asking now is a vote for the continuance of the work. When the time, comes to appoint a foreman, I can assure my hon. friend that no one will be appointed against whom there can be a shadow of suspicion, so far as integrity is concerned.


Samuel Barker: I do not intend to go into the question of the other work as to which Mr. Murray was charged with impropriety as an officer of this government; I propose to confine my remarks to the item before the House. I understand that the person alluded to has been doing certain work in connection with the item now before the House, and an hon. member of this House says that that person an officer of the government has been cheating this country in connection with that work, has been deliberately and wilfully defrauding the government by charging up an article as costing $12 when he only paid $7. That is the point. We are asked to give the hon. min ister further money to go on with that work, and he is asked whether he is going to continue as foreman this man who is under that charge. He says, I will consider that matter at the proper time. Now I do not mean to say that because an hon. member of this House has made so grave a charge, upon his responsibility as a member, as that an employee of the minister has been robbing this country, that necessarily that charge should justify us in withholding the money from the minister; but I do say that it is a proper question for the members of this House to consider, to discuss, and it is proper to drag, if necessary, from the minister a clear, business-like answer. The minister knows that that charge has been made, I think he has known it, certainly he knows it now. I ask him now if, in the interest of this country, he thinks it right to continue that man in

the service of the department, in the expenditure of money on behalf of this country, so long as that charge remains against him. I say it is a most improper thing; no official of a cornoration would dare to continue such a man in such a position; he would suspend the man until he had investigated the charge to the bottom.


William Pugsley: I do not at all complain of the spirit in which my hon. friend has addressed the committee. I quite agree with him that when a member of this House states that the evidence before the committee shows that a foreman has been guilty of improper conduct, it is the duty of the minister to investigate the matter, to go through the evidence carefully, to weigh it, and if the evidence shows any improper conduct on the part of the foreman, then it is the duty of the minister not to retain him. That is the very course I intend to pursue.


Samuel Barker: I intended to say that it was the minister's duty to suspend this man until the charge has been investigated.
such a matter as this. If the employees of the government are to be allowed to perpetrate criminal offences, and I say here that Mr. Murray did obtain money from the government under false pretenses, with impunity, the public cannot be expected to have much confidence in the honest administration of their officers. I have made this statement to-night solely for the purpose of drawing the minister's attention to it so that he will understand that he will have to take the responsibility if Mr. Murray is longer continued as foreman of this work.
Richibucto harbour-breakwater-piers on north and south sides, $9,000.


William Pugsley: This is an amount required to complete the extension of a section of 140 feet of the north breakwater begun in 1908, and also to complete the first 200 feet of the south breakwater. We are building two breakwaters, upon the north side and one upon the south side. This amount of $9,000 will not complete the whole work but it is expected that it will complete these sections.


William Pugsley: I may say that that man is no longer in the employ of the government, he ceased to be employed at the close of the season. I shall feel it my duty to do exactly what my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) suggests. But I am not prepared to-night, simply upon the ipse dixit of any member of this House -I will not say, least of all, of my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket), it would not be courteous to say that-but I am not prepared, until I read the evidence and have an opportunity of judging for myself, to pass judgment against any man who has been in the employ of the department. But as I have said, Mr. Murray is no longer in the employ pf the government, and before we make a new appointment I should feel it my duty to investigate very carefully the evidence, and then determine as to whether he has been guilty of improper conduct; and if there is a shadow of suspicion against him, I shall feel it my duty not to re-employ him.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much additional will it take to complete it?


William Pugsley: It depends upon the extent to which the breakwater is carried. If it is carried out as far as it is recommended that we should go the cost will reach about $58,000. That is to do a thoroughly complete job, but we do not propose to do anything like that in the immediate future.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Has the department any plans of the work proposed?


William Pugsley: Yes, but it is proceeding by sections.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that part of the Jard-ine contract?


William Pugsley: This was a work done by Mr. Jardine.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The Jardine contract is still running?


William Pugsley: No, his contract is com-


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister has not, up to the present time, read the evidence taken before the committee.


William Pugsley: No, I have not.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am satisfied that if the minister reads this evidence which I have in my hand now, and applies a fair unbiased judgment to that evidence, he will not assume the responsibility of retaining, Mr. Thomas Murray in this position any longer. I do think that there ought to be not only a dismissal, but it is very questionable to my mind if some criminal proceedings should not be taken in
pleted.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who is doing this work?


William Pugsley: We will let a new contract for this work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: When was the Jardine contract completed?


William Pugsley: August, 1908.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much was paid under the Jardine contract?


William Pugsley: The contract was $17,000, and I think it was all paid-I am not sure as to that.	*


Samuel Barker: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: He was paid more than $17,000, was he not?


William Pugsley: Perhaps he was. There was some extra work which he was paid for.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How much was he paid in extras?


William Pugsley: I am sorry to say that I have not a memorandum of the amount but I think it was some $3,000 or $4,000. I am speaking now from my memory. I can get that for my hon. friend and give it to him later.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the minister able to give any explanation of the extras?


William Pugsley: I have not a memorandum of them. I will undertake to get that information for my hon. friend before we get through with the items of some of the provinces and he can discuss it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: This $9,000, I understand, is for the commencement of a new work, for the extension of the work performed under the Jardine contract?


William Pugsley: Yes, we will let a new contract for the work.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the estimated cost of the work to be done under the new contract?


William Pugsley: We propose only letting a contract at the present time for $9,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this work be completed during the coming year?


William Pugsley: Yes.
River St. Jolm, including tributaries, $6,000.


William Pugsley: This is to do work, no separate portion of which is large in extent. Last year it amounted to $2,670. We did not expend the whole $6,000. We are asking for $6,000, which is the amount usually taken. This is to make improvements in various parts of the river, principally in the upper waters. [DOT]
River St. John and tributaries-construction of wharfs in tidal waters, $20,000.


William Pugsley: This is to make provision for the construction of a number of wharfs in the tidal waters of the river St. John and tributaries. I will give a statement of the expenditures for the construction of wharfs under the vote that we are now asking in 1908-9 and 1909-10, or up to the 10th of the present month:
-	1908-09.	1909-10 up to February 10.	Total expenditure up to February 10, 1910.$ cts. 891 31 237 00 543 33 1,662 87 1,962 31 4,530 14 2,719 11 2,941 96 3,970 49	$ cts. 298 07	$ cts. 1,192 38 237 00 952 00 1,662 87 2,156 57 5,733 63 2,748 86 2,941 96 4,347 34 1,377 36 150 00 659 34 803 17 1,437 56 1,212 04 85 75 59 14 526 34 50 00 61 05
408 67	
			
		194 26 1,203 49 29 75	
Oromocto, Sunbury Co., high water wharf, inclusive of right of way.			
			
		376 85 1,377 36 150 00 659 34 803 17 1,437 56 1,212 04 85 75 59 14 526 34 50 00 61 05	
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			
			28,393 49


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that all new construction or repairs?


William Pugsley: There are some of the smaller amounts that I think would be for repairs, but all the larger amounts are
for new construction. Mather's island, Chase wharf, Chase's point. Oromocto, McGowan, Sheffield and Rothesay, are all new. Rothesay was the wharf that was purchased from the Almon estate and rebuilt. Burton court house, Barker's,

Jemseg and Scotchtown, are all new. A very large number of them are new works.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Are these wharfs all completed?


William Pugsley: I could not at this moment say whether they are all finished or not. We are getting that work done at considerably less than the estimated cost.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister should alter the item and call it construction and repairs. It is simply down as construction. That, I take it, means new construction.


William Pugsley: The suggestion is a very good one, and in making up the statement another year, I shall have it so made that we can see exactly what is for new construction and what for repairs.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What wharfs does the hon. minister expect to construct with this $20,000?


William Pugsley: I could not give my hon. friend just what number will be undertaken. We have demands for quite a number. Application has been made by the mayor of the city of Fredericton, and I think also by the Board of Trade for the taking over by this government of a wharf which belongs to the city on condition that we rebuild it and make it a government wharf. I have that matter under consideration, and it is not unlikely that a considerable amount of the vote of this year will be used towards the rebuilding of that wharf.


Samuel Barker: Are you buying the wharf?


William Pugsley: The city will convey the wharf free of charge. It is an old wharf, owned by the city, which requires rebuilding. The city offers to hand it over to us provided we rebuild it. I think the claim which the city makes is well founded. The Dominion government has not spent any money in building wharfs in the city of Fredericton. The city has done the whole of that work itself. There is scarcely a city in Canada, situated as Fredericton is, in which the government has not expended some money in the form of wharf accommodation. But that has not been done in Fredericton, and I think its claim well founded.


Samuel Barker: Is the city giving to the government that property in absolute ownership?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the estimated cost?


William Pugsley: About $20,000 to rebuild.


William Pugsley: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: I suppose that is the wharf the minister promised during the election campaign two years ago?


William Pugsley: Is the hon. gentleman proud of that statement?


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am not particularly proud of it, neither am I ashamed of it. It is simply the statement of a fact. The minister did, just in the midst of an election campaign, make such a promise, and no doubt for political effect.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend urge that the item be struck out?


Oswald Smith Crocket: No, but I was going to complain that the hon. minister had been very slow in carrying out the promise he made during that election campaign. It was expected that it would have been done last year. But last session he had to announce that the government had not the money to provide for that improvement, and I am glad to have his statement that at last we are to have the work. I agree with the minister that the city of Fredericton occupies a very unique position so far as wharf expenditures are concerned. I have been in this House a number of sessions, and have seen vote after vote going for wharfs in all parts of the country, but no appropriation at all, though I have several times asked for one, for such an important city as Fredericton. That city has maintained all wharfs at its own expense during all these years. I trust that the minister will see that work is put through as quickly as possible.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman can rely upon the minister doing this, as he endeavours to do everything else, in a proper manner and with no unnecessary delay. I am glad that for once my hon. friend and I agree.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will there be a contract?


William Pugsley: Yes, as usual.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The work will not be done by day labour with these so-called conductors in charge?


William Pugsley: It will not be done by day labour.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I hope not.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend's hope is well founded.
Sackvill&-wharf on Tantramarre river-[DOT] revote of $6,000 lapsed, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the construction of a public wharf at Sack-ville upon the Tamtramarre river. The wharf will cost about $17,000, and we are asking now for $10,000. We have made some expenditure in the year which ended

the 31st March, 1909. That was for the purpose of acquiring land for the site and approaches for the wharf and incidental expenses.
Seal Cove, Grand Manan island-breakwater pier-to complete, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete work under contract for the construction of a breakwater and pier 388 feet long and 35 feet high at the outer end, extending to 15 feet depth at high water. The amount of the contract is $29,000, and I think this will complete it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: You have already expended $32,000 on it?


William Pugsley: No; we will have expended altogether, on the 31st March, $27,-
000.	The hon. gentleman is confounding the vote with the expenditure. There is a revote of $5,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is this to be cribwork?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is the timber creosoted?


William Pugsley: No.
_ Mr. DANIEL. Some time ago the minister told us that he had rather improved on the plan of his predecessors because they used ordinary timber and he was using creosoted timber.


William Pugsley: I did not say in all cases.


John Waterhouse Daniel: But where the teredo worm was likely to attack the wharf. The hon. gentleman must know that it does its business all right in the Bay of Fundy.


William Pugsley: I have net understood that at the. island the teredo is as destructive as in other places. At all events the engineering branch of the department did not think it necessary to use creosoted material at this point. I quite agree that it is better as far as possible to use creosoted timber. In some places the teredo worm is much more destructive than in others. In St. John harbour it is not destructive owing to the volume of fresh water running into the salt.
Shediac wharf - revote of $2,000 lapsed,


William Pugsley: We propose building a wharf 1,100 feet long, stone block, 210 feet long, twenty-two spans of twenty feet and twenty-one blocks of twenty feet square, also pier head thirty feet square. Depth six feet at low water and ten feet at high water of ordinary tide. This is sufficient for fishing boats and small schooners. In connection with this we propose using creosoted timber, but nothing has been done as yet. Total estimated cost $19,000. That was the original estimate. Since then a further estimate has been made of $2,000.
and the probable cost will be $21,000. That is the estimate of the resident engineer.


Samuel Barker: Why take a revote of $2,000 for a $21,000 vote on which nothing has yet been spent?


William Pugsley: The reason is we had an appropriation of $2,000 the year before last. We took a vote of $2,000 for the purpose of 'beginning the work, such as purchasing the site, right of way, and possibly calling for tenders. But owing to the fact that the wharf will cost such an amount as we would not be justified in entering on its construction, having the vote of only $2,000, we made no move and allowed the vote to lapse. We are now asking for $10,000, but we will go ahead in a substantial way for the purpose of building the work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why should such a vote come under the heading of a revote? If the vote was for last year, it could be properly called a revote; but if not used within the year at all, it lapses and goes back to consolidated revenue, and after that should not come up as a revote but as a regular vote.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is quite right, but if he will look at the item, he will see it was not put in the revote column, but we put it in as a revote lapsed so that the committee may see it is not new.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not think it should be called a revote at all.


William Pugsley: It is more for the information of the committee.
Skippigan harbour-improvements and repairs at Skippigan gully, $3,000.


William Pugsley: This is to continue the improvements. These are general repairs to the west breakwater.
St. Andrews wharf-to complete, $7,000.


William Pugsley: The contract was for $15,900 besides contingencies. The estimated expenditure to 31st of March next is $11,000 and we shall require $7,000 to finish.
St. John harbour-improvements, repairs and renewals,-$25,000.


William Pugsley: This is for improvements and repairs to the breakwater which have to go on from year to year.
St. John - Partridge Island quarantine wharf, $13,500.


William Pugsley: This is to build the wharf. It has been urged upon us for some time by the Department of Agriculture, and there was a vote for it for the year ending 31st March, 1909. We did not do anything under that vote and are asking for this amount.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will this enlarge the old work?


William Pugsley: No, we are building a little to one side. This is a new work.


Mr.   BAEKEE@: There will be a contract?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Has the contract been put up for tender?


William Pugsley: Upon the vote for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1909, plans and specifications were prepared and tenders were recalled for the work. I decided to award the contract to the lowest tenderer. Then, owing to the depression which came and the declining revenues, I decided to let the construction stand over, and so informed the contractor. I am inclined to thiijk it would be fair now not to call for new tenders, but to give the contract to the lowest tenderer.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Who is he?


William Pugsley: Mr. John E. Kane, a very reliable contractor.
St. John-to provide for the purchase and improvement of property for wharfs for the accommodation of government vessels (a vote for the same amount was taken in 1909-10 under lighthouse and coast service), $50,000.


William Pugsley: This is to purchase property and make improvements so as to give very much needed accommodation to both the Public Works Department and the Marine Department by supplying a place for repairs, for building scows and for making repairs to vessels and buoys.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I can quite understand that a wharf and property of that kind is very much needed for the government vessels. Can the minister state where this wharf is to be?


William Pugsley: That is not yet decided.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Have there been any negotiations? This item has been in the estimate for two years under another heading.


William Pugsley: Yes. There have been no negotiations, but there have been some suggestions and some offers of property.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The hon. minister has had offers of property for this purpose?


William Pugsley: Yes, tljere have been offers in a general way. I do not know that prices have been made, but certain properties have been offered.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Has the hon. minister any objections to say what properties they are?


William Pugsley: One which was offered was on the northern side of the harbour. That was offered to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


William Pugsley: 


John Waterhouse Daniel: About Hilliard's block?


William Pugsley: Somewhere in that vicinity, but that was not in my department. There was a property, where the Maritime Warehousing Company is, offered my department. I am not aware of any other.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The department has not yet made up its mind as to any definite location?


William Pugsley: No, there is just the possibility that might be placed in Courtenay bay.


Mr.   BAEKEE@: Why should there be any negotiations with the Marine Department?


William Pugsley: Because the vote previously made came under the Marine Department items. We are now putting it under Public Works.
Tracadie-improvements and repairs, $4,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for repairs.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this complete the work?


William Pugsley: It is expected it will.
Traynor's Cove-wharf, $2,800.


William Pugsley: There is an old provincial government wharf at this point, about 50 feet by 40 feet, built many years ago; but it is beyond repair, and must be removed. This is to build a new wharf to take its place.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the estimated cost of the work?


William Pugsley: 

To purchase creosoted timber for works in the maritime provinces generally, $20,000.


William Pugsley: At present we are obliged to import all this timber from the southern states, or rather it is imported by the agents of the two companies engaged in that work. Quite recently I have been interviewed, as has also the Department of Eailways, on the subject of establishing works in the city of St. John for the purpose of creosoting timber for wharfs and for railway ties. It is proposed, I think, to bring the material from Sydney. If we had creosoting works along the line of the Intercolonial railway, I believe that a great deal of birch would be used for railway ties. It has been demonstrated that birch takes the creosoting quite as well as soft timber, and it would give an extra market for birch, of which there are large quantities in New Brunswick. The creosoting adds greatly to the life of the timber. An English company is anxious to obtain a site for the purpose of establishing these works.


Mr. McCALL.: How much per thousand feet does this creosoted timber cost?


William Pugsley: From $50 to $56, according to the place where it is delivered.


Alexander McCall: What does ordinary timber not creosoted cost?


William Pugsley: I could not say offhand. Our department has never purchased southern pine which is not creosoted.


Alexander McCall: I am not disposed to criticise the department. Unquestionably there are processes for preserving timber; but it is a question whether the cost of preserving it might not be equal to the cost of buying the timber two or three times over. Southern pine should be delivered at $16 or $17 a thousand feet. For ereosot-ing timber a very extensive plant is required, and many of the railways are hesitating to put in plants on account of their great cost. While the process will preserve timber for a considerable length of time, it will not protect it from ordinary wear where it comes into contact with iron.


William Pugsley: I may say that the late deputy minister of railways, Mr. Butler, who has given a great deal of thought to this question of creosoting railway ties as well as other timber, expressed the opinion to me very strongly that it would be greatly in the public interest if creosoting works were established and if all timber used for railway ties and in the construction of wharfs were creosoted.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the minister state of whom the company he spoke of is composed, and whether this industry is to be established or not?


William Pugsley: All I can say is that it is an English company, which was represented by two engineers who were introduced to me by the late deputy minister of railways, Mr. Butler. They were negotiating with me, and the question with them was as to whether they could get a site near the Intercolonial railway. I do not know that they have succeeded in acquiring a site, but it was represented to me that, if they could get a site, they were prepared to establish the works.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In what way does the minister propose to purchase this creosoted timber? Has he a purchasing agent, or does he get tenders, and, if so, from whom?


William Pugsley: The purchases are made through the engineers, and the directions given are to get prices from the agents of the different concerns that sell this creosoted timber. There are not many of them.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is, the local agents in Canada?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Barker: I suppose the minister is aware that for more than twenty years this question of creosoting timber for ties has been before the railway companies, but not a railway company, so far as known, has yet gone into this business, because the officials have never been able to satisfy themselves that the very large expense is justified by the extension of the life of the tie. Has the minister gone into that question before expending $50,000 on behalf of a couple of gentlemen from England who want to establish an industry here at the expense of the government? What efforts has the minister made to ascertain whether this is Teally a thing that we ought to spend so much money upon, or whether it is simply a little bonus to some English gentlemen who are coming out here to try what they can do in Canada in the way of an experiment that is about twenty years old?


William Pugsley: We do not propose, out of this vote, to pay any bonus. This is simply for the purchase of creosoted timber. At present the intention is to buy it as we have bought it hitherto-from the companies in the southern states that creosote timber. But, if works are established for the production of creosoted timber in Canada, and if it offers timber on favourable terms, we would naturally prefer to buy our creosoted timber in Canada rather than from the southern states.


Samuel Barker: I am aware of that. But it was said that some gentlemen were going into the establishment of works for creosoting timber. Has the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) ascertained whether the Grand Trunk, for example, or the Canadian Pacific railway, who have had this question before them for twenty years have determined to go into it, or is he going it blind because he has $50,000 of public money?


William Pugsley: I cannot understand what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Barker) means. We are only asking the vote that is taken year after year for the purchase of creosoted timber to be used in certain waters where the teredo worm is very destructive. Incidentally. I mentioned the fact that there was a company which was contemplating the establishment of creosoting works in the maritime provinces, and said that, if these works were established, we would expect to be able to obtain the creosoted timber-or have timber which we should buy in its crude state creosoted *-at a cheaper price than we now obtain material for from the southern states. As to railway ties, I have not gone into the matter fully with Mr. Butler. But I would take his opinion on this subject as quickly as I would that of any railway manager in Canada. And I know that he is strongly of opinion that it would be

greatly to the public interest if creosoting works were established, that treating adds very much to the life of railway ties, and that it would bring into use for ties many varieties of timber which, when not treated, are not suitable for that purpose.


Samuel Barker: The minister says that this vote has been passed year after year. What has been the experience heretofore? Has the minister tried this timber?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Barker: With what result?


William Pugsley: Good.


Samuel Barker: The minister has that from the officers of his department?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The creosoted timber has been used by the Department of Public Works, I understand, for building piers which are subject to the action of the teredo worm, and not for building on land?


William Pugsley: No, only to protect the wood from the teredo.


Mr.   A.@: MeCALL. The American railway companies, I understand, are using creosoted timber to a certain extent. Has the minister inquired with a view to ascertaining whether he has been paying a fair or an excessive price?


William Pugsley: There is pretty keen competition between the agents of the several companies which are dealing in creosoted timber, and the instructions to the engineers are to obtain material at the lowest' possible price, and always to get prices from the different agents.


Mr.   A.@: MeCALL. By tender?


William Pugsley: Yes-not by advertising in the newspapers, but by asking agents for their prices.
Harbours and rivers-Ontario-Brockville- reconstruction of superstructure of dock on south side of Tunnel bay, $9,500.


William Pugsley: We have been urged very strongly by the town of Brockville to make this improvement, and it seems a desirable work in the public interest.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it to be of stone?


William Pugsley: It is not entirely of stone. The top is to be of concrete, but the foundation under the water will be of timber. It is a public dock. Part of it is owned by the Canadian Pacific railway and part by the Crown, and we propose to have Mr. PUGSLEY.
it all vested in the Crown. We have been urged strongly by representatives of the council and board of trade to construct this work, and an influential delegation was here not long ago urging it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am not aware of any docks being built upon wood.


William Pugsley: The chief engineer tells me that the wharfs at Montreal and Quebec are built upon a wooden substructure and then from a little below the water line they are carried up with concrete.
Burlington channel piers-reconstruction, $40,000.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: This is to continue the work of reconstructing in concrete the wooden superstructures of the north and south piers of the Burlington channel. We have been urged to continue this work, but we hesitated to do so last year because of the state of the revenue. The work is urgently needed in order to prevent considerable injury to the harbour. Of this $40,000, $15,000 is a revote. In 1908-9 we spent $34,000, in 1909-10, $36,000.


Samuel Barker: I would like to know what the whole expenditure in connection with this work has been, and will be. I understand that there has been a good deal of bad work done there.


William Pugsley: I have not heard of that.


Samuel Barker: I have heard so. I understand that the amount appropriated is not more, and has not been more, than was necessary for the work, but the money has not been judiciously expended. I would like to know what the original estimate of this work was, and what it is going to cost.


William Pugsley: The estimate submitted by the chief engineer included reconstruction of wooden superstructure, $37,500; reconstruction of wooden superstructure in concrete, $15,000; reconstruction of wooden superstructure of north pier in concrete, $49,900; superintendence and contingencies, $8,600. Total estimate cost, $111,000 of which there has been expended during the two last years $70,000 leaving a balance of $40,000.


Samuel Barker: Will that $40,000 complete all the work that was originally contemplated?


William Pugsley: The chief engineer tells me it is supposed to complete the work.


Samuel Barker: Has the chief engineer made an estimate that $40,000 will do all the work originally contemplated?


William Pugsley: He has made such a report to me.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I understand that a deputation waited unon the hon. gentleman's department asking for the construction of an embankment along the water side of the beach, extending northerly from Burlington bay towards the village of Burlington, with a view of preserving the beach and widening it. Has the hon. gentleman any intention of proceeding with that work this year?


William Pugsley: We have a report on that work, but it has not yet been decided to undertake it during this year. That is as far as I can say to-night. The hon. gentleman understands with reference to any work not in the estimates, that I would not be able to say what the government would do until the matter has been considered in council.
Picnic islands-improvement of northern channel in Georgian bay, $45,000.


William Ross Smyth: Is it the intention of the government to deepen the channel opposite Picnic islands? I asked the same question last year. I understnad that the channel has a depth of 24 feet up to that point, and it is almost useless, the same depth is provided opposite Picnic islands.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman is quite Tight, and the object of this vote is to deepen the channel at that point, to straighten it, and make it available for navigable purposes.
Providence bay, Manitoulin island-extension of wharf-revote of $4,500 lapsed, $5,000.


William Ross Smyth: Has this wharf been completed?


William Pugsley: This is to make provision towards extending outward the stem of the present government wharf on the east side of the bay. We propose, in making this extension, to add ballasting and cribwork 300 feet long in a northwesterly direction.
Providence Bay wharf, Manitoulin island

 warehouse built on stone embankment protected by cribwork, $3,650.


William Ross Smyth: Is that work going on?


William Pugsley: No, but we will put it under construction the coming season as early as possible.
Blanche river - improvements on main stream and south branch, $7,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What improvements are you making there?


William Pugsley: This is to improve the navigation of the channel. There is a good deal of traffic on this river. It is to complete improvements, remove snags, do dredging work and to maintain the plant which we have there.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is there any navigation on the Blanche river?


William Pugsley: Yes, there are some small boats.	j


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would like to ask the minister if he has recei-ved any complaints lately in connection with the lowering of Lake Couchiching and Lake Sirncoe? There has been considerable public money spent at Washago, taking rocks out of the channel and putting in stop logs, and there is a great deal of difficulty in regard to the regulating of these waters, farm lands being submerged on account of the stop logs being kept in too long. I received a letter the other day complaining that the stop logs are in now. There is no necessity for these stop logs being kept in now because they should let the water out and allow it to run away in order to avoid the spring freshets. If the water is kept in the land is submerged and the farmers cannot get on their land in the spring. I understand there is a man in attendance, paid by public money, for the purpose of regulating these stop logs. There are some interests desiring to have the stop logs kept in continuously. I would like to ask the minister if there have been any complaints received by the department lately, in connection with this matter, wh* is in charge of the stop logs and why the logs are kept in during the winter season. The object and purpose of keeping the stop logs in is to keep up the water and thereby improve navigation, but there is no possible excuse for keeping the stop logs in at the present time. They should be left out until after the spring freshets are over so that the farmers can get upon their land in spring. There have been several thousand dollars spent in opening up the channel and blowing out rocks in order to lower the water and the stop logs, of course, have been put in for the purpose of regulating the depth of the water. You are defeating the purpose of the spending of this money by keeping the stop logs in.


William Pugsley: I am very glad the hon. gentleman called the matter to my attention a few days ago by sending me a letter bearing on the subject. I sent it to the chief engineer with directions to have it looked into at once, and the chief engineer tells me that he will see that the matter is inquired into to see exactly whose fault it

is that the water is not properly regulated. We have a man in charge of the dam. There is no reason why these stop logs should not be so handled as to preserve navigation there during the season and to prevent lands from being overflowed in the spring.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The stop logs should not be in during the winter.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: let for dredging?


William Pugsley: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: it by contract?


William Pugsley: Is there any contract No.
Do you propose to do Yes.


Samuel Barker: What is the object of this vote from the public point of view?


William Pugsley: No, there is no reason why they should be in in winter. They should be taken out in the fall and put in in the spring. Of course I can quite understand that there may be some diversity of interests^ and that in the interest of navigation they may try to keep the stop logs in. But, it is our duty to take all possible means to prevent lands from being flooded.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The navigation of Lake Couchiching and Lake Simcoe is not to be compared with the importance of the farming community. The navigation interest is infinitesimally small compared with the great interest of the farmers. There are thousands and thousands of acres being submerged.


William Pugsley: I believe there is a power interest as well at Orillia.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I do not think the interest of Orillia enters very materially into the question of the stop logs being maintained at Washago.


William Pugsley: The chief engineer will look into it carefully.
Byng inlet, improvements-revote of $10,000 lapsed, $30,000.


William Pugsley: For the year ending March 31, 1909, there was a vote of $10,000, which we did not use. The Canadian Pacific railway are contemplating making very considerable improvements at Byng inlet, and this is for the purpose of doing work which fairly belongs to the country. It is for improving the harbour, and these improvements will go on in conjunction with those made by the Canadian Pacific railway company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What kind of improvements are you going to make?


William Pugsley: Byng inlet has been selected by the Canadian Pacific railway as one of the harbours of their Toronto-Sudbury line. They propose to erect large coal unloading docks there and they will connect with the Sudbury line by a spur two miles in length. It is represented to me that a very large business will be done when the necessary improvements are made. The Canadian Pacific railway are going to do their share in the way of building docks upon which they purpose spending a considerable sum of money and we have thought it not unreasonable that we should go to the expense of doing the dredging for the purpose of improving the entrance and making the channel navigable.


Samuel Barker: What public needs are there, what is the population and what is the nature of the place which requires you to expend all this money in the public interest? I can understand that a railway company wants to have coal and wants the facilities to get in, but the government does not usually supply the money for that.


William Pugsley: My own vieiw is that we can fairly as a government co-operate with a railway which is prepared to develop any place along its line, any harbour or any navigable water, to the extent of doing the dredging work. I know that wherever a railway, particularly a large railway like the Canadian Pacific railway, establish coal docks it means the gathering there of a large number of men, it means the building up almost immediately of a thriving town or village and it adds in that way to the prosperity of the country. In accordance with the policy that has been pursued for some years past we feel that it is not unreasonable that we should co-operate to the extent of doing the dredging.


William Pugsley: We propose to dredge a passage 20 feet deep with a minimum width of 100 feet and to remove shoals in the steamboat channel. There will be a basin with a minimum width of 500 feet and a length of 2,500 feet opposite the site of the projected coal dock. Officials of the Canadian Pacific railway assure me that there is likely to be a very large business developed there as a result of the improvements contemplated.


William Pugsley: 


Samuel Barker: There is no population there at present?


William Pugsley: Not at present, I understand. The Canadian Pacific railway have given me the assurance that they propose to do a large business there which will convert Byng inlet into a thriving place.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: Is this in the interest of some private company that is doing business there?


William Pugsley: No, it is in the interest of the traffic that is to be brought over by the Canadian Pacific railway.


John Albert Sexsmith: What is the traffic created by, there is nobody living there


William Pugsley: If the Canadian Pacific railway establishes large coal docks and makes that the point of transfer for the coal for that part of the country it must lead to the establishment of a town. That is the manner in which communities are being built up all over this country.


John Albert Sexsmith: Is there not a large lumbering company interested chiefly in this dredging?


William Pugsley: I am not aware of that.


Alexander McCall: It is fair to say that there is a large mill at Byng Inlet which would be served by the intention of the railway at that point to give a rail outlet as well as a water outlet.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is the railway company the only interest that has asked for this expenditure?


John Albert Sexsmith: So far as I recollect, yes.


Samuel Barker: Does the minister believe that the railway company will not take its coal there for the purpose of its own operation unless the government gives that $10,000?


William Pugsley: I am not prepared to say that, nor would I say that the company would not create a harbour at Victoria, but we have thought it not unreasonable that . we should do our part in assisting them in their important work by doing the dredging, they undertaking at their own expense to build the docks. The operation of such works by a railway company gives employment to a large number of people, and I believe it is fairly within the duty of tbe federal government to do its part m the way of improvement, particularly in reference to navigation.


Mr. EDWARDS.: If, as I understand, the minister feels that this appropriation is justified because of the benefit that will accrue, not only to the railway hut to the people who are living there or will likely live there, I would urge on him the claims pf the people of Wolfe Island to have some dredging done along the side of their dock. Some dredging was done at the end of the, dock where the passenger steamers call, but a few hundred dollars' worth of dredging along the side of the dock would enable coal to be unloaded there and would save to the people from 60 cents to 70 cents a ton on their coal. Can the minister give me an assurance that an appropriation
will be put in the estimates this year for that work?


William Pugsley: The statement which my hon. friend makes does appeal to [DOT]my judgment. I believe there is no better work the government can be engaged in than the deepening of navigable channels to enable vessels to get to wharfs and to enter rivers and so give to the people ,cheaper transportation. I will have the matter looked into by the chief engineer; it will not be necessary to have a special vote because that work can be done out of the general vote for dredging in Ontario.


William Cameron Edwards: I brought this to the attention of the minister near the end of last session and I accepted in good faith the reasons then given by the hon. gentleman.


William Pugsley: Money was pretty scarce then.


William Cameron Edwards: For the sake of the people of Wolfe Island I am glad it is more plentiful this year, and I hope the minister will see his way clear to expend this small amount.


William Pugsley: I could not give my hop. friend the assurance that it will be done, but I will give him this assurance: I have asked the chief engineer to make a note of it to have it examined and see what the cost would be, and if it can be done for any thing like what my hon. friend has stated, I can assure him it will be done. It will be money well expended.


William Cameron Edwards: Has the minister an estimate furnished by the reeve of Wolfe island as to the depth to he excavated, and as to the nature of the bottom along side of the dock?


William Pugsley: We may have that in the department, I shall ascertain.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It seems to me there are objectionable features about this vote of $30,000. It is a case of getting the cart before the horse. I could understand $30,000 being spent in dredging where there are centres of population, but spending $30,000 to attract population and build up centres of population strikes me as an extraordinary expenditure. It is serving no great interest, but serving the private interests of a corporation, which in the coarse of events, will have to make this expenditure on its own account. Surely it is an objectionable grant. Is the minister sure that this is serving the public interest, or is it the private interest of some dredging company that wanted work up there?


William Pugsley: No dredging company made any suggestion of any kind in regard to it. The application for the grant

was made by the Canadian Pacific railway, and they have given me the assurance that they propose constructing large docks at Byng Inlet, and making that the principal coal depot for all that section of country. If they do that it will mean the handling of very large quantities of coal. My hon. friend says that we have no right to undertake dredging for any railway company until you get a population. Does my hon. friend not know that it is as the result of giving these facilities that population comes, and that business comes, and that if the Canadian Pacific railway establish these large coal docks they will necessarily employ a large number of men, which will lead to the build-ing_ of houses and of stores and the development of a very considerable business. There was no population at Victoria harbour when we undertook to create the harbour. The Canadian Pacific railway came to us and said that if we would do the dredging they would build docks, and we felt that in the great transportation interests of this country, it was desirable that we should co-operate with an enterprising railway like the Canadian Pacific railway.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What will be the nature of the dredging?


William Pugsley: Clay and mud altogether. about 280,000 cubic yards of clay and mud.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not see any serious objection to this vote. Byng Inlet is quite an important place; I was there thirty years ago and there were people there then. I see it has a postal revenue of $800 and $1,000 of money orders. Has the government any provision by which the public will be able to use the docks without paying a consideration to the Canadian Pacific railway?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I presume the government would only keep the channel open, and could not have any thing to do with the fees on the dock.


John Albert Sexsmith: Will the minister make the extension to the wharf at Lake-field, which he visited last year?


William Pugsley: I was very much pleased with the wharf we have already built there. It is a fine concrete wharf and for the_ comparatively small amount of money expended we have splendid results. I was also impressed with the desirability of making the extension, but I have not yet succeeded in getting the money for it. That is the most I can say. It will continue to have, as it has and has had, my best attention in connection with other important works. Most of the items in these estimates are for works which were in the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1909. I would ask whether there has Mr. PUGSLEY.
been any communication sent or any arrangement made in respect to the Grand Trunk railway extending its tracks down to the wharf, which would be necessary if the wharf was to be a public convenience.


John Albert Sexsmith: I was informed last summer that thq Grand Trunk railway was ready at any time to make an arrangement if. assured that this wharf would be extended.


William Pugsley: Why did they not write the department to that effect?


John Albert Sexsmith: I shall have to look into the matter. Now that money is plentiful, the hon. minister might take an amount out of the general estimates, or have a sum put in the supplementaries. These people do not give him much trouble with regard to their port.


William Pugsley: I would like if the hon. gentleman would get the Grand Trunk railway to send to my department that agreement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister has not answered the question I put to him. I asked him if he had made any provision whereby the public would have the use of the docks without paying.


William Pugsley: I do not see how we could very well do so, as we are not building the wharf.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are improving the harbour, and in consideration of your spending so large an amount of money, could you not reach an understanding with the company to give the public some consideration in the use of that dock?


William Pugsley: I would rather assume that the Canadian Pacific railway would make arrangements with vessels, and I would take it for granted that they would not charge any dockage tolls on these whatever. The suggestion of my hon. friend, however, like all his suggestions, is worthy of consideration, and I shall consider it, but I do not see at present that we could say to the Canadian Pacific railway: As we are going to dredge the channel for you, you will allow all vessels to use your docks free of tolls. They might feel we were imposing some obligation on them that we have never done in respect to any other railway company.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was not thinking so much of the vessels as the people in the district who go there to load coal. Has the Canadian Pacific Tailway intimated any intention of building grain elevators there?


William Pugsley: They have not.


Alexander McCall: I wish to say a word on behalf of Port Dover harbour, Lake Erie. The hon. minister has given the committee

abundant reasons why harbours with railway connections should receive public aid, and I would ask if he could see his way clear to meet the views of the people of Port Dover by repairing theirs and doing some dredging at that port. The piers are in very bad condition and dangerous to life. PoTt Dover is a harbour in which there is a great deal of excursion business. Two large railways carry people there and there are excursion boats from the American side, and the harbour is not in a condition to properly handle that traffic. I would also ask the minister what has been done by the International Waterways Commission with Tegard to the maintaining of the water level of the harbours upon Lake Erie. The American shipping interests desire to dam Lake Erie at the mouth near Buffalo for the purpose of maintaining a uniform water gauge in all the harbours on the lakes. I have not heard what action has been taken by the commission.


William Pugsley: With regard to the raising of the level of Lake Erie by means of a dam, I have received a very interesting, exhaustive and valuable report from the International Waterways Commission, and that report is adverse to the building of the dam. In a general way their opinion is that it would not accomplish the purpose intended unless it will have the effect of lowering the waters of Lake Ontario. Holding back the waters by means of a dam to raise Lake Erie would necessarily lower the waters of Lake Ontario and the canal system as well, and of course that could not be thought of for a moment. For these reasons the commission concluded that it would not be advisable to attempt anything of the kind. With regard to Port Dover, I have been a good deal bothered as to what ought to be done there. That port is in the same unfortunate situation as several other .harbours which, before confederation, were handed over to private companies. That was the most extraordinary legislation I ever heard of. Private companies were made harbour companies and given control of the harbours. I believe that to-day the harbour of Port Dover, including its wharfs and waters, is owned by the Grand Trunk railway, and it is difficult for the government to undertake to improve wharfs which are owned by a private company or to undertake even the dredging of a harbour owned by a private company.


Alexander McCall: In what respect is Port Dover different from Byng Inlet?


William Pugsley: Byng Inlet is a public harbour, and in a very different position from a private harbour. What my hon. friend ought to direct his attention to, and what the city council of Port Dover and the board of trade-with whose aspirations I heartily sympathize-ought to seek to accomplish is to get the Grand Trunk railway 110
to hand over these wharfs, which are in a state of decay, to the Crown, free of charge, and then it will give me great pleasure to do something for the improvement of Port Dover. While on my feet, I may say that Port Dover is in the position of many villages situated upon ports on the Great Lakes, which used to do a thriving business, but whose business has been taken away from them by the building of railways, in many cases a few miles back from the lake shore. When the great movement for building railways was started, some of our people had the idea-which has prevailed down to a comparatively recent date -that the railways would give to the people of the country all the means of transportation they desired, so that water transportation has been neglected by the local authorities, and, I am bound to say, more or less neglected by public men. But the time has come when the people are being aroused to the necessity of better water transportation, the improving of harbours and the furnishing of facilities for the traffic of the lakes and great rivers. I sympathize entirely with the feeling now manifest in many parts of Ontario fronting on the Great Lakes:, that the work of improving the harbours should be more generally taken hold of. So far as Port Dover is concerned, I throw out this suggestion with the hope that some effort will be made to get the Grand Trunk to hand over these wharfs and the harbour to the Crown, and then I shall feel it my duty to take the matter up in earnest to see what I can do to give the people of Port Dover the facilities to which I think they are fairly entitled.


Alexander McCall: Port Dover was once a government harbour, but, about thirty-five years ago, the Grand Trunk extended a line of railway to the harbour and bought control from the government of that day. Since then, very little repairs have been made.


William Pugsley: What an absurd thing for a government to sell out a whole harbour to a private corporation?


Alexander McCall: Still, I cannot quite understand why this harbour should not receive government assistance merely because the Grand Trunk railway owns these rights. Wherein does this harbour differ from any other on the lake? If in a given; harbour the Grand Trunk railway builds piers and runs tracks upon them, the government would still do the dredging. And that is the condition at Port Dover. The railway, are not using it for anything, and, in the meantime, the public service is suffering. About eight or ten years ago some repairs were made and the piers were put into condition to make them safe for travel. But I do not think that any dredging was done. The expenditure required

34(57

is n-ot. large. I do not wish to limit what the minister might, in his generosity, think he could do there, but' to repair the piers and give the harbour a depth of say, ten feet would be sufficient for the time.


William Pugsley: Does not the hon. member (Mr. A. McCall) see that if I undertook to repair piers owned by the Grand Trunk, the very first people to criticise me would be the gentlemen sitting on his own side of the House? The question would be: What business have you to spend public money to repair wharfs belonging to the Grand Trunk? And I could not justify it.


Alexander McCall: It has been done by the hon. minister's predecessor.
Mr. "PUGSLEY. Many things have been done, and some of them, perhaps, ought not to have been done.
Christian Island wharf-repairs, $3,000.


Samuel Hughes: What is going on at Christian island?


William Pugsley: This is for the renewal of the crib-work and superstructure.


Samuel Hughes: Who owns this wharf?


William Pugsley: The government.


Samuel Hughes: Now, does the minister know anything about it?


William Pugsley: I know' positively that we do not build any wharf on property that is not owned by the government. These are positive instructions.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Who live on this island?


William Pugsley: It is an Indian reserve.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is this for the benefit of Indians particularly?


William Pugsley: It is used largely by a number of fishermen.


Samuel Hughes: Summer tourists.


James Conmee: Some, perhaps; but it is used extensively by the fishermen of Georgian bay.


Samuel Hughes: It is nothing of the kind. It is just a little bunch of islands at the entrance to Midland harbour. We have had this thing up in the House before, and we know all about it.
Collingwood harbour - additional shipping and landing facilities, including extension of entrance channel and enlargement of deepwater manoeuvring area, $75,000.


Samuel Hughes: Has this anything to do with the dock?


William Pugsley: It is to widen and straighten the approach. The channel is quite narrow and shipping is congested.


Alexander McCall: 


Samuel Hughes: What depth will this give?


William Pugsley: About 22 feet, we are aiming to get.


Samuel Hughes: Where is the vote for the dock?


William Pugsley: One dock is built. Which dock does the hon. member mean?


Samuel Hughes: The dry dock.


William Pugsley: We don't require a vote for that. It is provided for by a subsidy.
Goderich-harbour improvement, $80,000.


William Pugsley: This is very necessary. Goderich is one of the most important harbours on the lake.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member who is most interested in this matter is not here.


William Pugsley: Ho will regret very much if the vote stood over. He is very anxious to have it passed.


Samuel Hughes: What is the expenditure on Goderich harbour up to date?


William Pugsley: The hon. member means from the beginning of the world? The expenditure has been $1,031,751.23.
Grand Bend-approach to piers-revote of $1,000 lapsed.


Samuel Hughes: What is the explanation of the need of this?
Mr. PUGSLEY". This is to pay for the land required for the approach from Huron street to the Grand Bend pier, 381 feet long by 40 feet wide. Mr. Charles A. Gibbs is the owner.


Samuel Hughes: Has the government done anything with some wharfs between Goderich and Grand Bend lately?


William Pugsley: We are not doing anything there this vear.
Gravenhurst-wharf on Lake Muskoka-revote of $4,000 lapsed, $4,000.


William Pugsley: This seems to be a very necessary work. There is a great deal of traffic on these Muskoka lakes, and there -is no public wharf there. The present wharf is owned by the Grand Trunk, and does not accommodate the public.
Haileybury-harbour improvements - revote of $3,400 lapsed, $17,500.


William Pugsley: This is to extend the south wing 156 feet long and to widen the west [DOT]side at an estimated cost of $14,000; protection of approach on the south side to permit of dredging, 172 feet long by 24 feet wide, estimated cost at $3,500; dredging work, estimated to cost $5,500.


Samuel Hughes: I thought the minister .was using concrete wherever it was possible below water.


William Pugsley: We are beginning to use concrete.
Juniper island. Stony lake-wharf-revote of $1,470 lapsed, $3,400.


William Pugsley: Juniper island is in Stony lake, and I believe is quite a centre. During the summer season two or three thousand people live there, or in the vicinity. Juniper island is a distributing point.


Mr. FIUGHES.: Does the minister know who owns the island?


William Pugsley: I think it is owned by an association of people, and they are giving to the Crown a conveyance of a site for a wharf.


Samuel Hughes: I will give the minister a splendid site for $1, if he will build a wharf there of $3,000.


William Pugsley: But Juniper island is a very central island.


Samuel Hughes: Not half as central as my island; it is on the same water.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Surely a, wharf should not be constructed on this island if it only serves the owner of the island.


William Pugsley: It serves about 3,000 people.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: My information is that it is owned by a private individual who has his summer residence there, and it. will only serve his private convenience. There is no hotel there. How could an island in Stony lake be a distributing point for other islands? The lake is studded with islands owned by private individuals who erect summer residences there. I understand the hon. member for West Peterboro (Mr. Stratton) owns this island.


William Pugsley: The information given to me bv the gentleman who formerly represented that constituency was that there are three steamers passing Juniper island every day. Juniper island is essentially a central point of distribution for the people of hundreds of islands. There are
2,000	or 3,000 people in that vicinity who will be convenienced by this wharf. The request for the wharf was strongly endorsed bv both Mr. Hall and Mr. Finley, who were representatives of the two constituencies bordering upon that lake.
Kensington wharf-additions and repairs. $3,300.


William Pugsley: I was impressed with the observations which were made by the 1104
hon. member for Aleoma (Mr. Boyce) with regard to Kensington wharf. He said he had been informed by the owners that they were not desirous of selling, from which I took it for granted they are prepared to improve the wharf themselves; therefore, I prove to strike out this item.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I would like to know what the situation is. I think the owners want to come to some understanding with the government. I would like to see Kensington wharf put in proper shape, but the owners say they object to the government taking hold of their wharf and spending $3,300 upon it without some understanding with them. This is not a private wharf in the sense of serving only the interests of private individuals, but it serves a settlement that is tributary to it. If the government will consider the advisability of taking over that wharf as they have taken over Fort Finley wharf above it, it would be a very suitable arrangement. But I think it would be objectionable to spend $3,300 upon a wharf which is entirely a private wharf without any arrangement with the owners. I hope the minister will see his way clear to take over this wharf as a public wharf.


William Pugsley: This wharf belongs to the Hiawatha Land Company, and some time ago I was urged to make provision for improving it. I took it for granted that the owners were not in a position to [DOT]mt it in repair, and were willing to convey it to the government. But my hon. friend has stated that the Hiawatha Land Com) any are not prepared to convey it to the government, and, as under this vote, we would have no power tc purchase the property, I could not think of spending money .upon it unless the title is vested in the Crown.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Would you take into consideration the purchase of this wharf?


William Pugsley: I could not if we struck out the item.
Lion's Head-wharf repairs, $5,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What repairs are you doing there?


William Pugsley: We are renewing the superstructure of the old wharf. It is all right, below the water line but above the water line it has decayed and we are putting in a concrete superstructure.
McGregor's creek-to complete sheet pile protection work on south bank of creek, $3,000.


William Pugsley: This work is necessitated by reason of dredging work done by the government.


Samuel Hughes: Where is McGregor's creek?


William Pugsley: Near Chatham.
Michipicoten, Lake Superior - wharf on Michipicoten river-revote of $2,600 lapsed, $5,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are you going to do there?


William Pugsley: This is to construct a public wharf, close faced, strongly built, 207 feet in length, 25 feet in width and 20 feet in height.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: What is the estimated cost?


William Pugsley: 


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Where do you propose to place this wharf?


William Pugsley: We propose placing it along the south side of the ledge at the foot of the road leading to the village. It will be about 500 feet north of Michipicoten.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Are you going to commence work during the present season?


William Pugsley: That is the intention.
Montreal river-improvements above Latch-ford, $25,000.


William Pugsley: This is to continue the construction of the Latchford dam. We have called for tenders and a contract has been let for this work.


Samuel Hughes: This is only for the revote; we are not giving an extra $25,000?


William Pugsley: No. This is to raise the water and to improve navigation by means of flooding the rapids. It is really a very important work.


Samuel Hughes: You are going to put a dam below the rapids?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: You will not require to spend a large amount for buying flooded land?


William Pugsley: Not a great deal. We have had to pay something in Latchford. We bought from the Ontario Railway Commission there.


Samuel Hughes: Have you paid the Ontario government for land taken there?


William Pugsley: Yes.
Port Burwell-improvements to harbour works-revote of lansed amount, $50,000.


William Pugsley: This is an important work. Port Burwell is the point to which the car ferries come.
Port Hope-repairs to piers-revote of $3,300 lapsed, $5,000.


Samuel Hughes: 


Samuel Hughes: Who owns that harbour?


William Pugsley: The chief engineer tells me that we have taken it over.
Port Stanley-harbour improvements, $9,000.


Samuel Hughes: What about the life buoy service there? Was theTe not trouble about the time of the wreck, or is that under the Department of Public Works?


William Pugsley: No.


Samuel Hughes: Was not the lighthouse out of operation?


William Pugsley: That is under the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
Rainy river-improvements at Long Sault rapids-revote of lansed amount, $50,000.
>
Mr. PUGSLEY. I explained to the House the other night in regard to this item. I do not know whether we will require to use it or not. We must get the consent of the United States before it can go on.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: There is some international difficulty?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: That has been a long standing difficulty?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Has it been taken up by the Waterways Commission?


William Pugsley: No, thev said they could not deal with it, and asked us to refer it "to Washington. The United States government do not feel that thev could allow a foreign government to build a work in their territory.


Samuel Hughes: Is it the rule that no government is allowed to do work in another's territory?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Well I take it for granted that the minister is opposed to damming the St. Lawrence at Cornwall?


William Pugsley: That might be different. Suppose parliament gave the authority?


Samuel Hughes: But the minister would certainly oppose it?


William Pugsley: That would depend on what his view might be of the whole question. The minister is not yet prepared to support it.


Samuel Hughes: I understood the minister was one of the leaders in the movement.


William Pugsley: No, you could not have understood that.
Rainy river - improvements at mouth, $60,000.


William Pugsley: The mouth of the Rainy river is filling up. Strange to say there is not as much water in the mouth of the Rainy river by five or six feet as there was ten years ago. I suppose that owing to the clearing of the forests, silt is coming down more rapidly, and as the current is-becoming more sluggish where it joins the lake waters, the silt is being deposited.


Samuel Hughes: Why has the water gone down if the level is maintained at Kee-watin?


William Pugsley: As the forests are cleared away silt and mud come down the Rainy river with greater force each succeeding spring, and as the river flows out into the lake it naturally becomes more sluggish and has made a bar across the mouth of the river.


Samuel Hughes: Is not this in American territory too?


William Pugsley: No, this is a boundary river.


Samuel Hughes: It is in American territory.


William Pugsley: No, it is a boundary river.


Samuel Hughes: Half of it is in American territory.


William Pugsley: That is right, but we are doing the dredging in Canadian terri tory at the Lake of the Woods.


Samuel Hughes: Does the minister know where the boundary really is? From the mouth of the Rainy river where does the boundary line run? It runs from the northwest angle to the lake.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: The minister should be sure that he is not dredging in American territory.


William Pugsley: We propose having very extensive pile work which the engineer thinks will be effective protection.
River Sydenham-second outlet from Chenal Ecarte to Mitchell's bay-protection of banks at Martin island with pilework, $2,500.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the protection of this island. Erosion has taken place on the island which is alleged to be due to the diversion of the channel by reason of works carried on by the department. That is the only reason why we admit any responsibility. Several owners of property have protested vigorously and claimed that we should take steps to protect the island.


Samuel Hughes: Is this not a wharf for duck hunters?


William Pugsley: Oh, no, it could not be used as a wharf.


Mr. BEATTIE.: There is a large sugar beet business there, where beets come down to the main land.
Rondeau harbour-improvements, $200,000.


William Pugsley: This is under contract to Mr. Birmingham of Ottawa, the lowest tenderer. This work has been before parliament for some time. A vote was taken the session before last, but as the amount was too small for the large improvements which were contemplated we did not proceed with the work. The object is to build break-waters to afford protection and harbour accommodation called for by the largely increasing traffic at the port.


Samuel Hughes: What riding is this in?


William Pugsley: In East Kent. It is supposed that by building the breakwaters we will establish a very good harbour of refuge and a very important harbour. The north shore of the lake is singularly deficient in harbours of refuge for a long distance and I think it is regarded as essential by everybody that this work should go on. There was expended up to December 1, $21,000 and the total contract price of the work is $229,000. Then we have to do the dredging as a separate item.


William Pugsley: By damming the outlet of the Lake of the Woods it was supposed it would improve navigation, hut as a result of the raising of the waters of the lake and as a result of the storms which arose an island which was at the head of the lake was washed away.


James Joseph Hughes: Then you need the dredging.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: How will the minister protect the channel when it is dredged, it is very sandy.
Sault Ste. Marie wharf-addition to return on west side, $10,000.


William Pugsley: This is to add an extension westerly on the ' L ' of the government wharf for 100 feet.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Does this include any dredging?


William Pugsley: No. There will be a concrete superstructure.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: There is a nasty jog on the east side of the wharf which wants some

dredging. The Canadian Pacific railway and all big boats have to make a nasty turn there and the utility of the wharf is impaired.


William Pugsley: We are doing a good deal of dredging.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I hope the minister will see his way clear to get that straightened out.	,


William Pugsley: I will give it consideration.
Sibley harbour, $2,000.


William Pugsley: This is to repair an old wharf to make it serviceable for traffic and to afford shelter to steamers. It will be a harbour of refuge on the north shore of Lake Superior. It was strongly urged by the member for the constituency, Mr. Conmee.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: There are boats running out every week.


James Conmee: There is a good deal of mining going on there; it is a public harbour not -owned by any one. It is a harbour of refuge for a line of vessels which run down the north shore to Nipigon and other ports and is a great resort for the fishing vessels of that section. This amount, I think, is hardly enough. I think the minister might double the amount, because it is a meritorious work. Three lines of steamers call regularly there. The people have for many years maintained a light there at their own expense, and I think it is time the government did something decent for that harbour.
Thornbury

addition and repairs to wharf, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the construction of 200 feet of cribwork as an extension of the wharf.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What kind of cribwork? Mr. PUGSLEY. Timber and stone.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is its width?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell my hon. friend, but I assume that it would be the same as the other-24 feet.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There must be some mistake, for this amount will not build a fraction of that.


William Pugsley: If we have to get more, we will come back.
Wiarton-extension to breakwater pier, $15,000.	1	'


William Pugsley: This is to provide for the extension of the breakwater pier, to complete repairs and renewals to the shore end, and also for the removal of a wreck. The total cost of the extension is estimated Mr. BOYCE.
at $21,000, and the removal of the wreck at $3,000.	.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.

Monday, February 14, 1910.
The SPEAKEB took the Chair at Three
0	clock.



Mr.   SPEAKEB@: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Hon. Mr. Justice Pelletier and the Hon. Mr. Justice Lemieux, two of the judges selected for the trial of election petitions, pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a judgment and report relating to the election petition for the elecT toral district of BellechaSse, by which the election petition was dismissed and the sitting member declared duly elected.


CEBTIFICATE OF ELECTION.
Mr. DEPUTY  SPEAKEE@: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown m Chancery a certificate of election and return of Albert Allard, Esquire, for the electoral district of Ottawa City.


QUESTION OF PEIVILEGE.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called,
.Mr. O. S. CEOCKET. Mr. Speaker I rise to a question of privilege. The Toronto Globe m its report of the discussion whmh took place in the Committee of Supply of this House on Friday last, upon the subject of the extension of the wharf at Dink Kock, m the province of New Brunswick, has this to say of myself:
By reading extracts from some documents and carefully refraining from reading others he sought to convey the impression that money was being taken from the public treasury and spent upon a wharf at Pink Kock owned by a company managed by a political friend of the Minister of Public Works Hon. Mr. Pugsley destroyed Mr. Crocket's pretty little piece of political patchwork at one blow by producing an agreement which snowed that the wharf had passed from the hands of the company referred to by the member for \ork into those of the Crown, and that the expenditures complained of were for the improvement of a public work in the public interest.
1	desire to say that the statement that this wharf, to which the government is building an extension, had passed from the hands of the company into the hands of the Crown, is untrue. The wharf still re-

mains the property of the Albert Manufacturing Company.
William Pugsley: I desire to ask if this is a question of privilege.' My hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) is making statements -which are unwarranted by the evidence, and it would seem to me that there is no question of privilege in what my hon. friend is now stating.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I submit that it is a question of privilege. This statement made concerning a discussion and concerning a statement"which I made in the House surely is a matter of privilege and one that I have a right to correct. I am saying that the statement that the wharf which was under criticism the other day had passed into the hands of the Crown is an untrue statement. I say that the title to that wharf is still vested in the Albert .Manufacturing Company, and in the New Brunswick Gypsum Company, of which Mr. Osman is manager, subject only to an agreement which was entered into by the eomnany giving a right of way to and upon the wharf to the public and allowing His Majesty to charge wharfage upon all vessels other than their own vessels, or vessels chartered by the company, which agreement, Mr. Speaker


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.
Mr. CROCKET, -is nothing more nor less than


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) has read an article and has stated that the article has misrepresented him. He proceeds now to give an explanation.
I do not know how far the hon. gentleman may be allowed to go, but he understands clearly that it is a question of privilege, and he can merely make a statement in reference to what he objects to in the paper. I do not suppose that to enter into a discussion of the matter now would be regular.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I have a right to show that this statement is untrue, and I say that the agreement which was referred to is nothing more nor less than a sham agreement inasmuch as the wharf is so situated-


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Mr PUGSLEY.: I rise to a point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) rises to a point of order.


William Pugsley: I think that when the hon. gentleman rises to a question of privilege he is certainly going beyond the privilege when he enters into a lengthy statement
in regard to evidence which is before a committee of this House. This whole question of the Pink Rock wharf is before the Committee on Pubic Accounts. My hon. friend is certainly making a statement the truth of which I cannot admit and which will not be verified by the evidence before the Public Accounts Committee.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) is accused of misrepresentation and surely he has the right of showing that he is not guilty oi misrepresentation.


Mr. FIELDING.: Would it be correct for every member of this House, when he is accused in some statement in the public press, to come here and make it a question of privilege? I would hardly think so.


George Eulas Foster: If he is accused of falsehood?


William Stevens Fielding: No, almost every day,
I am sorry to say, we find some statement in the public press to which we could take exception. I think my hon. friend should confine himself to a correction of the misrepresentation of his own speech.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think that is the proper attitude. As far as discussing a matter that is now before the Public Accounts Committee is concerned, I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) has no intention of doing that?


Oswald Smith Crocket: No, I have no intention of doing anything farther than discussing the statement which was made. Surely an hon. member, in discussing a question of privilege, when he has been misrepresented in the public press, is not confined to the simple statement that the statement concerning himself is untrue? He can go further and show in what respect the statement is untrue.


William Stevens Fielding: The House will be kept busy.


Oswald Smith Crocket: In so far as the statement that this question is before the Public Accounts Committee is concerned, I say that this question is not before the Public Accounts Committee. It is true that the return from which I adduced the proof of this statement I got by a motion before the Public Accounts Committee. But the matter has not been under investigation by the Public Accounts Committee. I do not intend discussing the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee, but I merely wish to add to what I have already said of this agreement that it is nothing more nor less than a sham-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Inasmuch as the wharf is


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) must be allowed to say something. He takes exception to a newspaper paragraph and says that the newspaper misrepresents him. He proceeds to give an explanation, and I do not know that he has given any reason so far why I should prevent him.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Inasmuch as this wharf is so situated that no other vessels than the company's own vessels or vessels chartered by them are using it or will ever use this wharf. The statement that the wharf has been transferred to the Crown is absolutely untrue and the Minister of Public Works knows it.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That last remark is out of order.


William Pugsley: That is a figment of the imagination of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket).


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: 
Oswald Smith Crocket: I am discussing a statement which appeared in the ' Globe,' newspaper. I say that that statement is untrue. I say furthermore that the Minister of Public Works knows that the statement that this wharf has been transferred to the government is untrue. I am not saying that the statement he made in the House is untrue. I am saying that the statement which this paper makes is untrue, and I say that the Minister of Public Works knows that the statement is untrue.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


THE BANK ACT.
George Eulas Foster: I ask the Minister of Finance when we are to expect the Banking Bill? We are getting along well in the session, it is an important Bill and we should have as much time as possible to consider it.


William Stevens Fielding: I had contemplated introducing- an amending Act, but I have concluded it would be much more convenient to present a revised Act, and my officials are now arranging it accordingly. Inasmuch as there is an abundance of important matter on the order paper, I have thought that probably no disadvantage would be suffered if there was a few days delay in bringing forward the Banking Act. I am giving it my best attention and it will not be much longer delayed.


George Eulas Foster: So far as the action of the House lis concerned! there probably would be no disadvantage, but the sooner Mr. CROCKET.
it is down the more quickly will members be able to make themselves acquainted with it.


William Stevens Fielding: I quite understand that.


UNITED STATES MINIMUM TARIFF.
George Eulas Foster: Has the Minister of Finance any further information with reference to the inclusion or otherwise of Canada in the benefit of the minimum tariff rates of the United States to which it appears Great Britain has been admitted. I see also that Germany has been admitted although her colonies are still under consideration.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is quite clear that the arrangement with Great Britain does not include Canada and that Canada will have to be dealt with by a separate proclamation.


George Eulas Foster: None such is issued?


William Stevens Fielding: None such has issued.


George Eulas Foster: Has the Minister of Finance had any negotiation in any way to find out what is going on, or, is he simply waiting?


William Stevens Fielding: 
MANITOBA FISHERIES COMMISSION,.
George Henry Bradbury: I wish to ask the First Minister when the fishery report will be brought down?


Wilfrid Laurier: I regret to say that the deputy minister is confined to his bed by illness and I could not have an interview with him.


RESIGNATION OF CHIEF ENGINEER LUMSDEN.
Haughton Lennox: I wish to ask the Prime Minister when we may expect that the committee appointed to investigate the resignation of Mr. Lumsden will be called together? The committee was named on the 3rd of this month, eleven days ago. Is there any reason why the committee should not be called together and the inquiry proceeded with; the session is getting on?


Wilfrid Laurier: If there is any reason, I do not know of it. I see no reason why the committee should not be called for to-morrow or the day after.


Robert Laird Borden: It is a curious thing that the committee has not been called together long before this.
34S1

PURCHASE OF THE * NIOBE.'


George Eulas Foster: I direct the attention of the Prime Minister to a question which has been up two or three times, and as to which the Prime Minister promised an answer would be given in the course of the explanations upon the Naval Bill. It would appear from the statement made by the Minister of Militia that the government has already purchased the ' Niobe ' for oyer $1,000,000. Parliament has been sitting here since November, the government has not a shadow of a vote for any such expenditure, and the Prime Minister has not seen fit to acquaint the House with what he is doing. He seems to be entering into an arrangement to spend the people's money without having had any parliamentary authority and he has been doing it for two and a half months while the members of parliament, who ought to have something to-say in what is going on, are deprived of all information. The Prime Minister promised that full information would be given, but he omitted to do so when moving the second reading of the Bill, and the Minister of Militia did not deal with the question either.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend will see when the correspondence has been brought down, that it is subject to the approval of parliament. The correspondence is now completed and it will be brought down at an early date, perhaps to-morrow.


WATERWAYS TREATY.
Robert Laird Borden: Has the Prime Minister anything further to announce with regard to the present position of the waterways treaty?


Wilfrid Laurier: No; it is in the same position.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 142) to incorporate the Congregational Union of Canada.-Mr. A. Haggart.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 27) respecting the British North American Mining Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 133) to incorporate the Merchants Bank of Canada Pension Fund.-Mr. Doherty.
Bill (No. 117) for the relief of George Robert Buttonshaw.-Mr. Campbell.
Bill (No. 134) for the relief of Hope Eileen Moreland Drinkle.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 43) respecting the Hudson Bay Insurance Company.-Mr. Knowles.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. Ill) respecting the Dominion Millers' Association.-Mr. Harris.
On section 2, subsection (b).
Haughton Lennox: I observe that the words ' for the purposes of its business only ' are introduced in this section. That phrase differs from the phrase regularly used in railway Bills ' for the purpose of its undertaking.' This may lead to doubt as to the precise meaning of the phrase used here, and I would suggest that the Bill be allowed to stand for further consideration.


Mr. HARRIS.: I understand that this Bill was referred to a special subcommittee and the amendments proposed were brought in by that committee. [DOT] I believe the subcommittee considered that, with the amendments added, the section sufficiently limited the charter.


Haughton Lennox: I do not see why we should use one phraseology as regards railway Bills and another phraseology as regards private Bills of this kind, and I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 139) respecting the Bay of Quinte Railway Company.-Mr. Talbot.


[Stage Direction]
M. G. BOYER asks: (Translation).
1.	Is it a fact that the interesting weekly review called Weekly Report, is not published in both languages?
2.	If so, will the Government have this remedied ?
Sir W. LAURIER (Translation).: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.


GRAIN SUPERVISION AT FORT WILLIAM AND PORT ARTHUR.
Mr. SCHAFFNER:: 1.	How many men are employed by the government as grain supervisors at Fort William iand Port Arthur.
2.	What is the total cost per annum of the supervision ?
3.	What are the names of the men employed, and the salary of each?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	24 at present; but he number is always increased when navigation opens.
2.	About $18,000 per annum.
3.	The list of names with salaries cannot be given, as changes are taking place more or less all the time. The men are paid $60 a month when working.


PUBLIC BUILDING AT LACHUTE, QUEBEC.
Mr. PERLEY:: 1.	When was the new public building at Laclmte completed?
2.	When were the fixtures installed in it?
3.	Has it yet been opened to the public.? If so, when? If not, why not?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to arrange for a customs officer and service in this building?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1.	The building is virtually completed; a slight change has to be made to the electric lighting and is now being attended to.
2.	Early in January, 1910.
3.	No, owing to the change to electric lighting.
4.	To be answered by the Department of Customs.


POST OFFICE AT HALIFAX.
Mr. CROSBY:: 1.	At what time did the Post Office Department decide to reconstruct the inside of the post office at Halifax, and in what way did they arrange to have it done?
2.	Was it done by contract or by day work?
3.	If by contract, how were tenders asked, who were the tenderers, what were the conditions imposed upon the contractor, when was the work done, what was the penalty, if any, how much work has been done, how much money paid to the present contractor, and when may we expect the work to be done so that the Post Office Department may get the building back for the benefit of the public ?
i.	How many men are at work on the building at present, what has been the average number of men per month working on that building since the contract has been let, and what was the rate of wages paid ?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	In 1907-08, through the Department of Public Works.
2.	By contract.
3.	(a) By public advertisement;
(b) M. E. Keefe	$ 94,000
Doran & Devlin	 114,000
J. Mclnnes & Son, Ltd.. 145,000
(c)	Work to be completed according to plans and specification.
(d)	March 18, 1910.
(e)	Clause 21 of contract is as follows: Contractor shall be liable for and shall cause to be paid to His Majesty all salaries or wages which shall become due to person or persons superintending the work on behalf of His Majesty from the above named period of completion until the same shall be actually completed and received; unless reason for such delay satisfactory to the chief architect and approved by the minister shall be given by the said contractor.
(f)	About i completed.
(g)	$31,710.
(h)	About July 1, 1910.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: 4.	(a) 23 to 25.
(b)	Average number of men weekly from beginning to date, 26.
(c)	The wages to be paid are included in the specification, in the Fair Wages Schedule under labour conditions; the schedule is furnished by the Labour Department.


VESSELS PURCHASED BY MARINE DEPARTMENT SINCE 1896.
Mr. BLAIN:: How many vessels have been purchased by the government since the year 1896, what are their names, the cost of each and where purchased?


Wilfrid Laurier: 1. Thirteen vessels were purchased.
Name.	Where Purchased.	Cost.
' Princess/ Charlottetown, P.E.I	$45,000
'Restless/ New Westminster, B.C.. .. 18,000
' Hudson/ St. John, N.B	 3,600
'Newington/ Victoria, B.C	 38,000
' Falcon/ Vancouver, B.C	 9,000
' Scout/ Kingston, Ont	 16,669
' Reserve/ Ottawa, Ont	 3,300
' Bayfield,' Quebec, Que	 50,000
' Gulnare/ Charlottetown, P.E.I..	.. 36,000
' Shamrock/ Quebec, Que	 21,500
'Lady of the Lake/ Selkirk, Man.. ..	8,000
' Maisonneuve/ Ottawa, Ont	 8,500
' Christine/ Halifax, N.S	 17,000


WINNIPEG POST OFFICE
[Stage Direction]
On the order:	Question by Mr. Haggart
(Winnipeg) as to keeping open for box-holders Winnipeg post office.
Mr. LEMIEUX.: I shall be prepared to answer this question to-morrow. But as to sub-question 11, concerning representations made by citizens of Winnipeg on this subject, I would suggest to my hon. friend that he should move for a x'eturn, because the answer is very bulky and voluminous.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Subsection 11 of this question stands as a notice of motion for a return.


GREAT LAKES DREDGING COMPANY CONTRACT.
Mr. RALPH SMITH:: 1.	What dredging has been done since April, 1909, at Fort William to improve the harbour accommodation, and also deepening the Kam-inistiquia river, under contract given to the Great Lakes Dredging Company?
2.	What is the total yardage dredged during that period, and the amount of earth and rock ?
3.	What price has been paid for the same, and has the said work exceeded the appropriation for the same?
4.	What am aunt of moneys have been paid over to the company, when was the last payment made, and what amount is still due the company?
5.	Is the contract to he extended? If so, for what term of years?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Dredging Kaministiquia and Mission rivers and Grand Trunk Pacific terminal basin at Fort William.
Cubic yards.
[DOT] 2. Earth	,. 3,362,661
Rock	 36,765
Total	;	 3,399,426
3.	(b) Prices under contract dated June 27th, 1906:
Kaministiquia and Mission Rivers:
Scow measurement:	$2 per cubic yard
for rock and 9 cents per cubic yard for other material.	*
In situ:	$3 per cubic yard for rock and
9 cents per cubic yard for other material.
Above rates include towing 31 miles; if towed further, 1 cent per cubic yard per mile to be added.
Prices under contract dated June 4, 1909:
Kaministiquia and Mission rivers:
(For complete areas,' to dredge an additional 3 feet beyond the depth of 22 feet as per original contract.)
Scow measurement: $2.85 per cubic yard for rock and 22i cents for other material.
(For uncompleted areas under contract dated June 27, 1906, to an additional depth of 3 feet.)
Scow measurement: $2.40 per cubic yard for rock and 10i cents for other material.
Prices under contract dated February 27, 1909:
Grand Trunk Pacific terminal basin, Mission river:
Scow measurement: $2.85 per cubic yard for rock and 16 cents for other material.
Cast over: Same prices.
Additional prices for dumping material in structures or back of cribs, when rehandling is required, 18i cents per cubic yard.
Measured in situ:	$4 per cubic yard for
rock and 251 cents for other material.
3.	(b) Work has exceeded amount of appropriation.
4.	(a) $315,017.72.	(b) November 6, 1909.
(c) $379,200:46.
5.	The original contract was enlarged June 4, 1909, and the amount of work still to be done will necessarily require a longer period than that specified by the said original contract.


QUEBEC BRIDGE COMPANY'S FINANCES.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	What amount of money or its equivalent was in the hands or control of the Quebec Bridge Company at the time of the collapse of the Quebec bridge?
2.	What became of the money';
3.	Was any of the money paid to the directors of the company? If so, what sums, to whom and on what account?


George Perry Graham: 1,	2 and 3. There was no money in the hands or control of the Quebec Bridge Company at the time of the collapse of the Quebec bridge.


THE WHITBY POST OFFICE.
Mr. SAM. SHARPE:: 1.	What is the total cost of the Whitby post office to date?
2.	What was the original estimate?
3.	Who is superintendent of work, what salary is he being paid, and how long has he been engaged ?	[DOT]


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	$23,727.77, including site.
2.	$33,000, exclusive of site.
3.	(a) W. H. Bradshaw; (b) $4 per working day; (c) Since July 1, 1909.


PAYMENTS TO NEWSPAPERS IN CITY OF QUEBEC.
Mr. CROCKET:: 1.	Have the ' Soleil ' Publication Company, the ' Vigie ' Publication Company, and the ' Daily Telegram ' Publication Company, of Quebec, received any sums of money from the different federal departments and from the Transcontinental Commission, since the first day of March, 1908?
2.	If so, what amount of money has each of these companies received, and on what dates, respectively ?


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY.: I would ask the hon. gentleman to let that stand as a notice of motion.


CONSERVATION COMMISSION AND THE FISHERIES.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Has the Commission for the Conservation of Natural Resources the oversight of or the advisory powers, as to the regulation or control of the fisheries of Canada or any branch thereof? If so, what is the scope of their duties?
2.	What action, if any, has been taken, or is in contemplation, with reference thereto?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN:: 1.	The duties of the commission in this regard are defined by section 10 of the Act to establish a commission for the conservation of natural resources, chapter 27, 8-9 Edward VII.
2.	The commission has appointed a Committee on Fisheries, Game and Fur-beaTing Animals under the provision of section 10 of the Act. This committee will make investigations, and in due course, send, recommendations to the government.


CREW AND WAGES PAID, ON STEAMER ' EARL GREY.'
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	What is the name, place of residence, occupation on ship and wages paid to each person employed on the government steamer ' Earl Grey ?'
2.	Are they on ship's articles, where was each one engaged, and at wliat port did he sign contract?


Wilfrid Laurier: 


CREW LIST OF &quot;EARL GREY.&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Name.
County from.
Rank.
Salary.
cts.
A. Brown	
J. L. Read	
L. C. Rhude	
H. R. Cook	
D. D. Ryan	
A. Lavers	
John McMillan....
John Blue	
John Campbell____
L. Williamson....
Colin McDonald..,
Win. Landry	
Wm. Grant	
Neil McDonald____
Gilbert DesRoches.
Wm. Poole	
Wm. Cousins	
Albert McNeil....
Dan Matheson	
Peter Gillis	
Geo. LeBlanc	
Geo. Birch	
A.	Arsenault	
Mungo Ferguson.. Alex. McDonald... Dougal Mclsaac .. Wallace McDonald
J. H. Hill	
R. Beck	
Jas. Rice	
Jas. Shephard...
John McCarvill___
Geo. Rice	
Wm. Beers	
Alfred Cheverie__
Maurice Donovan..
Tena Trainor	
John Gillis
Alex.   C@: B.	Crookshand....
P. W. Lyon	
Wm. Hislop	
Edgar Finlayson...
Geo. Harris	
Alfred Baines....
Sam Martin	
James Donovan....
James Arbing	
T. Buchanan	
Jas. Wisener	
John Steward	
H. McEachern	
A. Stevenson	
A.	Herron	
H. McNeill	
N. Morrison	
R. Davis	
F. Flynn	
H. Davison	
F. Hogan	
T. Doyle	
J. McMaster	
H. Alchorn	
B.	Binns	
L. Wood	
F. Coyle	
T. Ronahan	
P. Matheson	
Queens. Prince.. Kings .. Pictou.. Queens. Kings .. Queens. Kings... Queens. Queens. Pictou.. Kings ..
Queens Prince. Kings.. Prince. Queens Kings.,

Prince
Kings	
ii	
Queens	
I	. . . .
Kings	
P. E. Island
Pictou	
Queens	
Pictou	
Queens	
Kings	
it	
Kings


Queens .   ...@: it .
England Pictou..
Queens.. Pictou.. England Kings....
ii . . . .
Queens...
Kings	
Pictou....
Queens____
Prince. Queens
Pictou. Queens.
ii
Kings
Master	
1st officer...
2nd officer.... Operator ....
Purser


Checker ...: Quartermaster
Carpenter . Deckhand .
Watchman . Deckhand ..
ii	..,
ii	...


Steward ....: 2nd Steward Cook ..	..
2nd Cook... Waiter	
ii ....		
Pantry boy	
Mess steward	
Stewardess	
Pantry boy	
Stoker	
Guarantee engineer ..
Chief engineer _____
2nd engineer	
3rd engineer	
4th engineer	
5th engineer	
Oiler and storekeeper Oiler	
ii
Leading stoker
Ii
Stoker	
Stoker.
135 00 60 00 45 00 60 00 60 00 55 00 25 Oo 25 OO 25 00 35 00 35 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 23 00 45 00 30 00 40 00 27 00 20 00 20 00 20 00 20 00 25 00 13 00 17 00 25 00 121 00 90 00 68 18 50 00 40 00 50 00 30 OO 30 00 30 OO 30 00 30 00 30 00 27 50 27 50 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 00 25 OO


Wilfrid Laurier: CREW LIST OF "EARL GREY"-Concluded.
Name.	County from.	# Rank. .	Salary.
			$ cts. 25 00
			25 00
			25 00
			25 00
			25 00
			25 00
			25 00
			20 00
			20 00
Alf. Mills				20 00
			
2.	(a)j Yes; (b) Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; (c) Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island.


POST OFFICE BUILDING AT PICTOU, N.S.
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1. Who was the contractor for the work of copper roofing the post office building at l'ictou, Nova Scotia, in 1909?
.2. Who supplied the material for said work?
3.	What was the quantity and weight of copper plate supplied, and what was the price paid for same?
i. What was the total cost of the work?
5.	Who inspected the materials and work, and what was he paid for inspection?
6.	Was the work done and material supplied under public tender and contract? If so, who were the tenderers, and what was the amount of each tender?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	W. 0. Wetmore & Company.
2 and 3. The contract was for a bulk sum of $1,500, the contractor furnishing his own material; 16 oz. cold rolled copper specified.
4.	$1,590.
5.	D. H. Waterbury, who is on the permanent staff of the department at an annual salary.
6.	Tenders were invited from W. C. Wet-more & Company and from Scott Brown, but the latter declined to tender owing to pressure of work.


TRANSFER OF MR. JUSTICE PRENDER-GAST.
Mr. A. HAGGART:: 1.	Has Mr. Justice Prendergast been transferred from the Saskatchewan Supreme Court bench to the Court of King's bench for Manitoba?
2.	If so, was there any lack of legal talent in Manitoba, making it advisable to resort to another province for a judge?
3.	What was the reason for the action of the government in this case, in departing from
the usual course of appointing judges from the bar of the province in which they are to be judge?


Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The legal talent of the Bar of Manitoba is beyond question-the hon. gentleman is himself a member of the Bar.
3.	Mr. Justice Prendergast was a Judge in the province of Manitoba before going to Saskatchewan. ITe now returns to Manitoba.


INTERNATIONAL FISHERY COMMISSION.
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:: 1.	Is it intended that the regulations adopted by the International Fishery Commission shall become effective on the date therein stated, without action on the part of this parliament?
2.	Has there been any undertaking on the part of the Canadian government to make or maintain supplementary regulations with respect to fisheries in Canadian waters adjoining the international waters governed by the treaty? If so, what is the undertaking?
3.	Has there been any similar undertaking on the part of the United States government?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1.	Parliament will be asked to pass legislation to effect these regulations.
2.	Yes; but only so far as the Fraser river is concerned, and Canada has already there, as elsewhere in Canada, not covered by the treaty, adequate regulations in operation.
3.	No.
TRANSCONTINENTAL	RAILWAY-CON-


TRACT OF O'BRIEN, FOWLER AND McDOUGALL.
Mr. LENNOX:: 1. Since the letting of the contract for the construction of a portion of the Transcontinental Railway to O'Brien. Fowler and Mc-Dougall, have estimates been made of the quantities of work yet remaining to be done and of the material yet to be furnished?

2. If so, at what dates have these estimates been made, and by whom P If not, why not ?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	" No estimates have been made of the
quantities of work yet remaining to be done nor of the materials yet to be furnished.	/
2.	Engineers have not had time to cover the line to revise the original estimate, work on some portions having just begun.


TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-
Me ARTHUR CONTRACT.: 


Haughton Lennox: Who signed the September estimates on McArthur contract, 214 miles east from Winnipeg, for September, 1907?


George Perry Graham: C. 0. Foss, acting district engineer


ROYAL CANADIAN DRAGOONS-ST.
Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Has the government under consideration the question of transferring the Royal Canadian Dragoons from St. Johns to some other point? If so, what point, and when will the transfer be made?
2.	Has the government under consideration the question of transferring the barracks of St. Johns to the authorities of the Merrivale College ?
3.	Is the government considering the question of erecting barracks or other buildings for military purposes at or near St. Lambert?
4.	Is it the intention of the government to use the quarters of the Governor of New Brunswick in Fredericton for military purposes? If so, under what conditions?


William Pugsley: 1 No.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	No.


VALUATION OF IMPORTED BINDERS.
Mr. STAPLES:: 1.	What valuation is placed on a McCormick 6 feet, 7 feet and 8 feet cut binder for customs purposes coming into Canada ?
2.	Is the same valuation placed on a Deering binder of the same size? If not, what is the valuation?
3.	What is the valuation placed on a 4 feet, 5 feet and a 6 feet cut mower for customs purposes?
4.	What was the valuation placed on the above-mentioned machines in 1896, 1900 and 1904?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 1 and 2. The valuation now placed for duty purposes on McCormick and Deering binders (imported wholesale) is as follows, viz.: 6 feet binder with carrier $107.50 ; 7 Mr. LENNOX.
feet binder with carrier $110.50; 8 feet binder with carrier and T truck, $130.
3.	The valuation now placed for duty purposes on 4, 5 and 6 feet cut mowers imported wholesale is as follows, viz.: 4 feet mower for one horse, $34 and $35; 41 feet mower, $38.50; 5 feet mower, $41; 6 feet mower, $42.
4.	The valuation placed on the machines above mentioned in 1896, 1900 and 1904 was as follows, viz: Binders, 1896 in quantities 1 to 25, $100 (Carriers $5 extra; 26 to 50, $97.50 (Carriers $5 extra); 51 to 75, $95 (Carriers $5 extra); 76 to 125, $92.50 (Carriers $5 extra); 126 and over, $90 (Carriers $5 extra).
Binders, 1900 for all quantities and sizes including bundle carrier, $102.
Binders, 1904 for 6 feet and 7 feet cut including bundle carrier, $97; for 8 feet cut including bundle carrier and truck, $110.
Mowers, 1896 for 41 and 5 feet cut in quantities 1 to 25, $34 each; 26 to 50, $33 each; 51 to 75, $32 each; 76 to 125, $31 each; 125 and over, $30 each.
Mowers, 1900 for 4 feet cut, one horse, $3.3; for 5 feet cut, $37; for 6 feet cut, $39.
Mowers, 1904 for 4 feet cut, one horse, $32; for 5 feet cut, $36; for 6 feet cut, $37.


IMPORTATIONS INTO YUKON TERRITORY.
Mr. MCCARTHY:: 1.	How many dollars worth of goods came into the Yukon territory, duty free, under item 460 of the tariff since the beginning of 1906?
2.	How many dollars worth of goods came into the Yukon territory, duty free, under item 461 of the tariff since the beginning of 1906?
3.	How many dollars worth of goods came into the Yukon territory and paid duty under item 461a of the tariff since the beginning of 1906?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN:: 1. The value of the importations into the Yukon territory during the calendar years from 1906 to 1909, inclusive, was as follows, under tariff item 460:
1906		$ 37,690
1907	 10,404
1908	 142
1909		
Total	$ 48,236
2. The value of the importations into the Yukon territory during the calendar years from 1906 to 1909, inclusive, was as follows.
under tariff item 461:
1906		$ 65,388
1907	 124,372
1908	 387,997
1909		'	 239,735
Total	 $817,492

3.	The value of the importations into the Yukon territory during the calendar years from 1906 to 1909, inclusive, was as follows, under tariff item 461a:
1906		
1907		 119,674
1908		 16,850
1909		47,380
Total	$183,904


PETROLEUM LOCATIONS ON THE ATIIABASKA RIVER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCarthy :
1.	Wliat petroleum locations have been made on the Athabaska river between Atha-baska Landing and the Athabaska lake to date?
2.	How many of these locations have been proved up by the discovery of oil, what licenses have been granted to date, and upon whose^ reports were these licenses granted?
3.	When were these reports made, and in what way would an intending locator get possession of copies of them in order to obtain information with regard to the resources of the country already proven?
*I. What regulations, if any, are in force for the location of tar-sand?
5.	What applications has the department for extensions of time in which to carry out the exploratory duties on petroleum or tar-sand locations in that district?
6.	Is the department making any effort to prove the existence or extent of petroleum, tar-sand, gas, salt or asphalt in this district?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	In all some 280 applications have been received and dealt with for the reservation of petroleum locations on both sides of the Athabaska river, from a point about three (3) miles above the mouth of Horse creek to the mouth of Tar river. All of these applications with the exception of fourteen (14) have elapsed.
2.	Six. No licenses have been granted, as the regulations only provide for sale, and no sales have been made. Reports were made by S. T. Blackwell, Alfred Von Ham-merstein, Robert Volkoffsky, William Dwyer and F. B. Smith.
3.	During the year 1909. These reports refer only to the particular location in res-peet of which the same were made. They can be made public on motion for a return.
4.	No such regulations are in force.
5.	W. A. Campbell applied for extension of time on petroleum location, claiming to have machinery on the ground.
6.	Not at present.
Note.-The tar-sands were mentioned in the report of the Geological Survey for 18734 (page 22), and described in the report for 1875-6 (page 92). They were investigated by Bell in 1882 (Annual Report Geological Survey. 1882-4, part CC), and by McConnell in 1888 (Annual Report, volume V., part D). I
McConnell estimates the tar-sands to cover at least 1,000 square miles, and to contain 28-4 cubic miles of material having a bitumen content of 6-5 cubic miles. From 1894 to 1900 the Geological Survey spent $38,501.24 in experimental boring in Alberta, and since that date have spent $11,500 in assisting in that work. It may now be left to private enterprise to prospect and develop these resources.


GOVERNMENT LANDS AT ST. JOHNS.
Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	How many acres of land are owned by the government of Canada at St. Johns, Quebec?
2.	Are these all in military use, and what troops are now there?
3.	Is it proposed to sell these lands?
4.	What buildings are thereon?
5.	To whom are the properties to be sold, and were public tenders asked for?
6.	If not sold, before being sold, will public tenders be called for, or will the sale be by public auction or by private sale?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	99 acres.
2.	(a) No; they are not all in military use; (b) the following troops are stationed at St. Jean, province of Quebec: 'A' Squadron Royal Canadian Dragoons, 90; No. 4 Detachment Permanent Army Medical Corps, 6; total number of officers, non-commissioned officers and men, 96.
3.	No.
4.	St. Johns barracks, including:
Buildings.
Men's quarters	 2
Officers' quarters	 1
Married quarters.. '	 1
Hospital	 1
Guard room	 1
Drill hall	 1
New stable	 1
Engineer shops	 1
Sheds	 2
Fairbank's scales	 1
Old drill hall	 1
Oil store	 1
5 and 0. Answered by No 3.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
Copy of all papers and instructions given to A. S. Williams, law clerk of the Department of Indian Affairs, and to S. Swinford, inspector of Indians, Winnipeg, in connection with their work among the St. Peter's Indians in Manitoba; also a copy of the report of these gentlemen in connection with the work they have been engaged in during the last few weeks among the St. Peter's Indians.-Mr. Bradbury.
Return showing the amounts that hare been paid to the * Whig ' Publishing Company for printing and advertising by or for any departments of this government other than Militia and Defence and Marine and Fisheries, each
[Stage Direction]
year from 1896 to the present time.-Mr. Edwards.
Copy of all correspondence with Major Ly-don, or other persons, respecting an application on behalf of the Highland Cadet Corps of Montreal, for permission to import, free of customs duty, certain articles of uniform and equipment, the manufacture of which is not carried on in Canada.-Mr. Worthington.
Copy of all orders in council, correspondence, reports, documents and papers, relating to the right or privilege to raise the waters of Clear lake, province of Manitoba, application for which was made by a company to develop power on the Little Saskatchewan river.-Mr. Roche.
Copy of all pay-sheets, accounts and vouchers for wages, material and expenditure in connection with work on Skinner's Cove, Boat Harbour, Pietou county, Nova Scotia, in the years 1907, 1908 and 1909.-Mr. Stanfield.
Copy of ' all pay-sheets, accoimts and vouchers for wages, materials and other expenditures in connection with work on the Causeway between Cariboo and Cariboo Island, Pietou county, Nova Scotia, in the years 1907, 1908 and 1909.-Mr. Stanfield.
Copy of all pay-sheets, accounts and vouchers for wages, materials and other expenditures in connection with work on the Toney river, Boat Harbour, Pietou county, Nova Scotia, in the years 1907, 1908 and 1909.-Mr. Rhodes.
Copy of all correspondence, submissions, references, reports, returns and orders in council, in reference to the adjustment of the disputed item of 581 cubic yards of excavation, claimed at $10 instead of $2.50 a cubic yard, referred to in a letter of the Auditor General to the Secretary of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, dated the 18th August, 1909.-Mr. Lennox.

Mr.  G. V.@: WHITE (North Renfrew) moved for:
A copy of all orders in council, reports, correspondence, documents and papers, not already brought down, relating to the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, or any portion thereof, or relating to the surveys thereof, and all offers, proposals and written negotiations not already brought down, with respect to the construction of the said canal or any portion thereof by any company, corporation or syndicate, or with respect to the guarantee by the government of bonds or debentures for the purpose of raising the necessary capital for the construction of the said canal.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in arising to address the House on the important question of transportation, dealing particularly with the advantages to commerce which Canada will derive by the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, I recognize my inability to deal intelligently with this subject. However, I realize the importance to Canada of cheap transportation, and I also feel the duty which devolves upon me as a member of this House of bringing to the attention of parliament matters which not only appertain to the constituency which I have the honour of representing, but also to Mr. PUGSLEY.
the welfare of the Dominion in general. The right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), a short time ago, in the city of Toronto, made the statement that as a young nation we had far more important questions than defence to deal with, and the all important one was this question of transportation. I think it was Macaulay who said that of all the inventions, the alphabet and printing press alone excepted, these inventions which abridge distance have done most for civilization. Especially do these words apply, Sir, to a country of the magnitude of ours. A glance at the map will demonstrate that Canada, from her geographical position, holds the key to the solution of the water transportation problem of the North American continent. This is a fact which is not only recognized by ourselves, but also by our neighbours to the south of us. As regards railway transportation we are, for a young country, pretty well supplied. By the completion, in 1885, of the Canadian Pacific railway, recognized to-day as one of the greatest railway systems in the world, and having a gross revenue equal to the revenue of the Dominion during the last fiscal year, communication was established between the Atlantic and the Pacific oceans. In 1908, according to the Year-book, I find that there were some 23,000 miles of steam railway lines in operation in Canada. To-day we have in course of construction two other transcontinental lines, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern, besides many branch lines, and the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) stated the other day that within a short time work would be commenced on the Hudson Bay railway. We need our railways, but we also need to develop and improve our waterways which are the natural means of communication placed at our disposal, especially adapted to the carriage Of large and bulky commodities. It is a mistaken idea, which seems to be more or less prevalent, that the improvement of our waterways will retard railway development.
To verify my contention I need simply call the attention of the House to the fact that such men as Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, president of the i Canadian Pacific railway, Sir William Van Horne and James J. Hill, probably the three best authorities on modern transportation requirements have announced themselves as favourable to the construction of the Georgian bay canal. At a banquet tendered to him by the Toronto Board of Trade, on the 15th June, 1908, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy said:
But while we are giving attention to our agricultural interests, and encouraging the development of our farms and our fruit lands, and our mining and lumbering operations, we have other things to do in Canada, which we must carry out if we are properly to fulfil our destiny. We have our internal water-

ways. We must endeavour to shorten the distance between the Georgian bay and the seaboard, and improve the routes so as to make traffic cheaper.
Now, Sir, I have here some statistics as to the development of waterways in European and other countries, and it would appear that while these other countries have been making use of their natural means of communication by water, Canada has apparently been at a standstill in this direction. Let me quote from Mulhall, the eminent British statistician; he gives the mileage of existing canals and rivers in use in Europe at over 77,000 miles, of which 13,293 miles are canals. The total mileage of the world's canals reaches 26,000 miles, costing in excess of two billion dollars. The British isles have some 4,000 miles of canals, Germany has 10,000 miles of internal waterways, including 3,000 miles of actual digging, and Germany has spent $60,000,000 on canals alone, and has under way a programme of waterway improvement which runs into an expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars. Mr. Mason, one of the German consuls-general to the United States, says:
Germany foresaw that in a fully developed transportation system the proper role of the railways would be to carry passengers and the higher classes of merchandise manufactured from the raw staples which the waterways had brought to their doors.
France has some 3,000 miles of canals. Since 1814 France has spent $750,000,000 for harbours and waterways, $700,000,000 on railways, and $600,000,000 for wagon roads. M. Defreyeinet, when a member of the French Cabinet, having control of transportation matters, said:
It is conceded that the waterways and railways are destined, not to supplant, but to supplement each other. Between the two there is a natural division of traffic. To the waterways gravitate the heavy commodities of small value, which can only be transported where freights are low.. In procuring for manufactures cheap transportation for coal and raw materials, they create freights whose subsequent transportation gives profit to the railways.
It will be seen, therefore, that both Germany and France are one in believing that the improvement of their waterways does not hamper railway extension. China has a system jof canals comprising some 5,000 miles; Belgium has 1,240 miles of internal waterways on which she has spent from $80,000,000 to $100,000,000; Austria-Hungary has within recent years spent on rivers and canals $200,000,000, and she has 1,700 miles of canals and over 5,000 miles of natural waterways. The Corinth canal in Greece which is four miles long, cost $500,000, and it saves ships a distance of from 100 to 175 miles. Russia purposes building a 27 111
foot waterway 1,000 miles long, from the Black sea to the Baltic, and costing approximately $100,000,000. Now, in reference to the United States, while the United States has actually 4,000 miles of canals, about 2,000 miles of these have been abandoned, and to show the reason for the abandonment of these canals,I shall quote from the last message to Congress of exPresident Roosevelt in December, 1908, in which he said:
Action should be begun forthwith during the present session of the congress, for the improvement of our inland waterways, action which will result in giving us not only navigable but navigated rivers. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars upon these waterways, yet the traffic on nearly all of them is steadily declining. This condition is the direct result of the absence of any comprehensive and far-seeing plan of waterway improvement. Obviously we cannot continue thus to expend the revenues of the government without return. It is poor business to spend money for inland navigation unless we get it.
Inquiry into the condition of the Mississippi and its principal tributaries reveals very many instances of the utter waste caused by the methods which have hitherto obtained for the so-called ' improvement ' of navigation. A striking instance is supplied by the ' improvement ' of the Ohio, which, begun in 1824. was continued under a single plan for half a century. In 1875 a new plan was adopted, and followed for a quarter of a century. In 1902 still a different plan was adopted, and has since been pursued at a rate which only promises a navigable river in from twenty to one hundred years longer.
Such shortsighted, vacillating and futile methods are accompanied by decreasing water-borne commerce and increasing traffic congestion on land, by increasing floods, and by the waste of public money. The remedy lies in abandoning the methods which have so signally failed and adopting new ones in keeping with the needs and demands of our people.
In the report on the measure introduced at the first session of this present Congress, the Secretary for War said:
The chief defect in the method hitherto pursued lies in the absence of executive authority for originating comprehensive plans covering the country or natural divisions thereof. In this opinion I heartily concur. The present methods not only fail to give us inland navigation, but they are injurious to the army as well. What is virtually a permanent detail of the corps of engineers to civilian duty, necessarily impairs the efficiency of our military establishment. The military engineers have undoubtedly done efficient work in actual construction, but they are necessarily unsuited by their training and traditions to take the broad view, and to gather and transmit to the congress the commercial and industrial information and forecasts upon which waterway improvement must always so largely rest. Furthermore, they have failed to grasp the great underlying fact that every stream is a unit from its source to its mouth, and that all



its uses are interdependent. Prominent officers of the engineer corps have recently even gone so far as to assert in print that waterways are not dependent upon the conservation of the forests about their head waters. This position is opposed to all the recent work of the scientific bureaus of the government, and to the general experience of mankind. A physician who disbelieved in vaccination would not he the right man to handle an epidemic of small-pox nor should we leave a doctor sceptical about the transmission of yellow feved by the stegomyia mosquito in charge of sanitation at Havana or Panama. So with the improvement of our rivers; it is no longer wise or safe to leave this great work in the hands of men who fail to grasp the essential relations between navigation and general development and to assimilate and use the central facts about our streams.
Until the work of river improvement is undertaken in a modern way it cannot have results that will meet the needs of this modern nation. These needs should be met without further dilly-dallying or delay. The plan which promises the best and quickest results is that of a permanent commission authorized to co-ordinate the work of all the government departments relating to waterways, and to frame and supervise the execution of a comprehensive plan. Under such a commission the actual work of construction might be intrusted to the reclamation service, or to the military engineers acting with a sufficient number of civilians to continue the work in time of war, or it might be divided between the reclamation service and the corps of engineers. Funds should be provided from current revenues if it is deemed wise-otherwise from the sale of bonds. The essential thing is that the work should go forward under the best possible plan and with the least possible delay. We should have a new type of work and a new organization for planning and directing it. The time for playing with our waterways is past. The country demands results.
I have also an extract from a recent report of the commissioner of corporations on transportation by water in the United States giving further reasons for the abandonment of certain canals in the United States. This report says:
Among the causes for the abandonment of canals have been the original improvident location of some canals, mismanagement, the adverse control of strategic connections and terminals, and above all the inability of shallow towpath canals to adopt their physical conditions to the demands of modern transportation. Practically all the canals now in most successful use are ship canals, forming comparatively short links between important natural waterways and opening up extended routes of transportation by water for large vessels.
Then I find that the North American Conservation Conference which met last year at Washington calls the attention of the country to our waterways. It says;
We recognize the waters as a primary resource, ana we regard their use for domestic Mr. G. V. WHITE.
and municipal supply, irrigation, navigation and power, as interrelated public uses, and properly subject to public control. We therefore favour the complete and concurrent,development of the streams and their sources for every useful purpose to which they may be put.
The highest and most necessary use of water is for domestic and municipal purposes. We therefore favour the recognition of this principle in legislation, and, where necessary, the subordination of other uses of water thereto.
The superior economy of water transportation over land transportation, as well as its advantages in limiting the consumption of the non-renewable resources, coal and iron, and its effectiveness in the promotion of commerce, are generally acknowledged. We therefore favour the development of inland navigation under general plans adapted to secure the uniform progress of the work and the fullest use of the streams for all purposes. We further express our belief that all waterways so developed should be retained under exclusive public ownership and control.
Before discussing the report of the Georgian Bay canal survey, which was laid on the table of the House last session, I wish to offer my congratulations to the board of engineers in charge of this survey work. The report which they have presented to the House contains a mass of valuable information compiled in such a manner as to make it both interesting and instructive reading. Having had the advantage of a course in engineering myself, I feel that I can appreciate the value of this work. I shall take up simply the results, and conclusions submitted by the board appointed to investigate the feasibility and probable cost of a deep waterway from the Great Lakes to the sea-board via the French and Ottawa rivers. The first conclusion at which the board arrive is as follows:
That a 22-foot waterway for the largest lake boats (600 ft. x 60 ft. x 20 ft. draft) can be established for one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) in ten years, and that the annual maintenance will be approximately $900,000 including the operation of storage reservoirs for the better distribution of the flood waters of the Ottawa river.
This board of engineers investigated the cost of two routes the results being as follows:


SUMMARY OF COST.
Route A.: -Via Montreal, Lake St. Louis, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Ottawa, Rocher Fondu Channel, Coulonge, Pembroke, Des Joachims, Mattawa, Talon Lake, North Bay, Lake Nipissing and French river.
Locks, dams, channels, piers, lighting, damages	$88,626,108
Contingencies, engineering, administration, &c	 8,862,892
Storage of flood waters, regulation
basins, telephones, &c	 2,200,000
Total	$99,689,000

Feeder at summit when required.. $	987,485


Route B.: tically slack water navigation will obtain.
That ordinary lift locks are best suited to the conditions found. That their minimum length should be 650 feet between the inside gates, with 65 feet clear width, and 22 feet clear depth throughout.
That the gates should be of steel, and tor safety, there should be two pairs of upper gates, and two pairs of lower gates, with additional lower unwatering gates, if necessary. That the locks should be constructed of concrete with long approach piers of continuous cribwork at each end.
That ail locks will be in secure rock foundation.
The fact that all locks will he in secure rock foundations is to my mind very important.
On the route the number of reaches is twenty-three, a flight of two locks being provided for at Roche Capitaine rapids, and at the lower and upper Paresseux falls.
The lock channels are to have a clear length of 650 feet and a clear width of 65 feet, with a depth of 22 feet over the mitre sills. These dimensions will accommodate vessels of the largest tonnage on the great lakes and will provide reasonable accommodation for any probable increase in the size -of these boats. Duplicate pairs of gates are provided at both ends of the locks and, should a longer chamber be required occasionally, a clear length of 707 feet would be available by leaving the inner pair of lower gates open. Some of the lake boats for the iron OTe trade, as has been stated, have attained a length of 605 feet. The common lake carriers of
6,000	to 10,000 tons are from 350 to 500 feet and over in length.
Conclusion No. 5 deals with the dams:
There will be 18 main dams required, some of considerable size, all being on secure rock foundations.	,
That regulation by stop-log sluices is amply efficient in most of the cases encountered, and * StoneyJ sluices and overflow regulation are adapted to the remaining reaches.
6tli. That excavated channels with sides showing above water should have a minimum width of 200 feet at bottom, and submerged channels a minimum width of 300 feet at bottom, with marking piers at intervals, and that the minimum depth throughout should be 22 feet. That the project presented contemplates: 28 miles of canal excavation, 66 miles of channel dredging, and 346 miles of river and lake with [DOT]>
width of 300 feet to a half mile.
That is 6 36 per cent of the total route is of canal excavation, 15 per cent of channel dredging and 78'64 per cent of river and lake requiring no improvements. You will see, Mr. Speaker, what a small percentage of this waterway is to he improved in any way.
Conclusion No. 7 deals with the time of transportation.


Mr. G. V. WHITE.: comparatively short transmission distance of numerous cities and towns, which would, no doubt, flourish if the canal were built and consequently, greatly increase the demand for power.
Passing up the river twenty miles further, the Chenaux rapids are reached. The available power at present is practically negligible owing to the fall being very small, but the canal will concentrate here a head of 35 feet and of 68,300 horse-power capacity. Besides the Chenaux lift being a power directly created by the canal the other sites on this reach of the river will be greatly increased in value. From the Chats to Pembroke there are long stretches of shallow rapids, &c., where frazil and anchor ice troubles would abound but which will be eliminated by the raised canal levels.
At mileage f 183 ' the Ottawa river is divided into two channels by Calumet island. The south channel consists of a series of pitches and rapids, twelve miles in length. By the canal, these rapids will be concentrated into two lifts three miles apart, and of 35 feet each, called the Rocher Fendu No. 1 and the Rocher Fendu No. 2 with a total of 78,000 electrical horse-power available.
The Grand Calumet falls are situated on the north channel caused by Calumet island. In a distance of a mile there is a drop of 56 feet made up of a number of cascades of great turbulence. Taking the present extreme low water flow of 4,635 cubic feet per second, there could be developed here, 20,100 horse-power. As the proposed canal route will most likely be through the Rocher Fendu channel, it will be necessary to put a dam in the Calumet channel for the proper maintenance of the canal levels. Properly placed, this dam, together with the other canal works could be utilized to develop a most valuable power site, with the following governing conditions: a maximum effective head of 69-5 feet and a regulated low water discharge of 9,700 cubic feet per second, making an available capacity of 56,000 electrical horse-power. The Grand Calumet is an excellent site for a pulp and paper industry, as a large timber country is available through tributary streams situated short distances further up the river.
The next fall will be at Paquette, 209 miles from Montreal. At present there is a maximum available head of 16 feet, capable of developing 8,700 horse-power. Extensive works are necessary to obtain this power which presents a great contrast with the power which can be obtained after canalization. By the latter, there will be concentrated here a head of 20 feet, making available 24,900 electrical horse-power.
Culbute chute is a small power situated on the north channel caused by Allumette island.
Fifty-six miles from the Paquette lift are the lies Joachims falls, 266 miles from Montreal. With a head of 35 feet, the present low water capacity is 22,740 electrical horsepower. The available head after the canal is constructed will be 40 feet, developing 60,400 horse-power.
Eighteen miles further, or 284 miles from Montreal, are the Rocher Capitaine falls. This is another of the large powers of the Ottawa river. The present physical conditions are favourable to development. The river swings around a neck of land across Mr. G. V. WHITE
which a canal head-race one and one-half miles in length could be constructed-thus, to utilize an effective head of 59 feet, and develop 38,400 electrical horse-power. The same scheme of development could be adopted after the canal is built. The available head would also be 59 feet but with the increased regulated low water flow of 16,200 cubic feet per second, a capacity of 82,000 horse-power could be obtained.
The next fall at Deux Rivieres has a present maximum head of 15 feet, with a capacity of onlv 9,360 horse-power. This could only be developed at a large capital cost. The canal will concentrate here a fall of 30 feet, making 38,400 horse-power available.
The last three water-powers, viz.:	Des
Joachims, Rocher Capitaine and Deux Rivieres, are situated within a stretch of 31 miles and would aggregate a total of 180,800 electrical horse-power after the canal is constructed, as against 70,500 horse-power if developed fully for present low water. It is not probable that any improvement of these sites would be attempted under present conditions, as the country in the vicinity is sparsely settled and the land is very rough.
From Mattawa to Lake Nipissing, the various lifts which will be created by the canal will not be available for power purposes as the water supply of the Summit will be practically required for lockages and storage.
The water-powers of the French river are, at present, many in number but of small capacity. The Big Chaudiere, Five-Mile rapids and the Dalles are the largest and most suitable for power purposes, especially so as the canal lifts on the French river will be concentrated at these three places.
However, with regard to this section of the route there is not sufficient data upon which to found any accurate statement regarding the power to be developed there.
Five-Mile rapids are situated forty-five miles from North Bay; the total low water flow is 5,000 cubic feet per second. A total effective head of 24 feet and 10,000 electrical horse-power is available. The capacity of this power being the same before and after the. canal is constructed, the cost of development with the canal built is decreased only by the cost of the dam, which would be borne by canalization.
The Dalles falls are situated abouc a mile from Georgian bay. In order to obtain a head of 21 feet and utilize a low water discharge of 4,000 cubic feet per second, it is necessary to dam the four channels. Only 6,700 horsepower could be developed at Dailes falls.
There are many other features which are taken into account in the study and valuation of the water-powers, such as run-off flow at all stages, &c., but these are given elsewhere and it is deemed unnecessary to repeat the same here.
The report goes on to say:
Upwards of 1.000,000 horse-power can be developed along the Ottawa and French rivers by the improved regulated conditions proposed for canal purposes. It is doubtful if more than 150,000 horse-power at minimum conditions could be developed at present. Under present conditions the powers will not be developed for more than 150,000 horsepower, and the capital cost per electrical

horse-power at the out-going terminals of the power-house would average $75 per electrical horse-power.
With construction of the canal, this amount would he increased to 1,000,000 horse-power and the capital cost per horse-power exclusive of the works, which are constructed for canal purposes, would average $48 per electrical horse-power.
Considering the reduced price per horsepower resulting from the decreased capital cost and the improvement due to cheap transportation, it would appear that it would not be an improbable hypothesis as a basis of calculation to assume that the 1,000,000 theoretical horsepower would be developed in as short a time as 150,000 horse-power, under present circumstances.
Different methods might be followed in case of construction such as:-
1.	The power might be leased on the basis of the reduced capital cost per horse-power of the development. The proceeds to be used in paying the interest on the investment and reducing the tolls of the canal. An annual rental of $5 per horse-power would result in an eventual revenue of $5,000,000 per year.
2.	The power might be granted at nominal figures to attract manufactories from which the transportation of the raw material and manufactured articles would repay the privileges granted.
No. 10 refers to the alternative route:
10th. That an alternative route behind Montreal is entirely feasible and would cost $5,000,000 less that the front or St. Lawrence river route; the time of transit by the back route being less than one hour longer than by the front of Montreal, and having one lockage less.
11th. That locks 800 feet long and 75 feet wide would increase the total cost by $5,000,000 That building all locks to a depth of 24 feet so reaches might afterwards he deepened, would cost another $6,000,000. That a depth of 25 feet along the route behind Montreal for 1C miles to Sault au Recollet would cost $7,250,000, nearly $2,000,000 more than the 22-foot depth for the same distance. That increased depth up to 26 feet can he secured temporarily by filling the reaches above ordinary working level, and in a case of emergency will pass boats of 24 to 25-foot draft, if the terminal locks and those into Lake Nipissing are given a 25 foot depth, and slight additions made to the overflow dams.
The 12th and last result pointed out by this board is that no international waters are affected which is very important. I have an extract here which I have taken from a work by Mr. Herbert Quick on American inland waterways. It is probably one of the most recent -works on American waterways it having been published in July, 1909. Mr. Quick, referring to the Georgian Bay canal, says:
That twenty-one feet of water through this channel means much of prejudice to us in a military way any one can see. That it imperils all our foreign bound and much of our domestic trade on the lakes where most of our merchant marine is to he found, ordinary common sense must make plain, leaving out of account the
deliberate utterances to the same effect of statesmen and publicists on both sides of the line.
I have read most of this work of Mr. Quick and he admits that Canada is practically the greatest competitor which the United States have in so far as water transportation routes are concerned. He pays particular attention to the Georgian Bay canal scheme and points out that it would be of immense advantage to the North American continent in the movement of large and bulky commodities.
I have, compiled some figures to show the sources of trade for this route should the Georgian Bay canal be constructed. In answer to a question placed on the order paper a few days ago by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Macdonell) the hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) gave the following figures. The question dealt with the amount of arable land and the amount of land under cultivation in Manitoba and Saskatchewan and Alberta at the present time. The figures are as follows:
Total	Arable	Under Per
area. land, cultivation, cent.
*
Manitoba	.. 41,169,280	25,150,000	5,061,503	2-0Alberta..	..155,400,000	52,200,000	1,483,400	2-3Saskatchewan..	..151,900,000	66,600,000	5,814,723	7-8Total	348,469,280 143,950,000 12,360,000 8-.5
*Per cent of arable land under cultivation.
So, we can look forward to the day when practically all of the arable land is under cultivation and like the Minister of Railways and Canals I view the future of Canada very optimistically. I believe that in a very few years the West, instead of contributing some 160,000,000 bushels of grain, as it has done this year, will contribute from 250,000,000 to 500,000,000 bushels and there will then be freight for all routes, the Hudson Bay railway included. In 1909 the wheat crop of Canada amounted to 166,-
744,000	bushels as against 112,434,000 in 1908. The average yield per acre in 1909 was 21-51 bushels as against 17 bushels in 1908. Therefore, there was an increase in the yield of 54,310,000 bushels or 48-3 per cent, practically 50 per cent of an increase. The total value was $141,320,000. Of this amount the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta contributed 147,482,000 bushels as against 106,000,000 bushels in 1908, or an increase of 38 -6 per cent. The report of the Trade and Commerce Department for December, 1908, shows that Canada ranks tenth in the wheat producing countries of the world for 1906 and 1907, sixth in the production of oats, and eighth in the production of barley. In 1903 the crops in the west amounted to 50,000,000 bushels, and in 1908 they amounted to 106,-

000,000 bushels. Taking the average yield per acre at 19 bushels the crop in Saskatchewan and Alberta trebled in the five years between 1903 and 1908. Assuming the same proportion of increase during the next five years, say in 1913 the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan alone would produce at least 150,000,000 bushels of wheat. As to the prospect for this season's crop I quote from the Toronto ' Globe ' of January 3, 1910, the statement of Mr. Wm. Whyte, vice-president of the Canadian Pacific railway:
The area under crop in Manitoba will not be largely increased in 1910 but in Saskatchewan the increase will amount to 20 per cent of the whole. Within a short time the province of Saskatchewan will be producing more wheat than any state in the union and in less than a decade it will produce more wheat than all the United States combined. In a paper read last summer before the British Association by Mr. W. B. Lanigan, assistant freight traffic manager of the company, he stated that all the land under cultivation in Saskatchewan taken altogether did not amount to more than the road allowances of the province.
Now, Mr-. Speaker, I want to point out by what routes most of our grain is taken to the markets. I have before me figures of the shipments of grain from Fort William and Port Arthur for the seasons, 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909, and as these figures are taken from the government reports they are probably as correct as we can expect to find them:
Shipments of Grain from Fort William to Port Arthur for Season of Navigation 1906-7-8-9.
Canadian Ports.	American Ports.	Total.	P.C. via American Ports.1900..	34,634,674	16,451,909	51,086,583	32'21907..	44,426,428	15,384,381	59,810,809	2601908..	48,319,113	19,875,187	68,194,300	28 01909..	54,816,798	23,039,304	77,906,102	296
You will see, Mr. Speaker, that during the last four years practically thirty per cent, of our grain from the west went by way of American ports, when, not only ail our own grain should have been sent by Canadian ports, but we should have as well a large percentage of American grain through these ports. On pages 1858-1859 of the government report on grain, I find that the quantity of wheat exported from Canada in 1908^was as follows:
Bushels.
Total to British empire		43,102,240
To foreign countries (including
the United States)	 552,428
To the United States	 114,926
Total	 43,654,668


Gerald Verner White: Deducting the 114,926 bushels that went to the United States we had 43,540,742 bushels of grain going to other foreign countries. Now, on page 1847 of the same report I find that for the year 1908 the export of Canadian grain from Canadian port3 is as follows:
Bushels.
Montreal	   19,552,752
St. John, N.B	 5,845,073
Halifax	  4
Total exported from Canadian ports	 25,397,829
Montreal also exported 10,900,000 of foreign wheat in 1908. We, therefore, find that from American ports during 1908,. there must have been shipped via American ports the difference between 43,540,742 bushels, the total exportation, and 25,397,829 bushels which went through Canadian ports, leaving 18,142,913 bushels to go through American ports, or, 41 -7 per cent of the total Canadian grain exported to foreign countries that year went via American ports.
The trade area of the great lakes includes an area of agricultural and industrial activity of over 2,000,000 square miles, with a population of over 25,000,000. In this area over two-thirds of the iron production of the United States is manufactured. I wish to submit the following estimate of the traffic available for the Georgian Bay canal:
Tons.
I. Through freight comprising chiefly wheat, corn and other cereals, flour, beef and hog products, cattle and live stock, and other farm products from the Canadian Northwest and the Western States en route for transatlantic markets or to eastern Canada and New
England	 11,000,000
II.	Sawn lumber and other forest products, including firewood, railroad ties and sleepers, posts, poles, staves, heading,
pot and pearl ashes, &c	 3,000,000
III.	Coal, including both the Nova Scotia product in hulk cargoes by vessels carrying grain or lumber as return to Sydney, and American anthracite from Lake Erie ports to which shipments of return cargoes of lumber and pulpwood can
he made	 1,500,000
IV. Pulpwood, pulp,	spruce,	&c..	..	1,500,000V. Ores, minerals, building stones, marble, lime, clay, sand, brick, cement,	peat,	fuel,	&c..	2,000,000
VI. General merchandise... 1,000,000
Total estimated annual traffic.. .. 20,000,000
With regard to the first item, the wheat raised during the year 1908 in the country

tributary to the great lakes, which area would be directly benefited by the construction of the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal, was about 580,000.000 bushels, or 17,577,000 tons. The shipments of wheat from this tributary area were over
9.000.	000 tons. The shipments eastward from Chicago, Milwaukee, Duluth, Port Arthur and Fort William, of wheat alone, during the year 1908 amounted to 132,001,285 bushels, or over 4,000,000 tons.
Of corn, the country tributary to the great lakes, during the year 1908, raised
1.770.000.	000 bushels, or 50,610,057 tons. Chicago alone has shipped in a single year upwards of 3,700,000 tons.
Of flour, Minneapolis alone shipped, during the year 1908, 14,156,164 barrels of flour, or about 1,575,000 tons. The export of flour to Great Britain and Europe from Atlantic ports in 1908 totalled 11,644,400 barrels, or
1,300,000	tons. The consumption of flour in eastern Canada and the New England states, the great bulk of which is supplied by the area tributary to the great lakes>
amounts to about 9,000,000 barrels, or 1,000,000 tons.
Of other grains, the receipts of grain other than wheat and corn, at five northern Atlantic ports, for domestic consumption and export, in 1908 amounted to 58,606,000 bushels, or over 1,670,000 tons.
From the above it is evident that the item of grain alone furnishes a present volume of traffic, as follows, for which the Ottawa is the shortest route, and the great bulk of which it is bound to attract:
Tons.
Wheat for export	 3,600,000
Wheat for domestic consumption .. 1,000,000
Corn for	export	
2,200,000Corn for	domestic	consumption..	..	1,000,000Flour for	export	
1,300,000Flour for	domestic	consumption..	..	1,000,000Grains other than wheat and corn, export and domestic	
1,600,000
11,700,000
For meat products, live stock, &c., the Georgian Bay route, being in a northern climate, wouid be especially adapted. Shipments of live stock and dressed meats from the west reach an enormous aggregate and constitute a most important traffic, a single Chicago firm paying out as much as $800,000 per month for freight charges. Chicago alone, according to the latest repoTt of the board of trade of that city, ships annually upwards of 1,000,000 tons of dressed meats, and 200,000 tons of lard, besides 4,439,166 head of live stock. During the year 1908 the receipts of live stock from the west at three Atlantic ports weTe 8,953,899 head. The exports of hog and beef products from Atlantic ports in 1908 amounted to 631,948 tons. It may be safely asserted that almost the entire bulk of the export trade of western farm produce will be diverted to the
Ottawa route, as well as a large proportion of the traffic for domestic consumption.
The following shows the extent of the export of farm produce from Atlantic ports during the year 1908. In many other years this amount has been greatly exceeded, and with the favourable rates and great shipping facilities afforded by the Ottawa water-way a great increase in this export trade is assured:
EXPORT	FROM ATLANTIC PORTS.
	Tons.
Wheat.. .		 3,600,000
Corn.. ..		 2,200,000
Flour.. .		 1,300,000
Grains..		 2.50,000
Meats.. .		 1,000,000
	8,350,000
Practically all of which would be routed via the Ottawa water-way.
Lumber will undoubtedly furnish a great amount of traffic for the canal. The pine cut annually in the Ottawa district represents an annual freight of not less than 2,000,000 tons sawn lumber. Including hardwoods, rough lumber, firewood, ties, posts, poles and other forest products, the output without any increased cut of pine will probably not fall short of 4,000,000 tons yearly, and may greatly exceed that amount.
During the year 1908, the lumber output of the Ottawa valley amounted to 475,000,000 feet board measure. In 1909, it increased to 500,000,000 feet board measure. I have taken the trouble to get some figures regarding the quantity of lumber shipped from Montreal to England in 1908 and 1909. In 1908, there was exported 94,397,894 feet; in 1909, 102,499,883 feet, or an increase for 1909 of 8,101,989 feet. With regard to the lumber on the Ottawa, I have a letter from one of the large mill owners there, in which he says in a postscript:
If w-e had water shipments, I think that fully one-half of our output could go to water points, perhaps more.
So that you see that from the Ottawa valley alone, the lumber trade would be a very important factor. At present, as we all know, there is any quantity of hardwood in the Ottawa valley which has to be left rotting in the woods for the simple reason that it is impossible to bring it down in tows as we float soft wood.
The quantity of coal, is another important matter. I find here that 9,902,460 tons of coal passed through the Sault Ste. Marie canal in 1908. I got some figures of the imports of coal in reply to a question I put on the order paper, and I find that there was imported into the Djorninpon from the United States during the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1909, 10,142,798 tons of coal, and of this amount the province of Ontario alone consumed 8,670,505 tons or about 85i per cent. Taking the


Gerald Verner White:  vessels.
1,695,429
Or, in other words, of the eastbound traffic, American vessels carried 40 3 per cent of the total, and of the westbound traffic, American vessels carried 62-4 per cent of the total. Of total east and westbound traffic, American vessels carried 45 -6 per cent.
St. Lawrence Canals.
Total quantity of freight passed through these canals in 1908 was:-
1,424,646 tons eastward,
584,456	" westward,
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Gerald Verner White: At six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was pointing out to what extent our American neighbours were using the Welland and St. Lawrence canal systems. I have here some extracts from a report by Mr. F. C. Stevens, Superintendent of Public Works for the State of New York. In a recent report to the government of that state, he advocates the construction of a 21-foot canal connecting Lake Erie and the Hudson river at a cost of $198,000,000, and he also advises the government of that state to build this canal before the Georgian Bay canal is started. I will just quote here a short extract from that report:
2,009,102
total.

If this plan could he brought to fruition, it is my belief that not only would New York State be in a commanding position so far as commercial shipments go in the event of the completion by the Dominion government of the Ottawa-Georgian Bay canal, but it is not impossible that if the construction of the ship canal across New York State were authorized in the near future, the construction of the Ottawa-Georgian Bay canal would be abandoned altogether for the time being. The net result to the State would be a 21-foot canal from the Hudson river to Lake Ontario instead of a 12-foot canal, a completion at an earlier date than may be hoped for in the case of the barge canal as now planned and finally a solution of the water traffic problem as far as New York is concerned for all time to come.
In looking up the treaty of Washington of 1871, I find, by article 27, that the United States has equal rights with Canada to the use of the Welland canal. We have expended on that canal, $28,000,000 up to the present time. Our American neighbours use that canal; yet they do not contribute one cent towards the maintenance of it. If this scheme which Mr. Stevens proposes goes through, that is, the building of a canal from Oswego t-o Albany, in the event of the Canadian government deepening the Welland canal, the American government will be saved an expenditure of $30,000,000 or $40,000,000 in this connection. In other words, so Jong as the enlarged Welland canal was suf-cient for the American trade, the Americans would not be called upon to contribute one cent towards the eonstruetion or maintenance of this portion of the canal. In the report of the Department of Railways and Canals from April 1, 1907, to March 31, 1908, I find that in 1906 the traffic through the Canadian canals was 10,523,185 tons, while in 1907 it was 20,543,639 tons. However, Sir, it is rather disappointing when, further on in the report, we find that some 8,464,073 tons of the increase was due to the American coasting trade, which means that the United States took advantage of the free use of our canals, to the extent of eight and a half millions tons more in 1907 than in the previous year. In the bumper year for waterways Canada only had a gain of 1,217,251 tons. The fact is that we have subsidized American trade on the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence just to the extent that they have used our canals. The trade from Canadian ports to Canadian ports through our entire canal system was 1,491,027 tons in 1887, while in 1907 it was 4,196,891, or about treble what it was twenty years ago. I take this from the Year-book of 1908. The American coasting traffic d.uring the same period increased from 344,333 tons in 1887 to 13,052,837 tons in 1907, or nearly 38 times what it was 20 years ago, and more than treble our own trade. It will thus be seen that whereas we built our canals to Mr. G. V. WHITE.
capture the American trade they axe using them to beat us out of our own. At the same time the American people are fearful lest Canada should go ahead with the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. I find in the report of the Committee on Railways and Canals of the 52nd Congress, 1892, the following:
On tlie day that it becomes possible to send ships direcc from the great lakes to the ocean, by way of the St. Lawrence river, while they are unable to go by the Hudson, the sceptre of commercial supremacy will begin to pass from New York to Montreal, and the merchant marine of the United States, which has had a new birth on the lakes, will receive its death blow from Canadian competition.
In Mr. Quick's book on ' American Inland Waterways' I find the following:
The farmers of the Mississippi valley find their hardest competitors in the Canadian Northwest. Winnipeg is the greatest wheat market in the world. The sceptre passed from Chicago to Minneapolis, then to Duluth, and now has gone to the young giant of Manitoba. In 1907 Winnipeg exported 20 per cent more wheat than West Superior and Duluth combined-and the flood of grain from the new Northwest has only begun. One cereal cometes with all the others. The grains of the
askatchewan basin will displace the corn of the Mississippi valley; and when it goes to the sea in ships, while ours, if in American bottoms, must go in barges, shall we not be indebted to Canadian generosity if we stand on an equality with Canadian farmers?
From the Bently Congressional report I quote:
When we come to complete it says. ' with men of our own race, with a soil just as productive, and with transportation facilities immeasurably superior, the farmers of-our western states are going to have an agricultural depression such as they never knew before, unless our own nation shall give us a way to the sea, so that our ships can go and come as freely as they do on the ocean.'
Further on this report says:
It is not a question whether the products of the West and Northwest shall go by way of the Erie canal, or by rail from Buffalo or not go at all; but whether the transportation of these products shall be retained in American hands, on American soil and reach an American port, or whether it shall be surrendered to Canada.
Now, Sir, discussing for a moment the enlargement of the Welland Canal system I will simply say that the late George Y. Wisner, consulting engineer United States Department of Interior, before the Royal Commission on transportation in 1904, stated that it would probably cost twice as much to enlarge the Welland canal for twenty feet navigation and to deepen the St. Lawrence canals, as to build the Georgian Bay canal. It seems certain that if the Welland canal is to be deepened the whole St. Lawrence system must be deep-

ened, and on the authority of Mr. Wisner that would cost in the neighbourhood of $200,000,000. If we are simply to deepen the Welland canal system it only means that we will move the port of transhipment from Port Colborne to Prescott or Kingston, and what great advantage there would be in that I fail to see. With regard to rates by rail, and water transportation, I quote from the Georgian Bay canal survey report page 398 as follows:
It is well known now, that transportation by water on a first-class shipway is not only cheaper than by rail, but often much quicker.
It is recognized in the United States that the average movement of freight by rail is only twenty-five miles per day, or about one mile per hour, including of course all delays at stations and at terminals, where cars are frequently side-tracked for several days. Any one conversant with the movement of freight on the great lakes can see that the average there is considerably above this figure


Mr.   J.@: 4. Chicago to Montreal via St. Lawrence canal system (quoted
rate) average	5-52
maximum 6-75 cents per bushel. Following is a statement of the movement and distribution of the wheat from several upper lake ports, 1908:
From-
Route 1 and 3 to
Buffalo	
Route 2 te Georgian bay	
Route 4. St. Lawrence, Montreal
Duluth. Chicago. Fort William.
Bushels. Bushels. Bushels. 37,530,021 6,733,216 13,952,111
1,471,495	 20,823,337
4,825,473	 6,733,246
43,826,989 6,733,246 41,508,694
Through Shipments of Wheat, 1908.
Bushels.
Route 1, from Buffalo	 53,384,866
Route 3, from Buffalo via canal.. 4,063,934
57,448,800
Route 2, Montreal via Georgian
bay	 10,353,476
Route 4, Montreal via St. Lawrence	 20,492,797
30,846,373
For purposes of comparison using the lowest possible rail rates the rates between terminals with which the Ottawa waterway must compete, would be:
1. Chicago to Buffalo by lake.. .. 1 -1 Buffalo to New York by rail.. .. 3-33 Buffalo transfer	 -75
5-18 cents per bushel.
2.	Chicago to Georgian hay ports.. 1-17 Georgian bay ports to Montreal
(365m.)	2-77
Intermediate transfer	 -75
4-69 cents per bushel.
Comparing this with the rate via the Ottawa waterway to Montreal, the time in transit of a lake carrier from Chicago to Buffalo is approximately 80 hours. From Fort William to Montreal via the Georgian Bay canal it would be 100 hours. Therefore the estimated rate based on the ratio of time during which a carrier would be employed, would be by the Georgian bay route 1A cents per bushel. It is, therefore, evident that the traffic would stand a toll of at least 50 cents a ton, or li cents a bushel, making the total cost of carriage with toll 3 cents per bushel as against 4-69 cents per bushel by the Chicago-Georgian bay-Montreal route and as against 5 181 per bushel via Chicago to Buffalo by lake and Buffalo to New York by rail. Thus there is no question but that the rate via this route would be considerably less than any existing rate.


Gerald Verner White: Judging by the report which was laid before parliament last session, I think there is no doubt that the engineers came to the conclusion that this is in every way a feasible route. They point out and lay special stress on the fact that if the canal is to be constructed, it should be at least a 22-foot canal for the simple reason that in order to compete with the lake freighters of the present day the canal must be of such dimensions as to permit of these freighters travelling over this course. Mr. J. J. Hill, who is an authority on railway transportation, pointed out before the Rivers and Harbours Congress of 1907 that no vessel of
1,000	tons burden can compete with a box car; with 10,000 tons burden the problem is mastered. Therefore, we can understand why we should make this canal at least 22 feet on the sills.
May I read a few extracts in support of this waterway project, both by men of the present day and by men who have gone hence. Sir John A. Macdonald in 1865 said that:
Just as sure as Ottawa will be the capital of British North America, just as surely as it will be the capital of all the British pos-sessions_ in America, just as sure as the legislature is settled here, just as surely will be carried out the great scheme of connecting Lake Huron and the Ottawa river.
Sir George Etienne Cartier, another great Canadian, declared that the route from Ottawa to the great lakes would of necessity be constructed sooner or later.
The right hon. the Prime Minister of this country has on several occasions declared himself in favour of this great project. Speaking in Ottawa within the last few weeks in the course of the by-election campaign, he made particular allusion to this great work. He said:
If I were to tell you my own thought, I would say that the financial condition of this country would warrant the commencement of the building of the Georgian Bay canal this very year. But we must above ail things, be careful of our credit, and it would be prudent to complete the immense undertaking that we have now under way before starting out on this other giant work. But I hope the day is not far distant when we will begin. I will make a little confession. I am anxious to take it up. I would like to have my name and the name of the Laurier government connected with this enterprise. You know I am getting to he an old man. I have not many years to live and I want to make the best possible use of them.
The hon. Minister of Railways and Canals is quoted as follows:
I hope to live long enough, yes, long enough to see the Georgian Bay canal constructed.
The Hon. Charles Murphy, Secretary of State, is also quoted as favouring this 1 scheme. At a meeting held in Montreal

last spring, he paid particular attention to it. He then said:
The deepening of the Welland canal and the construction of the Georgian Bay canal were two national works which would be accomplished at the moment when Canada was creating her nayy.
I have many other extracts here, not only from Canadian but also from' American sources, but I shall not take the time of the House in reading any further. 1 submit that if the government be not in a position at present to go ahead with this work, they should allow some company to take it up. I do not mean that I would be in favour of a company controlling and owning the canal in the future, but I understand that a company, called the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, has made certain proposals to this government. This company is, I think, financially in a position to carry through this great work, I would judge so by the fact that the name of Sir Robert Perks, who is at the head of this company, is connected with some of the greatest works of this description ever undertaken. Let me just mention a few of them:
Severn tunnel under the river Severn, connecting the railway systems of south and west England with those of South Wales. This tunnel is 4) miles long and involved an expenditure of $12,000,000.
Barry docks, South Wales, built chiefly to accommodate the coal export and lumber import trades, equipped with the latest appliances for handling this traffic, and cost $10,000,000. These docks handle some 8,000,000 tons of coal per annum and the population of the town has risen, since their construction, from 100 to 40,000.
Buenos Ayres harbour works constructed for the Argentine government. These works were constructed at a cost of $50,000,000.
The Manchester ship canal, extending from the Estuary of the Mersey to Manchester, 25| miles. This has reduced the freight rates between Liverpool and Manchester one-half. It has 26 feet depth of water and is 120 feet wide at the bottom, and cost $78,000,000.
Tho Rio Janeiro works, now under construction for the Brazilian government, consisting of several miles of quay walls in Rio Janeiro harbour, with attendant dock facilities, such as shed, electric cranes, &c., and involving an expenditure of $35,000,000.
And there are many other works with which the name of Sir Robert Perks and those of his associates are connected. Therefore I think that if Canada is to take advantage of the position she occupies geographically with regard to transportation it is time she undertook to improve this great water-way with which nature has endowed us. Along this waterway, many industries could be built up, and along it are to be found many of the most valuable resources of this country. I do not know that there is anything further I can say except to urge on the government the necessity of undertaking this work at the earliest possible moment or of allowing some private company to undertake it. The construction of this canal would not only help the territory through which it runs but ba of the greatest national importance to the whole Dominion.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound).: In view of the very able speech, Mr. Speaker, made by my hon. friend from Renfrew	(Mr. White) and the
many exhaustive speeches which have been delivered upon this subject in other parliaments as well as this, and which have demonstrated clearly the great importance of building this canal, I shall not take up the time of the House by going into details. I simply wish to call attention again to a few of the reasons why this canal should be built at once and to reply to a few of the objections made against its construction. The first survey for the canal up the Ottawa and down the French river was made in 1837, 73 years ago, by direction of the parliament^ of Upper Canada. In 1859, a report was made of a survey on a nine foot basis to the parliament of Canada, and since then many surveys have been made over this route. In each and every case we find that the engineers reported that the scheme was entirely feasible and recommended it as one which would be highly beneficial to Canada. The fact that these reports were so unanimous in favour of . the building of this canal is the more remarkable when we consider that when these surveys were made, the great northwest was almost entirely unknown, and in fact the buffalo were about the only inhabitants of those regions in which are to be found to-day the finest towns in western Canada. The coal mines of Nova 'Scotia also were then very little worked and the manufacturing establishments of Ontario were practically unknown. We know what great changes have since taken place and we look forward to seeing our shipments of grain from the west continue to multiply. We believe also that our mines in Ontario, great as they are at present, will continue to develop and furnish, through the operation of our railways, a home market for our coal from Nova Scotia and provide return cargoes for vessels from the maritime provinces using this canal.
It is not necessary that I should prove that this canal will give the shortest route between Fort William and Montreal- shorter by 280 miles than any other-as this will be admitted by any one who has made a study of the facts. It is also admitted, even by American authorities, that its completion would place the grain carry

ing trade from the west to the east almost entirely in the hands of Canada, and thus build up our great ocean ports on which wa have spent so many millions. It has also been repeatedly proven that this canal would reduce the cost of carrying grain 3 to 4 cents a 'bushel, which would mean millions to the farmers of our northwest. To every farmer shipping 3,000 bushels of grain, that would mean about $100 per year, and in a great many cases, the difference of 3 or 4 cents per bushel is the actual difference between profit and loss. Coal from eastern Canada could be carried to Ontario at from 45 cents to 65 cents per ton less than it can be brought from Pennsylvania.
In addition to this, the consumer would save the duty of fifty-three cents per ton. This is not a small item by any means. For, as pointed out by the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. White) our coal importation for Ontario alone amounts to
8,500,000	tons, and there were carried to the port of Port Arthur alone, 1,500,000 tons for use on the various railways. There are large tracts of timber along or near the route of the Georgian Bay canal, which, at present are almost entirely worthless, or are being destroyed by fire or otherwise. This applies to hundreds and probably thousands of millions of feet of hardwood, and thousands of cords of pulpwood and ties. The increase in the value of this timber to Canada would of itsglf almost justify the building of the canal. Then, we have the matter of the power available and which would be made valuable by the construction of the canal. This is by far the greatest question connected with the opening of this route. This power is estimated at 1,000,000 horse-power, to be developed at an average cost of $50 per horse-power, or, in other words, about $2 per horse-power per year. A great deal of this power will not be required for many years, and I have no doubt, knowing as I do many of the situations, that a number of these powers could be developed for about half this estimated cost. The advantage of developing this power can hardly be over-estimated. Canada should be, and with this power developed would be, in a position to control almost entirely the paper and furniture trade of the world, for we should have the supply of raw material and the power at the same point, and we should have reduced cost for the transportation of the finished article. As an example, we have the cities of St. Paul and Minneapolis whose prosperity is entirely owing to the fact that they have cheap power at their door.
We find then, that all reports on this canal have been favourable; that almost all parts of Canada would be directly benefited; that the cost of transportation would be reduced from the west, and the use of Mr. ARTHURS.
Canadian coal made possible in Ontario; that timber would be made valuable which is now almost worthless; that power would be developed to afford opportunities for Canadian factories. Any one of these would justify as a business proposition the building of this canal.
The question of building this canal should not be made a party question, and it is a matter of regret that in the past both parties have used it to a certain extent at election times. But I believe that the people interested are united in declaring that the canal should be built at once; they are tired of having canals on paper, and surveys of canals, and they- believe that at present the proper course is to build without delay a canal that will float a ship.
However, the question at the present time is whether or not it is advisable to spend the money necessary for so great a work. In this connection, I would call the attention of the House for a moment to a few remarks made by the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) on the debate on the Budget. On January 18, as reported at page 2151 of ' Hansard ', the hon. gentleman used these words:
I hold that more can be done to benefit the agriculturist of Canada by reducing to him the cost of getting his goods in the market than by a reduction of the tariff. A reduction in the tariff is all right so far as you can go, but the farmer is vastly more interested in the wise expenditure of' all the money that comes into the public treasury, contributed by all classes as well as by himself, in bettering the facilities for transport and cheapening its cost. If by improving our transportation facilities we can reduce by two or three cents a bushel the cost of landing produce in the consuming market, fancy what a benefit that is to the producer in the west, not only on one year's crop but on the crop of every succeeding year. Take, for example, the $3,360,000, contributed to the treasury by all the people of Canada, which this government gave to the Canadian Pacific Railway Comany to build 330 miles of a railway from Leth-ridge to Nelson.
Then at page 2152:
By that means, we obtained a reduction which we could not have got otherwise. Among other reductions in freight rates, was a reduction of three cents per 100 pounds on all grain coming out of that country. What did that amount to? Figure it out, and you will find that the farmers, within four years, got back the whole of the $3,300,000, and they are reaping a proportionate and like benefit until this day and will be for all time to come.
And again, at page 2153:
What does that mean to the people in the Northwest? While I do not undervalue their request for a lower tariff, what is that in comparison with the benefit they can derive from the wise expenditure of money out of the public treasury to which all the people in the country contribute? It means millions.

Whenever yon can lower the insurance or the freight rates by deepening the St. Lawrence, by lighting it, by enlarging the harbours- every time you can take a cent off the cost of the transportation of the produce of this country, that is a benefit to the men who raise the crops. While I give every credit to my hon. colleague the Minister of Agriculture, for the steps he has taken and is still taking, in order to benefit the producers of this country, that is only a minor matter as compared with a wise expenditure of the public money in improving and cheapening the lines of transportation, and in this way giving our farmers money far in excess of what they would get had not these additional facilities been provided out of our public revenue.
And again at page 2154:
That subsidy was given not to build the road alone, but to secure to the people of the west the great boon of having a reduction in freight rates of three cents a hundred pounds for all time to come. In addition to that, lower rates were to be given on goods imported into that country, coal oil, agricultural implements, &c., so that, taking these things into consideration and remembering that the money has been paid back-although of course it went to farmers it was still paid back-and on that one item in four years there has been an immense relief to these people. I give it as an illustration of all the other expenditures. By wise expenditures of that kind you are benefiting the country, you increase your revenue, you have one of the greatest resources of the prosperity of this country.
If that is true of a slight reduction of freight in the Northwest, how much more would it apply to a great work of this kind which would benefit not only the farmer, but the coal producer of the east, the lumbermen of Ontario, the mines of Ontario, and a great many manufactories which would undoubtedly be started along the line of this canal on being furnished with cheap power?
I would also like to call the attention of the House briefly to the fact that, although ten years is supposed to be required for the completion of this canal, the completion of the various parts of it would be of immediate benefit to the country. Several surveys of that section of the canal between French river village and Lake Nipissing have been made. The Canadian Pacific railway made two such surveys and Mr. J. W. Fraser made a survey in 1900 under this government. His estimate of the cost of completing the canal from the mouth of French river to Lake Nipissing was $4,200,000. It is true, later reports have increased this estimate, but this was largely because of the estimate being based on a wider and deeper canal with more spent for elevators, lighting, &c. This section of the canal, if built, would at once be a paying investment, as it would open up a large section of country. The Pickerel river, the Wolf, the Rainy and the South river, the Widow river, the Sturgeon and the Wanipitae are all tributaries of this section. Much of 112
the timber of this region would be made marketable, mines opened up, and coal delivered by boat much nearer to the great mining districts of northern Ontario, which at present bring in coal by rail from Fort Erie.
We have some very fine harbours on Lake Nipissing, and some of the best water-powers in Ontario are on the course of the French river, or what is called the French river, because it is really a succession of beautiful lake expansions. These v/ater-powers could be cheaply developed, and no doubt the power would be very quickly utilized. A good deal is being said at the present time about deepening the Welland canal, and while I believe that both those canals will be necessary in a few years, hence, the deepening of the Welland canal at the present time would only lessen the trouble and not Temove it; as a matter of fact, it would only remove the distributing point from Port Colborne to Kingston or Prescott. I was somewhat surprised recently to find a circular being distributed through Ontario by advocates of the deep-eing of the Welland canal. These men undertake to show why the Georgian Bay canal should not be built, and I would call the attention of the House to one or two of the reasons they put forward. In the first clause they say;
A canal 442 miles long for a 10,000 ton ship following the bends in the Ottawa river is enough to deter the ordinary lake captain.
Now, regarding the building of this canal, there has been a good deal of misconception on the part of some people in Canada. This canal, instead of being 440 miles long, according to the most recent survey, which is a very complete one, will only be 28 miles long, on the whole course of the water-way, including the locks themselves. We have some 66 miles of water course which has to be deepened or straightened, but the balance, some 346 miles, is entirely free from any obstacle of any kind. The route will really be much safer for navigation than any part of the great lakes. Another objection that was urged is that there would be no return cargoes for vessels using this canal. But as I have already pointed out, there is no logical or any other reason why the province of Ontario should not use Nova Scotia coal when they can get it. As a matter of fact, boats using the St. Lawrence route to-day up to Port Colborne have very little freight back. The return cargo amounts to practically nothing, unless they go across to Lake Erie and load coal at Cleveland. Another point is raised, which also has been touched upon by mv hon. friend from Renfrew (Mr. White). This circular says;
That northern country generally freezes up about the 5th to the 10th of November, while



we generally move grain via the St. Lawrence as far as Prescott up to the 15th or 20th December, thus making over a month's longer navigation via the St. Lawrence.
It is quite evident, to my mind, that the gentleman who wrote this did not know what he was talking about. Ever since I have known of that north country, I have never known Lake Nipissing to freeze up before the 15th of December. According to surveyors who have made careful observations, they have found that the shortest season was 210 days long, or rather longer than the open season at the port of Montreal.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe that during times of depression it is necessary and advisable to cut down all unnecessary expenditure. The live business man at such times seeks all means of reducing the expenses of his business, even if he has to make an investment for new machinery or plant in order to effect such reduction. I contend that on the same principle the expenditure necessary for the building of this canal would be fully justified by the building up of Canadian ports, by the saving of millions to our farmers in the northwest, the opening of new trade for our coal mines in the east, by the increase in the value and output of our forests, by the great saving in coal bills and cost of transportation to our mines, and 'by the facilities offered through the development of power to our manufacturers, and above all by giving us a safe and all-Canadian route to the sea, a route which will exist for all time.


Mr. THOMAS A. LOW (South Renfrew).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest to the hon. members who have just spoken, and I am glad the subject which is under discussion is one upon which both sides of the House can agree. I fully realize the value of the speeches already made upon this subject, but I ' would be unfaithful to the trust my con-stitutents have placed in me, if I did not avail myself of this opportunity to say a few words on behalf of this great national water-way. There was a time when this project was considered one of only local importance to the people of the city of Ottawa and of the Ottawa valley. But opinion has changed a great deal, and now jve find gentlemen from Alberta, Saskatchewan and the luwer provinces advocating this scheme just as strongly as the people of Ottawa and vicinity. As to the feasibility of this scheme, there can be no possible doubt. For sixty years back engineers acting on behalf of the government have reported from time to time as to its feasibility. In the year 1856, as the previous speaker (Mr. White) has told us, Mr. Walter Shanley was appointed by the then government to make a report upon this water-way. In Mr. ARTHURS.
1859 Mr. T. C. Clark was appointed to report upon it and he confirmed Mr. Shan-ley's report. From time to time the Canadian Pacific railway company have procured reports upon it. In 1879 the Canadian Pacific railway employed Mr. E. P. Bender, a civil engineer, to make a report upon a certain portion, and his report was favourable. Again Mr. A. F. McLeod, on behalf of the government, in 1899, made a further report. In 1899 C. R. Coutlee, acting for the Canadian Pacific railway, was requested to make a report, and reported favourably. Again in 1900 Mr. J. W. Fraser made a complete survey of the French river and Lake Nipissing districts. In 1902 Geo. C. Wisner, consulting engineer for the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, one of the most eminent engineers in the world, was appointed to make a further survey and report; he did so and made a favourable report. In 1904 a board of engineers consisting of Messrs. Lafleur, St. Laurent, Coutlee and Chapleau were instructed by the government to make a thorough examination and survey of the whole route, and their report has been printed and circulated. So the charge can never be made that this work was pro-ceded with too hastily. I am sure that every member of this House who would look over that report must be convinced that the Georgian bay canal is feasible in every respect. From time to time public men on both sides of politics, men preeminent in the industrial world, have advocated this scheme. For instance, such men as Sir John A. Macdonald, the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, Sir William Van Horne, James J. Hill and Sir Thomas Shaughnessy. .	. Surely the opinions of
these gentlemen are worth something upon a subject of this kind. Sir John A. Macdonald, many years ago, in speaking of the Ottawa and Georgian bay route said:
The Ottawa ship canal and the Canadian Pacifio Railway must be constructed.
Hon. Alexander Mackenzie also said:
I am perfectly satis6ed that the Ottawa valley presents the greatest facilities of any route on this continent for the transportation of the products of the farmers of the Northwest to the Atlantic ocean.
The geographical position of the waterway is also excellent. It will be independent of all international -waters, being fed by water well within Canadian territory. As to distance, there can be no doubt of its great advantages. From Fort William to Liverpool by way of the great lakes and Welland canal, the distance is 4,405 miles. The distance to Liverpool by way of the great lakes, Erie canal, Hudson river and New York, is 4,920 miles. The distance to Liverpool by way of the great lakes, Georgian bay and Montreal, is 4,123 miles. It

is evident, therefore, that by the Georgian bay route there would be a saving of 282 miles over the present Canadian route, and over the American route a saving of 806 miles. The saving in mileage over the American route is sufficient to' divert a large amount of the traffic which is now going by American channels. In time, there would be a saving of three days in the round trip from the Georgian bay to Montreal and return. I think, Mr. Speaker, many members of this House will be surprised to know that at the present time over 75 per cent of the grain of the Canadian west passes through American channels. This is the trade that the Georgian bay canal will divert; this is the trade that it will capture. It has been argued by some of the opponents of the Georgian bay canal scheme that it is too far north, but I am sure there is very little difference between the possible number of days that this canal can be opened, and the number of days that the other route can be kept open. The number of days, I understand, during which the canal could be opened would be about 210.
We may talk about the tariff, we may talk about building Dreadnoughts, and all the other numerous matters that come before the House, but the thing that is of real importance to the farmers of this country is the transportation problem. Do something to lessen the cost of transporting his grain to the markets of the world, by three cents per bushel, and you will help the farmer more in that way than you can in any other form.
What does that mean? To the farmers of the Northwest this year it would mean about 3 million dollars on a hundred million crop.
It is estimated that it will take ten years to complete the canal; by that time it i9 safe to say the crop of the Canadian west will have reached 300 million bushels of wheat and at the same rate of 3 cents per bushel would mean 10 million dollars in the farmers pockets.
Also, one of the great advantages of the construction of this canal will be to create practically an unlimited water-power more than as at present developed, and which will be valuable for all kinds of industries. It is estimated that more than an additional million horse-power will be created by this new canal, and I think it is a conservative valuation to say that I think it will be worth $25 per horse-power, or 25 million dollars of value to this country. Another advantage would be that towns and industries would spring up all along the canal because the country through which it would pass is full of wealth and resources of all kinds. This has happened along the Erie canal, and it would happen along the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian 1124
Bay canal. Let us see some of the benefits that would be derived. Large pulp and paper mills would be established with cheap power and the exporting of pulp-wood would stop to a great extent. Large flour mills would be established. To my mind, the day will come when we will cease to export wheat, and will grind it into flour and will retain the by-products for the use of our farmers to feed to their cattle, and will export the flour only. I am sure that a large number of men would be employed and this would be a great benefit to Canada. Cement works will spring up, we will have numerous plants like that at Hull and we will be exporting cement in place of importing it. With cheap transportation afforded to the markets of the wotM, the development of the great natural water-powers along the route, and economical coal supply, a great manufacturing and commercial development will take place.
Deposits of iron are lying dormant to-day because of the lack of transportation facilities. It has been stated by eminent authorities that Canada is destined to be one of the greatest countries in the world for the manufacture of iron and steel. The placef occupied by iron and steel in the industrial world has not been over-estimated; the fact that present reserves, though undoubtedly large, are being steadily invaded, has caused a great uneasiness and has forced far-sighted men to look for new and larger sources of ore supply. On the other hand, Canada posseses large deposits ol iron ore which have been allowed to remain untouched just for the want of cheap transportation, to link our coal fields with our iron mines. There is no reason in my mind -why these large deposits should not he utilized and why Canada should not become one of the greatest iron producing countries in the world.
Upon the floor of the House, and upon the campaign hustings in these days of party strife, we hear much about the national debt, but one thing I wish to inform the House, whether I am here for four years or twice four, I will never regret having given a vote to increase the national debt so long as I know that the country has a good live asset for the amount of the increase, or that we have improved our position. I ask you, if a great company, if a great corporation,' hesitate or shrink at the thought of adding a few dollars to their indebtedness? No, if they are going to improve their position, if they are going to improve their facilities for doing business, they go ahead and borrow the money. Does a private business man hesitate at the thought of borrowing a few dollars from a bank if by that loan he knowrs he is going to improve his position for doing business? No, Sir, the farmers of this country will

not shrink at the idea of the Finance Minister going into the money market, because the farmers are shrewd people.^ A farmer will not hesitate to mortgage his farm, to borrow a few dollars, if he knows that by so doing he is going to provide for the erection of larger buildings to store his ever-increasing harvest. And I say that the hon. Finance Minister need not be the least alarmed about increasing the national debt $100,000,000 if he has the Georgian Bay canal as an asset. In some portions of Ontario there seems to be an idea that the Georgian Bay canal will rob the St. Lawrence of its traffic. That is not the case. The Georgian Bay canal would not divert the traffic from the St. Lawrence route or from existing Canadian railways. It would create a traffic of its own, and capture nearly all the Canadian grain that goes through the United States canals, and a large portion of the American traffic from Duluth. To those gentlemen I put the question: Do they know that 75 per cent of the grain exported goes by the United States canals?
Now let me sum up some of the reasons why, in my humble opinion, this work should be proceeded with.
1st. It will be 282 miles shorter than any other known route to the sea.
2nd. It will need less canalling than any other route. According to the latest reports of the engineers appointed by this government, it will need only 28 miles of canal work.
3rd. It will be the quickest and most direct route to the sea-board for the farmers' products.
4th. It would lessen the cost of transporting the farmers' grain to the markets of the world by probably three cents per bushel, thereby increasing the value of his products to that extent.
5th. It would carry Canadian grain through Canadian channels, and the 75 per cent of our grain now going through American channels would pass down the Georgian Bay canal.
6th. It would enable the mine owners of Nova Scotia to deliver coal at Fort William for 60 cents per ton, provided they could secure return cargo. This would extend the base of supply many hundred miles north, and would be of great benefit for all industrial purposes.
7th. It will be the best regulator of freight rates we can secure, notwithstanding the fact that we have a splendid Bailway Commission.
That eminent authority on transportation matters, James J. Hill, has time and again stated that the secret of low freight rates lies in the development of our natural water-wavs.
And now let me say a word in conclusion to the Prime Minister and his colleagues: of all the great works the government have undertaken, or may undertake, I know of Mr. LOW.
none of greater benefit to the farmers of this country than the development of this great national water-way.


Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright).: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly most interesting to find that with the advent of a number of new members to this House we have at the same time many more advocates for the construction of the Georgian Bay canal than we had even in the last parliament. It is also well to note that the idea that advocates of the Georgian Bay canal live only along the Ottawa valley is entirely fallacious. They are to be met in every section of this Dominion. To those who are afraid of canals I would say that this project is but small in comparison with the canals which exist throughout the world. In the British isles there are 8,000 miles of canals, in Germany 3,000 miles, in Canada 3,000 miles, and in view of this, Canada, with its immense and fertile territory, with its ever increasing commerce and wealth, need not fear the building of a few locks on one of the grandest water-ways of the world. I am often asked what is the proposed route of this canal, and I may say that it begins at the mouth of the French river and ends at Montreal, a distance of 425 miles. It follows the French river and Lake Nipissing, passes at the height of land through Trout, Turtle and Talon lakes, follows the Mat-tawa river to its junction with the Ottawa, thence down the Ottawa river to Montreal, and leaving the bed of the river occasionally where conditions render it advisable to do so. Let me cite to the House the opinions of some eminent men in this and in other countries, in answer to the arguments which are sometimes advanced, especially by railway men, against the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. To begin with, the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier has pronounced, himself entirely in favour of the building of the canal, and at the National club banquet in London, England, he used these words:
Canada's chief item of expenditure is in creating routes for her commerce. She has to complete her railway system and build the Georgian Bay canal.
The right hon. the Prime Minister repeated the same words in other sections of the country and within my own hearing, in the city of Hull, in the county which I have the honour to represent he spoke in the same sense. Sir Wm. Van Horne, who, of course, is an eminent authority on questions of transportation, has said that the building of the Georgian Bay canal would be of great benefit to the trade and commerce of Canada, and Mr. J. J. Hill has pointed out that it will enable vessels of
400,000	bushels capacity to carry grain at a profit for three cents per bushel. Mr. Hill has stated that this canal will not only convey wheat of the Canadian Northwest to the

sea-board, but that it will carry the grain from all parts of the United States north of Kansas city, because traffic will follow the line of least resistance. In quoting such eminent authorities I cannot omit to quote from Mr. Robert Reford, who has made a particular study of transportation, and who has said:
The rates will be cut down to one-third their present cost, every fraction of which should go into the pockets of the wheat producers of the Great West.
Let me add the Erie barge canal, in the state of New York, of which we have heard so much and which will not begin to be of equal utility with the Georgian Bay canal, will cost as much as will the Georgian Bay canal, while the canalizing of the Mississippi to a depth of 12 or 14 feet would cost much more. In an article in the ' Scottish American ' it is pointed out that even admitting the great drawback that our rivers are not free from ice, it is not possible that the United States canals can at all compete with the Georgian Bay canal. Now, Mr. Speaker, let us ask ourselves what would be the great advantage of this Georgian Bay canal, the construction of which has teen before the people for the last 50 years or more, and hence is not a new question. In 1895 our grain exports amounted to 17,185,582 bushels, valued at $11,537,433, and in 1909 our grain export amounted to 70,526.894 bushels, valued at $63,884,355. These figures show that our trade in grain is constantly increasing, and even with the advent of the National Transcontinental railway and the Canadian Northern it is obvious that our railway systems in Canada will not he able to carry the growing wheat yield from the fields of the Northwest. Not only that, but when the Georgian Bay canal is built a great deal of the grain which now finds its outlet by American ports will be diverted by the Canadian route to our ocean port at Montreal. Sir, I am not opopsed to the deepening of the Welland canal or any other Canadian canal, but I do believe that the moment you deepen the Welland canal the Americans will immediately build a canal from Oswego to Syracuse so as to enable them to carry the western grain right through to their owm ships in New York harbour. That is a natural consequence, whereas if you build the Georgian Bay canal the grain that is to-day going by New York, not all of it, but a great deal of the grain that is going via New York, will find its way directly down the Ottawa river.
At the risk of wearying the House, I shall give a few statistics. The total traffic through the several canals of this country for 1908 amounted to 17,502,820 tons. Compare that with the Suez canal. In 1908, 13,633,283 tons of freight passed through the Suez canal, 4,000,000 less than through
cur canals, and yet the revenue of the Suez canal in 1908 was $20,605,524.
In 1908, 776,374 tons of grain passed down the St. Lawrence canals to Montreal. On the St. Lawrence canals 2,900,102 tons of freight all told were moved. Of this 867,037 tons were agricultural products, 826,177 tons merchandise, and 430,004 tons coal and 180,022 tons were forest products. If I w*ere speaking for the Ottawa district, I would say that 204,490 tons of freight that passed down the Ottawa river canals were the produce of our own forests. On the Sault Ste. Marie canal the total movement of freight was 12,759,216 tons.
They built a Manchester ship canal in England and yet it is only 354 miles long, but it cost $73,172,000. The revenue is about $300,000. The Englishman is a wise man in business and if he will expend $72,000,000 in order to get a revenue of $300,000, why would we not expend $100,000,000 to get a revenue that may amount to any sum and certainly will be a very large revenue. The building of the Manchester ship canal meant a great deal for Manchester. During its construction 17,000 men and boys were daily engaged. Since its construction new ideas have been started at Manchester and along the banks; warehouses and mills previously empty are now occupied and over 10,000 new houses have been built for the working people of that city.
I know that a number of gentlemen wish to speak this evening upon this subject, they are waiting for an opportunity, in fact I believe they are simply bubbling over with enthusiasm for this canal, and it will be unfair on my part to detain the House at any greater length. I wish I had a thousand voices to go throughout this country from one end to the other and proclaim the great advantages whicli this canal will have for Canada. To my own good loyal friends of this country, to my military friends, to my naval friends, let me say, that Major-General Gascoyne, when giving evidence before the Senate of this country, said that the imperial authorities were most anxious for the construction of this canal because it would be a splendid route in the way of the defence of this country, Let me quote his words, which I have here in French:
From a military standpoint, I positively state that so far as strategy is concerned I look upon this scheme as a most desirable one.
Of course-and I must say so in order to make myself plain-it depends a good deal upon the depth of the water you intend to have in the canal.
Mr. Chairman.-The depth would be 14 feet.
Major General Gascoigne.-I was going to ask myself for a depth of 14 feet.
If you construct the canal of 14 feet deep, I can say that it would be of the greatest value to the country on a strategical point of view. I

know that the imperial authorities look at this enterprise at this work in that light.
It is not necessary for me to translate that beautiful language because I know that all the members of this House are familiar with the two official languages, but I would call the attention of the hon. gentlemen who are so strongly advocating to-day a naval policy for this country, who are imbued with that sentiment of loyalty towards the British Crown, and who want by every possible means to. defend the empire and the country to the desirability of constructing the Georgian Bay canal, and I would ask them to join with us in advocating that work which will be one of the greatest ever undertaken by the government of Canada.


Mr. G. F. HODGINS (Pontiac).: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great attention to the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. G. V. White) who introduced this question and also to the hon. members who followed him. On this all-important question of the Georgian Bay canal. I believe that since confederation there has been no question which should so engage the attention of this parliament or the people of Canada as the early construction of the Georgian Bay canal. We have heard so much to-night as to its merits that I do not feel like asking the indulgence of the House in what would be a repetition of the many great things that have been said in its favour; but I feel that I would be remiss in my duty to my constituency, as well in my duty a-s a member of this House, if I did not take this opportunity of endorsing the construction of the Georgian Bay canal. It is not a new question, it has been before the people of Canada since before confederation, and I do not feel bashful or backward in endorsing the scheme when I find that it has been endorsed by the greatest statesmen of our country, by the railway magnates of Canada, by large shipping interests, by various boards of trade as well as by the press. Consequently I feel quite at liberty in endorsing the scheme as one that should be of the greatest possible benefit to. the Dominion of Canada. I have no doubt that the delay in construction has been owing to its enormous cost; but considering that it will take 10 years to construct this great water-way, which is estimated to cost $100,000,000, an expenditure of $10,000,000 per annum will cover the entire cost and I feel satisfied that when this great canal is completed and opened for the great commerce of our Northwest and of the east, it will amply repay the government of Canada for its construction. When you consider the enormous strides the great provinces of the west have made in the last Mr. DEVLIN.
decade and their great prospects for a still further increase, I am not at all optimistic in predicting that when this canal is opened for transportation, the grain production of the great western provinces, will exceed one billion bushels per annum. Considering that in 1900 the total production was 32,000,000 bushels, in 1907, 160,000,000; in 1908, 232,000,000; and in 1909,
314,000,000; I do not think I am over-estimating when I predict that by 1920 the total production of grain of the three western provinces will exceed 1,000,000,000. We may estimate that one-half of that will be for export. Such an eminent authority as Mr. Robert Reford, of Montreal, one of the leading ship owners of Canada, claims that wheat may be transported from Fort William to Montreal at a saving of 2 cents per bushel on the present rate. That would represent $10,000,000 on the export of Northwest grain alone, quite sufficient to pay the interest on the investment of $100,000,000 as well as the maintenance and operation of the canal.
Much has been said with regard to enlarging the Welland canal, but while I believe in the deepening of that canal I am of the opinion that the day will come when both these canals will be required. And as the people of Ontario have been enjoying for many years the advantages of the Welland canal, I think it is in their interests and that of Canada generally that the Georgian Bay canal should be first constructed. The enlargement of the Welland would interfere to a great extent with the present traffic, whereas by building the Georgian Bay canal first, the people of Ontario would have a complete circle of waterways and the province of Quebec would have a water-way along its entire front. Speaking of the county I have the honour to represent, I may say that the natural resources of Pontiac alone would justify the construction of this great water-way. We have in Pontiac county enormous areas of timber, pulpwood, mineral and other resources awaiting easier and cheaper transportation facilities. I was rather surprised to hear, during the debate on the budget, the hon. member for Peterboro (Mr. Stratton) say that pulpwood was worth about $5.75 per cord in the raw, but that, when manufactured into paper, it was worth $38 to $45 per cord for low grade paper, and) $50 to $100 for high grade. Last year the export of pulpwood, at a valuation of $5.75, represented something like $4,500,000, whereas had it been manufactured into paper, it would have represented over $40,000,000.
There are many people in this country who believe that protection is the greatest possible factor in building up a country, but in my opinion, transportation will do

more for us than protection ever will. I believe that if this Georgian Bay canal be built it will give our Canadian water routes an advantage over every other on this continent, and do more for the benefit of this country than possibly could any tariff.
So much has been said regarding distance and the cost of transportation, that I do not think it would be wise for me to take up the time of the House in discussing this phase of the question. I might, however, refer to the exports of wheat during the present year from Fort William by way of the great lakes. During the past year, some 77,000,000 bushels of wheat were shipped from Port Arthur and Fort William to the sea-board and intermediate points. Some 54,000,000 bushels were carried in Canadian bottoms and 23,000,000 in American bottoms. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that were the Georgian Bay canal constructed, not only would we carry through that water-way the products of our Canadian northwest, but also to a great extent those of our American neighbours. Our neighbours view with alarm the construction of this great canal, and they rather favour the deepening of the Welland canal. Naturally they would prefer the latter, as we would have to bear the cost of the improvement while they would get the trade. I have before me some very interesting letters on this question, but as there are many other hon. gentlemen who are anxious to speak, I shall not detain the House by reading them.
The Nova Scotia coal question has been dealt with in a very able manneT by the hon. gentleman who preceded me (Mr. Arthurs) so that I need but briefly refer to it. During the year 1908, the total production of Nova Scotia coal represented some
6,300,000	tons, which gave employment to some 13,000 miners. Only about 2,000,000 tons of that coal found its way west of Quebec, while on the other hand the province of Ontario imported from the United States some 8,000,000 tons. Had this coal been purchased instead in Nova Scotia, it would have given employment to 25,000 more men and have also given employment to Canadian shippers, so that I say if we want to build up our country, the first thing we should do is to attend to this transportation question. $100,000,000, which is the estimated cost of the Georgian Bay canal, is no doubt a large amount, but when we consider the resources of Canada, when we consider the fact that there are $735,000,000 of the people's money in our savings bank, when we consider the high credit of Canada in the money markets of the world, I do not see why the cost of the enterprise should make the government hesitate, and I believe that the government will receive the endorsation of the entire people if it should undertake this
work. I trust that the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who, with his colleagues, has done so much for the upbuilding of this country, will not hesitate in building this canal, and that Sir Wilfrid Laurier's name may go down to posterity as the creator of this great waterway, as well as of the many other great public utilities which have been inaugurated under his regime. Sir, I shall not take up more of your time on this question, knowing that there are others desirous of speaking, who can deal with the question more capably than I can.


Mr. J. D. REID (Grenville).: So far as the resolution is concerned, of course I am not opposed to it, nor, I believe, is any member of the House, for it simply asks for the papers relating to the Georgian Bay canal project. Let me say further, at- the outset, that I am not opposed to the building of the Georgian Bay canal, or any other water-way that will develop our great country. I believe that the development of this Georgian bay route must be carried out in the future. That part of our country is being opened up, and the benefit to the section which the canal traverses would justify the opening of the route, especially in view of the great water-powers to be developed which will be of immense benefit to Canada in the future. But, from the discussion I have heard on this question-I am sorry to say I have not been present during the whole debate-I am led to believe that the shortest time within which it is thought possible to build this Georgian Bay canal is ten years. For my part, I believe it will take a much longer time to build this great water-way. Therefore, I think, in the interests of the people of the Northwest and of Canada as a whole, the other part of our great water-way system, the Welland canal, should be improved almost immediately. It has been estimated by the government that the Welland canal could be deepened in five years. I believe that every member of the House will agree that, even though the Georgian Bay canal is to be proceeded with at some future time, the Welland canal must also be deepened. The highest estimate of the cost of this work is $25,000,000, and, as I have said, the work could be finished in five years. If this deepening of the Welland canal were effected, the lowering of rates would be as great as through the construction of the Georgian Bay canal and the work could be done much sooner. Of course, there are great differences of opinion to the possible rates on the Georgian Bay canal and the Welland canal when improved. It has been proven, I believe, to the satisfaction of the government that, if the Welland canal were deepened, grain could be brought from Fort William and Port Ar-


Mr. C. A. WILSON (Laval).: I have only a few words to say and it is not in criticism of the remarks of my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid), and my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. White). If I understand my hon. friend from Grenville right, it is only a question of opportunity whether the Welland canal should be dredged a little deeper than it is now, though I do not understand that he objects at all to the Georgian Bay canal project. I must say, Mr1. Speaker, that it seems refreshing to find ourselves upon a subject relating to waterways, after we have heard so much about war and Dreadnoughts. In the course of my remarks, I hope I will not wound the susceptibilities of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), if I touch a little upon the military features of this canal.
For the last seven or eight years I have been particularly interested in matters of dredging and navigation. During the_ campaign of 1902, that was one of the issues in the county of Laval. During the campaign of 1904, one of the issues was the dredging of the Riviere des Prairies and Riviere Jesus. I am glad to see present my hon. friend from Terrebonne (Mr. Nan-tel), who I know takes a great interest in this subject. Now, since we have had a survey and report upon this Georgian Bay canal .nearly everybody in the Dominion takes more and more interest in the subject, and is to a certain extent posted on the project. I am not going to entertain^ at great length this House about the Georgian Bay canal project. Most everything has been said about it that can be said, and if any hon. member wishes to know more about it he has only to peruse the exhaustive and well framed report made by the four engineers appointed by this government to examine the project. They will find in that report everything they need. I propose to confine my remarks to that section of the proposed route extending from the Lake of Two Mountains down to Varennes, a point 6 or 8 miles from the Bout de I'sle of the islands of Montreal. Now, I would invite the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), in the estimates which he will present to this House in a few days, to include a sum of money for the deepening of that part of the canal projected through the Rivieres des Prairies, north of the metropolis of Canada.

On the 15th of February, 1909, I placed a motion on the order paper of this House for a return of information regarding the dredging of the Riviere Jesus, and I was informed that in November, 1863-4, about half a mile below Macdonald's wharf was dredged by the government, and from 1902 to 1908 it was dredged by contractors. The distance dredged was about two miles, the width 100 ft., the depth from six to ten feet, and the work was carried as far as Mascouche river. These works are to reach as far as Terrebonne. Such was the information handed out from the Department of Public Works in the return I mentioned.
I desire now to draw the attention to the importance of the locality bounded by these two Tivers, and to show the great need there is at present for improving their channels; first, in connection with local navigation; secondly, in regard to the general scheme of Canadian navigation; thirdly, and finally, I intend to demonstrate the need of this work in connection with the Georgian Bay canal project.
According to the census of 1901, the total population of the parishes in the vicinity of these rivers, and which must benefit directly from the execution of this work, was 10,200 souls; the total population of the villages in the same section was 6,779, forming a total of 16,979. I will not detain the House with an enumeration of the number of acres of cultivated land in the surrounding country. I will simply say that, since the last census, the now incorporated village of Cartierville has sprung into existence, and a large number of families have established their homes along the shores of the Rivifere des Prairies, and the consequent increase in population over the figures of the last census must amount to fully 5,000. I am sure this is no exaggeration. In fact, in another ten years that section of country will contain a population of at least 50,000 people. There is already, as I have shown, in round figures a population of 22,000. The city of Montreal is now rapidly spreading all over the island. Outlying towns and suburbs are being annexed to the city every year. Its limits alreadv extend within one mile of the Riviere des Prairies, and very soon the municipalities of Cartierville, Bordeaux, Ahuntsic and Sault-au-Recollect will be included within the city. That is to say, the whole section, extending from the River St. Lawrence to the village of the Riviere des Prairies, will form a portion of the city of Montreal.
Along the banks of the river a number ol houses of education, all of a high order, and to which many of the city children are sent, have been established. The waterworks system of the city extends to Riviere des Prairies. The new prison of Montreal is now being built within a few acres of the
banks of the river and in the heart of the municipality of Bordeaux. Land is being sold in building lots, and of (late, as if by enchantment, unincorporated villages have sprung up on all sides throughout that region-one of the finest in all Canada. In vain will you look through the blue-books of the past ten years for such names of places as Youville, Parc Laval, Bas du Sault, Pont Viau, Saraguay, Cartierville, Abord a Plouffe. &c., &c., all of which are considerable villages, and which but a short time ago were but land marks, or stopping places, along the route. These, thanks to the wonderful progress and expansion of the city, are to-day places of sufficient importance to entitle them to charters of towns from the provinial legislature.
Stone, wood, coal and other like commodities are in great demand there, but owing to the lack of a system of navigation, it would be difficult to obtain exact statistics as to the cost and the amount needed, both for domestic consumption and for industrial purposes. I really believe that a system of navigation circling the Island of Montreal would be of the utmost utility and benefit to all that large population along the shores, and I look ahead to such a sys-tefn in the near future.
The very first question one might ask is this: Is navigation possible in that river? The answer is simple. I must draw your attention immediately to Rivibres des Prairies which I am referring to as one of the two alternative routes of the Georgian Bay canal. According to the report of the engineer it would save $9,000,000 or $10,000,000 if the Georgian Bay canal were built by the route of Rivifere des Prairies instead of by the St. Lawrence, where there is already the Lachine canal. It would be much shorter.


Samuel Hughes: Better for the navy, too.


Charles Avila Wilson: Better for the navy, and I am glad that my hon. friend from Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) takes that view. I will come to a point that will please him very much in a few minutes. I will refer to military and naval defence. Our cruisers, rather small perhaps, that tin-pot navy to which somebody has referred in the House, will be more protected on the Back river in those good constituencies of Laval, Jacques Cartier, Terrebonne and Two Mountains than on the border or on the south side of the St. Lawrence river and that is one of the reasons why I am in favour of that route. I was about to answer the question:	Is navigation possible in that river? It is possible, for it has existed in the past, and it still exists during the high-water season. The route now under consideration has been, since the first pine tree in the valley of the Ottawa was felled by the shanty-

man's axe, the grand water-way for the immense rafts of square timber, taken down to the St. Lawrence, to the timber market in Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec. Each year, until within about two or three years, the steamers ' Vermont,' ' Hope,' ' Aurora ' and ' Monarch,' as well as others the names of which escape me, have towed rafts, barges and pontoons almost to the village of Ste. Genevieve, to a place called L'Anse du Pont de Pierre. In 1882 or 1883, Mr. Girouard, then member for Jacques Cartier, now a judge of the Supreme Court, organized at Lachine a political excursion, by steamboat, to Ste. Genevieve, and on that occasion, for a first time the rather large steamboat 1 Beauhar-nois ' was seen moored to an emergency wharf at that town. Often since, smaller boats than those above mentioned have gone down below lie Bizard, and have turned near the foot of Bapide l'Allemand. As to the north side of the lie Bizard, it is washed by the Lake of Two Mountains, which has a depth of water sufficient for the class of navigation under present consideration. So much for that part of the Riviere des Prairies, which covers an extent of about six miles. Navigation is both possible and practicable in that part of it.
As to the part of that river extending from Bout de Pile of Montreal on the east side of the level above the village of St. Vincent de Paul, we find that about 1860, and even before that the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company, I think, known then under another name, had for about fifteen years a steamboat service between Montreal, St. Vincent de Paul and Terrebonne The old wharf is still there: the steamer 'Terrebonne' did the service. When the reformatory of St. Vincent de Paul was changed into a penitentiary, prisoners were brought there from Kingston and elsewhere on board the steamer ' l'Aigle.'
The distance between Bout de Pile and St. Vincent de Paul is about twelve miles.
The only work that would be needed on that section of river would be the clearing up Gr dredging of the channel of the Rapide de la Passe, in front of the village of Riviere des Prairies. Every spring time the Marine Department places about a dozen buoys in that rapid for the guidance of the rafts and for general purposes of navigation.
You may reasonably ask me: What caused the cessation of navigation in that paTt? I may point out two, amongst other reasons : 1st, the building of the Quebec, Montreal and Occidental railway, now a part of the Canadian Pacific. This line made it then impossible for any line of vessels to compete with it in trade. The second cause is the gradual yearly lowering of the water level for a quarter of a century back, and the working of the ice on the banks and bed of the river. The ice tore Mr. C. A. WILSON
up the bottom of the river and rolled here and there the heavy boulders that got into the deeper channels and broke up the navigation. I do not believe that in the last twenty-five years the government ever spent one cent to remedy that unfortunate state of affairs.
As to the fifteen miles of river above St. 'Vincent de Paul and up the lie Bizard, it never was utilized for purposes of navigation although it was always a passage way for timber and rafts. It is a part that would require more work to improve it; but once that work is done it would be of the greatest importance as a water-way and will make navigation around the Island of Montreal practicable. At that place there is located a felt mill, and the electric power-house of the Saraguay Light, Heat and Power Company, as also a knitting mill, the lie Bizard grist mill, several manufactories, and the far-famed limestone quarries of St. Francois de Sales, St. Martin and Bordeaux, since navigation has ceased, the population has augmented, needs have increased, business has extended; and yet the only means of transportation is the Canadian Pacific railway, which has stations only at Bordeaux, Parc Laval, St. Martin, St. Vincent de Paul and Francois, de Sales. Their charges are burdensome and the company, so far as transportation is concerned, has a monopoly over the entire territory. For instance, on the single article of coal consumed by the penitentiary according to a statement given in 1902 or 1903 the Department of Justice would save about $5,000 each year were the retransportation by water instead of by rail. I think there is a difference of about $1 per ton between the water and the rail rates. Consider, then, the immense benefits that would accrue if a sum sufficient were voted to improve the navigation of that river to such a degree that boats drawing five or six feet of water might ply upon it. I have dwelt on this point to considerable extent in the hope of seeing a sufficient sum voted to permit of the dredging and clearing up of the rivers des Prairies and Jesus, and the rendering of them more useful to the entire city of Montreal and its neighbourhood.
I will now turn to the larger and national side of the question. I desire to show how this very section may become a strong link in that magnificent chain of water-way, to be known as the Georgian Bay canal-a project that now challenges the attention of two continents and of the two great sections of this continent-the United States and Canada.
Turning now to the grand national project of the future, of which the work suggested must form a not inconsiderable part,
I shall ask your attention for but a few moments. The primary idea that inspired

the governments and engineers of the first period of this century to dig the Carillon and Rideau canals was military defence. The Georgian Bay canal report gives us the following information:
Tn 1828 McPherson, Crane & Company put the steamer ' Shannon/ Captain Grant, on this route. Meanwhile a great improvement was pending. The American war (1812-14) had emphasized the need of an interior route to Kingston, and in 1827 the imperial government began the construction of the Carillon and the Grenville canals, and also the Rideau canal between Ottawa and Kingston. These were finished in 1833.
In 18P6, Mr. Wright, of Hull, was the first person to take down a raft of square timber from Ottawa to Quebec. His idea of running the Long Sault and the Carillon rapids with his raft was looked upon as fool-hardy and madness at the time. But he succeeded and reached the Island of Montreal in 28 days. When he had got as far as the Lake of Two Mountains he found himself in a dilemma. Which of the two coures was he to take? Possibly, warned by the fury of the Sault St. Louis, he decided to take the handier and less boisterous route of the Rivi&res des Prairies. So that as early as 1806 the navigation of the river with rafts (if I can so call it) was recognized as possible and the route north of the Island of Montreal seemed to guarantee safety and all that could be desired. In 1841 Captain Shepherd started from Ste. Anne and ascended, for the first time, the Carillon canal. The day before he did this he accomplished the feat of steering the steamer 'St. David' from Brockville to Lachine, running the Gallops, Long Sault, Cornwall, Coteau, Les Cedres, the Chutes a Blondeau and the Split Rock rapids, as well as the famous Sault St. Louis, thus showing the possibility of navigating those dangerous rapids which are to-day a favourite route for trade and for tourists. That same year he towed a raft of square timber, with his steamboat, from Carillon to the Rapide L'Allemand, at the end of lie Biz-ard. All this forms a connecting link between what I have already said regarding the possibility of navigation in those waters and the idea of a permanent route from the sea to the great lakes. The intention of the military authorities in 1827 was to have the military system of canals run by way of Riviere des Prairies instead of by Ste. Anne.
Keeping in sight the evident purpose of the military engineers of the past and the project of the great canal that looms up on the horizon of the future, I would ask attention, for a few moments, to the 'Back River Line' as this route is called in the report of the surveys in connection with the Georgian Bay canal. And _ before so doing I wish to recall the opinion of Herbert Quick, author and expert writer on American water-ways, expressed in an interview prior to the Water-ways convention at New Orleans. Mr. Quick said:
Canada has already more commerce through her Soo canal than we have through ours. When she has completed the Georgian Bay ship canal she will destroy American commerce from the lakes to the sea, and the death-knell of our merchant marine on the lakes will have been sounded.
At this stage, and in presence of all that has been written of late on this subject, it is needless for me to dwell upon its importance in every sense and to point out the vital necessity it will become within the very near future, if not immediately. All are agreed on that score, and the only thing we await is the possibility of that work being commenced in earnest. Keeping, then, all this in mind, I return to the urgency and necessity of the government providing a suitable vote of moneys for the operations of dredging and improving the water courses in question. The cost will be proportionately small to the local benefits and the future national importance of the work.	.
I do not deem it necessary to read for this House the entire portions of the report that deal with the rivers, lakes, streams, watercourses, islands and adjacent lands to which I refer and that comprise the region in favour of which I ask the assistance of a vote. Pages 99, 100 and 101, as well as pages 512 and 513 of that voluminous report contain statistics of a most interesting and convincing character, which, Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me, I will hand over to the reporters. They show exactly what amount of work may be required to make that course perfectly navigable, as well as the time that may be required in completing such works.


BACK RIVER LINE.
[Stage Direction]
St. Lawrence Ship Channel to Prairies Lock.
The line leaves the Montreal-Queheo ship channel near Varennes and proceeds due west through the soft river bed for 8 miles to Prairies lock, opposite the small village of Riviere des Prairies, which is 5 miles higher up than Bout de l'lle.
Channels are provided to allow of either up or down bound traffic from the sliip channel entering Ottawa.
The surface of the St. Lawrence at Bout de Pile as elevation 16 at low water, and this surface continues up to the Prairies lock; therefore the channel bottom is elevation 6. The width of the channel is 300 feet, widened at curves. This necessitates the excavation and disposal of four million cubic yards of' material, which is generally a soft clay that can be excavated by suction dredges and pumped away through pipes. It can be deposited upon the islands at Bout de Pile, and the upper portion of the channel excavation may be disposed of on Macheu island without
[Stage Direction]
incurring the risk of its running back into the channel.
The excavation could be done in three seasons. The Canadian hydraulic dredge, ' J. I. Tarte/ excavated during working season of 1907, and removed by pipe line, two million yards of material in the St. Lawrence below Montreal.
The line passes through lie Bourdon in 35 feet cut, and this material will prove harder excavation than the channel below and above, although a good part of it can be done dry.
At this point the Chateauguay and Northern railway (Great Northern) is crossed, and a bascule double track bridge has been estimated for, leaving a clear water-way of 160 feet. About mile 8 the excavation becomes rock and continues so for the next half mile up to Prairies lock.
The line is generally direct, but bends, none of which are sharp, are necessary at four places to get between the numerous islands. Each leg is provided with range lights and mark piers so as to render navigation fully as easy as in the ship channel.
At mile 5 the St. Eustache branch of Mille lies river joins the Back river, but without appreciable current. The manufacturing town of Terrebonne is situated 11 miles up this branch.
The end of Montreal island (Bout de Pile) is a triangular flat, elevated about 35 feet above the sea for a distance of two miles. The ground then runs up quickly to elevation 75, and continues to rise toward Mount Royal. Examination failed to discover any practical crossing between Bout de Pile and Ste Anne -the west end of Montreal island.
To cut through the island and join the St. Lawrence ship channel at the head of He Ste. Therese would be somewhat more expensive than the route as estimated. The saving in distance between the short cut and the adopted line, Montreal customs house would be about 6 miles in distance, but nothing in time of transit owing to reduced speed through canal cutting.
Prairies Reach.
The lock or step up to this reach ds located on the north shore opposite des Prairies village, its lift being 24 feet from surface elevation 16 to surface elevation 40. A greater rise than this would flood the village property, and the damage might be considerably increased by the erosion of the soft earth banks along the south side.
The Prairies lock is founded on rock, the surface of which is elevated 20 feet, so that the walls for 26 feet in height are formed in the natural bed-rock. The remaining 25 feet in height of wall are built of concrete in a similar manner to all the other locks. About
3.000	cubic yards of concrete will be required for this, and part of the lock-pit excavation can be used.
The usual guide piers are provided above and below the lock. The upper guide pier forms a side wall to a short canal along the river bank.
There is a rock-fill dam between the lock and the south shore, which will require
100.000	cubic yards of loose rock.
The rock excavation immediately below the lock can be dammed off the excavated dry at the same time as the lock-pit, and will Mr. C. A. WILSON.
furnish ample material for the filling of guide piers and the dam.
Stop-log sluiceways are provided in the dam to pass the flow of the river. There are 34 openings, each 20 feet wide, and capable of passing 20 feet depth of water, and even 24 feet depth if the reach above should rise by accident. The regulated flow through Back river is 65,000 c.f.s., and 25 per cent additional is provided.
About a mile above the lock a straight channel will require the excavation of about
21,000	cubic yards of rock, which can be taken out dry.
Further up the channel, about two miles above St. Vincent de Paul, nearly 850,000 cubic yards of rock excavation ig required extending right to the foot of Recollet lock-mile 17.
This heavy rock excavation is necessary so as to enlarge the river bed and prevent a current swifter than four feet per second for the total flow of 65,000 c.f.s.
The river now flow® with considerable current, but with little depth, a rough limestone bed-rock. The proposed raised surface or working level will just obliterate the sloping fail of tne river past Visitation island, and so destroy the current, without increasing the depth. It will, therefore, be necessary to increase the size of the river. To accomplish this a channel 700 feet wide will be taken out south of Visitation island to allow a flow of 10 feet in depth. This can be excavated dry. Part will be earth 54,000 cubic yards, and part rock, 202,000 cubic yards. The village property destroyed is often flooded, and ®o no great damage will be done. This chau-netl could be excavated by three shovels in two seasons, working winter and summer.
The navigation channel north of Visitation island is full 300 feet wide, and excavated 7 feet into the rock river bed for a distance of about 11 miles below Recollet lock. This can be closed off by dams from shore and excavated dry, especially as most of the river flow will be passed south of Visitation island. Three seasons will be required to complete this channel, that is one season after the channel south of Visitation island is finished. The water surface at Prairies lock will be raised about 15 feet and extend level to Recollet lock, where the surface will be as ac present. There will be 368 acres of land inundated. The north bank from St. Vincent de Paul upwards is very steep and the south shore is fairly high but it may be necessary to protect parts of it by a stone slope, ample rock for which is available from the excavation.
A small water-power at Prairies lock will be extinguished and also that between lie Visitation and the south shore where a small cardboard factory is now in existence.
Recollet Reach.
Recollet lock is on the north side, a mile below Pont Viau, the lift being 35 feet, which attains the level of Oka reach. It will be noted that only two locks are required to rise to Oka level by the Back river, while the front line requires three locks, as a small lift seems absolutely necessary at Ste. Anne.
Recollet lock is founded on solid rock, the

eurface of which is elevation 40, so that the bottom being elevation 18.22 feet of wall is in solid rook, leaving 40 feet to be built up in concrete.
Below the lock is the usual cribwork approach, and above is the lock cribwork pier. This is backed by earth from the canal excavation to create a dam across the small gullet just above the lock, which then forms an entrance basin about a mile long.
This expansion of the surface will diminish the bore or ware which travels down a narrow canal during and after the filling of a lock, tending to slam the upper gates shut just when they are in progress of opening.
Above the lock-mile 17 to mile 28-are 11 miles of canal, and the question of a guard lock at the head and a guard gate just above the Recollet lock, comes up.
A guard lock at the head of the canal, where it enters Oka lake would be subject to the drive of the waves down the lake, which would prevent the opening of the upper gates as has been experienced on the Soulanges canal at Coteau under similar conditions.
On the other hand, without a guard lock, winds are apt to pile the water in the narrow canal towards the foot. This action nearly resulted in overflowing the banks of the Welland canal and Thorold during a gale down Lake Erie. The gates of the Port Colborne guard lock had been left open, and could not be shut owing to the heavy waves that ran in from the lake.
Again, the carrying away of the lock gates at Recollet lock or a break in the canal bank would create a swift current through the canal, and a lowering of the surface that would wreck steamers navigating the reach.
The sides of the canal have been designed 5 feet above Oka lake, which is sufficient to obviate any danger from the piling action of the water toward the lower end of the canal.
Recollet lock, like all others, on the route, has four pairs of steel gates. Both the lower pairs are always shut against a descending boat, and is beyond all human probability that a thin steel boat cutting into the 4 foot wide girders of these steel lock gates would completely carry away the pair 57 feet below. The bows of the boat would be cut in, and she would remain hanging in the wreck of the first pair of gates, forming a very effective dam.
Near the head of the canal at Bigras island a large area of sluices is provided, that empty directly into the river channel, which at this place is rock. If then the canal bank should give way at any point, these sluices will be opened and the greater part of the flow from Oka lake will discharge through them. Only a small quantity would tend to continue down the canal, and, therefore, a temporary dam oould easily be constructed across the channel below the sluices till the break in the bank was repaired.
In this connection it must be remembered that, even with a guard lock, the whole contents of the canal would tear out through any break in the bank and do practically all the damage that could be done.
I have, therefore, made no provision for guard lock nor guard gates, but have preferred to place full confidence in the Bigras island sluices.
The Recollet canal necessitates over five million cubic yards of dry earth, excavation, and half a million cubic yards of rock. The standard size of embankments amounts to three million cubic yards, so that a good margin is left to widen and strengthen the usual cross section.	.
There are several bridges to be dealt with. Viau bridge traffic will be carried across at Recollet lock.
For the Canadian Pacific Railway, a bascule bridge is provided at Parc Laval-mile 19.
The Cartierville road traffic will be crossed by a bascule bridge in the same line as the present road.
The highway traffic to lie Bizard can pass along the south bank as a roadway is provided over the Bigras sluices.
Along the whole 11 miles of canal it will be necessary to protect both sides by broken stone against the wash of boats, etc.
Above the canal, the channel toward Oka village will be dredged, 7 feet deep, through the shallow sand flats at the east end of Oka lake-mile 28 to mile 37-a total excavation of 4J millions cubic yards, most of which can be handled by suction dredge.
Silting in of this channel, with sand by wind storms, is liable to occur, but the powerful suction dredges now in use are capable of rapidly and cheaply clearing it away.
The time required for the construction of the Recollet reach and Oka lake section would probably be five seasons if 12 steam shovels, or their equivalent, were employed in the canal section itself-mile 17 to 28. The dredging in Oka lake can be completed in advance of this.
It may be argued that, in view of the recent expressions on the part of the right hon, leader of the government, the commencement of the Georgian Bay canal project is somewhere yet in the near future. The desire is to see it begun at once; but the extensiveness of the other great and important public works that demand immediate attention, and the means at the disposal of the government for such gigantic enterprises, compel the relegation of this national undertaking to the time to come. Consequently, it may be said, that there is not an immediate necessity for the dredging and improvements that I have so persistently asked for. But, in reply to this, I say that the immediate necessity is of a most important local character, and that it affects the interests of the great metropolitan city of Montreal and all the immediate surroundings. And while that work is being done, and that navigation is being not only restored, but made permanent for the future, you will be 'killing two birds with one stone ' and preparing so much of the route that most assuredly will be adopted whenever the government of Canada finds itself in a position to freely, launch the magnificent national enterprise of building the Georgian bay canal.
I will not detain the House any further on this point; but I will sum up in a few words my request. It is the same as that made to the government on the occasion of
[Stage Direction]
the interview with the hon. Minister of Public Works, when, on the 15th of December last, the subject was clearly explained and all due and careful consideration was promised. I thank the Minister of Public Works for the kindly interest he has expressed in this matter.
^ Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier). Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to add a word or two to this interesting debate. I think the House is very much indebted to the hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. G. V. White) for having given such an extensive review of all that has been already said and adding to it what has lately been done in respect to this great national work. Of course we, down in the district of Montreal, are extremely interested in the prompt execution of this work, but although we are greatly interested, although that intended canal, whatever route may be adopted, passes through my own constituency, which will no doubt derive some benefit from it, still it is a work of such nature that I am more disposed to look at it as a general national work destined to benefit the whole country than to take the view which my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. C. A. Wilson) has taken of that work. He seems to consider it more as a local work.
Charles Avila Wilson: Does my hon. friend remember that when a delegation was received by the Minister of Public Works he was present for a few moments, although he was busy in a committee, and that he did not object to the work that was to be done in that part of the country, on the other hand the work would have his best support.


Mr. MONK.: 
William Pugsley: The most important suggestions are being rapidly and steadily acted upon.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not take it that way. Perhaps if my hon. friend


William Pugsley: Take Fort William, Port Arthur, Victoria, Tiffin, St. John, Vancouver, the Georgian Bay survey

Mr. MONK-not one single suggestion of any importance in that report has been carried out.


Mr. RIVET.: What about the improvements carried on in Montreal?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Not one single suggestion in the report of any importance. What do we find in that report? It lays down as a fundamental principle that five or six or seven of our ports, which the commissioners have examined carefully, must be made national and free ports, Prince Rupert, Vancouver, ports on the Pacific ocean, some of the lake ports and they gave the reasons for these suggestions. My hon. friend speaks of Montreal, as being an example of the carrying out of those suggestions. Will my hon. friend say that Montreal has been made a free and national port?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I will.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And that the improvements suggested by the commission have been carried out?


William Pugsley: It has been made a national port.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What money do we owe the government, what money have we received fox the improvement of the port of Montreal or carrying out a single suggestion? We have improved the port, we have obtained the credit of the government, borrowed money and carried out improvements, admirably carried out under the present commission of the port of Montreal. But in what way is it a free port? The charge is increasing every year as it must increase necessarily if the suggestion of this commission is not carried out and it is not made a free port. What is the amount taken out of the port of Montreal every year? Is that a free port? It is neither a national port nor a free port, A' couple of years ago, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of that day maintained in this House that the commission had not advised that this port should be made free, and I had to hunt up the report of the commission and show that part to the minister in which that recommendation was made, and thus made him acquainted with the fact that the commission had suggested that Montreal should be made a free port. Neither has their suggestion been
carried out with regard to the port of Quebec. Improvements have been made in that port, some of them with government money, but is it a free port? Is St. John a free port, as the commission advised, or Halifax?
What the commission advised as urgent and important, namely, the making of our ports free, the proper equipment of our ports on the great lakes, has not been carried out; and we shall require to spend at least $100,000,000 to carry out the suggestions of the commission, even if you confine yourselves merely to the freeing and nationalization of our ports.
The commission advised the building of the Georgian Bay canal as an urgent matter. After Mr. Reford had sent in his report, he wrote a special, additional report to the government, which must be in the hands of the Minister of Public Works. That additional report, or letter, was written to impress on the government the extreme urgency and necessity of building that canal at once. In view of what has been done in the United States, Mr. Reford thought it necessary to write an additional letter to the government urging that the work should be gone on with at once, and that letter was published in the March following in the Montreal 'Herald.' What do the commission say about the Georgian Bay canal, and I mention this because my hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid) seems to doubt what their choice was between any other means and a direct or through water-way from the lakes to the head of ocean navigation. They say:
Your commission unhesitatingly affirm their belief in the desirability of a thorough waterway from the head of Lake Superior to ocean navigation, to aid in the carriage of the grain and the regulation of rates of a standard not less than that above set forth, so that the largest vessels navigating the great lakes can continue their voyage to ocean navigation or as near thereto as possible. But in view of the fact that the government has undertaken the survey of a proposed route by way of the Fraser river to Lake Nipissing, and thence by way of the Ottawa river to Montreal, and as the feasibility of this route from a commercial as well as an engineering point of view, and if feasible its cost, has not been ascertained, and further in view of the fact that the government has also undertaken a survey of the Welland canal and its vicinity, looking to its possible enlargement and diversion, your commission do not see their way clear to any recommendation as to route, but would recommend that, in case the Ottawa river scheme because of want of feasibility from a commercial or engineering point of view, or on account of its cost or for other reason be not adojjted, then the Welland canal be enlarged and deepened to the standard of the Sault Ste. Marie canal, with a view of enabling vessels of the largest size to continue their voyage to Kingston or Prescott, thus bringing their cargo to within say 180 miles or less of Montreal before discharging same.

I am not in any way opposing the deepening of the Welland canal, but I say it appears from this recommendation that the commission preferred, as an immediate solution of the difficulty, the carrying of grain from the great lakes, not to Kingston or 180 miles from Montreal, but clean down to the head of navigation, and that b-" a canal projected down the St. Lawrence reaching as far as the maritime provinces which, although remote from the canal itself, would derive immense benefit from the carriage of their coal and other goods through the water-way, from the maritime provinces, without transhipment, clean beyond Duluth to the end of the great lakes.


William Pugsley: I understood my hon. friend to say that the government had not carried out one single suggestion made by this transportation commission. Let me ask him whether he would suggest that there has been the slightest delay in carrying forward and completing the survey for the Ottawa and Georgian Bay canal?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not say that the government had not carried out a single suggestion, but I said an important suggestion, and I gave as a first instance the question oi free ports. I singled out that one because it must be perfectly evident to every hon. member that until that suggestion is carried out, we stand in a position of absolute inferiority to the United States. Take only the great lakes ports, Superior and Duluth, and see how these are equipped. Their equip.ment is something marvellous; people come from the old world to see it. Compare these American ports with ours. In ours there is by comparison practically no equipment. That suggestion, therefore, of the commission has not been carried out to any extent by this government. In Montreal we have an admirable commission which deserves better encouragement. It has,, by borrowing money on its own credit, carried out very important improvements, but the work is by no means finished. Any one who takes the trouble to read the splendid report of the chairman of that commission, Major Stephens, made after his return from Europe, must come to the conclusion that we shall have to spend at least $80,000,000 if we want to place Montreal on a footing at all equal to that of the great ports of Europe which he visited, the least important of which had expended on it at least $30,000,000. If we want to put Montreal on the same footing as Boston and New York and other American ports, and European ports as well, we must be prepared to spend $100,000,000.
There were suggestions less important carried out, because the shipping interests stood behind them and insisted on their being carried out. Take the St. Lawrence ship channel, the better lighting of the route between Montreal and Quebec, that Mr. MONK.
has been attended to, although _ I am informed that a number of the lighthouses put up between those two ports have already tumbled into the water, as most government works do. But there has been an attempt in that direction, and probably also on the great lakes, because the shipping interests were there and insisted on this report being carried out which the government wanted to pigeon-hole. But these are minor points. What have they done in respect of the more important matters? Have they enlarged the Welland canal? Have they made a single start towards constructing the Georgian Bay canal? My hon. friend will say that surveys have been made. This matter has been brought up every year for the last fifteen years, and I have every year heard from the ministers the same generalities and the same replies. True, partial, surveys were made before. But this last report is an admirable one. It was finished some time ago and distributed. Has the government shown any haste to make known its policy? We know that statements are made in the United States that if we should build this Georgian Bay canal, it will take the whole trade of the west, both American and Canadian, and our people are beginning to clamour for it. But when the government is urged to build it, they reply, as the right hon. the Prime Minister did a short while ago in an interview: We will attend to this work as soon as we have the money. But nothing is done. The hon. member for Laval (Mr. Wilson) insisted, and insisted very properly, a moment ago, that work should be done on a section of that canal. Why, we have lost about $10,000,000 from the fact that we did not begin that section 10 years ago. And we are losing every year about thirty per cent on the cost of that section- about $10,000,000-by that increase in value. If the government had constructed the French river end a few years ago at an estimated cost of $5,000,000, we should now have the advantage of the development and increase of population which have been spoken of in this debate.


William Pugsley: Which section?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The French river section.


William Pugsley: About $13,000,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understood that it was much less. But what about the section in the vicinity of Montreal, which should have been begun ten years ago and on which, had it been finished, there would have been an immense saving in the cost of labour as well as the saving of the frightful increase every day in the cost of expropriation?


Charles Avila Wilson: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman (.Mr. Monk), but perhaps he will allow me to ask him

if he remembers the campaign of 1902, when he was in the county, and I asked very plainly why he opposed this project which was my issue, and he stated that it was for political reasons I proposed it?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I never heard of that.


Charles Avila Wilson: I heard that from the hon. member's own lips.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The first vote I gave in this House was in favour of it. And any man who has followed the debates on this subject-by no means so long as debates we have had on some other subjects not so important-or who has read anything of this discussion must know that the project is a useful one in the saving of cost and time in transportation and in every other way. Why, one only needs to know of the fear entertained by the American experts that we will open this route, to know that it will be a good thing for Canada. I do not know that I ever had my hon. friend (Mr. C. A. Wilson) as an adversary. But this I do know-that I never opposed this project.


Charles Avila Wilson: The hon. member said I advocated it for political reasons.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think it a political matter-certainly, I am not trying to make capital out of it. What I would like to know is: what are we going to do. All that we have heard is, of course, very interesting. To some members of this House, younger than I am, no doubt it is a piece of valuable information when the government say they will give the matter their earnest consideration. But I have heard this often before. Now that the survey is long finished, is nothing going to be done? What is the difficulty? Is it the absence of money? We have a great deal of money for useless, senseless and silly things, such as the navy.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does my hon. friend from Laval (Mr. C. A. Wilson) laugh at that? Does he think that the navy is a more urgent and pressing matter than this?


James Conmee: It is a matter of emergency.


Charles Avila Wilson: I am in favour of both.
. Mr. MONK. I do not think the navy is nearly so urgent as this. The hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley) asked what suggestions had not been carried out. Well, this canal idea is one idea of some importance. And the national and free ports that we must have in order to give us a proper place among the nations and that were_ proposed by the Transportation Commission are of some importance. Another 113
suggestion was the acquiring of running rights for the Intercolonial to the great lakes in order to give increased facilities and regulate present rates. Has that been attended to? Has anything been done in connection with that matter? Nothing whatever.
Under these circumstances, I rose for the purpose of asking whether this is going to be merely an academic discussion. What new method can the government adopt in order to shelve the matter once more? Is there to be a committee or a commission that is going to pass upon the work-the invaluable work-of the Transportation Commission which has never been disowned by the government, but has been kept in the background? Is there any thing further to bo done now that we have the report of a special survey party, the cost of which I think amounts to $700,000-certainly over $500,000?-and, as pointed out by my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. White) and others, a complete and thorough report giving the cost and every thing else. What are we going to do? Are we going to allow the Americans to take all this vast commerce away from us, or are we to do that which they dread so much-make an improvement which every one agrees to be urgent and necessary? If the work is to be carried out, when is it to begin? I am sure that my hon. friend from Laval will bear me out when I say that the appropriation cost around Montreal is increasing in fearful proportion yearly. Why should we not begin on that end now? The increase of cost while the work is postponed is going on by hundreds of thousands of dollars every year. The canal may be built in sections, and if the Montreal section is finished soon a great deal of money will be saved. If there is any thing true in this valuable report of the Transportation Commission, it is that, when one-quarter of the cultivatable land of the Northwest is under cultivation and producing wheat, we shall have 800,000,000 bushels a year. The trade of the west will be brought down in ships that can go across the ocean if necessary. They will have return traffic ample for their needs. What is the reason for undue delay? Are we going to have to-day an announcement of the policy of the government and what action it intends to take immediately, or is the question to be shelved again by suggestions such as we have heard, that it is desirable to put it off still further? I say this is a most urgent matter, and I repeat that the suggestion of this Transportation Commission, except in some minor matters, have not been carried out. We must at the present moment spend $100,000,000 if we intend carrying out the suggestions of this commission in respect to the ports, their freedom and their nationalization. We must absolutely spend $100,000,000 on this canal; nobody believes that



it is going to cost less, though my own belief is that it will give a large return in the increased prosperity, not only for that part of the country, but for the whole Dominion, and that the cost may really be called insignificant in the face of that return. And must we not pay for the Transcontinental railway? And is it too much to say that we require $200,000,000 for that? Here we have $400,000,000 of urgent, necessary expenses, if we are going to carry out the policy of economic expansion which is absolutely necessary for us if we are to fulfil our destiny.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I had no intention of speaking, and should not have done so had not I been prompted by the very partisan speech jmt delivered by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). In the first place, I desire to congratulate most heartily the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. G. V. White) upon the comprehensive, broadminded and nonpartisan manner in which he has explained the resolution which he has placed in your hands. As he has well said, the question under consideration is not in any way a party question, any more than it is a local or sectional question to be treated or considered from a local standpoint It is in that view that I rise to give my hearty endorsation to the views which have been so ably presented by the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. White) this afternoon. This is indeed a national question, and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) himself, in his opening remarks, admitted it to be so. Unfortunately, however, in the next breath he put forth arguments which controverted entirely what he had just advanced previously. Why are we confronted to-night with the report of the Transportation Commission, and with the statement that this government has done nothing to carry out any of the suggestions of that commission? Why, the hon. gentleman himself was forced to the conclusion that some of the works which have been carried out by this government were wholly along the lines suggested by this very commission. Now, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier asked what this government had done to advance the great national scheme of the Georgian Bay canal? The answer, Sir, is very plain; this government is the only government which has done any thing to give effect to the ideas which have been advocated for fifty years in favour of the Georgian Bay canal. It is true that this question has been before the public for over half a century. A few days ago I happened to read some of the speeches delivered on this very question by Sir George E. Cartier, and I was pleased to observe that that great statesman, during the whole course of his public career, was one of the greatest champions of this project; and hon. members of this House Mr. MONK.
will remember that Sir George Cartier was a member for Montreal and for Hochelaga. Now, what was done under the late Conservative regime?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not pretend that the previous government had not been remiss in its duty, but that the question has not become more urgent.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: But that is no reason why the hon. gentleman should charge the present government with neglecting its duty, in view of all it has done, as every well informed man knows. When this government came into power in 1896 one of the very first projects it dealt with was the Georgian Bay canal scheme; and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier has admitted that Mr. Tarte was an energetic champion of the execution of this undertaking. Later on, the Transportation Commission was appointed, and I am sure my hon. friend will be willing to give this government the credit for having appointed that commission, and if the recommendations of that commission are now before the country it is due to a certain extent to the initiative of the government in appointing that commission, a commission of eminent men such as the late Robert Reford, Mr. Fry, and others. Surely this is a very important step towards carrying out the great transportation system of Canada.
Now, the hon. gentleman has said that none of the suggestions or conclusions of that commission have been carried out. When I asked him what he thought of the improvements whicli had been carried out in the port of Montreal he was very indignant and denied that this government was in any way responsible for those improvements, for those great permanent works which may be seen in Montreal today, and which have contributed to place it on a first-class footing as compared with other great ocean ports on this continent. The hon. gentleman deplored the state of inferiority of the port of Montreal at present. I differ with him in that respect. I live in Montreal, as does the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. Although he is an older man than I am, and I willingly defer to his grey hair, at the same time I cannot agree with his conclusions as to the state of the port of Montreal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think my hon. friend is misrepresenting me. 'I admitted that great and creditable improvements had been made in Montreal, but I attributed them to the work of the commission and to local effort. But I am not aware that the government has carried out the suggestions made in the report of the commission.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: If I understood the hon. gentleman correctly, and I think other gentlemen around me understood him as I did,

he said that notwithstanding the great improvements which had been effected in the port of Montreal, that harbour was still in a state of inferiority as compared with the port of New York and others.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I never said that; I said that although it had been much improved, still a great many other improvements needed to be made.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman said it was much inferior to New York.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think I said that. I said the Americans were ahead of us in respect to port facilities. The gravamen of my charge was this, that the suggestion of a free national port had not been carried out by the government.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I deny altogether that today the port of Montreal is in a state of inferiority as compared with the port of New York. Why, Sir, it is only recently that the citizens of Canada read in some of the leading organs of the United States, such as the New York ' Herald ' and the New York ' Sun,' admissions that the port of Montreal had become a formidable rival to the port of New York and other American ports, not only because of its geographical position, but mainly on account of the permanent works of' improvement which had been effected during the last few years.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: May I ask my hon. friend if he has read Major Stephen's report since his visit to Europe?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I have Tead every thing that Major Stephens has written, every report concerning the port of Montreal,' and every statement that has been published in the Canadian press.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then my hon. friend must admit that his suggestions are numerous enough to show that there is still room for improvement.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: If my hon. friend will have a little patience I will show him that notwithstanding the fact that the port of New York may be in a better position, and though there are still many improvements required at the port of Montreal, it is not because of the inferiority of the port, but in order to ensure the supremacy of Canadian trade. Any one who goes to the trouble to read tire reports published by the American press will come to the conclusion that because of the improvements carried on at the port of Montreal the American business men have become alarmed, and it is this situation that has prompted them to expend large sums of money upon the extension and deepening of the Erie canal in the hope that we shall never succeed in diverting from their 113J	[DOT]
channels the trade which is destined to follow our Canadian route.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why have we not a freeport?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I am coming to that if my hon. friend will have a little patience. I am sure he is not referring only to the port of Montreal, because notwithstanding the fact that the port of Montreal is admittedly the most important port in Canada from the strategical and national standpoint, there are other ports which require consideration and which have to be dealt with on the same footing and with the same measure of justice.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They are indicated in the report.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Did my hon. friend ever dream of the expenditure which would be entailed if this government undertook to-follow the policy laid down by the members of the Transportation Commission and to declare that all our ports, at least all of the ports mentioned in the report, should be immediately made free and national?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Hear, hear.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Does the hon. gentleman realize what it would cost this country?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I am prepared to say immediately that I am an advocate of the nationalization of our ports. I think that is the policy of the future. If we want to place these ports on the best footing possible and secure the supremacy of our national system of transportation, as soon as the resources of this country will permit, we are in duty bound to carry into practice the conclusions of the Transportation Commission. But the hon. gentleman must remember that Rome was not built in a day, that it is utterly impossible, with the best will in the world, to carry into practice every good policy which may be initiated by this government or it may be -because some good sometimes comes from the other side-by the loyal opposition of His Majesty. I say it is utterly impossible to carry into practice these conclusions all at the same time. But, we-have started to do something. What about the big dredging works that are now being-performed in the ports of the Georgian bay and Lake Huron? What about the dredging work that is being carried on at Halifax, St. John and other ports?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Batiscan.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: Even Batiscan.	What
about the River Jesus? If I am not mis-, taken, in the county of Jacques Cartier?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They are making islands-there.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: What about the improvements which are being carried on in the ship channel between Montreal and Quebec? Does the hon. gentleman think that it is no part of the scheme outlined by the transportation commission? He referred to the testimonials of the shipping federation. Has the hon. gentleman forgotten that, m the course of one year the shipping federation passed resolutions in commendation of the policy carried out by the government and particularly by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and by the Minister of Public Works? If these testimonials mean anything they mean that in this regard the government have not been derelict in their duty and they have done what they were advised to do by the transportation commission. That is all embodied in the report of the transportation commission. The hon. gentleman says that we have not done anything to improve the port of Montreal. I readily admit that the port of Montreal should be made national and free as soon as possible, and I am pleased that the government is able to announce to the country that when the finances of Canada permit such a policy will be carried out. But, I asked:	Is the government in a position to
carry out such a policy? I am sure the Finance Minister will tell us that he cannot presently do so, but that at some future date, at an early date, I hope, he will be able to announce such a policy. But, is there nothing in the policy of lending money to the port of Montreal? Whenever the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal have come to Ottawa to ask for money they have been well received by the present government and by the Minister of Finance. If I am not mistaken, during the current year, some moneys will be advanced to the commission in order to enable them to carry on some improvements urgently needed in the port of Montreal. Besides, is no credit to be given to the government for the change effected three years ago in the administration of that port. If at the present time, the port is managed by three able business men acting directly under the control of this government, and doing a splendid work, it is due to the initiative taken by the government in making the change and making a judicious selection of the commissioners. We contemplate the building of the Georgian Bay canal, and the question that one might reasonably ask is where the traffic passing through that canal will eventually go? The only answer to that question, I think, is that the port of Montreal will be in a position to handle, notwithstanding what may be said by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, any traffic that may be carried by the boats passing through the Georgian Bay canal. During the last few years we have carried out a number of improvements Mr. MONK.
in the port of Montreal and we contemplate some other improvements. I persist in maintaining that the position of the port of Montreal as compared with that of American ports, on the admission of American business people, is not one of inferiority, a proof of which is the fact that we are able to compete successfully with New York as far as the carriage of grain is concerned. I have spoken perhaps too long but I wanted to lay before this House some facts which are not in accord with those mentioned by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier. I may say that there should be no difference of opinion in this House or in the country at large as far as the principle of building the Georgian Bay canal is concerned. Now, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier has put his ultimatum to the government. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to build that canal immediately? If I remember correctly, hon. members opposite are not over zealous when they come to speak about the expenditure of this country and not long ago we saw them, one after the other, standing up in this House and criticising the bulk of the expenditure, saying that an expenditure of $100,000,000 was something outrageous, was perfectly scandalous and should not be tolerated any longer by the people of this country. My hon. friend is not consistent, and he will let me tell him that consistency is not on this question a part of his policy. The hon. gentleman is ready to advocate a larger expenditure. I believe that all of us are anxious to spend more money along those lines when the finances of Canada permit to do so. But that does not justify the hon. gentleman to stand up and make the partisan speech which he has delivered * this evening. In fact, I believe his is the only speech from a party standpoint which has been delivered to-day, and it is a bad example for an old member like my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) to set to the younger members who, like myself, are endeavouring to approach every question from a national standpoint and to solve them in the way which the national interest demands. I venture to express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that the construction of the Georgian Bay canal will be -begun as soon as possible by the government. As I have said this Liberal government is the only government which ever did anything towards the solution of this question, and the report of the engineers now before parliament and the country is a practical step towards the execution of that project. It is true the undertaking will involve a large expenditure, and my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has ventured to express the idea that the building of a navy will be an obstacle to the building of the Georgian Bay canal.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Hear, hear.


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is certainly a very patriotic statesman, but if he will kindly carry his patriotism to a little broader extent he will admit that it is perfectly useless to equip ports, develop water-ways and dig canals if you do not provide the necessary protection for these national works, because in the emergency of war our national ports of Montreal, Halifax, Quebec and St. John, or any of the great channels of trade which we are constructing at such large cost would be at the mercy of any hostile fleet and would become perfectly useless. My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) must admit that these two things go together, and that if Canada requires public works, it requires protection for these works.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is mv hon. friend in favour of the building of the Georgian Bay canal before the navy, or after?


Louis Alfred Adhémar Rivet: I am in favour of building both, and I would like to hope that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) could make the same statement. Besides, we will have an opportunity of discussing the navy in its proper place, but in the meantime I express the hope that if the Georgian Bay canal is built, instead of having Dreadnoughts coming through its locks, we will have large vessels carrying the products of the west and adding to the prosperity of the country.


William Pugsley: I wish to make a fetr remarks, not with a view of speaking for the government, because as everybody seems to be of the opinion that the construction of this canal -would be not alone in the interests of the Ottawa valley, but in the best inter-ets of the whole of Canada, the question is as the Prime Minister said not long ago, one specially of finance, and it would rather be for my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to speak for the government upon such a question. As to the desirability of constructing this canal at as early a date as possible, I think there are no two views entertained by members of this House; at all events no two views have been expressed by those who have spoken on the question. It seems to be agreed on all hands that at as an early a date as possible it is desirable in the interest of the country that this important undertaking should be commenced. But, what I rose to speak of was in reference to the surveys which have been made through the engineering staff of the Department of Public Works, over which I have the honour to preside. I desire to bear testimony to the very great care and very great ability which have been shown, not only in the engineering work itself, but in the preparation of the reports and the plans which have been submitted for the consideration of this House. I am sure that every one will agree
that the engineers have performed their duties in the most praiseworthy manner. They have shown they are men of ability who were well qualified to undertake work of this character. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier has intimated that there has been delay. Now, Mr. Speaker, I entirely repudiate that idea. In considering the question of undertaking a work of this enormous magnitude, which will involve an expenditure of at least $100,000,000, it was but the part of prudence that the government should engage the services of the very best engineers available. It was the part of prudence that the most careful examination should be made of the route, that in the first place it should be determined with the utmost care that the canal was feasible, that it would be possible to feed the locks upon the higher summit levels dividing the Ottawa river system from the French river system, and. also having determined upon the feasibility of the canal system, that then the question of the cost should be got at with the very greatest possible accuracy. All this takes time, and I do not believe there has been a day wasted in the performance of the engineering work that has been entrusted to the Department of Public Works. It would have been impossible for the government to have undertaken this work before the present time, but we have now the report before us, and it will be the duty of the government, I would suppose, to give all reasonable and all fair consideration to the question as to when it would be proper that this work should be undertaken. One hon. gentleman has made the remark that he is of the opinion that this work ought to be undertaken by the government as a government work, the canal to be owned by the government, and I suppose to be free for the use of the public. Now, if I were to express my own individual opinion I would say that I think there are two sides to this question. I think there is a very great deal to be said in favour of company ownership of this canal, and that if we were to discuss the question perhaps strong arguments from the standpoint of the public might be urged in favour of company construction and company ownership as can be urged in favour of government ownership. So far as I am personally concerned, I do not wish to be understood, at this time at all events, as committing myself in favour of government ownership of the canal. One reason which has caused me very much to hold that a great deal can be said in favour of company ownership is that this canal is going to shorten enormously the distance by water between the ports on the western shores of the great lakes and the city of Montreal, and if the farmers of the

Northwest are going to derive that benefit which they ought to derive and which we hope they will derive from the construction and operation of this canal, it seems to me that it is desirable that the government should in some way have control of the tariff which is to be imposed by the owners of steamships upon the farmers of .the Northwest, who would be sending their produce by vessels which pass through this canal. If there is company ownership, if the government will have as it would have, the right to control the rates which would be charged by the company, and if the government were to insist that the company which builds the canal shall also operate lines of steamers and barges between Fort William and Port Arthur and Montreal, and will control the tariff of these steamship lines and these barge lines which will be operated by the company, I think the government would be able to exercise an influence and a control in the interest of the producers of the west which it would not be possible to exercise if the canals were owned by the government, and. if there was no control over the steamship lines and the barge lines which would be operating the canal system. That is one argument in favour, it seems to me, of company ownership. There is another argument in favour of company ownership, and it is that the building of this canal is going to develop an enormous amount of water-power. You will find at page XX of the Teport that the engineers are of the opinion:
That with a storage system as planned, and the tributary basins thereto required for the navigation project, a reliable water-power supply is secured at various dams amounting to 1,000,000 horse-power, which can be developed for about $50 per horse-power.
If this canal were to be constructed by a company and the government were to assist the company by the guarantee of bonds or otherwise, it could be provided that the company must own and control the electric power which would be developed. The government would be able to exercise control over the company so far as the-transmission and the utilization of that power would be concerned; they would be able to control the charges which the company would make for that power and that available water-power alone, one mil lion horse-power, which would at least be worth $5 per year when it was fully utilized, would in the future more than pay all the interest charges upon the bonds which would have to be issued for the purpose of securing the construction of the canal. I think if it were built by a private company it would be possible to control and keep within the control of the company and through the company under the con-Mr. PUGSLEY
trol of the government, this enormous water-power to such an extent as would materially lessen the tolls which would be charged in respect to the use of the canal, and as would go very far towards meeting the annual interest burden on the bonds of the company. I do not say that I have made up my mind upon this question, but I simply desire to express the view that there is a great deal to be said in favour of the government securing the building of this canal, when the work is undertaken, by means of a strong company. The hon. member for Renfrew (Mr. G. V. White) who made a most admirable speech in submitting the resolution, intimated that if the government is not prepared to at once undertake the construction of this canal as a government work it ought to allow a company to undertake the work. If there were a company prepared to undertake the work without government assistance I would heartily concur in the view presented by my hon. friend. But do not let him be deceived, do not let the country be deceived in regard to that. The papers will show that there is no proposition from any company to-day offering to construct this work without government assistance; the proposals which have been made involve assistance by the government to a very large amount. Therefore the government, when it decides the time is ripe for the undertaking of this work, so far as regards any proposals which we have before us at present, will have to decide between engaging upon this work as a government work at a very large expenditure or incurring a very large obligation in order to induce a company to undertake the work. In either case the country will be involved in a very large liability, although I do not for a single moment undertake to say that the work is not of such magnitude and importance and that the work will not mean so much for the development of the Ottawa valley and our western country as to entirely justify the government in assuming the obligations which they will be called upon to assume, large though they may be.
Would my hon. friend intimate what papers he wishes to have brought down, as this project dates back for many years and very few papers have been brought down?


Gerald Verner White: My motion calls for papers not already brought down.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend might send me a memorandum.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I understood the Minister of Public Works to say that the Minister of Finance would announce the policy of the government.


William Pugsley: I said if the policy of the government was to be announced it would not properly rest with me but rather with the Minister of Finance.


William Stevens Fielding: I think the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), has on more than one occasion expressed the view of the government in regard to this great work and I can hardly think my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is serious in asking the Minister of Finance to make any new announcement of policy. I cannot claim I have given as close personal attention to the matter as my hon. friend and others who have addressed the House, but I frankly say that the project of a deep waterway from the great lakes to Montreal, an all-British, all Canadian canal, has always seemed to me to be a most attractive proposition. It is attractive, commercially, it is attractive from the point of view of military tactics and naval defence, which has been half seriously referred to. I think from every point of view the whole project is a fascinating one, and far from throwing cold water on it, it is my desire to be counted among the supporters of that great enterprise.
While the Minister of Finance is obliged sometimes to take a rather cold-blooded view of some of these fascinating projects, we have had great enterprises to handle in the past. Hon. gentlemen opposite have sometimes told us we were spending too much and straining the credit of Canada to the danger point. I am glad to know that they did not mean that very seriously, because if they felt that we had been straining our credit to the danger point in the past the hon. member for Jacques Cartier would hardly ask us to undertake a new expenditure of three hundred or four hundred millions of dollars. The fact that he is ready to speak of this two or three or four hundred million dollars so lightly is in one sense gratifying, because it enables us to know that he has an abiding faith in the credit of Canada. However, the best way to maintain one's credit is not to make too many demands upon it. We have had very great success in our enterprises that called for money in the way of loans and guarantees, &c., and I have no doubt that with the tremendous expansion of business, which we are all now so pleased to observe, this great growth of Canada, we shall be able to handle these great enterprises in the future just as we have been able to handle great enterprises in the past. At the present moment we have rather heavy burdens upon us, and I am perhaps more anxious than some -hon. gentlemen who have spoken to-night to think of the financial side. And so, while I
would give, on behalf of the government, my cordial sympathy and support to this movement and look forward to no distant day when it shall be seriously taken up, I say frankly I do not think it should be pressed to a decision at the present moment. It is one of the big things of Canada which we must do and do at an early date, but if we are asked to undertake it immediately, I frankly say that I do not think it is good finance, I do not think it is good politics, I do riot think it is a wise project. I am sure my hon. friend from North Renfrew (Mr. G. V. White) who has given us so much valuable information on this subject, not only to-day, but in former sessions, will appreciate the position we take when we say that, desirable as this enterprise is, grand as it is, fascinating as it is to us all from these many points of view, no harm will come if we have to go a little slowly in the matter and see that our financial position is strong before we undertake this new and heavy burden.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has suggested that the hon. member (Mr. G. Y. White) should give him a memorandum of the papers he desires. I do not see how the member can be expected to know what papers he wants. He certainly, I presume, desires to have all not already brought down. I understood the Minister of Public Works to say that very few were brought down. My. impression is a good many were because these papers have been moved for frequently in this House. There may be many which the hon. gentleman desires, but of which he knows nothing, because they are papers passed between the government and certain parties interested, and these I presume he desires to have.


William Pugsley: Unless he and I disagree, everything will be brought down, but I am sure we shall be able to agree.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That would be much better, because I am sure the hon. member could not give a list of just what he wanted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 15, 1910.
Thei SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the
[Stage Direction]
second reading of Bill (No. 95), respecting the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. BoTden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou).: Mr. Speaker; we are to-day resuming the debate upon one of the most important questions that the parliament of Canada has had to deal with in recent years. After forty years of national life, and after a century and a half of connection with the motherland, Canada is considering seriously what part she will play in the history of naval development. And, in deciding what Canada's position should be at this time we are naturally confronted with the problem as to whether we should do anything, or nothing. If we follow the policy of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mt. Monk) Canada would do nothing, Canada would stand absolutely with her hands tied, unwilling to go forward and powerless to recede. But that is not a position which a great country like ours should take. After forty years of ever widening commerce, forty years of ever increasing development, on the northern half of this continent we have reached a period in our history when we are compelled as a matter of self respect to assume those responsibilities which come to every young and growing nation. It would be just as impossible for Canada to refuse to take her position to-day in regard to naval defence, as it would be for any of our great cities to decline to provide a police force for the maintenance of peace and order within their borders. And, Sir, as we owe a duty to our country in relation to its internal affairs, so also do we owe a duty to the empire in this respect. We know thafc a few years ago Britain withdrew from the North Atlantic the squadron that had guarded her interests and protected her supremacy, and for four yeaTs past neither on the Atlantic nor on the Pacific coast is there to be found a naval squadron for our protection. The mother country left to Canada the duty of supplying that vacancy, and. Sir, that is the duty which we are assuming to-day when the government submitted this measure to parliament and asked parliament to adopt it.
I suppose it is hardly a matter which needs to be argued that Canada ought to do something, although the hon. gentleman from GTey (Mr. Sproule) rather intimated that it was not necessary that Canada should do anything at all. There may be throughout the Dominion some men who think that because we have had no trouble in the past, and because England has been a protecting mother through all the years of our natural career, it is neither necessary nor desirable that we should make Mr. SPROULE
expenditure on a navy. That however, is an ignoble plea in the eyes of British freemen; it is entirely out of touch with the advancement and development which Canada has achieved. Recognizing our status among the empire's nations, our government has come to parliament with a proposal to make a beginning in the direction of naval development by providing for the erection of a Canadian naval college in which our young men can be trained in those arts which fit them to become naval officers, and for the construction of 11 ships of different types in Canada-in Canada-in which will be enlisted and trained young Canadians who will be able to go forth and fight, not only the battles of this Dominion, but the battles of the empire as well, if time of stress should require it. This, Mr. Speaker, is essentially a policy of Canada for the Canadians. There was a time in the olden days when our brethern opposite arrogated to themselves the claim of being the only political party that ever propounded anything that was good for Canada. Away back in 1878, when they formulated the national policy and put on a high tariff which they said was intended to make this nation develop industrially and in every other way, when some one suggested that possibly such a policy might interfere with our connection with Great Britain, these doughty so-called loyalists at once replied: So much the worse for British connection. And, Sir, when Canada in her march onward and upward, says that after forty years of industrial life, forty years of the greatest development that any colony or dependency has ever seen, she proposes to inaugurate a shipbuilding industry:	does it lie in the
mouths of these gentlemen who in 1878 declared: so much the worse for British connection, to now set up a hue and cry about loyalty. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the object of this government in proposing this policy is that this navy is to be constructed in Canada, by Canadian workmen, in Canadian workshops, and that it is to be a Canadian navy primarily for the defence of Canada's interests. We have had quotations from gentlemen opposite in regard to what went on at the different imperial conferences. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who distorted and misrepresented almost every quotation he cited, forgot to tell the House what Lord Selborne said in 1902. Speaking at the conference of that year, discussing the various phases of the spirit which the colonies should display in their relations to Great Britain, he said-and I notice that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) quoted from this statement of Lord Selbourne, but failed

to inculcate the lesson which Lord Sel-bourne desired to teach:
The British empire owes its existence to the sea and it can only continue to exist if all parts of it regard the sea as their natural source of existence and strength. If our brethren beyond the seas will undertake a large share of naval burden, well and good. But I regard it as of even more importance that they should cultivate the maritime spirit.
That is the lesson Lord Selbourne wished to inculcate in speaking of the colonies: Give us whatever contributions you like, in whatever form you like, but go on and develop the maritime spirit and teach your young men how to navigate ships, so that in times of stress and storms, they will be of use, not only to the colonies, but to the British empire. In the olden, days when wooden ship-building was in vogue, the English flag was found floating over Canadian bottoms in every sea, officered by sons of Canada, but with the decadence of wooden ships all that has disappeared; and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, coming from the maritime provinces, knows the decadence that has occurred in these provinces in maritime interest and spirit, and he knows, if no one else on the other side does, the force and aptness of Lord Selbourne's advice, that what we want in Canada above all else is to cultivate the maritime spirit. But how much of that spirit are you going to cultivate by sending $25,000,000 Canadian money to the home government? A splendid way that would be of inculcating maritime! spirit in the hearts of our young men who have aspirations for a sea-faring life. We would be practically telling them:	We do not
want you to sail Canadian vessels, but we want to send our money to be spent in British shipyards among British workingmen and British sailors and not a dollar to be spent in Canada among Canadian workingmen and Canadian sailors. That is the policy of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition.
But some hon. gentleman will tell you that this business of building steel ships is one which Canada is utterly unable to deal with. My hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) last year, who usually has a splendid fund of in'ormation on almost every subject, said in this House:
Now, carrying out the idea first involved in naval defence for Canada, I do not see any reasons why we should not immediately institute some system of naval defence along the lines pf torpedo boats, or torpedo des troyers, and destroyer cruisers, which would be invaluable to us in case of war.
My hon. friends opposite, who talk about this tin pot navy, had better go and reason with this gentleman from North Simcoe:
A great many members suggest or imply that it would be impossible for us to build these at home. Now I do not wish to be considered local in any way, I have always taken a national or Canadian view of every subject; nevertheless, I may be_ permitted to say that within the riding which I have the honour to represent there is a shipyard wherein they have launched ships over 500 feet in length, which is said to be the length of the 'Dreadnought.'
Then he went on to say:
Ship-building is a splendid enterpise, an enterprise that gives employment to a great number of men, and it is the greatest national enterprise that a country can have.
That, Sir, is true doctrine and that is what this government wants this country to do:
We should undertake the work of building carriers because the money that is paid to foreign carrier to convey our products from Canada to Great Britain and other countries is a large sum which we should retain in our own country.
Good doctrine; splendid doctrine! I am sorry to see so many of my hon. friends opposite dissent from it, but as the hon. member for South Ontario (Mr. Fowkes) has pointed out, they have forgotten every tradition their old chieftain, Sir John A. Macdonald, taught them. Their motto no longer is: ' Canada for the Canadians,' but it is: Do not spend Canadian money in Canada but spend it in any otheT place by preference. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Currie) went on to say:
As I pointed out we should immediately assume the position of establishing a local defence of our own. Our local defence should consist of torpedo boats and destroyers, and they would convoy our merchant ships, in case of war, to England and save them from the attacks of cruisers.
I think, said the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) we are all presumed to be at one on that question. Why did every one presume that? If our hon. friends opposite were not at one on that question, if they were not in accord in believing that the time had come for Canada to begin her own navy and build it at home, then all they said was empty vapour. In that case the speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) was a mere figment of the imagination, it was nothing but sound and fury, it had no particular significance; and as for my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), who can argue just as well on the one side as on the other, of course no one holds him responsible.
Why cannot we begin in Canada to build ships? Why, Germany, which these gentlemen hold up as the great menace to British supremacy to-day, only began to build steel ships some twelve years ago. If Ger-

man can build steel ships, if she can bring her naval power to such a height in twelve years that she is able, according to these hop. gentlemen, to menace the whole of the British empire, surely in five or six years, we can. fall into line and build a Canadian navy. Previous to that Germany had her ships built in England, but she afterwards set to work and began to build the navy which we are told is now threatening the supremacy of England. Thirty years ago the steel process was first introduced. In 1877 not a single ship of steel was built in England's shipyards, but in ten years, over a million tons were built, under Lloyd's survey, in the different shipyards in England. Can we not make a beginning in Canada? Are we to be told that Canadian brain and Canadian industry are not equal to those of other nations? That is what hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think. Why, the whole business of making plates suitable for the construction of steel vessels is a science which has been developed in the last thirty years. Previous to that, iron plates were used; and by the various processes since developed, a saving in the cost of building a ship by the construction of steel plates, has been effected to the extent that you can now build a ship of
3,000	to 4,000 tons burden much cheaper than you could an iron ship of the same tonnage formerly. Steel plates to-day cost one-quarter what they did in 1878. There is nothing to prevent our starting shipyards in Canada in which to build these ships. It is a confession of weakness, a lack of patriotism, an indication of want of confidence in the possibilities of this country, to pretend the contrary, and the stand taken by hon. gentlemen opposite in that connection indicates how low the Conservative party have fallen from the high position they once claimed. I hold in my hand information furnished me by a responsible authority in Nova Scotia to the effect that right in the county I have the honour to represent a vessel has been built of steel plates which is navigating all over the world to-day-a vessel of 700 or 800 tons. And to the authority to which I refer, a request came for information from a business firm in the old country, desiring to know what were our possibilities in that direction, whether machinery castings could be made in this country, and they were told that these could be procured, not only in eastern Canada, but in the west. As to hydraulic and electric fittings, Canadian workshops could supply these. As regards labour, we have in Nova Scotia alone 4,500 skilled workmen in iron and steel connected with Nova Scotia industries. All you want is skilled mechanics, carpenters and blacksmiths, who are to be found in the various industrial centres throughout the country. And if there be anything which Mr. E. M. MACDONALD
we require to import, it can be brought here at the rate of from five to seven shillings per ton. We have, in the maritime provinces, coal illimitable m its extent, which is essential to the establishment of any industry of this kind. We can make Canadian maple, oak, and pine, and use it in the construction of our vessels, and if we want pitch pine, green heart and other products of that kind we can get them either in western Canada or in the southern states. In iron and steel we have in the Dominion Steel Company an industry which at this moment is prepared to enter on the manufacture of steel plates one hundred and twenty inches in width, which is quite sufficient, according to all statistics, for all requirements in the construction of a vessel. Then we have the Nova Scotia Steel Company, and the Sault Iron Works, which are capable of diverting their energies in the direction of providing material of this kind. There is one other material factor in the construction of war vessels. Where do England and Germany get the nickel in order to make the nickel and armour plate which is essential? There is practically only one place in the world, and that is right here in Canada. At Sudbury to-day, the works are producing Morrel metal which is being used in the construction of the United States navy, and if England, Germany, or any other country wants material of that kind in order to develop their industries, they have to come to Canada to get it, and yet these gentlemen tell u>s that the construction of ship-building works in Canada is an impossibility, that we ought not to undertake any of these things, that everything should be thrown aside and we should send $25,000,000 across the ocean, out of Canada and borrow it, because that is the only way in which these gentlemen can get it, when we could spend every dollar in the next ten years among Canadian workmen and for Canadian labour. But, Sir, the inauguration of the ship-building industry would mean the doing away with the necessity for bounties for ship-building which have been advocated for such a long time. The inauguration of the construction of Canadian ships would mean the development of an industry which would mean eventually the employment of Canadian men in Canadian shops; it would mean in addition to that, and aboye that, the cultivation and development of that naval spirit, that maritime spirit, which a navy creates the world over, and which is absolutely essential if you are going to have anything successful in the way of a navy.
Then, we want to have a naval college.
I wonder if the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. B. L. Borden) is opposed to a naval college? By his resolution he did not

want any Canadian navy or Canadian anything. That is his position, and yet this government are proposing to construct a naval college in his own county. I suppose he will go to Halifax and venture to tell tire people there that he will oppose the construction of such a college. I wonder if he will. Why should we not have a naval college? In Canada, thirty years ago, there was inaugurated the Royal Military College at Kingston, and what splendid service it has done for this country. The young men who have gone through that college and equipped themselves in military science have done credit to Canada wherever they have served under the British flag and wherever they have fought the battles of the empire. Do you mean to tell me that the distinction that is brought to Canada by the achievements of Sir Percy Girouard, a graduate of that college, is not something of which Canada should be proud? Is it not something that Canada taught the other numerous young men who are identified with the various forces of the empire? When these people talk about Canada doing nothing for the empire, they forget the boys and young men of Canada who have died on the battle fields of India and South Africa, who have been educated by Canadian money at the Royal Military College. These are the men who have done something for the empire, and whose death gives back to these critics the answer to the complaint which they make, solely and wholly on account of their partisanship. Do you mean to tell me that the policy of these gentlemen is a correct policy? Should we have sent to Sandhurst and the military schools of the old country the boys and men who went from Canada fo fight the battles of the empire, or should we have trained them, as we did, in Canada? I wonder if the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is opposed to that naval college. I would like to see him go to his constituency, I would like to see him so anxious to have a plebiscite that he would resign his seat and go to Halifax and ask the electors if they will vote for him if he is opposed to a naval college. Then we want to have dockyards in Canada, probably at Halifax. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) does not want them either, and I would like the people of Halifax to understand right here and now that their representative in this House has moved a resolution declaring that we shall not have a Canadian navy or a Canadian naval college or Canadian dockyards, and that that is the policy of that' hon. gentleman.
Is the policy of this government a correct one for Canada and the empire and has it been considered and approved during the years that have gone? There is the history of events in regard to that. In 1902 Sir Wilfrid Laurier at a conference in
London intimated what the policy of Canada was and let me remark that my loyal and enthusiastic friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who bubbled over with enthusiasm and patriotism the other night, as he does at all times when it suits the interests of the Tory party to do so, was present at a conference at Ottawa in 1894 and judging from the records of that conference he seemed to make a speech every day on some subject and yet my hon. friend, when his government was in power and he was the direct representative of that government at that conference, never mentioned a single word about helping the weary old Titan across the sea. Not a word said he. The matter never came up until the Liberal party came into power and it was not until Sir Wilfrid Laurier went home in 1902, and the question came before the Imperial Confeience, that he intimated there in the presence of the empire that Canada was going to adopt the policy he is putting in force to-day, the policy of the establishment of a naval force in Canada. That is the policy he then announced, that is the time it was inaugurated. Have we heard nothing about it since? To hear hon. gentlemen opposite you would think no one had heard anything about that policy since 1902, until the premier spoke in the House a few weeks ago. There was a meeting of the Chambers of Commerce for the empire in Montreal in 1903. The question was discussed there, a resolution was moved, an amendment was moved, and there were certain utterances. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) knows Mr. George E. Drummond. We all know him pretty well. Mr. Drummond made a speech upon that occasion. Did he stand up and say that the correct policy for Canada was to send a contribution to borrow $25,000,000 upon the credit of Canada, not take it out of revenue, but borrow it, there was no other way of getting it, send it across the sea, leaving Canadian industry, Canadian maritime spirit, Canadian development, and all that, to lie quiescent? Was that the policy of that gentleman? Let my friends hear what he said:
I am convinced, sir, that our contribution to imperial defence should he based upon the idea of relieving the central authority of all cost of defending Canada, and I hold that in undertaking this duty a magnificent opportunity will lie afforded our government and people to establish in Canada the enterprise of ship-building to foster the production of armour plate (for which, with our wealth of nickel and iron, we are equipped by nature in a very exceptional way, to encourage, for instance, among other new industries the production of acetone (base for cordite) which we can, on account of our forest wealth, produce probably more cheaply at our Canadian charcoal by-products plants than

it can be produced anywhere else in the civilized world.
In establishing and developing such enterprises we will at the same time be making Canada, in the matter of appliances and ammunitions of war, a base of supplies on this North American continent, which in time of war on either the Atlantic or Pacific would be of incalculable value to the whole empire.
These are the words of Mr. Drummond, who, if I mistake not, is an enthusiastic supporter of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) speaking in Montreal in the Chambers of Commerce of the empire, in 1903. And he quoted in support of his views Sir John C. R. Colomb, the distinguished naval authority. Well, Sir John C. R. Colomb, on the occasion to which I refer, said:	'
The truth is our present policy of centralizing the manufacture and supply of appliances and munitions of war to meet not merely naval but military requirements of a world state, is wholly indefensible and fraught with peril.
And what was the resolution adopted? Some of the gentlemen there desired to pass a resolution in favour of contribution, but the collective wisdom of the business world of the empire discarded the contribution theory, and all concurred in the following, which was moved by Col. Denison of Toronto and seconded by Mr. Masson of Montreal-both, I believe, political friends of hon. gentlemen opposite:
The word ' contribute * was struck out.
That this Congress hereby affirms the principle that it is the duty of the self-governing colonies to participate in the cost of the defence of the empire-but the colonies claim the privilege of keeping their own initiative as to the nature and help which they agree to offer.
That was the policy agreed upon by the Chambers of Commerce of the empire in 1903. Is not that a proper and sound policy?
What was the next step? In 1907, the conference took place. Now, one would think to hear hon. gentlemen opposite talk that the official wisdom of the admiralty was all directed in the line of telling Canada : If you do not send a contribution, do not send anything. What is the good, they ask, of providing a 'tin-pot navy'?-money is what we must send-tribute. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) revolts at the tribute idea, but what the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) wants to give is tribute. And that is what the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) wants to give-tribute. But that does not appear to be the policy of the British naval authorities. This is what Lord Tweedmouth said in 1907:
He states that he did not desire to press for further contributions of men or money but cordially welcomed the co-operation of - the Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
colonies in the form most agreeable to themselves.
To-day, when my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden) quibbles and twists and worries his soul in order to try to get himself into an attitude of opposition to the government measure, he tries to convey the impression that the policy of the government is not in accordance with the resolutions of 1907. And the last word of Lord Tweedmouth on the subject was as follows:
It was entirely a matter for the colonies how far they would assist by subsidy and how far by local defence, and that what His Majesty's government desired was the cordial help of the colonies in the most effective manner and in the form most acceptable to the several dominions beyond the seas.
There is no intimation there that a contribution of money was the only thing the British government wanted or that the people of Great Britain thought the colonies ought to give. On the contrary, the colonies were left absolutely free to do as they pleased, having regard to their different conditions.
My hon. friend, last year, in an eloquent speech cordially supported the resolution which was, let me say, the mandate which my hon. friends the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) and the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) took with them when they went to England. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) talked the other night about these representatives of ours refusing to offer a fleet unit in the Pacific and about their failing to do this, that and the other. But these representatives of Canada were there with strict instructions-absolute, fast instructions. The first instruction which they had to convey to the home authorities was one given by my hon. friends opposite-that the first thing they should argue for and the last thing they should say was that Canada was going to provide her own navy and that Canada would not give contributions because they were bad things. It was the unanimous resolution of this House that Canada should provide her own navy. What, then, could these gentlemen do? They could simply ask the imperial authorities to indicate how best a Canadian navy could be provided that would work in sympathy with the imperial authorities.
There have been occasions when a charge of lack of consistency would necessarily have very little force. For instance, in the old days, in regard to Gladstone, who entered parliament as a Conservative and came to the end of his journey as probably one of the greatest Radicals of his time, a charge of inconsistency would have been out of place. But when a public man performs somersaults of opinion; when a public man who is supposed to have a sense of responsibility deliberately stands before

parliament and before his country and declares a certain policy to be the wise policy, when he keeps on reiterating the same opinion on every possible occasion on which he appears in public, either in this country or in England, and sticks to the same story when he first comes back at the opening of parliament,-and then suddenly changes, the charge of inconsistency becomes a serious one, and that public man must show some good cause if he is not to be condemned as guilty. What did the hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) say last session?
I am entirely of opinion, in the first place, that the proper line upon which we should proceed in that regard is the line of having a Canadian naval force of our own.
That was last year. This year he moved a resolution which declares that he does not want a Canadian navy:
It was pointed out in discussing this question that Australia in providing a force of that kind would provide a force which it would he difficult, if not impossible, for Great Britain to send across the seas, and that in thus protecting themselves they were providing the best possible force for the protection of the empire. So I am at one with the Prime Minister as far as this is concerned. I am at one with him in this respect also, that I think that an

And let us mark what he said.
-that I think that the expenditure of money designed for that purpose ought, in the main at least, to be under the control of our own parliament, and that by making an appropriation of that kind and attending to the defence of our own coasts, by co-operation and co-ordination with the imperial naval forces, we would be rendering a real service in the defence of the empire, and we would be doing our duty not only to Canada but to the empire as a whole.
These are splendid sentiments. Did he mean them? I would like to know whether he meant them or not. Was he trying to fool his own party and the people of Canada when he uttered these words? Why did he take that position declaring that he was in favour of a Canadian navy, first, last and all the time? Later on, in the same speech he said:
I do not desire to say anything more on this subject. I believe that the defence of our own shores and the protection of our own commerce is due to the self-respect which should fill the heart of every man in this country

I ask my hon. friends on the other side who have any Canadian ambition, who are proud of the fact that they are Canadians -can these words of their leader fall without response upon their ears?

-that the defence of our own shores and the protection of our own commerce is due to the self-respect which would fill the heart of every man in this country. You say that we
may rest contented to depend for our naval defence on Great Britain. Well, if we have assumed the status of a nation in one respect, shall we adhere to the status of a Crown colony in other and still more important respects ?
I wondered, when my hon. friend .from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was talking of the ' rag baby of autonomy ' the other night, what he thought of the expression of his leader that this country might be reduced to the status of a Crown colony. And the fact that we failed to undertake these duties in regard to naval development and merely give a contribution would mean that Canada would sink to the status of a Crown colony. Yet that policy to-day is the policy of my hon friend, the policy that Canada should bi demeaned,, that Canada should sink away below the other colonies of the empire from the premier position which she now occupies, away back to the standard of a Crown colony. Well, my hon. friend went down to Halifax to his own constituents, and told them that he was in favour of a Canadian navy, and his newspaper in Halifax reports him as follo.ws:
Mr. Borden lifts the question of national defence above petty partisanship.
Wasn't it splendid?-lifting the question above petty partisanship. Well, if that phrase means anything, it only means that my hon. friend at the present time has got it down to the level of party politics. I think, and I desire to say this again, if my hon. friend is a stickler for constitutional usage he ought to resign hie seat and go back to his constituents and tell them that he has changed his mind, that what he regarded, when he was in England, as the worst form for Canada, he now regards as all right; after making such a volte-face as he has done on this question, going down to his constituents and telling them that he was for a Canadian navy, and six months afterwards discarding the whole thing and saying:	We
don't want a navy, we want to send $25,000,000 to England, and borrow the money to do it. This is what he said last summer:
The House of Com nous last session laid down a certain policy touching naval defence in which both political parties united. It may not have suited the aspirations of all Conservatives.
So, then there were some gentlemen on the other side last year who did not want a Canadian navy, These gentlemen were not powerful enough to throttle him last year, but they have become powerful enough in the meantime to drown the voice with which he spoke last year.
But it seemed our bounden duty to place, if possible, above the limits of partisan strife, a question so vital and far reaching, and to attain the standard which has for many years

governed both political parties of Great Britain with, respect to foreign relations.
That is a splendid sentence.
How the present administration will work it out, the policy which was outlined by the resolution to which I have alluded, remains to be seen. One governing principle at least should control, namely, that out of our own materials, by our own labour, and by the instructed skill of our own people any necessary provision for our naval defence should be made so far as may be reasonably possible.
Then he went on to flatter the aspirations of his constituents.
In this connection may we not hope that there shall be given a stimulus and encouragement to the ship-building industry of Canada which has long been lacking.
Then this friendly newspaper says:
To-day should be Nova Scotia's opportunity.
Carried away by the enthusiasm of my bon. friend, and by the prospect of a navy of which Halifax is to be the centae. Then this enthusiastic paper says that my hon. friend went on to tell them:
To-day should be Nova Scotia's opportunity in that regard.
My hon. friend now does not propose to let Nova Scotia have an opportunity, he proposes to remove any chance whatever of Nova Scotia building ships.
Providence has endowed this province with the material

My hon. friends opposite, who do not think that -we can build ships in Canada, see what your leader tells you:
With the men and with the maritime situation which are essential not only for developing a scheme of naval defence and protection hut also for the resuscitation of that shipbuilding industry which once made Nova Scotia famous throughout the world.
Splendid words, were they not? I leave it to you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not the bounden duty of the leader of the opposition to go back to his constituent & and tell them that he has turned his back on the whole thing, that Nova Scotia's opportunity has passed away, that he will not do anything to retain it, that they shall never build ships in Nova Scotia, if he can prevent them from doing it. My hon. friend kept the faith until January 12 of this year, when he said:
Canada could not be a hermit nation. Canadian interests will exist and must be protected not only upon the high seas, but in every quarter of the globe. The great empire of China attempted to isolate herself from the rest of the world and did so with some measure of success, but the result was not encouraging. To conceive that Canada could play any such part in these days of steam and electricity, when the oceans of the world have ceased to be an impassable harrier and 1


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: [DOT]
have become magnificent highways, is hut an idle dream.
Then my hon. friend does not want any permanent co-operation. If Canada can only be defended by the use of her own material, then my hon. friend's policy is not a policy of permanent co-operation. He goes on to say:
By the use of our own material, the employment of our own people, the development and utilization of our own skill and resourcefulness, and above all by impressing upon the people a sense of responsibility for their share in international affairs. I regard the resolution of March last as the most important step towards co-operation that has been made in this country for 25 years.
That is the view of my hon. friend in January, and he stuck to that view in a half-hearted way down to February 3, when he began to try to escape from his position, when the thumb screw, and the rack, and the composing room the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) told us about, got in their fell work; and the people of Canada were treated to the humiliating spectacle of a leader of a great party absolutely going back on every principle he had laid before them inside of a year. But even then he hung on, to some extent, to the old faith when he said on February 3:
As far as I am concerned, while the system of annual contributions might be best, and, no doubt, would he best from the purely strategical standpoint, I firmly believe that no such system could he adopted, hut that eventually and permanently the basis upon which Canada must contribute to the defence of the empire will be by employing our own material, our own men, our own resources and the skill of our own people.
Well, now, when we have been able to call a witness like my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, and get such strong testimony from him, you would think it was scarcely necessary to go on and amplify our ease. If we were trying this matter before a jury the testimony of the leader of the opposition would be sufficient in the minds of any reasonable men to convince them that the proper thing for this country to do was to start out with the construction of a Canadian navy, the employment of our own men and material, to build the ships in Canadian shipyards, and thereby we would be giving the best assistance to the empire. Don't you think that would be right? Well, I have ample testimony here upon the subject. It is not often that counsel in arguing a case is able to go to the ranks of the opposing counsel and to their witnesses and to prove every step of his case out of the mouths of the men who are opposing him. Yet that is the position in which the government finds itself:

to-day before the jury of the people of this country. Every step in advance they have taken upon this matter has received the full endorsation of every man on the other side of the House who is supposed to have anything to do with directing the policy of the party. Now, I am going to call a witness who is not so reputable, whose judgment upon questions of this sort does not inspire the same confidence as does the judgment of my hon. friend; still he is witness, he belongs to the enemy's camp, I refer to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). This gentleman says, not upon his oath, but upon his honour as a public man in parliament:
So far I have been dealing with the stated normal policy that I think Canada ought to adopt.
Mark you, 'Canada ought to adopt.'
General lines of defence by a coast line and harbour defence of small vessels

That is the tin pot navy the hon. gentleman sneers at.
-at first we would make the attack of the rambling, raiding cruiser a doubtful and dangerous one, and which would ward off the first brunt until more sufficient aid could be brought if the force were a menacing one.
Then my hon. friend went on and said:
It is said also that there are physical and mechanical difficulties to be overcome. I have mentioned these-they can be overcome. Time and the application of a reasonable amount of resource will overcome those difficulties and place us where we have had to place ourselves with reference to every other great line of development; we must begin at the beginning and work up gradually until we gain the skill, the plant, the machinery and the power to make for ourselves what at first it was physically impossible for us to make.
That is pretty good testimony to start with. Then my hon. friend grew more eloquent. My hon. friend went on to say that he did not believe in the policy of a country hiring some one else to do these things for it, any more than be believed in a thoroughly good healthy man hiring some one else to look after his family. Then the hon. gentleman came to another consideration and he said;
Then would come the dockyards, which would be of sufficient size to enable us to repair the smaller vessels, and in time build the smaller vessels chat we need at first, to be implemented by co-operation between Canada and Great Britain in the shape of a dockyard sufficient to dock any lame vessel of the British navy tliac might happen to limp to our coast and require refitting and repairs. And so, in that progressive, gradual way working up to the fulfilment of this idea, a defensive force in Canada which would be an auxiliary in the case of an outbreak of actual hostilities, which would be sufficient for the ordinary suveillance of our coasts,
and which would be, in time of war, sufficient to work in conjunction with the main portion of the fleet that would be sent to the part of our country that was menaced.
Hon. gentleman opposite are trying to run away from the splendid policy with which they had become impregnated, and even in the harangue we had last Thursday, my hon. friend, in trying to save his face, dropped this remark which was probably his true sentiment with regard to the matter:
Having seaports on the Pacific and seaports on the Atlantic at the present time, entirely at the mercy of the smallest armed gunboat of a hostile power, we thought that was an unworthy position, an unsafe position, and that what Canada ought to do was her own proper work, and make some provision, some adequate provision, for the defence of her seaports and her exposed harbours and coasts.
Will the proposition to borrow $25,000,000 and send it across the ocean to be spent by the British admiralty, without restriction or condition that they should ever spend a dollar in or for Canada, meet the aspiration which this hon. gentleman set forth there? But, witnesses are prolific they are numerous, they are to be had from every quarter, and we have only to go to a former leader of the Conservative party, to the grand old chieftain whom these gentlemen were proud to follow, next after Sir John Macdonald himself, to the man who led them in 1896 and 1900. He has told his successor what he should do and he has told the people of Canada on more than one occasion what their duty was and where their interest lay in dealing with this question. Now, Mr. Speaker, of course, the hon. member for North Toronto told us that it was only lately that the Liberal party had gone to Sir Charles Tup-per for an authority. I have noticed that my hon. friends on the other side have not been going to Sir Charles Tupper of late for very much inspiration. It hardly lies in the mouth of the hon. member for North Toronto to talk about our interest in Sir Charles Tupper. I think there are a good many gentlemen on the other side of the House who have lost interest in that gentleman, and I am afraid from all I hear, that Sir Charles Tupper has lost interest in a good many of them. If that is so then we start fair. Sir Charles Tupper, who has retired from political life, after the longest experience of any public man in this country, writes to his successor this admonition:
I am glad to learn that you have resolved to maintain the patriotic attitude that the Conservative party assumed last session.
There is a ring of the old man about those words.
A few years ago, when Canada was struggling to open up for British settlement the

great granary of the world, a few gentlemen here raised the question of a Canadian contribution to the imperial navy, I joined issue with them and was sustained by the press and public opinion.
Thus he joins issue with the proposition which my hon. friend is now making, and the old man says that he _was sustained by the press and public opinion, that my hon. friend was wrong and that he was right.
The demand will soon be made by some that Canada should contribute to the imperial navy in proportion to population, X regard as preposterous and dangerous. I read with pleasure the resolution passed unanimously by the House of Commons which pledged parliament to proceed vigorously with the construction of the Canadian navy and to support England in every emergency. ... I cannot understand the demand for Dreadnoughts in the face of the fact that the admiralty and the British government have determined that it was not the best mode of maintaining the security of the empire, and arranged with Canada and Australia (the latter of whom had offered one or two Dreadnoughts) for the construction of local navies to keep open the trade routes in case of war.
But with an interest in the Conservative party, whose leader he had been and which, in his time, he had adorned with his splendid abilities, he gives it this warning:
I cannot avoid thinking that a fearful responsibility will rest upon those who disturb or destroy the compact entered into on this vitally important question.
Yet, the hon. leader of the opposition, flouts his predecessor. He cares not for the experience of this man of Dominion fame, yes of imperial fame, and who comes from the same province as the hon. leader of the opposition and myself. My hon. friend knows that Sir Charles Tup-per, during all his long life, has taken the position which he reiterated in that letter and which has been his attitude all along. If we were to believe my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) the sentiments expressed by Sir Charles Tupper were the sentiments shared by Sir John Macdonald and Sir George Cartier. Yet, my hon. friend, under the pressure of the composing room, the rack and the thumb screw, about which the hon. member for North Toronto knows so much, climbs down, departs from the traditions of his party, and turns right away from its policy and the position which he has taken from the very time when responsibility began. Now, this is part of the case. I do not want to exhaust all the material. My hon. friends who will speak upon this subject can summon witnesses, numerous and influential, and I think also witnesses of character whose judgment will carry weight. My hon. friends joined in the resolution. They told Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
the delegates that went over to England last year that they must take the position that Canada must build her own navy; and secondly, above everything, do not give them a contribution. That has been reiterated everywhere-do not give them a contribution, but let us work out a plan in co-operation with the imperial authorities, and let us build a Canadian navy that will stand for Canada in time of peace and stand by Canada and the empire in time of war. That was the policy which they asktd for, that is the policy which has been developed, and that is the policy which the premier of this country asks the people and the members of this House to ratify here to-day. Now, some of our hon. friends say:	Oh, this is a tinpot navy, and that
kind of thing is something that Canada does not want. She wants Dreadnoughts. They talk about Lord Charles Beresford. Every one knows how certain gentlemen in Canada tried to dragoon Lord Charles Beresford into making some statement last fall in support of this innocent policy of theirs, but they could not succeed. He would not do it. What is the history of Lord Charles Beresford? For the last five years he has been contending against Sir John Fisher on this very question of Dreadnoughts as against cruisers, and holding that smaller vessels necessary for coast defence and to protect commerce were more important than were large vessels of war. Let me read an extract from the Portsmouth 'Evening News,' where Lord Charles Beresford recently ran an election:
The ' News ' learns from a trustworthy source that provision will be made in the navy estimates for four battleships, two armoured cruisers, eight small cruisers, twenty-four destroyers, and ten submarines. The shipbuilding programme will be a further admission of the accuracy of Lord Charles Beresford's contention that more small cruisers and destroyers are needed.
The policy of Lord Charles Beresford has been and is to-day-and hon. gentlemen opposite cannot conceal the fact-in favour of the theory that the trade routes of this country and the trade routes of the empire should be protected by the smaller cruisers, and that has been the cause of the bitter quarrel between him and Sir John Fisher. I could quote also the opinion of Sir Wm. White, but that has been referred to by the Minister of Militia. Now, I want to call attention to a statement of the various schemes for the commonwealth of Australian naval defence from 1902 to the present time, and this statement which I have before me shows that not until 1909, when the proposition of building an armoured cruiser-not a Dreadnought, mind you, the people of Australia aie not giving a Dreadnought, they are putting an ar-

moured cruiser at the head of their fleet- not until 1909 was there a single proposition in Australia to build a vessel larger than 3,000 tons. But, in the Canadian naval programme we have one vessel of 4,300 tons, one vessel larger, and destroyers of the improved river type, which are all along the line of the sound and wise judgment of the men both inside and outside the admiralty whose opinion is worth having on this matter. That is our policy, Mr. Speaker, and I do not need to amplify it at greater length.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to understand the hon. gentleman; does he say that the Australian fleet unit does not include any vessel larger than 3,000 tons?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: With the exception of the one vessel included in the Australian programme of this year. In all the naval programme of Australia, from 1902 down to that date, not a single one of these programmes included a vessel over that tonnage.


Robert Laird Borden: I am speaking of the programme of 1909.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The armoured cruiser of this year exceeds that tonnage, but in the various other programmes not one of the vessels exceeded 3,000 tons.


Robert Laird Borden: That armoured cruiser is of the Dreadnought type?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not know about that. The Hon. Mr. Fisher, of Australia, who ought to know took issue on that question, and he declared it was not of the Dreadnought type, and his judgment ought to be worth more than that of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden).


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I do not know what took place in Australia; I am referring to the paper which has been brought down to us and laid on the table of the House.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Mr. Fisher, of Australia, took the position that the programme has been changed and that instead of a Dreadnought it was an armoured cruiser.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know anything about any change having taken place in Australia, and my hon. friend may be right about that, but the paper laid on the table of the House certainly does refer to an armoured cruiser of that type.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am speaking of the programme laid before the Australian parliament by the Hon. Mr. Fisher in October last, and he starts out with one armoured cruiser of the Indomitable class.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the exact date in October?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have not got the date at hand, but I will endeavour to get it for my hon. friend. Now, Mr. Speaker, I have endeavoured, probably at too great length, to outline what our policy is, and why we have adopted that policy. I believe, Sir, that all parties in this country will agree that our policy is a wise one. As I have shown, that policy has the approbation of the admiralty. I believe that Canada is acting wisely in to-day laying the foundation of a greater navy, making the beginning of a navy which will grow with our growth and expand with our development. I believe, Sir, that is the wise and sensible course for Canada to take, and I am confident it will be vindicated by the people of this country.
But, let us see where our friends opposite are on this question. We have no less than three or four policies from the opposition. The leader of the opposition starts out by saying: No Canadian navy; in the dire necessity of Gireat Britain, at the present time we will give her $25,000,000 to do what she pleases with it. It is not to build Dreadnoughts mind you, because the word Dreadnought was introduced into that resolution simply and solely for the purpose of misleading the people, and helping out the men who wanted to take the stump in the back concession lines, to talk about Dreadnoushts. It was a good sounding phrase! And so they put it in the amendment. What the hon. leader of the opposition says is:	Give England $25,000,-
000 because there is a tremendous naval necessity at the present day, give them a cash contribution and dont bother about a Canadian navy. And, my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says:	Wipe
out this Canadian navy business, we dont want it. I dont care whether there is necessity or not, I dont care whether the weary Titan is groaning under the burden or not, give them $25,000,000, I dont care where you are going to get it, I dont care whether you have to borrow the money or not, find it somewhere and send it over. Then my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has another policy, and I am sorry he is not in his seat now because there are one or two things I would like to say to him. His policy is to do nothing at all; his policy is a policy of attempting to set in flame the embers of discord in this country. Imagine the hon. member from Jacques Cartier undertaking to appeal to the spirit of the men of 1837. A lot he knows about the men of '37. Why, he belongs to a class who spoke of the men who fought at that date for responsible government as the smooth faced, insidious instigators of the doctrine of rebellion. That is the school from which my hon.



friend from Jacques Cartier comes, and together with the new light of the Conservative party, Mr. Bourassa, in the province of Quebec, they are playing the game of the leader of the opposition down there. That is his policy. Does he want a plebiscite? Not a bit of it. Any one who reads the speech of the hon. member (Mr. Monk) will see there is no connection at all between the words he uttered and the demand in his resolution for a plebiscite; there is no logical connection between the two at all. Plebiscite indeed? Why, the game that the member for Jacques Cartier is playing is the old game the Conservative party has been playing ever since Canada has been ruled by the Liberal party led by the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier. They have been telling the _ people of Quebec that he was too English for the French, and in the English provinces they have been saying: Surely you are not going to have a Frenchman rule over you? I have read the amendment of the leader of the opposition with the greatest possible care. It is drawn with a great deal of astuteness. In our province of Nova Scotia the hon. gentleman (Mr. R.
L.	Borden) has always been recognized as a very shrewd lawyer, and he will pardon me for saying that that resolution was drafted as some counsel would draft the defence in a bad case, in which counsel did not know exactly how to answer the complaint. The hon. gentleman always had the reputation of being an astute lawyer, and when the opposition wanted to declare their policy they committed to his hands the task of quibbling, and drawing up this defence for their bad case. Why, what does the hon. gentleman say? He says that what worries his soul is section 17 and section 18 of the Naval Bill, which sections say: That the Governor in Council may place the navy on active service when it appears there is an emergency, and that in case of emergency the Governor in Coum cil may place at the disposal of His Majesty for general service in the Royal Navy, the naval service and so on. The hon. gentleman (Mr. R. L. Borden) regards that as very dangerous. And it is because of these clauses in the Bill that the hon. gentleman rushes off and says:	I wont
have anything to do with the Canadian navy at all, give them a contribution. Now, one would think that the government had undertaken something very revolutionary and something that was never heard of before.
My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says, oh, that smacks of independence. Well, what is the condition of affairs in that regard? Of course, my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) regards those sections as most terrible- but from another standpoint. They tie us Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
he says, to the empire in an irrevocable way-taxation without representation and all this kind of thing. The King's prerogative, he told us, will enable His Majesty to decare war at any time without the consent of parliament and Canada would be tied hand and foot. My hon. friend, the leader of the opposition was also worried. But what need is there for any anxiety on his part? Look at Todd and see what is done when a question of war comes up. On page 351 of his work I find it laid down:
The previous consent of parliament, either to the commencement of a war or the conclusion of a peace, is not formally required by the constitution. The necessity of obtaining adequate supplies for the prosecution of a contest with any foreign power, and the control possessed by parliament over the army and navy by means of the annual Mutiny Acts, coupled with the existence of ministerial responsibility, constitute a sufficiently powerful check against the improper use of the prerogative. Nevertheless if the hostilities about to be entered into are likely to involve serious consequences, it would be the duty of the ministers before engaging therein to summon parliament to communicate to it the reason for resorting to arms and to ask for its advice and co-operation in carrying on the war.
That is what has to be done in England in the case of a war of any serious character, and in this Bill provision is made that before the Canadian forces may engage in war, the Canadian parliament must be called together just as the English parliament is in the old country. Yet my hon. friend's soul is worried and he is shocked tremendously Is this anything new? Why it has been in the Militia Act for years. How can a navy run without money and how can the navy get money without the government comes to parliament and asks for it? Is it a new departure taken only by Canada? My hon. friend should know that Australia has had it embodied in its Defence Act since 1903. Let me read the Defence Act of Australia of 1903 regarding the disposition of Australian forces in case of war, and there is no country which the hon. gentleman has held up to us as so signal an example of everything loyal, patriotic and splendid. Section 53 of the Australian Defence Act is as follows:
Section 53. In time of war the Governor General may subject to the provisions of this Act, place the defence force or any part thereof under the orders of the commander of any portion of the King's regular forces or the King's regular naval force as the case may be.
Section 51. The Governor General may in time of war-for the defence and protection of the Commonwealth and of the several states thereof-place the naval forces or any part thereof on board any ship of the King's navy on the Australian station, and during the time they are so placed they shall be under the command of the officer commanding the ship upon which they are placed and be subject to

all laws and regulations to which the King's naval forces are subject.
Almost the same words as are in our Act. My hon. friend knows that in the province of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa is going up and down declaring that ' may ' means ' shall,' and that the moment there is any war, automatically our forces are at the disposition of the mother country. And he quotes my hon. friend's opinion upon the construction of a statute in another case to show that 'may' means 'shall,' and in order to convince the people, whose passions he is endeavouring to inflame against this government's proposal, Mr. Bourassa quotes my hon. friend as a lawyer, to that effect.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the case he quotes?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I cannot give the exact case, but I would advise my hon. friend, least Mr. Bourassa may be using his name improperly, to find out what he is saying and contradict him.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the reason I am asking for information now.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And this is a pregnant remark for my hon. friend to remember

-of the five self-governing nations which compose it to provide for their own defence.
That is the kernel of the whole question. The Australian statesmen gave at once the crux of the whole problem. The strength of the British empire, he said, will depend in the future upon the ability of the live self-governing nations which compose it, to provide for their own defence. If they can do that, the empire would be better protected than by the assembling of a fleet at any one point". Then he says:
The opposition will not make this a party measure, our desire being to promote the defence of the country with a view to the protection of the best interests of the empire and the securing of the continued peace of the world.
A splendid example, which i commend to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. It is in strong contrast to the attitude he has taken in leading up his dividing forces with one wing in the province of Quebec making a flank attack on the government, and he himself leading another line of attack entirely inconsistent with the position he took a year ago. My hon. friend should have revised his utterances. He should have been a little more careful before submitting his resolution. On January 12 he said we need not worry about wars in Canada, that the empire would never go to war again without consulting Canada first. He said:
It has been urged, and with some force, that we in Canada cannot properly take a permanent part in the naval defence of the whole empire unless we are to have some voice as to the wars in which Great Britain may engage. Let me say in the first place, that I do not believe Great Britain will in the future engage in any great war-except indeed it may be a war forced upon her without a moment's notice-before consulting the great dominions, of the empire.

But if Great Britain is going to consult the dominions of the empire, and if the dominions require to be consulted before there is going to be war, what fault can my hon. friend find with this clause in the Navy Act which simply anticipates consultation and conference?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend went on to say-I -want to emphasize that point:
And, Sir, I venture to believe that in the future the self-governing nations of the empire will have something to say about the wars of the empire.
But how is Canada to have a word to say about the wars of the empire unless she reserves the Tight to say it as she does in this Navy Bill? Then my hon. friend proceeds :
It is not wise to prophesy what the future may bring forth, but I would venture to hope that a defence committee or an imperial conference having special jurisdiction over defence matters, composed of men from both parties in Great Britain itself as well as in the self-governing nations" of the empire, would have some control over the organization of imperial defence, and as an outcome of such a committee or such a conference I would expect that in future Great Britain would engage in no great war without knowing beforehand that she would have the support and the sympathy of every one of the great self-governing nations of the empire. This would give to these dominions a voice in the control of war, because I thoroughly agree that if we are to take part in the permanent defence of this great empire we must have some control and some voice in such matters.
How in the name of common sense can my bon. friend seriously complain about these sections in the Naval Act when he declared and -reiterated that there would be no quarrels of the empire in the future unless Canada was consulted, and how would Canada be consulted, except by some such provision as is contained in this Act? I think we can very fairly leave my hon. friend in the fond hope that when he examines the precedents in England, when he looks over the conditions of affairs in Australia and reviews his own utterances, he can feel confident that no harm can Come through Canada reserving to herself the very right which he says she ought to reserve. He criticised the Naval Bill on the ground that men would only be trained three years. The Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) punctured that by pointing out that he had misread the provision of the Act, that the Act laid down methods by which men would be trained for six years. Then my hon. friend with these misgivings rushed impetuously, and with utter disregard of everything he had said before on this question, to the extreme limit of the objectionable position which he had be-Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
fore said should not be taken. Give them $25,000,000-nothing for the defence of Canada, do not hamper these people with any conditions, do not say that the Dreadnoughts when built or the money when expended, is to come to Canada to be used in defence. As the Minister of Militia points out it need not be Dreadnoughts at all. The leader of the opposition simply says:	Here is $25,000,000, do what you
like with it, do not care anything about Canada, do not provide for local defence, do anything you like but take it, take it, without any condition, without any restriction, Canada's interests being utterly disregarded in every way and without a single step forward being taken in the direction of Canadian defence or in any way in which Canada's interests would _ be advanced. If that is the way in which Canada is to maintain herself in the empire, it is a very miserable way. What would our friends have thought if in 1900, instead of sending the boys to South Africa, we had said:	Here, take $10,000,000, we
do not care anything about the empire, we do not want to fight for it, we do not want to share in its future or its defence or its glories, or anything of that kind; here is the money, take it. A splendid answer to my hon. friend was afforded in the letter from Captain Stairs, of Halifax, which I read the other day, in which he spoke of the importance of giving to the empire that real service which could only be rendered by the sympathy and influence of men all over the country who, whether on sea or land, will have that interest in the welfare of the empire, which would lead to its preservation and its extension.
I need not detain the House to place on record the statements of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) about contributions. I shall read only one of them. On January 12, of this very year, hardly a month ago, the hon. gentleman made this statement:
It has been suggested that instead of the organization of a Canadian naval force, there should be a system of annual contributions from this country to the mother country: and I am free to admit that, from the strategical point of view, that I would be inclined to agree with the view of the admiralty that that would be the best way for the great self-governing dominions of the empire to make their contributions.
And mark this:
But, sir, from a constitutional and political standpoint, I am opposed to it, for many reasons. In the first place, I do not believe that it would endure. In the second place, it would be a source of friction. It would become a bone of partisan contention. It would be subject to criticism.
Of course it would be:

As to the character and the amount of the contribution in both parliaments. It would not be permanent or contimious.
But last of all-and I want you gentlemen who sit behind you leader to follow this-this is what he said on January 12, as to the effect of a contribution:
It would conduce to severing the present connection between Canada and the .empire.
Of course, my hon. friend may have been simply talking without any deliberation, without any responsibility. I assume the leader of the opposition has the right to talk without responsibility sometimes. I do not know whether he was here talking to his Quebec wing when he proposed to give a contribution with the idea that it is going to tend to sever our connection with the empire; perhaps it was to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) who said just before concluding his speech that there was something in the resolution of the leader of the opposition with which he agreed, perhaps it was that part of it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would ask my hon. friend where he finds in any utterance of mine or of anybody on this side of the House a desire or an intent to sever the connection with the British empire? Where does he find it, and if he does not find it anywhere, what right has he to insinuate here?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If my hon. friend will possess his soul in patience I will give him evidence in a few minutes as to statements made by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) which will satisfy, him that the hon. member for North Toronto regards him as a gentleman who would like to do that. I do not propose to call the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as a witness on the question of contribution, I do not have to; I think the leader of the opposition has proved my case. But as we hear a great deal about Australia, about the virtue of contribution and all that, let me call attention to what Mr. Deakin, the premier of Australia, says about contribution. Speaking at Melbourne in 1902, he said:
The policy of centralization restricted the colonies to contributions in coin while the policy of decentralization would substitute trained men and basis of supply with place of subsidies. Australia strongly favoured the decentralization advocated by Sir Edward Barton as contrasted with the centralization sought by the proposals of Mr. Broderick and the admiralty which in no way appealed to the patriotic sentiment and self-reliant spirit of Australians. No colonial force under war office control could have furnished such effective soldiers for South Africa as the volunteer contingents had furnished to show loyalty to the empire, let us send money; the Liberal party says:	Let us train up men interested in the defence of Canada who will
stand by Canada and the empire both in peace and war.
But what does the Sydney 'Bulletin,* that influentieal Australian paper say:
From what ever point of view-imperial or anti-imperial-the scheme is considered, its only logical defence lies in the theory that Australia is a poor, forsaken country.
They are speaking of the Australian agreement of 1902.
Without administrative brains, courage, enterprise or intelligence, not fit to have any dignified part in its own naval defence, not to be trusted with any weapons lest it should misuse them, worthy only to drudge for the money which a higher and more capable power shall spend.
All of which is true about my hon. friend's position to-day.
And to provide the loblolly boys the slushes, and the deck swabbers, whose efforts a higher power shall direct and control.
A splendid policy for young Canadians, is it not?
The alternative to the naval tribute, proposed by Mr. Barton, is the expenditure of a like sum of money, or if necessary a much larger sum of money, on an Australian navy, which would be organized on the same lines as the Australian army, and would probably be, for some time at least, commanded by a British admiral, and to a very considerable extent officered by Britishers.
This navy would, in times of peace, be used as a training squadron for Australian naval men. In times of war it would be available for the defence of Australia, and there is no doubt, for the assistance of Britain in other waters, if that were called for.
That is what Australia thinks about contributions. I need not go over in detail the points in which that which Australia i3 doing differs from what is proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite. It is enough to say that Australia is providing a navy for the defence of its own coasts, and New Zealand is making it a condition-an absolute condition-that the ship which she is providing shall be stationed at New Zealand and shall be for the protection of New Zealand; and the money she gives is not given to the admiralty but is given solely and only for the purpose of paying extra wages to the New Zealand men who go into that establishment. And yet these hon. gentlemen want to give $25,000,000 not for anything that is going to come back to Canada, not for anything that will guard our coasts ox that will contribute to our own progress and advancement, but simply to throw it away without restriction or condition.
But my hon. friend says that a great panic is on, that the power of Great Britain is menaced, and all that kind of thing, and therefore we must send this money. Why, this story of naval panic is an old

That is how Mr. Haldane, the secretary for war-characterizes the part that Canada is playing in this matter.
-it was the Liberal government that had translated imperial federation into something like the beginnings of reality, instead of leaving it to rest either in vain declamation, or any proposal to impose taxes

abandoned long years ago; he has little acquaintance with it, at least since I have been in the House. He gloried in the fact, however, that it was better to have ' diversity with integrity than uniformity with servility,' referring to my hon. friend who sits behind him. He also gloried in the fact that both the member for Jacques Cartier and himself, though they were at the antipodes upon this question, yet they joined harmoniously in condemning the policy of the government, as if anybody expected them to do anything else. He actually talked about the thumb 'screw, and the rack, and the composing room. Strange words these, and he presumed to attribute the advancement of the hon. gentlemen on this side of the House to the utilization of those instruments. Does my hon. friend imagine that he belongs to that class of men of whom the poet speaks:
Men whom the spoils of office will not buy,
Men whom the lust of office will not kill?
If he is under any delusion of that kind, he should disabuse his mind at once, because nobody in this country regards him as a man of that character. My hon. friend entered parliament in 1882 as an out-and-out temperance man and prohibitionist, advocating the most extreme legislation; as a man who was elected to parliament as an independent, a high-minded gentleman who was going to enter the arena of Canadian politics and look down from a lofty position, and regard big questions from a high standpoint. That was his position in 1882. I do not know whether the great Sir John Macdonald utilized any of those methods in bringing him to time. But when he told us that it took the Minister of the Interior ten years to get into line with his leader, I could not help thinking that it took my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) only three years to do so. I leave it to the imagination to suggest what were the influences that affected him. And his effort to justify himself in regard to his attitude last year was most amusing. After circling round and declaring that the first resolution meant that we should have a Canadian navy and not contributions, he boldly took the course of veering quite around. He admitted that last year he supported the proposition of a Canadian navy as opposed to contributions, and yet he never attempted to explain his attitude, or to show why he is taking the other position to-day, but he started off on that extreme course without any justification whatever. And didn't he grow eloquent over the terrible lack of judgment on the part of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Militia, because. foTsooth, they had not taken Canada's money and given it to the imperial government to supply a fleet unit on the Pacific! I wonder if the judgment of this Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
House is that the proper thing for Canada to do would be to provide a fleet unit on the Pacific, and by so doing leave the Atlantic seaports with all those lines of commerce with the mother country, unprotected? Yet he says they should have done that. Why, I venture to say that if my hon. friends who went over to England had promised to take the people's money and build a unit on the Pacific, he would have been the first man in Canada to raise his voice and denounce them for going beyond their instructions, for betraying the Canadian people, for putting their hands into the people's pockets and taking this money and throwing it away. The first man to have gone after them would have been the hon. member for North Toronto. Then my hon. friend grew facetious. He recalled the old story of Don Quixote and Sa'ncho Panza, and he went on to declare what the leader of the government had done, and said that he had conjured up a fiction of the imagination. Let us see what he said:
Then my hon. friend had a tilt with sundry windmills. He knows the story of the old knight and his doughty squire, filled full of the spirit of battle if not of conquest, bound for adventure, if not for human gore, who went around tilting at windmills. My right hon. friend before this audience and the wider audience of Canada, he did it to perfection, he did it well. What were the windmills with which he tilted? He tilted. Sir, against the whndmilll which he took as an enemy to responsible government, and he drove his spear through all the wings of the mill. He then went to the next windmill which represented in his mind's eye a sturdy opponent of Canadian autonomy, and he burst the wings of that mill. He proceeded and he met another enemy, conjured up, the enemy of the autonomy of this country in the shape of centralization of power in Downing street, and he tilted against that, and then filled with a lust for still further battle, he found another windmill which was taxation without representation, and he glutted his desire for warfare until he had demolished that one.
Then he -said:
Who made that statement? The British government, the British admiralty, any person in a responsible position in this House or in the country? My hon. friend knows -that when he made that statement it was a complete fiction of imagination.
Yet, these statements were made by somebody, and they were made in this House. They were made by a gentleman of some responsibility. Let me read some that were made on January 12 at page 1830 of ' Hansard ':
Are we going to be in the position that the whole foreign policy of the empire is going to be framed, and formed, and carried out by a cabinet of men in Downing street, men absolutely controlled and elected by the electorate of the British isles; that we, British subjects like themselves, are going to be placed upon a different footing, that we will not have

a voice in the conduct of that policy, that we are to he responsible for everything while having no voice in the conduct of anything? That was not what on more than one occasion
__I have simply mentioned the principal one
-was stated at the conference, and stated not by colonials hut by men who knew that it would never work with Anglo-Saxon people to have in any sense taxation without representation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend admits the soft impeachment. _ But, does it not strike hon. members of this House that if we are going to carry out this policy that is proposed by hon. gentlemen opposite, we will become responsible generally and severally with the people of the British Isles for the whole foreign policy of the empire without having a voice in the formation of that policy?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend admitted that himself a moment ago, because he said that it would come by-and-by.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am not concerned with my hon. friend about that. I am in-terestedj for the moment', in my hon. friend's relations with the hon. member for North Toronto. I will deal with the other matter directly.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: You had better attend to your own divisions.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Now, the gentleman who made this statement, might I say^ the windmill against whom the Prime Minister tilted, as described by the hon. member for North Toronto, was the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, who just sat down.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: And himself a year ago.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And the hon. member for North Toronto had the audacity to say that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier had never used any of these words at all. He said that the tilting of the Prime Minister against. these words was a pure figment of the imagination, that nobody had every uttered them anyway. I do not know whether the hon. member for North Toronto regards the gentleman who sits behind him as nobody, or whether he regards him only as a windmill. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier goes down to Quebec, and, in conjunction with his ally, Mr. Bourassa, wants to propound all those theories that the hon. member for North Toronto says there is nothing in. Rag baby autonomy! If it is a rag baby, it is a very serious kind of a baby. If the hon. member for Western Ontario who has .just interrupted would sit down and read the speech delivered by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, he would not think that it was any rag baby, but he would realize that it was a very live kind of baby. I do not think the hon. member for North Toronto paid his colleague behind him the
compliment of listening to his speech. I do not think that he read it, because if he had, I think he would have avoided the utterances which he used in regard to that hon. member. I quite concede that the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, if he thinks the autonomy of this country is imperilled in any way, has the right to state his position before the House, but he_ has no right to be ignored by one of the joint leaders of the party, who turns around and tells him that nobody had ever made use of these arguments in this House. But, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier need not worry; the hon. member for North Toronto was tilting with everybody, and he used language as reckless with regard to several other hon. gentlemen as that which he used in regard to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier.
We hear something about a plebiscite.
I wondeT if the hon. member for North Toronto is in favour of having a plebiscite about the question as to whether we should give $25,000,000 to the empire? We have net heard anything about that. Because we propose to spend $11,000,000 among Canadian workmen, in Canadian workshops, and in developing the interests of Canada, forsooth, we must have a plebiscite; but when we take $25,000,000 and let it go there is no need for a plebiscite at all. I notice that even the hon. member for Jacques Cartier has not extended his resolution to cover this $25,000,000 that his friend the leader of the opposition proposes to give.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It covers everything, as my hon. friend will see if he reads the resolution. It covers the whole scheme.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend say that his amendment proposes that there should be referred to the people of this country the proposition of the leader of the opposition that $25,000,000 should be given to the people of England?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend will read it he can understand it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did read it with some care, and, according to the construction I put on the English language, I came to an entirely different conclusion. It is rather news to me if the hon. gentleman's resolution has any such meaning. His proposition is:
That all the words after ' that ' be struck out.
He proposes to strike out the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition, and in place of the proposal of the leader of the government he proposes to substitute this:
This House, while declaring its unalterable devotion to the British Crown, is of opinion, that the Bill now submitted for its consideration change the relations of Canada with the empire and ought, in consequence, to be

submitted to the Canadian people in order to obtain at once the nation's opinion by means of a plebiscite.
There is nothing there about submitting a proposition to give $25,000,000 to the empire, and I think that if my hon. friend has any desire to set himself right on this question he ought to ask the House to have his resolution amended so as to enable him to raise that issue.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will not go for advice to you.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend, in all good humour, might go to a worse place. Now, I think my hon. friend ought not to feel offended with me. He ought rather to feel resentment at his colleague, the hon. member for North Toronto, because he is the gentleman with whom I have been dealing, and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier has only accidentally got in the way, and if the hon. member for North Toronto chooses to call the hon. member for Jacques Cartier a windmill it is not my fault. But then he went tilting with the leader of the Liberal party. He told us that Sir Wilfrid had taken a position of absolute antagonism to effective help to the British empire as a whole. How did he justify his statement?-by stating that my right hon. leader had defended the right of Canada to make commercial treaties. We heard my hon. friend the Minister of Marine (Mr. Brodeur) and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) a couple of years ago assert in this House that they had negotiated a commercial treaty with France and claim that there was some credit or some congratulation which Canada had gathered or was entitled to from the fact because they had practically done the thing direct, although the English ambassador at Paris had been there, and that as a matter of fact the negotiations had been carried on almost exclusively by the representatives of Canada. I remember the hon. member for North Toronto standing up in his place and declaring that they were entirely mistaken, that they had no right to claim any such credit, that Sir Charles Tupper had negotiated the French treaty ten years ago the same way. Yet, forsooth, my right hon. friend the leader of the government is to be charged with being disloyal because he thinks that Canada should do what we have been doing for ten years! Then, the hon. member for North Toronto inveighed against the right hon. leader of the House because he had said that sometimes British diplomacy had not been a success. I regret to have to refer to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier again. But, that hon. gentleman knows very well that in his speech, which was carefully prepared, carefully thought over, and an able deliverance, he traced the whole history of British Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
[ diplomacy from 1782 down to the present ' day. He argued that Canada had suffered on every occasion when English diplomats , had her case in hand.
* Mr. MONK. I agreed absolutely with the ^ Prime Minister until last year; he left 1 me; I did not leave him.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend (Mr. Monk) is worrying too much about himself.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. gentleman is wor-1 rying too much about me.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: He is -worrying you, not about you.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier is labouring under a delusion. I do not think I could dignify the member for North Toronto by calling him the leader of the member for Jacques Cartier, but at all events last Thursday night the member for North Toronto charged the Prime Minister practically with being disloyal because he had said that British diplomacy was not always what it should be. And when I called the attention of the House to the fact that the member for Jacques Cartier had taken up every treaty from 1782 down to date to prove that British diplomacy was not a success so far as Canada was concerned, surely he must settle his accounts with the member for North Toronto and not with me. Did not the hon. member for Jacques Cartier wind up his remarks on the subject with this statement:
I merely mention these facts and have no wish to go into detail. There are many other facts that might be cited to prove this claim that any man who says that we owe a debt of gratitude to the mother country in respect to these many transactions under which our territory has been greatly fragmentized, is speaking of wliat he knows nothing about.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Monk) nods assent, and I am to assume that he agrees with me that when the hon. member for North Toronto was speaking on Thursday night he was talking on something he knew nothing about. However, I merely point out this to show that when the member for North Toronto gave these as his reasons why the House should have no confidence in our great leader, he was in the same breath maligning the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier who sits behind him. But. more than that, Sir, the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) indulged in misrepresentation. He quoted from a speech which he alleged the Prime Minister had made in 1888, and he led us to believe that Sir Wilfrid Laurier had said that the time was coming when the present relations between Great Britain and Canada must either become closer or be severed altogether. But, would you believe that a gentleman of such long experience in public life as the mem-

ber for North Toronto would be guilty of absolute misrepresentation. The offence might be pardoned in a man who sat on the back benches and did not know the amenities which should characterize those who sit on the front benches. But would you believe, Sir, that the member for North Toronto suppressed language of the Prime Minister used in the same connection and in the same speech as it is reported in Hansard for that year, which went to show really what the Prime Minister meant? Sir Wilfrid Laurier, speaking in parliament in 1888 used this language:
If you on the other side pretend that our colonial relation curtails and limits our possibilities, that England would allow us to reach a certain altitude and go no higher, I say you slander England, and if any man were to use at the other side and tell us that England would he jealous at whatever we could do to improve our condition, I say that man does not know England, he mistakes the England of to-day for the England of 100 years ago-"But what we ask, Sir, is not political independence. We want to keep the flag of England over our heads, but we affirm that we are economically independent as we are legislatively independent.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member for North Toronto suppressed language of the Prime Minister which was necessary to a proper understanding of his meaning. Then, he repeated the old story that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was opposed to the contingents going to South Africa. This is the same old game they played in 1900. You will remember that in the elections of 1900 the Conservatives claimed in the English provinces, that the Prime Minister would not move one step in the direction of helping England in the time of trial, until he was compelled to by the Conservative party, and my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) tells me he was defeated on that cry, and I have no doubt of it. But, in the province of Quebec the Conservatives told an entirely different story. They said that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was 'Too English ' for them and I have in my hand a pamphlet sent out by the Conservative party in Quebec in 1900 and franked from this House of Commons by Conservative members, some of whom are here yet, and this is the kind of story they told in the province of Quebec regarding the right hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier:
The first utterances of imperialism were made in London, by Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Then it was that he put the Canadian soldiers at the service of the English.
Canada to do honour to the Prime Minister had sent to England the very cream of the troops to act as a body-guard. A splendid detachment of mounted police, a battalion composed of the elite of our militia, were sent to London and aroused the enthusiam of the old metropolis. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, dazzled by the applause of which he was the
object, then committed the fatal mistake to give vent to words which were binding us to war destinies of Great Britain.
Then and there was sealed the pact now stained with Canadian blood which flowed at Paardeberg, Belmont, Mafeking, Faber Farm, and in many other encounters.
On the 18th of June, 1897, at a banquet held at the imperial institute, after a military review before Lord Lansdowne, Secretary of War, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, in a moment of enthusiasm, put all the Canadian troops at the disposal of the empire. As a worthy descendant of French blood, he choose the anniversary of Waterloo to make the offer. ,
I hope my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier will not indulge in any talk of that kind now:-
According to a cablegram, dated London, June 18, 1897, to the ' Globe,' on Lord Lansdowne, asking if, in a case of just conflicts, the colonies would be willing to help England, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier is said to have replied as follows:-
Lord Lansdowne has mentioned that a day may come when the empire might be threatened. This date, anniversary of the battle of Waterloo, reminds us that at all times England has proved itself able to win its own wars, but should a day come when it should be in danger, then let the bugle blow and rallying fires be lighted on the hills and in the colonies, and though we may not be able to do very much we shall give all the help within our means.
This was a solemn promise and it was kept.
And, Sir, I commend to this parliament that splendid deliverance of our Prime Minister in 1897 uttered in England, which shows his true position and his devotion to British connection. These are the words of the man who, according to the member for North Toronto, stands for independence, the man who, according to the same authority, is not true to Britain; this is the language which the Conservative party scattered broadcast through the province of Quebec in 1900 in order to set race against race and to influence the people against the Liberal party and against its great leader.
Now, while the hon. member from North Toronto has been charging the Prime Minister with moving towards political independence, with antagonism to everything that is British, and with disloyalty, the hon. member from Jacques Cartier is singing an entirely different song. Every word of his utterance on last Thursday night was an arraignment of the government, because he said they were committing Canada to be tied hand and foot, they were casting her in every possible way on the mercies of Downing street, abandoning all principles of responsible government, and depriving us of a free voice in our own affairs. Now, if the hon. gentleman from Jacques Cartier really believes the views he gave utterance to then, he is in an unfortunate position when he sits behind the gentleman who


CQMMONS
[Stage Direction]
railed against this government because this Naval Bill is lacking in all these considerations which ought to be present if the interests of England were to be protected. Now, which of them is right? Is the leader of the opposition right or is the member for Jacques Cartier right? If these gentlemen hold their views honestly and sincerely it is absolutely impossible for them to work in concert. One of them must be wrong; there is no use trying to preach peace, peace, when there is no peace. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier cannot honestly work in harmony with the leader of the opposition, because the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier are absolutely and diametrically opposed to everything which the leader of the opposition said he believed. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier disclaims any desire to make trouble, and he agrees with something in the resolution of the leader of the opposition. What part of that resolution is it with which he agrees? Does he agree with the proposition that we should send over $25,000,000 to the home government?
Frederick Debartzch Monk: If my hon. friend is as intelligent as I believe him to be, surely he understands that the part of the resolution which proposes a plebiscite is the part with which I agree.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: That then is the only part, and we are to understand that he does not agree with the proposition of his leader that wre should send $25,000,000 to the mother country?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I will give my views at the proper time.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Then this great tribune (Mr. Monk) who has been leading his people along certain lines, who has been telling them what their duty is with regard to this question of the navy, is not prepared to tell them whether he is in accord with his leader or not on the question of sending $25,000,000 to the home government. My hon. friend presented a petition this afternoon. I do not know whether that petition was against sending the $25,000,000 or against our building a Canadian navy, but I hope that, after he gets into conference with his friend and ally, Mr. Bourassa, he will be able to tell us just where he does stand on this question. In any event he does not stand behind his leader, and I say that he had no right to invoke in this House the memories of the heroes of 1837. Nor had he any right to charge the men who are supporting the government from the province of Quebec with having voted against his resolution in 1905 in connection with the French language in the northwest. He had no right, on a question such as this, to appeal to any sentiment of that kind.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why had I no right?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Because my hon. friend was raising the question of race in this country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I defy my hon. friend to point to a single instance during this controversy in which I have appealed to race or anything of that kind. I defy those who are applauding him to prove it. I have been before my constituents, and I have not spoken anywhere else except here.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend has the right, as every free man has, to say what he thinks in this House, but he has no right to conjure up in his address the heroes of 1837 in order to give point to his contention that the autonomy of this country is becoming in any way imperilled by the measure before us. In so doing he declares his dissent from the opinions of his own friends. He puts himself diametrically in opposition to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who has said that this autonomy business is nothing but a rag baby anyway; and when he seeks to import into this discussion the men of 1837, he is simply raising the racial cry.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend knows nothing about it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I have the same rights here as my hon. friend. I come from a race of men who, in the little province of Nova Scotia, fought the battle of responsible government, just as did my hon. friend's compatriots in the province of Quebec. Our fathers in Nova Scotia won that battle, and won it a little earlier and without any particular display, but we won it nevertheless, and it is just as dear to us as it can possibly be to the people of any other province in this Dominion. But what I complain of particularly on the part of my hon. friend is this language which he used on February 3 in this House:
I have seen these gentlemen in this House

(Keferring to Liberal members from the province of Quebec.)
-vote against the maintenance of the rights that were claimed for the minority in the organization of the new provinces of the west, I have seen them vote against the maintenance of the right which all parties in this House admitted to exist with regard to the French language in these provinces when at one time I moved for the maintenance of the strict right of the French Canadian to speak -only to speak-in that language in one of the assemblies of this province.
What possible relevancy has the use of the French language to do with the question as to whether we ought or ought not

to give a contribution to the British navy or build a Canadian navy?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I say that my hon. friend, in this line of action, was simply seeking to fan the flames of discord. The course taken by the opposition shows simply an endeavour on their part to repeat their tactics of the year 1900, when we had one wing going to the Englishspeaking people of Canada and saying that this government was doing nothing for the empire but was seeking to bring about independence, and the other raising the cry in the province of Quebec that it was bartering away our autonomy and sacrificing everything to the British connection. These are tactics which it is only right and proper should be exposed. But where does the Liberal party stand in this matter? Have we any such ridiculous divisions in our Tanks? No, Sir, the Liberal party stands solid to the only policy that can make Canada great and the empire secure. Our only strength as a nation lies in the fact that while, as a part of the great empire, we shall control our defence in times of peace, in times of stress and danger we may stand by the motherland when necessary. What should be the ambition of those who wish to see the empire as great and strong as it ought to be? Would they desire to see us relapse into the state of a crown colony and be content with paying tribute by way of contribution, or would they not rather have this country follow the policy spoken of by the hon. Mr. Fisher, at one time Premier of Australia, who declared that the five great self-governing colonies should prepare for their own defence the better to assist the empire in time of war. The position in which the Liberal party stands today is the same as that which was enunciated 45 years ago by the late George Brown, then leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario:
The colonies are now in a transition state. Gradually a different colonial system is being developed, and it will become year by year less a case of dependence on our part and of overruling protection on the part of the mother country, and more the case of a hearty and cordial alliance. Instead of looking upon us as a merely dependent colony England will have in us a friendly nation-a subordinate but still a powerful people to stand by her in North America in peace and war.
That was the policy laid down by George Brown in Ontario in 1865 and that defines the aspirations of the great leader of our party who has guided the destinies of our country during the past sixteen years. The spirit which animates that policy is well set forth by Mr. Jebb, whom I quoted the other night in reply to the hon. member for North Toronto:
My pages are concerned with the other soul -the embryo consciousness of the younger nations, which the English brother 'does not understand.' His notion of imperial union has been based upon that helpless ' Loyalty.' He has acquired the habit of supercilious condescension, as though he owned the whole empire-new nations and all. His instinct has been that the mere colonial ought to pay his share, and be thankful whilst the superior Englishmen runs the empire on his own lines. The soul of the empire is a perplexing mystery to him; partly because it is only now that even the elder of the new nations are bursting the colonial chrysalis; partly because, in the old country, the simple sense of patriotism has been suppressed beneath delusive cosmopolitanism. Yet he might understand if he tried to change places. Supposing Uncle Sam, in an absent-minded moment, made him a generous offer, namely to take over the British navy and run it for a nominal cash consideration. Would the overtaxed English brother jump at it? No, his dormant national pride rises in revolt. Then how can he expect new nations to pay hire for his navy? He complains that they do not take their share of the chores. It is his own fault, because he will not have them do it in self-respecting manner. For example, he trampled energetically upon the suggestion of national naval squadrons. He looks askance if they propose to do things in the British fashion. He thinks of it as ' disloyalty.' No wonder they are discouraged. The English brother talks pleasantly of alliance, but tries to force his supremacy. So they are constrained to imagine that national independence means cutting the painter. Ungrateful and disloyal colonies, to think that you should assert the temper which made England herself.
We say that the same spirit and the same traditions which have dominated the British race during its long history of 2,000 years should animate the Canadian people on the northern half of this continent. Those of us who are of the dominant race appreciate the fact that we are the inheritors of those institutions which have been the great factors in British supremacy throughout its long history, and those of us who form the minority appreciate in equal degree the liberties and the; free institutions which we could not have got from any other nation.
This policy which has been inaugurated by our leader, is the only sound policy for Canada and both races in this country join in supporting it. Those of us who belong to the Liberal party, and many who do not, recognize in our great leader one whose legitimate ambition is the development of the idea of a nation within the empire, acting in concert with the other great selfgoverning colonies in the preservation of their local defence and autonomy and prompt to come to the assistance of the motherland. In the splendid path along which the great leader of the Liberal party has led this country, his achievements

have been memorable and are the pride of all fair-minded men in this broad land, to-day, no matter from what race they have sprung or at what altar they bow, just as they will be the glory of our children and of all those who come after us in Canada. Our internal affairs have been marked by the greatest period of development in all our history. First of all the colonies under his wise direction we relaxed the antagonism of tariffs towards the mother ^ country and by our preference to Britain's wares and Britain's products we blazed the way which has been followed by the Unionist party in Great Britain in their policy of tariff reform for the empire. For the first time in our history under him, we sent our sons at our own cost and with our own money to fight the battles of the empire in South Africa.
And now, in order to assist in maintaining the supremacy of Britain on the ocean, having reached that stage in our national history when we are in a financial position to do so, we relieve the nation's burdens by inaugurating a fleet that in the days to come will grow and develop with our strength as we develop in population and wealth and stand at all times for the empire in peace and war. And above all, just as in the old land the Angles, the Saxons, the Jutes and the Normans were, by process of time and the wisdom of succeeding statesmen in Britain, welded together into that great race which has dominated the world for the past one thousand years, so here in Canada he has taught us all, whether we are French or English or Irish, or Scotch, to be true to Canada and to Canada firet, last and always. And the accomplishment of the result to be attained by this Bill is but a step in the work he has yet to do. He has not yet finished his work Much remains to be done in laying the foundations, so that the edifice of after days will be worthy of the formative stage. He has been the master-builder. And not only is it the prayer of the Liberal party, but it is the prayer of every lover of Canada's who reads' Canada's 'history aright, that that Providence wvhich gave him to Canada to bind up the ties that were. being loosened, and to cement the varying^ elements that were breaking away mav still preserve him for many years to come to insure the fulfilment of his prophecy that the twentieth century is to be the century in which Canada will prove herself worthy of her traditions and responsibilities and will take her place as the centre from which British traditions of government and influence will radiate throuehout the world through all future time.


William James Roche: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise to take part in this Mr. B. M. MACDONALD.
debate with the idea that I can contribute anything of a very original character at this stage, for I recognize that the ground has been already so completely covered that it is now difficult to introduce new material. I wish to explain why I intend to support the amendment introduced by the leader of the opposition in preference to the Bill now before the House. The hon. gentleman who has just spoken is a good actor. He was speaking to the galleries to-day. The gentleman who formerly occupied his seat in this House, a former member for North Cape Breton, was usually allotted a certain task in the old parliament. Whenever the hon. membeT for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) would make a particularly effective speech, usually at a late hour of the night that member would be put up to indulge in personal abuse and vituperation and it would appear as if the hon. member for Pictou (Mt. Macdonald) has assumed the role vacated by that hon. gentleman. I must acknowledge that he fills the bill to a nicety. He has been incubating for the last five days in his endeavour, to obtain a suitable reply to that splendid address of the hon. member for North Toronto. He accuses that hon, gentleman of misrepresentation. I will admit that he should be a good authority on misrepresentation, because two-thirds of his own speech was made up of misrepresentation, distortion of facts and false premises. He has put words into the mouth of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) which that gentleman never uttered. He has, in order to carry his point, whether deliberately or not, I will not say-although he accused the hon. member for North Toronto of deliberately doing it-misinterpreted the resolution introduced in amendment by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and if you separate the chaff from the wheat in his speech I am afraid there will be very little of No. 1 hard left. He has spoken of the partisan character of the speeches made by hon. members on this side. Whose example are we following? Who made the first partisan speech? His own leader, the Prime Minister, who should have set an example to the younger members, who should have established the debate on a higher plane. Fancy the hon. member for Pictou accusing any one of making a partisan speech after the address we have listened to. He, of course, discussed this on purely national lines, on a broad basis*. He did not descend to any partisanship. I repeat that language of a partisan character makes up at least two-thirds of his speech. He has referred to the unanimity that exists among members on this side. What about the unanimity that exists among the members opposite? I know whereof I speak. Take these hon. gentlemen outside of this

House and what will they say in regard to this Bill? I have heard their expressions in regard to it.


Mr. TALBOT.: Name them?


William James Roche: Their name is legion. Some hon. gentlemen came down here and were going to open up the whole question. Oh, if they could only speak their minds, would they not show up the whole thing ! It is true they have a certain cohesion and adhesion. You talk of cement having cohesive and adhesive qualities-it is not in it with the spoils of office. There is a post office here, a customs house there, an armoury in another place, a drill hall some where else. A prospective cabinet ministership in some other place-and I hope the hon. member for Pic-tou has earned his reward by his defence this afternoon. The hon. member places men of straw to show the members with what facility he can knock them down. I have referred to his misrepresentation. He stated that the hon. member for North Toronto misquoted a speech of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1888. I challenge him to show a word of misquotation. I say he made no reference to that speech except four or five lines.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I said he had quoted a part of the speech of the Prime Minister and not quoted the context to show what he did mean.


William James Roche: The portion of the speech to which he took exception was in a speech delivered in this House in 1892 by the Prime Minister and if he looks up ' Hansard ' he will find that.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If you look it up you will find it was given as 1888. I went to ' Hansard ' and found it.


William James Roche: He referred to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier, and said to him: What has the French language to do with the Bill before the House? I would ask that hon. member to discuss this question on broad national lines. What has his reference to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as being a former temperance lecturer got to do with it? I would say to him: Let him first take the beam out of his own eye before he attempts to pluck the mote out of his brother's. He has referred to the leader of the opposition as being in favour of giving ' tribute.' The hon. gentleman is a lawyer; he knows the meaning of the word ' tribute.' Are we proposing to give tribute to the motherland, when we, voluntarily, of our own free will, and in a time of emergency, grant a contribution of money to strengthen the British navy? Do you call that ' tribute '? The hon. gentleman had better re-read his history if he desires to find the true meaning
of the word. I have heard arguments put forward by hon. members surrounding the hon. member from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), and these hon. gentlemen have not taken the position that a voluntary grant was anything in the nature of tribute. The hon. gentleman (Mr. E. M. Macdonald) has gone so far as to say that the leader of the opposition has had a letter addressed to him by the old leader of the Liberal-Conservative party to task for not supporting that mea-policy of the government, and urging him to support it. That letter was written-and the hon. gentleman knows it-before the proposition of the government was submitted to this House at all. If Sir Charles Tupper had written this letter after seeing the provisions of the Bill now before the House, and had taken the Conservative party to task for not supporting that measure, there might be some force in the hon. gentleman's criticism. That letter, written by the former leader of the Conservative party, Sir Charles Tupper, was against annual, stated, fixed contributions. So, the hon. member for Pictou, in offering his criticisms on that letter, as well as on the policy of the leader of the opposition in regard to these criticisms, does not differentiate between an emergency contribution' and a contribution made annually, a fixed, stated sum, to be continued as a permanency. He was not fair in his representation in that regard.
Now, the hon. member states that the Australian unit and the New Zealand unit are meant for the protection of the coasts of those countries, and he says that that is what we are doing here. And in what manner? By providing, for instance, two ' Bris-tols ' on the Pacific ocean to ' protect ' our own shores-two vessels that, according to the leading Liberal journal of the province of Quebec are purposely built to elude the pursuit of the enemy. The hon. member for Pictou has also put words into the mouth of the leader of the opposition when he states that that hon. gentleman does not want docks built in Canada, does not yjant a naval college, does not want ships: constructed in Canada, and so on. I would ask him to point to a single expression of the leader of the opposition to bear out his assertions.


An hon. MEMBER.: He can't do it.


William James Roche: He cannot do it without misrepresenting the facts. And, is it not amusing to hear the hon .member for Pictou give voice to good Conservative doctrine, of giving work to our own home people, of maintaining our own workshops, of keeping our money in our own country-a good protectionist speech; whereas, in the davs gone by, these hon. gentlemen, when in "opposition, had only one cry and shibboleth, and that was to buy in the cheapest * market? Now, the Prime Minister (Sir Wil-

frid Laurier) himself admits that the construction of this navy in Canada-and, if we are to have it constructed at all, we on this side as a party do not -object to having it constructed in Canada-will cost thirty per cent more at least than if it were built in Great Britain, the direct opposite of the policy preached by these hon. gentlemen before they found places on the treasury benches.
Now, I mean to refer to some other expressions of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald). But I can do so in a more connected manner as I continue my own remarks, and, as the several points arise, deal with what was stated by the hon. member. This question of national defence is one of very great importance; it is one which has engaged the attention of our public men, not only in the overseas dominions but in the motherland, for some years past to a greater or lesser extent. So far as Canada is concerned, in the earlier history of our country, when we were engaged in opening up and developing its resources, when our prairies were lying vacant, when our revenues were of a very limited character, when we were engaged , in laying deep the foundations of our future greatness, there was some excuse, some reason, why Canada should not engage in duties of an imperial nature that would have resulted in too great a strain upon the exchequer of the country-greater than Canada could well afford at that time. But, now, when the initial stage of development is passed, when Canada is exporting millions of bushels of grain to other countries, when our hitherto vacant lands are filling up, when we are boasting of our so-called surpluses, and buoyant revenue, when our industries are on a substantial basis, when we take such pride in referring to the fact that Canada is a nation within the empire-and especially when England is groaning under huge financial obligations consequent upon lher endeavours to maintain a superior fleet, not only for the protection of her own shores, but for the protection of the empire as a whole, -our self-respect should compel us not to withhold our aid longer, but to give in no niggardly or selfish spirit, to assume a fair proportion of the cost of protection, that protection to be used according to the best opinion of the naval experts of the empire to bring about the desired result. Surely our citizens are sufficiently patriotic, sufficiently loyal to the empire's interests, to cause us to rally to the support of the motherland in time of peril, and to assume our share and the responsibility of that share of maintaining the undoubted supremacy of the British fleet that should protect our status as a nation, and without which we should be at the mercy of every hostile foe. In reading the expressions of opinion on this subject, I have come across Mr. ROCHE.
the suggestion that, so long as Canada remains a colony of Great Britain, so long she is entitled to and should receive the protection of the British navy. But, to say nothing of the pusillanimous spirit of a people who would expect, nay, demand, protection at the hands of the motherland, while, at the same time, refusing a proportionate share of the cost of that protection, where should we look for protection were the British fleet annihilated? Whose colony would Canada become then? With Germany as the conquering foe, having no colonies of her own in which to locate her surplus population, could we reasonably expect so rich a prize as Canada to escape her clutches, or to be closed against the German desire for expansion or colonization? Are we, as British subjects to complacently view the possibility of being compelled to transfer our allegiance to a foreign nation, and the severing of those tie3 of kinship and of love that have made us part and parcel of what we have proudly spoken of in years gone by as the greatest empire the world has ever seen? I refuse to believe that there is any great element of our population that would thus repudiate responsibility on our part. Now, where national status exists, national obligations follow as a matter of course. And, were Canada to be involved in serious international complications requiring any assistance, I am sure that the whole power of the British fleet would be at her back to espouse her cause, to defend her, to fight her battles if need be; and it would be a craven spirit that would thus accept and expect this assistance and protection^ without assuming the responsibility of doing our share towards keeping that means of defence in the highest state of efficiency. The proposition embodied in this Bill for the construction of an independent Canadian navy is one that is not designed to meet, and certainly will not meet, the immediate necessities of the empire. And, as the best guarantee of peace is to be fully prepared for war, and our course should be to show the nations of the world that all her colonies are at the back of the motherland. Viewed even from an economic standpoint, the price of peace, no matter how great it is, would be much less than the, price of war, with its immense sacrifices of life and waste of money, Canada's duty, then, is to render immediate, effective assistance to make overwhelming the superiority of the British fleet so that no nation, Germany or any other, would dare to challenge that superiority on the high seas.
Hon. gentlemen opposite have quoted statements of leading Liberal politicians in the mother country, made during the excitement of an election campaign, to create the impression that no emergency exists or is likely to arise within the next few years. But it must be remembered

that these same gentlemen who have been quoted in this House gave voice to similar expressions in the British parliament when they were reducing the estimates for naval expenditure, but who a few months thereafter had to confess that they were in error, that later and more reliable information had come to them, that they had) no idea of what extensive preparations were going on in Germany, and practically admitted that those preparations were designed to challenge British supremacy on the seas. Let any one read the statements as to the unpreparedness for war of the British fleet, let any one read the statements of Lord Charles Beresford, who declares that it will require millions of dollars to. be spent on the British navy in order to bring her into a state to enable her to cope with Germany; read the statements of leading statesmen of Great Britain on both sides of politics made not during the heat and excitement, all sounding a note of alarm, consider that the thoughtful press of that country has admitted that there is grave danger, Tead the reports of level-headed business men of England, not politicians, who have visited Germany and who have seen for themselves the extensive preparations that are being carried on, who have sounded German public opinion, and who, on their return, have expressed their conviction that the crisis was imminent. Is it for us who are so far removed from the scene of operations lightly to brush aside those expressions of opinion as idle words? Are we to ignore them? Is it not much better, if we are to err, that we should err on the side of safety, that we should put our House in order to meet the expected attack? For it cannot be denied that in the undoubted supremacy of the British fleet lies, not only the salvation of England, but the salvation of Canada and the salvation of the whole British empire. Should the war cloud pass over without any international complications of a serious danger arising, let us not feel that in giving this contribution proposed by the leader of the opposition we shall have wasted so much money, for that contribution would represent a permanent means of defence and of protection upon which we could rely for all time to come. But I am confident that probably such a contribution might be the means of calling a halt in the enemy's plans.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


SECOND READING.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 142) to incorporate the Congregational Union of Canada.-Mr. A. Haggart.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95) respecting the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk.	i
William James Roche: Mr. Speaker, I was about, at six o'clock, to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) that Germany, up to eight years ago, had been purchasing her ships in Great Britain, and that she had not previously engaged in steel ship-building. If the hon. gentleman's statements in other portions of his speech are no more reliable than that, the hon. members of this House will know just exactly how much stock to take in them. If the hon. gentleman had refreshed his mind by looking at Brassey's Naval Annual for 1905 he would have found a list of over 100 vessels, armoured and unarmoured, on the effective list of the Germany navy. In every case the place wherg the vessel was built is mentioned. Every one of these vessels was built in the German yards, some of them as early as 1876. The first German ironclad which originated in Germany was built in 1869, while the last naval vessels built for Germany in England, instead of being launched in 1902, as the hon. member for Pictou stated, were launched in 1874. As a matter of fact, German built liners won the blue ribbon of the Atlantic about eight years ago. I quote that to show how very inaccurate the hon. member for Pictou was in his statement in that regard. The German method is, and always has been to effectively, quietly and very secretly prepare for war, while at the same time professing peace. That has been her history in the past, as evidence her treatment of France and Austria. That is, according to the present indications at least, just 'what she is doing to-day. See the immense scale that these preparations are being conducted on. What is the particular object in view? Can anybody seriously contend that it is purely for defensive purposes? Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) quoted some authority to that effect the other day, I do not really believe that he would seriously express his own opinion to the same effect. I cannot think that the Minister of Militia, after having visited Great Britain during last summer, after coming in touch with members of the ad-miraltv. with members of both political parties, and after having become acquainted with public opinion in that country, is taking his present position in regard to this Bill from conscientious conviction, for I believe that were he to follow his own feelings in the matter, instead of for party pur-


MJVISED EDITION.
[Stage Direction]
poses being compelled to support the Bill before the House, he would take an entirely different tack. I stated that no person would seriously contend that these preparations are being carried on, on such a very large scale pimply and purely for defensive purposes. What nation on the earth has shown any desire, any determination, toi cope with Germany, to attack her for a great many years past, knowing how really impossible it would be to do so successfully? Germany has to-day the largest and best trained army in the world. Germany can place as many as 4,000,000 men in the field if it is desired under system of compulsory military training; Germany's population is almost fifty j>er cent greater than that of England, and with all these preparations I do not think that anybody would seriously contend that it is purely for defensive purposes. Why *would the German taxpayer, submissive as he has been in the past to the heavy national taxation which is imposed on him for the purpose of maintaining a very large standing army for defensive purposes, tamely submit to this largely increased taxation under the pretense that it was merely designed to protect her own shores? Every sensible man knows why these preparations are being carried on on such an immense scale. The German people recognize it, the people of England recognize it, the people of other countries of the world see it, and it is idle for us to shut our eyes to the true situation. When Britain began the Dreadnoughts a few years ago, then it was that Germany began the construction of her navy on such a large scale, realizing that future war vessels would be largely of the Dreadnought type. And, when England, through a mistaken policy, cut down by many millions of dollars their naval estimates, then it was that Germany took advantage of the apathy, and I may say the culpable negligence of certain men in public life in England, and hastened the construction of her increased naval armament.
Let any person read the expressions of public men in Germany, professors in her universities and others occupying high positions of responsibility and trust, and one cannot escape the conviction that these -war preparations are for the single purpose of challenging the supremacy of the British navy. Germany has largely increased her capacity for rapid construction during the past eighteen months. By -working day and night she can construct one Dreadnought or super-Dreadnought per month, or twleve in a year, and in this respect Germany is not surpassed even by Britain herself. Germany has built during the past eighteen months or has in process of completion 17 naval docks, and she has enlarged her harbours, deepened her canals and constructed her ships with the evident object of utilizing them in the home waters of the North Mr. ROCHE.
sea. And still there are those who will say there is no danger, and who make their wilful blindness their excuse for refusing to contribute to strengthen the British navy. The policy of the British admiralty in the past has been to distribute the British fleets at strategic points throughout the world for the guardianship of British interests, but that policy has been to a considerable extent reversed in recent years and now the fleet is largely concentrated in home waters to protect the shores of Britain. Does that look as if England desired to engage in a war of aggression or conquest? Is it not the very best evidence that England recognizes that the war she will be called upon to fight in the future will be purely defensive. Is it not significant, especially in view of the war preparations carried on by Germany, that there is this concentration of British fleets to protect the shores of .Great Britain? Germany is to-day England's commercial and political rival, and of recent years she has been outstripping England in trade. Germany by her policy of protection has built up great industries, and by her progressive legislation she has done more to advance the efficiency of her labouring classes than has any country in the universe. The products of Germany are admitted to the British markets free of duty, while the products of Britain are met at the German frontier with high tariff duties. Is it surprising under these circumstances that the German people were so anxious to see the defeat of the Unionist party in the recent British elections, with their policy of tariff reform which would strike back at Germany in commercial matters and of their policy of increased naval expenditure which would strike back at Germany in her naval policy as well? England has nothing to gain by aggressive war even if successful, save a possible war indemnity. England has her colonies for her surplus population, and she has her various naval bases at strategical positions throughout the world. England's supremacy is to-day no more a menace to the peaceful development of the German empire than at any time within the past half century. Germany is immune from attack.by any other country on account of her immense standing army. England's naval supremacy is absolutely necessary for the salvation of England, so as to prevent a blockade of her ports which wrould result in shutting off the importation of food products upon which the population of Great Britain is dependent. England is Canada's best market, and with that market jeopardized as it undoubtedly would be in the event of war with Germany should the British fleet be crippled, how long do you suppose our prosperity in Canada would continue without any British protection for our trade routes? Some people in Canada say: We are busy with our

domestic affairs, we are engaged in build ing another National Transcontinental railway, we are improving our waterways, we are developing our resources, and they think that thus they are discharging their full obligation in the way of national defence. Let me ask, what spirit it is that dominates us in the developing of our own resources? Surely we are doing this solely and wholly for our own advancement and for the prosperity and progress of our own people. If England has incidentally benefited by reason of Canada's development, are we, because of that, to calmly fold our arms and congratulate ourselves on having discharged our full obligation in the way of naval defence? When Canada built the Canadian Pacific railway which joined our various provinces into one mighty nation, true we incidentally provided a new highway between Great Britain, Australasia, China and Japan, but who will claim that any imperial sentiment inspired us in the construction of that railroad? Who will seriously contend that such an idea entered into our calculations at all? If Canada spends her millions of dollars for the purpose of developing her resources, for the purpose of making this an attractive field for immigration and. increasing the prosperity of our people, does not that very fact entail on us an additional obligation, for surely a country that is worth developing, is worth defending? The question is: What are the best means of defence? Now, in connection with this question, probably one of the greatest obstacles to overcome is the apathy of the people consequent on a feeling of false security. We have been so prone for years past to look upon the British fleet as being invincible that wo possibly have not taken into consideration the great changes that have taken place in recent years in the increased armaments of other countries. Another reason for the apathy of the people is to be found in the sentiment of a large proportion of them against what is called militarism. But, Sir, so long as a hostile country starts out with the avowed object of overcoming the British fleet, which at the present time is our sole and only guarantee of peace and prosperity, much as we may deplore large expenditure for purposes of defence, no monetary considerations should be permitted to prevent us from a continuance of that means of defence which will insure to us that peace and prosperity which is so essential to our national existence. In union there is strength, and this is just as true in connection with naval matters as it is in connection with other matters, and, with a large, powerful, central empire's fleet not merely for the purposes of local defence, not merely for the purpose of defending Canada, Australia and New Zealand, but to be stationed at the most vulnerable points 115J
in time of war, that in my opinion is the best means for the security and permanent defence of the empire as a whole. I have referred to the state of public feeling in Germany with regard to England, and I desire to draw attention to a few extracts which have not as yet been quoted to the House-and it is very difficult to get extracts that have not been cited up to the present-in order to show the state of public feeling in Germany against England,, notwithstanding all that has been said to the contrary by the Prime Minister and others on that side of the House. Professor Hans Dilbruck, lecturer on history in the University of Berlin, writing _to that well-known periodical, the ' North American Review,' said:
A nation as well as an individual must seemingly either love or hate. If the multitude had no enemy to be the object of its hatred it would take no part in foreign politics at all. So the German nation, which once celebrated with delight, the memory of the ' belle alliance of Blucher and Wellington at Waterloo/ has now riveted its hate against England.
I am sorry the right hon. the First Minister is not here, because he referred to this. Notwithstanding these people were allies in the past, notwithstanding that they fought together at Waterloo, here we have a German professor stating that the German people to-day are actuated with hatred against the English race. What object would this gentleman have in misrepresenting the state of public feeling in his own country? But he is not the only authority. Another German professor writing to Sydney Whitman, the well known English authority on German affairs-I refer to Professor Theodore Mommsen, of the university of Berlin-regarding the German attitude, said:
The hate against your countrymen has reached fearful, and I must add, unjust dimensions.
Would these gentlemen write in such a strain unless they had good ground? Later still, Professor Treitsche, the great German historian-and I wish to call the attention of some of the Liberal members who spoke last year on the resolution, to this particular authority:
If our empire has the courage to follow an independent colonial policy with determination a collision of our interests and those of England are unavoidable.
An hon. gentleman who spoke in this House last session said he knew perfectly well that the enlargement of the German fleet was destined for colonization purposes. But where are they going to get those colonies, and how are they going to get them ? By peaceful means? Not according to this German authority, who says they cannot
[Stage Direction]
avoid a collision if they persist in carrying out that policy. This historian goes on to say, and I am sorry the right hon. the Prime Minister is not here to listen to this, in view of the stand he took at the conferences of 1902 and 1907, because the course he followed at these conferences, I believe, laid the foundation for just such a sentiment as exists among the German masses:
In the British colonies very little attention is paid to antagonism between Great Britain and Germany. Never has the fact been more clearly demonstrated that Great Britain is only standing by herself and that her colonies have grown into separate nations with their own separate interests.
I think that if the right hon. gentleman had fallen in line with the representatives of the other colonies at the conference of 1907 and supported the resolution introduced by Dr. Smart, there would not be such a feeling prevailing in Germany as we witness there to-day. The Germans would not have gained the impression that England was standing alone and that her colonies were not at her back. I have also referred to facts stated freely in England, and I desire to quote from a speech by Lord Rosebery-not a political speech, not a speech destined to help the Unionist party, but a speech delivered at the Imperial Press Conference, in which he referred to the British navy, and practically made an appeal to the colonies to rally around the motherland:
We can and we will build Dreadnoughts or *whatever nearest type of ship may he as long as we have a shilling to spend on them or a man to put on them. All that we can and will do, but I am not sure that even that will be enough and I think it may ibe your duty to take back to our young Dominions across the seas this message and this impression-that some personal duty and responsibility for national defence rests upon every man and citizen of the empire. Tell your people, if they can believe it, the deplorable state at which Europe is rattling into barbarism, and the pressure which is put upon this little England to defend itself, its liberties and yours. Take this message also back with you, that the old country is right at heart, that there is no fault or weakness in her. For her own salvation she must look to herself, and that failing her, she must look to you. -
I sav that this was an invitation from Lord Rosebery, who was certainly not making a speech for any political effect. Himself a Liberal, he1 urged on Canada, as well as on the other colonies, the duty of rallying to the support of the motherland and not allowing all this taxation for national defence to be borne by the motherland alone.
I wish to quote another expression of opinion, the opinion of a Liberal, Mr. McKenna, Lord of the Admiralty and member of the Asquith government:
William James Roche: We cannot force our strategetical ideas on you; we should fail if we attempted to d* so. If any dominion came to the admiralty at home here and asked ns what our view was as to the best assistance for the purpose of common defence which could be rendered, we should be ready with an answer, but we should not necessarily expect you to accept our answer. You will have your own views as to the proper development of defensive forces in your own dominion. It is only by your working out your own problems for yourselves that you can gain experience. Lessons told you by others will never come home to you with the same force as lessons which you have learned for yourselves.
What occurred after that? The colonies did go to the motherland; they did go to the British admiralty. They did ask for advice. Australia took the advice and so did New Zealand. Canada got the advice but refused to follow it. The Chief Lord of the Admiralty said that the admiralty was quite willing to advise the colonies as to the best means of national defence, but did not wish to impose their views pn Canada.
Again, Mr. Balfour, speaking at this *conference, and not making a political speech, also referred to the fact, that though local defence is necessary it is really subordinate to imperial defence and subordinate from the view point of the colonies themselves.
The German ocean, the channel, the neighbourhood of these islands, possibly the Mediterranean, those are the theatres in which, if there is to be an attempt to dissipate those fleet contingents, so that when the time of an Armegeddon, the Armegeddon will take place, and it is impossible for a crisis to arise which shall not be able to have that concentration on which our whole imperial existence and the defence of each separate portion of the empire really depends. The fate of Australia, the fate of New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, India, is not going to be decided in the Indian ocean; it is going to be decided here.
What does that mean? It means that the fate of Canada is not to he decided off the coast of the Atlantic or the Pacific, but in the North sea or the home waters, by the enemy striking at the central fleet. How easy it would be to despatch the individual fleets, such as the Canadian fleet, if the central fleet were overwhelmed.
Referring to Mr. Balfour, my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) said that he never took stock in this German scare. My hon. friend has not been reading the newspapers or he would not have made that statement. What has the German press been doing if not holding up Mr. Balfour to execration as a scare monger simply because he had been making reference to the condition of the British fleet and to what the Germans had been doing with the avowed object of attacking England. So that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. FEBRUARY 15, 1910
Macdonald) was entirely erroneous when he said that Mr. Balfour had never admitted there was a German scare.
I can quite well understand why the creation of an independent Canadian navy would be welcomed by those who look forward to the independence of Canada as our future national destiny, for I recognize that in order to maintain a separate national existence a considerable navy would be absolutely necessary. But I deny that there is any large sentiment in Canada in favour of Canadian independence notwithstanding the fact that some of the 'right hon. gentleman's supporters, from at least one province in this Dominion, are sedulously cultivating that idea among their followers and are using that as an argument to induce the people to support the government's proposition. Canada is to-day enjoying as great an amount of autonomy as is consistent with its remaining an integral part of the British empire, and I feel that the consensus of opinion and desire in this country, far from being that as the right hon. gentleman said a few years ago, we would in the process of time drift away from the motherland as the ripe fruit falls from the parent tree, is that the overseas dominions and Great Britain will be drawn more closely together in fact as well as in name, under one sovereign, one flag, one navy, each comnonent part having a reasonable voice at least in matters pertaining to the' defence of the empire. The history of the Canadian confederation is a notable example of the benefit to be derived from union. The history of the Australian Commonwealth is another and the latest example within the British empire is the confederation of South Africa. In my judgment the time is not far distant when all the overseas dominions and the mother land will be drawn together and confederated for many purposes and to a great extent, each one having an equal say in all important matters in the councils of the empire. Sir, if the actions of the Prime Minister m regard to the future destiny of our country is being viewed with considerable amount of distrust by the peo-pie of Canada, he has only himself to blame and well he knows it. The people of this country have not forgotten his past utterances in regard to Canadian independence. They have not forgotten that celebrated Boston speech of his, paragraphs of which have been quoted. I shall quote another paragraph lest we forget. The right hon. gentleman after he became leader" of the Liberal party visited Boston and before a great audience gave voice to the following utterance:
In my opinion the conduct of England, of Canada, towards the United States during the war was a disgrace to the civilization of
England, of Canada. The American people could fight their own battles; they required no help, but when they were engaged in a supreme struggle for the life or death of this great nation; when they were fighting for a cause as great, as holy, as ever engaged the devotion of men; when they had reason to expect the outspoken sympathy of those nearest to them, it was galling that southern privateers could be built, manned and equipped in England, with the passive connivance of the British government, to destroy American commerce on the high seas; it was galling that rebel refuges could find shelter in Canada, and there, with impunity and without provoking condemnation, plot abominable crimes to help secession.
This was greeted with applause. Here we have the Prime Minister of Canada, at that time the leader of a great political party, visiting a foreign country and before that large audience, true to his instincts and desire to say something to tickle the ear of the particular audience that happened to be present, holding up to the execration of that foreign audience, old England, the motherland, and Canada, the land of his birth, for which he claims to have such an affection to-day. He says this, forgetful of the fact that in that very same life and death struggle of the civil war, there were admittedly not less than
40,000	Canadian citizens engaged and enrolled in the American army fighting the battle of the American union. Did the Prime Minister dwell on that aspect? Did he say what Canada did for them at the time of that civil war. No he did not say so. Was this the action of a patriot, was this the action of a statesman, a man who desired to see amity, peace, and good will prevail between the peoples of the respective countries, or was it not the act of a man who seemed more impressed with a desire to sow the seeds' of strife and discord, to create prejudices if prejudices did not exist? Small wonder under the circumstances that the American papers report that this part of his speech met with great applause, although I very much doubt if the better element of that self-same audience respected the hon. gentleman for thus speaking of his own country. I know that hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House do not like to hear these; quotations made. Hon. gentlemen opposite throw reflections on members of this side for casting aspersions on the loyalty of the Prime Minister. Have they a word to say in condemnation of these words? They have never been repudiated nor retracted. Why do they blame us for quoting the words of their own leader, why not visit their condemnation on their own leader. The Prime Minister Said the other day:	I am not an imperialist.
These words were entirely superfluous coming from the right hon. gentleman.

Who would expect for a moment that the hon. gentleman who uttered these words:
I am a subject of the British Crown, but whenever I have to choose between the_ interests of England and Canada, it is manifest to me that the interests of my country are identical with the interests of-
What?
-the United Stares of America.
Who would ever accuse any gentleman uttering those expressions of being an imperialist? So, I say that- his expression the other day on the second reading of the Bill was entirely superfluous. Again:
The present position of Canada cannot last for ever. Even at this day England and Canada have interests totally apart, and the time will come when in the very nature of things separation must take place.
If the right hon. gentleman had stated that he was a separatist, it would have more nearly conformed to his past utterances on this subject. But, to say: I am not an imperialist, was superfluous. Again:
It is a great mistake, a fundamental mistake, to make allegiance, British allegiance-
With the emphasis on the British.
-the basis of trade.
Yet we have the right hon. gentleman's supporters rising in parliament and telling us: we gave a preference to the motherland and to-day we are enjoying a sentimental preference in her market, hut notwithstanding that we should not make allegiance the basis of trade, especially British allegiance. Again said the premier:
I have again and again repeated that the goal of my aspiration is the independence of Canada, to see Canada an independent nation, in the course of time.
No man in this or any other country would have to state that these words were not likely to emanate from an imperialist.
I notice that the member for Pictou (Mr. E. M, Macdonald), referring to and reflecting on the member for Jacques Cartier today for his utterances in regard to British diplomacy, had not one word of condemnation to offer to his own leader for giving voice to similar or even stronger expressions. I am not here to defend the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). I will frankly say that in this regard I do not agree with him. Will the hon. member' for Pictou and other gentlemen opposite he equally frank and say that they condemn the Prime Minister's statements? What the hon. gentleman stated is reported in ' Hansard ' of April 7, 1892. Speaking about [DOT] the making of treaties, and referring to the present hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), he said:


William James Roche: The hon. gentleman has told us in a casual way, however, that if we adopted the power which is now claimed, we would be relieved of the services of British diplomacy.
This is his answer:
Is there a Canadian anywhere who would not hail with joy the day when we would be deprived of the services of British diplomacy? What has been British diplomacy to us, Sir. British diplomacy, so far as Canada is concerned, has been a record of failure, and of surrender and sacrifice.
And the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. E.
M.	Macdonald), apparently, is approving of his leader's course while condemning hon. gentlemen on this side for statements very much milder in effect.
Now, it may be stated that the speech delivered in Boston was delivered at a time prior to an election in this country. That is true. But it was repeated in effect after that election was over, after the defeat of the Liberal party at the polls, when the present Prime Minister had plenty of time to weigh his words and the effect of them upon himself, his party and his country. Yet he rose in this House and repeated the declarations and absolutely gloried in them. And I state that, up to the present time, these expressions have never been repudiated or retracted. The hon. member for Pictou began his speech the other evening with a reflection upon a past leader of the Conservative party as being an annexationist. He had not the manliness to state whom he had in mind. Had he stated the name, then we should have known that the gentleman referred to was one who, as a young man and, long prior to his entering upon public life, had signed an an-nextion manifesto at a time when the relations between Canada and Downing Street were most strained and when there was great irritation in this country. Had the hon. member for Pictou desired to be fair, he would have gone on to tell us that, in another chamber of this parliament, that gentleman, after becoming a leader in public life, had risen in his place and frankly confessed his error, and stated that he and others had acted ' like a lot of angry school children,' but that he thought his life since then had surely more than counteracted that youthful indiscretion. Sir, the people of Canada can honour a man like that, who can acknowledge a fault. But the Prime Minister has never retracted his words. And we have a right to say that he could not retract them, because they express his sentiments to-day. He had it put up to him by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) the other night:	' Are these your sentiments still,
Sir?' And, by his silence, the Prime Minister gave assent. Why are we accused and attacked by hon. gentlemen on the other side when we recall to the attention

of the House and the country, expressions which the Prime Minister openly made and which he has never retracted? The quarrel of these hon. gentlemen is with their leader, and not with the members of the Conservative party.
Why did not the Prime Minister himself attend the conference in Great Britain last year to which his colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) and the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) went? Was it because he had already placed himself on record at the conference of 1907 as being entirely opposed to Canada contributing in any way, shape or form, towards the defence of the empire? Was it by reason of the fact that he had opposed the resolution introduced by the representative in that conference of Cape Colony, Dr. Smartt? That resolution has been referred to by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), but I shall again recall it to the attention of the House in order to show that there was nothing in this resolution which the Prime Minister should have objected to, and more especially in view of what he is doing by this Bill for the construction of an independent Canadian navy. This was the resolution moved by Dr. Smartt:
That this conference, recognizing the vast importance of the services, rendered by the navy to the defence of the empire and the protection of its trade, and the paramount importance of continuing to maintain the navy in the highest possible state of efficiency, considers it to be the duty of the dominions beyond the seas to make such contribution towards the up-keep of the navy as may be determined by their local legislatures-
No infringement of autonomy.
-the contribution to take the form of a grant of money, the establishment of local naval defence, or such other services, in such manner as may be decided upon after consultation with the admiralty and as would best accord with their varying circumstances.
What was there in that resolution that the Prime Minister of Canada, the representative of Canada at that conference, should object to? Does it infringe on selfgovernment in this country? Does it infringe upon that blessed ' autonomy ' of which he is the only guardian according to his own expressions? It plainly states by ' local naval defence or such other services.' But the Prime Minister opposed that resolution. And it is by reason of that, I verily believe, that Germany has been going forward, in the belief that the colonies were not at the back of the motherland, carrying on her naval preparations, thinking that Great Britain stood alone. Dr. Smart, after discussing the question for some time, expressed great disappointment that the representative of Canada, the premier colony of the empire, should have taken such
a strong stand in opposition to the resolution. He argued for it, and pleaded that it was nearly time we did something. He said:
I thought the wording of this resolution would have specially met your views, because towards the up-keep of the navy it may take the form either of a grant of money or the establishment of a local defence force or other services.
The reply was no argument. Sir Wilfrid Laurier said:
I have said all I have to say on the subject.
This was the curt reply. ' Well,' said Dr. Smartt, ' I think it is a great pity we do not pass something. We have done so much in the way of pious affirmation'-and we can see whom he had in his mind's eye when he used these words-' that I am anxious we should do something of a practical character.'
Was it because he was on record in that conference that the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) refused to attend^ in person the conference of last year? In view of the stand he then took, and of the stand he has taken here, is it surprising that people view with suspicion and distrust the introduction of this Bill, fearing That it is designed, as some of his followers state, as another step towards the independence of Canada? The people may well be forgiven for their distrust in view of the Prime Minister's own statements.	_	_
We have been taunted with having diverse views on this question on this side. Hon. gentlemen on the other side have stated that they are going to hang together -instead of hanging individually, I presume. There is as much diversity of opinion on that side as there is on this;_ more correctly, there is as much opposition to the construction of a Canadian navy amongst members on the government side as there is on our side. But, of course, they will support the Bill. Oh, you may be sure they will support the government. They dare not do otherwise.


Mr. TOLMIE.: Why not?


William James Roche: Why, because you have before you such examples as Mr. Bourassa, who, a few years ago, was the pride of the French Canadian Liberal wing in the province of Quebec, a man to whom they were looking forward as a great leader, but who, because he asserted his independence and read some well deserved lectures to his own party, has been politically ostracised. And there was Mr. Lavergne, the independent young member from Montmagny, who, before he took his place in this House, found on his desk a document he was asked to sign, to support the government, to be tied hand and foot before he even knew what measures he would be called upon to sup-

port; and, because he *would not sign away his independence, he was driven from the ranks of hon. members opposite.


Mr.  E. ROY .@: Will the hon. member (Mr. Roche.) allow me a question? Does not he know that Mr. Lavergne chose not to run in the last Dominion election, but sought a seat in the local house?


William James Roche: I did not say it was in the last election. Mr. Lavergne himself is the authority for what I have just said. He used these expressions in this House and before his colleagues, and none of them denied the truth of what he said.


Mr.  E. ROY .@: It was before he left the federal political arena.


William James Roche: Certainly, and how is he being treated by his friends? Are they giving him the glad hand? Is it not rather a back-handed way of treating an old political friend? But he is not the only one. There is Mr. Richardson, of Winnipeg, who was elected a member of this House in 1896, and who refused to support this government because they had gone back on their pledges to the people; he also^ has been driven into outer darkness, and is no more recognized amongst them. Then there was the late Mr. Tarte, a gentleman who, for speaking his own opinions, and holding his own convictions, for preaching what other gentlemen in the cabinet had been practising, was read out of the party; and others who had dared to assert their independence have been treated in the same way, as the serpent was hung up in the wilderness, as a warning to others who dare assert their independence in opposing this Bill. They know the punishment that will be meted out to them. Therefore, I say that the spoils of office have stronger cementing qualities than anything else. I do not think it lies in the mouth of those hon. gentlemen to reproach the members of this side of the House for having the manliness to give a free and untrammelled expression to their opinions, because our leader does not put into operation any gag law on this side of the House, there is room for a diversity of opinion on a great public question like this. But is there that) harmony of views amongst our friends opposite that they wish us to believe exists? I think not. We have all read the published interview of Senator Domville, a Liberal, who has condemned in unmeasured terms the government proposition for the construction of a Canadian navy. Of course it may be said that he i3 beyond the reach of the hand of the Prime Minister. It does happen occasionally that when men get beyond this Chamber they assert their independence. Then we have read the published interview of the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) who, if he has Mr. ROCHE.
been correctly reported, and I presume he has been, has made declarations which show that he cannot be claimed as an enthusiastic supporter of the government's navy proposals. Why, Sir, read the speeches delivered in this House last session on the resolution of the hon. member for North Toronto; especially read the speeches of the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Congdon) of the hon. member for Queens, P.E.I. (Mr. Warburton), of the member for Dorchester (Mr. Roy), of the member for Nicolet (Mr. Turcotte), and you will look in vain for that harmony of views which hon. gentlemen say prevails in their ranks. Some of the statements of these gentlemen have been referred to by my hon. friend from North Toronto. The member for the Yukon certainly made no pro-British speech in this House; we on this side thought he made an anti-British speech, he opposed a contribution towards the Canadian navy. These gentlemen little thought at that time that they would be called upon to support a Bill of this nature. The hon. member for the Yukon, speaking here last year, opposed any contribution. He said, even if the fleet of England were destroyed, Canada would not be in the slightest danger of any foreign aggression. Well, I refer him to the speech of the Prime Minister, his own leader, who stated, on the second reading of the Bill that our whole national existence depends on the supremacy of the British navy. Let these gentlemen get together and harmonize their views that are now so divergent. And still they reproach members on this side of the House with holding divergent views. And yet the hon. gentleman stated in the same breath that Germany's fleet was the outcome simply of her desire to found colonies for her surplus population. Where is she going to get those colonies? According to the authority I have quoted, she must found them on British territory, and this desire must inevitably lead to a clash between Germany and England. The hon. member for Queens, P.EJ., I believe, has occupied an honourable position in his own province, and I am sorry he has not taken a broader minded view of this question. He was not in sympathy with the resolution, and he instanced what we were dc ing in the way of national defence. He took the ground that when we were developing our own resources we were doing all that we should be called upon to do for imperial defence. He says:
We are providing homes for the people of England, and relieving the congestion in that country.
Fancy, Doukhobors, Galicians and Poles come into Canada, and are treated in all respects on the same terms as the Englishman, and we are relieving the congestion

of those countries quite as much as we are of England, and therefore we are contributing in the same way to the defence of Russia, of Poland and of Austria, and all other countries from which we get a foreign population. We are allowing these foreigners to come into this country on exactly the same terms as the Englishman, all of them get 160 acres of land free, after performing settlement duties in exactly the same manner. The Englishman gets no preference over the foreigner in that respect. It is indeed a strange argument to contend that in thus allowing Englishmen to come into our country and relieve the congestion in Great Britain, we are discharging our national duty in the way of defence. Now, the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Roy) also stated that he was opposed to the construction of a Canadian navy; still he will vote for this Bill just the same. He spoke against the immediate construction of the Canadian navy, especially, he said, ' if it is intended to take part in England's wars.' I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman will go down into the province of Quebec and tell the people that this navy is not intended to take part in England's wars, and in support of his position he will quote the expression of the Prime Minister, when he says that this navy will not go to war without the sanction and consent of the parliament of Canada, including the hon. member for .Tacques Cartier. He will thus be able to argue that the navy will not take part in the wars of Great Britain, while the government supporters from Ontario will also quote from another speech of the Prime Minister on the second reading of the Bill when he said that when England is at war Canada is at war.


Mr.  E. ROY .@: Does the hon. gentleman say that I was opposed last year to the construction of a Canadian navy?


William James Roche: I said the member for Dorchester; I presume the hon. gentleman is the member for Dorchester. I read the hon. gentleman's speech carefully, and I think if he reviews his own speech he will find that he spoke against the immediate construction of a navy for Canada, and especially, he said, ' if it was intended to take part in England's wars.'


Mr.  E. ROY .@: I do not think the hon. gentleman has carefully read my speech.


William James Roche: The hon. member for Nico-let (Mr. Turcotte) also reflected upon those who are in favour of contributing to the British navy, or who were in favour of taking any part at all in the defence of the empire. That hon. gentleman, speaking against the resolution of the hon. member for North Toronto, says:
Instead of sacrificing millions in the construction. of battleships and arming our coasts-
For what purpose?	.
-to flatter the imperialistic propensities of those whose erroneous patriotic ideas have misled them, provision should be made to ensure the construction of the Georgian Bay canal.
Here is another gentleman who talks of the development of the resources of Canada as a discharge in full of our national obligations to the empire. This hon. gentleman, like the others, will line up and vote for this Bill for the construction of a Canadian navy, to take part, according to some hon. members, in England's wars, but according to other members, and according to the premier, not to take part in any of England's wars without the sanction of parliament. And these are the gentlemen who rise in parliament and cast aspersions upon hon. members on this side of the House for want of harmony in their views, and in face of their contrary pronouncements of last year, they now come forward and actually glory in their subserviency. These gentlemen take the position that because we are engaged in our own domestic affairs, and building public works, we should be exonerated from contributing to imperial defence. They put me in mind of a little clipping that I saw in a Liberal newspaper. I would like to call the attention to it of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who referred to members on our side of the House the other night as Little Canadians. This is what the paper stated:
While Britain is building Dreadnoughts, Canada is providing the sinews of war, food for the men whose physique, pluck and stamina energize these floating battlements. While others do the fighting, let Canada do the feeding.
This is the little Canadianism that I refer to the hon. member for Red Deer. He is quite willing, as one of these little Canadians, to stay at home and let Britain's sons from ail the other colonies and from the motherland fight all the other nations of the world in defence of the empire, while Canadians stay at home, grow wheat and sell it at war prices. That is his idea of the status of a Canadian.
I would like to ask if this present policy is designed to materially enhance the fighting strength of the British navy? If it is not, then it is absolutely useless as a fighting force in the interest of the defence of the empire. So long as Britain's fleet remains supreme, so long as she maintains a two-power standard, so long as she is overwhelmingly superior to her foes, as she has been in the past, so long Canada will be immune from attack, because the respect that is paid to the Union J ack

when it floats over the battleships of the British fleet will be a protection for Canada and she will need no other defence. I do not know whether it has been settled or not, but up to the present we have not learned what flag is going to float over our Canadian navy, whether it is to be the Union Jack or the Canadian flag. This has been kept in the background and probably for a very good purpose. While the British navy remains supreme that is a sufficient protection for Canada, and it has been so up to the present time, but should that navy be defeated, where, I ask, would we look for support and protection? Our present duty is to strengthen the British navy in our own self-defence and not to do so, in my humble judgment, would be unwise and unpardonable. The right hon. Prime Minister has practically confessed that he cannot give an accurate estimate as to when this navy will be provided. He did hazard a guess on the second reading of the Bill when he said that within a year he thought that docks should be constructed and within five years the navy. But, if the right hon. gentleman's estimate in regard to this is no more nearly accurate than was his estimate as to when the National Transcontinental railway would be constructed, and especially as to its cost, I think we can quite readily come to the conclusion that were his estimate doubled it would be well within the mark. We have no docks, no ships, no men to man them, no officers, no training schools, no equipment, and it takes years to secure these, and in the meantime should an emergency arise where is Canada going to be? The hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) stated at the imperial conference that the supreme consideration was the constitutional freedom of the state to which all questions of strategy, no matter how important, must be subordinated. I ask, where would our boasted freedom of state be were the British fleet swept off the seas?-a not impossible contingency. Where would we get our freedom then? The Minister of Militia and Defence might get down upon the Atlantic shore and his colleague, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on the Pacific with the most powerful megaphones and sing out to the enemy, many miles off, that word, 'autonomy,' 'autonomy,' until they were black in the face, and it would not be as much protection as our dinky little navy that we are going to construct under this Bill. If the Canadian navy is intended to be of any assistance to the British navy why does it not include a first-class battleship, a Dreadnought, such as Australia is providing, notwithstanding w'hat the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Mr. EOCHE.
Macdonald) says about the Indomitable class, which is practically a Dreadnought. Why have we not contributed a Dreadnought to the fleet the same as New Zealand has? The nations of the earth are actually rebuilding their fleets in order to include vessels of the .Dreadnought class in them. A modem fleet which is without a Dreadnought is practically useless as a fighting force. Any modem battleship of the Dreadnought class, on our Atlantic or Pacific shore, would send our navy to the bottom of the sea without coming within the range of the guns of our fleet. The ' question, in my opinion, is: Does Canada desire to be an integral portion of the British empire, and, if so, is she willing to undertake the responsibility for her share of the national defence? If we refuse I think we are neglecting our own duty and that we ought to be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves. I have referred to the character of the vessels required, and I will quote what has been already quoted from the words of a gentleman who was formerly First Lord of the Admiralty. Lord Selborne, speaking with regard to the character of the battleships required, said:
The sea is one and the British navy must be all one. If the idea should unfortunately prevail that the problem is one of local defence, and that each part of the empire can be content to have its allotment of ships for the purpose of the separate protection of an individual spot, the only possible result would be that an enemy who has discarded this heresy and combined his fleets will attack in detail and destroy these separate British squadrons, which united could have defied defeat.
This was not the expression of a politician, but of the First Lord of the Admiralty in reference to the concentration of the fleet in time of war instead of having it separated as proposed by this Bill. Again I quote Mr. McKenna, the present First' Lord of the Admiralty. Speaking in the British House of Commons on March 16, he is reported as follows:
There will come a day when, by an almost automatic process, all ships of an earlier type than the Dreadnought will be relegated to the scrap heap. The maintenance of our superiority then will depend upon our superiority in Dreadnought class alone

	[DOT]
Not any second-class cruisers that are made to elude the pursuit of the enemy.
The German power of constructing this particular type of vessel is at this time almost, if not fully, equal to our own, owing to their rapid development within the past eighteen months.
Again, Sir Edward Grey, the Foreign Secretary in Mr. Asquith's government, speaking on this same question, said:

When the German programme is completed Germany will have a fleet of 33 Dreadnoughts. That fleet will be the most powerful the world has ever seen. This imposes upon us the necessity of rebuilding the whole of the fleet. That is the situation. If we were to fall into a position of inferiority we should cease to count for anything amongst the nations of Europe and we should be fortunate if our liberty were left, and we did not become the conscript appendage of some stronger power. That is a brutal way of stating the case; but it is the truth.
These are the words not of a jingo, but of Sir Edward Grey the present Foreign Secretary, which practically in effect were repeated by Mr. Asquith who described the situation as:
Most grave, and to us not only unforeseen, but unexpected.
I think that is proof that a fleet without a Dreadnought is practically useless and that it is not an addition to the war strength of the navy in time of war. The hon. Postmaster General delivered an eloquent speech the other day which we all very much admired as far as its eloquence was concerned, but which contained a goodly number of misrepresentations. That hon. gentleman, swelling himself, said: This is the third occasion upon which Canada is rushing to the support of the motherland. The first was in the tariff of 1897, brought down to this House, in which we gave a British preference, the second was when we sent our troops to South Africa, and the third was when we brought down this navy Bill. Let us deal with these seriatim. In the.first place I challenge the hon. gentleman to show one expression in the tariff of 1897 that gave a preference to Great Britain. That tariff contained a reciprocal clause, but while the hon. gentleman was not a member of the government, although a member of the House, the present Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) and his colleagues took particular pains to explain to the members of the House that any nation in the world might have the advantage of that reciprocal clause. It was pointed out by every hon. gentleman on this side of the House that it would be impossible to grant a British preference under that provision of. the Tariff Act. But hon. gentlemen opposite knew it all and it was not until British diplomacy, which in years gone by was ridiculed so much by the Prime Minister, had helped them out of the hole into which their blundering legislation had got them, that they were enabled later on to give a British preference. So that, the hon. Postmaster General was not accurate when he said that in 1897 they gave a British preference. But was it the preference which had been promised the people by the right hon. Prime Minister? I have here the London speech of the Prime Minister in which he told the electors that he was just as much in favour of a preference as was Sir Charles Tupper. He stated that one of the first things he would do when returned to power would be to send a commission to England to negotiate a mutual preferential treaty, but within forty-eight hours after he landed in England he broke faith with the people of Canada and he advised the English people not to grant us a preference, and not to have anything to do with the obnoxious policy of protection which was the curse of Canada, but which by the way he has retained as a principle of his fiscal policy down to the present hour. I say he betrayed the people of Canada; I say that any one who acted as he did in the ordinary business relations of life, would be found guilty of false pretenses, in that the right hon. gentleman secured the support of the people of Canada on his pledge of preferential trade, which on being returned to power he absolutely repudiated. The Postmaster General must think that the people of Canada are blest with a very short memory when he claims credit to this government for sending Canadian troops to South Africa. We do not forget the Prime Minister's Chicago interview in which he stated that .the Militia Act would not permit Canada to send volunteers beyond the confines of our own country, that the constitution would not permit it, that there was no appropriation, and that parliament would have to be called. We do not forget the interviews and editorials in the Toronto 'Globe' to the same effect. We do not forget that a colleague of the Prime Minister stated in the province of Quebec that not a man and not a gun would be sent by the Canadian government to assist the motherland in South Africa. We do not forget that Sir Charles Tupper, the leader of the Conservative party, wired Sir Wilfrid Laurier, pledging him the support of the -Conservative party if he sent the troops to South Africa, nor do we forget thit in reply to the telegrams of the Montreal Star ' sent to the mayors of every city, town and village the universal response came back: Send our boys to the front. We know that it was only when forced by overwhelming public opinion that the Prime Minister yielded and that Canada was able to participate with England in that campaign. We know that then the Prime Minister went down to the province of Quebec and that he practically apologized for permitting Canadians to enlist and fight in the British army. We had Mr. Bourassa, when a Liberal in the House, telling the whole story of that war some years ago, and the character of the campaign that was carried on in Quebec. Mr. Bourassa told us that there was a large section of Quebec opposed to the sending of

Canadians to South Africa, and he said that the campaigners in Quebec in order to make it as easy as possible for the government used this argument: First, they contended that the Boer war was indefensible; second, that Canada should not have participated in it; and third-and this is the excuse they gave-Sir Wilfrid Laurier was forced into it by the fanaticism of a united English-speaking population. And, in the face of this, the Postmaster General, has told us that out of the fullness of her heart Canada voluntarily sent her troops to fight the battles of the motherland in South Africa. It reminds me of that somewhat egotistical expression of the Prime Minister when he told us that he went to bed one night leaving Canada a mere blot on the map and he woke up in the morning and lo and behold, Canada was a nation, and: 'I did it'. What a personification of modesty.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have not prepared any typewritten peroration, such as we listened^ to this afternoon. I simply desire to say in plain words that I am going to oppose this Bill, first, because it provides for an independent Canadian navy which will have no association whatever with the empire fleet. It is not a unit of the British fleet such as Australia has, and I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister say, far from frankly, and wrongly stating the facts in regard to the Australian fleet, that Australia instead of giving a contribution to England of one million dollars for the upkeep of the British navy, as she formerly did, had now reversed her policy, and had come to Canada's way of thinking, and would do as Canada was doing. Australia is doing nothing of the kind. True it is, that Australia had been contributing for years to the upkeep of the British navy, as had the other colonies, and in 1907 she had increased her grant, but at the recent imperial conference Australia took the advice of the admiralty and is now constructing under that advice, an Australian unit of the British navy, which Canada is not doing. And why is England contributing to Australia's navy? It is because she is going to get something in return that wall be of service in time of war. And if Canada had taken the advice of the admiralty and had done as Australia is doing, England would also have contributed to the Canadian navy a million dollars just as she is contributing to the Australian navy, which will be of some service to Britain in time of war. Then, the Prime Minister has told us that this is not a new policy of his, but that it has been before the country for the last eight years. He bases that assertion on what Dr. Smartt, of Cape Colony, called a pious affirmation by the Prime Minister, in 1902, that Canada was willing to take into its consideration the idea of some kind of Mr. EOCHE.
naval defence in the future. And mind you, that pious affirmation was made when, in 1902, the other colonies were giving fifty thousand pounds, and a hundred thousand pounds, and two hundred thousand pounds to the upkeep of the British navy, and when Canada was lagging behind just as she has been lagging behind ever since this government came to. power in everything that appertains to contributing to the defence of the empire. But, even if the Prime Minister did make that declaration eight years_ ago, up to the present hour he has not lifted his little finger to implement it by practical legislation. It is ridiculous to claim that this is a new policy; it is not treating with sufficient respect the intelligence of the members of this House and the people of the country for the right hon. gentleman to make such a claim. And, Mr. Speaker, I object to this proposal^ not only because it is not a unit of the British navy, but because its cost will be enormous, and in time of war it will be utterly useless. The initial expenditure will not be eleven millions dollars as stated by the hon. member for Pictou, because according to the statement made by the Prime Minister, if it is built in Canada thirty per cent will have .to be added, and that will bring the initial cost to fifteen or sixteen million dollars. Its upkeep will be twice what it was represented to be, and in the end the navy will be of no benefit to the empire. The people of Canada have never had an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion upon this policy, and , I am democratic enough to believe that such an opportunity should be afforded. We know that the Prime Minister, in days gone by, claimed to be a democrat to the hilt, but he has singularly changed his character in that respect. He once sneered at empty baubles and glittering titles, which appealed to men of less noble mind, but he soon changed his mind, and the excuse he gave was that Her late Majesty, Queen Vietbria, had actually thrust a knighthood upon him that he could not refuse-another exemplification of his modesty. I am sufficient of a democrat to desire that before engaging in this permanent policy, which certainly can be of no help to the motherland for five years, and perhaps for ten years, if at all, the people of the country should have the opportunity of passing judgment upon it. I shall, therefore, support the amendment of the leader of the opposition for a direct contribution to purchase two Dreadnoughts, or the equivalent, according to the best expert opinion of the British admiralty. Again, the hon. member for Pictou reflected on that. We are going to send them any place the admiralty desires in time of war. Yes, we have sufficient confidence in the British admiralty-far more than we have in this government-to believe that they

will utilize their war fleet where it will reach the most vulnerable point and best protect and safeguard our interests. For this reason, I shall oppose the Bill and support the resolution in amendment of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, with the firm belief that in doing so, I am voicing the consensus of opinion in my own constituency at least.


Mr. SEALEY.: In view of the resolution unanimously passed by this House on the 29th March last, and in view of the newspaper discussion throughout Canada since then, as well as the discussions by public men in the meantime, it would seem to me that the time has arrived when Canada should make a beginning in the establishment of a Canadian navy. We have heard a good deal about our duty to the empire and loyalty to the King, but, personally, I have every confidence in the thorough loyalty of every Canadian to the empire and the King, to the last dollar and the last man. The only difference of opinion seems to be as to how we can best put that loyalty into actual and useful practice. For that purpose, we have three propositions before us. We have the Bill of the government proposing the construction of the Canadian navy, out of Canadian material, by Canadian workmen, in Canada and owned entirely by Canada, Then we have the amendment of the leader of the opposition, proposing a contribution of either two Dreadnoughts or $25,000,000, and a plebiscite to decide whether we should do anything further or not, and we have the further amendment proposing that we should do nothing. As between the three I favour the first-a Canadian navy, built in Canada out of Canadian material by Canadian workmen.
As the trend of the discussion generally has largely had to do with the attitude of Germany, so without repetition I might occupy the time of the House a few minutes in saying something about Canada and on behalf of Canada's interests in what we propose doing. The construction of a navy in Canada would do many things for this country. It would not only be in the best interests of Canada but of the empire as well, whereas a contribution of money would merely mean tHe expenditure of it by Britain and the incurring of that much additional debt by this country, because I do not suppose we have $25,000,000 surplus not in use to contribute. We would not be giving any immediate benefit to the British navy, because to-day the British navy yards have orders for future delivery more'than they can fulfil, and are taxed, to their utmost. Consequently to increase the British navy faster than it is being increased, we must have additional shipyards, and personally I would prefer to have those additional shipyards in Canada. A few days ago we
learnt by the daily newspapers as well as quotations in this House that, to the credit of Australia, her first born had been launched in England and christened the ' Paramatta ' by Mrs. Asquith. Personally, I would prefer seeing Canada's first born launched in Canada and christened the 'St. Lawrence' by Lady Laurier. I believe that by the construction of a navy in Canada we would not only be doing our duty by the empire, but by Canada as well, and we would add to Canada's prosperity along commercial lines as well as naval and military lines. This Bill provides for the construction of a Canadian navy, composed of four ships of the Bristol type, one Boa-dicea and six destroyers, the construction to be completed within the next four years at an expenditure of $12,000,000, or an average of $3,000,000 per year. The first $3,000,000 would of necessity require to be expended in the construction of dry docks and shipyards, and I believe that, apart from the question of the navy, it would be worth $3,000,000 to have those dry docks and shipyards constructed in Canada. A few months ago, when the Empress of Ireland became disabled and a notice came by wireless telegraphy, her owners arranged to send her around to New York to be repaired, because we had no accommodation in Canada for vessels of that size. In my opinion our trade and commercq, and our merchant marine are too important to remain longer in that condition, so that I believe that, irrespective of the navy, we should do something to secure in Canada facilities for the construction and repairs of our merchant marine, so that this first year's experience would be of the greatest possible benefit to Canadian commerce. If at the end of the first year, we have these dry docks and shipyards constructed, we shall have good results for Canadian trade and commerce apart altogether from the standpoint of a Canadian navy.
The second year we would require to go largely into the equipment of our navy yards with drills, punches, trip hammers and all that sort of thing. Our iron and steel companies would require to instal in their plants rolls, not for turning out steel rails, but for turning out ship plates, and every machine shop and factory in general would require to prepare for turning out the various requirements of a navy yard, because as I understand it, the intention is not merely that the parts be built in Britain and assembled in Canada, but that they be constructed in Canada as well as put together there. What a stimulus that would be to the various industries, machine shops and other concerns providing the necessaries for the equipment of our navy yards. That alone would be worth another $3,000,000 to Canada. And I believe that at the end of the second year, even though we had not a battleship constructed, we

would still have good value for our money in the benefit derived by our commercial marine from that expenditure.
The third year, the expenditure of the next $3,000,000 would go into construction; and if in that construction, we inaugurated a new era of ship building in Canada on steel lines, that would ultimately lead _ to our recapturing the position we occupied in the old days of the wooden ships. That, I think, would be well worth the $3,000,000. So far as the raw material is concerned, according to the reports of the Conservation Commission of Canada, as well as other information, we have abundance of iron and steel in Canada, and all we require is the plant to put that abundance to profitable use. For that reason it only requires some act to stimulate and develop it to reinstate our ship building industry until it occupies the same place as the building of wooden ships in Canada in the old days. If we had that, we would have splendid value for our $3,000,000 expenditure, when, on the expiration of the fourth year, if our expectations are realized, we will not only have a navy composed of four Bristols, one Boadicea and six destroyers, but we will have expended $12,000,000 in establishing and in encouraging an industry that we so greatly need in Canada, and in addition to that we will have had an expenditure made in Canada for wages, materials, &c., in the actual construction as well as the allied industries which, on an average, would give a profit to the Canadian people of 25 per cent. So I believe in the organization and encouragement of that industry we would have splendid value for our money in addition to having the foundation for a fairly satisfactory navy.
I have compared these vessels with the vessels of the British navy, and while they have been characterized as a tin-pot navy and tin-pot vessels, I notice that the British navy is made up very largely of the same kind of vessels. If our four Bristols -are tin-pots, Britain has 60 or 70 tin-pots of that same type in her navy. If our Boadicea is a tin-pot she has 71 of the same class. If our destroyers are tin-pots, she has 152 of that class, and it would seem that, outside of the advantage of the additional numbers, her eight Dreadnoughts would be about the only superiority of the British navy as compared with the Canadian navy. For that reason I think the -Canadian navy will be a credit to Canada and of great value to the empire generally. I do hope that the argument which has been advanced that we could not construct a navy in Canada, that we have not the men and have not the ability, is advanced merely for argument's sake, and is not seriously held by any people in Canada. In entering the library of parliament we pass -a tablet:
Mr. SEALE if.
To the honour of the men who constructed the Royal William, the first vessel to cross the Atlantic in her own steam in 1833.
That inscription is evidence that in the early days we were the pioneers in the construction of steam vessels crossing the ocean, and if we bred the people who were in advance and leaders at that time, I think we can do it again. Mr. Samuel Cunard, afterwards head of -the famous Cunard line, was associated with the construction of the ' Royal William,' although he afterwards went to the United States to seek a larger sphere for the exercise of his abilities. We have further evidence as to the ability of Canada compared not only with the remainder of the empire, but with the world, even in the matter of the South African contingent. The South African contingent, according to newspaper report and according to the reports and records of the officers and men who were there, seemed to have displayed the greatest ability and to have struck more terror into the enemy than any other body of the same number of men or even of two or three times the number; in fact, it is said that the appearance of the Canadian contingent close to the enemy's front was what finally prompted them to capitulate. That being the case, we certainly have the men here who are able in military matters to rank with the men of the British empire and the rest of the world, and I believe that with a little practice our people would rank equally high in naval matters. I am satisfied that the Canadian contingents in South Africa were worth to the British empire ten times what they cost in money, and I believe that the admiralty will value a Canadian navy at a cost of $12,000,000 ten times more than they would a contribution of $25,000,000 and nothing else. I believe that with the establishment of a Canadian navy and with the class of men we have in Canada' and with the training that the Canadian government will give them, the whole of the empire will be infinitely better pleased than they would be with a mere contribution.
The importance of the Canadian fleet from the standpoint of the protection of our ocean borne commerce and the policing of our shores must not be overlooked. In Canada we are finding it necessary to increase our police protection not only in the centres of population, but in the rural districts as well. In my own county we have recently decided to establish a thorough system owing to certain cases of lawlessness that occurred. The products of Canada, not only of an agriculural but of all other classes, are protected during their production and transportation to the sea-board by the police, and in case of necessity by the militia of Canada. Once these products reach the sea-board, they are placed on
3C53

ocean-going ships and are subject to any chance or mishap that may occur. As we have protected our products within Canada, the general consensus of opinion would seem to be that we should do something of the same kind from a naval standpoint.
I said that the 'Royal William' was built in Canada and that we had reason to feel that we could, with perhaps some instruction and assistance at the outset, achieve similar success in modern naval construction. One evidence of that is that Sir Edward Douglas, a Canadian, is in charge of the construction of the Japanese navy which is expected to be most up-to-date.
Another evidence of our ability would be the Canadian construction of the Ross rifle which has proven superior to all rifles throughout the empire, and is likely to be adopted by the imperial government, and I believe with a fair chance our success in _ naval construction would be equally satisfactory. From a commercial standpoint-and that side of the question has not been much touched upon-the expenditure of $12,000,000 would seem quite an amount. Yet, considering that it would mean the employment of an average of 3,000 people during this naval construction, it would increase our population by 3,000 heads of families, or, perhaps, 15,000 people. For, if people now in Canada are employed in naval construction, the places they now occupy will require to be filled by others. Consequently, this naval construction would stimulate immigration and increase population in Canada. And the people would have to be provided for in Canada. A population of
15,000	would consume products from Canadian agriculturists and manufacturers- largely agriculturists-to the amount of from $2,000,000 to $3,000,000 a year. We should in that way provide a home market for this additional amount of Canadian products during the construction. That would probably be equal to the results we shall receive from the French trade stimulated as a result of the negotiations during the past two years for better trade relations with that country. For, up to the present time, our trade with France has only amounted to about $1,250,000 a year. We have worried a great deal about our trade with Germany and about the German surtax. But our trade with Germany has amounted to only about $2,000,000 or $2,-
250,000	a year. So, Germany and France together have given us a trade of less than $4,000,000. The providing of a home market for between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000 of our product, would, I believe, be more profitable to the people of Canada than both the French and German trade combined. While I appreciate the advantage of these treaties, I am satisfied that the home market for one-half the amount of this foreign trade would be about as profitable, if not more so. And from an agricultural standpoint, I think it would be fair to assume that the agriculturists will have to contribute by way of revenue to a considerable amount of our naval requirements, because it is announced that the expenditure of $12,000,000-at the rate of $3,000,000 a year-is to >
be paid out of current income. That being the case, I think it would perhaps be fair for us to consider for a moment how we could make that as easy as possible upon the agricultural interests of the country and upon the people generally. And I venture the suggestion that, by a stroke of the pen, if my trade and commerce calculations are right, that could be done at once. We exported from Canada 800,000 cords of pulpwood for the year ending the 31st March, 1909, according to the trade and commerce returns. We received, according to these same returns, less than $4,500,000 for this pulp-wood, or an average of about $5.50 per cord. After the purchasers outside of Canada had received that pulpwood they expended on it not $4,500,000, but a further sum of $34 per cord, or $26,200,000, to convert the pulpwood into the finished product. I have given some attention to how that expenditure was made. I find that half of it, or over $13,000,000, was expended for direct' labour, which is equivalent to the employment of 15,000 people all the year round at an average of $3 a day. That 15,000, as heads of families, would represent 75,000 of a population. Over $13,000,00.0 was expended also in machinery, other materials, buildings, &c., and of this amount also fully one-half or about $7,000,000 went into direct labour. This would provide similar wages for 7,000 people, representing a further population of 35,000. If our conditions remained as they are to-day and provision were made for turning that pulpwood into the finished product here in Canada, it would mean an increase in our population of 110,000, or at the very least, 100,000. That population would require a supply of $10,000,000 a year, so that we should provide a home market for that amount of additional product, largely along agricultural lines. And an expenditure of $26,000,000, such as was made on this pulpwood, could not possibly be made without leaving a profit to the artisans, merchants and others, including farmers, of 20 per cent or upwards of $5,000,000. In that way we could provide for an expenditure of $3,000,000 on our naval construction, and also provide for the upkeep, which, I understand, will amount to from $3,000,000 to $4,000,000. And the upkeep, of the navy will also create a considerable increase of demand for our home products. If I understand aright, there are to be about 1,500 naval officers and men to man the navy. In that way, it seems

to me our expenditure could be met, and Canada could be furnished with a navy, or, at least, a very good beginning of a navy, consisting of up to date vessels, without putting a heavy burden upon any person. In fact, so slight will be the buTden if we adopt these other methods I have referred to, that, I believe, it could be borne with very little inconvenience. And, while things were pretty good, in fact splendid, along agricultural lines at the present time, I believe that, as * preparation for war is the best guarantee of peace,' so, in matters of trade, I believe that in good times it is good policy to prepare for bad times. And I believe that the better we are prepared for bad times, the less bad times we shall have. Though there might be some objection at present, to raising the tariff on agricultural products, I do not think the tariff has very much bearing to the consumers on prices at the present time for it does help the producers. But, I think it would be a good thing for us to provide for dull times-not that they are likely to occur in Canada, but they	will
occur in other countries which	will
then try to dump their products into Canada in unfair competition with our own, and if we provide at the present time, when, perhaps, there is not so much need for it, for the difficult times that overtake the world generally, which we in Canada, I believe, will feel much less than the average country, but which, with proper precautions, I believe we can provide against feeling at all.
Returning to the construction of the navy, I believe in that construction being made in Canada-not merely assembling the work here, but rolling our plates here, and making the nickel steel that goes into these armoured cruisers and converting it into armour plate here. I believe that the concern undertaking the construction of the navy for $12,000,000 will spend $25,000,000 in providing materials and plant. I do not mean to say that they will expend $25,000,000 and sell the product at $12,000,000. But foreseeing the establishment of a merchant marine ports in Canada, they will build their plant and equipment accordingly, and will spend by way of starting that industry in Canada at least $25,000,000 before the $12,000,000 worth of war vessels is built. That will stimulate the construction of a merchant marine, and establish a shipbuilding industry in Canada upon quite an extensive scale. From some newspaper reports I have seen, and from remarks I have heard on the floor of the House, it is expected that a British company will get the order for building the navy, but it is yet uncertain whether they will do a large part of the work here, or merely assemble here, after building the docks. But I think by the time the government advertises for bids for the construction and delivery of this Mr. SEALE Y.
navy, they will have a bid from a concern entirely Canadian, who will be able to do the work at least as low as -any other company. Of course the government will accept the lowest Render, and if a British firm chances to be the lowest, the government will oblige this firm to submit to the same conditions of construction and equipment in Canada as they would a Canadian firm.
Now, as to whether a Canadian navy will be an assistance to the British navy and of assistance to the empire, we have to remember what was said by the Prime Minister on the introduction of the Bill, that when England is at war, Canada is at war. I think that declaration should be sufficient evidence and guarantee that there will be no hesitation in placing the fleet at the command of the British admiralty in case of war. In keeping the navy under the -control of the Canadian parliament, we are simply following the precedent of Australia and of other countries. You might as well say that our militia should be at the beck and call of Lord Roberts, as to say that our navy should be at the beck and call of the British admiralty. That is not practicable in time of peace, but in time of war it will be so. As to whether a contribution of $25,000,000 will be of more assistance to the empire than a $12,000,000 navy, 1 think we can consider what took place in the Russo-Japanese war. We are told that the Russian money chests were filled with gold, but their gold availed them very little when they met the war vessels of Japan on the open sea. Neither $25,000,000 of Canadian money, or Canadian notes, or promises to pay at some future day, would be of any advantage to the British admiralty, but a Canadian fleet, I am satisfied, would be of infinitely more advantage. I am satisfied that a Canadian navy, acting in conjunction with other fleets of the empire, will be of infinitely more value to the empire than any cash contribution we can make.
Now, I think, Sir, that every member of this House has a right to his own opinion, and I am going to express mine. We have heard a great deal said in this House about the German menace and the German war scare for months back. Personally, I have no faith in the German scare. I think it has been largely got up by the dukes and lords, and perhaps by the British admiralty. The dukes and lords have been inclined to champion unsound doctrines, thev own the greater part of the land of Britain, and have been endeavouring year after year to shunt their responsibilities off on people who have much less: and now, when the dukes, and lords, and landowners are likely to be called upon to pay their fair share, they have created the German scare, in order to induce the colonies to contribute and relieve them of a part of their burden. However that may

be, I think the proposition contained in the Bill before the House is Infinitely better than any other proposition that has been made. I think also that it will give an impetus to our merchant marine, and will make it a great credit to Canada. To-day, notwithstanding that our trade and commerce are growing so rapidly, only ten per cent of it is carried in Canadian bottoms. I think a country that is situated as ours is, with extensive coasts on two oceans, and an export trade that must be done almost entirely by water, we should do something to increase our shipbuilding industry, so that instead of ten per cent of our commerce being carried in Canadian bottoms, fifty per cent of it will be carried in Canadian bottoms before the expiration of the next ten years. I think also that a Canadian navy, in case a difficulty really were to arise-and I do not think there is any more probability of difficulty arising between Canada and any other nation than there is between Germanv and England- but I say if difficulty really were to arise a Canadian navy would be a great assistance to the British navy and an effective support of our militia on land. With the construction of the new Weland canal to a depth of 27 feet from Hamilton to Selkirk on Lake Erie, 40 miles distant from the international boundary, and with the construction of the Georgian Bay canal our navy could pass up into the interior of Canada entirely on Canadian waters, and a Canadian navy could co-operate in case of emergency with our Canadian militia to much better advantage than two Dreadnoughts in England could possibly do. In comparing our position, and the position of our navy with that of Australia, I can only say that, from the remarks I have heard and from the newspaper comments I have read, I would much prefer the position of Canada, owning her own navy, built by herself, to the position of the Australian navy, to which the British government contributes.
While perhaps it has not been said in so many words, it has been said in substance that it is necessary, in order to show our loyalty to Britain, to contribute $25,000,000 in money. I think Britain has every confidence in the loyalty of Canada. Canada is loyal to the last man and the last dollar. It is entirely unnecessary to demonstrate our loyalty by a contribution of $25,000,000; in fact, there is no question about our loyalty except as it is raised occasionally for party advantage. Our trained men would be of equal advantage in case of a naval difficulty to Great Britain as our contingents were in South Africa. To question our loyalty and to read quotations in support of such argument is, to my mind, a mere juggling with words and has no real substance or meaning. The insinua-116
tions in respect to Canada's tin pot navy are as unfair to Great Britain as they are to Canada because our navy, except in minor particulars, will be on exactly the same plan and basis as the British navy. Therefore, if we speak about Canada'si tin pot navy, we have to say that Britain has a tin pot navy also with the exception of her eight Dreadnoughts.- There is no reason why we should not excel as Canadians in the construction of naval vessels and vessels of the merchant marine. We have excelled along military lines wherever we have come in competition with military men of other portions of the empire. At Bisley we have not only carried off our fair average share of honors, but for a number of years past we have carried off very much more than our share; in fact, it is said that we have carried off nearly fifty per cent of the honors that are granted at these great meets of the empire's military men. In South Africa our contingents won distinction by their conduct on the field of battle. In the construction of the Ross Title we have certainly carried off honors in being able toi construct military weapons on a small scale, and I believe that if we only have courage we will be able to engage in naval construction with equal success. The cost cannot be so very great if at present our military expenditure only represents eighty cents per head. The naval cost is estimated at forty-five cents per head only for the completion of the vessels whieh, with interest on construction and maintenance, will make a total of $1.25 per head. It would not seem to represent a very large increase in the expenditure and over rapid increase in population will in all probability by that time, not increase the per capita cost above the present 80 cents. But I believe that when we are expending eighty cents to see our products safely to the ocean ports we can afford to make a further expenditure for insurance on the high seas, even on commercial lines, of forty-five cents in order that our products may reach their destination without interruption. If we are going to be the granary of the empire in years to come it is necessary that we should have some naval defence for our coast. While not a military expert I have frequently paid visits to navy yards and know something of their equipment and methods, I may say that in actual warfare it is not expected that merchant marine can be protected by naval vessels during the whole course of the Atlantic voyage. If we had two Dreadnoughts placed at our disposal in the English channel they could not possibly be trusted to come out to Canada to escort our commerce over because they would require very considerable protection themselves. Therefore, two



Dreadnoughts from the Canadian standpoint for coastal protection would be white elephants on our hands. A navy such as that proposed consisting of four Bristols, one Boadicea and six destroyers is certainly the most practical and useful from the Canadian standpoint, and for these and many other reasons I propose to support the Bill now before the House for the establishment of a Canadian navy.


Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to weary the House by giving long extracts from the opinions of naval experts in order to crowd the pages of 'Hansard' with matter that is already on record. But, after listening carefully to the speeches which have been delivered on both sides of the House I propose to give some reasons, why, in my opinion, we should oppose this Bill and vote for the resolution introduced by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden). In reference to the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Sealey) I can only say that he has made one of the strongest appeals apparently that could be made to the government benches, namely, the appeal of the loaves and fishes. He has told them how the money will be expended in Canada, and how they will reap direct personal benefit from the expenditure of that money. That may appeal to a certain number of people, but I do not believe that the great Canadian people as a whole can be appealed to by an argument of that kind. As it seems apparent that no speech on the naval question can be made without reference to that great historcal character, Peter the Hermit, I shall commence by referring to what was said by the right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier). Referring to that character, he spoke of his wonderful ambition and eloquence and he reminded us that by means of that eloquence he had been enabled to gather together a large army of men in order that they might rescue from desecration by the Mohammedans the tomb of our Saviour. It proved, however, to be a failure. The reason of the failure was the lack of discipline, training and unity. But the right hon. gentleman failed to apply that to himself when he told us, with wonderful eloquence, of all the glories of the British empire. But, in the next breath he stated that in his opinion we could better aid the empire by having a navy of our own; in other words, that if we in this country undertook to have a navy separate from that of the empire it would end just as the great army of Peter the Hermit ended in disastrous failure. Again, I find that the leader of the government quoted with great favour from the poet:


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: Daughter am I in my mother's house But mistress in my own.
The gates are rqine to open As the gates are mine to close.
But, Sir, I ask what would be thought of the daughter nursed at the mother's breast, nurtured in a mother's arms, shielded and protected by a mother's love and strength, until her house was thoroughly established and her children had grown into manhood and womanhood. Then, when the mother felt she was justified in asking the daughter's aid in protecting her own and her daughter's home, she should shut the gates in her mother's face. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what would be thought of such a daughter? Yet, Mr.'Speaker, the right hon. First Minister said he could conceive of such a case. I confess, I cannot. He said, page 3044, ' Hansard ':	.
If Britain is at war, we are at war and liable to attack. I do not say that we shall always he attacked, neither do I say that we would take part in all the wars of England. That is a matter that must be guided by circumstances, upon which the Canadian parliament will look to pronounce and will have to decide in its own best judgment.
But, Mr. Speaker, he went further. He proceeded to give an illustration in which he, by inference, said he would not hesitate to ' shut the gate ' in the mother's face. He Referred to the history of the Crimean war, and these are his words:
I would hesitate very much before I would give my consent that we should take part in any such war.
But he piously added:
The conditions are not the same now as they were then; we have British Columbia to look after.
I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, how the right hon. the leader of the government proposes to look after the province of British Columbia? The British admiralty asked that there should be a Canadian unit placed on the Pacific to co-operate and work in unison with the China unit and the India unit, so that the empire might be safe-guarded on the Pacific. But what was the answer of the delegates sent from this government, and of the leader of the government himself? They said: We are unable to do that; we are not satisfied to be incorporated in that manner. Not only is that his policy as set forth by the leader of the government, but we find that the official organ of the government, the Toronto ' Globe,' took the same stand, and wrote:
And this question as against Britain has its Canadian counterpart. It ought to be said distinctly and with emphasis, that Britain's obligation to share in quarrels of Canada's making is also nullified by self-government and self-respect. If Canadian politicians

blunder into international conflicts, if Cana-' dian capitalists become involved in aggressive foreign graft, if Canadian militarists succeed in picking a quarrel with their neighbours, no obligation of duty or of honour will rest with the British war office. Canada's quarrel must be just and the issues at stake must be imperial, otherwise it is no affair of the army or navy of Britain.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to look a little further into that matter and to ask what would be the result of the argument advanced by the Prime Minister. If Britain entered into a war which Canada did not consider just, or if forsooth with a navy constructed as it is proposed to be constructed by the government, Canada should undertake a war, and if it is true that Canada would not be affected in the one case or Great Britain in the other. Let us assume for the sake of argument that Bri-ain did enter on a war which in the opinion of the Prime Minister was not a just war, which in the opinion of this government was not a just war, and let us say further that Great Britain was finding difficulty in that war, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what would be the position of Canada? Would she stand aloof waiting until the empire had been destroyed, or would she as duty called, arise and go to the rescue of Great Britain? If Canada failed in her duty; if she carried out what I understood to be the policy announced by the leader of the government, and the official organ of the government, she would stand aloof. Let us take as an illustration the South African war. . You know how it was only after great pressure that this government was brought to send troops to South Africa to aid the mother country. I do not mean to say for one moment that Great Britain would not have been victorious without the Canadian troops, and further I want to say that great as was the physical aid rendered by the brave soldiers of Canada and the other parts of the empire, and nobly as they did their duty, yet I venture to say that the physical advantage gained from the troops sent by the various colonies was infinitesimal compared with the great moral effect their presence had, not only on the enemy himself, but on the world at large. Why, the speech of the right hon. the first minister reminds me of an extract from an oration by the Minister of Labour (Air. Alackenzie King). He was describing one of his many peregrinations on behalf of the country, his trip from Vancouver to Japan, and, I do not quote him verbatim, but -only his expression of thought-he said:
As I lay in the luxurious deck chair of a palatial Oriental steamer, watching the smoke curls of my fragrant Havana, I saw in the heavens a great luminous body, and, as I gazed in wonder, the thought came to me like winged light ' that this was * the same 1164
old moon ' that was watching over the peaceful slumbers of the good citizens of Berlin after a hard day's work in field or factory, in order that they might contribute of their earnings to keep me travelling in foreign countries.
And, Air. Speaker, as I listened to the speeches of the first minister and of hon. gentlemen opposite I thought it was the same old moonshine-a great cloud of words to hide the issue. There were no details as to how they proposed to carry out the provisions of the Bill, or how the Bill is going to benefit the empire. Why, when the first minister was asked by a gentleman on this side of the House for some detail, he said:	I do not know anything
about it, I am only speaking in a general way. And, when a moment later he was asked to give one or two facts in regard to very pertinent matters, the answer of the right hon. gentleman was: Oh, let me alone, I want to finish my speech-I was almost going to say ' worn.'
Now, just a word as to the speech of our good friend the Postmaster General. As I listened to his eloquent description of French Canadian history I was reminded of my early school days, but it was evident to me that the Postmaster General had not profited by the admonition of his leader when he said:	I think we are getting
pretty far away from the question we have on hand just now. I agree with the first minister that the arguments advanced by the Postmaster General were pretty far from the question that we have in hand just now. Why, Sir, he undertook to place on 'Hansard ' a list of what he called colonies, but all of which turned out to be independent countries, and if he were advancing any argument at all in regard to them, he was advancing the argument- because he used it in that direction-as to the advantage of an independent navy, and we find that the result of their independent navies was, that they became individual petty states in all these countries, and today, I would ask the Postmaster General to look over the financial record and see the large cost to every one of these states for the maintenance of these navies. And, let me ask: Is there a single state named in the list brought down by the Postmaster General that would for a moment stand today before any of the first-rate powers of the world? I say no, I say such navies would be of little assistance in such a conflict. Further, I find we have the opinion of Professor J. Shield Nicholson, who has written recently in his new book, 'the Project of the Empire':
' The need for effective colonial aid for the maintenance of naval power is,' he says. ' urgent and pressing; it cannot be met by promises which will require a long period for their fulfilment; nor merely by the adoption of means designed to advance the general

prosperity of the constituent parts of the empire.' Whatever is to be the future status of the colonies, the cost of naval defence must be borne. ' If,' says Prof. Nicholson, ' each colony aims in the first place at securing only its own local defence, or the trade routes in which it is most concerned, if it insists that its own contributions shall be spent entirely under its own control, there will be a loss of economy and a loss of efficiency.'
Now, Sir, I want to point out that that is the position taken by the admiralty and by the Minister of Defence for Australia. Here is what the Minister of Defence for Australia said, and it appears to be exactly the position taken by Professor Nicholson. I quote from the report of the conference of 1902, page 13:
I cannot think that for Canada and Australia to each have a few war ships, and the Cape and New Zealand a few also, each independent of the other, is a plan suited to empire; such a plan would seem to be in accord with the actions and sentiments of a number of petty states rather than in accord with the necessities and aspirations of a great free united people.
Again he said:
If the British nation is at war, so are we; if it gains victories or suffers disasters, so do we; and therefore it is of the same vital interest to us as to the rest of the empire that our supremacy on the ocean shall be maintained. There is only one sea to be supreme over, and we want one fleet to be mistress over that sea.
Again we find that Lord Selborne, at that time the First Lord of the Admiralty, took exactly the same view. Here is what he said:
The first point on which I would lay the greatest possible stress is the reason why we have eliminated from this memorandum any allusion to the word defence. There was a time in this country, not so very long ago *either, when naval strategists regarded the naval problem mainly from the point of view of defence. That, I submit, is altogether heretical. The real problem which the empire has to face in the case of a naval -war is simply and absolutely to find out where the ships of the enemy are, to concentrate the greatest possible force where those ships are, and to destroy those ships. That is the only possible method of protecting this empire from the efforts which other navies may make to damage her commerce or her territories.	It follows from this that there
can be no localization of naval forces in the straight sense of the word. There can he no location of ships to protect the mouth of the Thames, to protect Liverpool, to protect Sydney, to protect Halifax. If we make any such attempt of the kind we should only he inviting disaster.
I would call the attention of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) to that quotation. Lord Selborne was very clear and distinct in stating that that was the Mr. GOODEVE.
most important point he had to bring before the conference. The hon. member for Pictou says that the British admiralty had removed its ships from the Pacific ocean. That is true, but the conditions of naval warfare are not those which existed some ten years or even five years ago. They are rapidly changing all over the world.
It has also been said that if we should make a grant of some Dreadnoughts, it would only be a few years when they would be relegated to the scrap heap. Well, should that be so, we would at least be in the same position as the other nations. Great Britain would stand, as she has always stood, ahead of them. I have read very carefully and with a great deal of interest the debate in the English House of Cpmmons on the Naval Bill, and I regret to say that, according to that debate, England has lost forever the two-power standard, and it is now only the question of a one-power standard. My hon. friend from Bed Deer (Mr. Clark) I have always looked upon as a very logical man, particularly careful in his premises, but I find, in an argument he used in this House, that he drew exactly the opposite deduction which the premises warranted. Speaking with regard to the fact that Mr. McKenna had changed his opinion from that which he had held a few months previous, my hon. friend said that the reasons he changed was because England had laid *down more warships and that consequently there was no danger to the supremacy of the British empire. Why, the reverse was the case. Mr. McKenna was pointing out how necessary it had become for him to change the opinion he had held a few months before. There was a similar change of opinion in the case of Mr. Asquith, and Mr. Asquith was perfectly honest and frank in admitting it. He said frankly and freely that when he spoke twelve months previous, he had looked on the German question merely as a paper programme, but now he regretted having to take another view. He said:
I am obliged to tell the House these matters in order to let them understand why we economists have presented these estimates to the House. There has been such an enormous development in Germany, not only in the provision of shipyards and slips on which the hulk and fabric of a ship can he built and repaired but what is still more serious-in the provision for gun-mounting and armaments of those great monsters, these Dreadnoughts which are now the dominating type of ship-such an enormous development-and I will venture to say this without attempting to exercise anything in this nature of unnecessary alarm ' in this country-such an enormous development as to be so serious a development from our national point of view, that we could no longer take to ourselves, as we could a year ago with reason, the consoling and comforting reflection that we have the advantage in the speed and the rate at which ships can be constructed.

That was the whole gist of his argument at that time-not that there was no danger, but that the danger had actually increased and he was compelled to alter the opinion he had expressed a few short months before.
As I understand the problem presented to Canada, it is two-fold. First, is there an emergency? Or better, if some of our friends object to the word ' emergency,' is there a danger to the naval supremacy of the empire? If there is, what is the duty of Canada and how best can that duty be performed? Dealing with the first question, after weighing all the evidence, all the records and the opinions of the leaders on all sides of politics in Great Britain -Mr. Asquith, Mr. Balfour, Mr. McKenna, Sir Edward Grey, Lord Milner, Lord Roberts, Air. Blatchford and others-I cannot but come to the conclusion that the danger does exist. That being the case, what is Canada's position and what is her duty?
I want to deal with this question for a moment from a purely Canadian standpoint.
I believe that the sentiment among all classes of our people from the Atlantic to the Pacific is overwhelmingly in favour of our doing something substantial in assisting the empire. I am further of the opinion that if we are to have a permanent navy, to be added to from time to time as required, that navy should he built in Canada, manned by Canadians; but accompanying that opinion is the uncertainty that we shall thereby be plunging into a large and increasing expenditure from which we shall receive no commensurate benefit. Having regard to the past record of this government, that fear is not without foundation. When we consider the way this country was committed to the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific, when we consider the fact that the right hon. the Prime Minister, who was supplied, as he told us, with mountains of information, resulting from the most careful surveys, declared that this railway would cost only $13,000,000, and when we realized that its estimated cost has now reached the enormous sum of $114,000,000, and when we take in that connection the Hodgins charges and the charges in connection with the resignation of Mr. Lumsden, and when we consider further the fact that a fair and full, investigation into those charges has been voted down, by a straight vote of the Liberal party-when we consider all these things, are we not justified in opposing the construction of this navy?
Further, we were informed by the right hon. the Prime Minister that this navy is to be under the jurisdiction and control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Well, after the result of the investigation into the management of that department, after the evils which came to
light through that investigation, hon. members on this side, are warranted in hesitating before they commit the people to this expenditure without giving the people an opportunity to pronounce upon it.
It has been said that the leader of the opposition is shirking his responsibility in asking for a plebiscite. I do not so un-dertstand the resolution. What I understand by the resolution of my hon. leader is that as this is an entirely new policy and as the carrying of it out, as proposed in the government Bill, may involve serious changes in our relationship to the empire, the whole question should be put. before the people, not as a plebiscite, but as the National Policy was put before them in 1878, on the public platform and through the public press. That is my understanding of the resolution of the leader of the opposition.
I want to refer to another matter. The Prime Minister said that he was much impressed by the statement made by the leader of the opposition that England had time and again subsidized the nations of Europe to enable them to defend their autonomy and independence against the oppressor. Then he went on to say:
She was able to do so. Why? Because of all the nations of Europe, England was the nation which had spent least upon armaments. She had never spent any of her resources as other nations did, purely on her arms. She had extended her trade and her commerce, she has developed her resources, &e.
Assuming that these statements are correct, we in Canada have an immense territory with a comparatively small population. We have many problems to solve that require a large expenditure of money. We have the completion of the Grand Trunk Pacific, we have the deepening and enlarging of the Welland canal, we have the building of the Hudson Bay railway, we have the building of the Georgian Bay canal. We have, over and above all these things that are great problems for us as Canadians, a far greater responsibility in assuming our duty rightly towards the great British empire. So I say, taking all these things into consideration, I believe it is a very strong argument why we should make a direct contribution. Following out the argument of the First Minister himself, let us" follow in the footsteps of the mother country, gradually developing our commercial shipping, our plant and industries, until we are in a position to build such war vessels as may be needed. With this object in view, we must enlarge our docks on both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and encourage the establishment of ship-building plants in Canada, not based on the number of Dreadnoughts we can lay down, but ratheT on the fact that we have all essentials in the wav of coal, iron, steel and nickel

for the successful establishing of such plants, and that our growing shipping trade warrants such a venture. We have given bounties to encourage steel, lead and other industrial pursuits, why not go a step further, and if necessary offer bounties to induce ship-building in Canada? But the member for Pictou calls it tribute. But it was not my intention to go into details or make suggestions as to how best this policy could be carried out, and I was only induced to do so by the argument of the right hon. the First Minister. But, Sir, before we can do that, we want to take the people into our confidence, we want to weigh well our position in this regard and see that everything is looked into carefully in advance and not have the same fiasco as we have had in the past.
Coming to the Bill itself, the Prime Minister assured the House that he had the unanimous support of his followers. I am not surprised at that. In this Bill we have something unlike anything in the Heavens above, in the earth beneath or in the waters under the earth. Therefore, our hon. friends can fall down and worship it. This Bill can be made all things to all men, if by any means we can save Laurier. That is the position _we have before us. They can take this Bill to Quebec and say: We are not giving away your money in contributions to the British empire as the opposition are prepared to do; we are doing as little as we possibly can, and that little we are spending with you. Then they can go to the other provinces and say: We are doing exactly what the British admiralty asked for. And yet, as we see by clause 18, and the quotations I have made from the Prime Minister and the official organ of the party, they have said that they have neither part nor parcel in the wars of the empire. So I say that every man who is loyal to himself and loyal to his country should support the amendment of the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden).
Now for a moment let us look at that amendment and see what we are asking for as compared with the Bill before the House. This clause of that amendment reads as follows:
The proposals of the government do not follow the suggestions and recommendations of the admiralty and in so far as they empower the government to withhold the naval forces of Canada from those of the empire in time of war are ill-advised and dangerous.
I would ask if any man can dispute the proposition laid down in the first clause of the resolution, that they are not follow-, ing out the request of the admiralty. Clause 5 of the conference at page 24 says:
In the opinion of the admiralty, a Dominion government desirous of creating a navy should aim at forming a distinct fleet unit; and the smallest unit is one which, while manageable


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: 
Mr. MICHAUD.: In the absence of the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Beau-parlant), and, on his behalf, I move the adjournment of the debate.


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

William Stevens Fielding: By command of His Excellency the Governor General, I beg to place before the House copy of a commerical agreement between _ Germany and Canada, signed at Ottawa this day, together with certain papers connected therewith.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We shall continue the naval debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 16, 1910.