1913-05-07

QUESTIONS.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	What other articles besides padlocks or mail bags does the Ontario Equipment Company furnish to the Post Office Department?
2.	What is the total amount paid to said company by the Post Office Department since April 1, 191S?


Mr. PELLETIER:: The department does not purchase any mail bags from the Ontario Equipment Company. Besides the locks and keys, the Ontario Equipment Company has supplied, since the first of April, 1912:	improved steel ferrules,
$1,662.50; metal slip fasteners and label holders, $11,227; attached metal label cases, $950. The Ontario Equipment Company have, moreover, repaired steel clamp metal locks for $2,566. They have supplied keys for $3,061.85, and locks for $15,453.60. All the above have been supplied at the prices fixed by the previous Government.


SUPPLIES FOR MILITIA CAMPS.
Mr. FOSTER (Kings, N.S.):: 1.	Were tenders called for by the Militia Department fur supplies for the June camp, 1910 and '1M.1, respectively?
2.	Who supplied said camps?
3.	What was the cost of rations consisting of the following: potatoes, meats, pepper, tea, coflee, salt, split peas, jam, beans, butter, sugar, bacon, fresh vegetables, bread, oil, and wood per diem?
4.	Did the department supply part of supplies?
5.	If so, is the cost included in answer to
No. 3?	.


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Yes.
2.	A. E. McMahon, F. J. Porter, T. L. Harvey.
3.	For June camp, 1910, the ration cost 28-97/lOOc. For June camp, 1911, the ration cost 26-89/100c. This does not include coal oil or fuel wood; the ration cost of which is not immediately available.
4.	The departmental contractors supplied the tea and coffee from Halifax in June, 1911.
5.	Yes.


Mr. FOSTER (Kings, N.S.):: 1.	Were tenders called for supplies to camp Aldershot, Kentville, N.S., annual drill in 1910, 1911, 1912?
2.	If so, was the lowest tender accepted?
3.	Who supplied said camp in each year?
4.	What was the total cost to the department per pound of pepper, tea, coffee, salt, split peas, cheese, jam, beans, butter sugar bacon, fresh vegetables, bread, straw, hay,
hard coal, soft coal, potatoes, meat, oats, flour, rice flour, yeast, lard and mutton, in each of the said years?
5.	What is the total cost to the department of oil per gallon, hardwood and soft wood per cord, in each of said years?
6.	Was mutton and rice flour supplied in 1910, 1911, or 1912, at the same camp?


Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Tenders were called for all camps during 1910-'l 1-' 12, excepting for the Royal Canadian Regiment camp, beginning April 29, 1912.
2.	Yes.
3.	1910-June camp:	A. E. McMahon,
Aylesford, N.S., beef and mutton; F. J. Porter, Wolfville, N.S., bread, groceries, forage, flour, hardwood, coal oil.
September camp:	A. E. McMahon,
Aylesford, N.S., live cattle and sheep, fuel wood; Thos. L. Harvey, Wolfville, N.S., bread, coal oil; F. J. Porter, Wolfville, N.S., groceries, flour and forage.
1911-	June camp: A. E. McMahon, Aylesford, N.S., beef and mutton, fuel wood, live cattle and sheep; F. J. Porter, Wolfville, N.S., bread, coal oil, flour (strong baker's and rice); Thos. L. Harvey, Wolfville, N.S., groceries, forage, straw for men's bedding.
August and September camps: F. J. Porter, Wolfville, N.S., bread, groceries, forage, coal oil, flour (strong baker's and corn); A. E. McMahon, Aylesford, N.S., beef and mutton, fuel wood, live cattle and sheep.
1912-	August camp: R. E. Harris, Wolfville, N.S., beef and mutton, groceries, flour (strong baker's and corn), forage, coal oil, fuel wood, bread.
4 and 5. Detailed statements filed with the clerk of the House.
6.	No.


MAIL BAG LOCKS.
*Mr. CARVELL:: Has an estimate been asked from the post office superintendents and post office inspectors of the number of padlocks for mail bags which the proposed establishment of the parcel post system necessitate? If so, what is the estimate?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How many locks have been repaired by the Ontario Equipment Company at the request of the Post Office Department, since the 1st April, 1912, until 1st April, 1913, and at what cost?
Mr. 1ELLETIER:	10,264, at the same
price, 25 cents each, which the previous Government used to pay, $2,566 ; 4,214, free of cost to the department under the two years' guarantee.


POST OFFICE PURCHASES.
*Mr. SINCLAIR:: How many attachable metal cases have been purchased by the Post Office Department from the Ontario Equipment Company since the 1st April, 19-12, until 1st April, 1913, and at what cost?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 19,000 at the same
price, 5 cents each, which the previous Government used to pay, $950.


Mr. MACDONALD:: How many improved steel ferrules have been purchased by the Post Office Department from the Ontario Equipment Company since the 1st April, 1912, until 1st April, 1913!, and at what cost?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 133,00 (66,500 pairs)
at $12.50 per 1,000, $1,662,50 the same price -which the previous Government used to pay.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How many slip fasteners and label holders have been ipurchased by the Post Office Department from the Ontario Equipment Company since 1st April, 1912, until the 1st April, 1913, and at what cost?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 441,908 at the same
price, twenty-five cents each, which the previous Government used to pay, $11,227.


POST OFFICES IN LOTBINIERE COUNTY.
Mr. FORTIER:: 1.	Who has replaced the postmaster at St. Agapit station, Quebec, deceased?
2.	Who recommended the new occupant?
3.	Has a petition of the whole parish been sent to the Postmaster General praying him to leave the office at the same place, with -the widow of George Olivier as occupant?
i.	Is it true that the present occupant was one of the principal Conservative organizers at the time of the election of 1908, and that the Postmaster General was a candidate?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1,	2 and 4. When Mr. Olivier died he was, by direction of the Postmaster General, replaced by Mr. Isaie Daigle, who was qualified in all respects.
3.	A petition was received in favour of the widow of the late postmaster.


Mr. FORTIER:: 1.	Has Edmond Bernard, postmaster at Ste. Emilie, been dismissed?
2.	If so, for what reason, and on whose recommendation ?
3.	AVho has replaced him?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It was considered that it would be an advantage to combine the two post offices, Leclercville and Ste. Eme-lie de Lotbiniere, in one office, bearing the latter name. In doing so a change was made in the location of the ate. Emilie de Mr. PELLETIER.
Lotbiniere post office and Mr. J. S. Beaudet was appointed as postmaster.


Mr. FORTIER:: Has the post office of the municipality of Leclercville, been abolished? If' so, for what reason?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It was considered advisable to combine the Ste. Emelie de Lotbiniere and Leclercville post office in one office under the name of Ste. Emelie de' Lotbiniere. In doing so a change was made in the site and postmastership o-f Ste. Emelie de Lotbiniere and the Leclercville post office was closed.


PURCHASE OF CLOCKS.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	How many clocks have been ordered by the present Minister of Public Works?
2.	How many by his immediate predecessor?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	32.
2.	25.


THE AUDITOR GENERAL.
Mr. FOWLER:: 1.	What is the salary of the Auditor General?
2.	Are Harold John Fraser and Ethel Maud Fraser employed in any department of the public service? If so, in what department, when were they respectively first employed, and what are their salaries?
3.	Are William A. Fraser and Robert J. Fraser employed in the Government service? If so, in what department or departments and what are their salaries respectively?
4.	Are the said Harold John Fraser, Ethel Maud Fraser, William A. Fraser and Robert J. Fraser related to the Auditor General? If so, what is the relationship?
5.	Is one Alexander McDonald employed in the office of the Auditor General? If so, in what capacity is he employed and what are his duties?
6.	During the past seven years -have any
second-hand desks or office furniture been purchased for the use of any of the departments? If so, from whom were such desks or furniture purchased, and to whom did they or it belong ?	[DOT]
7.	Is it now or has it been the practice of
the -Government departments, or any of them, to purchase second-hand desks or office furniture?	.	1
8.	If not, and a.ry -has been purchased, what were the special circumstances which brought about such purchase?
9.	Who made such purchases, if any, and on whose recommendation were any such purchases made?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	$5,000 per annum.
2.	Yes, in the office of the Auditor General. Harold J. Fraser was appointed by the Civil Service Commission on July 1, 1911, in the second division, sub-division B, at the minimum salary of $800 per annum,

after open competitive examination, present salary, $850. Ethel M. Fraser was appointed by the Civil Service Commission on December 1, 1911, in the third division, subdivision A, at the minimum salary, $900 per annum, after open competitive examination and special examination, present salary, $950.
3.	Yes, William A. Fraser in the Department of Agriculture, appointed in January, 1902, at $60 per month, present salary, $1,600 per annum. Robert J. Fraser, in the Department of Naval Affairs as hydrographic surveyor, at $1,300 per annum.
4.	Yes, sons and daughter respectively.
5.	Yes, as a messenger. The usual duties of a messenger.
6.	7, 8 and 9. To be answered by Public Works Department.


Mr. ROGERS:: 6.	(a) Yes. (b) From A. Rosenthal & Sons, the Canadian Railway Accident Insurance Company, and from the Union Bank.
7.	No.
8 and 9. On August 2, 1911, the Department of Marine and Fisheries made requisition for show cases for fisheries exhibit on O'Connor street, and requested the Public Works Department to purchase cases from the store of A. Rosenthal & Sons. They having found the cases suitable, they were purchased for $1,105. A burglar proof safe was offered for sale by the same firm to the Department of Customs. This was purchased, on the recommendation of the Commissioner of Customs, for $250. When the Department of Public Works leased the Union Bank building, Wellington street, the Canadian Railway Accident Insurance Company offered to sell fittings and furniture in the building for $367. The Union Bank also offered to sell electric light fixtures and a telephone cabinet for $50; these were purchased on the recommendation of the superintendent of public buildings. All purchases were made after investigation by officers of the Department of Public Works, and paid for by that department.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAR FERRY.
Mr. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.):: 1.	Has the Government entered into a contract for the building of the piers in connection with the. car ferry between Prince Edward Island and the mainland?
2.	If so, with whom has the contract been made, and what is the contract price?
3.	What will the said piers cost when completed, and when will they be finished?
4.	How many tenders were received, and what was the amount of each tender?


Mr. COCHRANE:: Contracts for this work have been awarded, but all the contracts have not been fully executed. Therefore, until the contracts are all completed,
the department does not consider it advisable to make public the information asked for in paragraphs Nos. 2, 3 and 4.


DEPARTMENTAL MAIL MATTER.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Does the Post Office Department charge
postage on all or any mail matter received from any of the departments of the Government?	_
2.	If so, how long has this rule been in force, and what class of mail matter does it include?
3.	What are the reasons for this new order ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 
LONG'S POST OFFICE.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the Post Office Department established a new post office at the house of John Long, Glencoe, Guysborough county, N.S.?
2.	If so, what is the name of the post office?
3.	Who is postmaster?
4.	Who is the contractor for carrying the mails to said post office.
5. From what point is the mail carried to said new post office, how many times per week, and at what yearly rate, and what distance ?
6.	Were tenders asked for? If not, why not?
7.	How many families are accommodated by the said post office?
8.	If no tenders were a ked for on whose recommendation was the contract awarded?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Long's.
3.	John Long.

4 and 5. Mails are exchanged twice a week between the new offices and East Erinville, distance about three miles, under a temporary agreement with John Long at the rate of payment of fifty dollars a year.
6.	Tenders were not invited, the amount being under two hundred dollars. As the price was fair, the department authorized a temporary agreement to be entered into.
7.	Ten families.
8.	Answered by No. 6.


EOBITAILLE POSTMASTER.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who is at present postmaster of Ro-bitaille, Quebec ?
2.	When was he appointed, and whom did he replace ?
3.	What was the reason for the change, and on whose recommendation was it made?
4.	How long had the late postmaster been in charge of the office?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	J. F. Dagneau.
2.	12th March, 1912. Edouard Quinn.
3.	Mr. Dagneau having been dismissed without sufficient cause from the postmastership in 1897, he was reinstated by the Postmaster General.
4.	From the 1st January, 1898, to the 12th March, 1912.


TROIS PISTOLES AND LES ESCOUMAINS MAIL SERVICE.
*Mr. GAUVREAU:: ,
1.	Have tenders been asked for the establishment of a mail service between Trois Pistoles and Les Escoumains?
2.	If so, how many tenders, and who obtained the contract?
3.	What is the amount of the contract, and for how many years?
4.	When did the service commence?
5.	Is the boat run by steam? If so, have the proprietors a certificate from the inspector of Government boilers?
6.	Which of the two, Mr. Rioux or Mr. Sirois acts as captain, and which of them as engineer ?
7.	Has the one who acts as engineer a certificate of competence?
8.	Is the Government or the Post Office Department assured that with such a boat, under the control and direction of two alleged mechanics, the mails and their contents as well as the passengers are in safety?
9.	Does the Post Office Department intend to hold an inquiry?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Tenders were invited and a contract awarded to Messrs. Rioux and Sirois, but as it has not been signed, the department does not consider it in the public interest to give all these particulars before the whole matter has been adjusted. All the arrangements are in the hands of the Post Offise inspector at Quebec, but he has not yet reported on the matter. The information asked for will be given when the report has been received. The department Mr. PELLETIER.
was satisfied before awarding the contract that a suitable boat for carrying the mails would he supplied.


ILE-AUX-OEUFS LIGHTKEEPER.
Mr. GAUTHIER (Gaspe):: L Has Mr. Tancrede Pelletier, keeper of the lighthouse of Ile-aux-Oeufs, Quebec, resigned his position?
2- If SO, in what year, and on what date?
3.	Who replaced him, and on whose recommendation was this appointment made?
4.	Is the salary paid to the present keeper the same as that of Mr. Pelletier?
i 5. Does the present keeper pay to the former keeper, Tancrede Pelletier, an annual sum of two hundred dollars out of his salary?
6.	If so, has the Government taken the necessary measures to prevent the payment of this contribution in future?
7.	Does the Government intend to take measures to have refunded by Mr. Tancrede Pelletier, the money which he has so received?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Resignation dated 25th April, 1911. Took effect 1st July, 1911.
3.	E. Chouinard. Recommended by Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux.
4.	Yes, the classification is the same.
5.	The department is so informed.
6.	Lightkeeper Chouinard has been informed that he is under no obligation to continue these payments.
7.	No.


*MEDICINE HAT HOMESTEAD INSPECTORS.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Who are the homestead inspectors in the federal constituency of Medicine Hat?
2.	When ivere they appointed, and upon whose recommendation?
3.	How many inspectors were there in this constituency prior to September 21, 1911?


Mr. CROTHERS:: As far as the Department of the Interior is concerned-
1 and 2.	Date	of
Name.	appointment.
J. R. Huntley	April	16,	1912.Wm. Switzer	August	29,	1912.W. S. Jones	March	21,	1912.W. Steer	June	21,	1912.Robert Ripley	August	8, 1912.Hugh Scott	February	5, 1912.
Appointed on the recommendation of the minister.
3.	Four.


RICHIBUCTO WHARF.
*Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Who is the wharfinger of the Government public w'harf at Richibucto, New Brunswick, and how long has he been in charge of said wharf?
2.	Is it true that Mr. Fred. McDougall or any other party hauled away from the said wharf during the year 1912, a portion of the

gravel covering or filling thereof, for use in making concrete used in the construction of the new Opera House there? If so, who authorized or permitted the removal of the said gravel?
3.	Is the Government aware that Mr. Arthur E. O'Leary, brother of Mr. Richard O'Leary, has now, or recently had, as alleged, a team engaged in hauling gravel from the covering or filling of said wharf? If so, who gave permission for such action, and what price is being paid for the privilege?
4.	Has any revenue been received from the sale of gravel taken off said wharf, or for the privilege of using such gravel, since January
I,	1912?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	There is no [DOT]wharfinger.
2 and 3. Yes; hauled away between 20 and 30 loads each to make concrete; was not authorized nor was any privilege granted.
4.	No.
NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY CAPITAL ACCOUNT. :


Mr. MACLEAN (Halifax):: W'hat amount was expended on capital account for the fiscal year 1912-13 in connection with the Transcontinental railway?


Francis Cochrane: Expenditure to end of March, 1913, $12,750,637.45.
J.	O. LANGEVIN, VETERINARY SURGEON.


Mr. BOTJLAY:: 1. Has Doctor Jean Octave Langevin, Veterinary Surgeon, a graduate of Laval University, been appointed to any employment in the inside or outside service for the Militia Department ?
2 If so, when was he appointed, and on whose recommendation ?
- Mr. HUGHES:	This officer has been
given a commission in the ordinary way in the Canadian non-permanent militia, but has not yet been employed. He may be detailed for duty with one of the units at camp.
TOWNSHIP 56, RANGE 26, WEST OE 1st MERIDIAN.


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	When were the subdivision survey lines of township 56, range 26, west of the 1st meridian run?
2.	When was the survey of the above township approved by the Surveyor General?
3.	When was the land in this township opened for homestead entry?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	The part of the township north and east of Indian reserves surveyed between 13th July and 23rd August, 1911. The part south of river and west of Indian reseive block A, surveyed between 8th November and 30th November, 1912.
2.	The survey of the part north and east
of the Indian reserves approved by the Purveyor General on the 12th April, 1912. Survey of part south of river and west of block A, Indian reserve, not yet approved.
3.	The lands in the part north and east of Indian reserves opened for entry 29th April, 1912. The lands in the part of the township south of river and west of block A, Indian reserve, not yet opened for entry.


SEVEN ISLANDS LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER.
Mr. BEL AND:: 1.	Has a lighthouse keeper at Seven Islands named Migneault been dismissed?
2.	If so, has an investigation been held?
3.	What was the reason for his disimssal? -
4.	By whom was he replaced, and on whose recommendation ?
5.	Has any correspondence been exchanged in connection with this case between the Hon. P. Landry, Speaker <*f the Senate, and any member of the Government ?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No.
2,	3, 4 and 5. See answer to No. 1.
, DISMISSALS.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: 1.	What are the names and addresses of the station agents on the Intercolonial railway who were dismissed for alleged political partisanship since the present Government came into power?
2.	Were the charges against them investigated? If so, by whom were the investigations conducted?
3.	What was the detailed cost of each of such investigations ?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Archibald Chisholm, of Hetherir.gton, N. S.
2.	Yes, by Mr. H. P. Duchemin, Commissioner.
3.	The account for the investigation in Air. Chisholm's case was included in an account sent in to the department by Mr. Duohemin for ten investigations held by him, the cost of which was $261.35; so-that the approximate cost of Mr. Chisholm's investigation would be about $26.


Mr. FORTIER:: 1.	Has Mr. Charles Bergeron, postmaster at Lea Fonds, been dismissed? If so, for what reason?
2.	Was an inquiry held, and by whom?
3.	Who recommended his dismissal?


Air. PELLETIER:: 1.	Yes. For political partisanship, by direction of the Postmaster General.
2.	An investigation was not necessary. The postmaster admitted the charge.
3.	Answered by number 1.


PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL AND PRIVATE PAPERS.
Mr. OLIVER moved:: For the production of the original papers, letters, memoranda, and other documents, comprising file No. 762a, being the file quoted from by the Minister of Public Works on Tuesday, April 17, 1913?


Mr. ROGERS:: While personally I have no objection to bring down the file as asked for, I would like to have it made clear, whether in so doing I would be in keeping with any precedent of this House heretofore established under similar conditions. The file referred to contained certain private documents, some of which were read in the House by myself, and of which I furnished copies to be laid upon the table. If my hon. friend wants the original documents, and will amend his motion, I shall be very glad to bring them down. If it is in accordance with the rules of the Plouse, I have no objection td place in charge of the clerk the file referred to in its entirety.


Frank Oliver: Within the knowledge of a number of hon. members, a precedent ha's been established that when original documents are produced they must be placed in charge of the clerk and subject to the custody of the clerk, so that the safety of the documents would be on the responsibility of officers of the House. There would be no question about that part of it. It is in accordance with that precedent that I have made the request for the original documents in this way. When my hon. friend was reading the correspondence, the question was argued before you, Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not the hon. minister should lay upon the table the whole of the file. You, Sir^ decided that it was not requisite that he should do so. The hon. minister himself at that time said that if I wanted the file I would get it by moving in the ordinary way. I afterwards asked the hon. minister for such information as would identify the file so that I would be able to move for its production. He gave me the information. I have moved for the production of the file, and I would respectfully urge that my motion be agreed to.


Robert Rogers: I do not think the hon.
gentleman correctly states the' case when he says that I promised to bring down the file.


Frank Oliver: I cannot say that my
hon. friend said that he would bring down the file; but he certainly gave the House distinctly to understand, as ' Hansard ' will show, that on demand the file would be brought down.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I looked up the precedents, English as well a= Canadian, in Mr. PELLETIER.
reference to this question some time ago. I note that, when an order of the House is issued for a file, it means such documents as can properly be laid before the House. Documents of a private or confidential nature-for instance or papers that may be of such a state character that they cannot be properly produced,-are not usually brought down by ministers. In such cases it is left to the discretion of the minister to go over the file and to present such papers as he properly can do.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I think if a
minister produces a record of the department from his department, that constitutes a public document. According to the rule, public documents ought to be laid on the table. If Your Honour has any doubt about it, I woud suggest that you look up the precedent.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Anything that is read
must be produced and laid upon the table, but this motion is for a whole file that contains many documents that were not read, and some of which, as the minister says, are private. I am therefore only referring to such private correspondence or other state documents that could not properly be laid before the House, and saying that the rule is laid down that it is left to the judgment of the minister to determine what shall be laid before the House in such cases.


Mr. BORDEN:: My recollection of the
incident is that the documents in that case were not brought down upon any motion, but were laid upon the table by my hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) at the conclu-son of the debate. I looked up the debate, and two motions were proposed by the Opposition. One was accepted by the Government and the other was rejected. The motion for the production of the original documents was also rejected. The motion which was accepted by the then Government was this:
Subject to suck consideration of public policy as can be validly urged in any case, it is the undoubted right of the people's representatives in Parliament assembled to be informed of everything necessary to explain the policy and proceedings of the Government and! for that purpose to have an opportunity of seeing and examining all documents connected! with the transaction of public business; and the denial of such right by the Government justifies the refusal of this House of further supplies to the Crown.
The documents were still not brought down, and a further motion was proposed by the hon. member for East Hastings (Mr. Northrup) as follows:
Subject to such consideration of public policy as can he validly urged in any case members of parliament have the right to have access to all the records of the Government and to all the archives.

This motion was rejected. At the conclusion of a somewhat heated debate, the Prime Minister, as will be seen at page 1927 of ' Hansard,' laid the papers upon the table. That was the course taken in that case. There is no objection to having these papers laid upon the _ table of the House, but I think they should be laid on the table in the same way, as in the case mentioned, namely, subject to their being returned to the department. When I say that they should be laid on the table of the House, of course that is subject to any consideration of public policy; and documents which it would not be in the public interest to bring down would not be brought down. This is in accordance with the course which was taken then, namely, that the Prime Minister laid the papers on the table of the House, and they were subject to being returned to the department. The Minister of the Interior of that day, my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) brought down in the first instance a somewhat elaborate document prepared by his deputy minister, which pointed out and emphasized the very great inconvenience of any original papers being taken out of a department. Of course, great inconvenience may be occasioned, but I imagine that all the documents required in this case can be brought down without any special inconvenience.	[DOT]


Wilfrid Laurier: Will they be laid on the table of the House, not to become archives, but to be returned to the department?
Mr. BORDEN; Yes.


Robert Rogers: Am I expected to bring down private documents which were on this file but to which I did not refer at all?


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend read to the House, as the foundation of an allegation and charge against members on this side, certain private documents. I am anxious to see the whole of the private documents connected with that transaction, and I ask that those private documents be placed upon the table of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: My recollection is that my hon. friend stated repeatedly that he was reading from a public file of the Department of the Interior.


Robert Laird Borden: A public file might of
course contain documents that should not be brought down.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend in his speech repeated over and over again that he was reading from a public file of the Department of the Interior. Every letter which he read was headed ' Department of the Interior.'


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the motion should be carried, but the papers should be brought down in the same way as they were brought down before, without motion.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the papers are brought down, that is all right, whether with a motion or without one. The papers will be laid upon the table?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Motion dropped,


Frank Oliver: I think the motion should stand until the papers are brought down.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have the assurance of the Government that the papers will be brought down.
Motion dropped.


UNOPPOSED AND UNDISCUSSED MOTIONS.
[Stage Direction]
The number of post offices in Yarmouth county, Nova Scotia, not served with daily mail; their names, and how many times per week are they served.-Mr. Law.
The number of immigrants coming into Canada during the year ending March 31, 1913, who were inspected by the Government medical inspectors; .the total cost of medical inspections of immigrants coming into Canada during the year ending March 31, 1913; the number of medical doctors employed by the Government during the year ending March SI, 1913, for medical inspections of immigrants coming into Canada during that period; the name, salary and location of each, including those resident in Ottawa.-Mr Sohaffner.
For a return showing the number of acres surrendered by the Cote's band of Indians, the number of acres sold by private sale, the number of acres still unsold\ together with a copy of all letters from persons who made application for purchase of surrendered lands in Cotes reserve, or from any person on behalf of purchasers and replies thereto; and of all reports, letters or memoranda addressed to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs, from any officer of the department respecting the private sale <5f said lands; also a copy of any document or documents covering the authority under which these lands were sold by private sale, and of all letters addressed to the department, or any officer of the department, respecting the sale of said lands.- -Mr. Bradbury.
For a return showing the total cost of the Elmira branch railway in Prince Edward Island; the total amounts paid the contractors, Whitehead Brothers; the total amount paid by the Government after taking the work off the contractor's hands, and showing the amount paid in wages each month, the names of the men to whom it was paid, the positions they held, and the wages per day to each; also showing what materials were used, each kind and class, with the cost of each, from whom purchased, and when, and the quantities left over, if any.-^Mr. Hughes (Kings).
For a copy of a letter, dated 24th September, 1901, written by chief engineer Lumsden of the Transcontinental Commission to Chair
[Stage Direction]


man Wade of the same body, in which the former recommended to the latter certain grades on the Transcontinental railway.-Mr. Graham.	.	,.
For a copy of the report concerning Indian titles which was presented to the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs under date of August 20, 1909.-'Mr. Thompson (Yukon).
For a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Postmaster General and M. Isidore Belleau, of Quebec, in connection with improvements contemplated in Quebec harbour.-Mr. Gar veil.	,
For a copy of all correspondence, evidence and reports in connection with the dismissal of J. N. Cloutier, postmaster at St. Benoit Labre, county of Beauce, Quebec.-Mr. Beland.
For a copy of all correspondence and telegrams exchanged between the Post Office Department, the Government or any member thereof, the post office inspector at St. John, N.B., or any official of the Post Office Department at St. John, N.B., on the one hand, and the postmaster at Kouchibouguac, Kent county, N.B., Mr. Cliff Atkinson, or any other person, corporation or firms, relating to the sale or non-purchase of postage stamps, or the mailing of letters, delivery of mail, &c., at the said post office; together with a copy of all correspondence, reports and other papers and documents in any wise relating thereto, on file in the Post Office Department at Ottawa, or in the office of the post office inspector at St. John, iN.B.; also a copy of all regulations or orders of the Post Office Department relating to the sale of postage stamps, or the mailing of letters, or the delivery of mails, or generally as to the use of post office by residents and non-residents.-Mr. Emmereon.	,	,	, ,
For a copy of all papers, documents, telegrams and correspondence in connection with the dismissal of Thomas Symonds, coxswain of the lifeboat at Seal Islands, Shelburne county, N.'S.-Mr. Law.
For a copy of all papers, documents, telegrams and correspondence, in connection with the dismissal of Captain William Smith, coxswain of the lifeboat at Blanche, Shelburne county, N.S.-Mr. Law.
For a copy of all reports, correspondence, telegrams and other documents in the custody or control of the Militia Department or the Railway Department, concerning matters brought to the attention of the Militia Department by B. A. Ingraham, of Sydney, N.S., with reference to the transportation of the Sydney militia over the Intercolonial railway in the year 1912.-Mr. Carroll.
For a return showing in detail the names of witnesses summoned by Commissioner H. P. Duchemin in connection with all investigations held by him in the counties of North Cape Breton and Victoria, South Cape Breton, Inverness and Antigonish, Nova Scotia, and the amounts paid in each such case.-Mr. Carroll.

Robert Laird Borden: That on and from Monday, .the 12th instant, and until the end of the session, the House shall meet at 11 o'clock in the morning, and Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
that in addition to the usual intermission at 6 o'clock, p.m., there shall also be an intermission from one to three o'clock, p.m.
He said: I understand that in all probability the committees of the House will have completed their work by the end of the week. Comparatively speaking, the morning sittings will be taken up this year at about the same time as they were in 1911. In that year the forenoon sittings began on May 15, but that session commenced a little later than the present session.


Wilfrid Laurier: As my right hon. friend states that the committees will have completed their business during the present week, it would seem that the time has fairly come for the holding of the usual morning sittings which forecast prorogation at a reasonably early date. My right hon. friend, I am sure, will admit that the House is entitled to know whether or not there is more legislation to come. If there were more legislation to come, although I do not presume that at this late period the Government intend to bring in any more legislation unless perhaps some further railway legislation, I would resist the motion. Then I would expect also that we would have had the budget concluded before the commencement of morning sittings. There has never been a session in my recollection where at this period of the session the budget had not been brought down. My right hon. friend will not find it unreasonable that before we commence morning sittings we should expect to have the budget speech.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall be very glad to
consider any suggestion in that regard, but I do not at the moment see any particular connection between the budget speech and morning sittings. It does not occur to me at the moment that there is any particular reason why the budget speech should be delivered when we are commencing at three rather than at eleven o'clock.


Wilfrid Laurier: The reason is that if there is anything which is part of the session it is the budget speech and that should come within the regular period sittings. When we commence morning sittings it means that we are hurrying up business towards conclusion and I would suggest that it is only reasonable that we should have the budget speech, which is the most important announcement of the session, while we are still sitting for the usual hours.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the Minister of Finance contemplated giving his budget speech this week but probably on Wednesday ot Thursday of next week.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would not
object to having the morning sittings immediately after the budget.


Robert Laird Borden: I really do not see any
connection 'between the two. I am most desirous to give every consideration to any suggestion of my right hon. friend in regard to the business of the House, but frankly I cannot see the slightest connection between the budget speech and morning sittings. If I could see any connection I would be most happy to give every consideration to what the right hon. gentleman urges. My right hon. friend knows that during morning sessions in past years very important matters have been debated in this House. The reciprocity measure of 1911 was debated for a very long time


Wilfrid Laurier: A very long
time indeed, yes

Mr. BORDEN-during morning sessions.


Wilfrid Laurier: The reciprocity question was debated for a very long time, morning sessions, afternoon sittings but not night sittings. I presume that there is no more legislation coming.


Robert Laird Borden: No more legislation of
an important character, I have already given my right hon. friend an intimation as to that. I shall see him before the end of this week and give him a detailed statement of everything we are going to bring down.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sure my right hon. friend does me great credit when he takes me into his confidence, but I would prefer that he would take the whole country into his confidence in a matter of this kind. If he tells us that no important legislation is to be brought down, I will be quite satisfied. Of course there may be some minor matters which are not debatable, as to which I would have nothing to say.
morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act, and to provide that when compensation is payable to the owners of Horses slaughtered under the provisions of the said Act, such compensation' may be paid upon a valuation of not exceeding $200 in the ease of a grade horse, and not exceeding $500 in the case of a pure bred! Horse.


GOVERNMENT ANNUITIES ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Pelletier it was ordered that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Government Annuities Act, and to increase the total amount which may be paid by way of an annuity or annuities to an annuitant or to joint annuitants from $600 a year to $1,000 a year.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Pelletier it was ordered that the House go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed* resolution:
j-veauiveu,
[DOT]->
Luai it is expedient, m connection with Bill No. 188, now before this House, intituled: An Act to provide for more advantageous telegraphic communication between i-ar!2c aV, Boded Kingdom and other parts of the British Empire to authorize the Government of Canada, if it deems it to be in the public interest, and under the circumstances and conditions set forth in the agreement in the schedule to the said Bill, to purchase the stations, apparatus, equipment and licenses mentioned in the said agreement.

Robert Laird Borden: In taking my right hon. friend into my confidence, I thought I was only following what I supposed was a good example; that of my right hon. friend himself who used to take me into his confidence in this way towards the end of the session and tell me the nature of any further legislation to be brought down. If my right hon. friend thinks that is not a good example, I shall be glad to abstain from it, but I thought I was perfectly justified in following what seemed to me a very suitable course.


Wilfrid Laurier: My right hon. friend honours me too much; he is always taking me for an example.


Robert Laird Borden: Not always.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Burrell it was ordered that the House go into committee to-
292i
On tlie Orders of the day being called:
Mr. E. B. DEVLIN (Wright):: Is the
Prime Minister aware that when the resolution which stands at present as No. 37, under Public Bills and Orders, a resolution which I had the honour to propose, dealing with the immediate construction of the Georgian Bay canal, came under discussion, the Minister of Public Works stated that a day would be set aside for its further discussion. The hon. minister wished to speak upon it himself, and several other hon. members of this House desired to make a few observations. As the session seems to be coming towards a speedy conclusion, and the matter is of considerable importance, I would like to know from the right hon. the Prime Minister if he can tell me when we may have a day to discuss the subject.


Robert Laird Borden: I am afraid I cannot
do that to-day. I will confer with the Minister of Public Works about the matter.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I would like to draw the attention of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to a statement which appeared in the Ottawa Evening Journal a few evenings ago to the effect that it was proposed by the Government to include in the supplementary estimates a very large sum of money for the construction of the Georgian Bay canal, but that, in view of the fact that the debate upon the naval question had been somewhat protracted, the Government had been forced to drop the idea of including any sum in the supplementary estimates. May I ask if there is any truth in this report?


Robert Laird Borden: It is not usual to make announcements with regard to the supplementary estimates in advance of their being brought down.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: It is in Antigonish.


THE POULSEN WIRELESS SYSTEM.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Might I ask the hon.
Postmaster General if he has read a cable despatch published in this morning's Citizen giving an interview with Mr. Baxen-dale, about the contract with the PoulseD system. Is this Mr. Baxendale the representative of the Poulsen system and has that syndicate a representative in Canada? If so, who is he?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The Mr. Baxendale
referred to in the report which I read, is the general manager of the syndicate in England. The company has now a representative here, Mr. Gandil, who has a power of attorney.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is he in Montreal?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He is now in Montreal looking out for a site.


ST. PETER'S CANAL.
Mr. KYTE:: I desire to call the attentention of the Minister of Railways again to the adjourned debate on the resolution for papers in regard to the expropriation of lands at St. Peter's canal. I can scarcelv hope that the minister will consent to a resumption of this debate, but I desire to give notice now that when the estimates of the Department of Railways and Canals are considered in Committee of Supply, he will be expected to have the information for the benefit of the committee.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.
Frank Oliver: Yesterday I asked about a return which had been ordered some time ago, and in order that it might be expedited, ^suggested that the names, the offices, and the dates of dismissal should be given. I would like to have the salaries added to the particulars. The return applies to all the departments, and not only to the Depart-
Mr. BORDEN.
ment of the Interior. I would like to have the return from all the departments include the persons dismissed, the salaries received, the duties, and the dates of dismissal.


Mr. LAW:: I would like to call the attention of the Postmaster General once more to a motion passed in this House on February 10 in relation to papers connected with the dismissal of Mrs. M. C. Gaudet, postmistress at West Pubnico and also in connection with the dismissal and retention of Jesse L. Morton, postmaster at Lower Argyle. It is three months ago since these motions were passed by this House, and I think ample time has been given to the department to have these documents brought down. If the hon. gentleman's estimates are delayed, he will have nobody to blame but himself.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not think it is
a fair way of putting it. We have a special staff in the department looking after those things, and I am doing the best I can to *expedite them. To-day I brought down twelve or fifteen, and I expect to have some more to-morrow. I am bringing them down as fast as I can, and I cannot do more.
' Mr. SPEAKER: When an hon. member presents a request, it is not within the proprieties of debate to accompany it either with a menace or a threat. It was very mild in this case, and I am only reminding the hon. member of what is the usual course.


William Pugsley: Away back in February, three months ago, I made inquiry of the Postmaster General as to the calling of tenders for the carrying of mails between Tooleton and Hatfield Point,	King's
county, New Brunswick. The	second
question was:
If so, what was the date named for the reception of the tenders?
The third and the fourth were:
What was the amount of each tender received on or prior to such date?
Was the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer? If not, why was it not so awarded?
In answer to my question the Postmaster General stated that tenders had been called for, but that the matter being under consideration he did not feel that he could give me the names of the tenderers or the amounts of the tenders. But he courteously stated that he would take the matter up without delay, and would give me the information across the floor of the House as soon as possible. That is three months ago. I have brought the matter to the attention of my hon. friend once or twice since, but I have not received the information. It is a small matter, but I believe it is a case in which there is a desire to pass over this

tenderer, and give the contract to a higher tenderer. Has my hon. friend made the necessary inquiry?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I cannot speak of it from memory. There are thousands contracting with the department, and I am not supposed to remember them all. There is one officer in the department who is charged to attend to these matters and to report to me, and I am doing all I can to give satisfaction to my hon. friends opposite. I shall take a note of it to-day and make inquiry.


GOVERNMENT RAILWAY CLAIMS.
William John Macdonald: I would like to call the attention of the Prime Minister to Order No. 35 in the Public Bills and Orders. It refers to a Bill which I had the honour to introduce and my hon. friend the Minister of Railways was good enough to say he approved of the principle of this Bill and would facilitate its passing. I would like to ask my right hon. friend if he is prepared to move it as a Government Bill, so that it may be disposed of.


Robert Laird Borden: If I remember the Bill
correctly, it proposes to extend the jurisdiction of the courts in respect to claims against the Intercolonial railway, thus extending a principle which has been applied for some years. I remember that I was favourably impressed, and I understand my colleague the Minister of Railways was also favourably impressed by the arguments which the hon. gentleman presented at the time he introduced the Bill. I have had a good many matters to deal with since then, some of them of a rather protracted nature, and I am afraid my hon. friend has been somewhat of a sinner in that regard. However, I will confer with the Minister of Railways, and give consideration to the suggestion of my hon. friend, if time will permit.


NAVAL FORCES OF THE EMPIRE.
[Stage Direction]
Consideration in Committee of Bill No. 21, to authorize measures for increasing the effective Naval Forces of the Empire- Mr. Borden-resumed from May 6. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)
On section 2:
From and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada there may be paid and ap-lied a sum not exceeding thirty-five million dollars for the purpose of immediately increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire.
And the amendment thereto, proposed by Mr. German:
That clause 2 be struck out and that the following be substituted therefor:	Upon appropriations in that behalf being from time
to time made by Parliament, there may be paid and applied from and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada a sum not exceeding $35,000,000 for the purpose of speedily increasing the effective naval forces of the Empire.
Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM (Antigonish):: Mr. Chairman, before the debate was adjourned last night, I was trying to point out that the time had arrived when the Government should take the House and the country into its. confidence and give us more certain, definite information as to what its policy, in respect to naval defence, is going to be. I alluded to statements made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) on different occasions which, to the ordinary man, would seem to be inconsistent. I pointed out that on different occasions he had enunciated policies which, to my mind at all events, were irreconcilable. Perhaps a man of the fine psychological turn of the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. White), or of the hon member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen), might be able to show that these statements were not inconsistent and that the policy laid down by the Government has been quite reconcilable throughout, but to the hardheaded man the speeches made by the Prime Minister and other hon. gentlemen opposite on different occasions are not reconcilable. I also referred to the principles laid down by the Montreal Star as not being in harmony with the views expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite. It is time that the country should know definitely what is proposed to be done.
It is time, when we are asked for $35,000,000 to send over to the Old Country, when the old country is not in need of one dollar of it and when we in this country need every dollar of it for the development of our resources, that we should know what the intentions of the Government are. As far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, I can understand how far $35,000,000 would go in the way of removing some of the railway difficulties that we have. It would go a considerable way in redeeming some of the pledges made by hon. gentlemen opposite on the eve of the last election and upon another occasion since, in so far as providing accommodation is concerned. If you are going to send $35,000,000 this year what will it be next year and the year after? Will this sum be increased as we grow wealthier and more numerous and as the duties that are alleged become greater? Upon what principle is it proposed to make a gift of this $35,000,000? Is it that, when the Government is in a generous mood and has an overflowing treasury, we are to make a gift of this kind, or is it to be a regular contribution in recognition of the duty which we owe to the Mother Country in

return for the help and protection which we have received from her since we started out in business for ourselves? Then, we would like to know, if their policy is not a regular policy of contribution what is to be their permanent policy if they have such? It is all right to tell us that they propose to say later on-why not say it now? The people of the country have a right to know at this time what the Government propose to do.
The late Government embarked upon a policy, they passed the Laurier Naval Act, that policy was approved by both parties and was referred to by the right hon. Prime Minister himself, in England, and in various parts of Canada, as a proper policy to embark upon and one that should commend itself, nut only to every patriotic Canadian, but also to every Englishman. Hon. gentlemen opposite have promised to repeal that Naval Act and they have already begun to destroy any effect that it might have had. They have taken steps to allow the sailors on the training ships to leave those vessels and they are practically putting these vessels out of commission. What we ask them to do is to come out honestly and above board and tell us frankly what they have in mind in this respect. I submit that the statements which have been made by the Prime Minister on various occasions justify me in saying that his position is one which the country cannot understand. Let me quote a few of the utterances of the right hon. gentleman. First, let me refer to his statement at page 24 of the pamphlet, containing his speech of the 5th December, which has been scattered broadcast throughout the country. On the 5th of December he said:
There have been proposals, to which I shall no more than allude, that we should build uip a great naval organization in Canada. In my humble opinion, nothing of an efficient character could be built up in this country within a quarter or perhaps half a century. Even then it would be but a poor and weak substitute for the splendid organization which the Empire already possesses, which has been evolved and built up through centuries of the most searching experience and of the highest endeavour. Is there really any need that we should undertake the hazardous and costly experiment of building up a naval organization especially restricted to this Dominion, when upon just and self-respecting terms we can take such part as we desire in naval defence through the existing naval organization of the Empire, and in that way fully and effectively avail ourselves of the men and the resources at the command of Canada ?
What inference are we to draw from the language used by the Prime Minister on that occasion? Is it not clearly a condemnation of the Canadian naval policy? It is true that his language is somewhat equivocal, it is true that he does not expressly Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).
condemn the Canadian naval policy, but what is the ordinary man to understand from such language as that? It is that the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite is not a policy of building up a Canadian navy, but rather one of utilising an organization which he said was available to us upon terms consistent with our dignity as a self-respecting, independent colony of the Empire, but which terms, as I showed last night, have no real existence in fact. Let me quote further his utterances on the 27th February last as reported at page 4269 of ' Hansard.' They aTe as follows:
What will be the purpose of the navy which my hon. friends propose to create when it is created ? They propose to have one fleet unit on the Atlantic and one fleet unit on the Pacific. For what purpose will they be placed there and to what extent will they be effective? I say that the best defence of Canada will be by the united naval forces of the whole Empire; and I further maintain that it would he impossible for a single fleet unit on the Atlantic, or a single fleet unit on the Pacific, to defend the shores or coast line of Canada against such an attack as might be expected, if tan attack were to take place.
I submit that the only conclusion you would draw from these remarks of the Prime Minister of the 27th February is that he is not in favour of a Canadian navy, that he sees no necessity for it whatsoever, that Canada now has all the navy she requires, namely, the British navy, and that the duty devolves upon Canada to contribute to that navy in the North sea. Let me now quote, in contra-distinction to these statements, other statements, and I do this for the purpose of showing that in view of his seemingly irreconcilable attitude, in view of his variety of policies from time to time, now that he is asking for this money, the country has a right to know definitely what he means, and is justified in asking that he make a candid statement of the policy which he proposes. Let me quote the language which he used in Halifax when he enunciated his policy there. He said in Halifax cn the 14th October, 1909, that:
The House of Commons, last session, laid down a certain policy touching naval defence in which both nolitical parties united.
It may not have the aspirations of aXI' Conservatives, hut 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 in Great Britain with respect to foreign nations.
If the policy annouuneed in 1908 may not have satisfied the aspirations of all Conservatives, as the Prime Minister said, I wonder if there is anything in the vague indistinct policy which he now has that

will satisfy the aspirations of all Conservatives, or that will appeal to the manhood of Canada and make us proud of the stock from which we have sprung. The right hon. gentleman continued to say:
How the present Administration will work out the policy which was outlined by a 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 neces-i sary provision for our naval defences should be made so far as may be reasonably possible. 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.
In 1909 he had no doubt whatever of the aspirations of the people and he knew that Liberals and Conservatives alike desired a policy that would involve the using of our own material by our own labour and by the constructive skill of our own people. He stated further:
To-day should be Nova Scotia's opportunity in that regard. Providence has endowed this province with the material, with the men, and with the maritime situation which are essential not only for developing a scheme of naval defence and protection, but also for the resuscitation of this ship-building industry which once made Nova Scotia famous throughout the world.
There is no suggestion of contribution in that statement. How is the right hon. gentlemen going to revive the ship-building industry by sending away $35,000,000 this year and perhaps a greater sum in future years? Speaking at Toronto on November 1, 1909, the right hon. gentleman is reported as follows:
Mr. Borden spoke with great deliberation and evidently weighed his words carefully. He unhesitatingly reaffirmed his adherence to the naval defence policy outlined in the House of Commons resolution passed last March. Mr. Borden scouted the idea of Canada relying on the navy of the United States in time of danger, and characterized as absurd the plea that we are incapable of building a navy in this country.
What happened between 1909 and the visit of the Prime Minister to London last year, which leads him to think that now we are not able to build anything like a navy when in 1909 he scouted that idea. Speaking at a luncheon given at the Constitutional Club in London on Dominion Day, July 1, 1909, Mr. Borden is reported in the London Times of July 2, as having said:
He -was aware that some feeling was created in the British Isles owing to the fact that Canada did not by resolution or by speech from the Prime Minister, vouchsafe to offer one, two, or three dreadnoughts. He thought the resolution, in the form in which it was based, while its promises might not upon the
surface seem to some as significant at the moment as the offer of one or two dreadnoughts would have been, laid down a permanent policy for the Dominion of Canada upon -which both parties united and which would serve a more practical purpose than any such offer of dreadnoughts.
If the Prime Minister was correctly reported by the London Times, he lauded the Laurier Naval Act as the best naval permanent policy for the Dominion of Canada upon which both parties had united, and which would serve a more practical purpose than any offer of dreadnoughts. If the Laurier policy was a good permanent policy then, what has occurred since to change his mind? In view of the utterances of the Prime Minister on these various occasions, and in view of his statements then and his statements now, which to the ordinary hardheaded, commonsense man are irreconcilable, does not the Prime Minister owe it to himself, to his Government, to this House and to the country, to tell us simply and clearly what is to be his permanent policy if he has any. Last night the Prime Minister, to a question put by my hon. friend from King's, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) stated he had received hundreds of letters from Liberals who are dissatisfied and disgusted with the policy of the Liberal party on this question.


Mr. NEELY:: I would like to see some
of them.


William Chisholm: Yes, it would be interesting to see some of them. I have seen that statement in the Halifax Herald, which is supposed to be the organ of the leader of the Government, and some of these telegrams appeared in that newspaper, but from my point of view none of the senders of these telegrams would pass as Liberals. We know that a Government in power is in the very poorest position to tell what is going on in the country; we know that the Government is not likely to hear any views and opinions of a critical character from those who are seeking favours. There is a class of persons who may write letters in the newspapers, signing themselves ' Old-time Liberals ' or ' Disaffected Liberals,' but if you scratch them you will find they are Tories of the simon-pure brand, or, in a rare instance there may be a disgruntled Liberal who did not get what he wanted. If we are to judge by what we hear travelling in the trains and in the corridors of hotels and other public places, I think the sentiment is overwhelmingly against the naval proposal of the present Government.
I have heard Conservatives from various parts of the country discussing this matter, and the general impression seems to be that the people of Canada do not enthuse over this mysterious naval policy of the 1 Conservative party. They do not approve

of sending $35,000,000 to the Old Country. They have faith in their country. They have been taught by the old leaders of the Conservative party that this country is as great as any other country in the world, and that anything that can be done in any other country can be done in Canada. They have been taught that there is no task too great for the people of Canada to undertake. As was pointed out very eloquently by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) when he spoke on this question in 1909, there is good reason why that should be the case. He stated that this policy of contribution was not one that would appeal to the majority of the people, because it did not strike root; it did not develop the Canadian sentiment or the pride that a Canadian naval policy would develop; it was too much like hiring a man to do for you what you ought to do for yourself. These are Mr. Foster's words on that occasion:
It bears the aspect of hiring somebody else to do what we ourselves ought to do. . . . In Canada itself there will be no roots struck, there will be no residue left, there will be no preparation of the soil or beginning of the growth of the product. ... It disjoins what
. has been joined together from the earliest days of the world's existence-commerce and the protection of commerce. . . .
He goes on to say:
. That method ignores the necessities, and the aspirations, and the prospects of a great people, such as the Canadian people are destined to become.
Then he went on to argue that, however humble our beginning may be, we should begin and that then was the time to make a beginning. He said that we must have something
In which Canada has some of her body, her bones, her blood, her mental power, and her national pride.
In those eloquent words, the member for North Toronto in 1909 expressed the aspirations of the people of Canada. I venture to say that the same sentiment prevails throughout the country to-day. The right hon. the Prime Minister referred last night to hundreds of letters which he had received from disaffected and disappointed Grits. He is perhaps in a worse position than anyone else to know what the real sentiment of the country is. He will naturally be beset by sycophants and flatterers, and assailed by those who have little axes to grind, and who pretend to see nothing but good in the action or policy of the Government. It would be interesting to know who those hundreds of Liberals are who are disgusted with the Liberal party. I saw in that bulwark of Conservatism, the Orange Sentinel, a short time ago, the following statement:
The following letter has been received by the secretary of Diamond L.O.B.L., No. 1474, from Ottawa:
Mr. CHISHOLM (Antigonish).
Allow me, through this, to acknowledge receipt of the resolutions passed by Diamond L.O.B.L., No. 1474, on 10th March, 1913, endorsing right hon. R. L. Borden's naval policy, &c., and expressing sympathy with the unionists of Ireland in their heroic struggle. On behalf of right hon. Mr. Borden and myself I thank your lodge sincerely for these expressions of their approval and words of encouragement.
Yours fraternally,
(Sgd.) T. S. Sproule.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Who is that?


William Chisholm: I do not know who he is, but this is a letter sent from Ottawa. I do not think you will find many Liberals in that body. It is not consistent with Liberal-ims to stand up for a party that gives expression to utterances such as Mr. F. E. Smith and Sir Edward Carson gave expression to when they were going to dethrone the King some time ago if Home Rule were granted to Ireland by the Parliament of Great Britain. When I read this article, it occurred to me that perhaps it was from members of this body that these letters of congratulation were sent from Liberals expressing their great admiration for the conduct of the Government in suppressing free speech in Parliament, and in endeavouring to force through Parliament by closure a measure which does not find favour with Liberals, and with a large proportion of Conservatives if they were free to express their opinions.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the meaning of the letters 'L.O.B.L.'?


William Chisholm: I am not in their
secrets. Let me quote something more moderate, something more temperate in tone, and something that should appeal to everybody in Canada. In discussing the naval policy of the Conservative party this article goes on to say:
But there is a great deal more than that involved in the Conservative policy.
That is, the question as to whether there should be a contribution from time to time or not:
It has a bearing upon the whole question of our country's destiny. The dream which we believe is cherished by the great mass of Canada's young manhood is that we should build up, in this northern zone, under the British Crown, a' free nation, facing the problems and discharging the responsibilities which nationhood involves. Among these responsibilities is that of providing for our own defence and deciding in what wars, if any, we should voluntarily engage. To send away money, which may be used in waging war over whose inception we can have no control, and which in some cases might appear to our people unrighteous, is to establish a precedent that might well be fatal to our( highest aspirations.
Such naval preparation as Canada majy make at this time should, in our humble judgment, be on a modest scale, proportioned

to our needs as a peace loving and peace seeking nation, whose fixed policy will be to submit such misunderstandings as may rise with other nations to the decision of a judicial tribunal rather than to the arbitrament of the sword. By thus providing for our own need we shall fulfil our responsibility as a component part of the Empire, while at the same time, we can, with consistency and a clear conscience, join in the attempt to bring the civilized nations together for the purpose of making international arbitration the fixed and universal rule.
I quote that from page 261 of the Presbyterian, a weekly review of church life and work. The paper is dated February 27, 1913. I think these are the true sentiments of the people of Canada from one end of the country to the other. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister, previous to December 5, last, stated in Montreal that if Parliament did not pass this measure he would go to the country, and he made the same statement during the course of his speech on December 5 last. At the time he made that statement he did not anticipate that this measure would be forced through the House of Commons by closure; I am sure that nothing of that kind occurred to him. What he meant was that this policy of his was so acceptable to the people at large that it would receive their unanimous approval. On this matter of sending $35,000,000 out of the country there has been no expression of opinion on the part of the people; they have not had an opportunity of passing judgment on the policy of the present Administration. It may be argued that they passed judgment on the Liberal naval policy at the last election, but it has been repeatedly pointed out that except in the province of Quebec, the naval question was not an issue during the last election. In the other provinces it may have been incidentally referred to, but very little was said about it, and there was no real issue in that regard between the two parties. In the province of Quebec, whilst perhaps there may have been disclosed a sentiment antagonistic to the Liberal naval policy, there was no approval of the policy now enunciated by the Government. They have no mandate from the people, and before embarking upon this policy of sending contributions to the Old Country, or even of sending one contribution, they should obtain the assent and approval of the people. More than that, I say that this policy is fraught with grave oonstitutional dangers. I have here a clipping which expresses the idea I wish to convey betteT than I could possibly express it:
The question is not whether Canada shall accept her national obligations in matters of naval defence. Neither is battleship construction in Britain or in Canada the vital
uestion. All this high sounding talk about
anada's incompetence, indulged in by Mr. Borden and his associates and echoed by Mr. Churchill, gpes wide of the mark. The supreme question is: Shall Canada maintain and control her own sea forces, as she has maintained and controlled her own land forces, or shall she surrender the first right of a free nation and pay defence taxes to a government not elected by the Canadian people and not amendable to Canadian opinion? That question pushes all matters of what and when and how and where into the background. The man who does not see how everything greatly worth while in Canada's national life is involved in such a problem is not equipped for discussing the issue now before Parliament.


Mr. BRADBURY:: What paper is that
from?


William Chisholm: I think it is quoted
from the Globe; I di.l not pay much attention to its source, but the sentiment expressed is a noble and patriotic one, and should have a place in the breast of every true Canadian. Does it not sound a great deal like some of the utterances of the men who m days gone by fought for responsible government? I cannot understand how any man from the province of Nova Scotia, where the people, under the leadership of Joseph Howe, fought the great battle for constitutional rights and liberties, for free speech and responsible government, and for the control of their own affairs, as against Downing Street rule; I cannot understand, I say, how any man from the province of Nova Scotia would for a moment stand by this policy of contribution,, Hon. gentlemen say that in voting this $35,000,000 we are not in any way destroying our autonomy or losing any part of our independence. That $35,000,000 goes to the Old Country; we have no control over it after it is converted into battleships. That is the principle which we say is objectionable; that is the principle which the right hon. leader of the Government himself has held as objectionable. He has repeatedly placed himself on record as saying that unless we have a voice in the affairs of the British, Empire, and unless we -have control and direction over the movements of the ships, we should not subscribe to a policy of contribution.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I notice in the
memorandum from the Admiralty read by the Prime Minister on December 5 last, the following words:
The Prime Minister of the Dominion oi Canada has invited His Majesty's Government throngh the Board of Admiralty to prepare a statement of the present and immediately prospective requirements of the naval defence of the Empire for presentation to the Canadian Parliament if the Dominion Cabinet deem it necessary.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not make any communication to the Admiralty on that subject.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My right hon. friend
says ' I did not.' Would he allow me to ask if any member of his Government made any communications ?


Robert Laird Borden: Not so far as I am
aware.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And would that answer also apply to the statement made by Mr. Churchill in his communication of the 24th of January as to the impossibility of Canada securing and training sufficient recruits to man one cruiser.
Mr. CARVELL.


Robert Laird Borden: There was simply inquiry as to the subject matter; the correspondence has been laid before the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then I am to understand that there was no correspondence regarding this matter excepting what has been laid before the House. It perhaps throws some light on the subject, and yet after all it is somewhat remarkable that the British Admiralty would send out to the Canadian people two memorandums of such tremendous importance as those referred to, simply on a verbal conversation between the Prime Minister of Canada and either the First Lord of the Admiralty or some official in his department.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend will not misunderstand me. I did not say I had no conversation on that subject with the First Lord of the Admiralty, and I have no recollection of having a conversation on that particular subject.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My right hon. friend
says there are no communications excepting what have been laid on the table of the House and, if he has no recollection of conversations on the subject, we must assume that the First Lord of the Admiralty has simply gathered this information from newspaper reports, probably from statements made by Conservative orators. Possibly he may have seen it in the London Times. Any way, I am glad to know that the First Lord of the Admiralty had no official right to make such scandalous statements, and what I regard as untrue statements, with respect to the good name of Canada as to her ability to man ships.


Robert Laird Borden: I presume that the First Lord of the Admiralty had access to all public documents of this country relating to this matter. I assume that the information came from that source.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is all I wanted to know. I think by the time we get through with this argument we may find out something about the character of the information that this man Churchill is giving to the world regarding Canada, and the sources from which he obtained his knowledge. I wonder if my right hon. friend realized when he was making his grand stand stage play in this House on the night of the 10th of March last, what would be the consequence of reading a document purporting to come from the First Lord of the British Admiralty based on no better information than Mr. Churchill had when he made that statement. It only shows the part which Mr. Churchill has played in this whole nefarious transaction-and I use that word advisedly and do not think it is too strong to express the real sentiments of the Canadian people after we

come to consider this matter from all standpoints.
We had a little attempt at explanation of the policy of the Government on the part of the Minister of Marine last evening, after a quiescent interval of something like a month. It is most remarkable that he could throw no further light upon the subject than he did. The Government seems to be perfectly willing to sit quiet in their seats and take no part in the debate and give us no further information. Things have happened in the last month and in the last three months and enough things have happened in the last six months to cause a Government which really wanted to work for the best interests of the country to call a halt in this whole thing. As I understand, the Minister of Marine has put up the only argument which the Government intends to or can put up in answer to the criticisms of this proposition made by members on this side of the House. The whole gist of his argument was that because the Pore River Shipbuilding Company ac Quincy, Mass., had made a financial failure, it was impossible to build ships in Canada. There cannot be any other reason for his alluding to that company, [f any hon. gentleman can show any other possible application I would be glad to make way for him.


Mr. FOSTER (Kings, N.S.):: It seems to me that it was clear to every hon. gentleman in this House that the reason the minister referred to the Fore River -Shipbuilding Company was to prove that the member for St. John did not know what he was talking about in that particular instance.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Mr. MEIGHEN:: The Viekers-Maxim
Company do.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They do not, they
build the ships, g.uns and turrets.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, yes, they do.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Even then there are a
hundred other things that they do not build. The Minister of Marine tries to use the unfair, dishonest argument made by Mr. Churchill in his letter-and I again use that word advisedly-to prove that we cannot build ships in Canada because it is necessary to have all these different collateral establishments to build all the materials that enter into the construction and equipment of a battleship. Of course, it is necessary to have guns to go into a ship, but I think I am safe in saying that there is not a ship-building establishment in the United States that manufactures its own guns. In fact, there are only two ship-building plants in the British Empire that manufacture their own guns: the Armstrong, Whitworth Company at Newcastle, and Vickers, Sons & Maxim. They do manufacture their own guns, but all the other ship-building firms buy their guns from whatever concern happens to have them in the market. In the United States the Fore River Shipbuilding Company bought its guns from the Bethlehem Steel Company. I only mention these things to show what an unfair argument the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries attempted to make last evening. He even went so far as to say that if we wanted to build 8 ship in Canada, we would need engine works costing $5,000,000. I do not believe there is a ship-building firm in the world that builds its own engines and boilers.
When my hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm) was speaking I was looking up something about the United States navy, and I found in Burgoyne's Annual


Rodolphe Lemieux: That was a concocted memorandum.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not know whether it was or not, but I believe it was. I cannot conceive of a responsible official, such as this gentleman, Commander Roper, on the very day before a general election-


Rodolphe Lemieux: And without being
asked.
Mr. CARVELL-when the policy of constructing ships in Canada was one of the principal policies of the Government then in existence, and the principal policyinthe province of Quebec, leaving a memorandum of that kind without being asked and of his own motion. It simply is not common sense. My hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) was his minister for something like two weeks and during that time he never made reference to it. Yet that is the memorandum which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries states he found in the department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend might
add that a year previously the same Commander Roper expressed a radically different view about the Canadian navy, and for having expressed that view, he was threatened by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) with being brought before the bar of the House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I remember that incident very distinctly indeed. But even if the incident referred to by my hon. friend from Rouville had never taken place, I repeat there is no responsible official, no man who knows as much as Commander Roper does, who would dare do such a thing, who would ever conceive of doing such a thing. Imagine an official preparing a memorandum the day before the general election condemning the Government on a certain line of policy which was being discussed at the polls! It is not conceivable. The only reasonable supposition is that that he prepared that memorandum afterwards and dated it back. It is due to this House and the people of the country that this man Roper, if he is still in the employ of this Government, should be brought back to Canada, brought before the Bar of the House and compelled to say when he did write it. There is some proof of it somewhere. There is probably a stenographer somewhere around Ottawa who wrote that article, and if we could find him we would know how it was concocted. It was the most ridiculous proposition that I ever heard of since I have been in the House of Commons. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries falls back on a report like that as a justification for refusing to carry out the agreement. Why does he not come out like a man and say that he did not carry out this agreement because the Nationalists of Quebec would not let him do it? Does he suppose that he is fooling anybody in Canada when he tells them this cock-and-bull story? Does he suppose that every man who Teads and thinks does not know why he did not carry out this agreement? Does he not know that his leader issued manifesto after manifesto, in Quebec and in other parts of the country, all condemning the iLaurier naval policy? When my hon. friend came into office, of course, he could not sign the contract. Of course, he could not enter into a policy which he had fought and which the Nationalists had fought in the province of Quebec. He turned it down because he had to. I am almost ashamed that a man representing my own province should come here and put forth the finding of this memorandum as a reason why he did not sign that contract.


The CHAIRMAN:: I think the hon. gentleman is using strong words.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not wish to say
anything that is unparliamentary. I am not saying anything against the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, but I am giv-

ing my own opinion of his action and stating how I feel about it. I want to say something about the obsolescence of these vessels that the Laurier Government were ready to contract for and for which tenders were in the possession of the Naval Department when the present Government came into power. The tenders were to build these ships in St. John. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may say that my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) stated that if this Government had signed the contract they might have been built on the St. Lawrence. If the Government had signed the contract these vessels might have been built at Montreal, Sydney or Halifax, but let me tell the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the tender which he found when he came into office and the deposit of $100,000 which had not been returned were not for building ships in the city of Montreal, but for building ships in the city of St. John, and he knows it. The people of St. John do not care about what might have happened if the Government had gone on and done this, that or some other thing, but the question is: Why did not the Minister of Marine and Fisheries sign that contract and why did he not allow these ships to be built in St. John? That is the question we ask him and that is the question that we are going to continue to ask him. He may say that he has Commander Roper's statement that these ships would be obsolescent before they were completed. I turn again to Burgoyne's Naval Annual, page 345, where reference is made to the type of vessel for which tenders have been called and where Messers. Cammell, Laird & Co., had agreed to construct in St. John for, I think, $1,900,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Mr. HENDERSON:: Oh, do not measure them in your own bushel.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think my hon. friend from Halton is getting very much of the loaves and fishes now, and he may be a little sore when loaves and fishes are mentioned.


David Henderson: There is no occasion for me to be.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If the hon. gentleman were looking for a good fat contract, he might be more successful in landing it than he is in landing the higher office at which he aims. I sympathize with the hon. gentleman.


David Henderson: Thank you very
kindly.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If there is a man on the other side of the House with whom I do really sympathize, it is the hon. member for Halton, and I am sorry that my reference to loaves and fishes ruffled his usually smooth temper.


David Henderson: Oh, not at all.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think there is much chance of the Government losing the Nationalists, but if they are going to hold them they must not build ships in Canada; they must not recruit men in Canada, and they must dismiss the men who already have been recruited in Canada. That is the one condition of the support of the Nationalists, and so long as the Prime Minister complies with that condition, he will have their loyal support. At all events, that is the reason the Minister of Marine did not sign the contract to build the vessels at St. John and not because the vessels would be obsolescent before they were completed.
When the Prime Minister introduced this measure on the 5th day of December last, he proposed it on the sole ground that a condition of emergency existed in the
British Empire, and that if this contribution were not made the British Empire might go to pieces. True, the Prime Minister did not put it in as plain English as I do now, but that wa3 the substance of what he said. And, if my right hon. friend omitted anything in that direction, it was supplied by his followers who were allowed to speak during the first fortnight of the debate. One after the other of them got up and delivered himself of the German scare as the sole argument for sending this $35,000,000 out of the country. It may be well to call attention to the language used by the Prime Minister on that memorable occasion, the 5th of December, and it will be found that the only reason he gave for this proposal was directed to the fear that some fine day the German navy might descend upon the British Isles. He read it with the greatest satisfaction, and it was applauded to the echo by his followers. In this statement he practically set forth that there was an emergency. Let me read it to the House again:
It may be fairly asked what we would do if we were in power to-day with regard to a great question of this kind. It seems to me that our plain course and duty would be this: The Government of this country are able to ascertain and to know, if they take the proper action for that purpose, whether the conditions which face the Empire at this time in respect of naval defence are grave. If we were in power we would endeavour to find that out, to get a plain, unvarnished answer to that question, and if the answer to that question, based upon the assurance of the Government of the Mother Country and the report of the naval experts of the Admiralty were such-and I think it would be such- as to demand instant and effective action by this country, then I would appeal to Parliament for immediate and effective aid, and if Parliament did not give immediate and effective aid I would appeal from Parliament to the people of the. country.
Any reasonable man must take that to mean that he went to England and found that a real condition of emergency existed, a condition which required immediate and effective aid. If there was any question as to his intention or the grounds upon which he was applying to Parliament, his succeeding remarks dispelled any doubt as to that. They are as follows:
Then, Sir, as to the permanent policy, I think the people have a right to be consulted. I do not know whether I have made my position clear but I have done so according to my humble capacity. I think the question of Canada's co-operation upon a permanent basis in Imperial defence involves very large and wide considerations.
That was his belief as to the condition of affairs in December, 1912. He asked Parliament to grant $35,000,000 on the ground that a real emergency existed at that time. After this money was granted,

he intended to take up the question of a permanent policy. I want to be fair to him. I want at least to be logical in any conclusion that I may draw from the facts that I am giving to the House. I wonder if my right hon. friend could find any man on the other side of the House who would argue that a condition of emergency exists to-day. Even the Montreal Star has given up that idea. About six weeks ago when people were getting away from the crux of the question, that paper came out with an editorial, in which it said: They are forgetting the emergency. Why, the Montreal Star has forgotten it now. No reasonable thinking man in the British Empire would say that there is an emergency at the present time. My right hon. friend in his address of the 5th of December, made the air lurid in his description of the condition of affairs existing in the North sea. He told us how many vessels the Germans had in the North sea.,	a.nd
how many the British had in the North sea. We heard the thunder roll and saw the lightning flash. The battle of Armageddon was at hand, and the German navy was ready to come over and to blow us up at any moment. Many things have happened since that time. When my right hon. friend made his .speech in December, 1912, a condition of affairs existed in Europe which made it very easy for him to make an argument even though it was not based on facts. There was a war between Turkey and the Balkans which threatened to set Europe on fire. Turkey was humiliated and practically driven out of Europe, and finally bad to come to the Powers and say:	We plaee_ ourselves entirely in your hands; do with us as you think best and we will be satisfied.
Then my friends got hope from another complication in Europe. The Montenegrins captured the fortress of Scutari and said that they were going to hold it. Every hon. member knows that Austria determined that Montenegro should not be permitted to hold Scutari, but that Scutari should become Austrian or Albanian. It looked as if there was going to be war over that. Every paper came out with scare headlines; but Scutari has now been abandoned by the Montenegrins, and Europe is at peace and at rest as it has not been for the last forty years. The German Empire for the last ten years has been spending enormous sums on its navy. It has transferred its energies now to its army. It is increasing its army on a peace footing by about 250,000 men; and, in order to get the necessary funds, it has been compelled to resort to what ' I might call the expropriation of public property. It has had to assess a tax upon the property of the people which amounts almost to confiscation. France Mr. CARVBLL.
has increased her land forces by lengthening the term of service from two to three years. A new force has arisen in the Balkans. A million armed men are there who are supposed to be the allies of Russia. The whole theatre of trouble in Europe has been transferred from the water to the land. So far as any person who thinks and reads can see, it will be generations before there will be any question of trouble on the ocean. If any trouble takes place in Europe in the future, it must be on the land. The German Empire, without any question whatever, has agreed to the proposition of restricting its construction of war vessels to the ratio of ten German vessels to sixteen British. With an agreement like that, why should we go into this un-Canadian- and I might say unpatriotic proposition to send this money out of the country and to establish a condition of affairs which sooner or later must be broken by the people of Canada, and which cannot be broken without causing trouble either here or in the Mother Country?
These are matters which I think my right hon. friend would do well to consider carefully before he attempts to force this matter through by closure, as we understand he intends doing. I think he will have some difficulty in getting it through in any other way. I am not making a threat; I am only stating a fact. If we were justified in December, 1912, in refusing to agree to this un-Canadian proposition, we are a hundred times more justified in refusing to agree to it now, when the very reason put forward by my right hon. friend for its existence has absolutely failed and has ceased to exist. I do not wonder that he does not attempt to justify this proposition at this stage of the debate. I do not wonder that he has left the matter to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who has tried to draw the attention of the people away from the fact that we can build ships in Canada, by stating that a shipbuilding firm in the United States has got into financial difficulties and has been sold out to a larger firm. That will not put it out of existence but will enable it to continue on a wider basis than in the past. I do not wonder that my right hon. friend will not allow any of his followers to make a speech or to endeavour to justify this proposition. I do not wonder that none of his newspaper followers in Canada have attempted to do such a thing. The reading public are reasonable beings. They are able to read the signs of the times, just the same as hon. members on this side of the House are. They know that condition of emergency has ceased to exist. They know that the idea of forcing this Bill through is taken up only because the Government are compelled to do so at the be-

best of their Nationalist followers, and not because it is necessary for Canada or for the British Empire.
Even at this late date, I consider that the right hon. the Prime Minister would not lose in prestige; that he would gain in prestige; that he would be stamped as a man of big proportions if he would have the manhood to say:	Conditions have
changed since I introduced this Bill in 1912. The condition of emergency which I thought existed then has ceased to exist. There is no danger of trouble arising in Great Britain. An agreement has been entered into between Great Britain and Germany by which naval construction shall be limited in the ratio of sixteen to ten. He can give all these reasons without any loss of prestige, and, indeed, I think he would gain a great deal of prestige if he were to stand up and say: The conditions have changed; therefore I will withdraw this Bill. If he would do that, there would be no trouble about agreeing on a policy which would be of great benefit to Canada as a whole.
My hon. friend has said that, although we are now giving this money, we are going to have a permanent policy. My impression is that we have the permanent policy before us now. In introducing this Bill, my hon. friend said that the Canadian ships were to be stationed in the North sea, and he and those of his followers whom he allowed to speak during the first two or three weeks of this debate placed great emphasis upon the conditions in the North sea. They wanted the ships to be in the firing line when Armageddon comes; they wanted to be represented not by their men, who would be of some use, but by their money; they wanted to be where there would be no danger that the sons of Canada would be disembowelled by German bullets. When it was suggested by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House that, if we had a fleet unit on the Atlantic, that fleet unit could get to the North sea in six days, we were told that the whole danger would have passed over before the fleet could get there. That argument was made use of up to March 10, when my right hon. friend read this remarkable production from the Right Hon. Winston Churchill. My right hon. friend hesitated long and anxiously before producing that letter; I do not wonder that he did so. I am surprised that a responsible minister of the_ Crown in Britain should write a letter which contains an insult to one-half the Canadian people and a libel upon the other half-an insult when he SR,ys that the people of Canada have not the brains, the pluck, the energy and the ability to do what other countries have done, and a libel upon our workmen fn Canada when ' 293
he says that there cannot be found in this country men to drive rivets, build cranes or man shipyards. He even intimated that we had no soil in Canada sufficiently solid to support the ways for holding a ship. As I say, I do not wonder that my right hon. friend hesitated long and anxiously before he presented that memorandum to Parliament. I do not wonder that when it was read in this House it created a storm that my right hon. friend did not anticipate; I do not wonder that it created a tempest not only in Parliament but throughout the country. I do not wonder that his own party papers, as well as the Liberal press, condemned him and his party for repeating that libel upon the Canadian people. But the storm created in Canada was but a gentle zephyr compared with the storm that took place in Great Britain when this matter became known. It is well known that in Britain, not only the Conservative press but the Liberal papers supporting the Hon. Mr. Churchill, condemned him in the severest possible manner for his action. An hon.mem-ber of the British Parliament gave notice of a resolution of censure upon the Admiralty for writing such a letter and for offering such an insult to the labouring people of the Dominion of Canada, and it was only on account of the exigencies of British polities that this gentleman was not allowed to make his motion of censure. It is well known in England that if the members of the British Parliament were given a chance to tell Mr. Churchill -what they thought of him, he would be driven out of the Government, and, as in this event such great reforms as Home Rule, the abolition of plural voting, and other great social reforms now being projected in England might go to the wall, for their own self-preservation the Liberal party in Britain abstained from giving this gentleman an opportunity of placing upon the First Lord of the Admiralty that censure which the parliamentarians of Britain would like to mete out to him for offering this insult to Canada. Then Mr. Churchill had to do something to pacify public opinion in Britain, and the naval emergency was shifted from the North sea to Gibraltar; the Canadian ships were linked up with the Sultan of Perak and the Malay States. At first the Right Hon. Winston Churchill would have us believe that the Canadian ships in Shis flying squadron were to be associated with those of Australia and New Zealand. But Australia said two or three years ago: We will have .none of your flfying squadron; we are looking after our own affairs, building our cwn navy, manning and owning it, and if the time comes when the British Empire is in need of aid we shall place the ships



at the disposal of the British Admiralty. It is true that New Zealand had adopted a policy of contribution, and that she handed one ship over to the British Empire. But even New Zealand has gene back on that policy, and, if we correctly interpret the remarks of Colonel Allen, who was in this country last week, it is evident that New Zealand will have nothing more to do with contributions, and intends to pursue the manly course of building her own ships, manning and .maintaining them, 'and, like Australia, placing them at the disposal of the British Admiralty when the hour of danger should arise. That is the course Canada Should adopt. When Winston Churchill -trans-Jeired these vessels to Gibraltar, while he may have pleased some people in Britain, he did not please my right hon. friend, ike Conservative party in Canada saw that the whole argument they had been putting up to the people of Canada was by this course swept away. For two months subsequent to December 5, 1912, they tried to make the people of Canada believe that the vessels must be in the North sea when Armageddon comes, to fight the Germans, but Winston Churchill now says: We do not want those vessels in the North sea; we have the ships and the men and the money and the resources, and we can take care of ourselves; we are going to send these Canadian vessels to Gibraltar. Then my hon. friends opposite saw that their argument was entirely shattered, and, while I have no actual knowledge of the matter, I can quite conceive of the wires being kept red-hot with cablegrams going across to Churchill from my right hon. friend saying: Look at the hole you have put me in. Then Mr. Churchill says:	I must
placate my friends in Canada. It is true we can take care of ourselves in the North *sea; it is true that we have made arrangements with Germany by which future naval construction will be reduced to the ratio of 16 to 10; it is true that we do not want the Canadian warships in the North sea, and it is equally true we have not got the men to man them even if they were there.


Mr. BURNHAM:: The hon. gentleman has spoken very glowingly of Australia. Is it true or not true that Australia considers its navy a component part of the navy of the Empire ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is both true and not true.


John Hampden Burnham: That is just what I expected.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is true in time of trouble, it is not true in time of peace, and if any man can conceive any better Canadian doctrine than that I would like Mir. CARVELL.
to hear him speak now or forever hold his peace.
. Mr. BURNHAM:	It is independent,
that is what it is.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend must
not get excited over independence, we will discuss that later, and I hope my hon. friend will be permitted to make a speech on that subject. My right hon. friend ought to see that there are dozens of his followers anxious to give the public their views on this question. Free speech never hurt any country or any party. Every time one of my hon. friends opposite asks a question it is an illustration of this great doctrine of free speech and of the danger attending the method of burking free speech which has been adopted by this Government. The Australian fleet, I be-live the moment there is a possibility of danger to the British Empire, will be placed unreservedly under the British Admiralty.


John Hampden Burnham: Is that arranged now?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I believe it is.


John Hampden Burnham: Is that the way with the Canadian navy ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I believe it is.


John Hampden Burnham: Will your leader say that ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend has not the floor now.


John Hampden Burnham: You dare not do it,
you dare not do it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will tell my hon. friend what will happen, so far as I am concerned. So far as I am concerned the Canadian navy will be at the disposal ^of the British Admiralty the moment the time of emergency comes or it Is required for the defence of the Empire, and if my right hon. friend has any doubt about that let him move an amendment to section 22 and 23 of the Canadian Naval Service Act in order to improve it in this respect; then he will see if every man on this side of the House will not vote for him. My right hon. friend dare not amend the Canadian Naval Service Act in that way. He is the greatest sinner of them all in this regard, because when speaking on this question at one time he harked back to an answer given by the right hon. leader of the Opposition to a supposed question when the Naval Service Act was under consideration by the Committee of the Whole House. He stated a certain condition of affairs and asked the -right hon. gentleman what would happen under those conditions under the Canadian Naval Service Act, and the right hon. leader of the Opposition gave the only logical answer which could he given, the

logical answer that any hon. gentleman would give, and which I for one would never for a moment go back on. If my right hon. friend fears that some action might be taken by a future Canadian Government that should not be taken, because of the wording of sections 22 and 23 of the Canadian Naval Service Act, and these are the only ones referring to it, I say to him:	Amend the Act and put it
exactly in the same form as the Australian and New Zealand Act and he will not hear a word of dissent from this side of the House. If that were done we would have a Canadian navy controlled by the Dominion Government in time of peace and at the service of the Empire in time of war.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: Is my hon. friend
of the same mind as the right hon. leader of the Opposition, who said that if circumstances arose again the same as those existing at the time of the Crimean war he would not send the Canadian navy to the assistance of Great Britain?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I was not on this earth at the time of the Crimean war, neither was my hon. friend; and, while I know something about the history of that war,
I do not care what would have happened in 1854; what I am talking about is what is happening in 1913 and what will happen m the future and I am telling my hon. friend what would be my attitude in case a Canadian navy were built and certain conditions arose. Under the Canadian Naval Service Act there is not a word line or expression which prevents the Canadian Government from doing anything they have a mind to; they may send the Canadian navy to the British Admiralty any day they want to, or they may send them to the Crimea or anywhere else, the only condition is that if they transfer it to the British Admiralty they must call Parliament together within ten or fifteen days to provide funds. They must do the same with regard to the navy as with regard to the militia. The Militia Act, passed a few years after Confederation, provides that if you send the militia of Canada out of the country you must call Parliament together to provide funds. The same thing applies to the navy. The Militia Act provides that the militia must be controlled by the Canadian Government and by nobody else; but if the militia be handed over to the British Government a new condition of affairs arises and Parliament must be called together. If my right hon. friend or any of his followers have any doubt about that let the Prime Minister bring down an amendment to the Canadian Naval Service Act which will eliminate the boggy which they profess to see in those two clauses or any other clauses.
293*


An hon. MEMBER:: And you will vote against it.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: And I will vote for it. My right hon. friend dare not bring in such an amendment, his Nationalist allies will not allow it. I think he is having enough trouble with the Nationalist wing of his party now without attempting to amend the Naval Service Act. One minister of the Crown said last year that they would abolish the Canadian Naval Service Act. The Prime Minister seems to have kept them quiet by arguments or promises, promises I presume, and they have remained quiet and have allowed this session to go on without demanding the repeal of the Naval Service Act. It is true that they have not all voted with the Government on all occasions, but enough of them have voted with the Government to keep them in power and I presume that the Government will be able to get through the session without repealing the Naval Service Act. But if they have any doubt about this side of the House or any doubt about the efficiency of the Canadian Naval Service Act and want to make it plainer that the Canadian navy will automatically pass into the hands of the Admiralty in time of war, all they have to do is to change the wording of the Act and they will not find any necessity of applying closure to pass such a measure through the House.
At six o'clock, House resumed, and then took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock, and again went into Committee. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Before six o'clock I was discussing as briefly as possible the objections which my hon. friends opposite profess to have to the Canadian Naval Service Act, and in order that I may leave no doubt whatever as to my meaning in that respect, I wish to call the attention of the committee to those sections of the Canadian Naval Service Act which seems to have been a stumbling block to my hon. friends opposite. We did not hear much about this Act in the province of New Brunswick in the last campaign, and very little I think in the maritime provinces.


Mr. TOBIN:: We heard something about it in Quebec.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, but in Quebec they did not find the same fault with it as they did in the province of Ontario. In Quebec they found fault because it was doing something for Great Britain, but in Ontario the fault they found was that it did nothing for the Empire. They called it a separatist navy because they claimed that under the

Canadian Naval Service Act the Canadian Government would not be compelled to do anything for the Empire in case of need.
I wish to show how easy it would be for my hon. friends opposite to adopt this law and to make it mean anything they desired. They can make all the changes they like, though, according to my judgment, no changes are necessary, because as I consider it, the law gives the Government all the power which they need to protect Canada and to assist in the protection of the Empire. To my mind we want no better law than the one we have at present, despite what the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may say. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has not been able to implement the promise he made to his Nationalist friends a year ago. We know that a little more than a year ago there were grave doubts as to whether his Nationalist allies would not desert the Conservative party in a body, with the result that my hon. friend was compelled to make a promise that the Government would repeal the Canadian Naval Service Act. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has not carried out that promise yet. The only sections in this Act which seems to bother my hon. friend and especially Imperialists like my hon. friend from Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), are sections 22 and 23, and in order that we may know definitely what these are I wish to place them on 'Hansard.' Section 22 reads:
The Governor in Council may place the naval forces or any part thereof, on active service at any time when its appears advisable so to do by reason of an emergency.
Section 23 reads:
In case of an emergency the Governor in Council, may place at the disposal of His Majesty, for general service in the Royal navy, the naval service or any part thereof, any ships or vessels of the naval service, and the officers and seamen serving in such ships or vessels, or any officers or seamen belonging to the naval service.
In order to know what is meant by an emergency, you can refer back to section 2, the interpretation clause, and you have the following in sub-section (d):
Emergency means war, invasion or insurrection real or apprehended.
Therefore if there is war, invasion, or insurrection, either real or pretended the Government would have the right, as the law now stands, to place the whole Canadian naval service under the control of the British Admiralty, to do with it whatever they had a mind to. My hon. friends say that it is a separatist Bill, and they have wasted months and months of time, and I am going to say tons and tons of literature, in trying to prove that this is a disloyal measure. Having read all the Mr. CARVELL.
clauses bearing on that branch of the case, I repeat that if my right hon. friend thinks that this is not a proper Act, he now has control of this Parliament, and all he has to'do is to bring down any amending clause he might think necessary, and if the Canadian Naval Service Act in the future is not what it ought to be, the burden is on him. I hope we will hear nothing more from hon. gentlemen opposite, or from their press, about a separatist navy or about a Naval Service Act which will not allow the ships of Canada to go to the defence of the Empire in case of an emergency.


John Hampden Burnham: That is surely not the point.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Government who have had the courage to open their mouths upon this question-that these vessels are to remain permanently with the British Admiralty and that if they are to remain permanently with the British Admiralty there will be no Canadian navy.
That is the position of one branch of the Conservative party in Canada; that is the real meaning of the policy of the Imperialist branch. That is the real agreement that was made in London last summer between the right hon. Prime Minister and his colleagues and the British Admiralty. This agreement was not even put in writing according to the confession of my hon. friend this afternoon. It is an agreement that was made verbally. This is the agreement that these hon. gentlemen made when they told Mr. Churchill that we could not get recruits or seamen in Canada, that we could not build ships, that we were a nation of do nothings, hewers of wood and drawers of water, that we cannot do anything but pay, pay, pay. I give my right hon. friend credit at least that he did not put this agreement in writing. It will not come up in judgment against him in the form of a letter because he had judgment enough not to put it on paper.
Now, I come down to the other branch of the Conservative party and let us see what they say about this question. The Conservative party in Canada is a conglomeration of Imperialism and Nationalism. I have dealt with the Imperialist side of the question and now I come to the National side. I have here an extract from a paper published in the province of Quebe'c which is, I understand, the principal organ of the Nationalist party in that province. It is not Le Devoir, because I think Le Devoir is now out of harmony with the leaders of the Nationalist Conservative party in Quebec. It is La Se-maine which, in English, I understand, means The Week. I have here a translation which, I am assured, is an accurate one, of an article published in that paper, and I am so much convinced of the accuracy of the translation that I am willing to read it, place it on ' Hansard,' and allow any hon. gentlemen opposite, who desire to do so, to discuss it. This, I am also told, is the personal organ of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin), a gentleman who occupies a very important position in this House and in the Conservative party of Canada. I might go farther than that and say it is not only his personal organ but it is really his production. I have here some real jewels of thought, showing what the Nationalists are preaching before the people, and what they say this policy means:
Grand Mfere, Champlain county, Friday, May 2nd

Mr. CARVELL.
This is not ancient history; it is only last Friday.
Last Scruples-Opposition to a Moral Aid has no Sense-Neither has a Referendum.
In Opposition said the other day an exminister,-* One must play the part of comedians.' Evidently this is the role of the present Opposition, as that of the critic to always find fault, to always find awful and terrible and bad with the present Government. It is the duty of the latter to defend itself, and of the public to judge without losing its senses on the furore or the simulated fears of the constitutional enemies of the Cabinet. The idea of a Canadian navy, the phantom of periodical contributions, the assailants who might prey on our cheese and butter on the high seas, as well as the famous so-called gift of thirty-five millions, are so many ruses made up for the fight, but documents, reasons and common sense have already triumphed over them all. It has now been admitted even by the Opposition, that the Borden proposals mean none of these. They amount purely and simply to a demonstration of friendship which cannot take, until many years, any other form but that of moral aid; at least as long as the people will not have been consulted.
There remains another last scruple which we must dispel. The Borden contribution was formerly declared by the Quebec Conservatives to be no less nefarious than the Laurier navy. One must not forget that that contribution meant the immediate gift of a sum of money from hand to hand to the Admiralty. It was a gift pure and simple. The present Bill mentions no gift; it provides for the construction in two or three years' time of three Canadian vessels which may be loaned to England in five or six years' time.
Not very much emergency in that.
It bears no resemblance whatsoever to the Borden proposal when made by him in opposition. There is no more talk of contribution, and this Bill only lends a moral help to England, and safeguards the rights of the Canadian people. Therefore, it does not justify by one single iota this last scruple.
Moreover, it is certain that it would be foolish in the present bitter political turmoil at home, and in face of the European crisis, where whole empires are at stake, to attempt to settle by a referendum a question of moral aid. This referendum would suppose that the people at large, and above all, those who take especial interest in international events, are familiar with this question, which from day to day, from hour to hour, changes its aspect, becomes acute with the fall of Adrianople, is appeased by the Bulgarian peace, and is revived with the aerial incidents on the frontiers and with the siege of Scutari. In the midst of so many menacing snags the crew must not fight around the rudder. The parliament is elected; a majority is formed; to that majority belongs the duty to pilot the ship during the allotted time. Euless anarchy, impoteney and folly are rampant, the people must give the hand to which it has confided its destinies free scope. We are convinced that sooner or later reason shall triumph. As between a premature, if not useless, Canadian navy and a passive contri-

tuition without any condition, the Conservative .party has selected the most happy solution,-a loan which gives a moral aid in the eyes of the world, and which in the last resort reserves to the people the supreme decision The last scruples are therefore wiped out; they will not hinder us from taking the right course.
There is the policy of the Nationalists, but that is mild compared with some of the Test of it. Then there is in great big type on the third page in the same issue of La Semaine on Friday, May 2, the following signed by R. L. Borden:
It has been said that the present policy of the Government was one of an annual and' permanent contribution. TJpon my responsibility of member of the Government 1 deny that absolutely Canada is and shall be the sole master of its destinies.
Next we have the statement of P. E. Blondin, Deputy Speaker, appearing on the same page and following Mr. Borden's declaration. This is it:
To accept the Opposition compromise, the Laurier navy added to the loan of three dreadnoughts would have meant the ruin of the Nationalist policy, of which Mr. Borden has respected the principles in his Bill.
P. E. Blondin, Deputy Speaker.


William Pugsley: Who is that statement
signed by?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: P. E. Blondin, the
Deputy Speaker.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Read it again please?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Here it is:
To accept the Opposition compromise, the Laurier navy added to the loan of three< dreadnoughts would have meant the ruin of .the Nationalist policy, of which Mr. Borden has respected the principles in his Bill.
P. E. Blondin, Deputy Speaker.
I had always supposed that the national policy meant that we should manufacture as much in Canada as we could; but here we are sending $35,000,000 out of the country to build ships in England, and we are going to deprive Canadians of all classes of the right to participate in the expenditure of that money. On April 24, La Semaine publishes the following:
Important Words.
To a group of leading Conservatives of the district of Three Rivers, Mr. Blondin, M.P., for Champlain, made the other day the following declaration, which our friends will read with pleasure, and keep in their memory :-	,
The march of events confirms more and more that the moral effect of a demonstration is the primordial object of both the British and Canadian Governments. Now that the Liberals, feeling that they are defeated, do not care to agitate public opinion with the
phantom of a permanent contribution, they themselves admit that the Borden Bill 'has no other .meaning but that of the moral effect of an offer. The moral effect is immediate, but the oiler cannot be put into execution only later on. The clear mind of the Prime Minister has found the solution, the most diplomatic and the most practical,_ in so far as it satisfies all possible opinions in England and over here, namely, satisfactory to the people of Canada which without party distinction desires to do something,-some by-way of contribution, others by way of beginning of a local navy. It frames a measure whioh first, gives something,-if a moral aid is something, -second, which does not prevent any other solution once the people shall have decided, and third, it is a measure which binds us to nothing definitely.
The moral effect is not spoiled by party divisions in the Canadian Parliament, because such divisions do not arise from the faot that any of the two parties refuse to help England; and to those who, like Mr. iBourassa, are not willing to do anything, this measure gives to be understood that nothing will be done until two or three years; that is to say, before a general election.
Now, Mr. Chairman (Mr. Blondin), you will appreciate the last remarks I have read from La Semaine, and I hope the Prime Minister will appreciate them in the same manner. It all goes to show the fearful humbug this proposition is. In order to humbug the people of Canada, five months ago they were told by the Prime Minister there was a fearful emergency and that we must send this $35,000,000 to save the Empire, and here we are told by the Nationalist wing of the Conservative party that the thing does not mean anything at all; that we can have the vessels built in two or three years for moral effect, and that it is only done to satisfy public opinion and that it will not amount to anything. Is that the position the great Conservative party of Canada should take on a matter of such imperial importance?


Mr. BARKER:: Certainly not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am delighted to find a responsive chord in the heart of hon. member for Hamilton.


Samuel Barker: I say the Conservative
party never would act in such a dastardly way.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend from
Hamilton did not know of this before, and I am glad to be able to give him some of the inside history of his own party.


David Henderson: The trouble is that you did not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have been telling him all along that he was led by the nose by the Nationalists and he did not believe it. I say that the Nationalist wing of the Conservative party are the men who are doing the leading; they are the men who

are directing the policy of the party, and they have good reason to smile and be gracious. It is no wonder the Nationalists are happy; they are making the Government do what they want them to do. But what have the Imperialists of Toronto got to say about it? I do not wonder the hon. member for Hamilton gets hot under the collar when he hears this; I do not wonder he feels insulted when he is told what is going on. My friends opposite are trying to play the same game they played two years ago; they are attempting to preach one thing in Ontario and another thing in Quebec. The moment there is a suspicion of a by-election in London you find the same crew going up there with the same weapons and holding the same kind of meetings, and even advertising Protestant meetings. You do not find them advertising Protestant meetings in the province of Quebec. They are playing the same doublehanded game they played two years ago. They are circulating other documents, copies of which have been placed in the hands of I suppose every member in the House, and reference to which was made in the Senate. But that will not succeed for there is an old saying that lightning will not strike twice in the same place.


John Hampden Burnham: It struck once anyway.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It struck once at Peterborough. My hon. friend from Peterborough was honest enough to own up to it. The result has been that my friend from Peterborough has never had the gag taken off his mouth since. They have never allowed him to make another speech after his first one.


Mr. BOYCE:: What about your nine
majority:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: This evidently does not suit my hon. friends opposite. I may say that it was not my object in bringing it up that it should suit them. My object was to show them some of the things that are going on in their own party, and incidentally I may show some of the people in the country who vote for them what is going on.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: This is the tenth time you have told us that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Another man who would like to have the gag removed from his mouth. I know it hurts my hon. friend from the Sault. I appeal to my right hon. friend to remove the gag from their mouths; otherwise they will explode. He should give them a chance to relieve themselves.
I have tried to show the game which my hon. friends have been playing. I am trying to show the policy which they are preaching in different parts of the country. In my judgment there is only one policy which they are really preaching, and that Mr. CARVELL
is a policy of contribution. There cannot be any other policy than contribution owing to the alliance existing between them and the Nationalist party in Quebec. They want to make a contribution of $35,000,000 this year. Perhaps it will be more than that, because the Minister of Marine and Fisheries admitted that these vessels would cost $39,000,000. Probably by the time you get through, it will be $40,000,000. By the time you run a couple of elections out of it, it will be $50,000,000.
An hon. MEMBER. You ought to know.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the point we object to more than anything else. That is what the amendment of my hon. friend from Welland is aimed at. That is the point that is most unconstitutional of all. Every member on this side of the House objects, and I am satisfied that the people of this country will object, when they know that this Government is undertaking to spend $35,000,000 or $40,000,000 of the public money when the people of this country do not know where it is going. My friends are trying to undo the law of responsible government. They are trying to go back to the condition of affairs which existed before responsible government. My friends are trying to put themselves in the position of taking $35,000,000 or $40,000,000 of the public money, of going to England and making a contract of any kind with whomsoever they have a mind to make one, with firms over which we have no control. They wi.-m to expend the money in such' a way that we can have no accounting and that we shall simply receive receipts for it. So far as I am concerned-and 1 think I am expressing the views of many members on this side of the House-I think no government should be entrusted with the right to spend $35,000,000 of our money, unless Parliament has some control over it.
It is true that the Government intend to build three dreadnoughts. When my right hon. friend introduced this Bill on the 5th of December, he told us that these vessels would cost a little better than $11,000,000 apiece. According to the confession of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, they will cost $13,000,000 apiece. He will have them costing $14,000,000 before very long, because the Minister of Marine and Fisheries said last night that the latest American vessels are costing sixteen, seventeen or eighteen million dollars. The Government will be at liberty, if they so choose, to go to England and to make a contract for these vessels for $15,000,000 apiece, and Parliament will not have a word to say about it. They do not even have to call for tenders. They do not have to submit those tenders to Parliament. It is the most serious attack on the

policy of responsible government which has been made since Confederation. The Highways' Bill is only a trifle compared with it and I think that is bad enough. It seems that the whole object of the legislation of this Government is not to help the country but to get control of enormous sums of money to be spent by Order in Council and not by Parliament; to get the right to handle the money entirely without the authority of the representatives of the people and without accounting to the people for its expenditure. That is what we object to, and that is the reason for the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German). We are opposing this Bill more upon that point than upon the fact that the money is to be spent out of the country.
If the right hon. the Premier will say that the Government will call foT tenders, that they will take the lowest tender; that they will consult Parliament before the contract is let, it will take away a lot of the sting. They will not do that. They want the whole $35,000,000 in a lump sum. They want to make any contract that they desire to make. If they got this right, I think I can safely say that my friend the Minister of Public Works would finance one election out of it and perhaps he would finance two. I hope the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Welland will be accepted. We have other objections to Taise and other amendments to move to this Bill before it gets through; but that is the cardinal sin in the whole transaction. Behind that is the great question of policy of whether this country is to go on with a policy of contribution, by which we shall send out of this country year after year millions of dollars over which we shall have no control and for which we shall get no benefit, or whether we are to go into a reasonable, sane naval policy of constructing these vessels at home. Let us profit by the experience of the people of Australia and New Zealand who have been at it longer than we have. Let us take the advice of men who have tried both ways. Let us take the advice of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster). Some of us wondered why the Minister of Trade and Commerce was sent out of the country. We are commencing to see the reason. The Minister of Trade and Commerce is of exactly the same opinion to-day that he was in 1909. He was sincere in 1909; he believed in a Canadian navy. He believes in it to-day. He is now in Australia and perhaps he does not realize that conditions have changed here. I find in the Manitoba Free Press of May 3, a despatch from Melbourne, in which the hon. the minister of Trade and Commerce says:
I congratulate Australia on her defence policy; she has set a grand lesson to Canada.
What do you think of that? What better evidence than that of what the policy of Canada ought to be? Australia, who in 1902 entered into a policy of contribution, who made an agreement with the British Government that for ten years she would contribute a million dollars annually, who carried out that agreement, after five years found that it was contrary to the best interests of the country. In 1907 or 1908 she gave notice to the British Government that she would not carry it out any longer than ten years. In 1909 representatives of Australia came to the Imperial conference and said: We have done with contribution; it does not appeal to the best interests of , our people; it does not put us in a position to defend ourselves in case of emergency or trouble; it is un-Australian and un-British. Australia gave notice that she was going to build her own fleet unit. That fleet unit has been built. The first vessels were built in England and the rest in Australia. Their guns are being built in Australia. Every part of those vessels that can be built in Australia is being built there. The Australians are manning those vessels; they are paying for them and if necessary, they will fight in them themselves. That is the policy of Australia; that is the policy which New Zealand is going to adopt, and that is the policy of which the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce said:
I congratulate Australia upon her defence policy. She is setting a grand lesson to Canada.
I hope the right hon. Prime Minister of this country will take these words to 1 heart. I hope he will come to the conclusion that what is good for New Zealand and Australia is good for Canada. I hope he will profit by the experience of our sister colonies. I hope he will not break faith with Australia in the contract made at the Imperial conference of 1909, by which Australia agreed to build a fleet unit on the Pacific, and by which Canada agreed to build certain cruisers and place them on the Pacific and to commence the construction and development of our fleet units. I hope he will take the advice the Minister of Trade and Commerce has given him, and that he will withdraw this Bill. If hon. gentlemen opposite want to change the Naval Service Act in any way, let them do so, but let them proceed with the true Canadian policy of building these vessels in Canada, so far as possible, manning them in Canada, paying for them like men, and be in a position, should occasion arise, to defend Canada's shores, and not hire others to defend them for us.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not rise for the
purpose of dealing with what my hon. friend has spent two hours in saying, be-

cause we have all heard it a great many times before. His various arguments have been answered repeatedly, and I am sure that my hon. friend will acquit me of any lack of respect to him if I do not pay very much attention to what he has urged upon the consideration of the committee. We have been debating this section now for eighteen or nineteen days, and I would like to know from my hon. friend who is leading the Opposition whether there is any intention of making progress with it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my right hon. friend refers to me, I may say that I intend to speak on this clause this evening, and I understand that several other hon. gentlemen want to discuss it. It is the most important clause of the Bill.


Robert Laird Borden: I quite understand what that means.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I rise to a point of
order. I do not know what is the meaning of the right hon. gentleman's remarks. I say that I intend to discuss this clause this evening.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not aware that I was out of order. I said I knew exactly what the hon. gentleman intended to suggest; that is to say, he does not intend, within any reasonable time, to allow a vote to be taken upon this section, _ which has already been under discussion in this committee for eighteen days. Under these circumstances I do not think it is wise at the present time to spend further time in its consideration, and I therefore move:
That the further consideration of the second section be postponed.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I certainly


Robert Laird Borden: This motion is not debatable.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I object to this motion being put at the present time.
Committee divided on Mr. Borden's motion: yeas, 73; nays, 29.


Mr. HAZEN:: When I rose to vote I overlooked the fact that I was paired with the hon. member for St. John city (Mr. Pugs-ley), and if the clerk has counted me as voting, I would ask that my name be struck out.


Mr. BURRELL:: I would ask the same
privilege, as I was paired with the hon. member for Strathcona (Mr. Douglas).


Mr. WILCOX:: I would ask the same
priviiege; I was paired with the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Cruise).


Mr. BELAND:: I have the same explanation to make; I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chabot).
Mr. BORDEN.


Francis Cochrane: I was paired with the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On section 3:
The said sum shall be used and applied under the direction of the Governor in Council in the construction and equipment of battleships or armoured cruisers of the most modern and powerful type.
Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland):: I see that hon. gentlemen opposite intend to put into operation, promptly and emphatically, the amendment to the rules which they have forced through Parliament. I do not know that I object seriously to the action of hon. gentlemen opposite, because they have a majority large enough to carry this Bill through the House of Commons; but this House is not the court of final appeal; the people of Canada have to be considered, and the time will come-and I hope speedily -when the people of Canada will be asked to give their opinion of the naval policy of hon. gentlemen opposite as compared with the naval policy of gentlemen on this side of the House. Whether hon. gentlemen on this side or hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have the confidence of the people in regard to their respective naval policies makes no difference to hon. gentlemen sitting in this House; it is the people who rule in Canada, and it is to the people of Canada to whom I would like to see an appeal made.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Manley German: If the hon. gentlemen opposite feel so confident that the people of Canada are with them on this question, let them dissolve Parliament and go to the country. They can get an expression of opinion from the people in a very few months and then if approved they will come back here st-engthened in their ideas and views on this question. They will come back here with another five years of power ahead of them and in a position to grant all the aid, and such aid as they see fit, to sustain His Majesty's naval service throughout the world. We on this side of the House have contended, and still contend, that the Naval Aid Act introduced by the Government is an Act which is subversive of every principle of responsible Government. It strikes at the root of responsible Government in this country. I challenge any man to contradict that statement. By this Bill you take from Parliament the right to control public expenditure, and you place that control in the hands of the Governor in Council. That cannot be gainsaid, that cannot be contradicted, and it is for the people of Canada to say, if they have an opportunity, that they do not want and will not have the responsi-

bility of Parliament taken from Parliament and placed in the hands of the Governor in Council. I feel absolutely confident in that proposition. What have we got today? I asked the minister yesterday three questions. They still remain unanswered. There is not a gentleman in the House who can deny that under the Naval Service Act everything that can be done under the Naval Aid Act can be done. You can vote the money, you can build the ships in Great Britain if you choose, you can place those ships at the service of His Majesty, in the North sea, or at Gibraltar, or such other place as His Majesty's Board of Admiralty will decide. Everything that can be done under the Naval Aid Act can be done under the Naval Service Act. Then why endeavour to force through this Naval Aid Act? There are only two reasons, and they stand out prominently and emphatically written large across the political conditions of this country. Every man can read them and see them. One is that the Government is pledged to the Nationalists of Quebec to repeal the Naval Service Act. The Government is hound hand and foot and gagged by the Nationalists of Quebec on this question, they dare not proceed under the Naval Service Act, they have pledged themselves not to do so. That is one reason. The next reason is that they want to take from Parliament the power to control the public expenditure and place it in the hands of the Governor in Council. Those are the only reasons. Examine them well, any man with an ounce of brains can examine the situation and he will see what it is. Those are the only two questions, one is that the Nationalists control the Government, and the other is that the Government want to control the money instead of having it controlled by parliament. We on this side of the House do not propose to allow that Bill to go through until, as we have said, we have exhausted every constitutional means to prevent it. We are fighting for a principle which our forefathers fought for in Canada, and we would be recreant sons of those noble fathers if we did not fight for it. I intend to move and do move-


Mr. BENNETT (East Simcoe):: Move
quickly.


William Manley German: We will move quickly enough for the hon. member for Simcoe. I move:
That clause 3 be amended by striking out the words ' The Governor in Council ' in the second line thereof and inserting the word 'Parliament' in lieu thereof and by striking out the words ' most modern and powerful type' in the third and fourth lines and inserting in lieu thereof, ' a class approved by Parliament.'
With that amendment that clause will read-and I hope before we get through that my right hon. friend will still come to our way of thinking-that clause will read so as to be in conformity with the clause as amended by the motion that I moved yesterday. It all aims at this that the ships shall be built, the money shall be voted, the ships shall be placed at the service of the Admiralty in time of war but that shall be done with the approval of Parliament and not under the control of the Governor in Council. That would be the situation. My right hon. friend and hon. gentlemen opposite know as well as I do that you can build the ships under the Naval Service Act, you can vote the money, build the ships, place them at the disposal of the Admiralty under the Naval Service Act. Do that and both sides of the House will be together. Hon. gentlemen opposite and their friends throughout the country say: Why cannot you get together, why cannot you do something which will have a sentiment behind it, which will show Great Britain that the people in Canada are in unanimity on this question. Stand by the principle of responsible Government, stand by the principles of Parliament having full control over public expenditure, and on both sides of the House we will stand together and vote the money that will build the ships. Hon. gentlemen opposite will not do that, they are tied down, hand and foot, by the Nationalist allies. They dare not move. I challenge them to do it before this discussion is over.
Mr. GEORGE W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.):	The Amendment proposed by the
hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) is in line with the contention that members on this side of the House stood for ever since this debate commenced. It stands for the control by the Parliament of Canada not only as regards the building of ships but in respect to the control of the money as well. Hon. gentlemen opposite appear to be obsessed with the idea that it will never he possible to build those ships in Canada. They appear to think that the only manner in which this tremendous emergency which to-day professedly exists can be met is by sending the money to Great Britain for the purpose of having those ships constructed there. The Right Hon. Winston Churchill, when bringing down his estimates on the 26th of March, made this significant statement:
The estimates would have been substantially higher but for congestion in the shipyards arising out of the extraordinary demands upon ship-building plants and especially upon the skilled labour supply. If better progress is to be made in executing programmes it will be necessary for me to ask Parliament later

in the year for further supplementary estimates.
It is perfectly manifest that hon. gentlemen themselves are not sincere, at all events they do not feel that the situation is such as to justify them in seriously advancing that any immediate aid can be given to the Empire by reason of this appropriation. The hon. Minister of Finance took occasion yesterday afternoon, when this discussion was resumed in the Committee of the Whole House, to quote from the Right Hon. Winston Churchill as to the effect that this contribution of dreadnoughts from the Canadian Government would have upon the British programme. The words of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill as read by the Minister of Finance are as follows:
It is necessary however, to make it_ clear that the three ships now under discussion in Canada are absolutely required from 1916 onwards for the whole world defence of the British Empire, apart altogether from the needs of Great Britain in home waters; that they will play a real part in the defence of the Empire; and that, if they fail, a gap will be opened to fill which further sacrifices will have to be made without undue delay by others.
If a vestige of the emergency remained up to the moment when the Minister of Finance rose in his place and read this declaration, it surely disappeared after the statement made by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill to the effect that those ships would only be required from 1916 onwards. Therefore, out of the mouth of the Minister of Finance himself is the argument confuted, and the emergency idea forever disappears. If a condition that is only to arise in three years from now is an emergency, then the whole history of the English language is at fault, and we must revise our conception of the meaning of Anglo-Saxon words. As has been stated time and again, there is one emergency only, and that is the political emergency which exists among hon. gentlemen opposite. It is the duty of Parliament not only to see that the expenditure of money is made under the jurisdiction and control of Parliament, it is not only the duty of Parliament to see that the expenditure of public money voted by Parliament is expended honestly and in the interests of the Dominion of Canada, hut it is also the duty of Parliament to see that the public men entrusted for the time with the management of the Government of this country shall keep their pledges and carry out the policies upon which they gained power. There was a time in the history of this country when there was no difference of opinion as to what ought to be done. The occasion has been referred to time and again, the 29th day of March, 1909, when both political parties acting from the very best motives, and for the highest purposes
Mr. KYTE.
of patriotism, came to the conclusion that it was in the best interests, not only of the Dominion of Canada but, of the Empire, to start the construction of a Canadian navy. Until the right hon. the First Minister and those associated with him in the Government of this country can give some reason for departing from that explicit and deliberately conceived policy on the part of the representatives of the people of this Parliament, I say it is the duty of every member of this House, whether he sits on your right, Mr. Chairman, or to your left, to resist any change in that policy. No explanation of the change has been forthcoming, but the right hon. the Prime Minister did allege when he introduced the resolution in Parliament on the 5th day of December last, that a grave emergency existed, which made it absolutely necessary to adopt the temporary expedient of voting_ a sum of money for the purpose of assisting the Empire to increase its naval defence. As I stated a moment ago, that emergency has ceased to be a factor in the debate for many weeks past. It has been put an end to, not only by the declarations of hon. gentlemen opposite, but by the declaration of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill himself. Therefore we must look for some other and better reason to justify us in voting for the proposition which is at present before the House.
It was also stated by the right hon. the First Minister that before anything was done in the way of adopting a permanent policy of assisting in the naval defence of the Empire, Canada must have a voice in the councils of the Empire touching the issues of peace and war. That was the statement of the right hon. the First Minister, and even that idea has been dispelled during the weeks that have elapsed since the right hon. gentleman brought down his Bill to this House. It was almost immediately taken up by Mr. Asquith and by his foreign secretary, and they stated most unequivocally that there could be no sharing in the responsibility for peace or war, as regards the Government of Great Britain. The only concession which the right hon. the Prime Minister succeeded in obtaining from the Imperial Government was a concession already granted to the right hon. the leader of the Opposition in 1909 when he attended the Imperial conference, that the representatives of the Canadian Government would have a place upon the Defence Council in London. There has been no promise by the Prime Minister of Great Britain or by any member of his Cabinet, that Canada will have any voice touching the issues of peace or war or as regards the foreign policy of Great Britain. Therefore, on that point again there is no justification for this Parliament assuming that any change has taken place

respecting the relationship between Canada and Great Britain, or that any change will take place as regards the influence of the Government of Canada in the councils of the Empire as a result of the passage of this measure. I repeat that inasmuch as every argument advanced by the right hon. the Prime Minister and his colleagues during this debate has fallen far short of realization, we are in exactly the same position as we were in on the 29th March, 1909, as regards the best means of assisting the Empire in the matter of naval defence.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that under those circumstances, the members of this Parliament would be derelict in their duty if they assented to the proposition which is now before the committee. The right hon. the Prime Minister stated that-
-so long as Canada remains in the Empire Canada is at w.ar when the Empire is at war.
That was the statement made by the right hon. the First Minister in the debate in 1910 upon the Naval Service Act. Now, his views are:
We are under no obligation to take part in British wars because we have no share in the control of war or peace.
If Canada is wdthin the British Empire then the statement made by the right hon. the First Minister which I quoted a moment ago was not correct, or he shifted his base upon that question when he said we should not contribute toward the defence of the Empire until we had a voice in the control of peace or wTar or in the foreign policy of Great Britain. The argument in support of the policy which the right hon. the leader of the Opposition proposed to this House as to the establishing of a Canadian navy, which was the policy unanimously adopted by both parties in 1909, is met by the cry that a Canadian navy would he a separatist navy. The right hon. the First Minister, in the debate of January, 1910, took occasion to refer to that particular statement and to effectively dispose of the cry that is now repeated from time to time toy hon. gentlemen who are supporting him in this House. On the 12th January, 1910, the right hon. gentleman stated that:
It has been argued that the creation of a so-called Canadian navy will have a tendency towards the separation of this great Dominion from the Empire. I do not see that it has such a tendency more than the organization of the militia forces; less, I say.
In reference to that declaration, it is rather extraordinary that at this late hour of the debate, hon. gentleman, like the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) should iterate and reiterate in the House, as he did to-day, that a Canadian navy is a separatist navy. The Canadian navy was
based upon the same principles as those which have dominated our Militia Act ever since 1868. The Militia Act was not framed by a separatist party. It was not the conception even of a Liberal party in this country, but it was passed by the first Conservative Government, and if ever there was a loyal statesman and genuine Imperialist leading the Conservative party it was the Bight Hon. Sir John A. Macdonald who was responsible for placing the Militia Act on the statute-book. I quite concede that it would appear to he unnecessary to state matters of history which are so well known to every student of history and to every hon. member of this House, but I am bound to say that it is extremely exasperating, when every other ground of argument has been cut away, when every other bogey has been dispelled and every objection answered from our point of view, that hon. gentlemen will reiterate in parrot fashion that if we advocate a Canadian navy we are separatists. I admit that there are hon. gentlemen in this House supporting the First Minister who will not subscribe to any such false and puerile argument, but I regret to say that there are still some and the presence of these is my justification for again referring to that particular criticism as regards a Canadian navy.
My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Car-veil) explained fully the position of the Liberal party on this question and pointed out the developments that have taken place with regard to it since this Bill was last before the committee. Since then, however, many events have transpired and we have had expressions of public opinion as re* gards the attitude of the people of the country on the question that I think might well he placed upon the records of the House. The First Minister last night stated that he had received hundreds of telegrams from Liberals all over the country supporting him on his naval policy and on his policy of closure. I have before me a copy of the Halifax Herald, dated April 25, 1913. There is a telegram from Ottawa with headlines as follows:
Telegrams from all over Canada pour in on the Prime Minister congratulating him on the passage of the rules making possible the transaction of public business.
On the same page there is a telegram from Halifax signed by the president of the City Conservative Association and the secretary of the Conservative Association, Mr. A. B. Crosby, formerly Conservative member of Parliament for the city of Halifax, Mr. James Farquhar, a prominent Conservative of Halifax, and Mr. William Dennis, proprietor of the Halifax Herald and one of the recently appointed senators from the province of Nova Scotia. There is also a telegram from Mr. John Macleod, president of the Conservative Association of the province of Nova Scotia. That telegram reads as follows:

_	Halifax, April 24.
Right Hon. R. L. Borden,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
ine executive of the Nova Scotia Liberal-Lonservative Association congratulate you upon the firm stand you have taken to expedite the business of the country. We believe it to be in the interest of the people.
(Sgd.) John Macleod,
President.
Then, there is a telegram from Halifax dated April 24, which reads as follows: Right Hon. R. L. Borden,
Prime Minister,
Ottawa.
iaturo Conservative members of the Legis-
Not the Liberal and Conservative mem bers, but

his naval policy or his closure policy. I have before me the Ottawa Citizen-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George William Kyte: -dated May 6, 1913, which says:	*
The referendum will save $35,000,000. Given under compulsion, Canada would not receive its money's worth, there being no real compensating gain to the country or to the Empire. Great Britain does not need Canada's money. She is amply able, by reason of her great wealth to supply all the battleships required for naval defence. Unless Canada's money means Canada's heart and sentiment, the proposed action can mean little more than the transference of several tons of gold from the public treasury into the armament barons private purse. The referendum is the one method of vitalizing every dollar.
-the Conservative members of the Legislature have observed with great satisfaction that you have now put into effect in the House of Commons measures in regard to the conduct of the business of the House which will enable the Government to carry on the business of the country and to deal promptly and effectively with further obstruction if attempted by Liberal members, and push forward to a successful conclusion the Government's policy m regard to naval defence of the Empire.
(Sgd.) Charles E. Tanner.
For your information, Mr. Chairman I might state that Mr. Charles E. Tanner is the leader of the Conservative Opposition m the House of Assembly in the province of Nova Scotia. Therefore, notwith-standmg the vainglorious headlines which Halifax Herald places at the opening of the despatch from Ottawa as to the number of telegrams that were received irom all over Canada congratulating the Prime Minister upon the adoption of closure m this House, there is not one telegram produced except from the officers of a Conservative association or from the leader of the Conservative Opposition in the province of Nova Scotia. I very much fear that, if the Prime Minister has received telegrams from people who allege that they are Liberals, they have deceived the right hon. gentleman. I venture to say that there is not a Liberal in the Dominion of Canada to-day, who recognizes and appreciates those rights for which the people of this country fought from 1837 down to the present time, who subscribes to the doctrine of closure, of gag and throttling free speech upon which the First Minister claims he has received congratulations.
I state that in my judgment there is not a single Liberal in the Dominion of Canada, and not a Liberal newspaper, that supports the right hon. gentleman upon his naval or closure policies. I will go further and say that there are Conservatives and Conservative newspapers that do not support the right hon. gentleman on
Mr. KYTE.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the Grain Growers' Guide ?


George William Kyte: I do not know anything
about the Grain Growers' Guide. If the Grain Growers' Guide expressed any opinion upon this question, I would remind my hon. friend that it is not a Liberal paper and never pretended to be one.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: 
George William Kyte: When I mentioned the
Ottawa Citizen, hon. members supporting the Government laughed derisively at the idea that the Citizen was a Conservative paper, but there is one certain test we can apply as to whether newspapers are Conservative or Liberal, and that is the patronage which is handed out by the Government. If there is a newspaper pub-

Wishing from day to day advertisements handed out by the different departments of the Government, that is conclusive proof that the newspaper is a Government organ, for the Government never makes the mistake of giving any of its patronage to Liberal newspapers. I am willing to put the statement I read from the Ottawa Citizen as a test of the Conservative opinion throughout the Dominion of Canada, beside the official opinion which is under the influence of the favours of this Government. The Ottawa Citizen has from time to time taken an independent stand upon this question, but invariably it comes to the conclusion that it is opposed to a general election upon this issue, and that it prefers a referendum. The Ottawa Citizen is not willing that this Government should go out of power so soon and (therefore it prefers that the fate of the Government shall not depend upon the *votes of the people in a general election but rather that a referendum should be Itakeim ito ascertain h|ow public opinion stands on the question.
On the 5th day of December this $35,000,000 was described by the Conservatives as a gift; later on it becomes a contribution: and now it is characterized as a loan. It is stated that the $35,000,000 once paid that will be the end of it and we will not be called upon to contribute again towards the naval defence of the Empire. Hon. gentlemen opposite have wiggle-waggled so indefinitely with respect to their policy, that one is at a loss to know what particular minister who speaks in the House actually represents the policy of the Government, and what particular minister does not. We have it on the authority of hon. gentlemen opposite that the $35,'OOO,000 is a gift, again that it is a loan, again that it is a contribution, again that, it is the permanent policy of the Government, and again that it is not the permanent policy of the Government. The policy of contribution was inaugurated some years ago by Australia, which decided to contribute a sum of money each year for the purpose of assisting Great Britain to defray the cost of maintaining the defences of the great island commonwealth. After a couple of years the idea of contribution was discarded, and they engaged in the construction of a navy. The Dominion of New Zealand continued to contribute for some years after Australia had ceased to do so, but the time has come when even New Zealand is going to change from that antiquated method of maintaining its naval defence. At present there is in this Dominion the Hon. Colonel James Allen, Minister of Defence for New Zealand, and he has been making public announcements at different places in Canada as to what New
Zealand is likely to do irv the matter of naval defence. Some days ago Colonel Allen visited Halifax and gave an interview to the Halifax Chronicle, which I shall read as it appears:
That the permanent naval policy of New Zealand will not be one of contribution; that any naval unit which that enterprising Dominion of the Empire will have as part of the Imperial navy will be manned by New Zealanders themselves; that the people of New Zealand intend to have control of this unit; that it will assist in the protection of the Empire through the immediate protection of their own shores, and that it will he available for service in other parts of the Empire when so needed, was the outline of the attitude of the people of New Zealand on the naval problem, as affecting that portion _ of the Empire, given to the Morning Chronicle yesterday afternoon by Hon. Colonel James Allen, Minister of Defence for that Domi-
Colonel Allen arrived in Halifax yesterday aboard the Empress of Ireland en route from London to New Zealand. He left the liner here, proceeding to Montreal hy the mail train, which drew out from the terminals immediately on transference of the passengers and mails. He had been in London conferring with the Imperial authorities on naval and finance matters connected with his country. During his visit the permanent policy for New Zealand had been discussed and he was returning with it 'in bis pocket', as be described it. In view of the fact that it bad not been put before the people of New Zealand, he was not at liberty to make it known here, but that it did not contain an element of contribution was very emphatically asserted by Colonel Allen.
With reference to the construction of this unit in New Zealand and whether he approved of such a policy in Canada, Colonel Allen said that on the latter phase of the question he could not speak, as^ the question now being a controversial one in the Dominion, it would be undiplomatic for him to do so, but be drew attention to the fact that it would not be fair to compare the attitude of the two countries in this regard. Primarily New Zealand was a very small country with a population of only a million. It had large iron ore deposits, but these had not yet been developed, whereas in Australia and Canada great steel plants had grown out of the development of these resources, lending possibilities of the construction of ships.
Colonel Allen had no hesitation in saying that this unit would he manned hy New Zealanders, and as to its control, his own words: ' They want to feel some share in the show,' speak for themselves.	_
As to its scope of operation, he said that it would be prepared to go wherever the Empire needed it . Asked as to what the country had already done to assist in creating its own navy, he said nothing, except a training ship for its young men. The dreadnought New Zealand was not any part of the permanent programme, he was taking to lay before his Government.
Colonel Allen was very guarded as to what attitude his government would take in the matter of naval defence, and it is

obvious that he had to be guarded in as much as he was for a considerable time the guest of members or supporters of this Government, and it would not be well that he should express any preference as to the best means of participating in the naval defence of the Empire. But, taking that circumstance into account, the Hon. Colonel Allen went far enough to indicate that the policy of New Zealand would not be one of contribution, as is the policy of the present Canadian Government. "
We are told by Le Semaine, the Quebec Nationalist organ, as read by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) to-night, that this $35,000,000 is going to be the end of contribution to the Imperial defence for several years, and that it is intended only as a testimony of the good will and loyalty of the people of Canada and nothing more. Well, $35,000,000 is a very considerable sum of money. If we take into account the sum contributed year after year by Australia, to compensate Great Britain for the cost of maintaining the naval defences of the Commonwealth, the sum of $2,000,000 a year would be a reasonable proportion for Canada to pay for the same service. We are voting now the sum of $35,000,000 which would be equivalent to $2,000,000 a year for the next seventeen years and a half. The right hon. the Prime Minister thought it would probably be better for him to vote a lump sum of $35,000,000 now than to ask this Parliament to vote an equivalent amount from year to year. The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) has adopted a similar policy with regard to assisting the great and important industry of agriculture in this country, and has introduced a Bill for that purpose. His proposal is to vote the sum of $10,000,000 to that end. Is that $10,000,000 for one year? No. He says:	that $10,000,000 will be
spread over ten years. That Is a new system of government expenditure in this country. 1 venture to say that never since Confederation has Parliament been asked to vote money except that which is required for a particular fiscal year. The Government has adopted a system of voting a lump sum in one year to extend over a period of ten years for the purpose of assisting the industry of agriculture; and, on the same principle, the right hon. the Prime Minister is asking Parliament to vote $35,000,000 to cover a period in the future.
What members on both sides of the House are entitled to know is what is the particular purpose of the right hon. the Prime Minister as regards future action in this matter of naval defence. It seems extraordinary that he would continue to follow his fatuous policy in the alleged belief that England needs this increase in her naval armament, when it is announced in I Mr. KYTE.
the newspapers that in the next day or two the Right Hon. Winston Churchill will visit the German Empire tor the purpose of coming to an understanding to put an end to any further increase in naval armament. Some two months ago the Minister of Finance of the German Empire made a statement to the effect that the time had come when this mad race for armaments ought to cease, or, in the language of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, ' the insensate folly of increased naval armaments should be put an end to.' He held out this olive branch for the purpose of testing public opinion as to whether or not they were disposed to enter into an agreement to put an end to any further increase in naval expenditures. The answer of the German minister was received in the intimation given by the Right Hon. Winston Churchill (to the effect that at a date to be named later he would visit the German Emperor for the purpose of discussing that question.
In view of the fact that no changed conditions have been proved by the right hon. gentleman to have come about since the 29th of March, 1909, when both political parties agreed that a Canadian navy was the best and only method to adopt; in view of the fact that the only reason which was advanced by the right hon. the Prime Minister on the 5th day of December last, for going back on the unanimous resolution of 1909, has been dissolved-I refer to the alleged emergency which was supposed to exist at that time- in view of the fact that the third condition, upon which the Prime Minister decided that an emergency contribution was the best thing under the circumstances, that is his desire that the British Government should first give Canada a voice in its councils as regards peace and war, has been most emphatically refused by the British Government, under all these circumstances, the right hon. the Prime Minister, his colleagues in the Government and his supporters sitting behind him who have spoken in this debate, have not given as solitary reason why we should recede from the unanimous policy of 1909. Therefore it is the duty of this Parliament to resist to the last moment any attempt to impose this measure upon the representatives of the people of Canada. It is quite true that the right non. gentleman is somewhat better circumstanced at the present moment .than he was on the fateful 15th of March, when the continued sitting of this committee was terminated in such a dramatic manner. He has now the assistance of a gag by which he can impose his measure upon Parliament. The people of Great Britain, however, are cognizant of what is going on here. Hon. gentlemen

opposite say that we should contribute this amount for the purpose of showing our goodwill towards the Mother Country. Yet they adopt the extraordinary means of stifling Parliament by a gag, rendering it insensible with a club and extracting the money by force of closure, and this money they propose to send to Great Britain as a *free and voluntary gift of the people of this country. As stated in the quotation which I read a few moments ago, a contribution or a vote of money gained by the closure or by means of the gag will have no moral effect whatever throughout the British Empire. It only means so much money extracted by force from the pockets of the people of Canada and handed to the people of Great Britain, who have more money than they know what to do with, having regard to the enormous developments of trade that are going on in Great Britain at the present time. It is our duty to resist the passage of this measure, and it is the bounden duty of hon. gentlemen, on this side of the House at all events to resist it to the last degree.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Chairman, I need not say that I am entirely in accord with the amendment moved by my friend the member for Welland (Mr. German), namely: that any expenditure on this naval proposal should originate in this Parliament and that the control of the navy should be kept within the authority of the Canadian Parliament. At a later stage, I intend to dilate upon the question which is before the House.
Before I proceed to make my remarks on that phase of the question I wish to refer to the statement which was repeated yesterday evening by my good friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen), in reference to a memorandum signed by Commander Roper on the 20th of September, 1911, that is to say, the day previous to the general elections. As you are aware, the hon. gentleman for the second or third time has referred to that memorandum with a view to minimize, if possible, the policy which had been adopted by the Liberal Administration. Last year, when the hon. gentleman referred to that matter for the first time, I was so much taken by surprise that words failed me and I let the statement pass. This year, when my hon. friend, speaking after the right hon. the leader of the Government had addressed the House on December 5 last, again referred to the memorandum of Commander Roper, I noted his remarks and took the first opportunity that presented itself to refute the innuendo contained in it. I do not wish for one moment to impugn the good faith of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; I dare say that it is quite true 294
-I hope it is-that he, as my successor in office, found among the records of the Department of M arine and Fisheries the memorandum in question. But I desire to declare most emphatically, first, that Commander Roper, whilst I had the honour of being Minister of Marine and Fisheries in the Laurier Administration, was never asked by me to make a report on the matter of naval defence in Canada; second, that Commander Roper never addressed that memorandum to me; and third, that, from the moment I was sworn in as Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Commander Roper never Lad one solitary interview with me, either on this mattei of naval defence or in regard even to the routine matters which arose in connection with the Department oi Naval Affairs. Therefore, when my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries reads this co-called memorandum to the House of Commons, and practically to the people of Canada, I have no hesitation in saying that he is the victim of Commander Roper; that Commander Roper simply concocted that memorandum; that it was unauthorized. Moreover, Commander Roper has expressed views totally different from those contained in the memorandum quoted by the hon. minister of Marine and Fisheries. My hon. friend was not a member of the House of Commons during the last Parliament. As we learned last night from my deskmate, the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley), the hon. gentleman was defeated in 1896, and the House and the country lost his services during the succeeding 'interval. If the hon. gentleman had been a member of this House during the session of 1910 he would have heard his former colleague, who was then the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), traduce Commander Roper before this House and condemn him because, forsooth, in a speech delivered at the Ottawa Central Exhibition, and in an address delivered before the Canadian Club in this city, he had extolled the policy of the Laurier Government of establishing a navy to be built in Canada, equipped in Canada, maintained by Canadians and controlled by the Dominion Government. My hon. friend is not aware of that; yet he has only to look at Hansard' of the session of 1910, in which he will find the words of Commander Roper. The committee will, I hope, bear with me if I quote just a few sentences. On the 7th of December, 1910, Mr. Monk, then the member for Jacques Cartier, formerly Minister of Public Works, traduced Commander Roper and condemned him most severely for having dared to deliver an address before the Canadian Club, in which he said:
He deprecated the use of the term ' tin-pot ' as applied to the navy, adding: tin-pot


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly, they are being denounced by the honest Mr. Bourassa.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mr LEMIEUX:: Mr. Bourassa is no
friend of mine. He has never spared me, and I have never spared him, but I am free to say that he is honest in his convictions. What he preached and what he wrote during the elections of 1911 he stands by to-day; but my hon. friends who preached and wrote as Mr. Bourassa did in 1911 are to-day going against their previous opinions.


Mr. SEVIGNY:: What did I say in the elections of 1911?


Mr LEMIEUX:: Speaking from memory- and the words are very vivid in my memory when the hon. gentleman went into the election of Drummond and Arthabaska, he addressed a meeting one Sunday-he desecrated the Sunday by his words. He said to the people of Drummond and Arthabaska: Gentlemen, Sir Wilfrid Laurier starts a navy; he says that it is your navy; he calls it a Canadian navy; but by the Bill the navy belongs to the King; and, said my non. friend, folding his arms, " where is the King of Canada? to what Majesty does Sir Wilfrid reier? " ' That was the language

used by my hon. friend; and if he will refer to Mr. Castell Hopkins' Annual Digest, for 1911, he will find his exact words.


Albert Sévigny: During the election of Drummond-Arthabaska my hon. friend was in South Africa, but I was in Drummond and Arthabasca. All the reports published by Mr. Hopkins and by some Ontario Liberal papers were prepared in Drummond and Arthabaska by Liberal organizers, lor my part I deny them, and I am prepared tomorrow to repeat in the province of Quebec all I have said on this naval affair.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If my good friends find any solace in the remarks of my hon. friend from Dorchester, I have no objection; but it is late in the day for him to deny wha/t he said in Drummond and Arthabaska, when last year on the floor of this House, during the debate on the Address, after having congratulated my hon. friend on his able speech, I said: 'Is it not strange, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend has sung "God Save the King," when in the election in Drummond and Arthabaska he used the following words?' I there quoted his words, and he did not deny them. Now that he has passed to the Tory camp for good, now that he has abandoned Mr. Bourassa's principles, my hon. friend find3 a little more courage, and perhaps the office of Solicitor General, which has not yet been filled and which he would adorn, may induce him to be more tolerant of His Majesty the King, and also of His Majesty the Tory party. When my hon. friend made these speeches he did not expect to be reported. He made them with his usual brilliance and eloquence, and I am sorry to say that he carried with him many votes of ignorant people in Drummond and Arthabaska. But it took just a few months for the poor peasants of Drummond and Arthabaska to see through the hybrid combination which was being reared against Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and at the next election they elected my good friend who now represents that constituency in this Parliament (Mr. Brouillard) against Mr. Gilbert.


Albert Sévigny: Was the hon. member
for Drummond and Arthabaska (AH* Brouillard) elected against Mr. Gilbert by those ignorant people to whom my hon. friend made reference?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see through the little trick. I said a moment ago that the hon. gentleman, by his brilliant speeches, his eloquent words, carried the day with some ignorant people.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, he carried the day with some ignorant people. _ But, Sir, if ignorance is bliss for a while, it is not always bliss. Light was restored, more Mr. LEMIEUX*
discussion took place, the people listened and read, and so it happened that at the first opportunity the brave peasantry of the county of Drummond and Arthabaska elected a supporter of the Canadian navy.
My hon. friend has just stated something which is in point. He asks: 'Is it not a fact that Mr. Blondin, the Deputy Speaker, and myself are being taken to task at the present time by Mr. Bourassa? ' I say 'yes,' and I am not surprised at that; but is it not a fact that, by way of retort, in order to explain the situation to the people who elected the Deputy Speaker and my hon. friend from Dorchester, the assertion is made that Mr. Bourassa is wrong in attacking both of these gentlemen -that they have not changed their policies, that Mr. Borden is still with Mr. Bourassa, and that Mr. Bourassa should understand it? Let me quote from the organ of the Deputy Speaker published at Grand Mere.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Of
course, the Speaker cannot speak, but, if I am permitted by the committee, I would state that it is not my organ, and that I am not any more responsible for what it says than the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) is responsible for what Le Canada says.


Frank Oliver: I might point out that
my hon. friend from Rouville did not mention any newspaper before the Deputy Speaker spoke.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: He mentioned the organ of the Deputy Speaker.


Frank Oliver: Precisely.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I know an organ by
its tune. I know the paper and I know the organist. Mr. Chairman, La Semaine, published at Grand Mfere, county of Champlain, has in its issue of the 24th of April -1912?-no, 1913, the following;-and before gagging the loyal Opposition I would ask my good Tory friends to listen to what their allies are saying just now in the province of Quebec.
Of what does Mr. Bourassa complain?
That is the title of this article published in La Semaine.
How many times-
I am translating.
-during the naval debate has the Liberal party offered to compromise with Mr. Borden? How many Liberal papers, how many eminent men in both parties and even from different parts of the Empire have expressed their desire to see the two parties come to an understanding on this question of the navy? It would have been sufficient for Mr. Borden to have given a wave of the hand to bring the Liberal party into line with him had he consented to put that question above party politics by linking together the gift of the $35,000,000 and -the Laurier navy. Did not Sir

Wilfrid Laurier say that -we must give $35,000,000-nay, three times, four times $35,000,000, even all the wealth of the country, to help *England? 'I am ready to vote it all, hut let us begin iby building a Canadian navy'?
And, continues the organist:
Mir. Graham, Mr. Guthrie and all the Liberal leaders have renewed the same offer adding also that they were ready to offer the blood of Canadians. Why has Mr. Borden refused the offer of compromise with the Opposition? Why has he -preferred the bitter fight of three months' obstruction? Is not the answer that perchance he had given his word to the Quebec members and that he was unwilling to deceive them?
Do you see the alliance?
Let those who lightly treat as cowards and traitors-
That is Mr. Bourassa.
Let those who ligfhly treat as cowards and traitors the hrave French members-
That is the Deputy Speaker and my friend
from Dorchester.
-who have supported the Government; let them pause and reflect a little and let them tell us what would have happened if the fourteen Conservative [Nationalists had banded themselves against the Government.
He will tell us the horrible tale in what follows:
Do they not believe that Mr. Borden, abandoned by his allies, would have been justified to seek an alliance with the Liberals to replace the Nationalists, and do they not see that for fourteen votes lost he would have found to replace them all the Liberals in the House, united to the Conservatives, and the same thing as has happened in the election of Hochelaga would have taken place in the House. The result would have inevitably been the ruin of the Nationalist paz-ty, whose principles Mr. Borden had safeguarded and respected in his Bill as well as in every one of his speeches. Time, the great healer, time will justify those whom Mr. Bourassa condemns so severely.
That is my hon. friend from Dorchester and the Postmaster General:
Time will justify those whom Mr. Bourassa condemns so severely, and the people will learn before long the reasons of profound wisdom which have guided the Quebec members in that dangerous pass. Again, of what does Bourassa complain?
It is true, Mr. Bourassa is condemning the member for Dorchester and the Deputy Speaker very severely, but my hon. friend retorts in his paper, addressing himself to the unfortunate electors who believed in him in 1911:
Of what does Mr. Bourassa complain? But he is all wrong; Mr. Bourasa makes a mistake. Laurier is opposed to Bourassa; Borden, as is shown by his Bill and by his speeches, is his friend, and time will justify our attitude.
There is another article in this very important newspaper, and it is under the suggestive title of : 'Yes, let us suspend armaments.' It does not look like war, it does not look like a very serious naval emergency, if they are going to suspend armaments; the firing line is far away. Shall I translate it all?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Dispense.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If I did dispense; it, might help my hon. friends opposite; but, as I am not here to help them but to help the country and the Empire, I shall translate it. It is as follows:
With the adoption of the closure, the agitation about the Naval Aid Bill will stop. Public opinion w-ill be more at ease to judge and to appreciate the object and the hearing of the Naval Bill. It is sufficient to read it to understand that it does not mean sending one red cent to England hut purely and simply to vote a fixed amount which the Government may spend where and when it thinks proper and that even the Government may not spend at all-
That is for Quebec consumption.
-because the Bill does not state any date, any place, and condition and no obligation either.	.


Frank Oliver: That is right, they have got it down fine.


Rodolphe Lemieux: People who have no interest to get seared of words and who understand that the Cabinet is not obliged to divulge to its opponents its inner thought, will remember the two following considerations in order to know what exactly the condition is.
Here are the two considerations that the Nationalist mind gives out for the Nationalist consumers of Quebec:
_ Though the Laurier Naval Bill was adopted in 1909-1910, a year and a half elapsed before tenders were taken into consideration and at least two more years would have elapsed after they had been accepted before starting to construct ships. Will it be otherwise with the ships that the Borden Government is authorized to construct by the present Bill? Would the Borden Government act otherwise under a law which authorizes it to have the ships in case it will decide to put that law into execution? The Liberals say that the naval yards in England are full 'to the limit and that the construction of the Canadian vessels cannot be started before two years if ever they are ordered. What is clear is this: the Naval Bill is purely and simply a demonstration of friendship to England and nothing else, and should the construction be carried out the law cannot be put into execution before two years; that is to say, before the people have been consulted at a general election. Morally that is all there is in the present law.

With Mr. Bourassa and with. Mr. Christopher West-
The author of that book which has been used so freely during the present debate.
You see, Mr. Chairman, how far fetched it is.
With Mr. Bourassa and with Mr. Christopher West we believe that the next conference of the Hague Tribunal in 1915 will settle forever the principle of armaments, and will sanction the inviolability of trade on the high seas; and, because of that conclusion which we believe is near and inevitable, let us not be scared by the Canadian manifestation of friendship, because it will give us a consultative voice and an influence which nobody can doubt in that great future council of nations. The important thing is that we must not rush into the construction of a navy which we shall be obliged to maintain once it is started; the important thing is to wait, without compromising the situation, until the decision of the Hague Tribunal. Then it will be time to act and to start. Until then, the Government wishes to temporize, to mark time, and the present Bill has no other object. Hysterical people alone can shout: tribute or imperialistic ogre.
This is the literature distributed in the district of Three Rivers and in the district of Quebec, because my hon. friend the Postmaster General has recently in L'Ev&ne-ment an article which bears the same stamp as the two which I have just read. In every concession of the province of Quebec this literature has been distributed by the allies of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Government. Ret no one be bold enough to deny the authenticity, the paternity of such articles, because on another page of the same paper I find a speech delivered by the Deputy Speaker to his political friends at Three Rivers which is headed:
Important Words.-Weighty Words. To a group of important Conservatives of the district of Three Rivers, Mr. Blondin, member for Champlain, was making a few days ago the following declaration which all his friends will read with pleasure and will remember.
Here speaks the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Blondin). '


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I never gave any interview. I cannot take the responsibility of that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to ask my hon. friend the .Deputy Speaker if he made to an important group of Conservatives in Three Rivers the declaration published in La Semaine of the 24th of April 1913?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. member will allow me to speak in committee, the only ground I see for this report is that it was in the ordinary course of conversation with somebody whom I met. I do not admit the authenticity of this report.
Mr. LEMIEUX.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I accept of course the
explanation of the Deputy Speaker.


William John Macdonald: He has not said that he did not say it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: A gentleman is sometimes more truthful in a private conversation than when he speaks before the public. I quite agree that my hon. friend may not have spoken at a meeting.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I deny having spoken in this very sense.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have not yet read the speech.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It has already been
read by the hon. member.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I accept your explanation and I take it for granted that the delaration published verbatim in La Semaine of the 24th of April last was not made by you. I am very glad to accept your explanation.


William John Macdonald: Will the Deputy
Speaker send a declaration to the paper that this statement is not true?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I certainly will.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Oh, oh.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope my hon. friend
is not laughing at the sentiments I am now expressing. He knows that my words will be quoted to-morrow in my own province; and I hope he is not, in his merriment, casting a doubt on my sincerity. Yes,	I am honest and sincere in
the stand I take in opposing the legislation which is being forced upon Parliament. I say, with Sir George Reid, that you cannot go backwards; you cannot return to the old conditions under which the Australian Commonwealth and this Dominion were merely crown colonies. We have progressed, we have advanced, thanks to the free parliamentary institutions which it pleased Hen late Majesty Queen Victoria to give to her subjects in Canada and Australia.
We are told that the present contribution is in accordance with the wish of the Admiralty, and we are taunted by hon. gentlemen opposite with the statement that, as the Admiralty has approved of this measure, Canada should humbly accept it. Sir, we would simply ignore the temper of the British people if we were to accept blindly every desire that might come from Downing Street. This is not expressing any disloyal sentiments. We all know that if Downing Street were treating Canada in 1913 as it treated Canada in 1820, in 1837 or in 1841, Tories and Grits alike would rise up in arms and protest against such a condition of things. Of course, the Admiralty will approve of the Canadian Government making a gift of $35,000,000; but we are all too familiar with the fact that fifty years ago the fiscal policy of Canada was framed by officers of the British Government in Downing Street, that the people of the colonies were taxed and had nothing to say. We all know that fifty or sixty years ago the Post Office Deoartment of Canada was being administered by the Imperial Postmaster General in London. He had an agent in North America, and do you know who he was? The first deputy was no less a man than Benjamin Franklin. The first postal route we ever had in Canada was from Albany to Halifax, passing by Montreal. That route was mapped out by Benjamin Franklin, the first deputy Postmaster General for the North American colonies, before the war of Independence. Sir, that was good enough during that century. But we have evolved, we have progressed, we have advanced; and why, I pray, should we be branded as disloyal because we intend to maintain our dignity as Canadians and British subjects?
Why, even a man like Mr. Joseph Chamberlain in 1903, when with all his ability and energy advocating tariff reform in England, had, shall I say the audacity, the frankness anyway, to say that if a preference were given by the Mother Country to Canada, it was expected that the manufacturers of Canada would not compete with British manufacturers in certain lines of goods, but should confine their activities to selling to England the raw materials. Mr. Chamberlain made the mistake of his life when he made that statement at Newcastle

and repeated it the next day at, I think, Glasgow. He had at first published a list of manufactured goods which he hoped and expected Canada would not attempt to manufacture in order to give John Bull the best of the bargain. It is now known as the hidden list, because Mr. Chamberlain, conscious of his mistake, refused to publish it with the edition of his speeches. Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do that there are people in England who believe they belong to an aristocracy, who claim that they are superior to the colonials, and who really think that the Dominions are willing to stand such nonsense as that. If, perchance, you object to their schemes or offer any opposition to their proposals, at once they say: Well, we are not surprised- they are separatists, they are disloyal, they are foreigners; as Sir John Willison cables to the London Times. Old Samuel Johnston uttered a truism when he said that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel. I say that the man who dubs me as disloyal, as a separatist or, what is worse, as a foreigner in this country, where I have eight or nine generations of ancestors behind me in the cemeteries of the province of Quebec, is a scoundrel.
The leader of the Government may be rather afraid to retrace his steps. Being the First Commoner of Canada, our standard bearer in the British Empire, the Premier of the premier Dominion of the Empire, he may well hesitate before retracing his steps. He is supposed to be advised, to have around him the wells of wisdom, and I freely admit that retracing his steps, politically speaking, may appear to be a sign of weakness. Will he allow me to offer him a bit of advice? He started on this naval scheme of his by proclaiming that Canada would share in the cost of the naval defence of the Empire, but on one condition, namely, that she should share also in the foreign policy of the Empire. This was the condition, the ultimatum of the right hon. gentleman before he left the shores of Canada last summer with his companions for England. He had several conferences with His Majesty's ministers. He knew that at the conference of 1911 Mr. Asquith, perhaps the ablest and most distinguished statesman since the days of Disraeli and Gladstone, had stated very clearly, in answer to the proposals made by Sir Joseph Ward, that the creation of an Imperial Parliament in which the Dominions would share in the foreign policies of the Empire, would be a fatal step; and that, at all events, his Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom could not share with the Dominions the direction of the political affairs of Great Britain. The right hon. gentleman went to England and had fresh conferences with both Mr. Asquith and Mr. Lewis Harcourt, Mr. LEMIEUX.
the Colonial Sescretary. The answer came, and when did it come? My right hon. friend delivered his speech upon the introduction of this measure on the 5th of December last, and there and then he repeated, speaking it seemed to me as from Ottawa to London, that this was the condition of our sharing in the naval defence of the Empire. The answer came from the Right Hon. Lewis Harcourt, Secretary of State for the Colonies, who reiterated the very positive statement which had been made at the conference of 1911 by Mr. Asquith. So, Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister can well retrace his steps. He can say to the Admiralty: I offered that policy to the Dominion of Canada; I framed it on the understanding that the Government of Great Britain would consent to share with the Dominion of Canada the direction of foreign affairs. I have not succeeded in convincing the statesmen of Great Britain; therefore I am at liberty to revert to the policy which both parties in this House and in Canada accepted in 1909, namely: the establishment of a Canadian navy, maintained by Canada, equipped by Canada, manned by Canadians, and, with the consent of the Canadian Parliament, put at the service of the Mother Country in the hour of stress. Sir, I could understand my right hon. friend refusing to retrace his steps at this particular moment if the emergency which he depicted in such gloomy language on the 5th of December existed. But who speaks or thinks of an emergency to-day? Let us hot befool ourselves. At present the British Government is entering into negotiations with the statesmen of the German Empire, and soon there will be hailed by the press of the Empire the news of a tacit alliance between His Majesty's Government and His Imperial Majesty's Government in Germany.


John Hampden Burnham: That is more than your Bill did.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Even if there is not a formal alliance, we know that there is such a thing as a close friendship between civilized peoples. Were two peoples more hostile one towards the other during the past four or five hundred years than the French and the English peoples? They met on many battlefields; they sealed the fate of North America in 1759; and even a few years ago, at the time of the Fashoda affair, everybody believed that the natural sequence of events would bring war between France and Great Britain. But the common sense of the people on both sides and the diplomacy of King Edward VII brought about peace and the entente cordiale, and I thank Providence for it. There are no more hostilities of that nature between civ-

ilized peoples to-day. Semi-barbarians in the Balkans can fight, but the Hague tribunal is the great institution of this modern age, and we shall never hear of a conflict between two such highly civilized peoples as those of Great Britain and Germany. Everybody, however, from the highest in the land to the lowest, from those who are at the top of the ladder to those who are at the first rung, knows that there exists, to the disgrace of humanity, a coterie of international scaremongers. We know that in England, in France, and in Germany there are scaremongers. The other day in the Reischstag one of the leaders of the Socialist party, Herr Leibnich, with the full evidence in his hands, denounced the Krupp conspiracy, which amounted to this, that in every chancellory and in every parliament of Europe, and on many of the leading newspapers of Europe, there are agents of the armour-plate firms whose sole business it is to stir up difficulties and entanglements between the nations of the world.
Will any cash, any tip from Canada help the Mother Country? First of all, it does not secure our self-respect, because $35,000,000 does not begin to pay what has been estimated to be our debt to Great Britain. It has been estimated by the Prime Minister that we owe at least $400,000,000 to Great Britain for naval defence in the past. If that be true, $35,000,000 does not begin to pay our debt to the Mother Country. But would this cash help the Mother Country in any way, shape or form? Let me give you, Mr. Chairman, a few figures. Great Britain is, as we all know, the wealthiest nation in the world. Her new foreign investments last year amounted to $800,000,000. Her present foreign investments amount to $18,000,000,000. The annual increase in wealth of Great Britain is $1,200,000,000. During the last five years, after paying her military and naval expenditure, her old age pensions, and her insurance of workingmen, she succeeded in decreasing her national debt by $270,000,000.
I am told that this contribution is only to save our self-respect. Mr. Chairman, a loan of ships, unmanned, unequipped, by Canada is not restoring to us our self-respect towards the Mother Country.
We are against a cash contribution, I repeat, for the very reasons given by the hon. gentlemen opposite in 1909, because, in the language of the present hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster):
It bears the aspect of hiring somebody else to do what we ourselves ought to do.
Because, as he again said:
In Canada itself there will be no roots struck, there will be no residue left, there
will be no preparation of the soil or beginning of the growth of the product.
Because, to use again the language of the Minister of Trade and Commerce:
It disjoins what has been joined together from the earliest days of the world's existence-commerce and the protection of commerce.	1
Because, as he again said.
That method ignores the necessities and the aspirations, and prospects of a great people, such as the Canadian people are destined to become.	*
And because, as he said again, however humble the beginning, we must have something-
-in which Canada has some of her body, her
bones, her blood, her mental power and her national pride.
Were I in need of arguments this evening for a Canadian navy, I would only have to repeat what has been said by my hon. friend the absent Minister of Trade and Commerce. I say again to the Prime Minister:	You are being
condemned, not only by public opinion in Canada, but by the best friends that Imperialism has ever had in Great Britain. Have you read the letter published not very long ago in the London Post by Mr. Jebb, who, we all know, is one of the sanest apostles of Imperial Federation in Great Britain? His works on the Imperial Federation question are in the Library. It has been my pleasure and my advantage to read them, and I say that no publicist has ever so logically advocated the cause of Imperial Federation as he. What does Mr. Jebb think about the proposals of the Government of the day? Whilst some hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House may think that I am speaking at too great a length on this subject, I hope I shall not be regarded as obstructing the measure. I am speaking honestly my own mind, and in doing so I am convinced that I am acting in the best interests of the Empire to which I am proud to belong. Mr. Jebb, in the Morning Post of March 22, after the Churchill memorandum was published, condemned the intrusion of Mr. Churchill into Canadian politics and uttered the following weighty words:
It is no longer fashionable, at least in England, to applaud the doctrine of ' fresh centres of naval strength ' which Lord Milner enunciated in Canada amid general applause a few years ago. But some of us still think that the permanent tendencies of Dominion evolution are dead against any system of cash contribution, with its political corollary- Imperial federation. The alternative naval system is that of Dominion fleet units, organized for combination in war under one control, with a more fully developed Imperial conference to supply the means of con-


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a dangerous
word for a Liberal, but to the party of aristocrats the word ' horn-age ' always applies. I pay homage to the right hon. gentleman's ability; he has a large majority in this House; and, judging Mr. LEMIEUX.
from the applause with which he has been received-during the first part of the session anyway-one would be inclined to believe that he has the enthusiastic support of his followers.
Hon. gentleman -opposite claim that their policy is supported by a majority of the electors of -Canada. If so, what do they fear? The right hon. gentleman is a successor of Cartier, of Macdonald, of Tupper; and let him ask himself if Cartier, Macdonald or Tupper would have pressed an issue of this conseauence through Parli-a-, ment without appealing to the people, I wonder what answer his conscience will give him. The greatest of the modem leaders of Conservative thought, Disraeli, had for his motto, ' Forti nihil difficile '-to the strong nothing is difficult. The right hon. gentleman would not be the leader of a great party if he were not a strong man, and I counsel him to live up to the motto of Disraeli' 'forti nihil difficile.' If he does, I have no doubt that the people of Canada will tell the right hon. gentleman that if he wishes to lead the country and not merely a party he must revert to the Canadian policy he accepted in 1909. But, no, I am -confident that if consulted the people would -say:	Let us bring back
the .old leader, the veteran statesman, who promulgated the policy adopted in 1909, and which, had it not been for the ignoble alliance, would have triumphed at the last general election.


John Douglas Hazen: I am only going to occupy the attention of the committee for a very few moments, and I shall confine my remarks entirely to the criticism that has been made by my hon. friend from Bou-ville, by the hon. member for Pictou, and others, with regard to the memorandum of Commander Boper, extracts from which I read to this House on the 12th December, 1912. This memorandum was dated September 20, 1911, and the extracts I read from it on that occasion were as follows:
As is well known a naval service is composed of a large number of items which all dovetail and all of which go to make up the whole. If, therefore, all these items are not simultaneously proceeded with, the structure must become unstable and ultimately collapse.	.	.
This, at present, is what is occurring with regard to the naval service Of Canada.
A programme having been drawn up, it was adopted by the Canadian Government and embarked "upon in the early part of 1910. From that time up to the present it has only been proceeded with piecemeal and itemB have, from one cause and another, been postponed and again postponed, until at last a point approaching stagnation is being reached, and all the most undesirable features such as uncertainty, delay and unnecessary expense are being produced.
The only vessels belonging to the naval service of Canada up to the present, are the

two cruisers, Niobe and Rainbow, whilst four cruisers and six destroyers have been authorized by Parliament.
So far back as August of 1910 it was announced that these vessels would be built by contract and that tenders would shortly be called for. It is now the last half of 1911 and the contract has not yet been awarded.
The conditions are that the first cruiser is to be delivered in three years from the date of signing the contract, whilst the total of four are to be completed in six years from that date.
On reference to the Admiralty return it is found that the Weymouth type of cruiser which is similar to the type to be built by Canada was launched in 1910, and is now ready to be commissioned. The earliest that the first cruiser for Canada can be expected, supposing the contract to be awarded without further delay is the latter part of 1914; in other words this type of vessel will be four years old before it is completed, whilst the last will be seven years old, and rapidly approaching the stage of obsolescence.


William Manley German: To whom is that report made, at whose request does Commander Roper make that report? He, as an officer of the department is not making the report voluntarily; who asked for that report?


John Douglas Hazen: That is the very point
raised by my hon. friend from Rouville, and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. German) had possessed his soul in patience for a moment, he would hear what I have to say in regard to that. My hon. friend from Rouville, realizing what a tremendous indictment the memorandum is of the delay which occurred in carrying out the naval policy of the late Government, made the statement to this House last night that the report was a concocted report, and the hon. gentleman repeated that expression again this afternoon. The word ' concocted' carries with it the idea that something has been cooked up; that there has been a scheme or a conspiracy, and the word ' concocted ' used in connection with this report without explanation, would infer that in some way or other this report was devised as a scheme for the purpose of influencing the people of the country against the late Administration and probably in order to in fluence the present debate. My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) to-night very candidly stated, and I accept the statement in the spirit in which it was tendered, that he did not mean to imply that I as Minister of the Naval Department had any hand in concocting that report. Still he alleged that it was a concocted report, and the word ' concocted ' conveys the idea that something was cooked up or' patched up; that there was a scheme or conspiracy; that the report was not a bona fide one; that it was not made for a bona fide or proper purpose, but that it was made for some improper purpose. What are the
facts? Having regard to the fact that Commander Roper is a gentleman who occupies a position in the navy, who wears His Majesty's uniform, who has a naval reoord of which he has a right to be proud, it is only fair and proper and right that the facts in connection with that memorandum should be plainly placed before the House -and the country. My bon. friend from Rouville referred to the matter of this report once before.
In the first place I would point out that Commander Roper was not brought from England to take charge of Canadian Naval affairs. Various naval officers, including Commander Roper, were lent by the Admiralty to assist in the organization of the Canadian navy under Admiral Kings-mill.
Secondly, the member for Rouville states that Commander Roper and Admiral Kings-rnill gave their full accord to the policy of the late Government; but they were not consulted with Tegard to the policy of the Government; the policy was formulated by the Government, after which they used their best endeavours to carry out the necessary work of organization. Further, it was not under the advice of Admiral Kingsmill and Commander Roper that the tenders were called for, nor did they prepare the notices for the tenders, as has been stated in this House time and again without a title of authority for the statement is in absolute defiance of the facts. The knowledge of construction which they do not possess.
I desire to place upon the records of the House a memorandum Showing what Commander Roper's connection was with the memorandum to which I have referred. My hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell) or my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald)-I forget which-stated that, this memorandum was dated the 21-st of September. When I called attention to the fact that he was mistaken and that it was dated the 20th of September, the answer was made that it was a most extraordinary thing that this memorandum was dated the day before the election and that it was past comprehension that that date was correct.
I want to place on 'Hansard' a memorandum showing exactly what the facts are. I have taken every possible means of verifying this statement. I believe it to be accurate in every respect. It is as follows:
Commander -Roper was lent to Canada by the Admiralty for the purpose of assisting in the organization of a Canadian naval force.1 He threw himself wholeheartedly into the work and did his best to make it a success. In the first half of 1911, however, he baeame

greatly dissatisfied at the conditions under which he was working. Recommendation upon recommendation was pigeonholed, advice was neglected, and representations put on one side, until at last an impossible situation was created.
After carefully reviewing the whole case he decided to write a memorandum dealing with the whole situation for the following reasons:
1.	At the time there was no document on file giving any collective statement of what had heen recommended or thought necessary in order to carry out the scheme then in hand; nor indeed to show that he as an adviser had recommended anything. He considered that such a document should be on record for the following reasons;-
(a) If the Liberal party were returned in the impending election, they would come in with increased power and might push on with the naval question; in that case such a collective statement would be required.
(h) If the Conservative party were returned, the new administrators would want to know how matters stood, what was and what was not considered necessary, and there would he some thing to lay before them.
2.	If the Liberal party were returned, Commander Roper intended the memorandum to form the grounds of his resignation should they again refuse to move in the matter. _
The memorandum was commenced early in August. The writing of it took some time. It was finished just before the election, and he made a point of writing the covering letter and of handing the document in before the elections had taken place, with the express object of getting it done so that, whatever -might be the result of the election, it could not he said to have influenced him. No one asked him to write -the memorandum and he undertook to write it because it was in his judgment a proper and necessary course to take.
It will be seen that the aspersions cast upon this officer's honour and integrity are without foundation. The memorandum was not wriftten -to order, but of his own accord, and in accordance with what he conceived to be his duty.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Who was the author of the memorandum which the minister has just read?


John Douglas Hazen: This memorandum is made up-I candidly tell the House-from information that I have received from Commander Roper and from officials in the Naval Department, the very best information that can be got.
Before the election, that memorandum together with the covering letter was handed to Admiral Kingsmill as Chief of Staff. Admiral Kingsmill refused to forward it to the department at that time on the ground that it was not the duty of Commander Roper to make a report of that nature. Commander Roper made the report and handed it in before the election, and his report is worthy of attention. I am not putting it forward for that purpose; but I feel, in view of the attacks that Mr. HAZEN.
have been made upon him and the aspersions that have been cast upon his character, that it is only right and proper that a memorandum of that sort, which I believe is correct in every particular, should be placed on ' Hansard,' and that the charge should not be spread abroad that the document was not made in good faith but that it was made simply to influence the debate on the question which is now before us.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am glad that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has made the statement which he has just made, because, reading his speech of last year on the preliminary naval debate which took place during the first session of this Parliament and reading his speech on the 12th of December last, one would be inclined to believe that Commander Roper, being an officer of the Canadian Naval Department, had written that memorandum at the request of the then minister.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not want my hon.
friend to get away from the fact. In the speech which I made in the session preceding this one, I made no reference at all to the memorandum of Commander Roper. I simplv referred to the memorandum of Admiral Kingsmill. The first references that I made to the memorandum of Commander Roper was in the speech on the naval question which I made after the speech of my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition on the 12th day of December.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I accept my hon.
friend's statement, but I am strongly under the impression that last year, when matters pertaining to the naval branch of his department were discussed in committee, the question of the memorandum of Commander Roper was broached. At all events the impression to be gathered from the speech delivered by my hon. friend in December, 1912, was, in my humble judgment, that the memorandum had been written at my request when I was Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


John Douglas Hazen: Not a word was said to justify that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It was not necessary to say it in so many words; that impression could be gathered from the tenor of the whole speech. My hon. friend has justified what I said a moment ago; first, that, as Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I never requested Commander Roper to make a report; second, that Commander Roper sneaked that report, in spite of his chief, Admiral Kingsmill, into the Department of Marine and Fisheries; and third, as my hon. friend seems to be in a confidential mood, I may say that I know by information from my predecessor in the

Department of Marine and Fisheries that Commander Roper, who was traduced by the colleague of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) because forsooth he had espoused that very Canadian navy which he now condemns in this memorandum, was very anxious to get a little raise in his salary from the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hit a man behind
his back.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I shall not make use of the weapons used by Commander Roper in sneaking this document into the department in the absence of his chief, but if the conduct of Commander Roper is referred to the British Admiralty, I do not know the English officials if they keep him in office.


Frank Oliver: Before this matter is
dropped, would the hon. minister tell the committee how this document came into his possession?


John Douglas Hazen: What document?
Mr. OLIVER. This report of Commander Roper.


John Douglas Hazen: My attention was called to it when I took office by the officials of the department, and also to a memorandum made by Admiral Kingsmill, which I read to the House, and which is in line with the memorandum of Commander Roper.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend stated
that Admiral Kingsmill refused to accept this document from Commander Roper. If that is the fact, I ask him how that report of Commander Roper became part of the records of the Department of Naval Service, and how it came into his hands?


John Douglas Hazen: What I stated was that Admiral Kingsmill refused to forward it. It came into my hands because it was handed to me by an official of the department.


Frank Oliver: Will the minister let us know whether this document came through proper official channels, or whether it is in the hands of the minister as the part of a gum-shoe campaign which is one of the political weapons of this Government?


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. member for Edmonton should not get so excited. _ I do not really know where he has acquired the term he has used, or what it means and I do not think that there is any reason for his undue excitement except, perhaps, now that hon. gentlemen opposite find the facts of the case take the ground from under their feet, they
are so sorely disappointed that they are driven to indulge in additional abuse of that gentleman who has occupied and is still occupying a distinguished position in the navy. The hon. gentleman is simply trying to draw a red herring across the trail, and to divert attention from the memorandum which I have read to the House.


Frank Oliver: Then allow me to say
that my hon. friend has seen fit to place before this House and the country as official a document that is not official.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend seems to ignore the fact that Commander Roper was publicly arraigned in the Parliament of Canada by his present leader, the Prime Minister, by his deskmate the Minister of Militia, and by his former colleague, the ex-Minister of -Public Works (Mr. Monk) for having taken the stand which the Liberal party takes to-day. Commander Roper can serve both parties; he is a very poor customer indeed.


Mr. HUGHES (Minister of Militia):: As the hon. member has referred to my name in connection with this matter, let me tell him that if he reads 'Hansard' he will see that I defended Commander Roper. I stated to the House that he was acting at the dictation of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; that he produced a document which had been written by the deputy
minister and read over to the minister, and that the minister commanded the deputy to place it in Commander Roper's hands to deliver at the dinner.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would refer my hon. friend to speech in 'Hansard' which I read to-night, and which contains quite a different statement.


Samuel Hughes: On the same occasion
I pointed out that Commander Roper would not dare, unless authorized by his minister or Ms deputy, to stand before any public audience in Canada and deliver such an address.


Mr. GRAHAM:: He did dare to do it.


Mr. McCRANEY:: I move the adjournment of the debate.


Mr. CURRIE:: I rise to a point of order. Such a motion cannot he made in committee. The proper motion to be made in this regard is that the chairman do now leave the Chair, or that the debate on this clause be adjourned.


George Perry Graham: That was the motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is only one
motion that can be made-that the committee rise.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to make one or two observations to the amendment which

the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) has offered to this clause, and in respect of some remarks he made in presenting that amendment to the committee. My hon. friend seems to 'be under the impression that the principles of constitutional government are in some way being outraged by this Bill, and that a wonderful departure is being made in this regard. He went back to the year 1837, but he did not penetrate the past to the same extent as did hon. gentlemen opposite, some of whom went back,	I think, to the
time of Oliver Cromwell, and one, at least, to the days of Magna Charta. My hon. friend, with great self-restraint, contented himself with going back to 1837. I would like to assure Mm that there is not any violation of the principles of constitutional government at all. He seemed to be greatly disturbed because the expenditure of this money is placed under the control of the Governor in Council. I would point out to him that year after year, ever since Confederation, we have been placing very large sums under the control, not of the Governor in Council, but of individual ministers, and there are greater safeguards in this Bill, so far as the expenditure of public money is concerned, than in the ordinary case where a very large sum of money, $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 or even $40,000,000 are placed at the disposal of a single minister of the Crown for administrative purposes. In the present case the expenditure of the money is not confided to a single minister but- is to be placed under the control of the Governor in Council in every respect, subject to all the safeguards that are incident to the expenditure of any sum of money that is voted in the estimates and placed under the control of a minister of the Crown. My hon. friend found fault with the fact that this Bill is not restricted to any one single fiscal year but that the money to be provided by this' Bill could be expended not only in the present fiscal year but in subsequent fiscal years. That does not in the least alter the control which is exercised under the Audit Act and the general constitutional safeguard of the law of this country with regard to the expenditure of money. As a matter of fact, when a similar proposal wias laid before Parliament at the present session by the Minister of Agriculture, hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House did not see fit to divide the House on that question, but permitted the Bill to pass without any vote of the House. There is no distinction in principle 'between the one case and the other. As far as this Bill is concerned, we propose to observe all the constitutional safeguards and I would like to say, in order that my hon. friend may be reassured, that we propose to add a clause to this Bill providing that a detailed statement of sums expended under the Mr. BORDEN.
authority of this Act within the last preceding fiscal year shall be placed before the Canadian House of Commons during the first filteen days of each session of Parliament until the whole sum shall have been expended. That is not in the Bill at the present time, I -am not aware that the omission has been alluded to by any hon. gentleman opposite, but it is thought proper that it should he included in order that a statement may be made to the House annually of all the money that has been expended, in the same manner as a statement is made to the House under the appropriation Acts for -each year. I trust that in that way I have made it clear to my right hon. friend that there is no departure and no intention to make any departure in this Bill from the ordinary safeguards over public expenditure. The fact that this money is to be expended, not under the control of any individual minister but under the control of the Governor in Council, is not a departure, according to my interpretation; but if it is a departure, it is a departure in the direction of a greater safeguard and not in the direction of a lesser safeguard.


William Manley German: My right hon. friend
starts out with the assertion that the public money is perfectly safeguarded by the terms of the Bill as it was introduced and he winds up his statement by saying that they are now beginning to -safeguard it by adding a clause to the Bill. I cannot quite appreciate my right hon. friend's argument in saying that the public expenditure is perfectly safeguarded in the Bill when he himself admits that in -order to safeguard public money he must add another clause to it providing for itemized -statements of expenditure from year to year, to be presented to Parliament after the money is gone. I feel very emphatic on this point that there is no safeguarding of public expenditure in this Bill as it stands at present and there will not be sufficient safeguarding of public expenditure by the amendment which my right hon. friend proposes t-o add. What safeguard is there in handing to this Parliament an itemized statement of expenditure from year to year when Parliament has nothing whatever to do with the expenditure from the beginning to the end? It is all to he done by the Governor in Council. When this money is'voted, if it is voted, and there is placed in the hands-of the Governor in Council the sum of $35,000,000, Parliament is functus officio; its control over that money and over that expenditure is ended. We may criticise the Government afterwards for their expenditure but, in so far as any control of Parliament over that expenditure is concerned, from that hour that control ceases and I say that is not in accordance with -the sys-

tern of Government which is in vogue in Canada and has been in vogue, as I have already stated to my Tight hon. friend, since 1837. My right hon. friend says why go back into Englist history? He knows, and so does every hon. gentleman in the House know who knows anything of the former history of upper and lower Canada, that what created the rebellion in upper and lower Canada was the very fact that the expenditure of public money was in the hands of the Governor in Council, and not controlled by the responsible representatives of the people-and that is what this Government is doing at the present time. What is the clause of the Bill?
The said sum shall be used and applied under the direction of the Governor in Council in the construction and equipment, &c.
And the amendment which I have proposed to this committee is that:
The said sum shall be used and applied under the direction of Parliament.
I have already instanced the case of the expenditure of money for the con-structiton of the new Welland ship canal. The expenditure of that money is under the control of Parliament. My right hon. friend says:	Why, every year we give to
individual ministers of the Crown large sums of money for which they are responsible. We certainly do. The Ministers of Public Works, Marine and Fisheries, and Railways and Canals, and the Postmaster General, all have enormous sums of money under their control. They are responsible though to Parliament for the expenditure of that money from year to year, and we vote the money, we examine their accounts each year in the Public Accounts Committee, scrutinizing them very carefully, and they are obliged to be as particular as reasonable men can be in their expenditure. I am glad to know that usually the expenditures of public money in this country by individual ministers of the Crown have been reasonably satisfactory. There have been some few instances in which men, for all men are human, have made mistakes and the Public Accounts Committee has perhaps too severely criticised in some such cases. But you cannot get away from this fact, that the Parliament of Canada has never at any time voted to the Governor in Council any large sum of money to be expended over a series of years without accounting each year to Parliament and to the Public Accounts Committee. That is the question which is at issue here, and that is the reason why I have suggested this amendment. I intend to raise the same question in the way of an amendment to the other clauses of the Act, emphasizing the fact that we on this side of the House are not opposed to the construction of battleships, not opposed to aiding the British navy,
not opposed to aiding in the naval defence of the Empire, but that we are opposed to handing this money over to the Governor in Council, to spend at their own sweet will by way of contribution or in any other way, and that we believe those ships when built should be directly under the control of the Parliament of Canada. That is our position; that is the position we have occupied throughout this whole discussion; that is the position which we will continue to take until this Bill passes out of our hands.	.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend is of
opinion that the voting of $25,000,000 or $30,000,000 by this Parliament subject to the control of an individual minister who may call for tenders on public works without consultation with his colleagues, if he is of the opinion that that system offers greater safeguards to the public of this country than a system in which the money must be dealt with under the direction of the Governor in Council, I shall have to leave him to that opinion; I am afraid I cannot convince him. He holds up to us the Naval Service Act of 1910 as his ideal of absolute protection of the public interest. Let us look at section 7. The hon. gentleman seems to be of the opinion that section 7 reads in this way:
Parliament shall have the control and management of all naval affairs, including the purchase, maintenance and repair of the ordnance, ammunition, arms, armouries, stores, munitions, and habiliments of war intended for the use of the Naval Service.
I am afraid I will shock my hon. friend when I inform him that he voted for a clause which does not read in that way at all, but which reads in this way:
The minister shall have the control and management of all naval affairs, including the purchase, maintenance and repair of the ordnance, ammunition, arms, armouries, stores, munitions, and habiliments of war intended for the use of the Naval Service.
As I understand my hon. friend that is a perfect safeguard to the public interest, but if the clause had provided that the Governor in Council shall have control of all naval affairs, including the purchase, maintenance and repair of the ordnance, munitions, arms, armouries, stores, munitions and habiliments of war intended for the use of the naval service the public interest would be absolutely unprotected. That is his argument, that if you leave it as it is, that the minister shall have charge and control of all those matters, the public interest is protected. I am not able to appreciate an argument of that kind, and I think that my hon. friend, on reflection, will find that he is not able to appreciate such an argument. In the present case the Governor in Council is given a greater control, that is the Govern-

ment as a whole is given greater control over this expenditure than for example in respect of the $25,000,000 or $35,000,000,000 that were voted every year for the Transcontinental railway. My hon. friend voted for that year after year and never discovered the great dangers to which the public interests were exposed in that regard. We find new light breaking in all the time upon our friends on the other side in connection with this Bill. I venture to say that if you trace the appropriations of public money from Confederation down to the present time, and all the safeguards provided by the constitution and the law of this country for the protection of the public interests in respect of those appropriations, you will not find any individual case in which that public interest is more thoroughly protected than by the proposals of the Government in the present instance.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: If my right hon. friend is serious in the argument he has just made, he would lead the House to believe that expenditure under authority of the Governor in Council, so far as safeguarding the public interest is concerned, is the proper form of expenditure, that it is correct in principle. If that be so, why not adopt it generally, instead of the mode that has been adopted in this Parliament and in the British Parliament from time immemorial?


Robert Laird Borden: Whalt is that mode?


Hugh Guthrie: Of passing the necessary amount annually, and of having it passed upon annually by Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend suggest that a vote by Parliament placing the control of a large sum of money in the hands of an individual minister is a greater safeguard than the placing of it under the control of the Governor in Council?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, if that were the
case here, but it is not the case here. The proposal at this moment is to place a sum of $35,000,000, which is not to be expended within a single year, under the control of the Government in reality, nominally under the control of the Governor in Council, and this House has not an estimate, not a figure before it, upon which it is asked to vote this money. We have no information upon the subject; we are asked to vote that money to be expended by the Government who only propose to give a detailed statement after the money is spent. If the money were spent in the ordinary way we would be met each year with an estimate showing for what purpose the money was required; Parliament could examine that estimate, and could refuse it if it saw fit. That is a safeguard. Then we place it year by year under the control of a responsible minister and if the minister spends it he accounts for it, and he is liable, if it is nris-Mr. GERMAN.
spent. If he does not spend it, it does not remain in his hands; it has to be revoted the following year. That is a great safeguard. But the distinction in principle is this, and if the argument of my right hon. friend means anything it means this, that the money which is expended in this country can best be expended under the authority of the Governor in Council and not by responsible ministers. That, Sir, is going back in the history of Canada for seventy years. I do not believe my right hon. friend was serious in making that statement, or that he made it with due consideration, because if it is right in principle he would propose to adopt it in the case of all expenditures by this House. We might just as well adopt the next five years' expenditure for the Transcontinental railway or for the Quebec bridge and let the Governor in Council do the spending and give Parliament a detailed statement after the money is spent. Would that be right? I say no. No one would contend that for a single moment. The distinction is obvious, and consists mainly in this that year by year we know what the money is to be used for in advance. The Government says we propose to do this, that or the other thing; Parliament considers it and passes it. That is the first safeguard, and the next is that the following year the public accounts come down and we learn how the money has been spent. If it has been wrongly spent, it can be inquired into at the Public Accounts Committee and the Government is responsible to Parliament. Not so when the expenditure is made under the Governor in Council. I think the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) is one of such great substance in the present instance that the Prime Minister would do well to consider it and reconsider it before casting it aside and merely saying that expenditures by this Government is the greatest safeguard this country can have. I want to know, and the members of Parliament want to know the particulars before the money is spent and not after it is spent.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to correct
my hon. friend. What I said was that more information has been given with regard to the probable cost of those ships and the details connected with them than was ever given on any transcontinental railway estimate that I ever listened to in this House.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the initial expenditure this year? Has Parliament got a jot of information on that? How does he propose to expend these moneys?


Robert Laird Borden: It depends a good deal
on when the Bill gets through. If the Bill had got through when it should have got through, if hon. gentlemen had been con-

scious of their duty, we would probably have been able to spend $10,000,000 of it this year, as far as I can estimate. But, at the present time, a considerably less amount than that sum might be expended.


William Pugsley: If that is so why not
ask for a vote of $10,000,000 and if the $10,000,000 is not expended, whatever is left unexpended lapses and the amount would have to be revoted. Why depart in this instance from what has been the ordinary custom? Why treat it differently from the appropriation for the Transcontinental railway or the appropriations that the Minister of Public Works asks, amounting to $15,000,000 or $20,000,000? Why not do exactly as they do in England with respect to the army and navy estimates where an amount is asked for and a statement is made as to what it is proposed to expend during the current year?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Burrell), for the purpose of giving an assurance to the agricultural interests of this country, asked this House to make a vote of $10,000,000 to be extended over a period of ten years. The House accepted the principle. My hon. friend desired to have that done in order that the expenditure of the money might be assured for a particular, definite purpose in the public interest. So, on the present occasion, in view of circumstances which have been disclosed to this House, and which I shall not weary the House by repeating, the Government thought that two things were desirable; in the first place, that there should be an assurance given to the people of this Empire, and to all the nations of the world that, undfer conditions as they exist at present, Canada proposed to give such aid to the naval defence of the Empire as would assure the safety of that Empire for some years to come and as would convince the nations of the world that the dominions were one with the Mother Country for the purpose of securing her safety. Then, in the second place, it was thought desirable that, in view of any proposal of that kind, the Parliament of Canada should be afforded the opportunity, which I think it ought to have embraced, of voting that sum definitely and at once, in order that the construction of three battleships of the latest type might be secured for the purpose in view. That was the object of the Government in making that proposal, not to vote $10,000,000, but to say at once to the Empire and to the world: This is the aid which Canada proposes to bring in view of certain urgent conditions which confront the Empire at the present time and are likely to confront it for the next three or four years. If the object and purpose of the Minister 295
l
of Agriculture, which received the approval of the House, were desirable, it seems to me that the object and purpose which I have just indicated should have commended themselves to hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. It was for that reason, and with that end in view, that we made these proposals to Parliament.


Hugh Guthrie: Does my right hon. friend think for a moment that there is much similarity between the principle involved in the grant of money contained in the Agricultural Bill and the Naval Bill? I cannot see it. The Agricultural Bill proposes to expend the sum of $10,000,000 in ten years and the Bill itself appropriates the money. It says that $20,000 shall be spent upon veterinary colleges, that the provinces shall be given $20,000 in round numbers to spend as they see fit and that the rest shall be apportioned between the provinces according to the last decennial census. That is hardly a parallel case when one considers the proposal to spend $35,000,000 as contained in the Naval Bill. It seems almost too absurd to reply to that portion of my hon. friend's remarks when he says this Bill is practically for the saving of the British Empire and that for that reason we are putting the $35,000,000 in at the present time. Could he not accomplish the safety of the British Empire without placing one dollar in the present Bill, by merely stating in the Bill that it was the purpose of the Government to build three of the largest battleships that money could supply and science devise, and then let my right hon. friend come down and ask that the money be voted? Would not that save the Empire just as much as placing $35,000,000 in this Bill?


William Pugsley: There would not be so much fireworks.


Hugh Guthrie: Certainly, there would
not be so much fireworks, there would not be so much in the London newspapers and there would not be so much talk about activity in the British shipyards. But he would follow the uniform practice of this House if he would only come to Parliament and ask for the money instead of seeking to subvert that principle by apportioning $35,000,000 to the care of the Governor in Council.


Frank Oliver: Might I correct my right hon. friend (Mr. Borden) in regard to the position of the House on the Agricultural Bill? When the Agricultural Bill was in the committee, an amendment was moved to require the money to be voted annually by Parliament. On the third reading of the Bill the same amendment was moved. It was not voted on, but it was declared ' lost on division,' the effect being the same as



if it had been voted upon. It came up for consideration on Friday night when there is an understanding between the whips that there shall not be a vote and in accordance with that understanding a vote was not called for. But the effect was just the same as if a counted vote had been taken on the amendment. The Opposition put in their formal protest in favour of the principle contained in the amendment.


John Howard Sinclair: Just, to clear up this
matter, let me say that I have the amendment before me. It was on the 18th of April that the discussion on the Agricultural Bill took place. The amendment moved by my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) was as follows:
That section 3 be amended by inserting after the word ' fourteen/ in line 22 thereof, the following words:-	'
' Upon appropriations in that behalf from year to year made by Parliament'; and by adding to tJhe end of said, section 3 the following words, namely: ' provided the same shall be voted yearly as aforesaid.'
After some discussion the vote was taken and the amendment was declared lost.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: Because you were
afraid to vote.	-


Martin Burrell: As the Agricultural Bill is brought into the discussion, perhaps 1 may be permitted to say a word in reference to it. It is a little difficult to follow all the opinions that hon. gentlemen entertained in regard to the principle involved in the Agricultural Bill because these opinions, as expressed by various portions of the Opposition, were diametrically opposed. But I would like to call attention, in reference to what the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) said, to the fact that in discussing the Highways' Bill the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), referring to the Agricultural Bill said, and I may be pardoned in this case for using his exact words:
Why does he-
Referring to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane).
-not do as was done in the case of the Bill for aid to agriculture? That Bill was under discussion here a day or two ago. There was no opposition to it on this side of the House. The Bill was allowed to proceed to its second reading without a word of dissension from this side, because its object -was stated in the proper way. If my hon. friend followed the example of the Minister of Agriculture, and would do so through and through, there would not be a word of criticism of his measure. The Bill for aid to agriculture provides that a sum of so many million dollars shall (be voted, to be distributed over a certain number of years.
Mr. OLIVER.
And so on.
That explains the position of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition.


Frank Oliver: The Highways' Bill provides for a vote by Parliament each year; the Agricultural Bill did not so provide and our amendment was that it should so provide.


Martin Burrell: I do not dispute that, but I call attention to the fact that the hon. gentleman's leader said that if the Bill of the Minister of Railways had followed the Bill of the Minister of Agriculture through and through, there would not be a word of criticism.


George Perry Graham: In my opinion the
Highways Bill was an improvement on the Agricultural Bill, in that it did ask for a vote annually. As to clause 7 of the Naval Service Act which says that certain things shall be placed under the minister, it is necessary to have such a provision in any Bill, because the working out of the policy has to be placed in some department, and the intention of that clause was merely to put these details in charge of the minister, but it did not give that minister power to spend one farthing until he told the House what he wanted the money for and got the vote. My right, hon. friend is hardly correct when he says that the giving of a large amount to be expended by one minister is not as good a safeguard as if the expenditure were under the control of the Governor in Council-


Robert Laird Borden: I said giving the control of the expenditure to the Governor in Council was at least an equal safeguard and probably a greater safeguard than giving it to one minister.


George Perry Graham: For example, the Minister of Railways is voted $25,000,000 by Parliament, but he cannot let a single contract until the Governor in Council agrees to it.	,


Robert Laird Borden: He can decide on the tenders and advertise for tenders.


George Perry Graham: He may advertise for
tenders, but he cannot let a contract unless the Governor in Council approves of the contract by Order in Council. Then again, under the Transcontinental Railway Act, the original of every contract has to be submitted to Council before it can be let by the commissioners, although the commissioners have very wide powers. But the vital principle which my hon. friend from Welland contended for was, that even though a minister must have the approval of the Governor in Council before he spends any money, he has to come to this House every year before he is allowed to submit a contract even to his colleagues

in council, and he must give this House the details of what he is going to do with the money. Suppose the Minister of Public Works should rise to the occasion and go on with the Georgian Bay canal, he would have to submit what he intended to do to this House, and he would have to get the approval of this House for the work by the vote of a sum of money, but even then he would have to get the approval of his colleagues before he let a contract. The difference is not as between the minister and the Governor in Council; the difference is that under our practice every expenditure should come to this House before it is made, and not after it is made.


William Pugsley: The Prime Minister has told us that the reason for this unprecedented departure of asking a vote of $35,000,000 at once, is because the Government wanted, by naming the $35,000,000, to let the Empire and the world know that Canada was going to take this step to save the Empire. If the right hon. gentleman had said that it was done in order to have the proper dramatic effect and to set off a little fireworks, I should understand the argument. But, that is not what the British Government does. The practice of the British Government is to lay down a programme for the building of vessels which would take in the ordinary course from two to three years to build, and the Government does not ask the British Parliament to vote the total amount of the cost of these vessels at once; it only asks for the amount which it is expected will be expended during the coming year. I take it that the British Government is just as anxious to let the world know what they intend to do with regard to saving the Empire as the Canadian Government can be. The British Parliament is jealous of the expenditure s of public moneys, and with regard to no department is it more jealous than with regard to the army and navy estimates, over which it retains the right of discussion every year, when a vote is asked. In the estimates before this Parliament now, there is a vote for a certain amount of money in the harbour of St. John. A contract has been entered into with the firm of Norton Griffiths and Company, Limited, involving an expenditure of several million dollars. That work cannot be finished in one year, but the contractors have no fear but that this Government and this Parliament will keep faith with them, and it has not been considered necessary in respect to that contract to vote in any one year the total amount to be expended over several years. In the Agricultural Bill the Government made a departure which in my opinion is not justifiable. The only ground upon which the Minister of Agriculture could 295J
attempt to justify it was that he was proposing to enter into an arrangement with the provincial governments extending over a period of years, and it was necessary that those governments should know what they could rely upon for the coming ten years.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that that is the only precedent?


William Pugsley: The only precedent. I
cannot at present recall any other.


Arthur Meighen: I can tell the hon.
gentleman of another passed by his own Government.


William Pugsley: What is that?


Arthur Meighen: In the year 1899, the
Government of the right hon. the leader of the Opposition passed an appropriation to the Ottawa Improvement Commission of $60,000 a year for ten years.


William Pugsley: That is a very different proposition. That involved an arrangement with the city of Ottawa under which this city undertook to provide fire protection for the departmental buildings and to provide a water service. It was a settlement which was agreed upon to extend over a period of years. Perhaps my hon. friend will be able to tell me whether Parliament voted the money annually in respect of that amount.


Robert Laird Borden: No, they increased it to


William Pugsley: That was for a period of ten years.


Robert Laird Borden: Twenty years.


William Pugsley: That is an exceptional case. Surely my right hon. friend cannot cite that to justify the voting now of the enormous sum of $35,000,000 and the placing of this large sum of money for the period of three or four or five years entirely outside the control of Parliament.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall give my hon.
friend another.


William Pugsley: My right hon. friend
may give small and unimportant instances of that kind. My hon. friend from South Wellington says that the money for the Ottawa Improvement Commission is voted annually.


Robert Laird Borden: It is authorized by Parliament.


George Perry Graham: It is a money vote.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. It is put in the estimates just in the same way as the judges' salaries are.


Mr GUTHRIE:: It is not voted in bu'k.


William Pugsley: At all events it is a departure from the well-recognized rule of parliamentary authority which ought not to be departed from except for very strong reasons. There is no reason in this case. Does my right hon. friend suggest that the shipbuilders would not trust this Parliament and this Government to provide the money from year to year necessary to carry out the contracts? My right hon. friend says that there are greater safeguards thrown around the expenditure of this money than are thrown around the expenditures for instance of the Department of Public Works. That is entirely wrong, because under the law the Minister of Public Works is prohibited from carrying on any public work exceeding $5,000 in cost without first publicly calling for tenders. When the tenders 'are received, they have to be submitted to the Governor in Council, and he must award the contract to the lowest tenderer unless for special reasons which have to be set forth in an Order in Council. That is the safeguard with respect to the expenditure of money for public works. My right hon. friend has said that he proposes to improve this Bill by having a statement laid before Parliament. That is a very slight safeguard, but it is a little improvement. I hoped that my right hon. friend would have gone further and provided that these vessels shall be built only after public tenders have been called for; and that the same law, which applies to the undertaking of public works and the carrying out of public contracts, shall be applicable to these war vessels. This Bill on the contrary proposes to give to the Governor in Council a power which has never been given in the past, to expend this enormous amount of money over a period of three or four years, and to let the contracts for these vessels without calling for public tenders. Under this Bill my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries could go to England, let a private contract and absolutely ignore all those provisions which provide for the letting of ordinary contracts for public works. I hope that, before this Bill is disposed of, my right hon. friend will consider the question as to whether or not the law relating to the calling of tenders far public works should be made applicable to the expenditure of money under it.


Hugh Guthrie: In reply to the statement made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister in regard to the Ottawa Improvement Commission, if he will turn to page 94 of the estimates he will find that $115,000 is placed there for it, which is an annual expenditure. It is authorized by statute, but we can criticize it this year, next year, or any year. It is quite Mr. GUTHRIE.
distinct from the proposal of the Government to spend $35,000,000.


Robert Laird Borden: If no estimates at all
were passed this year the sum would be available to the Ottawa Improvement Commission just as the judges' salaries would be available to them under the statute. Surely my hon. friend is aware of that. If not, the slightest consideration of it will convince him that I am entirely right. If he will look at page 32 of the estimates, he will see all the salaries of the judges set out. Does he mean that, if we did not pass these estimates, the judges would not be paid their salaries?


Hugh Guthrie: My point is that they should be put in the estimates each year and so should this vote, in order that we can criticise them.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend with his experience must realize that these sums are included in the printed document which I have before me for the purpose of informing the public and members of Parliament in particular of the total annual expenditure of the country.


Hugh Guthrie: Proposed.


Robert Laird Borden: It does not at all follow- it is hardly necessary to urge this upon a member of the legal profession-that sums that are provided for by statute would not be paid even although no estimates were pjassed. The estimate itself is founded upon a statute. That statute when passed authorizes the expenditure of the money. A statute that provides for these expenses in perpetuity would still be observed even if no estimates were passed in any one year.


Hugh Guthrie: Why not treat the
naval vote just as you are treating the
amounts that you have here? Why not put it in the estimates and let us have an opportunity of criticising it?


Robert Laird Borden: I am treating it in the
same way as the amounts for the Ottawa Improvement Commission have been treated, in the same way as the amounts for the Royal Mint, and the Associated Press, and the grant for agriculture have been treated. My hon. friend the Postmaster General reminds me that it is in the same way that the Pacific cable has been dealt with, namely, by a statute providing for payments in the first instance and not depending upon passing the estimates from year to year. Further than that, I would like to inform hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that when an amendment was moved by them, which adopted the second clause of this Bill-which we seem to be still dis-

cussing, although we have passed to the third-they voted for the payment of this sum of $35,000,000.


George Perry Graham: Then my hon. friend must have voted against it.


Robert Laird Borden: That point was brought up by the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) last night, and I would like to say a word about that, as the hon. member for South Renfrew has mentioned it. I think he has been misled by the hon. member for Pictou, and has adopted a very curious position. He says we voted against it, and therefore against clause 2 of the Bill. Let me point out-and I hope he will let this idea sink into his inner consciousness -that there were two proposals before this Parliament. Each of the proposals embodied clause 2 of this Bill, and each of them embodied other proposals not common to each other. When we voted against the amendment, we voted against the whole amendment, which embodied provisions different from those which we proposed, but when we came to clause 2 of the Bill we were not dealing with the other features; we were dealing with clause 2 only, which was common to both proposals, and my hon. friend and every hon. member on that side of the House, although that clause was common to both proposals, and was being considered separately at the time, opposed the very thing they themselves had proposed. I would have thought that so simple a proposition as that would have at once occurred to my hon. friend the ex-Minister of Rainlways and Canals.


William Pugsley: It is no wonder the right hon. gentleman smiles.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for St. John says it is no wonder that I smile; I would think that the folly of the position hon. gentlemen opposite have adopted would make even a horse laugh. Under the circumstances, as hon. gentlemen on the other side do not seem disposed to adopt clause 3, although we passed to it several hours ago, I move that the further consideration of section 3 be postponed.


Frank Oliver: When the postponement of the second clause was moved, it was stated that debate on the motion was not allowable. Might I ask what rule is invoked in that regard?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it is a debatable motion.


Frank Oliver: We are now operating, to a certain extent, under new rules, and I think it is desirable that we should know exactly under what rule we are acting.


Robert Laird Borden: Under the first amendment.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The first amendment stating that no other motion shall be debatable.


William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman, we
have


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would remind the hon. gentleman that we are actually taking a vote.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of
order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for Edmonton asked under what rule the motion was made; I stated that the motion was not debatable.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point oi
order in that regard, Mr. Chairman, and I desire to say that in my judgment the motion is debatable. The hon. member for Portage la Prairie, speaking for this Government, said that until a question or a motion has been discussed by at least two speakers, one on each side, it has not been debated. His Honour the Speaker sat in the Chair and listened to that interpretation of the new resolution by the member for Portage la Prairie; my right hon. friend the Prime Minister sat in his place and listened to that interpretation, and if that is not a correct interpretation of the resolution, then I declare that the resolution has been passed by the House under false pretenses. I propose to move that the question be now put, and I propose to discuss the motion.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: There is no previous question in Committee of the Whole.


William Pugsley: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman. Rule 13 of the House says:
The rules of the House shall be observed in the Committee of the Whole House so far as may be applicable, except the rules as to the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times of speaking.
I am quite aware that you will find in the text books-I suppose having reference to the practice in the British Parliament-that the previous question cannot be moved in Committee of the Whole House, but we must be governed by the positive rules of this House, and rule 13 declares that the rules of the House shall be observed in the Committee of the Whole so far as may be applicable, except the rules as to the seconding of motions and the limiting of the number of times of speaking. I do not dignify this resolution by the name of rule; I say it is not a rule of this House, for there can be no rule in the framing of which the minority is not allowed to take part. This resolution, Sir, was not passed in the ordinary way, or in accordance with the practice and usage of Parliament; it was an arbitrary resolution-


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think the hon. gentleman is discussing the point of order raised by him.


William Pugsley: I am discussing it, Mr. Chairman. I am assuming now that this is a binding rule. By this resolution the previous question is always debatable. The resolution says:
Every motion heretofore debatable made upon routine proceedings except adjournment motions, and every motion standing on the order of the proceedings for the day, or for concurrence in a report of a standing or a special committee, or for the previous question, shall he debatable.
The majority of the House has chosen by its resolution to declare that whenever the previous question is moved that question shall be debatable. That makes all motions in regard to which the previous question is moved debatable, whether the Speaker is in the Chair or whether the Deputy Speaker is in the Chair in Committee of the Whole. All I ask you to do is to interpret faithfully the resolution which a majority of this House has forced upon the minority. We ask you to rule that this motion, that the question be now put, being the motion of the previous question, is debatable and I claim the privilege of debating it.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman
from St. John appears to think he has found a mare's nest. I have observed throughout the day many hon. gentlemen sitting with the rule book in their bands and this is apparently the mouse that has come from the mountain. The previous question has, from time immemorial, been moved in the House only and not in committee. The hon. gentleman says that does not apply to motions in Canada because we have a rule which says that the rules of debate applicable in the House shall be applicable in committee, with two exceptions.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend
pardon me?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


William Pugsley: I rise to correct my hon. friend. The rule does not say that the rules of debate shall be applicable, it says that the rules of the House shall be observed in the Committee of the Whole House as far as they may be applicable.


Arthur Meighen: And Sir John Bourinot has written since that rule was placed in the rule book. Bourinot is the authority in this House and he says that the previous question cannot be moved in committee; and with all deference to the hon. member for St. John. I presume that he will say that we should accept Bourinot rather than himself when Bourinot writes as to the interpretation of the rule. Consequently, the previous question, not being movable in committee, cannot be moved now. Clause Mr. BORDEN.
3 of the Bill has been debated, the debate may not have been pertinent, but we are not responsible for that. Hon. gentlemen have risen on both sides and whatever definition of debate may be accepted the motion now is movable, the motion is that the discussion of the clause be postponed and that motion is not debatable.


William Pugsley: It seems to me passing strange that my hon. friend should take a different view to-night from the view which he has taken in the past and in regard to which he gave a certain assurance to this House, speaking on behalf of the Government. My hon. friend.did not speak then as a private member, because when the Prime Minister was asked as to the interpreting of the rules he said that the House would receive the interpretation very shortly, referring, no doubt, to the interpretation which would be given by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. That interpretation, made in the presence of the Prime Minister and of the Speaker, whose duty is to have regard to the framing of the rules of the House, ought, I think, to be binding, at all events upon the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. My hon. friend said that this motion has been debated. It has not been. The motion has been made by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, there has been no debate upon that motion.


Arthur Meighen: I referred to the debate on clause 3 of the Bill.


William Pugsley: But the motion now
before the committee is that the further consideration of this clause be postponed.


Arthur Meighen: I say that is not debatable.


William Pugsley: That is not

	-


Arthur Meighen: That is not debatable.


William Pugsley: To that I moved that
the question be now put, that is I moved the previous question and I say that under this resolution that motion then becomes debatable. What is my hon. friend's answer to that? I quite admit that a majority of this House can vote me down and declare something to be the rules which are not the rules. I quite recognize that the same force which the majority had to carry through this resolution can vote down the motion which I am making and declare that they will not recognize the authority I am presenting. All I do is appeal to you, it is all I can do, to interpret this resolution according to its fair and plain meaning. In the first place, my hon. friend says that the previous question cannot be moved in committee. And why? Because Sir John Bourinot has written so. I have great respect for Dr. Flint, but if Dr. Flint were to write to-morrow that al-

Lhough rule 13 says that the rule of the House shall apply in committee, still he does not think so, I think that I would be governed by the rule instead of by Dr. Flint's opinion and so I would ask this committee to be governed by the fair and plain words of the rule rather than by a statement that Bourinot has made, if Bourinot has made that statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Give the page.


William Pugsley: Perhaps my hon. friend will give the reference.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Go on.


William Pugsley: I am asking a respectful question. Would he give the page of Bourinot?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Page.


William Pugsley: I assume that the hon. gentleman has quoted Bourinot for your information and that you would have a right, if I have not, to ask him the page of Bourinot to which he refers because he has asked you to decide on Bourinot.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think I could give
my ruling.


William Pugsley: I have not concluded
yet.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have no desire to
interrupt the hon. gentleman but I informed him that I feel that I have all the necessary information.


William Pugsley: But it very often happens that Chairman's information is derived from a discussion which may affect the decision. I have argued cases before judges before now and they have thought before I commenced that they knew what the decision ought to be. I have even known a judge, when very eminent lawyers have concluded their arguments, to pull his decision out of a drawer, having prepared it before the argument began. What my horn friend from Portage la Prairie has said is that the previous question cannot be moved in committee. That I deny. I have given to the matter as much consideration as I could give to it and I invite your attention to rule 13, clause 4, which says:
In the absence of the Chairman of Committees of the House, the Speaker may, in forming a Committee of the Whole House, before leaving the Chair appoint any member Chairman of the committee. The rules of the House shall be observed in the Committee of the Whole House so far as may be applicable, except the rules as to the seconding of motions and limiting the number and times of speaking.
Could language be plainer than that language? The majority of this House when they thought to pass a resolution which would gag and manacle the members of the House, did not choose
to alter that rule but left it there with binding force upon this House and with binding force upon you, the Chairman of this committee. No one can deny that the previous question can be moved when the Speaker is in the Chair. Now, if the rules of the House are to be observed in the Committee of the Whole, so far as may be applicable, the previous question can be moved when the House is in Committee of the Whole. What is to prevent the previous question being applicable in the Committee of the Whole, just as it is when the Speaker is in the Chair? Can any reason be suggested why it should not be applicable? No man can suggest a reason. As I have said the House has declared that all these rules shall be applicable when the Houseis in Committe of the Whole so far as they can be applied, the only exceptions are as to the seconding of motions and the limiting of the number of times of speaking. Therefore, I claim that my motion, that this question be now put is entirely in order, and quite in accordance with rule 13 and under the resolution which has been passed, and which I *shall assume is for the moment in force. (I will read the words again. You have there, Mr. Chairman, rule 13, sub-section 4, Hvhich declares that the rules of the House ibe observed in Committee of the Whole House, so far as may be applicable, except as relates to the seconding of motions and the limiting of the number of times of Speaking. It is admitted by all that the previous question can be moved when the Speaker is in the Chair. If you follow me so far, you cannot but agree that the previous question can be moved in Committee of the Whole House. Then we come to the resolution which states that a motion for the previous question shall always be debatable. If I am right in the statements 'I have made, and there can be no doubt .about it, surely this question is debatable 'when the previous question is moved. It necessarily becomes debatable.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: On this question-


Hugh Guthrie: Just a moment, I have looked as carefully as I can through the third edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, and I have not been able to find the authorities to which my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) referred.


Arthur Meighen: Will my hon. friend
look again at page 525?
* The CHAIRMAN: At the bottom of page 524.


Hugh Guthrie: At the bottom of page 524 it says:
By reference to the Senate rules it will be seen that the motion for the previous ques-

tion is expressly forbidden. No snob rule appears among the orders of the Canadian Commons; but the practice is the sajme as that of the English House, which does not admit of the motion.
* Is that the part I was to read?


Arthur Meighen: The part dealing with
the procedure in Committee of the Whole.


Hugh Guthrie: I will follow it on:
If it be shown by a division or otherwise that there is not a quorum present in the committee, the Chairman will count the members and leave the Chair, when Mr. Speaker
will again count the House.
I do not see any authority there for the statement of my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen). What I have *read is in a chapter entitled 'Committees of the Whole,' but the statement is merely by reference to the Senate rules which do not apply in this House.


Arthur Meighen: The words used are
'the Canadian Commons.'


Hugh Guthrie: It says:
No such rule appears among the orders of the Canadian Commons.
The Senate rules do not apply here.


Arthur Meighen: Read on: ' but '


Hugh Guthrie: But the practice is the same as that of the English House which does not admit of the motion.
I submit that notwithstanding that statement our rules govern. We have an express rule on the subject, rule 44, and that is not the English rule. In our case the rule is as follows:
The previous question, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendment of the main question, and shall be in the following words,
' that this question be now put.'
That is not the English rule. Then it
goes on:
If the previous question be resolved in the affirmative, the original question is to be put forthwith without any amendment or debate.
Then, our rule as to proceedings in Committee of the Whole is expressly laid down in rule 13, sub-section 4. Am I right there, Mr. Chairman?	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hugh Guthrie: If I am wrong, the
Chairman will correct me.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When the hon. member has finished I will give my ruling.


Hugh Guthrie: I wanted to know as
I went along if my contention was correct; if my groundwork is wrong I might just Mr. GUTHRIE.	j ... j
as well be told. Rule 13, sub-section 4, the latter part, reads:
The rules of the House shall be observed in the Committee of the Whole House so far as may be applicable, except the rules as to the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times of speaking.
If that means anything it means that we can move the previous question in this country, notwithstanding that in Great Britain where their rule is different they cannot move it in Committee of the Whole House. In dealing with the previous question, Bourinot devotes seven pages to the subject. There is no limitation expressed there as to when one may or may not move the previous question. Surely if there was a limitation it would be expressed in the chapter of the work dealing with that particular question, but it is not so, and there is no doubt that the use of the previous question as set out in Bourinot is the use to which it has been put in this country and in England. He says:
As a rule the previous question is proposed with the object of preventing the direct decision upon a question; and in that case the members who propose and second it should vote against their own motion.
May, on the same subject, page 282, puts it just as tersely. May says:
The object of the previous question is to withhold from a decision of the House a motion that has been proposed from the Chair, by a motion which compels the House to decide in the first instance whether the original motion shall or shall not be submitted to the vote of the House.
The object for which the motion is inserted in the rules and for which it is usually moved is plainly put in both authorities. The only point the Chairman has to decide as I understand it, is whether having regard to rule 13, subsection 4, and rule 44, we can move the previous question in Committee of the Whole. It is admitted we can do so in the House. I believe that is admitted by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie. Under rule 44 I submit that we can in the Committee of the Whole. It is one of the motions expressly mentioned as debatable.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Chairman,-[DOT]


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think I am in order. Before you give your decision I want to call your attention to something which I think you will consider of some importance. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and my hon, friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) have been directing your attention to the provisions of rule No. 13 and sub-section 4 thereof, which says that:

The rules of the House shall be observed in the Committee of the Whole House so far as may be applicable, excerpt the rules as to the seconding of motions and limiting the number of times of speaking.
With these two exceptions, then, all rules which govern this House when the Speaker is in the Chair govern when the House is in Committee of the Whole. These are the rules as we find them at the present time. I have here the rules of this House as they existed in 1901. I have only had about five minutes to go over them, but I am satisfied that I have gone over them carefully enough to he assured that what I am stating now is correct. You will find this same rule 13 amongst the standing orders on page 86 of the rules of this House in 1901. I shall read the whole rule so that Mr. Chairman will see the difference between the rule as it existed in 1901 and as it exists to-day:
Relative to Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker, adopted by the House of Commons, 10th February, 1885.
1.	That this House do elect a Chairman of Committees of this House at the commencement of every Parliament, as soon as an address has been agreed to in answer to His Excellency's speech; and that the member so elected, if in his place in the House, take the Chair of all Committee of the Whole, including the Committees of Supply and of Ways and Means, in accordance with the rules and usages' which regulate the duties of a similar officer, generally designated the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, in the House of Commons of England.
Sub-section 1 of the present rule is a verbatim copy of that.
2.	That the member elected to serve as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees shall be required to possess a full and practical knowledge of the language which is not that of the Speaker for the time being.
Sub-section 2 of the present rule is a verbatim copy of that.
3.	That the member so elected Chairman
of Committees do continue to act in that capacity until the end of the Parliament for which he is elected, and in the case of a vacancy by death, resignation or otherwise, the House shall proceed forthwith to elect a successor.	j
Sub-section 3 is a verbatim copy of that. Now, Sir, we have no sub-section 4 in the rules of 1901. Mr. Bourinot was dead in 1091, and when Mr. Bourinot made his comments in his work sub-section 4 was not in existence.


Mr. MURPHY:: And there has been no word from him since.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, we have not heard from him since that. Therefore, we have to deal with Mr. Bourinot himself because we know that Mr. Bourinot was alive when he wrote his book. There has been a change in the law since then and the law says that
the rules of the House of Commons shall be observed in Committee of the Whole House with the two exceptions that have been referred to. It seems to . me that this is worth your while considering, Mr. Chairman, before you give your decision. I can understand where the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) and probably Mr. Bourinot may have been misled. The rule of the British House of Commons is found on page 71 of the present manual. It is rule 65 and it reads as follows:
The rules as to the procedure in Committee of the Whole House are those which apply to procedure when the Speaker is in the Chair except that-
(i)	A motion need not he seconded.
(ii)	The previous question cannot he moved.
That is the rule of the English House. When Mr. Bourinot was writing his work on Parliament procedure, in the absence of any special rule in the Canadian House, he naturally took the rules as they existed in England. By the British North America Act we are bound by the rules as they existed in the British House of Commons unless they are changed by this House. Therefore, it was quite natural that Mr. Bourinot should have said, at a time previous to 1901, that the previous question could not be moved in the committee. Now, the House in its wisdom has seen fit to change those rules. We have made a positive rule that the rules of the House, when the Speaker is in the Chair, govern while the House is in Committee of the Whole. Therefore I think you Will consider this and that you will come to the conclusion that the quotation from Bourinot does not apply because Mr. Bourinot was dead before that rule was made.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think I can find another reason to base my judgment upon than the quotation from Bourinot. I find at page 524 of Bourinot the statement that:
By reference to the Senate rules it will be seen that the motion for the previous question is expressly forbidden. No such rule appears among the orders of the Canadian Commons; buf the practice is the same as that of the English House, which does not admit of the motion.	*
That is what Bourinot says.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But I tell you that the law is changed.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I rule that the previous question cannot be put with reference to the motion now before the House because the motion is undebatable. If you refer to the rule regarding the previous question, you will see that it is intended to be put with reference to a motion that is debatable. It is all very well to quote rule 13, but if you refer to rule 36, with reference to privileged motions, you will see that it reads in this way:

When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a certain day; for the previous question.
Rule 44 also states that:
The previous question, until it is decided,
shall preclude all amendment of the main question.
What is the object of the previous question? It is to prevent the debate from going any further. The motion before the House is undebatable, and I rule that the previous question is out of order.
Some bon. MEMBERS: Question, question.


William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order, order.


William Pugsley: I have to- appeal, Sir,
from your decision to the House.
Mr. Speaker having resumed the Chaar, the Chairman reported:
On the motion made by the Right Hon. Mr. Borden that section 3 be postponed, the Hon. Mr. Pugsley moved the previous question. The Chairman ruled that it was not in order to move the previous question on that motion. Hon. Mr. Pugsley appeals from this decision to the House.


William Pugsley: That is not exactly correct; the motion of the Prime Minister was that the discussion on section 3 be postponed, not that the section be postponed.


Robert Laird Borden: My motion was that the further consideration of section 3 be postponed.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I will make the report read in that form. The report reads:
On the motion made by the Right Hon. Mr. Borden that the further consideration of section 3 be postponed, the Hon. Mr. Pugsley moved the previous question. The Chairman ruled that it was not in order to move the previous question on that motion. Hon. Mr. Pugsley appeals from this decision to the House.
House divided on the question: shall the ruling of the Chair be confirmed:
YEAS:
Messieurs.
Alguire,
Ames,
Armstrong (Lambton), Armstrong (York, O.) Arthurs,
Ball,
Barker,
Beattie,
Best,
Blain,
Borden,
The CHAIRMAN.
McKay,
McLean
(Queen's, P.E.I.), , Meighen,
Merner,
Middlebro,
Morphy,
Morrison,
Munson,
Nantel,
Nicholson,
Bowman,	Osier (Sir Edmund),
Boyce,	Paul,
Boys,	Pelletier,
Brabazon,	Porter,
Bradbury,	Rainville,
Burnham, Clark (Bruce),	IReid (Grenville),
	Robidoux,
Clarke (Wellington),	Rogers,
Clements,	Schaffner,
Cochrane,	Sevigny,
Crocket,	Sexsmith,
Cromwell,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Brothers,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Currie,	Shepherd,
Donnelly,	Smith,
Edwards,	Smyth,
Elliot,	Stanfield,
Fisher,	Steele,
Foster (King's, N.S.),	Stevens,
Gauthier (Gaspd),	Stewart (Hamilton),
Girard,	Stewart (Lunenburg),
Green,	Sutherland,
Hazen,	Tavlor,
Hepburn,	Thompson (Yukon),
Hughes (Victoria, O.	)>
Thornton,
Kemp,	Walker,
Lalor,	Wallace,
Lancaster,	Weichel,
Lavallde,	White (Renfrew),
Lesperance,	W ilson (w entworth),
Lewis, Macdonell,	Wright,-84.
NAYS:	
Messieurs.	
Behind,	Loggie,
Boivin,	iMacNutt,
Bourassa,	iMcCraney,
Brouillard,	MoCrea,
Buchanan,	McKenzie,
Bureau,	McMillan,
Cardin,	Marcile (Bagot),
Carroll,	Nesbitt,
Carvell,	Neely,
Delisle,	Oliver,
Ethier,	Pacaud,
Fortier,	Papineau,
Gauthier	Pardee,
(St. Hyacinthe),	Proulx,
Gauvreau,	Pugsley,
German,	Richards,
Graham,	Seguin,
Guthrie,	Sinclair,
Knowles,	Tobin,
Kyte,	Turgeon,
Lanctot,	Verville,
Lapointe	Warnock, .
(Kamouraska),	White
Lemieux,	(Victoria, Alta.),-45.
Ruling confirmed.
House again in Committee on the Bill. (Mr. Deputy Speaker in the Chair.)


Robert Laird Borden: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Borden, House adjourned at 1.45 a.m. Thursday.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, May 8, 1913.