1914-04-03

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 139, to amend The Railway Act with respect to the deposit of plans.-Mr. McKay.

Bill No. 140, to incorporate the National Council of Women of Canada.-Sir Edmund Osier.
Bill No. 141, respecting The Rainy River Radial Railway Company.-Mr. Boyce.
Bill No. 142, respecting The Pacific Trans-Canada and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 143, respecting a patent of John Roger Arnoldi.-Mr. Macdoneil,
Bill No. 144, for the relief of Henry Elmer Bieknell.-Mr. MeCraney.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: I wish to cal! the attention of the Minister of Public Works to a return which was ordered by the House on March 23, 1914, and laid on the table yesterday, which purported to show the amount expended in public works in Antigonish county since October 11, 1911. That return is grossly inaccurate. It states that the amount expended since October, 1911, was $75,797.50. When I looked at that first, I thought a mistake had been made in the copying, and that the correct amount was $7,597, which would be more nearly correct than $75,000. I observe that places are mentioned in this return that are not in Antigonish county at all-Battery Point, for instance, and other places. I observe also that the return states that amounts [DOT]of $21,094.97 and $1,315.93 were expended since 1911 for Antigonish public buildings. No question was asked about public buildings; the question was with regard to public works. That statement, however, is grossly inaccurate, beca/use that money was expended, not since 1911, but six or seven years ago, and why it was put in the return I do not know. I observe also that the return states that an amount of $13,130 for Breen's Pond was expended since 1911, whereas that work was performed before 1911. All through the return is inaccurate, and I draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to this fact so that the matter may be corrected before his Estimates are brought up for consideration. The Minister of Public Works may remember that on December 28, 1912, just on the eve of an election in Antigonish county, a promise of $205,000 for public works in that county was made in a letter addressed to Senator Girroir.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I do not think it is in. order for the hon. member to go into these matters at this stage.


William Chisholm: I am simply explaining to the minister that possibly the error crept in through some of the officials of his department having had in mind the letter in which the promise Of the expenditure of $205,000 upon public works in Antigonish county was made. Of course, the money was not expended, as promised. The Minister of Public Works gold-bricked the people on that occasion.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. The hon. member is certainly exceeding .his rights.


William Chisholm: I wish to ask the Minister of Public Works if he intends to try to make the Antigonish people -believe that $75,000 was given them during the past year, when as a matter of fact only a fractional part of it was expended.


Mr. ROGERS:: I did not take the trouble to -read the report, but simply brought down what was given me by the officers of the department. I shall be glad to draw their attention to the statements which my hon. friend has made in regard to inaccuracies, and if such inaccuracies have crept in, I will endeavour to see that they are corrected.



MINES ROAD STATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. KYTE:: Information has come to
me that dt is in contemplation by the Managing Board of the Intercolonial railway to close Mines Road -station, in my constituency. The people interested are anxious to know if any such move is intended.


Mr. REID:: This is the first I have
heard of it. I shall make inquiries and let the hon. member know to-morrow.



HERON ISLAND DAM.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Without reading to the House what has been published in the Montreal papers, I would ask the Minister of Public Works if it is true that a dam is to be built a little above Montreal ^ at a place called Heron Island. I understand that the Waterways Commission, appointed to inspect and report upon the water situat.on above the harbour of Montreal, has not yet filed its final report. Eut

for the last few days it has been stated in the press that a certain company has obtained power from the Government to build a dam near Lachine rapids and a power house on Heron Island. It is said that a contract has been given amounting to $2,500,000. Is that item correct and has the Waterways Commission approved of this project?


Robert Rogers: There is no truth in
the statement, as far as I am aware. That item was called to my attention yesterday, but I have no knowledge of the matter. I am satisfied it is absolutely incorrect, because I have had several applications in connection with dams and the development of water-powers there, but have invariably given the same answer that nothing could be done until we had the report of the Waterways Commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to contradict the statement of the minister, but for his information I would say that, in an interview, Mr. W. D. Powell, a director of the company, stated that a company had been incorporated, and that their first expenses in connection with their development would amount to over $6,000,000, and he seems to take it for granted that the company will do the work. Of course, if the hon. minister says no, I presume that is an end to the matter.



WAYS AND MEANS-SUPPLY BILL.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. White (Minister of Finance), the House went into Committee of Ways and Means, to consider the following proposed resolutions. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
1.	Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty, on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1914, the sum of $1,S91,661.05 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
2.	Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty, on account of certain expenses of the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1915, the sum of $50,361,346.66 be granted out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund of Canada.
Resolutions reported, and concurred in.
Mr. WHITE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 145, for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial years ending respectively the 31st March, 1914, and the 31st March, 1915.

Motion agreed to, Bill read the first and the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. L, P. Pelletier (Postmaster General) the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution, Mr. Blondin in the Chair:
Resolved, That it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act and the amendments thereto so as to provide that the minimum salary of clerks in city post offices, the offices of post office inspectors, the offices of superintendents of railway mail service, and the money order exchange office, shall be $600 on appointment; and that the annual increase for any such clerk shall be increased to $100 a year; and that if the salary of any temporary or permanent clerk in the said offices is on the 1st April, 1914, less than $600 it shall forthwith be increased to that amount; and that the salary of any person who may be employed temporarily in any of the said offices for a period of not more than one year, who has not passed the required examination, shall be at the rate of $600 a year.
Mr. PELLETIER:: Two important changes are proposed. First, it is proposed to raise the initial salary, which is now $500, to $600. The other important feature is in regard to the annual increase in salaries. At present a clerk starting at $500 gets an annual increase of $100 a year up to $800, but after reaching that figure the increase is only $50 a year.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Up to what
point?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: From $800 to $1,000 in the one case, and from $1,000 to $1,800 in the other.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are these
clerks under the Civil Service?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: All are under the Civil Service-applying to the outside service. v
&ir \VI LI RID LAURIER:	As I understand it, the only change .proposed is that instead, of starting at $500 a year and increasing by $50 annually, a clerk starts at $600, with a yearly increase of $100 until he reaches the maximum of $1,800.
lili. PELLETIER: Yes. I see no reason why the salaries should not increase by $100 a year after the $800 point is reached.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Has the minister any temporary clerks who have been in his employ for more than one year without passing an examination? This resolution says that the salary shall be raised to $600 in the case of those employed temporarily

for a period of not more than one year, and it occurred to me that the minister might have some temporary clerks employed for more than one year .


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Temporary clerks cannot be employed for more than one year; the Auditor General would not pay them. The temporary clerks now in the service at $500 a year will receive $600, the same as the permanent clerks. It is intended to raise the salary on appointment of both permanent and temporary clerks from $500 to $600 per annum.


Mr. NESBITT:: From the commencement of their service, or from the time the Act comes into force?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: From the 1st April,
1914. All these matters will be better understood when the Bill is before the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not rise to offer
any objection. On the contrary, I think the minister is to be commended in view of the high cost of living, high rents, and so on, for increasing the modest salaries of postal employees. Some years ago I took upon myself to give them an increase according to circumstances. I think the hon. gentleman is justified in giving to these faithful employees the same benefits that other classes of employees are receiving. I do not think the country would begrudge the postal employees even a little bigger raise. One point to which I would like to call attention is the fact that the Government has not yet decided whether the outside service is to be put on the same footing as the inside service. It is true that a certain class of employees in the outside service have to pass an examination, but it is not the same kind of examination as is provided by the Civil Service Commission for the inside service. I think the time has come for the Government and Parliament to take a bold stand on this question, and in saying that I think I voice the feelings of all the members of this House, particularly members who sit on your right, Mr. Chairman, as they are most called upon to find positions for their constituents in the Civil Service. Unquestionably the law which was passed some years ago on the inspiration of the Hon. Mr. Fisher, instituting a system of competitive examinations for the inside service, was an excellent law. To-day, members of Parliament and ministers of the Crown can say to all applicants that they have to submit to the law and pass the examination set by the Civil Service Commission before they can
be appointed to the Civil Service. In that way you secure a better service than has hitherto existed. We all know that if in Great Britain they have an excellent civil service,' it is due to their system of competitive examination. I believe that the Hon. Mr. Fisher has no greater title to fame than that he secured such a system for the inside service. In England, no minister of the Crown is hunted by applicants, as we are hunted in this country, because it is a matter of course that all applicants must go before the board of Civil Service commissioners and pass an examination. That is the reason why England has the best civil service in existence. We have adopted that system for the inBide service at Ottawa. Why not extend the principle and bring the outside service under that law? I am quite sure that my hon. friends on the other side of the House, as well as my hon. friends on this side, would favour that. I quite agree that it is not necessary to subject a postmaster who receives $50, $100, or $200 a year to an examination. But for the postal employees in the large cities lilte Ottawa, Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto, Quebec, Halifax and St. John, and for the customs and inland revenue officers in the large centres, why would it not be a good thing to establish a system of competitive examination? That sentiment exists in the country to-day. The result of the present system is that you do riot get the best men. Since the establishment of the competitive system in the inside service we do not hear of any criticism about the Civil Service.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: Suppose a person is to be appointed as assistant in the post office in the town where I live, and I happen to know a man who is a cripple and who can efficiently do the work of the post office, but who is not able to do hard work, would my hon. friend propose to have taken away from me the right of recommending him for the position and have the matter sent to Ottawa for decision? He might have passed the examination, but the fact that he was a cripple and unable to do hard work would not prevail, while the community in which he lived would know that he was admirably qualified for the position.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of course, my hon.
friend gives a special instance which is only an appeal ad misericordiam. Besides I do not know the population of the place mentioned by my hon. friend.


William Humphrey Bennett: Let it happen
anywhere.

imj


Rodolphe Lemieux: That would, of course, depend upon the population and the business of the post office. . I would classify these post offices. But if we had a competitive system, say, for the Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Calgary and Winnipeg post offices, would it not be better for the service? The Post-master General and the Minister of Customs know that all the difficulties and weaknesses in the service proceed from the fact that under the present system they are imposed upon by political friends in these different cities. This system of com

pet-itive examination exists in other countries. It exists in the United States. No congressman to-day has the right, as he had some years ago, to impose his choice on the Postmaster General of the United States. They have extended the system from the inside to the outside service, and what some 3rears ago was the shame of the public service in that country, has now become, I am pleased to say, its pride. The United States have reformed completely their civil service, both inside and outside, and we could well afford to imitate them in that regard. I shall reserve to myself the right to add some remarks upon the subject when the Bill of my hon. friend the Postmaster General is before the House. The sentiment for this reform is ripe in the country. The public think that the time has come when all public servants of a certain class- I am not speaking of the extreme lower grades-ought to pass a competitive examination.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: You mean clerks?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: Will this resolution or Bill affect the salaries of officials entering the Post Office Department in Ottawa?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This is a Bill for the outside service.


Angus Alexander McLean: Will the salary of a man -entering the Post Office Department in Ottawa still remain at $500?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.
'Mr. NESBITT: Will the minister, when he brings down his Bill, give us some idea of the number of people who are affected by it?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, my officers will
be here when the Bill is before the House.


Rodolphe Lemieux: And the amount involved?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: And the amount involved.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. PELLETIER thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 146, to amend the Civil Service Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. L. P. Pelletier (Postmaster Genera]), the House went into Committee to consider the following proposed resolution. Mr. Blondin in the Chair :
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Post Office Act, and to provide (a) that the minimum salary of railway mail clerks appointed on probation shall be at the rate of $600 a year, and on confirmation shall he at the rate of $700 a year, with annual increases of $100 thereafter until the maximum of $1,400 is reached; (b) for the temporary employment of railway mail clerks for a period of not more than one year at a salary of $600 and mileage allowance; (c) for the appointment of temporary railway mail clerks as permanent clerks with a salary not exceeding that which they received as such temporary clerks, and eligible for the usual annual increases for the period from the date of their appointment until their salaries amount to $1,000, but not eligible for an increase above $1,000 until they pass the qualifying examination; (d) that if the salary of any railway mail clerk, temporary or permanent, is on the 1st April; 1914, less than $600, it shall forthwith he increased to that amount.
Mr. MURPHY:: Would my hon. friend
the minister explain the procedure by which he proposes to turn temporary clerks into permanent ones?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We are not turning
temporary clerks into permanent ones We are simply dealing with their salaries.


Charles Murphy: What does subsection
C mean?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This resolution is
simply doing for the railway mail clerks what the preceding resolution has done for the employees in the city post offices in the railway mail service, and in the money order exchange offices. We are increasing their initial salaries from $500 to $600, and are providing for an annual increase of $100 instead of $50 when the salary reaches $800, rising to $1,400. That is the sole object of the resolution. We have no right to employ railway mail clerks for' more than one year in a temporary capacity. If at the end of the year they have

not passed the examination, we cannot employ them any longer.


Mr. CARVELL:: Cannot you employ
them over again in a temporary capacity?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We cannot do that
under the law. The Auditor General would not sign the salary cheques.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Could you not dismiss
them, and then next day reappoint them in a temporary capacity?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The trouble is that the examinations for railway mail clerks are far too severe. What is required from a railway mail clerk is common sense, good education, sobriety and honesty. In certain provinces my hon. friend must experience very great difficulty in securing railway mail clerks. In the provinces west of the Great Lakes, it is true that they receive 15 per cent above the salaries paid elsewhere. In my day I had great difficulty in getting proper service in that respect, because the salary is not high enough and the examinations required from railway mail clerks are equal to the examinations required from university students. You cannot get a young university student to devote his life to the work of a railway mail clerk. It is very tedious work, it is not always very healthy, and it is at times very risky. I would suggest that my hon. friend amend the regulations so as to make the examinations required from railway mail clerks less difficult than at present. He is quite right in taking on permanently a temporary railway mail clerk who has done good service during one year and has shewn himself fully qualified for the position. These temporary clerks are called railway mail clerks, but, as a matter of fact, they are only labourers. They are employed as labourers for a year, and the Auditor General will not pay beyond a year for one who assumes tbe name of railway mail clerk but is really only a labourer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Has the hon. member
(Mr. Lemieux) read subsection 0? I understand by that section that if a railway mail clerk stays there long enough, his salary will rise to $1,000 a year.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He does not stay
there more than a year if he does not pass the examination.


Charles Murphy: This examination applies to the increase, not to the permanency.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The rule is this: The young man may remain in the service for a year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will my hon. friend get away from what the rules and regulations may be, and realize that we are passing a statute, and it is a question what is the interpretation of that statute? My hon. friend should devote his attention to that branch of the question, and not to rules and regulations of the past. He says that the Auditor General will not sign the cheques. That may have been the case in the past. Does not my hon. friend think that subsection C, if passed, will be a statute which the Auditor General will be bound to obey?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is no question about that. Perhaps I employed a word which did not carry the meaning I had in my .mind. Possibly I should have used the word ' law ' when I used the word ' rule.' The law now is that we cannot continue in office for more than twelve months a railway mail clerk who is on probation. After the twelve months have expired, if he has not passed the necessary examination, he has to leave the service. I used the word ' rule.' That is the ' law.'


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the new law?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The new law is to
increase the salaries and to keep in the service those temporary clerks who have made good.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: For four years more?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the yearly increase?	*


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: From $600 to $800
under the new law by increases of $100 a year. From $800 to $1,400; as the law now is, the rate of increase is $50 a year, we are making it $100 a year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Any mail clerk can remain for four years without passing an examination?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He must take the examination if he wants to be kept on for the second year.


John Howard Sinclair: This subsection does not say so.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We are providing by
this resolution to keep in the service men



who are there now and with whose work we are satisfied. This does not say that in future we shall have the right to keep for more than one year railway mail clerks who will be engaged later.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: In other words, those
who are employed as temporary clerks will never reach the maximum of the salary given to a regular railway mail clerk?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No. There are two
examinations. This explanation will also answer partly my hon. friend from Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux). In the first place, the man goes in without examination. He cannot be kept for more than a year. In order to be appointed he must pass the preliminary examination. This is very easy, calling for only elementary qualifications, such as ability to read and write and a knowledge of the four elementary rules of arithmetic. But the employee cannot have a salary of over $1,000 unless he passes the qualifying examination.


Charles Murphy: What machinery is it
by which the man, at the end of the year's probation, is changed from a temporary clerk into a permanent clerk? Is it at the discretion of the minister to make the selection, or is the passing of the examination' sufficient?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Both. He must pass the examination, but, even though he may pass the examination, if his services have not been found satisfactory, the minister is not obliged to appoint him.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has said
that section C applies only to clerks now in the employ of the department and that it is not intended to apply to those hereafter appointed. In that ease this section should be amended by some such qualifying words as ' now in the service of the department ' after the expression ' temporary railway mail clerks.' Otherwise it would be open to the minister to appoint temporary clerks, keep them for four years, and raise them to $1,000; and in this way he could saddle on the department a large number not qualified.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I think there is a
good deal in what the hon. gentleman says. This resolution does not exactly express the idea. But I have the proposed Bill before me, and I think it is much clearer.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We have not the Bill
before us. Would the minister read it?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It says:
A person who has not passed the required Civil Service examination may be employed as a temporary railway mail clerk for a period of not more than one year.
That makes it clear.
Mr. C'ARVELL:	Yes, but then section
C qualifies this broad statement that he cannot be employed for more than a year. Under this section the minister has power to advance him by $100 a year and keep him for four years.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I admit that that construction is possible when you read the resolution. But when you read the Bill-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Will the hon. minister send the Bill over? We have net a copy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The change is automatic-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He is not appointed
until after one year's probation. After that probation, if he passes the preliminary examination, an Order in Council is passed putting him on. Then he advances automatically by $100 a year until he reaches $1,000 a year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then, if he passes the
qualifying examination he is put on a par with the other railway mail clerks?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the number of the Bill?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It has no number; it has not yet been introduced. We are still on the resolution, and that is why I suggest that we should leave the discussion until we are in Committee on the Bill. W'e can go into the matter fully at that stage. In the meantime I will call the attention of the officers of the department to the remarks that have been made. I wish to have this matter made clear myself.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I beg pardon; I thought * we were in Committee on the Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wished to satisfy my hon. friend (Mr. Carvell) that I
4 p.m. was right. In view of the very difficult examination to which the railway mail clerks are subjected, the Postmaster General is obliged at times to take temporary mail clerks. They are purely and simply labourers, and have a labourer's stipend and cannot advance unless they show that they have the necessary qualifications. According to this pro-

posed plan, they will be appointed at $600 a year and will advance by $100 a year until they reach $1,000. Then, if they pass the qualifying examination, they will be on a par with the regular mail clerks and can reach a maximum of $1,400 a year.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I quite agree with my
hon. friend from Rouville. But I have seen some of these examinations and they are the greatest farce ever known. What difference does it make in the appointment of a railway mail clerk whether he can tell what the capital is of some state in China or Siam?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. gentleman is mistaken; the railway mail clerks are not subjected to these ridiculous questions.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have seen the questions and some of them seem to me ridiculous. The proper course for the Postmaster General is to change the examination, and not to take power to himself to drive a coach-and-four through the Civil Service Act. If the examination were put upon a reasonable basis, I do not think there would be much difficulty in getting the proper number of qualified men. The qualifications a man should possess in order to be an efficient railway mail clerk include a knowledge of English, ability to read writing of almost any kind, and an intimate knowledge of the geography of his own country and of many other countries in the world. It may take a year for a man to study up what he needs to know. But I would suggest that the minister should simplify the examination, boil it down to the necessities, and not take too much power to himself.


THE ROYAL ASSENT.
[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Ernest John Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour the Deputy of His Royal Highness, the Governor General, desires the immediate presence of this honourable body in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the House went up to the Senate.
And the House being returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that His Honour the Deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General, had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the Royal asisent to the following Bills:
An Act respecting the National Transcontinental Railway.
151J
An Act respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting the West Ontario Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Tillsonburg, Lake Erie and- Pacific Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Lachine, Jacques Cartier and Maisonneuve Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.
An Act to incorporate the Central Western Canada Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to incorporate Pacific, Peace River and Athabaska Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Dominion Atlantic Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Joliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Ottawa and Ungava Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Thessalon and Northern Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Esquimau and Nanaimo Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Central Railway Company of Canada.
An Act respecting the Quinze and Blanche River Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Lake Erie and Northern Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Railway Accident Insurance Company, and to change its name to ' The Globe Indemnity Company of Canada.'
An Act respecting the Vancouver Life Insurance Company of Vancouver, B.C., and to change its name to ' The Vancouver Life Insurance Company.'
An Act respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.
An Act respecting the Acadia Loan Corporation, and to change its name to ' The Mortgage Corporation of Nova Scotia.'
An Act to incorporate the Bank of Alberta.
An Act respecting the Sterling Trusts Corporation.
An Act to amend an Act relating to the establishment and expenses of the International Joint Commission under the Waterways Treaty of January 11, 1909.
An Act respecting Queen's University at Kingston.
An Act respecting the McClary Manufacturing Company.
An Act respecting British Trust Company.
An Act to incorporate the Norfolk and Elgin Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Calgary and Pernie Railway Company.
An Act respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending respectively the 31st March, 1914, and the 31st March, 1915.

[Stage Direction]
The House 'again in Committee, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the mileage allowance apply to temporary clerks?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes. While en route they have to get their meals and pay hotel bills, and the allowance is made for that purpose. The temporary man is just as much entitled to that as the permanent man.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I cannot quite agree
with the hon. member for Carleton, N.B., as to making the examinations easier. I have not the examination before me and do not know the exact nature of it, but it seems to me that after those officers have served a number of years they ought to be able to pass an examination if they have any sense at all. I would like the minister when he brings in his Bill to give the information asked for with regard to the other Bill, namely, how many officers will be affected and what the amount of the increase will be.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will have that information.


Mr. BOIVIN:: Perhaps the minister
could give us also a general idea of the nature of the examination.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mir. PELLETIER thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 147, to amend the Post Office Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 71, to 'consolidate and .amend the Act respecting fisheries and fishing.-[DOT] Mr. Hazen.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister of Agriculture) .moved the second treading of Bill No. 112, to regulate the manufacture and sale of dairy products and to prohibit the manufacture and sale of butter substitutes.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Subsection b of section 5 of this Bill absolutely prohibits the remelting, re-clarifying or re-churning of any kind of 'butter. It is a very common practice to have butter brought from the dairy and taken to the factories and re-churned. A better article is turned out, and the butter is put up in more attractive packages. Will 
the minister tell us why the change is being made?


Mr. BURRELL:: This Bill is, to a large extent, a revision of part 8 of the Inspection and Sales Act, which was a consolidation of the various dairy Acts passed between 1886 and 1896. Some of the provisions of the Bill are taken out of the Inspection and Sales Act as it was thought to be much better to have a separate Bill dealing entirely with dairy .products. In the interpretation clause of the Bill, section 3, are certain provisions which are necessary for clearness, and which have covered new products which have come into existence in connection with the dairy business since the passing of the first Act. Section 4 corresponds with sections 284, 285 and 287 of the old Acts, and covers in addition, milk powder or casein manufactories, milk or cream shipping stations, and milkbottling establishments. As the law stands at present no prosecution can be made for supplying adulterated milk to these establishments, as they are not mentioned in the Act. Section 5, to which my hon. friend particularly refers, is a re-drafting of sections 298 and 299 of the Inspection and Sales Act. The word ' oleomargarine ' is put in paragraph a, and paragraphs b and c replace section 299 of the Inspection and Sales Act. Section 298 of the original Act is as follows:
No person shall manufacture, Import into Canada, or offer, sell, or have in his possession for sale any oleomargarine, butterine, or other substitutes for butter, manufactured wholly or in part from any fat other than that of milk or cream.
Section 299 is as follows:
No person shall mix with butter any acid, alkali, or chemical or any substance whatever, which is introduced or used for the purpose or with the effect of causing the butter to absorb water or any part of milk or cream; or manufacture, or import into Canada,/ or offer, sell, expose or have in his possession for sale any such mixed butter, any renovated butter or process butter.
That is the butter referred to by my hon. friend which is made over again by churning. With the old section on the statute book, many dishonest dealers throughout the country learned how to add water to butter without the use of any acid, alkali or other chemical substance; and the courts held that, although we might prove that there was 25 per cent or 30 per cent of water in the butter in excess of the legal limit of 16 per cent, we must also prove that an acid, alkali or other chemical substance was used. The result was that, especially in Montreal, a lot of butter was re-

churned and water added without the use of chemicals or acids, and the courts practically refused to convict because there was no proof of these substances having been added. In many cases thousands of dollars have been made by men who rechurned butter and renovated it so that it contained 40 per cent or 45 per cent of water. This was not only a manifest injustice to the producers, but a glaring fraud on the consumers, and it added to the high cost of living. We have therefore put in subsection c, which is as follows:
Melt, clarify, refine, rechurn, or otherwise treat butter to produce what Is generally known as ' process ' or * renovated ' butter, nor add any milk or cream to butter.
There may be something in what my hon. friend says about not allowing people to reehum butter; but if my hon.-friend knew what a business is made of the manufacture of this process butter, he would see that this is the only way of reaching the abuse.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am afraid my hon.
friend has not paid due regard to the condition of affairs in the drafting of the Bill, because subsection c makes it a criminal offence for any person to-
-melt, clarify, refine, rechurn, or otherwise treat butter to produce what Is generally known as * process ' or * renovated ' butter, nor add any milk or cream to butter.
Subsection k of the interpretation clause defines renovated butter as follows:
' renovated butter ' or ' process butter ' means any butter which has been melted, clarified, refined or rechurned;
If a man rechurns butter without adding water to it, this would make it a crime; it is a crime if he attempts to remodel it in any way. I quite understand that if renovated butter were defined to mean butter with more than 16 per cent of water, it would be all right; but unfortunately subsection k does not say that renovated butter has any specified quantity of water in it.


Martin Burrell: I think my hon. friend will find that commercially there will not be much difficulty of the kind he suggests, because the amount of butter that would be so treated would be infinitesimal. There is probably something in what my hon. friend says, but the matter can be threshed out in the committee. The main provisions of the Bill have been gone over carefully by the parliamentary counsel and the commissioner of dairying. It is my wish to refer the Bill to the Agricultural Committee,
so that the sections may be thoroughly discussed there.


Mr. BOYER (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Chairman, this revision of part 8 of the Inspection and Sales Act, such as amended by chapter 35 of the statutes of 1908, is quite timely, and the more so at a moment when all efforts are being directed towards the improvement of our dairy industry, and as the old law had proved inadequate, I congratulate the hon. the Minister of Agriculture upon having remodeled it to suit the time and present needs. Therefore I heartily approve of this Bill, and 'let me say that it is not in a carping spirit and as a fault-finder that I have taken the floor; on the contrary, I should like to still more improve the Bill by affording the provincial authorities the advantage of operating under this Act. As the law stands, the officers of the Dominion Department of Agriculture are the only ones who have jurisdiction and can exercise the powers conferred by this Act, while the provincial departments of agricure which also possess a thorough organization such as schools for inspectors, lecturers, etc., with a view to the constant development of dairying, have no legal means enabling them to validate their legal proceedings.
True, they have their local regulations, but those regulations are only worth what they are worth and before the law they have no value, as all matters coming within the subject-matter of trade and commerce are exclusively assigned to the Dominion.
Formerly, the Dominion Government had in their employ district analysts who are sent around here and there. Their services were seldom required in those days.
The dairy industry was then in its initial stage; but when it was given a strong impetus and the farmers realized that they would benefit by carrying on dairying on a larger scale, the provincial governments did not wait for the Government officers of the Dominion Department of Agriculture; they set out on organizing themselves with a view to improving and developing the dairying business as rapidly as possible, and various branches were created in the provincial Departments of Agriculture, the officers of which exclusively aimed at making their work a success in the dairying line. The Government of Ontario and Quebec delegated powers to associations, the object of which was identical to theirs. It was under those circumstances that the western and the eastern dairy associations

of Ontario originated, as also the Dairy Association of the province of Quebec.
Those various provincial associations, the organization and operations of which have proved such a success, have their respective laws and regulations recognized by their own governments under which they carry out their admirable work among the dairymen and they have an immediate control over all the dairy products in their respective provinces.
These societies have inspectors whose duty it is to test milk as to value, quality, cleanliness, manufacturing process handling in the manufactures, in short, anything coming within the province of butter and cheese manufacturing as also any other article manufactured from milk.
Now, in order to make this Act effective, it should empower the inspectors appointed by provincial governments as also the dairy associations having inspectors under their control, to testify before provincial courts, under this Dominion Act, so that the evidence given by them before these courts may be valid and effective in law.
There exists an anomaly which should necessarily be done away with if we wish to avoid dealing the dairy industry a stunning blow. We all know how apathetic the dairymen are in complying with the rules of hygiene and probity. The duty of the inspectors is to force the refractory milkmen to obey the laws and to show those who are willing to improve their methods the way to progress.
Unfortunately, nowadays, the courts of both provinces have declared to be ultra vires any prosecution brought by one of the provincial inspectors against milkmen in default. I am informed that no such prosecution may be brought without leave of the Minister of Agriculture at Ottawa, and moreover not only must the action be entered by the Dominion department, but the evidence must also be brought before the court by the same department.
Similar proceedings entered against individuals who were discrediting our dairying by their reprehensible operations have been dismissed by the court of justice in Montreal, in the city of Quebec and elsewhere, and among others, by judge La-vergne, at the Montreal Appellate Court.
Now, section 14 of the Bill which this House is preparing to pass into law and the various provisions of which I approve of, enacts:	' The Minister of Agriculture
may make appointments of inspectors and other persons for the enforcement of this
[Mr 1' yer.]
Act '; but it does not provide that provincial inspectors and others may be included among them.
I do not know the Government's mind. It may be that they intend to appoint a large enough number of inspectors to perform the duties of those who already exist in the several provinces. In the province of Quebec they number from 75 to 80, and Ontario has a still larger staff. In such a case, would the services of those inspectors be at the disposal of the provincial De-parments of Agriculture or the provincial dairy associations?
However, would it not be wise to insert into this Bill an amendment empowering all the inspectors holding diplomas or licenses in the several provinces and directly or indirectly employed by them for the purposes of dairying to act and avail themselves of this Bill in the discharge of their duties?
It goes without saying that those inspectors who are already officially recognized shall be authorized not only to make tests of milk, etc., and any other operation in connection with that, but also to test the precision of the scales of the lacto-densi-meter, lacto-butyrometer, pipettes and other instruments in use in the dairy industry. In short, they will be authorized to enforce this Act in all its provisions. In so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, there are a number of inspectors appointed by the provincial Government for inspecting manufactures who are not under the control of any syndicate organized by the Dairy Association, but the larger number of inspectors are under the immediate control of the Dairy Association. Now, under what conditions do these inspectors exist and what are their prerogatives? Let me quote clause 1963 of ' The Revised Statutes of the Province of Quebec,' section XI, concerning the Dairy Association:
1963. The association, in order to obtain a more prompt and complete diffusion of the best methods to be followed for the production of milk, the manufacture of dairy products and, in general, the advancement of the dairy industry, may subdivide the province into regions, in which syndicates, consisting of proprietors of butter and cheese factories and other like industries, may be established.
The formation and working of such syndicates shall be governed by the regulations made by the said association and approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, and such syndicates shall be under the direction and supervision of the association.
To such syndicates the Lieutenant Governor in Council may grant, out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, a subsidy equal to one-half of the expenses incurred for the service of inspec-

tion and instruction organized therein, including the salary ot inspectors, their travelling and other expenses directly connected therewith, but not to exceed three hundred dollars for each syndicate. Such subsidy may be paid to the inspector of the syndicate.
The Minister of Agriculture may allow, in addition, to each syndicate inspector, a bonus varying from twenty-five dollars to one hundred dollars. R.S.Q., 75a; 54 V., c. 20, s. 1; 63 V.. c. 16, s. 1 ; 6 Ed. VII., c. 22, s. 3 ; 7 Ed. VII., c. 20, s. 1.
1964. The inspectors, including inspectors-general and their assistants, shall be appointed by The Lieutenant Governor in council and shall be experts who hold certificates of competency from the board of examiners mentioned in article 1966.
Their duties shall be to superintend the production and supply of milk, as well as the manufacture of butter and cheese in the establishments so organized into such syndicates, the whole in conformity with the regulations made by the said association and approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.
The Lieutenant Governor In Council may, at any time, repeal or amend such regulations. R.S.Q., 1753b ; 6 Ed VII., c. 62, s. 4.
As tve see by those two clauses, the parties who are entrusted with those duties must have been through examinations and have followed the rank and file required for their appointment. It shows the qualifications of the inspectors for whom I ask the right of operating under this law.
I will probably apprise the hon. minister of nothing new of the important reform in the inspection system to be enforced during the coming season, because the hon. Mr. Caron must have mentioned it at the conference of the provincial Ministers of Agriculture.
So far, the greatest -part of the inspection work has been carried by 68 inspectors of the Dairy Association. Those inspectors are paid one half by the Government and the other half by the owners of factories visited. In order to keep his position, an inspector must have at least sixteen factories under his inspectorate; in no way are the proprietors compelled to have that inspection, it is optional with them, but the great majority have understood the benefits of that inspection and its teachings. But the abnormal situation of the inspectors is liable to place them between their duty and their interests. The Government will wipe out that uneasiness.
' The province will be divided into fifty districts and the inspectors will be paid in full by the Government so that they may enjoy the fullest freedom in the discharge of their duties.
That reform will necessitate an expenditure of $65,000:	$50,000 in salaries and
$15,000 in contingencies, but the Government can afford to spend only $50,000. We hope that this Government will fill the gap and I dare say, Mr. the minister, that I trust your department to place in their contract a sum of at least $15,000 for the help of that inspection.
To make such an inspection efficient, it should be good to insert in this Bill a clause giving to provincial or other inspectors the same authority as that of federal officers under this law.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
Martin Burrell: I would move that the Bill be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization. It has not been the custom in the past, with I think one exception, that is, the Seed Control Act, to refer Bills of this kind to the Agricultural Committee, but I cannot quite see why that has not. been done. That committee has the same powers and authority as the Railway Committee or the Committee on Banking and Commerce. It has power to call witnesses and get evidence if desired. I think it would save the time of the Committee of the Whole House and give a better opportunity to thresh out the details of this Bill if it were sent to the Agricultural Committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Similar Bills in the past have been referred to the Agricultural Committee.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Before the motion passes, I would draw attention to clause 5, which reads:
No person shallmanufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale, any oleomargarine, margarine, hutterine, or other substitute for butter, manufactured wholly or in part from any fat other than that of milk or cream.
Some oleomargarine manufactured from beef suet will keep just as well as butter, and I would recommend that the minister change that section so that it shall read that no one shall manufacture and sell it as butter. If it is sold for what it really is, no harm will be done, because oleomargarine manufactured from beef suet is said by the best authorities to be as pure and wholesome as butter.
It is said to be by the best authorities that I know of; and if poor people are willing to eat margarine, knowing what they are eating, I do not see why they should not. I can understand the minister not wanting to have it sold as butter; that

would be fraud. I have seen margarine that was very hard to distinguish from good butter and that would keep excellently.


Martin Burrell: If I may be allowed to answer the remarks of my hon. friend, I would say that he has raised a very big subject indeed and one which is extremely debatable. I may call his attention to the fact that the Act passed by the late Administration does exactly what we are doing. It reads:
No person shall manufacture, import into Canada, or offer, sell or have in his possession for sale, any oleomargarine, butterine, or other substitute for butter, manufactured wholly or in part from any fat other than that of milk or cream.
I am not saying that oleomargarine is not a wholesome product to eat, but if you allowed the sale of a substitute looking exactly like butter although not made of the same ingredients, you would require a tremendously large staff of inspectors to prevent men from selling it as butter. They have had a great difficulty in the United States over that, and I believe the general opinion of this country would be against it.


Mr. OLIVER:: I would just like to say
a word or two.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: At this stage of the Bill it would not be in order, unless the hon. member wishes to discuss the propriety of sending the Bill to a committee.


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

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon.W. B.Nantel (Minister of Inland Revenue) Bill No. 99, to amend the Adulteration Act, was read the second time.
Mr. NANTEL:: As this Bill deals with maple sugar, syrup, and other products in which farmers are interested, I move that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) Bill No. 128, to amend an Act to incorporate the Vancouver Harbour Commissioners, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in Chair.
On section 1-land vested in Crown:
Mr. HAZEN:: At the last session of Parliament an Act was passed constituting a harbour commission in Vancouver. The commission consisted of three men, in whom was vested the management of the harbour. Section 14 of the Act vested all Crown lands in the harbour commissioners, who had full control over foreshores and other property. Section 15 provided that all the revenue derived from water lots leased or otherwise disposed of to any persons by the Governor in Council should be retained by the corporation and form part of its general revenue. Last session I estimated that the Government of Canada received from these leases about $12,000 for the year. That was paid to the commissioners for the purpose of carrying on the business in connection with the harbour. Clause 14, which vested these foreshores and the Crown property ,in the harbour commissioners, provided that they should only have the power to lease these properties for a period of twenty-one years subject to renewals for subsequent periods of twenty-one years. The harbour commissioners have asked us to amend that. They have found that there are oases where, in the public interest, they think it desiraible that they should not be so limited. They also .think it desirable in some instances to make actual grants instead of leasing the property. I have the statement of one case under my hand now. The statement made to me by the commissioners is that the original Act was found to be unworkable in so far as grants of these lots were concerned. They saw that it is impossible to issue -any grant whatever, and a case or two has been before the Government for some time where the commissioner's- think it is in the public interest to issue grants. For instance, there is one case where a party, -acting in good faith and through years of dump" in-g, moved the high tide mark seventy-five feet out, and on the l-and thus created, er-eoted a building costing $125,000. After the land had been extended by dumping seventy-five feet out in the harbour, other people bought thi-s property thinking that they would be securing not only the Tipa and the foreshore but this expensive building, but they found that they had no title to the land upon which half of the building stood. The line of the original high tide mark passed through the centre of their building, and under the Act passed last

year neither the Government nor the harbour commissioners could give them any relief. We had no authority or power under this Act to give a grant of this piece of property to which they were fairly entitled on proper terms. The harbour commissioners have asked that this section should be repealed so that the ipower of leasing and disposing of these foreshores should remain, as it had been before, in the hands of the Governor in Council, with a provision that before the Governor in Council shall exercise that power he shall ask the harbour commissioners, when any application is made, for a report upon the question, and thus get their advice in regard to the matter before taking action. The Bill repeals the sections of last year's Bill, revests this power in the Governor in Council and eniacts that:
14.	The Governor in Council may authorize the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to grant any portion of the lands included in the harbour as defined by section 4 of this Act, by deed or otherwise, or lease the same for any term or terms of years hut the application therelfor shall he referred to the corporation for its report in the premises.
15.	The revenue derived from water lots within the limits of the harbour heretofore leased by the Governor in Council or the corporation; the revenue received by the Governor in Council or the corporation after the sixteenth day of May, 1913, from any such water lots otherwise disposed of; and the revenue derived from all grants and leases made under the provisions of this Act, shall he paid to and he retained by the corporation and form part of the general revenue of the corporation.
It in no way interferes with the revenue which is derived by the corporation from these harbour lots, but it is thought better that the power of granting these lots should remain with the Crown and that the Governor in Council should exercise it after obtaining a repoit from the commissioners as to the propriety of disposing of the lots.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: As I understand it,
power is taken by the minister to dispose of these lots without advertising for tenders or inviting competition, but purely according to the ideas of the Government and of the commission.


John Douglas Hazen: That is right; that is being done every day, and has been done every day for many years. All the foreshores belonging to the Crown in harbours all over Canada have been disposed of for years past in that way. The procedure is this:	Application is made for a grant or
lease of a foreshore. The matter is referred to the chief engineer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, who makes a report as to the rental value, or, in a case where a grant is being made, as to what amount should be paid for the title in fee simple of the properly. That is submitted to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Public Works, and any grant that is made is upon the joint report to Council of .the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Public Works. The chief engineer of the Department of Marine and Fisheries has to certify that the proposed grant will not in any way interfere with the harbour or cause any obstruction, and the Minister of Public Works has to report that the property will not be required for the purpose of erecting public works upon it. That goes to Council, and it is for Council to say whether the grant or lease shall be given or not as recommended by the two ministers who have investigated the application. There has never been any sale by public auction, and I will tell my hon. friend why. Under the laws governing it, the man who owns the ripa, or bank, has an equity in the foreshore. He has not an absolute right to it, and we could not make a grant giving it to him, but if we grant the foreshore to any person other than the owner of the ripa, the owner of the ripa has the right to prevent any one else from blocking his access by water to the land which he owns and which adjoins this foreshore. You would have to have regard to the rights that the riparian owner has in the foreshores abutting his property, and it would be an improper thing, under the common law, to sell the foreshore to some one other than the owner of the ripa, thereby cutting him off from the privilege which the law gives him respecting the property which is abutting his property.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If it were sold, you
would have to sell it subject to his legal rights.


John Douglas Hazen: The result of that would
be that you would get very little for it. You would have to buy out the riparian proprietor before the foreshore would be any good to the person to whom it was granted. Supposing that certain parties were buying a piece of foreshore, they would have to buy the rights of the owner of the ripa in order to get over the bank and get to their own property. At the same time you could not block his right

of way either, because that is a right which he has over the foreshore. But for that reason it is not sold without knowing that a fair and proper price is paid for it. In some harbours there has been a somewhat hard and fast rule as to what shall be charged for leaseholds. Three years ago, in the harbour of Vancouver, the foreshore was valued at $10 per foot front, and the rental was fixed at 5 per cent of that amount. Two years ago in that harbour we increased the amount to $40, and the rental was 5 per cent on that amount. If there were fifty feet the value would be fixed at $2,000 and 5 per cent of that would represent a rental of $100 a year. There are other cases where it is most difficult to arrive at what the amount should be. All one can do is to use one's best judgment in regard to the matter, and have regard to reports from different officials of the department. I thought, when the Bill was passed last year, that it would be better to have this power vested in the harbour commissioners, because it seemed to me that they, living in the city and making a special study of harbour conditions, would be .better able to come to a conclusion as to what amount should be charged.


Charles Murphy: That is in regard to the powers of granting and leasing?


John Douglas Hazen: 
Charles Murphy: You are reverting to the original position?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, with the exception that, before we grant any lease, we shall get the report of the harbour eommis-'sioners, as to the value of the property and as to whether it is in the interest of the harbour to grant the lease.


John Howard Sinclair: There is also the very important question of policy involved in this Bill, as to whether the harbour should be kept free, and not pass into the hands of private owners. The idea, -in the first place, of giving the land to the harbour commissioners of Vancouver was that they might control the harbour foreshore, and in that way make it public to a large extent, because the chief difficulty in such harbours is that, when the foreshore passes into the hands of private owners, it becomes so expensive that it is difficult to carry on trade in those harbours. 
In some of the harbours on the other side of the Atlantic, such as Glasgow, very large sums of money are being paid to acquire the rights of private owners; and when a merchant wants to use the harbour, he pays a small rental to the Glasgow Trust, and has the use of the hoisting gear and other appliances of the trust. That, I think, is the ideal system. I do not know whether the minister has considered the question of policy or not. It is a question largely for the harbour commissioners of Vancouver themselves. It strikes me, however, that this is a step backward in providing for the absolute sale of the property. The idea is that the property will pass into the hands of private owners and not be under the control of the harbour commissioners at all. Once 5 p.m. the deed is given and a wharf is erected on the property, the property passes into the possession of a private owner, and the harbour commissioners have no longer any control over it except some control over the rates to be charged. The question of policy is the most important one for the minister to consider. When we pass a law granting the whole of the foreshore of a harbour to a corporation, should we allow them to dispose of it, and put the money into the public treasury?
Mr, HAZEN: That is what we prevented in the Bill of last year. We did not give them any power to sell.


John Howard Sinclair: You are giving them that power now.


John Douglas Hazen: The policy of the Government in all these harbours is against selling, but simply to lease for a period of twenty-one years. I have changed the conditions of the lease in the last eighteen months or two years. The old lease provided for a lease of twenty-one years and then for two further periods of twenty-one years at the same rental, making it practically a lease for 63 years.


John Howard Sinclair: Is not that long
enough?


John Douglas Hazen: It is quite long enough. I am telling my hon. friend of the change in that system that I have introduced. We provide now that, at the end of each twenty-one year period the amount of rental shall be subject to reconsideration. The property may be much more valuable. The condition of the law is that if the lessee and the Government cannot agree as to

what the rental should be, then the rental shall be fixed by application to the Exchequer Court of Canada.


John Howard Sinclair: Does not this Bill
authorize a direct grant?


John Douglas Hazen: I am just going to explain that. The policy of the department and the Government is against giving grants in any of these harbours; but, like all questions of policy, there may be exceptional circumstances. An exceptional circumstance arises here and there where people have, before that was the policy, occupied partsof the foreshore, have established manufacturing industries and have erected extensive buildings. In such cases, as in the case of Vancouver harbour, we have to consider whether grants shall be given or not. There are other cases where people apply for sites on which to build elevators. In order to build elevators, they have to float large amounts of bonds upon the property If they have only the lease for the site, they cannot float those bonds as easily and as successfully as if they had title in fee simple, and it may be in the public interest that grants should be made. In every case the interest of the public is safeguarded. Before the Government would grant a lease or issue a patent or do anything in the way of disposing of the property, they should get the opinion of the harbour commissioners as to whether it was in the interest of the public that this should be 'lone -what lease should be given and what rental should be charged. As far as the harbour of Vancouver is concerned, for my own part I would have preferred to leave the matter in the hands of the harbour commissioners; but after a year's experience, they have asked us to take it out of their hands.
There are exceptions to every rule and every policy; but the policy of the Government is to give leases and not to grant titles in fee simple to the foreshore privileges in the different harbours. There are a number of harbours where very grave doubts exist as to who owns the foreshore and as to whether the Crown is represented by the federal or by the local Government. The decision of the Privy Council has left the matter somewhat obscure. Their decision is that in those harbours which were public harbours at the time of Confederation, the foreshore belongs to the Crown as represented by the federal Government, but in those harbours that were not public harbours at the time of Confederation, the foreshore is vested in the Crown as represented by the provincial governments. It leaves us in a doubtful state as to what the meaning of the words ' public harbour ' is-as to whether they mean a place actually used as a public harbour before	Confederation, a place where
goods	were discharged	and	taken
aboard ships, and a place resorted to by ships for anchorage and harbour purposes, or whether they mean a place that has the natural and physical characteristics of a harbour. One case is the harbour of Port Arthur, where people have been receiving patents from the local Government. They have started erecting buildings on the property and have borrowed money on them. Then they have found that the title is called in question, and they apply for grants from this Government vfor titles which they have obtained from the Ontario Government by paying tor them. The matter will have to go before the Privy Council again; although the Privy Council, while laying down the rule I have mentioned, have practically said that the question whether a place is a public harbour or not will depend upon the circumstances of each case, and that it will be very hard to lay down a general rule. While the law is in a most unsatisfactory state, the only thing we can do is to administer it according to common sense and reasonable discretion.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister ask the Pr.ivy Council to clear up this question?


John Douglas Hazen: There is bound to come
some day a friendly suit between the Government of British Columbia and the Government of the Dominion. In the harbour of Prince Rupert and in other harbours along the coast this question is bound to arise. It does not arise in the case of Vancouver harbour, because I think that harbour was" resorted to by ships and was considered a public harbour at the time of Confederation. I think the same can be said of Victoria harbour and Halifax harbour. But as to some places on the lakes it is doubtful if they were harbours before Confederation; and there are places that are harbours to-day only by having been made harbours by the construction of breakwaters, not even having the physical characteristics of harbours naturally. Some day, no doubt, and I think it will be an early day, steps will have to be taken to settle these matters.	.


John Howard Sinclair: The kind of harbour
that Halifax will be-with a breakwater.


John Douglas Hazen: Halifax is a pretty good
harbour even without the breakwater.
Mr. MeKENZIE:	I am not surprised
that this statute comes back for patching up. I have a very distinct recollection of this measure when it was before the House and in Committee last year. I protested against its provisions at that time, pointing out that it was a most extraordinary piece of legislation. But my observations at that time received very little consideration at the hands of the minister; he thought, and the House with him, that this was a first-class piece of legislation. I confess, I never heard of a case like it. There may be cases wheTe valuable property absolutely vested in the Crown was launched into the hands of private individuals, but I have never heard of such a thing. On the other hand, there may be some difficulty in passing a title from the Crown to a private citizen or corporation. But it is certainly the safest and the best way that the title should remain in the Crown, either in the right of the province or in the right of the Dominion, until that title is finally and absolutely transferred. It strikes me as -a most unsatisfactory way that the rights of the Crown should be| transferred to some private corporation and that corporation empowered to exercise the rights of the Crown in respect of that land.
I cannot conceive of such a method working out satisfactorily. But that is what' was done last yeaT. I am not surprised that the minister comes hack and tells us that it is not working out satisfactorily and should be remedied. I cannot conceive of a better remedy than to let the old common-law have sway. When it comes to the question of erecting something on that land, of course, that is another matter. If a private wharf is built on that property, of course, it must not interfere with navigation. An Act was passed by this Parliament a few years ago under which the power to deal with matters of that kind is vested in the Public Works-Department. The Department of Marine and fisheries having controlling rights to navigation, would have some rights of supervision of a work of that kind. But if an interference with navigation can be controlled absolutely by the department governing the matter, what reason is there for vesting these rights in a private body such as a harbour -commission? That is what struck me as so extraordinary last year, and I am not surprised that amend-
ment is necessary. Briefly, what I say is that the title to the Crown property should remain in the Crown, and if it i.s- to go to the individual either by fee simple or lease, the -control of that fee simple or that lease should remain in the Crown either in the right of the Dominion or the right of the province as the ease may require.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS CLAIMS.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid (acting Minister of Railways and Canals), Bill No. 122, to amend the Government Railways Small Claims Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-procedure:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have to confess,
in the first place, that I do not know much about the Government Railways Small Claims Act, never having lived along the line of a Government railway. But I know that an Act was passed in 1910 providing that a Government railway could be sued like an ordinary Tailway. I think it was brought practically under the general Railway Act -so far as a suit is concerned-a policy which, I think, was along proper lines. I notice that the minister does not propose changing the general policy, but he proposes that the -action shall be against the general manager. That is all right; it does not matter who the defendant is in such -cases so long as h-e is -defined. But the Bill provides not only that process shall be issued against the general manager, but that 'such process may he served upon him or upon any other person duly authorized -by him to accept service or to be served with process in such cases.' It -seems to me the minister is placing quite a burden on the plaintiff. For of eour-se he will remember that thi-s refers to small matters-I have forgotten what is the limit.
Mr. MeKENZIE: Five hundred dollars.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Suppose that a -man at Glace Bay wishes to bring an action against a Government railway, say for $5 for killing a sheep. If he has to go to Moncton to serve hi-s process on the general manager or -some person designated by him, it will cost more to -serve the process than the amount of the claim.

I do not think the general manager of the railway ds going to make it easier for plaintiffs by appointing some person in each town or county upon whom service could be effected. I think the minister should consider the advisability of permitting every agent of the railway to be a person upon whom service can be made. In that way the general manager will get his notice in due course, and things will be made a great deal easier for the plaintiff.


John Dowsley Reid: It is true that in 1910 a
Eill was passed providing that suit might be entered against the Government through the Managing Board of Government Railways. In this legislation the amount was limited to $200, and in 1912 it was increased to $500. The only change which is now made is the elimination of the words ' Government railways managing board' 

the board, of course, being not now in existence-and the substitution therefor of the words ' general manager.' I do not think there is any objection to this Bill *other than that raised by the hon. member for Carleton. I must confess that I do not know much about the law, but it strikes me that if the agent were to be served as suggested by the hon. member for Carleton there might be a possibility of the agent's not forwarding the service, with the result that judgment might be obtained before the general manager or his assistant would know' anything about it. The hon. member states that .service upon the general manager is expensive. Is it not customary for the claimant to mail the service to another solicitor, say at Moncton, who serves the writ upon the proper person?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, but the claimant
has to pay that solicitor. I have not a copy of the statutes here, but if the hon. gentleman will refer to the general statutes of any of the provinces he will find that provisions are made for service of process upon any corporation by service upon its agents%at its local office or place of business. It strikes me that when you bring the Government railways under the general law of the land with regard to suits of this kind, there is no reason why the service of process should not be made to conform with the general laws in the different provinces. I am sure that the hon. minister would meet with no difficulty whatever if he provided for service upon the
recognized agent or person in charge of the local office of the company or government sued. That would not be nearly as broad as is the general law in every province of Canada with regard to the service of process, but it would be broad enough to meet the requirements of any person having occasion to make a claim under this Act.
I do not think there would be any delay on the part of the agents so far as sending in the notice is concerned; they usually look after those things promptly.


Charles Murphy: The amendment which
the minister has introduced is probably due to something which has arisen in practice. If he could tell the committee what has arisen to make this amendment necessary, perhaps we would appreciate better the point raised 'by the hon. member for Carleton.


John Dowsley Reid: The board of management
was abolished a year or two ago, and the change is absolutely necessary in order to provide that there shall be a person upon whom the service of writs may be effected.


Charles Murphy: What about the general question of service raised by the hon. member for Carleton?


John Dowsley Reid: There is no reason why,
under this Act, the general manager should not issue general instructions to the various officers in that regard.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why not provide in the Act that he shall do so?


John Dowsley Reid: I should think that the
Department of Railways and Canals would obtain the opinion of the Justice Department as to whether it would be advisable to have an order of that kind issued. I agree with the hon. member foT Carleton that any person having a small claim against the road should ibe given every facility of service at the least possible expense. If this Bill is passed and these instructions issued, the plan might be tried for a time, and, if it works satisfactorily, be allowed to continue. I think it is better to leave it in the hands of the Government to issue an order and to allow the matter to be tried out in that way than to make absolute provisions for service upon agents.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can assure my hon.
friend that I am not offering this criticism in any captious spirit. If things go well, in the course of a year I hope that we will have the Intercolonial in the western portion of the province of New Brunswick, and as I make a living through the practice

of law, I expect to be called upon to act on behalf of claimants against the railway. I know that when a man loses a cow on the Canadian Pacific railway he has the habit of coming to me for redress, and I assume that he will do the same thing when the road becomes a government railway. I live 240 miles from Moncton.
It means quite an additional cost to the plaintiff to have to make the service at Moncton when he might just as well make it at his own home. In the .ludicature Acts of the different provinces it is generally provided how processes shall be served on any person who represents a corporation. I think the suggestion my hon. friend is making will work out all right; the difficulty is that if the Government instructed the general manager to appoint certain persons who might accept service, then, if the Crown or the general manager did not appear in answer to the process, the burden would be upon the plaintiff to prove that the person upon whom service had been made had been authorized by the general manager to accept service, and there might be some difficulty in doing that. I think that unless the minister puts a special clause in the statute the service will have to be made upon the general manager.


John Dowsley Reid: How has it worked in the
last three years?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have no idea. I have had no occasion to deal with it personally.


John Dowsley Reid: If the Bill is allowed to go to its third reading, I shall ascertain all about the present system and shall also have the opinion of the Minister of Justice.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would suggest that
possibly service might be effected upon any agent in charge of any station.


John Howard Sinclair: The district superintendent, I think, might accept service. There is a district superintendent for each division of the road, service upon him could be regarded as service upon the general manager of the line. Could the minister explain section 4, which provides for a set-off or counter claim which His Majesty may have against any plaintiff in any action? I can understand how Mrs. Murphy, if her cow is run over on the railway, has a claim against the Government for the value of the cow; but how can the King have a claim against Mrs. Murphy?


John Dowsley Reid: The amendment which is
now being made to the section is of course really only a verbal change to suit the change of management. Its effect is that if a suit is entered against the Government railway and the Government have some claim against the party making the suit, against Mrs. Murphy, the Crown could file its claim against the plaintiff as an offset against the suit entered against the Crown.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Suppose Mrs. Murphy
had torn down the gate or fence, then of course she could not win, as she would have been guilty of contributory negligence; but His Majesty would have the right to recover from her in the same ' action the value of the gate by filing the counter claim.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: It would be a great hardship in Prince Edward Island if the superintendent on the island could not be served. For a small claim it might not be worth while sending to Moncton to effect service.


Mr. McKENZIE:: In Nova Scotia there
has been a doubt as to how service can be made. The courts are circumscribed by geographical limits and a writ issuing out of a court in Nova Scotia does not run beyond the limits of that province, except under very exceptional conditions. A writ out of the province of Nova Scotia does not run in the province of New Brunswick, where the manager resides. There should be a provision that a writ could be served upon him where he resides in New Brunswick by a proper officer of that place. The arrangement suggested by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) would be more convenient. We cannot get authority to issue a writ which runs as a binding obligation upon anybody outside of the province from which the writ issues.
Bill reported.


INDIAN ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. J. Roche (Superintendent of Indian Affairs) Bill No. 124, to amend the Indian Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I have received from an old friend of mine, a letter in regard to this Bill, and in order that the minister may be in a position to answer the complaint, which comes from the Caughnawaga reserve, I will read it. He writes:

The earnest desire of the Caughnawaga Indians is that some good may result from our humble request.
The extraordinary piece of legislation (amendment to the Indian Act passed its first reading March 19, 1914), introduced by the Hon. Dr. Roche is too far-reaching and too injurious to Indians to be dealt with fully in a short letter. I propose only to touch upon one of the amendments, 49a of tne said Indian Act, to show how utterly the natural rights of man are disregarded in special Indian legislation, at the prompting of our official guardian.
Evidently the House does not understand the effect of this Act, and its effect is not understood by the introducer, who, as trustee for Indians, should safeguard our interests.
In former days, the Indians were consulted in the matter of a release or surrender of a reserve before it became valid. (Chapter 81, R.S., 1906, sec. 49, Indian Act.)
Recently a large and intelligent Indian deputation called upon the hon. Minister of the Interior, in regard to the Bill to be introduced to amend the Indian Act.
Our petition contained nearly four hundred names asking the Hon. Dr. Roche to ' exclude Caughnawaga,' for a great many valid reasons. First of all, we are Indians in name only; we are self-supporting, industrious, etc. Our people of Caughnawaga are well known practically in every part of the civilized world, and still we are not recognized as citizens.
The basis and scope of our Indian Act is wrong, and injurious to us, because it interferes with our enjoyments of natural and inherent rights.
We have no voice whatever in legislation. We are often opposed to it and suffer from its effect, as in the present amendment now before your honourable House.
I am convinced that the House of Commons will not pass the proposed amendment (49a) or, at all events, make it general, because there is not a man in or out of the House that knows our desires and needs better than ourselves.
I am sure that the Hon. Dr. Roche would not have introduced it had he been frankly and properly informed. It remains then to expunge it. It is due to your honour and right feeling that this be done immediately.
If you do not take any interest in the cause of the Indian, the forces of injustice will prevail, then you will say: Why have we not done so. If it should happen to pass (Bill 114) I hope that you will not think me unfair if suspicion takes root.
Justice is intended to provide for every man in this country whether his skin be white, red or any other colour.
I do not desire to exhaust the reader and 1 think I have said enough. My main desire is to excite humane and fair-minded gentlemen to go further and examine the subject entirely or to insist upon its being examined in a full and impartial manner.
F. McD. Jacobs,
Chief. *
I hope my hon. friend will give Mr. Jacobs and the Caughnawaga tribe the opinion of the department in regard to this matter.
On section 1-to establish industrial schools:


Frank Oliver: Would the minister explain?


Mr. ROCHE:: A foot-note is appended to the section which practically explains it. In some portions of Canada there are no schools to which we can commit Indian children. Under the present Act we are allowed to commit Indian children only to those schools in receipt of Government aid. We wish to broaden the Act so as to create any school, a school to which we can commit Indian children. We are seeking to declare any school an industrial school under the meaning of this Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does my hon. friend contend that he has power to declare an ordinary ^country school, say in the county of Carleton, N.B., a school to which he can send three or four Indian children? Surely the British North America Act would step in there. If there is one thing which is pretty well settled in Canada to-day, it is that schools are under the control of the provinces. I am afraid that my hon. friend is opening up a question that may lead to trouble in the future. I refer to my own province because I see by the foot-note that some difficulty has arisen over a couple of children in the city of St. John. As I understand the law in New Brunswick, those children have the right to attend any public school in that province because the Act states that all children between the ages of five and twenty years have a right to attend the schools. I do not think, however, that this Parliament has the right to give the minister power to say that those children shall go to this school and shall not go to that school. That would be interfering with our provincial rights. My hon. friend can hardly be referring to the ordinary schools of the country, and yet the section says so.


William Roche: It was not intended to.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would think not. We have in the province of New Brunswick a number of schools that are Indian schools in a way, and there are schools to which the department makes an allowance of money. These schools are not under the jurisdiction of the school authorities of our province. There is no doubt the minister would have power to send children to these schools under the conditions that he might suggest, but I do not see how he would have any jurisdiction over the ordinary school district, or a school within that district, in the province of New Brunswick; and what would be true of that

province would be true of any other province under the British North America Act.


Mr. CARROLL:: Are these industrial schools supposed to be places of discipline for wayward Indian children?


William Roche: Not entirely; but there are industrial schools where children are sent to learn a trade and to be made more fitted for the various occupations of life. They are different from what we call the ordinary residential or day school. This is not intended to refer to the ordinary common school or to trespass upon provincial rights. But there are some institutions, like convents, which are willing to take Indian children, and we wish to take authority to commit Indian children to these schools when mutually satisfactory arrangements have been arrived at. It is not intended to force Indian children on any school, no matter what the character of the school may be. When a satisfactory arrangement is arrived at between the Indian Department and the convent, or residential school, in order to maintain these Indian children, they are committed to these schools, which are not the ordinary Indian, industrial, or residential schools.


George William Kyte: Is it not desirable to make this section a little more definite? The explanatory note says:
This amendment enables the Governor in Council to declare schools, other than Indian schools, to be industrial or bearding schools and opens the way for the committal of the said Indian children and other children of the province of New Brunswick and other provinces so situated.
It would appear that this section is sufficiently broad to be applicable to the public schools of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and before the section passes I think it would be necessary to make an amendment restricting its application to industrial schools.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It says, 'any school or institution.'


William Roche: Before coming to the
House this point struck me, and I asked a question about it. I thought that it might create a difficulty. It is not intended "that the Act shall apply to the common schools.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is there any provision in the Act that, when you once declare a school to be an Indian school, that gives 
you the power to grant money to it ? Section 10 reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may establish an industrial school or a boarding school for Indians, or may declare any school or institution to be an industrial school or boarding school for the purposes of this and the next following section.
Is there anything in the Act which provides that if you declare any school to be an industrial school you have the right to make a grant and have control over it ? There may be something in the Act which would make that section harmonize with the rest of the Act.


William Roche: When we send a child to one of these schools, the school is in receipt of a per capita grant, and it is declared to be an industrial school within the meaning of this Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If I had read the whole chapter through I might have found something that would explain the section, but as the section reads now it appears to me to be very broad.


William Roche: The particular regulation referring to this clause is the following:
Under the provisions of section 10 of chapter 81 of the said Act all industrial boarding schools receiving a per capita or other grant from the Government for the education of Indian children are declared to be industrial and boarding schools for the purposes of sections 10 and 11 of the said Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That may be so under the regulations which the department may have made, but it is not the real question which we are discussing now. We are discussing the powers conferred upon you by the statute. Any regulations that you might make would not affect the statute itself.


John Howard Sinclair: If the minister wishes to avoid the difficulty that has been suggested by my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell), it might be done by adding these words after the word ' institution ':
Under the control of the Department of Indian Affairs.
Then it would read:
The Governor in Council may establish an industrial school for a boarding school for Indians, or may declare any such school or institution, under the control of the Department of Indian Affairs, to be an industrial school or boarding school for the purposes of this and the next following section.


William Roche: That is not what we are seeking to accomplish. We could do that under the Act now.


John Howard Sinclair: But is not the objection that is raised the fact that we are giving to the Governor in Council power to declare any school in a province an industrial school ? We do not wish to give him that power, but if you limit the Act so as to apply to any school that is under the control of the department, I see no reason why it should not pass.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You might interline it in this way:
May declare any school to he an institution with which the department has made an arrangement or an agreement.


William Roche: That would be more in accordance with our practice. I will allow this section to stand with a view to amending it in that way.


Frank Oliver: I wish to say, in regard to the principle contained in this section as it stands, that there is every objection to the Government taking authority to control the liberty of the individual under an authority other than that of the Government itself. As the Act is at present, the liberty of a neglected Indian child can be restrained and the child can be placed in an institution that is under the control and supervision of the Government. That is clearly a restraint of personal liberty, but to restrict the liberty of an individual and place him under the restraint of an institution which is not under the control of the Government, involves a principle that I would object to very strongly. Without drawing the line too tightly, certainly the suggestion made by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) and my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Carvell), would be very necessary, so that even if the Government did not absolutely control the educational institution it would have such authority that the Government would be responsible for the character of the institution and the care and attention that would be given to the child placed under restraint.
Section 1 allowed to stand.
On section 2-taking lands for schools:


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is the object of section 2?


William Roche: At some places where it
has been necessary to get certain lands for schools, we have been unable to acquire them, where they have been held under what are called location tickets. It has been impossible to get the persons occupying such lands to surrender them for the purpose of building schools or making additions to 152
schools. This section is for the purpose of laying down the mode of procedure by which we can get control of the land for the purpose of erecting such schools.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What do the words ' location tickets ' in the Act mean?


William Roche: In some of the reserves the occupation of the land is held by individual Indians under what is called location tickets.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not intended to give power to take land other than land belonging in some way to the band or the reserve?


William Roche: No, not at all.


Frank Oliver: When will this Bill be taken
up again?


William Roche: Does my hon. friend desire that it be not taken up to-night?


Frank Oliver: I would rather desire that. I shall not be back just as soon as the House convenes after the Easter recess; and as a favour I would ask that the Bill be not taken up in my absence.


William Roche: I will arrange that.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, the House resumed, and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS.


ATLIN RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 123, to incorporate the Atlin Railway Company.-Mr. Michael Clark. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Frank Oliver: Is this a new inco&poration?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Frank Oliver: What does it propose
to do? If some member of the committee will make a .statement that can go on record giving information as to the nature of the Bill and its purposes, that will, I presume, be satisfactory.


John Douglas Hazen: There does not seem to
be anybody hejre who knows anything about it.


John Dowsley Reid: Better let it stand.
Progress reported.
UNIVERSITY OF EMMANUEL COLLEGE. Tlie House in Committee on Bill No. 89, respecting the University of Saskatche-



wan.-Mr. McKay. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.


Frank Oliver: What is the nature of
this Bill?


Mr. McKAY:: Chapter 47 of the Dominion Statutes of 1883 incorporated the University of Saskatchewan, to be located in the then diocese of Saskatchewan. Hon. gentlemen will remember that in 1883 there were no provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, but the territory within those provinces was then part of the Northwest territories, consequently the Dominion Parliament had jurisdiction to pass that Act and incorporate that university. In 1905 part of the territory within which this university was located was formed into the province of Saskatchewan. The Legislature of the province of Saskatchewan, whether rightly or wrongly-I am not taking any objection to that part of it- passed an Act creating a provincial university under the name of the University of Saskatchewan, exactly the same name that had been granted to the university which is the subject of the present measure. This provincial Act went further and >
declared in effect that no other university having power to confer degrees should bear or adopt the name ' University of Saskatchewan.' Now, those who are interested in the first University of Saskatchewan are quite willing, in order that there should be no conflict of names, to give up the name to which they were entitled by priority and to assume the name mentioned dn the present Bill, namely, ' University of Emmanuel College.' I do not know whether this is the proper time to mention it, but I would suggest an amendment to make it explicit that we are dealing with the University of Saskatchewan incorporated by the Dominion Act.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is referred to in
the recital, and the statute is mentioned.


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE:: The hon. member (Mr. McKay) might make the motion now. The amendment makes no material change, but merely identifies the university and makes more definite the intention of the Bill.
Mr. McKAY moved that the words ' being the university incorporated by chapter 47 of the statutes of Canada of 1883 ' be inserted between the words ' Saskatchewan ' and ' herein.'


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported.	.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Gertrude Carmen Birks.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Rose Ethel Freedman.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Ella Rose Morris.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Alicia Hill. -Mr. Douglas. [DOT]
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Eliza Jane McLaughlin.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Lenore Power.-Mr. Porter.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of Walter James Liscombe.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of George Fullerton Forsythe.-Mr. Schaffner.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 130, respecting certain Patents of Thomas Leopold Willson.

Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 131, respecting the Sterling Life Assurance Company of	Canada.-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill No. 132, respecting the W. C. Edwards and Company, Limited.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 133, for the relief of Johann Andreas Horn.-Mr. Schaffner.
Bill No. 135, respecting a certain Patent of Rudolf Goldschmidt.-Mr. Fripp.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply.
Fisheries-Salaries and disbursements o£ Fishery Officers, including the expenses of the Fisheries Advisory Board, and an 'allowance of $300 to W. J. E. Casey, secretary thereof, $250,000.
John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister explain the increase of $20,000?


John Douglas Hazen: There is an increase of $20,000 which may be in excess of the amount really needed although it is pretty hard to say. The expenses of the Fisheries Advisory Board are paid out of this appropriation and during this year it is estimated that they will be in the neighbourhood of $6,000. Last year there was only one meeting of the Atlantic Committee, one of the British Columbia Committee and none of the Prairie Committee. Hereaftf- there will be two meetings per year of each committee. It is also proposed to give a small increase to the fishery officers in British Columbia and the western provinces, and

this increase, with those which will have to be made throughout the country, with the 16,000 which it is estimated the Fishery Advisory Board will cost and with a certain amount of increased printing, which it is estimated will be required, will probably bring the amount up to pretty nearly this increased estimate.


John Howard Sinclair: What has the Advisory Board cost up to date?


John Douglas Hazen: I gave the figure in answer to a question in the House the other day. I do not remember what it was, but my recollection is that it was in the neighbourhood of $2,000 for the year.


John Howard Sinclair: That is what I recollect myself. It is a very small amount. It does not compose any substantial part of this very large sum.


John Douglas Hazen: It is expected this year
that it will be about $6,000, because last year no meeting of the prairie section was held, and only one meeting of the Maritime provinces and British Columbia sections.


John Howard Sinclair: At the time that the Advisory Board was appointed, about a year ago or more, the minister was expecting very important results from its work. I have not been able to learn that he has adopted any of the suggestions made by the board. I would like to know from him of what use the board is to the department or if it is making any useful suggestions and doing anything to help the department in its work.


John Douglas Hazen: The opinion of the permanent officials of the department is that the board has been of very considerable value. We have adopted a number of recommendations that the board has made. I have not a list of these recommendations to give to my hon. friend, but a number have been adopted from time to time, and I believe that the board is a very valuable aid to the permanent officials in discussing fishery matters and in arriving at proper conclusions.


John Howard Sinclair: The board made a number of suggestions regarding the fishery regulations, and if the minister has adopted these suggestions it would be well for him to show them to the House, because they, are of very great interest to the people engaged in the fisheries.


John Douglas Hazen: Practically all the suggestions regarding the lobster regulations were 1524
adopted and have been published in the Canada Gazette.


John Howard Sinclair: How are the fishermen to be informed as to what those regulations are?


John Douglas Hazen: By notice through the Gazette and by notice being sent to the inspectors. Printed copies are sent to the inspectors to be circulated amongst the fishermen. These regulations were published in the Gazette last week and printed copies are now being obtained^


John Howard Sinclair: I think it would be well for the minister to lay before the House a copy of the regulations that have been adopted. There has always been a great deal of difficulty about the fishermen getting information on these questions. As far as publication in the Gazette is concerned, everybody knows that the Gazette is not read by anybody in the country except a few lawyers It never reaches the fishermen at all. These regulations are not very often published in the newspapers. At the time that the Fisheries Act was before the committee, I made a suggestion, which I trust the minister will work out, that the regulations made here should' be published in the yearly statutes.


John Douglas Hazen: That was put into the Act.


John Howard Sinclair: That will help. But if those new regulations relating to lobster fisheries have been adopted and are now in force, it is important that the minister should give the information in the House so that it will be made known to the country.	-


John Douglas Hazen: We have had some 5,000
copies of the regulations published, and we are sending them to the different inspectors throughout the country, asking them to circulate them amongst the fishermen, so that they will be familiar with the regulations. On Monday I shall be very glad to lay a copy of the regulations on the table of the House. What the hon. gentleman says is true. It has been almost an annual subject of discussion for many years in this House, to discover the best way to circulate knowledge of these regulations; and the officials of the department, who are naturally desirous of meeting the wishes of Parliament and are doing their best in the matter, have decided that they are doing the best they can by publishing these regulations in the Gazette. They have them printed and send copies of these printed

regulations to the different inspectors, instructing them as far as possible to make their contents known to the fishermen throughout their districts. If any hon. gentleman will suggest a better way, the department will be glad to act upon it. For my own part, after talking with the superintendent of fisheries and the deputy minister after the discussion which took place on the revision of the Fishery Act, I can conceive of no better way of doing it than the way in which it is being done at present.


John Howard Sinclair: Does this item include the salaries of officers engaged in the publication of the fishery bulletin or in collecting information to be published in that bulletin?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: In my judgment the bulletin is very inaccurate. It is of no service at all in so far as giving useful and correct information in regard to our fisheries is concerned. I took the opportunity some weeks ago of asking the minister how he obtained the information that appears from time to time in the fishery bulletin. He informed me that it was sent to the department by the fishery officers throughout the Maritime provinces; that those fishery officers did not receive any remuneration for the work, and that it was part of their duty as fishery officers to collect this information and to forward it to the department. We could not expect them to get accurate information under such circumstances, because there would be a good deal of expense involved in collecting anything like correct information on the coast of the Maritime provinces in regard to the quantity of fish caught. For example, in my own constituency there are 150 miles of seacoast line dotted all along the shore with small harbours, in each of which a number of fishermen work. In my constituency there are two fishery officers, one having jurisdiction over about 100 miles of coast and the other over about 50 miles. It would be mere guesswork on their part to state to the department that so many haddock or codfish had been caught in a certain month. They do not know nearly so much about it as I do, because they are not in touch with the fishermen on the coast. One of them lives in the town of Guysborough.


John Douglas Hazen: Would he not be
P p.m. in touch with the dealers from
whom he could get information?
IMr. Hazen.]


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think so, because, if so, he could get correct information. Some of the dealers have sent me statistics as to the quantity of fish caught, and their figures are so much greater than those given in the bulletin that the bulletin would be laughed at by any dealer along the coast. The fact must be that the inspector in. my constituency who furnishes this information for the bulletin is not endeavouring the get information at all, but is arriving at it by mere guesswork. You cannot expect this man to travel along this coast every month for a hundred miles and see the dealers and send anything like correct information to the department, when he is not paid anything for doing the work. He would get a good deal of information by using the telephone or the telegraph line if instructed to do so.


John Douglas Hazen: He is.


John Howard Sinclair: As long as no allowance is made to him for his services, I do not suppose he is very much interested in the matter. The bulletin is a most absurd looking document. It starts out by professing to give statements by counties. The minister can take up any copy of the bulletin he chooses. It does not give statements by counties at all. Take, for example, the bulletin for December, 1913. The heading is:
Returns showing by counties the quantity and value of all sea fish caught and landed in a green state, and the estimated proportion of the catch marketed or intended to be marketed in a fresh, dried, pickled, canned, etc., sjtatel during the month of December, 1913.
Then, when we come to look at the counties, the bulletin referred to gives the counties of Richmond, Cape Breton, Victoria, Guysborough, Halifax, Queens, Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby and Annapolis, but a number of counties are left out altogether and there is no return for them. That is the case in nearly every one of these bulletins.


John Douglas Hazen: In that month would there be any fishing in the counties left out?


John Howard Sinclair: There would no doubt
be some fishing. There might be some counties in which there would be no fishing. Take the bulletin for January, 1913. The same heading appears in all these bulletins, professing that the work is done by counties.


John Douglas Hazen: We have there the counties of Richmond, Cape Breton, Victoria, Guysborough, Halifax, Lunenburg, Queens,

Shelburne, Yarmouth, Digby - and Annapolis.


John Howard Sinclair: And you have the counties of Inverness, Hants, Kings, Colchester and Antigonish all omitted. That is the season in which smelts are caught in the province of Nova Scotia, and no doubt in the other provinces. The same is true of the province of New Brunswick; you will find that counties that produce the most smelts in certain months of the year are not mentioned at all. Charlotte is the only county mentioned in January, 1913. The counties of New Brunswick where most fishing is done in January are the counties of Gloucester, Kent, Northumberland and Restigouche; and yet no mention is made of these counties. Now, take the cod and haddock fisheries of January. This return shows that there were only 1,100 cwt. of codfish and 8,800 cwts. of haddock caught during that month in the county of Guysborough, the value being placed at $14,575. We happen to know something about the quantity caught in that month. Last year the question was up in this House regarding branch railways, and Mr. Whitman, of Canso, collected some information and forwarded it here, and I placed it on 'Hansard.' Mr. Whitman telegraphed under date of 24th of January, 1913:
Another week of stormy weather has made it difficult for the boats to fish. Landings for the week, 150,000 lbs. of haddock.
Mt. Whitman sent the following telegram to the Prime Minister:
Canso, January 24, 1914. Hon. R. L. Borden, Ottawa:
Your kind reference to the present need of railway conectlon to fishing centres encourages us. Eastern Nova Scotia will show surprising
progress if shipping facilities provided for fisheries. We know you have always recognized this and hope you can arrange to have the matter carefully considered now. Canso's shipment of fresh fish over Intercolonial railway this month will approach hundred carloads. What we could ship with better facilities can be inferred.
E. C. Whitman.


John Douglas Hazen: That would include frozen fish?


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think they freeze the fish, but ship them packed in ice in a refrigerator car. But, whether frozen or not, this is the amount caught and landed in January, 1913. Now, if you compare the bulletin with the statement of Mr. Whitman, the bulletin becomes merely ridiculous. And the same is true for 1914.
I happened to get similar information regarding C'anso for the month of January, 1914, and I find that the bulletin was just as far out in that year as in the year before. And Canso is only one point in Guysborough, though the most important one; but there are others at which considerable fish is landed. The value placed on fish by the bulletin for the whole county of Guysborough was $14,978. Deduct the value of the hake and smelts and you have $14,575. This means that Canso alone, according to Mr. Whitman's statement, sent out fish to the value of $60,000, estimating it at 1J cents per lb., which is tile current price in Canso. Now, take the product for the yeaT. I have figured up the returns in the bulletin for my own constituency for the year 1913, and I find that the total amounts to only $449,740. But we have the shipments from Canso to Mulgrave to guide us, and these are correct, because we get the figures from the Intercolonial railway at Mulgrave. From Canso alone and by this route alone the fish shipped represented the value of $417,680, estimating it at the market price. This is only the port of Canso. But there are coasting steamers from various other ports along that coast that carry fish to Halifax. Then a great deal of fish is salted or disposed of in other ways. Yet we find that Canso alone shipped out about as much fish as is credited to the whole county of Guysborough in the bulletin. And besides this we have 150 miles of coast with a large number of places where fish are caught. So that there can be no doubt at all that this is incorrect. The fish from such places as Drum Head, New Harbour, Bickerton, Lis comb and Marie Joseph and not reach Canso. They are quite a distance west of Canso and the shipments would reach Halifax or some other market. I have no doubt, from these faets, that the information found in the bulletin is so incorrect that it would be far better not to have it at all. I am not sure whether the minister compiled his return for the year from these bulletins, but if he does his return will be very misleading indeed. I had been under the impression that the returns were compiled largely from the statements made by claimants for bounties, but that is not correct either. The matter was largely one of guess work. All the fisherman cares for is to prove that he has caught enough fish to qualify for the bounty, and as a rule he does not keep any definite record that would enable the

'officials to compile correct statistics from the bounty returns. When Mr. Cowie was appointed and a new branch of the department established to do this work, we all thought that there would be a reform. It appears to me, however, that if the work is carried on as it is carried on now, it will be worse than nothing, and it would be better to pension Mr. Cowie, disband his officers and leave the matter alone. I am certain that I am correct in this matter, and I would like the minister to give it his serious attention. I am not speaking in any party spirit; the minister can see how very important it is that the fishery statistics which we send abroad as to the catch in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island should be absolutely reliable.


Mr. TURGEON:: The reports for December and January certainly struck me very forcibly, although I am not in a position to say that they were not correct. In Gloucester county the conditions may change and be more or less favourable at different times, but in the Tracadie, Pokemouche, and Cara-quet rivers and in Bathurst harbour, even in the month of December, when the waters are frozen over, fishing may be done with hook and line. Although I am not in a position to criticise, I must say that my attention was drawn to the showing of the return, and, with the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I would ask the hon. minister to call the attention of his officers to this matter.


George William Kyte: I should like to call the minister's attention to what is a very apparent inaccuracy in the bulletin of fishery statistics for the month of February last. It is stated in this bulletin that the quantity of smelts caught in the county of Richmond, Nova Scotia, was 6,000 lb., valued at $120, or 2c. a pound; in Cape Breton county, 4,200 lb., valued at $1,260, or 3c. a pound; in Antigonish county, 5,600 lb., valued at $280, or 5e. a pound; in Guysborough, 1,000 lb. valued at $50, or 5c. a pound; in Lunenburg, 800 lb., valued at $80, or 10c. a pound.
I am not going to challenge the correctness of the quantities that are set out here as having been caught in the different counties, because I am in no position to verify the figures, but it does seem to be extraordinary that there should be such a difference in the value of the smelts caught in the same month in adjoining counties. I do not know who the fishery officers are, or who are the functionaries who furnish the information for the county of Richmond,
I Mr. Sinclair.]
but it is apparent upon the face of it that these figures are absolutely inaccurate. Smelts caught in the county of Richmond should certainly be worth as much as smelts caught in Antigonish, and the same is true with regard to all the other counties of the eastern part of the province of Nova Scotia. The smelt fishermen of Richmond county ship smelts direct to the United States market, and the smelts caught in Antigonish, Guysborough and Cape Breton counties are sold in the same market. If those smelts bring seven cents a pound in the county of Inverness and ten cents a pound in the county of Lunenburg, surely the value of the smelts caught in the county of Richmond would be pretty nearly the same. I merely point this out for the purpose of showing the hon. minister how absolutely unreliable and inaccurate this information is, and unless some officials can be found who can furnish information that is reliable to some extent at least, it would be very much better that these statistics should not be given at all.


John Howard Sinclair: The bulletin for the month of January gives the following as the catch: Cod, 8,979 cwt.; haddock, 964 ewt.; hake, 48 cwt. That is the catch, as I understand it, in the whole of Guysborough county for January, 1914. I happen to have the correct information as to the catch for the week ending January 3, 1913, and the amount caught at Canso alone during that week was 912,000 lbs.; for the week ending January 10, 1914, the amount is estimated at 700,000 lb., making a total of 1,612,000 lb. in two weeks. Deducting 153,000 lbs. for the three days in December, we have a total catch of 1,459,000 lb. landed at Canso alone during the first ten days in January. If you give the Canso fishermen three weeks fishing in January -and they will have more than that this year-the catch will average 700,000 lb. a week, that is, 2,100,000 lb. That would be the catch of Canso alone, whereas the bulletin reports only 1,000,000 lb. for the whole county. The names of some of the men who caught this fish, for the week ending January 3,	1914, were:	H. Kavanagh,
27,000 lbs.; Pat Ryan, 15,000; Jake Manuel, 24,000; W. Power, 23,000; W. Ryan, 12,000; K. Meagher, 12,000; SamHurst, 11,000; J. Lums-den, 26,000; F. Lohnes, 33,000; G. Little, 20,000; J.Kennedy,20,000;R.Mosher, 16,000; C. Mosher, 20,000; L. Feltmate, 18,000; Ed' Kavanagh, 25,000; J. Hearn, 14,000; Ed. Hearn, 18,000; Thos. Fanning, 16,000; J. Grady, 8,000; J. J. Berrigan, 14,000; John

Hurst, 14,000; George Ryan, 22,000; Matthew Munroe, 18,000; Frank Hawes, 22,000; John Boudrot, 26,000; Frank Goodwin, 15,000; D. Walsh, 8,000; W. Shrider, 17,000; Fred. Rhynolds, 15,000; Thomas Garter, 11000; Sandy Meagher, 17,000; Samuel Snow, 17,000; Levi Ehler, 10,000; S. Munroe, 9,000; S. Hurst, 8,000; John Carter, 11,000; dories and other boats (estimated), 300,000; total, 912,000 pounds.	.
That is a total of 912,000 pounds in one week, very nearly as much as is given by the bulletin for the whole month. According to the statement, the following week there were one or two stormy days and only 700,000 lb. was caught; but the information I have is that the average at Canso alone during January 1914 was about 700 000 lb. for each week. The bulletin gives a little less than a million lbs. for the whole month. It would appear that the officer who has charge of this branch in that district did not ask anybody, but simply sat at home in his office in Guys-borough, thirty miles away, and made an estimate in his own mind and sent a guess to the department. That is the way the work must be done, because if he had gone to Canso or had written to the merchants he would have got this information that I have received. I have no doubt about the correctness of this information, and as I have gone into it in detail I hope I have convinced the minister of the importance of looking into this matter and trying to have it adjusted.
Mj\ LAW:	How are these statistics prepared? Does the inspector or the overseer of the district prepare them? From whom does he get the information. As far as Yarmouth is concerned, the fishermen take very little stock in this bulletin; but I am not in a position to point out where there are any inaccuracies or where the bulletin is correct, as my hon. friend has done. It has always been a mystery to me where the overseers got the information.


John Douglas Hazen: The system that I believe
was in force up to early in 1911 was that the statistics were gathered together once a year by the fishery officers from the best sources available and they were largely dependent on the returns that were made at the time the bounty checks were being paid. The department determined to get better statistics, and about 1909 Mr. Cowie was employed. In the spring of 1911 the system of getting these monthly returns
and issuing a monthly bulletin was adopted by the department. It is the duty of the overseer in each district to get the returns from the best source he can, from the officials under him at the different places in the district in which he is overseer, or if necessary from local dealers or others. Blank forms for the purpose are furnished. Instructions are given to the inspector to keep an oversight on the matter, to try and inform himself as well as he can and to see that the statistics are correct.
In addition to that, a circular letter was sent out by the department to all the different fish dealers who would be in close touch with the fishing operations, and they were asked to write to the department from time to time if they saw inaccuracies in the bulletin and to let the department know if they thought mistakes were being made, so that the department might be in a position to correct them. I am told by the superintendent of fisheries that, up to the present, practically not a single complaint has been received at the Fisheries Department from any of these dealers. It therefore comes as a surprise to the superintendent of fisheries, who is with me, that the complaint of the hon. member for Guysborough is so sweeping in its character. It would have occurred to the superintendent, as it would to almost any one else-and I isay this without reflecting on the statement of the hon. member-that if such glaring inaccuracies had occurred, even if they had not been especially requested to do so, the dealers to whom these bulletins are sent would have informed the department of the error. But when we consider that they were especially requested to inform the department of any error, the statement comes as a greater surprise. I entirely agree with the hon. member for Guysborough that it is useless to publish statistics unless they can be relied upon; they are worse than useless if they do not give an approximately correct idea of the fishing operations carried on and the quantity of fish caught. I say approximately, because it cannot be expected they will be absolutely correct. There must be some variation, although, of course, it should be impossible that there could be such a discrepancy as exists between the statement of the non. member for Guysborough and the bulletin. I am not prepared, I would not be expected to be prepared to say that the bulletins are grossly inaccurate. All I can say is that I will most certainly ask the officers charged with the duty of looking after the

gathering of these statistics to thoroughly investigate the matter at once, and if it is found that they are nearly as inaccurate as would appear, I think we should take prompt steps to have them made more accurate so that they can be relied upon, and instructions to that effect will be given to the officers. It seems to me as if the statement made by the hon. member for Guysborough is made after careful inquiry, and it looks as if he might be pretty near the mark. I, of course, say that subject to correction, as I do not pretend to give an opinion one way or the other at the moment.
The hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) has referred to the discrepancy in the price of smelt. That might be accounted for by the quantity caught and the nature of the market at the time they were caught. If only a small quantity, practically used for home consumption in the markets near at hand, were caught, I presume that a larger price would be charged than if a large quantity were caught for shipment outside of the province. Those who collect the statistics are instructed to give the market value of the fish at the port to which the fish are brought. Those are their instructions. It is hard to understand why anybody making these returns would think .it worth his while to give anything but the correct market value 'at the port to which the fish, are brought.
I fully appreciate the trouble my hon. friend from Guysborough has gone to, and I will certainly see that the matter is made the subject of most careful inquiry with a view to remedying in future any fault in the system of collecting these statistics.


George William Kyte: The fishermen in my county are their own shippers. They ship the fish to the United States markets direct. I say that the statement as to price is a mere guess on the part of the person who furnishes this information. Perhaps the hon. minister has the names of those persons for the county of Richmond.


John Douglas Hazen: I can give my hon. friend the names of the overseers in his county.


George William Kyte: I know the overseers myself. They live many miles from the sections of the county of Richmond where these smelts are caught. Inasmuch as the fishery officers are not paid for collecting these statistics, they can scarcely be expected to visit the districts where the fishery operations are carried on, and for that reason I say that any information I -Mr. Hazen.f
forwarded by them to the department is a mere guess. I am absolutely certain that the fishery officers, with perhaps one or two exceptions, do not get the information from the men -who catch the smelts. The discrepancy is so absolutely manifest upon the face of this bulletin that some explanation is certainly in order as to why the information as to price is not more accu-'rate. There is no considerable quantity consumed in the local market and the fishermen of the county of Richmond' receive practically the same price as the smelt fishermen in other parts of eastern Nova Scotia.


John Douglas Hazen: The fact that these officers do not live where the fishing operations are carried on is no excuse for their giving incorrect dnfoiimation. Most of them live, I presume, near a telephone or a telegraph line and they are instructed to use the telephone and the telegraph at the department's expense.


George William Kyte: Would it not be worth while to institute some inquiry as to the sources of information upon which these officers draw?


Mr. LOGGIE:: The county I have the honour to represent shipped to local and foreign markets 382 tons of smelts during the month of February, and you will see by the bulletin that the average price was over five cents a pound. Never in the experience of the smelt fishermen of New Brunswick have they received such a good price for their smelts as this year. I wonder if the hon. minister could give me the reason for that? Their only markets are Canada and the United States. I will tell the minister why the price is so much better this year. It is because the United States took the duty off. The Canadian consumer of course has to pay that much more for what he uses. That has increased the cost of living in Canada and I leave it to the Minister Finance to get us out of that difficulty. Could not the Minister of Marine and Fisheries check these quantities each month with the entry outwards which is made at every port through which the fish are exported to the United States? That would be very useful information to the public.


John Douglas Hazen: I think the customs returns show that.


William Stewart Loggie: I suppose we could pick out the information from the -customs returns, but the Customs Department does not issue a monthly bulletin as the Department of Marine and Fisheries does. It

seems to me that it would not be very difficult for the minister to publish each month the quantities exported and to what country. That would be a check on the values and on the quantities. The price of smelts as given for the county of Richmond is absolutely inaccurate, as the smelts were worth practically 200 per cent more than that on the fishing grounds.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What about Lunenburg?


William Stewart Loggie: I understand that the
price there is very high, probably the local trade accounts for that. In Northumberland county, in Gloucester and Kent the quantities are very large. Three hundred and eighty-two tons for one month from Northumberland county gives you some idea as to the value of the American market to the fishermen of that county, especially when it is not a taxed market. By the taking off of the American tax the fishermen of Northumberland county have reaped the benefit to the extent of $15 per ton on 382 tons in one month.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) gave the correct explanation when he said that the minister did not get accurate information because he did not pay anything for the work of collecting these statistics. I asked a question during the present session as to what it cost to get up this bulletin and the answer was: for 1912-13, $1,251.78, and for 1913-14, $1,222.15. How can we expect to get important work like this done along the coast oi the Maritime provinces and of British Columbia for the paltry sum of $1,200?
If you want the officers to take any interest in this work you must pay them something. If the minister is going to deal with this question in a proper way he must put some amount in the Estimates for the present year to pay for the collection of the information with which to get up these bulletins.


Mr. LAW:: To whom are these bulletins sent each month?


John Douglas Hazen: To all members of Parliament, to the different fishing concerns, to the newspapers and practically to everybody who sends in his name and asks that they shall be sent to him.


Bowman Brown Law: Can any fisherman, or any
person, have them sent regularly if he forwards his name to the department?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, write to the department and I shall be glad to give instructions to have them sent.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Can the minister give
me the name of the fishery overseers for the county of Queens?


John Douglas Hazen: The overseers for the
county of Queens are Charles Young and W. E. Fraser.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is Mr. Fraser an overseer?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to call the attention of the minister to something more or less interesting about W. E. Fraser.


John Douglas Hazen: When I say Mr. Fraser is an overseer I should say that I am under the impression that he has resigned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: When did he resign?


John Douglas Hazen: Some time early in February.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Was he ever loaned by the minister's department to the Department of Militia for any purpose?


John Douglas Hazen: No, I have never heard of such a thing. I do not know what he would be doing there.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Hon. members opposite take a great deal of pleasure, and have a good deal of pride, in talking about the local election that took place in Nova Scotia in February last. The result was satisfactory to them. I had the pleasure of experiencing the presence of this man Fraser in the county of Victoria. This distinguished officer of the minister, on election day, furnished by somebody with moneys which he lavishly expended, maintained an open public house within a few hundred yards of a polling place in a certain district in Victoria county where he dispensed rum, cigars and all other luxuries that science could devise and money could buy. He represented himself as not only an officer of the Marine and Fisheries Department, but as an officer who was selected by the Minister of Militia and sent to the county of Victoria for the purpose of settling the Fenian Raid claims. He told the electors who were looking for their Fenian Raid bounties that he was selected by the Department of Militia and Defence and sent down to Victoria with plenary powers to settle every claim that was outstanding. He went to the extent of offering to pay seventy-five per cent of the $100 claims of some of the electors in the district where he held the public house on election day, provided, of course, that they delivered

the goods or voted for his man. I do not know how much money he paid out in that way but he was well armed, according to the reports, with the necessaries. He assured the people that he was the accredited representative of the Militia Department. I was informed by the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Mr. Hughes) that no man was authorized to do such a thing, and that he had not given Fraser, or anybody else, any authority to speak for him in that connection. What I say to the minister I can prove to the hilt if necessary. If Fraser is an officer of the minister I think it would be reflecting a little more credit on his department if this gentleman would at least tell the truth when he went on missions of this kind. I do not think he should have gone at all. I think he should have respected his office more than to go outside of his own county and try to debauch the electorate as he did in the county of Victoria. I do not think he should have gone, but if he did go he should have been paid, sufficiently to tell the truth and, if he had to lie about any department, let him lie about his own department. He transgressed every rule of decent lying by lying for a department that he had nothing whatever to do with. I complain of this conduct on the part of any officer of the Government. I bring the matter before the minister so that in future he may perhaps know that all his officers are not saints when he hears complaints about them and will have reason to believe that there may be some truth in these complaints. I make these statements upon my responsibility as a member of the House, and I am well able to back them up in this particular instance when occasion requires.


Onésiphore Turgeon: While we are on the subject of active partisanship, I am sorry that I have to trouble the minister again,. but I would ask him if, according to the promise that he made on the 27th of February last, he has written to the fishery overseers in the county of Gloucester?


John Douglas Hazen: I gave instructions to the department that they should be written to. '


Onésiphore Turgeon: May I ask the minister if he has written to James Doucett of Petit Rocher?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not recollect the name, but my deputy minister was here, and. I told him to take down the three names which were mentioned by the hon. gentleman, and have the overseers communicated with.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Have they been written
to?


John Douglas Hazen: I presume they have been.


Onésiphore Turgeon: If they have been written to I wish to inform the minister that the officer at Petit Rocher has paid no attention to the orders of the minister, as this James Doucett has not only been active, but most offensive, in his .conduct towards other Liberal officers along the Intercolonial railway. This man was canvassing for several days on or about the 11th of March and insulting every respectable citizen that he met on the road. I have already said to the minister something to the effect that if he had known this gentleman as I know him, and as I have known him since he was a boy, he would never have appointed him to any responsible position in his department. The man is by nature offensive, and I have not only letters but even telegrams from the most respectable citizens of the parish complaining to me of him on that very day. I have a telegram here dated the 19th March, signed by one of the most respected citizens. It reads as follows:
James Doucett, head man in running around soliciting witnesses against Stevens and interfering in general and I cannot meet Doucett at any time without being insulted for being a Liberal.
I understand that the minister wrote with the intention of bringing that man to respect at least the authority of the . minister of his department, but he has continued day after day to show even greater ambition in his offensiveness. Under the circumstances, and knowing the feelings that have arisen, I would ask the minister to have that man dismissed and replaced by one of his friends. I have no recommendation to make. If I were asked by the minister to recommend any one from among the Conservatives entitled to remuneration by the Conservative party, I would recommend a man who would not have to be complained against. The hon. minister knows that I do not make complaints against any individual in my county without being compelled from a sense of duty to do so. This man, who has been put in this position by reason of the dismissal of another officer, who was dismissed because he was a Liberal, should certainly be dismissed.


John Douglas Hazen: I will look into the matter.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I hope the minister will look into it seriously. It is a grievous matter. I do not complain of the others.
I believe they listened with respect to the

advice of the minister, but Mr. Doucett should never have been appointed.


John Douglas Hazen: I will look seriously into the matter.


William Chisholm: 
John Douglas Hazen: I am informed that there is not and never has been any such regulation in the department. The hon. gentleman is aware that in the city of Ottawa
there are gentlemen occupying seats in the city council, one I believe a controller of the city, who are government 10 p.m. officials. In the city of Moncton there have been gentlemen occupying positions in the council who, not only for the last three years but for years before, have been officials of the Intercolonial railway. If the hon. gentleman had been here a few nights ago hf^ would have heard me state that I do not approve of officials of the department taking an active part in politics. I feel it is a practice that ought to be discouraged. It was a practice that was very general under the Government [DOT]which the hon. gentlemen has supported for so many years. I know a great many instances of it. It has existed under both Governments.
My experience has been that, when a man has a position which is his main source^ of living, as a Tule he abstains from taking part in political contests; but when he occupies a position which is subsidiary to his other calling, for example, when he is a postmaster and has a post office in connection with his store, or when he is a lightkeeper but does other work for his support, I find that as a rule he takes part in political contests in support of the Government that has appointed him. It may not be a very desirable condition of affairs, but it is a condition which has existed for a great many years. I think on both sides of the House we shall be talking a good deal that is not very sincere if we shut our eyes to that state of affairs and say that it did not exist in the past and that it does not exist now.


William Chisholm: The House must be gratified indeed to hear such a candid admission from the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries when he says there has been a lack of sincerity on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in Opposition. They, in season and out of season, declaimed against the appointment of men to offices because they belonged to the particular type of politics of the party in power. They also declaimed very .strongly against the appointment of these officials because they dared to entertain views of their own in matters of politics, and therefore they dismissed them. Now we have a candid admission on the part of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that, in laying down this rule that Grit officials should not be allowed to exercise the franchise as they

think proper, should not be allowed to exercise the God-given gifts or the right of entertaining opinions for themselves, they were not sincere. The minister admits that now.


John Douglas Hazen: I admit nothing of the sort. If the hon. gentleman thinks that he can construe into my words an admission that a man cannot think for himself, I do not think a5y other hon. member will agree with him.


William Chisholm: I did not say that, but I say that the hon. gentleman has dismissed men who held office under the late Administration for no greater reason than that they were Liberals, and exercised their rights as freemen in a free country.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, but there was more
against them than that they were Liberals.
Mr. CHISHOLM. I can produce an instance in the county I have the honour to represent-that of Mr. A. R. McAdam, fishery overseer of the county of Antigonish- who was dismissed for no reason except that perhaps he was suspected of Liberal leanings. The charge made against him by the gentleman who controls the patronage in the county was set forth in a letter written to the minister on the 1st of February, 1912, as follows:
While in Ottawa a few days ago I endeavoured to obtain an interview with you with respect to matters in this county, but you were always occupied when I called, and as I could only remain a few days, I was obliged to come away without seeing you. What I wanted particularly was to know what evidence you require for the dismissal of Alexander R McAdam, of Malignant Cove, fisheries inspector for this county. You will remember that I wrote you some time ago asking that McAdam be dismissed and MacDougall be appointed in his place. This Alexander McAdam has been for the last fifteen years at least an active partisan. He has done everything that any person taking part in hehalf of a candidate usually does. During the last year and immediately previous to the election, this man was chairman of the Liberal organization meetings, was active in calling those meetings together from time to time and was present at most of them. His house was a rendezvous of Liberals and a great many of the meetings were held there.
I don't think that you could find a more active politician in the whole county than Mr McAdam. I should like to have him dismissed at once and Mr. Hugh MacDougall appointed in his stead. I am willing to take full responsibility for this dismissal and can give my reasons at any time. I have charge of tile patronage of this county and am looking after its interests.
Please give this matter your immediate attention.
Yours truly,
E. Lavin Girroir.
[Mr. W. Chisholm.!
When the minister read this letter, he saw that it went too far, that the charges were too sweeping and the accusations exaggerated. So he very properly wrote to Senator Girroir

he was not a senator then-as follows:
February 8, 1912,
I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 1st inst. requesting that the services of Mr. Alexander R. McAdam, of Malignant Cove, as fishery overseer for the county of Antigonish, be dispensed with, and one Mr. Hugh MacDougall be appointed in his stead, and I note fully what you say in regard thereto.
While you explain that Overseer McAdam has been an offensive partisan, you do not say that you have personal knowledge that he has been such.
If you will give me an assurance that you of your personal knowledge know that Mr. McAdam has been a political partisan since holding the said office of fishery overseer, with reasonable specific details of such partisanship, or that from inquiries made by you of responsible persons for whom you could vouch that he has been guilty of undue interference in politics since he has been appointed to office, with sufficient details to establish his guilt of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt, I shall be prepared to further consider the matter. Meantime I shall await a full report from you in the premises.
The hon. minister then was disposed to be eminently fair. He discounted the statements made in Mr. Girrior's letter and insisted that specific charges should be presented. For that he is to he commended. What happened? Charges were preferred

the usual, stereotyped charges,-not specific. These charges came up for investigation before Commissioner Duchemin. Mr. Du-chemin, notwithstanding the express provision of the statute, refused to allow counsel. One witness only was examined, Mr. John Macdonald. The commissioner adjourned the court feeling that there was not sufficient evidence adduced to justify any of the charges against Mr. McAdam. As a matter of fact at that hearing there was not a particle of evidence to justify the statements made by Senator Girroir in his letter. It is true-I wish to be fair-one of the witnesses who was asked to be present did not put in an appearance, and the court was adjourned for the purpose of securing the' evidence of that witness. Now,
I direct the attention of the minister to tho fact that the commissioner himself felt that it was necessary to get further evidence before condemning Mr. McAdam. The adjourned hearing took place some time afterwards, and the witness required was brought before Mr. Duchemin, who examined him in private, according to his own report, but found that the witness had no evidence to give. The only thing the commissioner

could say so far as the evidence it was alleged Mahoney could give, was that the information was unfounded. He so reported, and a copy of his report to the minister I have here. Well, how did they proceed to have Mr. McAdam dismissed? In this way: another letter was written to the minister under date of October 14, 1912. You see, they were all summer scouring the county looking for witnesses to say that Mr. McAdam was a nartisan.
And if ever there was a case in which evidence would be easy to obtain it was in that case, for the fishery overseer had gone 'in the performance of his duty through every section of the county. With the treasury of Canada behind them, evidence could be got to substantiate the charge, if the accused was a partisan. But no such evidence was obtained. So, in this extremity, Mr. Girroir writes this letter: October 14, 1912.
I wish to draw your attention to some facts in connection with the investigation into the charges against A. R. McAdam. As I anticipated there is the greatest difficulty in obtaining the attendance of witnesses. I subpoenaed several and they did not appear.
I was not aware that Mr. Girroir subpoenaed them or that he had the right to subpoena them.
X asked Mr. Duchemin to ascertain from the Justice Department what action should be taken to compel their appearance, and his reply was to the effect that they could not be compelled to appear.
Just fancy a statement of that kind by a responsible senator, having charge of the patronage of the county. The Inquiries Act is as plain as can be on that subject. Mr. Duchemin, whose attention must have been drawn to the Inquiries Act when he was appointed, must have known that, for it is expressly provided in the Act as follows:
Section 4 gives the commissioner the power of summoning of witnesses, and section 5 adds that the commissioners have the same power to enforce the (attendance of witnesses ... as is vested in any court of record in civil cases.
What the senator referred to in his letter from which I have been reading was the non-appearance of Mr. Mahoney. Mr. Mahoney did not appear; he was not subpoenaed in the regular way. Mr. Duchemin in his report says that he had to adjourn the hearing from Malignant Cove, and .said that I stated that Mr. Mahoney was not subpoenaed. So I did. I advised Mr. Mahoney that he did not have to appear until he was subpoenaed and paid his
witness fee. Mr. Duchemin was going up and down the country in the early part of his operaions in the county I have the honour to represent calling witnesses before him, but he did not pay witness fees, and some of those fees are still outstanding. It was only when Mr. Mahoney refused to attend without being subpoenaed in the regular way and paid his fees that Mr. Duchemin carried on his proceedings, so far as witnesses were concerned, in a proper and legal manner and concluded that thereafter the witnesses would have to receive these fees or conduct money.
To quote again from the senator's letter:
This only goes to show the inadequacy of the present machinery for trying these cases.
It only goes to show, I think, either that Mr. Girroir did not know what he was writing about or else that he presumed that the minister knew very little about the Act under which his commissioner was carrying on the investigations.
A Grit with the shrewdness of McAdam usually does his work through others, and in order to prove some of the charges against McAdam it was necessary to subpoena Liberals.
Yes, and they had the whole treasury behind them to subpoena witnesses if they wanted them.
Not one of the Liberals subpoenaed appeared against him.
That is something of which I have a personal knowledge. I happened to be at the investigation, although I was not permitted to appear as counsel. That statement I can meet right here and now. The only man who was asked to attend but failed to put in an appearance, so far as I know-and he was not subpoenaed-was Mahoney.
With the result that we were only able to establish what is contained in the evidence of John McDonald. X think that this evidence should be sufficient to cause his dismissal. If an official can be proven to have canvassed even one voter, there can be no disputing his partisanship. He, McAdam, did not care to go on the stand and give us an opportunity of examining him. This, I think, should, especially where we cannot compel witnesses to appear, be a strong circumstance against him. I firmly trust that you will find your way clear to dismiss McAdam at once. It will be a great relief to me, I can assure you, when this is done.
The sympathetic minister could not resist such a pathetic appeal. The law must be disregarded; the proceedings held before Commissioner Duchemin must be ignored, and the minister must step in and do this
2411,

act in order that relief should be afforded to the gentleman who wanted to have McAdam dismissed. Wha,t was the result? As I have said, the whole summer had passed before the dismissal of Mr. McAdam was effected. Mr. Duchemin adjourned the court from day to day because the evidence that he had obtained in the first instance was not sufficient and he was unable to supplement that evidence. If he considered there was anything in McDonald's evidence he would there and then say: here is a prima facie case against you, which, unless contradicted or explained by you, I shall hold sufficient to justify a report against you. But he turned around at the last moment and said that in view of the fact that McAdam did not go on the stand and disprove-what? disprove nothing, because nothing was proved against him-he ought to be dismissed. Why did he adjourn the case for further evidence if he thought McDonald's evidence sufficient?
Mr. McKENZIE* How d:d he come to be dismissed?


William Chisholm: He was dismissed upon the order of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Upon what evidence?


William Chisholm: 
Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Gould the minister give the names of the members of the advisory board ?


John Douglas Hazen: There are four from Nova Scotia-Mr. Hermain from Shelburne, Mr. Smith from Lunenburg, Mr. Short from Pictou, and Mr. King from Halifax. Mr. King was appointed on the recommendation of the fisheries committee of the Halifax Board of Trade. From New Brunswick the members are: Mr. Russell from Pas-samaquoddy Bay, Mr. Young from Gloucester county, and Mr. Carson from Kent county. There is a gentleman from the
Magdalen islands, Mr. Arsenault. There are no members from Ontario, because Ontario administers its own fisheries. There is a gentleman from Charlottetown, Mr. Longwell; one from Alberta, one from Saskatchewan, and two from British Columbia. The British Columbia representatives are Mr. McIntyre and Mr. Cunningham. Thus there are four from Nova Scotia, three from New Brunswick, one from Magdalen islands, none from Ontario, one from Alberta, one from Saskatchewan, and two from British Columbia.


Alexander William Chisholm: How many of them are fishermen ?


John Douglas Hazen: They are all fishermen or dealers in fish, or people with knowledge of the fish industry. Mr. Hermain, from Shelburne, is a practical fisherman who makes his living by fishing. Mr. Short, from Pictou, is a fish merchant. Mr. Smith is a gentleman greatly interested in fishing, from Lunenburg. He owns schooners that go off to the banks and he is the representative on this commission of the deep-sea fishing interests, the bank fishermen. Mr. King, from Halifax, is there as the representative of the cured fish industry, which, as my hon. friend knows, centers largely in Halifax. He is the representative of the fish merchants. Originally there were only three members on the board from Nova Scotia, but the fisheries committee of the Halifax Board of Trade recommended that there should be a member of the board representing Halifax, and, that being considered a reasonable request, Mr. King was appointed. Mr. Smith is a representative of the deep-sea fishermen. He has been a practical fisherman, he has fished on the banks himself, he has been the captain of fishing schooners on the banks, and to-day he is engaged in the fishing business, although he does not fish himself. Mr. Young lives at Caraquet, and is familiar with the fishing industry there. Mr. Russell represents the Passamaquoddy Bay district. He is a man who has been a practical fisherman. I believe the gentleman from PrinCe Edward Island has been a practical fisherman. He has been a fishery officer, and the department have a very high appreciation of his fishery knowledge. The representatives from British Columbia are fishery officers. The members of the House of Commons from British Columbia thought at the start that we had better have two men who had been fishery officers, and that is the reason that Mr. Cunningham, who is a
2ilz

principal fishery official of the Dominion Government in British Columbia, and Mr. McIntyre, the assistant commissioner of fisheries for British Columbia, were appointed. Of course the fisheries in the prairie provinces are different from those on the east coast or in British Columbia.


Alexander William Chisholm: There is only
one of these gentlemen really dependent upon fishing.


John Douglas Hazen: One is now engaged in fishing but two are dependent on fishing. Mr. Smith makes his living out of fishing.


Alexander William Chisholm: His interest in the calling is different now to what it was when he was a fisherman. He is a fish buyer.


John Douglas Hazen: He is a man who has
worked up from the lowest rank. He went off on a fishing vessel originally, he became a captain and he is now an owner and sends vessels off to the banks to fish.


Alexander William Chisholm: That is what I mean. Would the minister be kind enough to inform me what are the duties of this board, and are they supposed to remain at their homes or to travel around gathering information, giving instructions, etc.?


John Douglas Hazen: The board is purely advisory. The provisional arrangement is that they meet in Ottawa two or three times a year. The Maritime section, the Pacific section and the Prairie section meet here and discuss fishery matters with the permanent officials. The object of appointing the board was that it was felt that all the knowledge about fisheries was not confined to the department by any means; and it was thought that it would be an advantage if the officials of the department, many of whom are very learned and scientific men, could have the advantage, several times ,a year, of consulting with men who, while not perhaps having the same scientific knowledge, had a greater practical knowledge of fishing than the officials of the department could be expected to have. It was thought by having an advisory board some good results would be attained. We believe these good results have been attained. We had one meeting in Lunenburg last year and other meetings will be held in other parts. We have in Nova Scotia one gentleman who understands thoroughly the dried and cured fish business, another the bank fishing and another the shore fishing; then Mr. Short, from [DOT]Digby, understands the general conditions. 
'It is thought that these gentlemen, consulting with the scientific men here, can give .advice that will he of great value regarding close seasons, the propagation of [DOT]fish and the best method of placing fish on the market in such attractive shape as to command the best prices. The result, our [DOT]officers believe, has been very satisfactory.


Alexander William Chisholm: I desire to enter *my protest against the personnel of that commission. There is just one man on it [DOT]whom I would call a fisherman in the sense that I understand the word, a man who devotes his entire time to fishing, a toiler *of the deep.
That is the man that I regard as a fisherman. We have one of that kind, I understand, on the commission, but instead of one at least one-half of the commission should be fishermen. The next protest I wish to make is against appointing all the men from the western part of the province of Nova Scotia. There is no reason why we should stop at the boundary line between Halifax and Guysborough and go no further east. The counties of Guysborough, Pictou, Antigonish, Inverness and the two counties of Cape Breton are without a representative on the board. If there was a particle of sincerity in the organization of this board, surely it would seem that that section of country should be represented, because if my hon. friend looks at the statistics he will see that a great deal of fish is caught in that eastern part of the province. I spoke to the hon. minister, and wrote to him, suggesting a particular friend of his own in the county of Inverness as a fit man for this board. I regarded him as well qualified for the position. He was a fisherman from away back, and made his living at it. I knew that a man of a different political stripe to the minister might not meet with his approval, but this man was a good man, and if he had been appointed he would have been able to give proper attention to the wishes of the fishermen of the eastern counties. I will not take up any more time further than to place myself on record as disapproving of two features of this commission: first of all, the personnel, inasmuch as there is only one fisherman on the board, for I do not regard a man who devotes his time to outfitting vessels as a fisherman; and secondly, the counties of eastern Nova Scotia are left without a representative on the board. I trust the minister will see that these defects are remedied. It can be easily done. He has friends of his own

in all these counties and can easily get men to act on the board. I may point out that last year 35,562.68 was spent on this commission. A commission of that magnitude, so far as expenditure is concerned, should produce some good results.


William Stewart Loggie: Might I ask the minister if the members of this commission meet in Ottawa all together, or individually.


John Douglas Hazen: The members of the Maritime provinces' section meet here together, but not the board for the whole of Canada.


William Stewart Loggie: I am not going to take any issue with what the minister has said except in this regard: he said that Mr. Young had been engaged in the fishing industry all his life; that is perfectly true, but when he came to the other member from New Brunswick he led the House to believe that he had as wide an experience of fishing as Mr. Young. I do not wish to be understood as saying one word against the gentleman who has been appointed. He is a very estimable gentleman, but I am quite sure he cannot be put in the same class, so far as experience in the fishing industry is concerned, with Mr. Young. So far as I am aware he has never had any interest in the fishing business, either as a shipper, buyer or fisherman. I suppose I should congratulate my hon. friend . from Kent, N.B. (Mr. Robidoux) because his county is represented on the board, as well as having a very important member on the Shellfish Commission. Kent county is recognized, I suppose, because of its good work in 1911, while counties that perhaps have larger fishing industries have been altogether overlooked. I thought it was only fair to draw the minister's attention to the fact that his remarks on the gentleman from Kent county, besides Mr. Young, were hardly accurate. I happen to know both gentlemen very well, and I esteem them highly all the same.


Mr. ROBIDOUX:: I wish to inform the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. Loggie), that while Mr. Carson is not a fisherman and has not been directly interested in the fish business, nevertheless he is thoroughly acquainted with it. The county of Kent is one of the best fishing counties in the Maritime provinces, and the hon. member for Northumberland is well aware of that, because he does a large business in that part of the country. When I urged the appointment of Mr. Carson to 153
that commission, I did it in the interests of the fishermen. My hon. friend will not deny that Mr. Carson is a public-spirited citizen who is prepared to stand by the interests of the fishermen. That is why I recommended his appointment. It may be that his appointment is not to the liking of the hon. member for Northumberland, but I was not particularly concerned about that when I made the recommendation. It would be a pretty difficult matter to suit the hon. gentleman. In order to do that we should have to give him practically a monopoly of all the fishing. He had his innings when the late Government was in power. If we were to appoint an advisory hoard to suit him, we should have to appoint men who are prepared to issue salmon licenses to the hon. member for Northumberland only. We all know that previous to 1911 it was impossible for an ordinary fisherman in the county of Kent, with whom the hon. member for Inverness has so much sympathy, to secure a salmon license. From the northern boundary line of Kent county down to Richibucto about 20 salmon licenses were issued, and the company of which the hon. member for Northumberland is president held 17 of the 20. As a matter of fact he did not fish more than three or four sets, and held the others just to prevent other people from fishing. If the fishermen of Kent county had been given the selection of a man for that advisory board, I am sure they would have selected Mr. Carson.


Alexander William Chisholm: Does my hon. friend from Northumberland still enjoy the same privilege as to taking out ' licenses?


Ferdinand Joseph Robidoux: Yes, he has those - licenses to-day. I will tell my hon. friend this. Any fisherman to-day who applies for a license to fish salmon gets it.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: I am inclined to doubt very much the value of this Fisheries Advisory Board. I hardly think the department will get much benefit from the services of a board who are called together practically only once a year.
The members constituting the board as a rule are busy men engaged in other duties and the amount of time devoted to fishery matters is after all very intermittent indeed. A resolution was passed by the Halifax Board of Trade within the past year, I think, and that was a repetition of similar resolutions passed before, urging the ap-



pointment of a departmental officer for each province. I assume they intended that such an officer would be located in a central place in each province and he would have direct control of the departmental affairs in that province. He would always be the real executor of the policy or regulations of the department and would see that they were carried out? He would also be in a position to accumulate, after years of experience, a great deal of information which might toe utilized by the department. I suppose there is some good in the Fisheries Board. I suppose it would hardly be possible for a dozen men to meet together here once a year and not afford the department some information.


John Douglas Hazen: They meet twice a year and in future it is intended that they shall meet oftener.


Angus Alexander McLean: I suppose it would be rather an extreme statement to say that this board could afford no intelligence to the department, but I do not think its assistance is very substantial. I believe that the suggestion elnanating from the Halifax Board of Trade, namely, the appointment of a departmental head in each province, is a more businesslike suggestion, and one which would be more in the interest of the fisheries in each province and of greater advantage to the department than any other proposition which has been placed before the minister on this subject. I do not think that the Department of Marine and Fisheries was ever properly organized for the effective and scientific regulation and administration of the fisheries. F am not finding any particular fault with the present head of the department. What I say would toe applicable to any person who has hitherto been at the head of the department, I do not know whether the department is undermanned or not, I think possibly it is in the way of scientific men, or men who are or will specialize, but I do not think the department is well organized or that it ever was. I believe that the suggestion of the appointment of a departmental head in each province is a good suggestion and one worthy of consideration. I would like to hear if the minister has given consideration to the suggestion which has come from the Halifax Board of Trade.


John Douglas Hazen: That suggestion, of course, has been made on several occasions. We have now in every province inspectors for the different districts and the general opinion of the head officials of the department is that there is very little to be gained

by appointing another official in each province which would be, as it were, simply adding to our inspectors. It is felt that it is quite as easy for these inspectors to report at Ottawa as it would be, in New Brunswick, for instance, for them to report in St. John, or, in Nova Scotia, for them to report in Halifax. But up to the present time it has not been thought desirable to adopt that suggestion which has been made frorq time to time for the last ten years.


William Stewart Loggie: I think that some hon.
members have misunderstood the situation as put before the committee by the hon. member for Kent (Mr. Robidoux). The licenses that he referred to were held thirty years ago and about twenty years ago the corporation of which I am president and manager was organized and these salmon licenses were taken over by that company. The corporation that I represent received no favours from the Liberal Government any more than they have from the present Conservative Government. They held these licenses many years ago and still hold them, and they are endeavouring to make an honest dollar out of these fisheries. I realize, as much as any man in this House, the importance of taking care of the fisheries and not allowing them to be overburdened. I think that especially applies to the lobster fishery.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What are the
goods like that this company put up?


William Stewart Loggie: Write to Fraser, Viger
and Company, of Montreal, and they will tell you the kind of goods that certain people put up. The licenses that my hon. friend referred to are practically licenses that the company have held for thirty years or thereabouts. Some of the territory that the company are fishing in front of cost them a large sum of money. I fancy that there are some shore rights given with these licenses, although the department as a rule refuse to recognize shore rights. But after all they give a preference to the owners of the land in fishing in front of their own land. That is the recognized rule along the shore. I do not think it is always carried out, and I do not say that it is always necessary to carry it out-, as long as the parties holding the licenses have a landing privilege. But if they do not have a landing privilege the owner of the land can prevent them from landing. It is important to have some shore rights. All I got on my feet for was to explain to the committee that the corporation I repre-
APRIL .3, 10i4
sent received no favours from the Liberal Government that they would not be perfectly justified in asking of the Conservative Government. I think that the minister knows enough of my career to say that I could come to Ottawa and ask justice from any Government. While I have always been a Liberal in federal politics I was not a very active partisan until I took hold of my hon. friend himself and worked shoulder to shoulder with him. But when it came to the federal question, even although we were working together, we had to agree to differ and we did differ.


Onésiphore Turgeon: While I admire the
devotion of my hon. friend from Kent (Mr. Robidoux) to his fishermen, he will admit that I have some fishermen also in Gloucester county who are dear to my heart. I speak not so much of the shore fishermen, the lobster and salmon fishermen, who are more numerous in my county than in any other county in New Brunswick, but I wish to speak more particularly this evening of the deep sea fishermen whose pursuit is very arduous and who last year were treated in a way that has not been heard of since Confederation in the county of Gloucester or along the north shore of New Brunswick. The deep sea fisherman has to pass with his schooner once or twice through the harbour of Shippigan, and he has been	charged harbour dues
by	the	new harbour	master there.
Whether the conduct of the harbour-master has been according to the rules of the department, I will not say positively, but I wish to remind the minister that it is quite an innovation in: the county of Gloucester; that the schooners have never been charged harbour dues or wharf dues since Confederation, and I do not believe they have been charged harbour dues or wharf dues anywhere on the north shore of New Brunswick. In the county of Gloucester the matter is more important, because 200 schooners leave the ports of Caraquet and Shippigan, every Monday morning, going to the Prince Edward Island banks and taking every summer nearly a million dollars' worth of fish from the bottom of the sea. I would ask the minister to rectify this matter, if possible, and not to impose any taxation on these fishermen. We exempt them from wharfage dues, and I do not see why they should be charged harbour dues.


John Douglas Hazen: What harbour?


Onésiphore Turgeon: Shippigan. As the hon. minister knows, all the schooners from Oaraquet, Lameque, Miseou and Shippigan island go out to sea by this harbour.


John Douglas Hazen: Does my hon. friend say that fishing vessels are charged harbour dues?


Onésiphore Turgeon: Yes. They were charged last summer, I am informed.


John Douglas Hazen: What have they been
charged harbour dues for?


Onésiphore Turgeon: As fishermen.


John Douglas Hazen: My understanding was that no harbour dues were charged against the-fishermen. There must be some misunderstanding.


Onésiphore Turgeon: There must be some
mistake in the instruction given to the-barbour-master.


John Douglas Hazen: I wish the hon. gentleman would write me a letter stating the facts.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I will.


John Douglas Hazen: Then I will investigate the matter.


John Howard Sinclair: I think the difficulty
about th-e Advisory Board is that the minister has made it political. I am sorry that the minister did not carry out the promise made to the House last year, when authority was given to appoint that board, that he would select the members oLtlie board himself; that he would endeavour to represent all the various interests in regard to the fish industry and that he would select good men. These answers-were given in the House on the 27th of November, 1913. The minister stated most positively that he would make the selection himself, that the selection would not be political.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, I did.


John Howard Sinclair: 
John Douglas Hazen: Certainly.


John Howard Sinclair: And I have no doubt the same is true in regard to the other members of the board, that they were recommended as suitable by some of the friends of the minister.


John Douglas Hazen: Hundreds of people wererecommended.


John Howard Sinclair: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before the minister
makes any reply to the observations of the hon. member of Guysborougb (Mr. Sinclair) with respect to the case of this man Fraser, I wish to refresh his memory as to the law of Parliament and of his department as laid down by the present Prime Minister on this very point. This subject was under discussion in this House on the 6th day of December, 1911, as appears on page 889 of ' Hansard'. These are the words of the Prime Minister:
So far as the inside service is concerned, the statutory provision to which I desire to call attention is to be found in the Act of 1908 introduced and passed by the late Administration. Section 43 of that statute is as follows:
* No officer, clerk or employee in the Civil Service shall be debarred from voting at any Dominion or provincial election if under the laws governing the said election he has the right to vote; hut no such officer, clerk or employee shall engage in partisan work in connection with said election.'
The words of that section do not seem to restrict it to the inside service. My impression of the interpretation of the Act is that the language is restricted to the inside service. However, that is a matter to which we can very easily determine upon an examination of the earlier part of the statute. Sufficient it is to say for the present that it does lay down a definite and specific rule so far as the inside service is concerned.
Now, so far as the outside service is concerned, the rule was embodied in a resolution of the House of Commons moved by Mr. Hake on the 17th of July, 1905, and accepted by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who was then leading the Government, and that rule is in these words:
' That whilst it is desirable that every official in the employ of the Government of Canada, should enjoy perfect freedom of political opinion, and the untrammelled exercise of his franchise in accord therewith, no official should be engaged or permitted to engage, in partisan work of any description in the election of a representative to the provincial or Dominion Legislature.'

So there appeared to be no latitude for any minister if that law is to be observed. The Prime Minister pointed out that, so far as the inside service is concerned, the statute settled the case, and so far as the outside service is concerned, the late resolution settled it, that resolution being:
No person who is in the pay of the Government shall take any part whatever in partisan work in a Dominion or provincial election.
Any minister who has regard to that as the law has strong reason to make it clear to officials that they cannot be permitted to take part in elections. I wish to point out that not only was Mr. Fraser busily engaged in bribing the electors, but an overseer by the name of William Phelan, who resides in the county of Victoria, was engaged in the same business. He was hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder with this man Fraser in this business, going from house to Rouse offering bribes and bribing the electors to vote for McLeod, who was the candidate of the party. It is only fair that these officials should know that the present Prime Minister of Canada, in a speech in this House on the 6th of December, 1911, laid down the law on this subject, as I have given it. Any man taking office under this Government, particularly since the Prime Minister's statement was made, is forbidden to take any part in a campaign as has been done by these gentlemen.


Bowman Brown Law: Has the minister the list of fishery inspectors of Neva Scotia?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. A. G. McLeod, Whitney Pier, salary, $1,300; Robert Hockin, Pictou, $1,300; Mr. Ward Fisher, Shelburne, $1,300.


Bowman Brown Law: The minister raised Mr. Ward Fisher $100 last year.


John Douglas Hazen: Each of these officers was raised $100.


Bowman Brown Law: He turned out a fishery overseer for no other reason than that he was a Liberal, I presume, and getting along in years, who was in receipt of $700 a year, and appointed Mr. Fisher to the position at $1,200 a year and has raised him $100 this year. Is that the way the minister looks after the money of the people that is entrusted to him? I would like to know if he thinks that Mr. Fisher is doing any better than the late inspector of fisheries did. I doubt very much that he is. I think he was given the salary simply because he was a friend of
the Administration, and that is not in the interest of the country.


John Douglas Hazen: As to Mr. Robertson being an efficient officer, he was most inefficient. The hon. gentleman will recognize the authority on which I make that statement when I say that the records of the department show that Mr. Robertson was suspended by the Government which preceded the present Government, and he was regarded-in the department as a most inefficient officer. On the contrary, the present officer is most efficient and is regarded as one who is discharging his duties admirably. And I think that a .fishery inspector who faithfully discharges his duty is not overpaid when he receives $1,300 a year.


Bowman Brown Law: I do not agree with the
minister as to Mr. Robertson. But Mr. Robertson was not inspector of fisheries, as I understand. In any case, the man I-referred to was Captain Hatfield.


John Douglas Hazen: He was not inspector, but fishery overseer. The hon. gentleman will understand that there are thp (fishery inspectors and under these the fishery overseers, and under these the fishery guardians.


George William Kyte: In Committee of Supply a
few weeks ago I asked for an explanation concerning an expenditure of $33.90 made on account of J. A. Gillies to William Forge son.


John Douglas Hazen: The explanation is as
follows:
On reference to. the original account and to the departmental copy of that included in the return sent to the House of Commons, it is found that the account is made out as follows: Department of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.
(Per J. Gillies, K.C., Sydney.)
To William Forgeson, Port Royal, C.B.
It may be explained that the account originated in the following manner:	On the 26th
April, 1912, the deputy minister wrote to Er. J. A. Gillies, explaining that a ejaptain, engineer and cook would be required for the patrol-boat Davies and requesting him to furnish the names of suitable persons for the positions in question. Mr. Gillies, on the 4th May, nominated Mr. William Forgeson as engineer on the Davies, and on the same date Mr. Forgeson was Instructed to report to Inspector of Fisheries Hockin at Pictou where the boat was located. Mr. Forgeson reported to the inspector: but on his arrival he explained that he was not a steam-engineer, and that his experience was limited to gasoline engines. It was therefore not feasible to employ him on the Davies and he had to return to his home at Port Royal.


George William Kyte: Will the hon. minister
bring down the correspondence between the deputy minister and Mr. Gillies?


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be glad to lay it
on the table.


Alexander William Chisholm: I want to point out what I consider to be the ridiculous conduct of the Shellfish Commission when it went around the province of Nova Scotia last year. They visited Orangedale in the county of Inverness, where there are practically no fish except oysters, and they left unvisited the whole of the rest of the county of Inverness, embracing a district TOO miles in length, where there are fifteen or twenty lobster factories. I do not know what instructions the commission received from the department, but it seems to me that if they had any regard to the proper performance of their duties, they should have visited the district to which I have referred. It would appear as if they did not want to trouble themselves; as if they did not want to get too far away from the Intercolonial railway. They reported to the department that they had examined a gentleman at Orangedale, and they left the whole of the county of Inverness unvisited. The Department of Marine and Fisheries seems to have something-I do not know what to call it-against the county of Inverness.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The right hon. Prime Minister has laid down a specific statement of law, namely, that no man who is an officer of this Government can take part in a local or a Dominion election. What position does the Minister of Marine and Fisheries take with regard to that law ? Does it mean anything ? If it does, then -the two gentlemen who have transgressed that law ought to be dealt with. If the [DOT]minister contends that the law does not apply to them, then we must arrive at some other interpretation of what the Prime Minister said when he laid down that clear and explicit rule, quoting a section of the statute in respect of the inside service and a resolution passed by the House in respect of the outside service. The gentlemen of whom I speak are in the outside service, and the terms of the late resolution should apply to them. Does the minister say that the late resolution does apply to them, and if it does, what course does he intend to take in the matter ?


Mr. DAVIDSON:: I would very much like to -hear the minister give his opinion on this point, because I think it affects very materi-
ally some of the close political friends of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I had the pleasure of following in the trail of my illustrious friend in a recent election campaign and of observing at short range the methods adopted by certain individuals in that county. I found that in the district of which I speak no less than twelve officials appointed by the late Administration were actively making use of every method known to the human mind to defeat the Conservative candidate in that election. I did not intend to say anything about this matter, hut since the hon. member ha3 brought it up I think that we .should have the opinion of the minister with regard to the actions of those persons on whom my hon. friend called, and with whom he had consultations during that campaign. If they have contravened this resolution, they should be made to walk the plank. My hon. friend has made some very sweeping and damaging assertions against Mr. Fraser; I presume he has very good authority for them, because I am sure that my hon. friend would not be so reckless as to make sweeping assertions unless he had something on which to base them. As a matter of fact, hon. gentlemen will remember that my hon. friend descended from the dizzy heights of a county court judgeship to enter politics and to run for the constituency of North Cape Breton, and he must have or should have acquired a judicial spirit. I trust that the ex parte statement of his enthusiastic and hot-headed friends in the locality was not the only ground for making the very serious assertions which he has made to-night. The hon. gentleman has asked the minister for his views on this question; would he be good enough to tell the committee whether he thinks that a postmaster should actively engage in politics?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no necessity for the expressing of views; we have the law laid down by the Prime Minister.


Avard Longley Davidson: Then I would like to
ask my hon. friend -why it was that when he was in the North Shore district, he consulted, schemed with and planned with Mr. McLeod, postmaster at that place, anj regarded him as his principal worker? My hon. friend knew-although perhaps Mr. McLeod did not know-about t^ie resolution; does he not think that it was very unfair for him to induce that poor man to do such a thing?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend knows that Mr. McLeod has been kicking that postoffice into the teeth of hon. gentlemen oppo-
APRIjl, 3, 1914
site ever since they came into power. So far as Mr. McLeod is concerned, hon. gentlemen opposite can take the office, if they wish; he does not care a thing about it.
Mr. DAVIDSON. My hon. friend admits, then, that my allusion to what Mr. McLeod has done is substantially correct. Whether or not the office is something to be sought for does not alter the case one bit, nor does it justify Mr. McLeod's conduct in violating that regulation. If Mr. McLeod loses the post office-and I shall make it my business to see that the Postmaster General is advised of these facts-he will know whom to blame for losing it. Knowing of the resolution which was passed by this House, my hon. friend openly encouraged Mr. McLeod to break it-and this is the gentleman who has occupied the dizzy heights of a county court judgeship. Is this not a serious matter, Mr. Chairman?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I thought that the hon. member for Annapolis would have the good grace and discretion to keep out of this discussion. The hon. gentleman brought this creature Fraser with him to North Shore. I did not want to drag the hon. gentleman's name into the discussion; as a member of this House, I wanted to respect his feelings. But he brought it up himself; you could not keep him out of anything that was dirty.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: I do not think that
such a statement is permissible, and I think the hon. gentleman_ought to take it back.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Take that back? Well, he may say that his conduct was clean and that he simply broke into an explanation.


Avard Longley Davidson: It really does not make much difference what the hon. gentleman said.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I never knew that it was a matter of disrepute or disrespect for anybody in this country to have occupied the position of judge. I did not think so. I rather thought that men who occupied the position of judges and did credit to that position to the best of their ability had nothing to be ashamed of because they had occupied that position. I had the greatest regard for that office. I still revere and respect any person who holds and occupies one of those high positions as long as he does credit to <,ne office. I do not for a moment claim that I brought .any particular adomation to the office,
but I laid it down just as unsullied as 1 found it. The position was occupied by a very distinguished gentleman in district No. V of the province of Nova Scotia, a man who was at one time a member of this House, the Hon. Mr. Justice ^ Dodd, a descendant of a long line of judges, an educated gentleman and a great^ lawyer. He did great honour to the position of county court judge. I succeeded him in that, office. My hon. friend will search the Tory press of Nova Scotia in vain to find any adverse comment into my appointment to the Bench in succession to Mr. Justice Dodd. The appointment was accepted by both Grits and Tories as being a fairly good appointment. I did not forget that, because I was pleased that my opponents in the press, although they were always after me when I was in politics, recognized the fact that it was not a bad appointment. When the time came that I laid down that office, I handed it to a distinguished gentleman, Judge Finlayson. I have heard no aspersions cast upon the office because I held it or because of anything I did while I was there. It is repeatedly referred to by hon. gentlemen opposite that I am an ex-judge, as if I should sit down and blush because the Government of this country thought proper to appoint me to that position. What happened so far as the hon. member for Annapolis is concerned? He appeared at a public meeting at French River, in the district of North Shore, and made a speech there. He invited all and sundry who had made claims to the Fenian raid bounty to go to him, that he would stir things-


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. gentleman is stating what is absolutely not a fact.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am stating what took place at the meeting.


Avard Longley Davidson: I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw absolutely what he has said. There is not a vestige-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We are not talking about what took place in this House.


The CHAIRMAN:: I have already ruled that it is only when it is a question of speeches made by a member that one is bound to take the word of that member. As to questions of fact, I never understood that anybody had to believe what another man said.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I can supply the
affidavits of fifty people who were present in the school house where my hon. friend was making his speech at French River in February.	.


Avard Longley Davidson: I really must insist
that the hon. gentleman obey the rules in this regard. I say emphatically that I never said that or anything like it, and I call upon the hon. gentleman to withdraw.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Withdraw what?


Avard Longley Davidson: The remark about calling upon applicants for the Fenian raid bounty to call upon me or to consult me about it. It is absolutely a creation; there is not the first vestige of foundation for it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. gentleman
said to those people: I have here with me an official agent-


Avard Longley Davidson: I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw that. He is stating what is absolutely-[DOT]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am obliged to make my statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: When I first made my ruling I understood the hon. member had been stating questions of fact. Now he is citing some words which he attributes to the other hon. member. His remarks have now come under the ruling that as to words supposed to be pronounced by one member that one member is the only person who knows. That is why we are asked to accept his denial.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think that rule has reference to statements made in the House.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No, the hon. member is not right.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I must insist upon
the rule being produced. I do not know the rule.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The only way that the hon. gentleman can dispute my ruling is to appeal.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have sufficient experience with rulings in this House with a good strong Tory majority not to waste time; I shall not appeal. The difference that is between myself and the hon. member for Annapolis is that he says I am not putting it in the exact language he used.


Avard Longley Davidson: I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw absolutely the statement in reference to remarks made by me.
[The Chairman.]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will the hon. member state to the House what he did say?


Avard Longley Davidson: If I proceeded to state everything I said on that occasion I would take up some time and would make what I regard as a very effective campaign speech; and I would say certain things in reference to the campaign work of my hon. friend which perhaps would not be complimentary to him. But so far as this matter is concerned, so far as referring to Fenians or anything of the kind is concerned-I made no remarks whatever at that meeting. The only reference I made to the matter at all was in reply to my hon. friend's personal friend the postmaster of that locality, who interrupted me to ask some question about the Fenian raid bounty, which I tried to answer to the best of my ability. But, as a matter of fact, to say that I. said anything of the kind mentioned is absolutely untrue and I imagine that what the hon. gentleman has stated relative to Mr. Fraser is just about as correct as what he has said concerning me.
. Mr. McKENZIE:	I have already made
the statement that Mr. Fraser represented himself as an officer of the Militia Department. I dare Mr. Fraser or the hon, member for Annapolis to deny it. He was put forth as the exhibit by the hon. member for Annapolis. This is the man that was given to me-


Avard Longley Davidson: That is not true.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -this is the man given to me by the department; he will come to you and pay the money.


Avard Longley Davidson: I am very much surprised that my hon. friend should be unfair enough to make statements of that kind.
I tell this House in the most absolute way that the hon. gentleman would find out himself if he investigated that there is not a particle of truth in what he says, that it is absolutely false from beginning to end. He has not the first vestige of authority; it is the purest creation, and I ask him to withdraw it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: My hon. friend cannot deny the circumstance that he went to North Shore with this man Fraser. What did he take him there for?


Avard Longley Davidson: As a matter of fact, I did not go to North Shore with that man Fraser. I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I will certainly not
withdraw one word. I say that the hon. member can take any position he likes, and I say that because it is true, absolutely and conclusively true. That is the position I take in respect to it, because there are fifty or one hundred people who heard him make the speech, and they can be brought before any committee of investigation.


Avard Longley Davidson: The hon. gentleman is lying, absolutely.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I certainly will not ask him to take it back. I would not-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I certainly will not
ask him to take it back, because it is absolutely satisfactory to the Chair.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The debate has gone
so far from the item under discussion that I feel like calling every hon. member to order and calling the item. I am sure that words have been uttered that should never be uttered in this House. Every member knows that to say that a statement of another hon. member is not true is not parliamentary, and that such words should not be uttered in this House. When a member is called to order by the Chair, I do not care personally, but I think he should accept the ruling of the Chair.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: All the wrong-doinrs
are of course on this side of the House, but a gentleman sitting to the right of the Chair can call another hon. member a liar and it is accepted as perfect'y fair. I do not ask that it should be taken back. I have some rights in this House, and the hon. member for Annapolis is not going to wipe me off the face of the earth. Far from it. I am not reflecting on the Chair, but I have a right to point out the fact that if a very slight transgression of a rule is made by me, I am called to order, and asked to bring myself into compliance with certain rules. The hon. member for Annapolis calls me, a member of this House, a liar because I state a fact, and he is not asked by the Chair to take it back. How can a chairman of that calibre expect to maintain order or respect in this House?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have already said that the word used by the hon. member for Annapolis is not permissible, and I have also asked him to withdraw it, as I
have also asked the hon. member for North Cape Breton to withdraw his statement. I cannot do more than that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I submit that there cannot be a possibility of order being maintained in this House when it is lopsided. I make that statement boldly and Squarely to the Chair and to every man in this House. There must be fairness and integrity in the application of the rules if they are to be observed in this House.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I do not think that I can do anything more for the satisfaction of the hon. gentleman. He can, of course, appeal from my judgment. I must state that I cannot manage any hon. gentleman in this House. If my rulings are not complied with, I can do nothing more.


Avard Longley Davidson: I beg leave to withdraw the remark which I made a moment ago.


Mr. FOWLER:: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has made a statement regarding alleged statements made by the hon. member for Annapolis, which the hon. member for Annapolis has absolutely denied. The hon. member for Annapolis in the course of an argument between himself and the member for North Cape Breton made use of an expression which was unparliamentary, and has withdrawn that expression. But the hon. member for North Cape Breton has not withdrawn the statement he made with regard to the hon. member for Annapolis, and which the hon. member for Annapolis has denied in the most positive manner. I think that before we proceed any farther with the business of this House the hon. member for Cape Breton should be called upon to withdraw the statement he made with regard to the hon. member for Annapolis.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The committee knows
that I have called on the hon. member to withdraw the words he used.


George William Fowler: If a man who has been called upon to withdraw refuses to do so, can nothing be done? Under certain circumstances the Sergeant-at-Arms of this House has a duty to perform, and I think it would be an opportune time now to allow him to earn his pay.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would not encourage the hon. member for Kings and Albert to join the Sergeant-at-Arms.


George William Fowler: If it were a duty devolving upon the member for Kings and Albert,

he would not need the help of the Sergeant-at-Arms. He is a much better man than the hon. member for North Cape Breton.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member is
reckoning without his host.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I rise to a point of
order. I have always understood that when an hon. member accused of using certain words has positively denied using those words, the rules specifically state that the hon. member making the accusation shall he compelled to accept the word of the hon. member accused. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, if, under the circumstances, the hon. member for North Cape Breton is not obliged to accept the word of the hon. member for Annapolis P


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have already stated that the rule is plain. The word of any hon. member of this House must be taken as to any statement he is alleged to have made. I have called upon the hon. member for North Cape Breton to accept the statement of the hon. member for Annapolis. I can do nothing now but await the decision of the committee.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I certainly would be
the last man in this House to defy the rulings of any authority in this House. The personnel in the present Chair is absolutely satisfactory to me. I do not look to the personnel. Respect is due to the office of Speaker of this House and to the office of Chairman; but for those offices to be honoured and respected, they must themselves maintain honour and respect. I hope that w'ill always be done in this House. There is a rule of this House which is pretty hard sometimes foT a man of conscientious and strong beliefs to observe. I have conscientious and strong beliefs and positive knowledge about certain things that took place. If certain rules of honour are to be observed on one side of this House they must be observed on the other. A conscientious knowledge cannot be removed by parliamentary conventionalities. If parliamentary conventionalities call upon me to bury my knowledge and the facts that are branded deeply upon my mind, I suppose it is necessary to comply with parliamentary conventionalities. Rather than that it should be said that I would bring any discredit or disrespect upon the honour of the Chair or of the House, I would be willing to comply with any parliamentary conventionality if it is necessary to maintain the rule.


William Cameron Edwards: I ask if parliamentary conventionality does not require the hon. gentleman to accept the statement made by the hon. member for Annapolis. In that case the hon. gentleman should signify compliance with the rule.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have,gone as far as I will go, and I think I have gone far enough.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand the hon. member intends to say that he complies with the ruling of the Chair when he is asked to take back what he said, and I suppose the hon. member for Annapolis will take it for granted that that was the meaning of the remarks of the hon. member for North Cape Breton.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now, Mr. Chairman-


George William Fowler: Just a moment.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I claim that I have the floor.


George William Fowler: Will you allow me?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have the floor.


William Cameron Edwards: No, you have not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want the Chairman to say whether I have or not.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have not decided
that the hon. member for Carleton has the floor.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am going to decide
that I have the floor until I am called to order.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman
(Mr. Fowler) is speaking to a point of order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Then I object, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman has decided that my hon. friend from North Cape Breton had complied with the requirements of the rule.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: I asked if it was satisfactory to the hon. member for Annapolis and I thought he was getting up to answer me.


Avard Longley Davidson: Mr. Chairman-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is your ruling,
Mr. Chairman, as to the remark of the hon. member for North Cape Breton?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I asked the hon. member for North Cape Breton if he would take back the expression that he had used, and I asked the hon. member for Annapolis

if he was satisfied with the statement of the hon. member for North Cape Breton. Then some other hon. member got up and made some observations.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think you are shifting a little, Mr. Chairman.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am. trying my best to close the question.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know you are, but I
understood you to say that the hon. member for North Cape Breton had complied with parliamentary conventionality. If the Chairman now says that he has not, and that he did not say that-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No, I did not say
that.


Avard Longley Davidson: Mr. Chairman, you
were good enough to ask if the explanation was satisfactory to me. I regret that I cannot regard it as satisfactory. I understood the hon. member for North Cape Breton to express some qualified and hypothetical compliance with the rules of the House. What the hon. gentleman should . do is to accept the statement, not in general terms but particularly. He should accept my statement and withdraw the remarks which he made denying the truthfulness of my former utterances.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member
(Mr. McKenzie) must understand that the rule says that if an hon. member is called to order, and if he is asked to take back .some statement that he has made, he is simply to take it back without comment. Everybody will understand that I had some good reason in asking the question if the statement made by the hon. member for North Caps Breton was acceptable to the hon. member for Annapolis. Certainly the hon. member did not comply with the rule that .says that an hon. member should be called to order for any language such as that which he used and which is objected to.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What does the Chairman mean? I said that whatever the conventionality of Parliament required, so as to respect the rulings of the Chair and maintain the dignity of this House, I was prepared to comply with and did comply with. If that is not understood, it is not my fault.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Twice I arose, the first time to call the hon. gentleman .to order for the use of an objectionable expression,
and afterwards for the statement attributing a falsehood to the hon. member for Annapolis. The hon. member for Annapolis, having denied that he had made the statement attributed to him, I asked the hon. member for North Cape Breton to accept the denial. If he says that what he has just stated means that he takes back the word ' dirty ' and that he accepts the statement of the hon. member for Annapolis, he has complied with the ruling of the Chair.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I certainly say in the parliamentary sense the hon. member for Annapolis is not '-dirty '.


John Douglas Hazen: It .seems to me that my
hon. friend from North Sydney has simply made the matter worse by the remarks that he has just made. No one could have heard that remark without feeling that it was the intention of the hon. member for North Cape Breton to insult the hon. member for Annapolis. The hon. member for North Cape Breton is an old parliamentarian and knows that time after time leaders in this House have got- up and said that they withdrew statements that were made and that he is bound to accept the statement made by the hon. member for Annapolis here to-night that the statement attributed to him was not true. I am sure that the hon. member for North Cape Breton will come to the conclusion that, in view of the fact that the hon. member for Annapolis has withdrawn the statement unequivocally -that he made in regard to him, he should withdraw his statement in regard to the hon. member for Annapolis. I think if that were done it would be far better from1 the standpoint of the dignity of this House and from the .standpoint of the hon, member's standing as a parliamentarian who has been a member of the House foT many years. I would ask my hon. friend to respect the rule of the Chair and in good faith to withdraw the statement which he has made.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The greatest trouble 1 find is that I have been misunderstood from the beginning and that a construction has been put upon my words which they will not bear. If the hon. member for Annapolis does not understand what I said, if he twists it into something worse than it was and if he then asks me to take back that which I never said it explains how this trouble arose. When I brought this question to the attention of the House about this man, Fraser, although at the 'beginning I had the same reason for mentioning

the name of the hon. member for Annapolis as I had at the last, I took pains to keep clear of mentioning his name at allTrecause I respected him as a member of this House and I did not want to bring his name into it. When the whole thing was about over he broke in himself evidently to defend the unclean work of this man, Fraser. I did not say that he was unclean; I said that the hon. member could not see a dirty thing without breaking into it.


John Douglas Hazen: That is unparliamentary.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It may be but it is not a personal reference to the hon. member. It may be that I should not have said that, that I should have used some language that would have sounded .a little better. But, when I brought the conduct of this man, Fraser, Who went into that county, lied and represented himself as something that he was not, to the attention of the House, and when an hon. member wanted to break into it and to defend this man I did not think it was conduct that was very commendable. Possibly some language could be used in putting it forward better than the language that I used, but the idea is the same. If the words I used are objectionable, I certainly would regret to have used them, bcause I want to be parliamentary in this House and to speak with dignity and respect-


John Douglas Hazen: Then why not withdraw that language ?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -and with as much respect to the hon. gentleman who leads the House as with respect to any other hon. member, because I realize that there is a great dignity in this House and that we can never keep it too high. I hope it shall never be said I ever did anything to lower the dignity of this House; and if the expression I have used has a tendency to lessen the dignity of the hon. member in any respect, I should certainly wish to have it regarded as having never been used.


John Douglas Hazen: Withdraw it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is not that good enough?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does the hon. minister think he is going to shove me into a humiliating position ? Is that what he is at ?


John Douglas Hazen: I am doing the very reverse. I have no desire to shove my hon. friend into a humiliating position. I think his position will be much less Lumiliat-

ing if, in compliance with the ruling of the Chair, he withdraws that expression, than if he adheres to his position and refuses to withdraw it. It is the very reverse of humilitating to bow to the ruling of the Chair and to withdraw expressions. It has been done by the leaders of this House and by the most prominent members, time and time again.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If my hon. friend will look at ' Hansard ' to-morrow morning, he will find that the expression was taken back at the very moment it was made.


John Douglas Hazen: Will the hon. member say that he took it back ?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I changed it and said-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Hon. members may
laugh. Exception was taken to the word ' dirty.' At once I said I will take that back, and will say that the hon. member broke into a thing that was not clean.


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is what I said at the time and it was forgotten and I thought there was nothing further about it.


John Douglas Hazen: What occurred was, the hon. gentleman made some assertions with respect to a speech which the hon. member from Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) was alleged to have made somewhere in the 12 m. county of Victoria. The hon.
. member from Annapolis denied having made those statements. It was then the duty of my hon. friend to say that he was bound to accept the .statements made by the hon. member for Annapolis from his place in this House. My hon. [DOT] friend would not do that. The hon. member for Annapolis, getting a little incensed, made use of a most improper expression and almost immediately afterwards withdrew it. My hon. friend is bound to accept the statement made by the hon. member for Annapolis in answer to the statement as to the remarks alleged to have been made by him at a meeting held at Victoria.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have already stated to the Chair that any conventionalities required to maintain the dignity of Parliament, 1 have complied with. That is as far as I shall go or can be expected to go.


Avard Longley Davidson: I understand my hon. friend to say that he accepts my statement.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What I have written I have written.


Avard Longley Davidson: I do not think I am unreasonable in insisting that the gentleman do that in language we can all understand.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Am I to understand
that the hon. gentleman accepts the statement of the hon. member for Annapolis when he says that he has not used such words?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am sorry that it is
so extremely difficult for me to make myself understood. I understand the rule of the House to require that, if a certain hon. member makes a statement to another and that other hon. member denies it, that denial must be accepted. It has been said a thousand times by hon. members on both sides during my years of occupancy of a seat in this House. I accept the statement in a parliamentary sense. That has never been questioned. Whatever is necessary , to be done in a parliamentary sense to satisfy the dignity of the hon. member for Annapolis has already been done by me in a parliamentary sense. Why should not the same language be accepted from me as has been over and over again accepted by the Speaker and by the Chair that compliance in a parliamentary sense with the conventionalities of debate in this House should be satisfied? I have endeavoured to satisfy them and that should be the end of it.


Avard Longley Davidson: That is absolutely satisfactory.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to refer' to the
dismissal of Lloyd Charles Dakin, former lighthouse keeper at Grand Harbour in the province of New Brunswick. On the 17th of July, 1912, Mr. Dakin received a letter from Mr. Hallett, acting deputy minister as follows:
Sir,_I have to inform you that by Order In
Council of the 17th March, 1912, your services as keeper of the light and hand fog-horn at Grand Harbour, N.B., have been dispensed with, owing to offensive political partisanship, and Mr. Fred. J. Martin has been directed to take temporary charge of the light, to whom you will give up possession of all Government property under your care when required.
I am, sir,
Your obedient servant,
J. Hallett.
That was followed up by a letter of the 23rd of July from Mr. Flood who was acting as the agent of the department. Shortly after that a telegram was sent to Mr. Hartt, the member for the constituency as follows:
T. Mr. Hartt, M.P.,
Member for Charlotte county.
We as citizens of Grand Harbour do, to our knowledge, know that Lloyd Dakin has never
taken any part, aside from casting his personal vote, in any provincial election.
.	(Sgd) D. H. Daggett.
Isaac Newton.
Owen Green.
Wesley Newton.
C. A. Newton.
And three other names were added by telephone, Edward Russell, Chester Russell and Arnold Russell. All of these purport to be strong Conservatives. The next thing was a letter of the 31st of July' from Mr. Flood expressing surprise that Mr. Dakin had refused to give up the position and a letter of the 7th of August acknowledging that Mr. Dakin had complied with the requirement of the department and given up the position. But Mr. Dakin did not seem satisfied to accept the decision of the department, feeling that he had not done any wrong. So, he wrote the following letter:
Grand Harbour, August 17, 1912. Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Dear Sir-Yours of the 7 th received informing me that my case would be investigated. Would you please let me know when the investigation will take place.
Mr. Hartt, the member for the county, is now at home.
The charge is false, and I can easily prove it, and the whole thing is the work of two or three persons.
Respectfully yours,
Lloyd C. Dakin.
On the 11th of September there is the acknowledgment of the Deputy Minister, stating that in the great rush of departmental work it is impossible to give it immediate consideration, but that later on consideration will be given. On the 24th of September he received an official letter signed by C . Stanton, assistant Deputy Minister, which is as follows:
Referring to your letter of the 17th ultimo, in reply to departmental letter of the 7th August, 1912, respecting your request for an investigation in the case of your dismissal from the position of the light and hand fog horn at Grand Harbour, New Brunswick, I have to state that in the departmental letter referred to you were merely informed that your request for an investigation would receive the consideration of the department.
The charge for which your services were dispensed with was the statement in writing of Mr. T. A. Hartt, M.P., that you attended one of his meetings and tried to annoy him; that you remained after the meeting closed and endeavoured to impress your views in his presence on the people before they left the hall.
I am, sir,
Yours obedient servant,
C. Stanton,
Assistant Deputy Minister. Mr. Lloyd C. Dakin,
Grand Harbour, New Brunswick.

On this Mr. Dakin answers as follows:
27th September.
Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Replying to your letter of September 24, in regard to the charge for which my services were dispensed with as keeper of Grand Harbour light, that I had tried to annoy Mr. T. A. Hartt, M.P., at his meetings and at the close tried to impress my views in his presence on the people before they left the hall-I would like to say that since receiving my dismissal I have talked, with Mr. Hartt personally, and he acknowledged to me that he had made a mistake-that I was not the man-and he had been wrongly impressed and also promised to do what he could to rectify it.
While in the service, I did not attend any political meetings, and more than that never took part in politics in my life, and upon my dismissal sent Mr. Hartt a statement to that effect, signed by prominent Conservatives, among whom was Mr. Issac Newton, whom Mr. Hazen, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, knows to be one of the oldest and most respected Conservatives of Grand Manan.
Trusting that you will make further investigation.
I remain,
Yours respectfully,
Lloyd C. Dakin.
Does the Minister of Marine and Fisheries recollect the man?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, I know Mr. Newton very well.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: On the 1st of October there is an official acknowledgment to that letter. On the 20th of October there is another letter written by Mr. Dakin to the department which simply refers to some conversation he had with Mr. Hartt. I have next a letter from Mr. Hartt himself. I am glad the hon. gentleman is here; I did not wish to make any reference to this matter until he was in his place:
St. Andrews, N.B., October 16, 1912. Lloyd C. Dakin,
Grand Harbour, Grand Manan.
Dear Sir,-I have written the department at Ottawa telling my mistake and clearing you of the charge.
I will have to let the appointment go as it is for the present. I tried to explain my position to you when I saw you here, and I hope you will understand me and that we may be friends. We cannot see into the future. I may be able to do something for you some time.
Yours truly,
T. A. Hartt.
I should say that was a very diplomatic letter. It holds out the olive branch, it expresses the belief that there will be other positions at their disposal-altogether I do not know that I find very much fault with it. The hon. gentleman was in a rather unpleasant position, and he tried to 
let the man down as easily as he could. However, that did not suit this official, and on the 19th of October he again addressed the deputy minister:
I have just received a letter from Mr. T. A. Hartt, M.P., saying he had written the department at Ottawa, telling his mistake, and clearing me of the charge, but he has not seemed to make an effort towards getting back my former position, which was taken from me on account of this false accusation. Now being cleared, would you please let me know definitely whether I -am to be reinstated or not.
Yours respectfully,
Lloyd C. Dal.'.i.
There is a letter of Mr. Hartt, but as it is practically along the same lines it is not necessary to read it, unless the hon. gentleman himself thinks it should be read.


Mr. HARTT:: I think there has been quite enough.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have only two or three more. There was an official acknowledgment of Mr. Dakins' letter:
I beg to acknowledge receipt of yours of the 19th inst. with further reference to your removal from the position of keeper of the Grand Harbour light. The department will, at the very earliest opportunity, give every possible consideration to the representations that you have made from time to time, and as soon as a definite decision has been reached you will be advised.
On the 16th of November, Mr. Dakin addressed himself again to the deputy minister as follows:
Would you please let me know the decision of the department in regard to whether I am to be reinstated or not at Grand Harbour light? I cannot understand why I am not reinstated, since I have been cleared of the charge, for Mr. T. A. Hart,, ivl.p., wrote me he had written the department clearing me. I would like, if possible, to have an answer before the last of next week, as I am very unsettled for winter.
Yours respectfully,
Lloyd C. Dakin.
In reply to this he received the following:
Dear Sir,-Replying to your letter of the 16th ultimo, I am to observe that I have but little to add to my letter to you of the 29th of October. It is represented to the department that there was sufficient warrant for your removal from office, and consequently the proposal to reinstate you is not being entertained.
Yours very truly,
A. Johnston,
Deputy Minister.
The man naturally feels very much aggrieved at the treatment he has received, and in order to put the matter in as fair a manner as possible, he has furnished me

with an affidavit. I will not read it all, because he practically recites the burden of the correspondence I have read. This affidavit was sworn to on the 26th of March-last week-and it is in part as follows:
That the charges made against me were false ; that I have never taken a part in politics in my life other than to cast my vote; that I was not present at any political meeting addressed by Mr. Hartt, M.P., or by any other person; that I have never attended a political meeting of any kind either in connection with Dominion or provincial politics since the date of my appointment as keeper of said light and hand foghorn and np to the time of my dismissal from said position, except once.
That is the whole case so far as I know. I do not know this gentleman personal^ at all. But I bring the facts before the committee. I have read nothing but official documents and letters which Mr. Dakin swears are true copies of those he sent to the department. It would seem from these that there is no doubt the man was dismissed from office under misapprehension on the part of the hon. member for the county (Mr. Hartt).
I have read the letter of the hon. member for Charlotte in which he says that he is mistaken, expresses regret for what 0as happened and holds out the olive branch of the possibility that he may at some time in the future be able to rectify the wrong that has been done. But what the discharged official cannot understand is why the minister, when it was found that this man was not guilty of the offence with which he was originally charged, said sometime afterwards: it is true that you are innocent of that charge, but there are other charges against you. I have a right to request the minister to tell the committee what were the other ctiarges upon which he felt that he was justified in dismissing this man-because the man was dismissed on some charge other than that made by the member for the county. I feel that- this case is an exemplification of the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite are carrying to the extreme the doctrine of ' to the victors belong the spoils.'


John Douglas Hazen: My recollection of the
matter is that this man was dismissed at the request and upon the responsibility of the member for the county. During the last two sessions it has been stated time and again in this House by the right hon. gentleman who was formerly Prime Minister that when a member supporting the
Government takes the responsibility of asking for the dismissal of an official it is quite right and proper that the department should dismiss him. The right hon. gentleman laid down a different rule to apply to cases where the man was dismissed upon the recommendation of some person who was not a member of this House. I do not remember the other facts in connection with the matter, and as it comes under the Marine Department and we are discussing to-night the fisheries branch, I have not before me the information which my hon. friend asks for. I shall be glad to show my hon. friend all the papers in Tegard to the matter.


Thomas Aaron Hartt: The facts in connection with this matter are quite fresh in my memory. When a person makes a mistake I suppose the best thing for him to do is to acknowledge it as soon as possible. I was interrupted at a meeting at Grand Harbour, and I was quite sure, from what was said by persons who were present, that the man who interrupted me was the lighthouse keeper. I had some correspondence with the young man, and he came up to see me-a very decent young fellow, too. He told me that he had never taken part in an election and that he had not interrupted me at the meeting. When I saw him I knew that he was Tight, and that he was not the man. Finding that l had made an error, I said that I would try to rectify it, and that I would look into the matter carefully. He assured me at the time that he was quite in sympathy with me politically; in fact, I was led to believe that he was a good Conservative, and. I was probably the more easily led to this belief because I found that he was a particular friend of my son-in-law, who came with him to see me and to say a word on his behalf. They had been friends for years; I thought it was quite possible that the young man might be entirely in sympathy with me, and that I had made a big mistake. But it is always well to look around before you acknowledge that you are entirely in the wrong. I looked into the matter and endeavoured to find out whether or not he had been an active political partisan, and it was some little time before I got on the right track. Finally, I found out on good authority that he bet money against me in the election-and of course he lost his money. When a man bets money against a candidate at an election, it is a

*pretty sure indication of political partisanship. Having recommended his dismissal, and having named another man for his position, I had gone so far that I found myself in a difficult position. 1 could not turn around and reinstate him on the spot, but, in any case, in view of the facts that I had ascertained, I said: Here is proof positive that this man took active part in an election; he could not do more than bet money against one oi the candidates. Accordingly, I recommended to the department that his dismissal be sustained, and that the man who had been appointed should continue to occupy his position. The matter has stood that way ever since, and I think it will stand that way. Of course, I did feel at the time somewhat sorry that the young man had been ill-used, but when I came to look into the matter, wben I found that his professions were not exactly up to the mark; that he had taken part in elections and was not as friendly towards me as he professed to be, I came to the conclusion that no harm had been done in disimissing him. With regard to the papers which have been read, no mention was made in them of the circumstance which I have mentioned with regard to the betting. I am somewhat surprised that the gentleman has brought the matter up at all, because when I wrote him and explained that I had obtained this evidence of his having taken part in the election, the correspondence stopped at once, and I heard nothing more about the matter until these papers were banded to me and I was asked to look them over.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The statement which
has been made by the hon. member for Charlotte goes to show the extent to which the present Government are determined to go in order to get a man's political scalp on every possible occasion. We have heard a confession the like of which is very seldom made in this House. I respect the hon. member for Charlotte for the frank confession which he has made, but it only proves that this man had to go, and, once he was out, no matter whether or not there was evidence against him, he had to stay out.
One thing that must strike every member is the manner in which my friends opposite break every law of the political decalogue when it is necessary to get a man's position, if they want it. The minister says that it is the well recognized rule that the departments take the word of a member

of this House but do not take the word of a man who is not a member. I have spoken to the Minister of Customs about one official in my constituency, but that is the only occasion that I have interfered in any way in reference to retaining or dismissing any official; but they have been fired right and left, fired on investigations in which evidence was not forthcoming, hut they have been fired just the same; and fired without investigation simply on the letter of the gentleman who opposed me in the campaign. Our friends may as well admit that when they want a man's position they take it, and not try to get behind a rule which is more honoured in the breach than in the observance.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has not yet answered the inquiry of the hon. member for North Cape Breton. If Fraser is an employee of the department and did what he is charged with doing, what position is the minister going to take in regard to it?


John Douglas Hazen: I shall look into the matter and see what action I think the circumstances of the case would justify.


John Howard Sinclair: That is very indefinite. The minister should investigate this clear and definite charge against this man of doing a disreputable thing. The practice has been when a charge of disreputable conduct has been made against any official, that the minister of the department concerned would at once frankly say that he would have the matter investigated and do what was right.


Bowman Brown Law: What are the regulations of the department in regard to building fishways and dams?


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman was not in the House when we discussed the Bill consolidating the Fisheries Act. I explained then that we are making certain changes, so that in cases where fishways are placed in old dams the department pay one-half the cost. If the department orders a fishway put in a dam and it is done at the expense of the owner, the plans being approved by the department, and it turns out that the fishway is not effective and another style is ordered, under the present law the owner has to pay the whole expense; we have changed that so that the department pays the cost of the new fishway ordered.


Bowman Brown Law: In case a fishway is washed out after the owner has paid one-half its

cost, does the department pay one-half the cost of replacing?


John Douglas Hazen: Where the fishway is being constructed at the same time as the dam is built, the extra cost is trifling, and that, of course, would apply in the case where a dam was completely washed away. It would, of course, depend on the circumstances of the case. I think a case occurred in the hon. gentleman's county last year where we paid one-half the cost.


Bowman Brown Law: The new Act will not change that?


John Douglas Hazen: The changes make it better in the interest of the owners of the property.
Canadian Fisheries Museum, $16,000.


Bowman Brown Law: I had the pleasure of visiting tfiis exhibit last week, and I think it is a credit to the department and to the gentlemen instrumental in having it established. It is a great improvement on the old exhibit.
Fisheries patrol service, $160,000.


Bowman Brown Law: I wish to refer to the steamer Niobe's visit to Yarmouth.


John Douglas Hazen: That has really nothing to do with this. It should be taken up when the Naval Estimates are before the House which will be in the course of a few days.


George William Kyte: Do these boats include those employed in connection with the lobster hatcheries.	*


John Douglas Hazen: The boats my hon. friend
refers to are, as a rule, small boats rented from private individuals. Perhaps I had better explain the difference between the. fisheries protection boats and the fisheries patrol boats. The fisheries protection boats are used for the purpose of protecting Canadian waters from people who have no business to come in there to fish such boats as the Canada and the Curlew, for instance. They are supposed to keep our waters within the three-mile limit for our own fishermen. Those boats are under the control of the Naval Service Department. The fisheries patrol boats are the boats that my hon. friend refers to and the small boats that enforce the regulations within the three-mile limit.


George William Kyte: I have in mind the small
steamer Davis employed around the county of Richmond collecting lobster seed from the different hatcheries to be deposited at the hatchery at Arichat.


John Douglas Hazen: She is one of the patrol boats. She was used for that purpose before the patrol season opened. The Curlew belongs to the Fisheries Protection Service.


John Howard Sinclair: There Is a large increase in this item.


John Douglas Hazen: The increase is accounted for in this way: Seven new patrol boats have been placed in commission in British Columbia, the cost of maintaining which is estimated to be $25,000. A more expensive boat is to be commissioned for the enforcement of the regulations among the islands and along the coast of Charlotte county, N.B. The cost of maintenance of that boat will probably be $1,000 more than the previous boat. Then in order to prevent illegal lobster fishing off the coast of New Brunswick it will be necessary to build some boats. That makes up the extra money.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the size of these boats?


John Douglas Hazen: They are small gasoline
boats.
Fishery patrol boats for the Atlantic coast, $40,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What'provision is made for protecting the coast from the encroachment of American fishermen?


John Douglas Hazen: That is done by the fisheries protection fleet which is under the control of the Naval Department. The boats in the fisheries protection fleet are such boats as the Canadian-that is the best one-and the Curlew, the Constance, and boats of that character. There are a number of them in British Columbia.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In the spring of the
year when the cod and haddock fishing is on, we look for protection all along the coast of New Brunswick, especially in the northern part of the province. In the season of mackerel fishing it is exceedingly difficult to keep American vessels outside the limit. A trip by one of our Government steamers once in two weeks is absolutely inadequate.' American poachers should realize that protection is close at hand and that they cannot poach with impunity.


John Douglas Hazen: We are not particularly
well supplied with suitable boats, but we are fairly well supplied. Last year when the American fleet started out we kept one of our boats along with them all the time to watch the American fishermen. If they came within the three-mile limit they



would either be driven out or arrested. Very few complaints reached the department last year in regard to poaching within the limits. The Canada is the best of our boats on the Atlantic coast, hut hardly one of them can be trusted in a heavy gale. There are times when those boats ought to go out to sea, but it is not safe for them to do so. The conditions on the British Columbia coast were far worse, but this year we have had two new boats built, with the money voted two years ago for use there. We will not be put to the expense of chartering boats as we were before and we will have a very much better service there. It may be necessary next session to ask Parliament for an appropriation for getting some better boats on the Atlantic.


Mr. SINOLAIB:: How are these boats
built?


John Douglas Hazen: By tender and contract.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to ask the minister if the tenders will be the same as the tenders that my hon. friend referred to in a former discussion. He assured the House on a former occasion that tenders were	asked	for	in the	caseof Fred. S.	Heans	of St. John	forsome work that was done for his department. I was	told by	the	minister	thattenders were asked for	and	that the	contract was let in the usual way. When I put the question on the Order Paper I found that tenders were not asked for from the public by advertising in the newspapers but that a number of letters were sent to some of the friends of my hon. friend inviting them to put in tenders and that in that way the selection was made. I put the five cases of Fred. S. Heans, St. John; Burns and Kellebar, Halifax; Union Foundry Works, St. John; Geo. T. Davie and Son, Levis and the Canadian Import Company on the Order Paper and in every case I got the same answer from the minister that there had been no tender in the newspapers but that the usual practice of the department was observed of asking these people to tender. We all know what that means-that the minister only asks his political friends to tender. I trust that in the case of this boat everybody will be given an opportunity and that tenders will be asked for in public. There does not seem to be any advertising in these cases.
I was very much surprised, upon taking these five cases, to get the same answer from the minister that there had been no [Mr. Hazen.J
advertisements published calling upon the public to put in tenders.


John Douglas Hazen: The cost would be a great deal higher if we were to do in every case as my hon. friend suggests. I told my hon. friend that everything is done on the boats themselves and so it is. The people who do this work are known in the community, notices are sent to them from the agencies, they put in their tenders and .in some cases a tender is not half as much as the highest tender put in, showing the nature of the competition that takes place. In the case of boats of this sort, where the work can be done at one place as well as another, at Quebec as well as at Halifax or St. John, advertisements are put in the public newspapers, but in cases where the work has to be done at a certain place, such as repairs to a ship, it is a waste* of time and of money to advertise in the newspapers for tenders. We always get competition. For these boats, tenders will be asked by advertisement in the public press all over the country. That was done at the time the last boats were purchased and the lowest tenderer was a firm at Dartmouth, F. E. Williams & Company, to whom the contract was awarded.
To provide for an exhibit of fresh and cured food fish at the Toronto annual exhibition, $15,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Did the minister carry out the idea that we talked of last year at the Toronto exhibition about having a restaurant?


John Douglas Hazen: We tried to do it but we could not get room in the exhibition buildings. The directors could not give us a place to have the kitchen and restaurant. But the exhibition, in spite of that, was a very great success. The directors awarded us a gold medal and the newspapers spoke in very high terms of the exhibit. This year we are asking for $15,000, an extra $5,000, and we are going to try and carry out the idea of having a restaurant even if we have to have it outside of the main building.


Bowman Brown Law: Where does the department
purchase the fish for the Toronto exhibition?


John Douglas Hazen: From all parts of Canada, British Columbia, the Atlantic and the lakes.
Salaries, building and maintenance of fishbreeding establishments, $400,000.

243t


John Howard Sinclair: May I suggest that this item be held and the rest may all pass?


Bowman Brown Law: Has application been made by the Crui'des Association in Yarmouth for the establishment of a fish haltchery at that place?


John Douglas Hazen: The superintendent of
fisheries tells me that he had some recollection of a request received a month or two ago asking that a fish hatchery be established at Yarmouth. The matter is in the department. We have bad a number of applications from all parts of Canada for these hatcheries, a great many more than our vote will enable us to establish. We have been proceeding in the last few years, however, and no doubt in the future further ones will be established.


Bowman Brown Law: I gather from the remarks of the minister that there is not very much chance of the Guides Association getting a hatchery.


John Douglas Hazen: You should never get discouraged about these things.


Bowman Brown Law: Has the minister considered
the establishment of a lobster pond at Lower West Pubnico? An official of the department has made three visits down there and I understand he has reported in favour of the proposition.


John Douglas Hazen: We have come to the conclusion not to establish any more ponds anywhere until more thorough experiments have been carried on with the ponds that we have at the present time.


Bowman Brown Law: There is a natural pond at
Lower West Pubnico and an official of the department has reported favourably upon it on three different occasions. That property can be bought for $1,000; yet, the hon. gentleman went 'to Long Beach, St. Mary's, Digby, and established a lobster pond that was a failure.


John Douglas Hazen: It has not proved a failure. We have just finished it.


Bowman Brown Law: That property could have been purchased for $1,000; and with an expenditure of one or two thousand dollars more, it could have been fitted up and been a great accommodation to the fishermen in that whole section of the county of Yarmouth. Instead of the minister wasting the money of the people of this country in paying $20,400 for property assessed for $350, he should have looked into the matter a little more closely and purchased the pond in Yarmouth county at Lower West Pubnico. The lobster fishermen on the coast of Yarmouth as well as on the northern part of the coast of Shelburne are entitled to a proper lobster pond especially when it can be purchased at so much lower a price than has been paid to this friend of the present Administration.


John Douglas Hazen: Perhaps there is not time enough to-night to discuss this matter fully. My hon. friend has referred, however, to a few of tire papers on the file I laid before the House. The hon. gentleman quotes from a report of Professor Prince with regard to this pond and its suitability for lobsters, in which he states, that because of certain fresh water catch he does not think it suitable for that purpose. If my hon. friend had looked a little longer, he would have found a second memorandum of Professor Prince saying that the water had been diverted from the pond and, that being the case, it was well suited for the 1 a.m. purpose of a lobster pond. My hon. friend, if he had wanted to be fair, would have stated that to the House. He did not do so. Either he had not read the whole file through or else he had no desire to state the facts fairly to this committee.
In regard to the price, my hon. friend will find in the return the statement from Mr. Brunei to the effect that we could not have duplicated that pond and the work that was there for the sum of $10,000, the amount we paid for it. It will also appear from the record of the proceedings, which, I think, are on the file, that while Mr. Brunei on one page spoke of $5,000, he did it at the time that we were dickering for the property and he thought, by making that statement, it would be possible for us to 'buy the property at a cheaper price. But he stated that that pond and the work there could not be duplicated for $10,000. That is the statement of a responsible officer of my department.


Bowman Brown Law: It cost $20 400.


John Douglas Hazen: Certainly. There has been work done on the pond afterwards. The pond is -worth every dollar of the money' that has been spent on it.1 The money has been economically spent under the direction of the engineers of the department in whom I have confidence and who have spent the money to good advantage. [DOT]
My hon. friend has made merry about the number of lobsters. The pond was not ready for the lobsters last year. A great many more lobsters will be put in the pond during this and coming years. The pond has been purchased for the purpose of experimenting with lobsters in order to see whether something cannot be done towards replenishing the lobster fisheries along the coast of Nova Scotia.
There is not a single transaction in connection with it that we are not prepared to justify or that we do not believe have been in the public interest. Nothing has been done by me except after careful investigation and report by the permanent officers of the department, who were there long before I became minister. Having confidence in their reports and in the integrity of these officers, I believe that everything has been done honestly and properly, and that the result will be to develop the lobster fishery along the shores of Nova Scotia to the great advantage of the people.


George William Kyte: I would ask the. minister if he thinks this statement of Mr. Brunei's conduct in this matter is calculated to elevate him in the estimation of the public as a conscientious officer. Will he admit that Mr. Brunei was right if he made his report merely with the idea of beating down the owner of this property? I do not know if the minister quite appreciates the statement he made; but it appears to me that if the officers of his department go out to estimate the value of property it should be to give an honest opinion of the value and to direct the minister as to the course he should take. But if these officers base their estimate of value of property to be purchased on the ground which the minister indicates, then I think these reports are very much less valuable than they ought to be. I trust that Mr. Brunei did not estimate the value of the property at $5,000 solely for the purpose of representing to the owner that it was less valuable to the department than it really was. If the statement given by the minister is to be accepted as given, then I think every criticism directed by the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Law), is very

amply borne out. Here was the property assessed at $350 before it was purchased. Here is the report of Mr. Brunei, that it was only worth $5,000. Here also is the report of Professor Prince that the property was not suitable for the purposes of a lobster pond. The minister states that subsequently streams of fresh water were diverted from the pond, making it suitable for the purposes for which it was purchased, and I doubt not that this diversion was accomplished by the expenditure of $10,400 after the Government had paid $10,000 for the property. Professor Prince also stated that it was too much exposed to the rays of the sun to be suitable for breeding lobsters. It has not been stated that they diverted the rays of the sun by means of this expenditure, but the amount would seem to indicate that that also had been attempted. Of course, the whole value of the property for a lobster pond would depend upon it being a sheltered place and protected from the rays of the sun, for there is nothing more fatal to young lobsters than high temperature of the water in which they dwell. If this pond were open to the direct rays of the sun it would make it unsuitable for this purpose. As I stated, I trust the minister will remove from the committee the impression he gave as to Mr. Brunei s conscientiousness when he made his report.


John Douglas Hazen: Is it desired that this item should stand ?


John Howard Sinclair: I think it would be better to let that stand.


George William Kyte: The next item is ' inspection of canned fish.' I think that ought to stand.


John Douglas Hazen: That matter has been under the administration of the Department of Agriculture, but the inspection of canned fish has never been actually carried out. It was considered this year that the Department of Marine and Fisheries had better deal with that subject, and so the administration of that portion of the Act was placed under the Fisheries Department. Details are now being considered.


George William Kyte: I think a good deal of discussion will develop on that.


John Douglas Hazen: Then, let the item for fish breeding establishments go through.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: As it is going through, I desire to ask, is the department doing anything about stocking fresh water lakes, say in Nova Scotia?


John Douglas Hazen: I suppose the hon. gentleman has in mind the sporting fish, such as
trout. There is a fish hatchery at Bedford where such fry can be obtained, and one at Middleton in the county of Annapolis. Of course, at the salmon hatcheries other fish can be hatched. As a rule people make application for the fry of these sporting fish, paying so much a thousand, and it is distributed in this way as far as it will go.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is a lake at the back of the town in which I live and


John Douglas Hazen: Is it private property?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: No, it is a lake about three miles long and a mile wide. The only ownership is that the town of Sydney Mines gets its water from the lake. There is a desire on the part of the people that this lake should be stocked, and I think it would be well worth the experiment to put fry in it. There is a fish that flourishes abundantly in the lakes of Newfoundland, called the rainbow trout, a beautiful fish and very game. I would request that the minister consider putting some fry into that lake.


John Douglas Hazen: There will be some fry
available from the Margaree hatchery and some of it might be put in the lake mentioned. I will ask the superintendent to make a note olit.


Alexander William Chisholm: Can the hon.
minister give the committee an idea of the number of trout put in that Margaree hatchery?


John Douglas Hazen: I cannot tell the number this year. Arrangements are being made to catch and impound trout, so that in future years we shall have a large supply of eggs for the hatcheries.


Alexander William Chisholm: Where does the minister expect to get this trout?


John Douglas Hazen: In the Margaree river.


William Chisholm: At what season?


John Douglas Hazen: They will have to be got and impounded in the early part of +he summer, and the spawn taken from them during the spawning season.


William Stewart Loggie: What has been the result of the work of the Shad Commission, which was appointed two or three years ago?


John Douglas Hazen: That commission was appointed before this Government took office, but I shall be glad to get a copy of the report and send it to my hon. friend.


William Stewart Loggie: What is the Government doing now along that line?


John Douglas Hazen: 
John Douglas Hazen: When fishery items were before the committee the hon. member foi Oarleton made some remarks about certain fishery overseers in his county, and he gave the name of one official who, he thought, was violating the law. The hon. gentleman stated that Mr. Parker and another guardian whose name he did not mention were noted poachers, and obtained their employment merely to enable them to carry on salmon fishing in the St. John river. I have a memorandAm here in regard to the matter, which is as follows:
The inspector of fisheries was immediately asked for a report, and he replied that not only had he given strict instructions to the guardians to prevent illegal fishing, but that their diaries did not indicate that such had been going on. Moreover, at his request, none of them had applied for salmon fishery licenses to enable them to fish during the legal season.
Me has procured declarations from each one who was employed last year, Mr. Parker inclusive, from which it will be observed that they each state that they did not fish illegally since they were appointed, nor did they knowingly let any one else do so illegally.
Mr. Harrison, the inspector, has reported that he cannot find any evidence whatever of illegal fishing having been carried on by any of these officials. Mr. Newcombe Parker made a declaration in the matte as follows: I,
I,	Newcombe Parker, a former special guardian of fisheries, appointed by the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for Canada, on duty for the protection of the fisheries in the county of Carleton, N.B., from the 15th day IMr. Boggie.]
of May, to the 15th day of September, 1913, do solemnly make oath and say that I did not fish with a net, nor by any other method, illegally, since my first appointment as fishery officer in 1912, and up to the present date, neither have I knowingly permitted illegal fishing, by any method, in any of the waters in the district for which I was appointed, covering the time of my appointments, and which times I was a fishery officer, viz: May 15, 1912, and May 15 to September 15, 1913. So help me God.
Here is a letter from Frank O. Parker to Mr. Harrison:
I wish to state outside of this enclosed declaration that I have never caught a salmon in the St. John river in my life. I have never owned a net nor fished with one in the St. John river or anywhere else.
There are similar statements from Russell Boyer, Robert Squires and John O. Arnold. These I believe are all the guardians employed there, and, as I say, Mr. Harrison -says we told him to make the strictest possible inquiry into the whole matter. I shall show the instructions to my hon. friend if he desires to see them. Harrison says he can find no evidence of anything of the sort and Parker makes his affidavit denying it. If my hon. friend can give me the names of his informants so that we can send Harrison to them we would regard it as a confidential communication. We would tell the inspector to see these people and find out if he could get any evidence to show that my hon. friend was correct and not misled by incorrect information in the charge he made before the House. We have done all we can to ferret the matter out. So far as I know Harrison is a competent official, he has been there for many years and he says he can get no evidence and that his belief is the law is pretty well enforced.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I need not say that I did not myself see Mr. Parker poaching; but I would not have made such a statement if I bad not had pretty good grounds for doing so. I have it on the evidence of men living at Bristol where he lives that it is a common thing, in season and out of season.
I do not know that I have information of men who have seen Parker himself fishing but they have seen his relatives, and it is well known that poaching is going on continually. I shall try to get the information for the minister. Probably what has been said here will make Mr. Parker and his relatives more careful.


John Douglas Hazen: If Parker has done this or has winked at it, he should not be allowed to continue in office.
Progress reported.

On motion of Mr. Hazen, the House adjourned at 1.30 a.m., Saturday.
Monday, April 6, 1914.