1914-03-18

REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
Report of Civil Service Commission for the year ended August 31, 1913.-Hon. Louis Coderre.

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

Mr. TURGEON:: 1.	Are there employed in the Library of Parliament during the present session as temporary clerks, the following persons: Mr. Hector Bernier, Mr. A. D. Irwin, Mr. R. LeMoine and Mr. DeGoute?
2.	Are these persons in addition to the eight permanent clerks employed, and also in addition to Mr. Norman Lewis, who has, by a return to an order of the House No. 162, been represented as the one temporary clerk at present employed as acting accountant?
3.	If not engaged or employed as temporary clerks, in what capacity are the above-named persons engaged or employed in the library?


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	Yes, the persons so named are so employed.
2.	The persons so employed are in three instances filling vacancies in the permanent staff.
3.	Mr. Norman Lewis is not represented as being the only temporary clerk. The mistake arises from a misreading of the return.


FALMOUTH TOWNSHIP DYKE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Was any expenditure made on Falmouth township dyke, Hants county, in 1913? If so, how much?
2.	Was it by contract or by day work?
3.	Was any survey made before the work was begun? If so, by whom?
4.	If by day work, who was the foreman and how much was paid him?
5.	Was any inspector appointed? If so, who was he, and how much was he paid?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	In the summer of 1912, $2,028.94 was
expended, nothing in 1913.	.
2.	By day labour.
3.	Yes, by Mr. Freeman.
4.	E. E. Armstrong, conductor, $158.10, and L. Sanford, river foreman, $147.
5.	Work done under the supervision of the district engineer.
DREDGE GEORGE ivlcKENZIE.


Mr. KYTE:: 1.	Is the D. G. dredge George McKenzie to be sold?
2.	If so, is it to be sold by public tender or at private sale?
3.	When and where was the hull rebuilt, and at what cost?
4.	When and where was machinery last repaired, and at what cost?
5.	Is it a condition of the sale that said dredge is not thereafter to be used for dredging?
6.	For what reason has the department decided upon the sale? .


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	By public tenders.
3.	Hull rebuilt, in 1902, at River John, N.B., at a cost of $4,999.19.
4.	Expenditures on hull and machinery: 1902-3, $b,176.15; 1903-4, $1,613.90; 1904-5, $831.24; 1905-6, $1,831.24; 1906-7, $2,106.82; 1907-8, $3,635.49; 1908-9, $2,277.47; 1909-10, $5,804.11; 1910-11, $5,991.44; 1911-12, $2,287.91;
1912-13, $3,209.25.
5.	Conditions will be made public when dredge is offered for sale.
6.	Owing to inefficient work, due to lack of power, and obsolete type of machinery.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-DEFICIT.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Was the deficit of $32,605.54, as found on page 27, of the 9th annual report of the Commissioners of the National Transcontinental railway, charged to cost of construction of said railway?
2.	If not, out of what vote or amount was said item paid?


Mr. REID:: 1.	No.
2.	Out of the moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purposes of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-PURCHASE OF LANDS.
Mr. SEVIGNY:: What amount was paid by the Government for the purchase of necessary lands for the construction of the Transcontinental railway, from Winnipeg to Moncton, up to 1914?


Mr. REID:: 


$3,136,260.72 NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-COST TO GOVERNMENT.
Albert Sévigny: What has been, to date, the cost to the Government of Canada, of the buildings, construction, rails and of all material which the contractor was not obliged to supply, in virtue of clause 4 of the contract between the Transcontinental Commission and the different contractors?


John Dowsley Reid: (1)	. Steel bridges, $5,758,380.54
(2)	. Steel rails, $11,011,360.80.
(3)	. Fastenings for rails, which include angle bars, track bolts, spikes, tie plates and nut locks, $1,730,899.92.
(4)	. Stations, storehouses, freight sheds and icehouses, $1,751,355.18.
(5)	. Fuel sheds, $227,223.53.
(6)	. Shops at Transcona, $4,005,760.94.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTORS.
Albert Sévigny: Have the amounts paid by the Transcontinental Railway Commission to the different contractors on the twenty-one sections of the road, from Winnipeg to Moncton, besides the prices mentioned in the contracts of each of these contractors, respectively, been paid in conformity to clause 35 of the contracts with such contractors? If not, by what authority have they been paid?


John Dowsley Reid: Payments have been made for extra work under clause 35, of the contracts and also under agreements made by the chief engineer, and the contractors, under clause 11, of the contract, and after the work had been certified by the chief engineer and approved by the commissioners, pursuant to the National Transcontinental Railway Act.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND BANKS.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	How many banks were doing business in Prince Edward Island at the time that province entered Confederation?
2.	What are the names of these banks, and what was the paid up capital of each?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: Prince Edward Island entered Confederation in July, 1873. There is no available record of the number of banks doing business in Prince Edward Island at that period other than that contained in the Journals of the House of Asssembly of that province published in the year 1874. This Tecord shows that in 1873 there were five banks doing business as follows: Farmers Bank, Rustico; Bank of Prince Edward Island; Merchants Bank; Summerside Bank; Union Bank of Prince Edward Island. The paid-up capital of these banks is reported as follows: Farmers Bank, Rustico, as of April 1, 1873, $8,870.30; Bank of Prince EdvvaTd Island, as of March 4, 1873,	$108,000;
Merchants Bank, as of September 4, 1873, $77,781.27; Summerside Bank, as of February 4, 1873, $48,666.66; Union Bank of Prince Edward Island, as of September 2, 1873, $97,333.33.	.


NEWSPAPER ADVERTISING.
Mr. BROUIELARD:: 1.	What amount has been paid to the newspaper La Gazette d'Arthabaska for advertising purposes, since the 1st January, 1912?
2.	What advertisements have been published in that newspaper?
3.	Has the Government made any contracts with La Gazette d'Arthabaska for advertising purposes? If so, for what amount?
4.	Has the Government caused any printing to be done by La Gazette d'Arthabaska, and for what amount?
5.	What job printing and printing of documents has been given by the Government to the J. F. Taschereau Co., of Arthabaska, and for what amount?
6.	How much has the Government paid to the J. F. Taschereau Co., for advertisements and printing since January 1, 1912?


Mr. CODERRE:: 1.	Post Office, $182.20; Public Works, $191.71, total, $373.91.
2.	Post Office: Advertising for tenders for conveyance of mails between St. Remi de Tingwick and Warwick, $7.40; Lotbiniere and St. Croix, $7.40; Inverness and St. Julie Station, $7.40; Barville and Veoneuil, $7.40; total, $29.60.
R. M. Route No. 1 Warwick, $7.60; Lot-binifere and Rivifere Bois Clair, $7.60; Leeds village and Robertsomvil'le, $9.20; Danville and Denison's Mills, $8.20; Danville and Brownleigh Place, $8.40; St. Agapit and St. Sylvester Station, $8.20; R. M. Route, Tingwick, No. 1, $8.60; total, $57.80.
Jette and Railway Station, $9; Black lake and St. Ferdinand, $7.60; St. Adrien and Wot-ton, $7; Black lake and Richardville, $6.40;



Batiscan and St. Pierre, $7.60; Nicolet and St. Gregoire, $8.20; total, $45.80.
St. Samuel de Horton and Railway Station, $7; Arthabaska and Railway Station, $7. R. M. Route, Tingwick, No. 2, $7; Plessisville and St. Ferdinand, $7; total, $28.
Weeden centre and railway station, $7; Royal Mail route, Victoriaville No. 1, $7; Royal, Mail route, St. Albert No. 1, $7. Total, $21. Grand total, $182.20.
Public works: Victoriaville, Que., 'La Gazette': Three Rivers public buildings, $10.95; Montreal examining warehouse, $11.25; St. Pierre les Bacquats, wharf, $12.45; Maisonneuve post office, $11.40; Quebec harbour improvements, $12; Cap a l'Aigle wharf, $11.85; Montreal examining warehouse, $2.20; Rimouski wharf, etc., $12; Grosse lie quarantine station laboratory, $11.10; Murray Bay wharf, $10.35; heating Dominion buildings, $8.70; Quebec Central Post Office, $11.70; Montreal power station 'H,'	$10.80; Quebec drill hall,
$11.55; Weedon Post Office, $10.65; Montreal power station 'F,' $10.50; Malbaie wharf, $10.50; Lauzon dry-dock, $1.40; Rimouski wharf, etc., $10.36. Total, $191.71.
3.	No, except those enumerated in No. 2.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	None.
6.	Answered by No. 5.


ALLEGED SMUGGLING.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	Was Mr. Thomas Turcotte, of Ste. Felicity, sued between 1830 and 1905 by the Government for smuggling?
2.	If so, was he sentenced and what amount has he paid?
3.	If not, how was the affair settled?


Mr. REID:: 1.	There is no record in the Customs Department of Mr. Thomas Turcotte, of Ste. Felicite, having been sued between 1890 and 1905 toy the Government for smuggling.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY INVESTIGATING COMMISSION.
*Mt. MURPHY:: Referring to the Order in Council of May 3,	1912, appointing Mr. R. J. Mancantelli
secretary of the Transcontinental Railway Investigation Commission, and Mr. R. J. Sayers as private secretary, both from February 1st, 1912, what were the respective occupations and salaries of Messrs. Mancantelli and Sayers when they were so appointed, and by whom were they employed immediately prior to such appointment?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Mr. Mancantelli was not employed by the Transcontinental Railway Investigating Commission; Mr. F. R. Sayers was secretary to the general superintendent, Canadian Pacific railway. No information as to salary. ,


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-WIRELESS SYSTEM.
*Mr. LEMIEUX:: Is it the intention of the Government to establish the wireless system in connection with the Intercolonial railway?


John Dowsley Reid: It has not been considered.


HALIFAX TERMINALS.
Mr. EMMERSON:: 1.	Is it true that an engineer named R. H. Smith has very recently been engaged or employed by the Intercolonial railway to work in connection with or take charge of the terminal works at Halifax, N.S. ?
2.	If so, was he until recently in the employ of the Canadian Pacific railway?
3.	What is his age, in what work was he previously engaged, and what was the date of his employment by the Intercolonial railway?


John Dowsley Reid: *
1.	Yes.
2.	Not since 1902.
3.	33. In private business. Date of employment, March 10.


LACHINE CANAL.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What is the kind of work, either by contract or day work, now being done on the Lachine canal?
2.	What part of the said work is being done by contract and what part by day work?
3.	Who are the contractors?
4.	What are the hours of labour worked on these works respectively, by labourers, carpenters, cement workers and structural iron workers ?
5.	Is there a fair wage clause attached to these contracts?
6.	When are these works to be completed?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Weir and foundation of power house, Cote St. Paul; concrete slope walls at La-chine; roof of St. Gabriel shed No. 1; and general repair work.
2.	All the above works, except the general repair work, are under contract.
3.	Weir and foundations of power house, Cote St. Paul, Quinlan, Robertson and Miller, contractors. Slope walls at Lachine, Quinlan and Robertson, contractors.. Roof, St. Gabriel shed No. 1, Westmount Plumbing Company, contractors.

4.	On building the roof of St. Gabriel .shed No. 1, and building the slope walls at Laehine, they work about ten hours a day. On weir and foundation of power house, Cote St. Paul, they work twenty-four hours per day, two shifts of eleven hours each.
5.	Yes.
6.	About April 20, 1914.


OFFICER COMMANDING SIXTH DIVISION.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: [DOT]
What are the Christian and surnames of the
O.	C. 6th division of militia?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	Robert William
Rutherford.


SOURIS RIFRE RANGE.
James Joseph Hughes: What is the Christian name of the Hon. Mr. McLean, mentioned in answer to question No. 55 in the Orders of the Day of the 16th inst., and what are the Christian and surnames of the [DOT] others ' referred to in the answer to the above-mentioned question ?
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The minister has no further information to give upon this-subject in this regard. Any reports other than those therein referred to are not official.


FENIAN RAID BOUNTY.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	Did the minister, or any official of the Department of Militia or any other department of the Government furnish, or cause to be furnished, to any person a list of the applicants for the Fenian Raid bounty for the county of Yarmouth, N.S., previous to the list laid on the table of the House by the Minister of Militia, on March 9, 1914?
2.	If so, to whom was the said list of names given?
3.	(a) What date was the fund exhausted, and (b) the last payment made, for said bounties?


William Thomas White: This question has been
answered so far as the Militia Department is concerned. The answer for the Finance Department is:
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	(a) No special fund was established for this purpose. Payments were made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
(b) 30th December, 1913.


QUEBEC BATTLEFIELDS COMMISSION.
Albert Sévigny: Has the attention of the Government been called to the following editorial published in-the Quebec Morning Chronicle's issue of the 12th March, 1914?
113*
Battlefields Commission.
' It is interesting to note the consideration that is given by Sir George Garneau, chairman of this commission, to the many friends and adherents of his party for services in the Battlefields Commission and the Auditor General's Report for 1912-1913, which has just been issued gives some interesting figures in this respect.
' Sir George, evidently with great discernment and appreciation of having proper legal services, has looked after Mr. Antoine Galipeault, the Liberal member for Bellechasse, whose name appears in the list for legal services amounting to $5,542.27.
* Mr. Lachance, the Liberal member for Quebec Centre, is also here for an item of $550, also for legal advice.
1 It would, of course, have been wrong to leave out the firm of Messrs. Taschereau, Roy, Cannon & Parent, but theirs is a comparatively small bill, and only amounts to $850.
' Senator Choquette, however, again with his partner Mr. Galipeault, also figures for legal advice to the extent of $781.
' Mr. L. D. Morin, another advocate here, has an item in of $500.
4 These several items for legal matters are extremely interesting and seem to indicate the reason why so much consideration is entertained in certain quarters for Sir George Garneau, the chairman of the commission, and why his many Liberal friends desire to keep him in such a position as to warrant the distribution of so many favours among the eminent legal fraternity of this city.
4 Besides the above legal expenditures, many other items are contained in the Auditor General's Report of payments made to business houses whose antipathy to the Government is well known and the attention received by them from Sir George Garneau must be very gratifying to the Liberal party as well as to themselves.'


Mr. BORDEN:: The issue of the newspaper has been sent to the Government, but it is understood that Sir George Garneau lias addressed a letter to the Journal in question, containing explanation or corrections in respect to the matter.
DISMISSALS.	...
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM:
1.	Was' Captain Jeremiah DGcoste employed on dredge No. 6 under Captain Dan. Gillis, during any part of the season of 1912? If so, in what capacity and during what time?
2.	Why were his services dispensed with?
3.	Were any complaints made against him? If so, by whom, and what was the nature of the complaints?
4.	Were such complaints investigated? If so, by whom was the investigation made? If not, why not?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Yes, as mate and assistant cranes-man from 19th April to 11th November, 1912.*
2.	Incompetency; was dismissed, on the recommendation of the captain, by the

mechanical engineer and the superintendent of dredges for the Maritime provinces.
3	and 4. No.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 
Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Discharged March 2, 1914.
2.	Yes; political partisanship; A. E. Fripp, M.P.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	An allowance of two weeks' pay, 12 days, at $2.40 ($28.80).
6	and 7. No.
8.	Replaced by Angus Grant, at $2.40 per day.



[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. A. LACHANCE (Quebec Centre):: On a question of privilege, I wish to read this editorial which appeared in the Quebec Morning Chronicle of the 11th of March, in relation to the Battlefields Commission": Battlefields Commission.
It is interesting to note the consideration that is given by Sir George Garneau, chairman of this commission, to the many friends and adherents of his party for services in the Battlefleds Commission and the Auditor General's Report for 1912-1913, which has ju.-.t been issued gives some Interesting figures in this respect.
Sir George, evidently with great discernment and appreciations of having proper legal ser-
[Mr. Rogers. 1
vices, has looked after Mr. Antoine Galipeault, the Liberal member for Bellechasse. whose name appears in the list for legal services amounting to $5,542.27.
Mr. Lachance, the Liberal member for Quebec Centre, is also here for an item of $550, also for legal advice.
It would, of course, have been wrong to leave out the firm of Messrs. Taschereau, Rov. Cannon and Parent, but theirs is a comparatively small bill, and only amounts to $850.
Senator Choquette, however, again with his partner Mr. Galipeault, also figures for legal advice to the extent of $781.60.
Mr. L. D. Morin, another advocate here, has an item in of $500.
These several items for legal matters are extremely interesting and seem to indicate the reason why so much consideration is entertained in certain quarters for Sir George Garneau, the chairman of the commission, and why his many Liberal friends desire to keep him in such a position as to warrant the distribution of so many favours among the eminent legal fraternity of this city.
Besides the above legal expenditures, many other items are contained in the Auditor General's Report of payments made to business houses whose antipathy to the Government is well known and the attention received by them from Sir George Garneau must be very gratifying to the Liberal party as well as to themselves.
There is another article referring to the same subject in the same newspaper in its issue of the 17th of March, and before making my personal explanation, I wish to put that also upon record.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman
should, as far as possible, confine his remarks to that portion of the newspaper article which refers to himself, because that is the only way in which he can raise a question of privilege.


Arthur Lachance: I shall give a plain
statement of all the circumstances under which these sums of money were paid, not to me, but to the firm to which I belong, and I cannot put the full premises of my statement before the House unless I read the article. It is as follows:
Sir George Garneau explains payments-Considers the Chronicle's selection to have been an unfortunate one.
Quebec, March 16, 1914. To the Editor of The Quebec Chronicle;
Sir:-The Chronicle's leading editorial of the 12th March, attacks the chairman of the National Battlefields Commission, this time for alleged political partisanship, and to make out its case it selects from the last report of the Auditor General certain items paid to members of the Bar for legal services. The selection is an unfortunate one, however, as with one single exception, the item of $781.60, wrongly attributed to Senator Choquette, all the amounts mentioned were paid by the commission in accordance with judgments in expropriation cases, rendered by the Exchequer Court, for costs allowed by the court to the lawyers representing the Crown and the several respon-

dents, and the National Battlefields Commission had no discretion in the matter.
Under the statute 9-10 Edward VII., ch. 41, when it becomes necessary for the commission to resort to expropriation proceedings to acquire lands, these proceedings are taken, not by the commission and in its own name, but by the Attorney General for Canada (the Minister of Justice), in the name of the King before the Exchequer Court. The items mentioned in The Chronicle's article are the outcome of proceedings in expropriation initiated in June, 1910, and on which judgments were rendered by Mr. Justice Audette in May, 1912. Mr. Galipeault was appointed to represent the Crown by the then Minister of Justice, Sir Allen A,ylesworth, and the parties against whom we were proceeding were represented by lawyers, who, for obvious reasons, were not selected by the commission. These were Messrs. Rivard and Marchand, of the legal firm of Casgrain. Lavery, Rivard, Chauveau and Marchand (who figure in the Auditor General's Report for $750, but -who were overlooked by The Chronicle) ; Mr. M. J. Ahern, of Lachance and Ahern; Mr. L. D. Morin, Mr. Ferd. Roy, of Tasohereau, Roy, Cannon, Parent ; and Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Galipeault's letter, which you publish in this morning's issue of your paper, deserves careful perusal; it gives interesting facts concerning the number of cases, sixteen in all, and as in some of these cases estates comprising a large number of heirs (The Tourangeau estate and the Fages estate) were concerned, the proceedings were both complicated and costiy. I may add that the amounts involved totalled about $150,000.
Might I point out en passant that The Chronicle's article states that the different items mentioned were for 'legal advice.' The words used in the Auditor General's Report are legal expenses,' and as the two expressions are by no means equivalent the substitution of one for the other might mislead the public, a thing which I am sure The Chronicle would not like to do.
I now come to the item of $781.60, wrongly attributed to Senator Choquette. This commission is fully responsible for it. It was paid for divers disbursements and fees to the commission's legal adviser, Mr. Antoine Galipeault, who was appointed by the commission in 1908,. and it covers a period of about two and a half years. I have no doubt that you will find items under the same name in further reports of the Auditor General, as the affairs of the commission often call for the services of its solicitor.
This is the part which I wished to read to the House. This letter is from the Chairman of the National Battlefields Commission, Sir George Garneau. It explains the whole ca-se.	I have to
say that I never received a cent for legal services rendered to the Battlefields Commission or for any other kind of services. The Battlefields Commission took many actions for expropriation. Among the respondents were five or six of our clients. We took their cases in hand, brought them before the Exchequer Court, and won them; and then the court, as is
usual in such cases, condemned the Battlefields Commission, or ' the King/ as the expression is, to pay the costs. So we did not render any (legal services to the commission, our services were rendered to our clients against the Battlefields Commission.


PRESENTATION TO SIR EDWARD CARSON.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. F. B. CARVELL:: I wish to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister a statement contained in the Montreal Daily Star of the 16th inst., over the signature of Windermere. I shall read only that portion of the article referring to the question which I wish to put to the minister later on. It is as follows:
Sword presented to Carson.
The Hon. Frank Cochrane was among a hundred hosts who paid a remarkable personal tribute to Sir Edward Carson as the Ulster leader at a demonstration dinner at the Ritz hotel last night. Other hosts were the Dukes of Rutland, Somerset, and Marlborough, Lords Milner and Selborne, and a .large company of Unionist peers and M.P.'s. also Max Aitken, Grant Morden, Donald Armour and Donald Mac-master.
There were no speeches and but three toasts, namely, 'The King,' 'Sir Edward Carson,' and 'No Home Rule.'
Surprise of the evening was the presentation to Sir Edward Carson of an infantry fighting sword with a silver scabbard and a basket hilt, and a beautifully illuminated book emblazoned with the arms of Ulster and a red hand. On the title page were the words:- 'Presented to Sir Edward by friends in Ulster in the sure confidence that God will defend the right.'
I wish only to inquire if the Prime Minister feels that it is proper for a minister of the Crown of Canada to take part in a political demonstration over as delicate a political situation as that existing in the motherland at the present time?


Robert Laird Borden: The paragraph which the hon. gentleman has read is the first intimation I have had of any such occurrence. So far as the rest of his question is concerned, I do not feel called upon to pronounce any opinion upon the subject in answer to his question.


IMPERIAL NAVAL AFFAIRS.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Charles Murphy: I beg to ask my right hon. friend the Prime Minister if there is any truth in the despatch which appeared in yesterday's Montreal Star to the effect that an arrangement had been arrived at between the Admiralty and the Government

of my right hon. friend with reference to the cost of three dreadnoughts. If so, will my right hon. friend give the information to the House at an early date?


Robert Laird Borden: There has been no communication on that subject recently.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY COAL SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
['The Victoria museum is open to the public every week day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on Sundays from\n2\tto 5 p.m. The men who attend on visitors belong, to the Dominion police staff. My department has no control over those men. I am at a loss to say to what department my hon. friend should apply, but it is certainly not to the Department of Mines. I am informed those men are under orders from the Department of Public Works.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.42 p.m.\nThursday, March 19, 1914.']
Mr. MACDONALD:: My hon. friend the acting Minister of Railways brought down a return yesterday in regard to the purchase of coal by the Intercolonial railway in the United States. That return shows that the cost of this coal, which was run-of-mine coal delivered at Massena Springs, was $3.89, as compared with $3.15 which is paid for the same kind of coa'l in Nova Scotia. The information in that return does not show the cost of transportation of that coal from Massena Springs to Levis or Riviere du Loup, these being the two points at which the coal is consumed. Would the minister be good enough to tell us tomorrow what the department found to be the cost of the transportation of the coal per ton from Massena Springs to Levis and Riviere du Loup?


John Dowsley Reid: I shall be glad to get the information.



[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) the House went into Committee on Bill No. 21, to amend the law relating to merchant shipping with a view to enabling certain conventions to be carried into effect. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Air. HAZEN:: The Committee will remember that I introduced this Bill on the 13th of February and gave a lengthy explanation in regard to it and the matter dealt with. In the discussion which took place, the hon. member for Guysboro (Air. Sinclair), while approving of the Bill, called my attention to a point which he thought should be remedied. In consequence of this, progress was reported, although the Bill was practically agreed to, so that I might look into the point raised by the hon. gentleman. I did so, consulting with the parliamentary counsel in regard to the matter, and concluded that the point taken by the hon. member was well taken, and. that this Bill could not, for certain provisions of it, apply to the Great 
Lakes. I will propose amendments, therefore, to sections 5 and 10, which, I believe, will cover the point to which I have referred. I explained on the first reading that the Bill was the outcome of a conference in Brussels in 1910 dealing with questions of salvage	and collisions.
This convention was	signed on behalf of His Majesty, and the Maritime Conventions Act of 1911 was enacted by the Parliament of the United Kingdom to give effect to the convention. I read to the House an Order in Council passed on the report of the then Minister of Justice, Sir Allen Aylesworth, undertaking that legislation should be passed by this Parliament to give effect to that convention.
On section 2-collisions; liability for loss.


Mr. GRAHAM:: That seems to me to
make a very important change in the law.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. Under the law at
present it is impossible to apportion in the way herein proposed the amount of damage where both vessels are at fault. But under this law the court will have the right to say that so much shall be borne by one vessel and so much by the other according to the degree of fault that may be found in them. This is adopted in Great Britain and the United States, and is being adopted by the other parties to the convention.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does thiis apply to vessels of the same nation only or to vessels of different nations?


John Douglas Hazen: To all vessels.


George Perry Graham: I understand that it
does not alter at all any liabilities that either vessel might have to the owner of merchandise 'that had been shipped on that vessel.


John Douglas Hazen: It does not alter it at all Section agreed to.
On section 3 -loss of life and personal injuries.


Mr. LAW:: This means that in cases of
accident the owners of a coasting vessel will be liable for damages to members of the crew?


John Douglas Hazen: 
[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-presumption of negligence:
John Douglas Hazen: I move that subsection 1
of this section be amended by adding thereto the following words:
Except in so far as it applies to the waters described in section 10 of this Act.
Section 10 says:
This Act shall not apply to lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron (including Georgian bay), or Superior or to the river St. Lawrence above the harbour of Montreal or to vessels or rafts while navigating such waters.
We thus make the matter perfectly clear by stating just what waters are referred to.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-jurisdiction:
Mr. McKENZIE:: This is a new departure.


John Douglas Hazen: This provides for the bringing of proceedings either in rent against the vessel, or against the owners.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The principle of taking action in rem for damages for loss of life strikes me as being entirely new.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so.
We are giving effect to what was agreed upon at the convention at Brussels by the different ship-owning nations of the world, and to what, as I have said, by Order in Council passed on the report of Sir Allen Aylesworth, this country agreed to give effect to by legislative action. The effect of this legislation is that a person who has sustained injury can bring action in one of two ways: he can bring it against the vessel, or he can bring it against the owners of the vessel, whichever he considers to be most in his interest. Most of these vessels are owned by joint stock companies with limited liabilities, .and the individual who is injured would naturally think: if I sue the company, with tneir limited liability, am I more likely to recover than if I arrest the vessel and take my action in rem aganst it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have no objection to the remedy at all, but I would point but that this is a new departure in this country.


John Douglas Hazen: Action in rem is not a
new departure at all so far as vessels are concerned. My hon. friend knows that in
the Admiralty court many actions in rem are taken against vessels. The vessel is arrested and bail given before it is allowed to clear.	.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Of course, that is elementary, but action in rem is confined, I think, to a very few classes of cases-for repairs, for goods supplied, for salvage, towage, and things of that sort. This legislation is creating for the first time, so far as I know, the right of sailors to bring action of this kind. I am not finding fault with it, but it is desirable to treat new legislation of that character with a great deal of care.


Mr. H. H. McLEAN:: I understand that
the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court iu England extends to actions in rem for personal injuries received by sailors, and I understand also that such an action could not be maintained against vessels under our Exchequer Court Act.
4	p.m. Our Exchequer Court has not the jurisdiction which the Admiralty Court in England has. I quite approve of action in rem. I am doubtful as to whether this section is full and complete enough to give this jurisdiction to our Exchequer Court. I would like the minister to look into that before the Bill ' goes through.


John Douglas Hazen: This Bill was prepared by the Department of Justice for the purpose of giving effect to the convention to which I have referred. In the opinion of the Department of Justice it does give effect to it, though I have never before heard discussed the point raised by the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens. But if we pass this legislation now, surely under that law the Exchequer Court would have jurisdiction to consider cases coming before it.


Hugh Havelock McLean: It would, if the machinery is 'complete enough. Another matter I would like to mention is that of damages done by Government vessels. If a Government vessel runs into another vessel owned by private persons, an action in rem cannot be sustained against the Government vessel itself?


John Douglas Hazen: Of course, Government vessels are in rather a different plane from vessels belonging to private owners. Vessels belonging to private ship-owners are in one part of the world one week and in another part of the world the next. Unless you were able to arrest the vessel in the port where the accident occurred, the

claimant might lose his remedy for the owners of the vessel might not be responsible people, and if a person aggrieved could not bring an action in trem, he might have to follow that vessel over half the world before he could take action and recover the damages to which he was entitled. In the case of a Government-owned vessel, the situation is different: the Government is always in existence, the King is never dead, and if an injury is done by a Government vessel there is no need of arresting it, because, if the party whose vessel has been injured has a proper claim, he can bring action against the Government by petition of right as in all other cases. I assume that is the case, although I am not aware whether there is any special provision in the law relating to this matter.


Hugh Havelock McLean: I was under the same impression until, on looking into the question, I found that there is a decision of our Exchequer Court, confirmed by the Dominion Supreme Court, to the effect that a petition of right cannot be filed in a case of that kind. I know of a case exactly in point where the collision was caused by the negligence of a Government vessel. It was held by the. court that a petition of right could not be sustained.


John Douglas Hazen: Then what remedy have
you? Is there any remedy?


Hugh Havelock McLean: That is what I want to ask the minister-if he will provide a remedy in such a case.


John Douglas Hazen: In case of a collision between a Government-owned and a private-owned vessel, if the Government vessel is in default, is there no remedy which the private-owned vessel can have other than by the grace of the Crown? Is there no process by which the private-owned vessel can bring an action in any court against the Government because of that damage?


Hugh Havelock McLean: The only remedy now is to bring a personal action against the captain with the hope that the Government will pay any verdict that might be recovered against him. That 5s one of the difficulties in our law at present, that in Canada a petition of right would not lie in such a case. I understand that vessels chartered and under Government control stand in the .same position as Government-owned vessels. The point I want to make is that, in such a case as I have mentioned, there should be some remedy or means by which such claims could be investigated 
and decided, eitner by the Admiralty Court or the Exchequer Court, or by some official acting as an arbitrator.


John Douglas Hazen: The question raised by my hon. friend is one that certainly is well worthy of consideration. I was always under the impression that in a case of that sort the owner of the vessel aggrieved could file a petition of right and have the matter tried out in the Exchequer Court, as in the case of any other claim against the Government. My hon. friend, who has had wide experience and is in a position to speak with authority, says that is not the case. I will give the matter consideration and discuss it with some of the law officers of the Crown in Ottawa, and ascertain the exact position, because it seems to me that there ought to be some Temedy for the private vessel owners. I do not think that any government would want any private owner to suffer through the wrong or default of its property or its officers. It is not however, a matter, that properly comes within the purview of this Bill. This is merely to give effect to the convention, and perhaps it would be impossible to take the matter up seriously with a view to having action at this session, but I will certainly give consideration to it to see what remedy ought to be applied.


William F. Carroll: I think that under the present state of the law a vessel under contract or charter to the Government is in the same position as a private-owned vessel. I certainly would not like to see Parliament place Government-owned vessels in the same position as private-owned vessels, so that persons could bring actions in rem against them.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not see why an action in rem should be brought against a Government vessel, because you are sure of your damages if you recover. But it seems to me that there ought to be some court or procedure, by which you could have the matter tried out and a judical decision given.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: According to the law as stated by the hon. member for Sunbury and Queens (Mr. H. H. McLean), it would appear that the Petition of Right Act was held by the court not to cover this point. Then the minister could very simply meet this difficulty by amending the petition of right chapter of the law so as to cover this particular point so that a petition of right, could be brought and a Temedy could be obtained in court in a ease of this kind as

well as in other cases. It would appear that under the law as it exists now this class of cases cannot be dealt with by petition of right. It says:
The amount shall he apportioned by the court or person making the apportionment in accordance with the law of the country to which the vessel belongs.
That is the crew may -be of different nationalities, but it is the law of the country in which the vessel is owned that prevails in the dividing of the salvage between the parties?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, as to the apportionment. If a German vessel were awarded damages, say, at Quebec, these damages would be apportioned among the officers and crew of the vessel according to the law of Germany where the vessel belongs. If a Canadian vessel were awarded damages by the Admiralty Court in France, the Admiralty Court judge would award the damages according to the 'law of Canada. I think that is perfectly proper and I think anything else would not be proper because it is only right that they should get these damages according to the laws of the country where they belong.


Hugh Havelock McLean: That is a change in the law?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, and I think a very
good change.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-time limited for bringing action for damages to two years and for contribution to one year:
John Douglas Hazen: An action for damages or salvage must be commenced within two years and an action for the recovery of contribution must be commenced within one year. It will be observed that there is power given to the court to extend this period under such conditions as it thinks fit and it shall,
-if satisfied that there had not during any such period been any reasonable opportunity , of arresting the defendant vessel within the jurisdiction of the court, or within the territorial waters of the country to which the plaintiff ship belongs or in which the plaintiff resides or has his principal place of business, extend any such period to an extent sufficient to give such reasonable opportunity.
It seems to be well that that power shomd be given to the judge in order that no injustice may be done.


William F. Carroll: It seems very reasonable, but I notice that it provides that an action for damages against a vessel must be taken
within two years while an action for recovery of contribution must be taken within one year. Is there any reason why there should be this difference?


John Douglas Hazen: I must confess that I do not see any very good reason for the difference, but still that is what was agreed to by the parties to the convention and I do not like to change it. But this proviso gives ample power to the judge to extend the time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is meant by
' rules of the court '? I do not know of any rules of the court that would cover a case of this kind. This is a new jurisdiction altogether.


John Douglas Hazen: Is it not a fact, that the Exchequer Court which now deals with all these Admiralty cases, has power to make rules from time to time as cases arise, and, if it is necessary to make rules to govern these cases, will it not have power to do so just as it would in other cases? I think the Exchequer Court has power now to make rules under the Exchequer Court Act. I am not sure whether they have to be approved by the Governor in Council but I think they have.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-Act not to apply to Great Lakes, etc.:
John Douglas Hazen: I do not think this is perfectly clear as if reads at present:
This Act shall not apply to lake Ontario, Erie, Huron (including Georgian bay), or Superior or to the river St. Lawrence above the harbour of Montreal or to vessels or rafts while navigating such waters.
This convention, I may say, deals with questions of the sea and not with questions of the lakes, and it may be very desirable that in the future the same rules should apply to the lakes. But there is no use applying these rules to the lakes until similar rules are adopted by the Government of the United States. The vessels that traverse the lakes are the vessels of the United States and of Canada. Collisions may occur between those vessels and the rules of this country and their rules should be the same. The matter of applying the rules to the lakes, if the United States adopt this agreement, will have to be taken up at some future time and farther legislation will have to be asked from this House making the rules applicable to the United States, but until the United States shall agree to do the same thing it would be a purposeless, useless and unwise thing to do. I would

move to strike out subsection 1 and suo-stitute the following:
This Act shall not apply to lakes Ontario Erie, St. Clair, Huron, (including Georgian bay), Superior, or to the river St. Lawrence above the harbour of Montreal, or to the St. Mary, St. Clair or Detroit rivers, or to the Sault Ste. Marie, Welland or St. Lawrence canals, or to vessels or rafts while navigating such waters.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
On the preamble:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would be desirable
if these regulations were made a schedule to the Act-


John Douglas Hazen: This is giving legislative
enactment to tne convention. [DOT]


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They must have passed a body of rules, and it would be desirable to have them mentioned in a schedule to the Act.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think they did.
I think they made a report recommending that these, things be done, and then the different countries agreed to give legislative enactment to them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They must be put in some shape somewhere.


John Douglas Hazen: They were put in shape
by the law officers in Great Britain, and to that extent we were able to avail of their work. The convention has been put in force in the United States, and in mo-at of the other countries. The convention laid down the principles which they thought ought to govern, and it was agreed by the members of the convention that they would adhere to them, if their countries passed legislation with respect to them.
Copies of the conference dealing with collisions and salvage were transmitted to the Canadian Government for consideration in Colonial Office Despatch, dated 28th September, 1906. Following the practice of the Imperial Board of Trade in dealing with such matters in the United Kingdom, the Department of Marine and Fisheries invited the views of the Shipping Federation of Canada -and the Boards of Trade of Montreal, Quebec, Halifax, St. John, Charlottetown, Victoria and Vancouver, on the proposed conventions. Mr. F. E. Meredith,
K.C., solicitor of the Shipping Federation of Canada submitted a very valuable opinion dealing fully with the questions from a legal standpoint. The Boards of Trade of Montreal and Victoria also submitted their

views in regard to the conventions. Papers were subsequently referred to the Department of Justice for consideration, and the Hon. Mr. Aylesworth, Minister of Justice, wrote to the Hon. Mr. Brodeur, Minister of Marine and Fisheries, under date of the 23rd January, 1907, as follows:
I would suggest that in your report to Council you should set out the steps taken by you to ascertain the views of the commercial and shipping interests pf Canada, and attach copies of the replies of the Montreal Board of Trade and tlie Shipping Federation of Canada, including Mr. Meredith's report, as well as a copy of the report of the Victoria Board of Trade. I would also suggest that the Imperial authorities be informed that while Canada is willing to concur in any action for the putting into force these two conventions that Great Britain may think proper to adopt, Canada would urge in view of her very extensive inland navigation in which Canadian vessels are in constant intercourse with vessels belonging to the United States, that if the conventions are put in force their provisions should extend to the inland waters of Canada, and to vessels for inland navigation of any of the waters of Canada or the inland waters of Canada or the United States contiguous to Canada,
An Order in C-ouncil passed on the 6th May, 1907, embodying Mr. Aylesworth's suggestions, except that no -copies of replies received by the department were forwarded. It- w-as also suggested that His Majesty's Government should ascertain the views of the United States Government on the question of extending the convention to cover inland waters. But it was expressly -stated that the Canadian Government did not desire to delay -action on account of this inquiry.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is of far-reaching importance to Canadian shipping. Under the British North America Act it would appear that we have almost unlimited power to legislate in connection with every conceivable subject that comes within the purview of this Parliament, but there always has been a defect in our power to deal with the law of shipping. It seems to always have been the rule that, in a general way, shipping legislation cannot become the law of this country until it receives the approval of the Crown through the Government of Great Britain. I have never been very clear as to why this is so. I understand that there was some provision in the old Shipping Act of 1854, which limited the jurisdiction of colonial parliaments, and it is held, I believe, that this restriction which was created in that Act, was never removed, notwithstanding the British North America

Act. It is desirable that in Canada we should have no trammels whatever with respect to any of our legislation. I call the attention of the minister to the desirability of having this disability, as far as our Parliament is concerned, removed, if it can be done without any wrench to our constitutional relations with the mother country.


John Douglas Hazen: I will consider the matter.
I do not quite know what is involved, but I will make careful inquiry into it and be able to give some information to my hon. friend at a subsequent period.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to, and Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), Bill No. 104, respecting the Harbour of North Sydney in Nova Scotia, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
John Douglas Hazen: As I explained before, this Bill is to abolish the Harbour Commission at North Sydney and is introduced at the request of the board of trade, and of a large number of individuals and, also in compliance with very largely signed petitions. The mayor of the town of North Sydney came here asking that this should be done. I explained the reasons to the House before. North Sydney harbour is situated very close to Sydney harbour. It is felt that North Sydney harbour is somewhat discriminated against by having this Harbour Commission, because a much larger sum is collected in that harbour in tolls and fees from the ships than is collected in Sydney harbour. It is felt that thi^ discriminates against the welfare of North Sydney.
I stated to the House that North Sydney, the total collections in 1912, from the tax under which there is levied on all registered vessels of foTty tons or over a due of one cent a ton, amounted to $3,792.60. Out of this amount are paid salaries to the commissioners. the harbour-master, etc. My hon. friend from North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) asked me if, when the Bill went into committee, I would have, the information showing the fees collected in Sydney. In 1911, the fees collected in Sydney on ships were $312; in 1912, $343; in 1913, $350. Out of these amounts ,the harbour-master receives the sum of $300 annually as salary. The rates charged at Sydney-and the same rates will be charged at North Sydney after
these Acts are repealed and North Sydney passes under the provisions of the Harbour
Masters' Act-are as follows:
For every ship of fifty tons register or
under	$0	50
For every ship of fifty tons register and
not over 100 tons register	 1 00
For every ship of 100 tons register and
not over 200 tons register	 1 50
For every ship of 200 tons register and
not over 300 tons register	 2 00
For every ship of 300 tons register and
not over 400 tons register	 2 50
For every ship of 400 tons register and
not over 500	tons register	 3	00
For every ship of 500 tons register and
not over 700 tons register	
4	00For every ship	of 700 tons	register....	5	00
This will be the ordinary rate charged in harbours where there is no commission or as to which there is no special legislation. The collections can be made only twice bn the same ship in any one year. Of course, a ship might be making regular trips to and from a port, but the collections can be made only on two trips each year. Out of these rates a salary will be paid to the harbour-master, who will collect the tolls and take charge of the harbour, performing the usual duties that harbour-masters perform.
On the first reading of this Bill I informed the House that I proposed to add this section:
This Act will come into force on the 1st day of January, 1915.
It is thought wise to do this in order that there may not be any difficulty about adjusting matters that are outstanding when the powers of the commission will expire.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are the dues which
my hon. friend has enumerated the same as those now collected in Sydney harbour?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In North Sydney we
have a magnificent piece of valuable Government property called the ballast ground. There is also the right-of-way bought by the commission extending to that ground, and some other property which will have to be looked after by somebody. I suppose that the department will make some regulation by which that property will be looked after and kept in proper condition. The commission, while they were not able to do very much, were always able with what money they were collecting to keep this property in good shape. A breakwater at the end of the harbour was also kept in good condition by the commission. When the commission goes out of existence

nobody will have control over this property.


John Douglas Hazen: It is provided by this
Bill that all the assets of the commission shall pass into the hands of the Government, which will become responsible for the liabilities of the commission. The liabilities at the present time are small, I think about $800. The breakwater will become a public work and will be managed by the Deparment of Public Works, which will attend to its repairs and give it the attention that may be necessary, and any public works required in the harbour will be attended to from time to time by the Department of Public Works, which will ask Parliament for appropriations for the purpose, just as in the case of many other harbours in Nova Scotia and other parts of Canada. So far as the ballast ground is concerned, I suppose that ships discharge ballast there and take ballast from there?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is the way in
which the property was created, and it is still called the ballast ground.


John Douglas Hazen: What is it used for now?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is not used for anything, but ships lie around it and use the breakwater as a wharf. It is a large piece of property, and we are always proud of saying that it is capable of becoming one of the most magnificent termini of Canada for shipping, if we can get it into proper shape. Of course, we always felt that it was an advantage to have it, because being Government property, no person could charge anything for the use of it.
Mr. . HAZEN:	The wharfs in various
harbours are built by the Department of Public Works or under its control and management. When they are completed, they are transferred to the Department of Marine and Fisheries and are subject to dues and tolls. The Department of Marine and Fisheries initiates the step by which wharfingers are appointed to collect the tolls. As a matter of fact, many of them receive very small salaries. If that wharf is a breakwater, it will come under the control of the Department of Public Works, but if this ballast ground is used as a landing place for ships, then I presume it will come under the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. If repairs of an extensive character have to be made, then, according to the present practice, they would have to be done by the Department of Public Works.
[Mr. McKenzie !


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has the minister
given any attention to the question whether or not he will continue the present harbour master in his position?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not considered the matter at all. That question will not arise for some time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister must
know that the present harbour-master is a good staunch Tory, appointed since the change of Government. While I am speaking in his interest, I am not speaking of any person who supports me. He is an exceedingly capable man, an old deep-sea captain who has travelled the world over. He has retired from seafaring life, but I do not know of a more capable man for the position of harbour-master while it is in his power to perform the work. When other days come, we will look after him.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman surely would not turn him out?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to bring this
information to the knowledge of the minister, so that, in case of any representations being made to him, he may know that the present holder, of the office is an exceedingly capable man and knows the business of harbour-master better than many people who might be looking for appointments.
I am quite aware of the practice of the Public Works Department in building wharfs and passing them over to the Marine and Fishefies Department. I am sorry that the Government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier passed a law under which the Marine and Fisheries Department is given power to impose fees for the use of these wharfs. I acknowledge our transgression in this regard; I was here myself and gave passive support-involuntary passive support-to that Act. But it is working great hardship and injustice to the fishermen along the coast of Victoria. I trust the minister will give up the barbarous idea of charging a fisherman because he spreads his net on the breakwater. These wharfs were built largely as shelters and breakwaters for the boats of the fishermen, and the present Administration have appointed men to look after them as wharfingers and harbour-masters. Dues are collected if a fisherman spreads his nets ox lands fish on the breakwater or does anything else necessary in his calling This is a small matter so far as the revenue collected is concerned, and I am sure the minister will not care twopence for what is collected, while the charge is an extreme hardship for the fishermen.


John Douglas Hazen: There are other classes besides the fishermen affected by this matter. In many cases farmers use Government wharfs to ship their produce to market. In most oases the fees amount to a very small .sum, and we have been considering whether, in the case of farmers and fishermen, it would not be better to abolish the fees altogether. On the other hand there must be isomdbody to take care of the wharf and somebody who is responsible, and that some one must be paid for his services. The question arises whether the wharfinger shall be paid a certain sum out of the general revenues of the country, or whether, as at present, he shall be paid a percentage of the fees he collects. The hon. gentleman knows that it would not do to apply the principle he speaks of to all Government wharfs, for some are used for commercial purposes and yield a considerable revenue. For instance, the department owns a wharf in *the haTbour of St. John over which a great deal of trade passes every year, and to which vessels resort. It would be impossible to remove these fees. It would be necessary to limit it to certain classes of wharfs. For the wharfs along the rivers, such as the St. John river, it should include the farmers. The fees are sometimes more vexatious than anything else, and the total collections in some cases are so small that it is impossible to get any one in the neighbourhood to take charge of the wharf. The whole question is being considered. I have taken it up once or twice with some of my officials, and perhaps we can woTk out some plan that will be satisfactory.
Mr. H. H. MeLEAN: I am glad to hear what the minister says about the wharfs on the river St. John. As the hon. minister knows, some wharfs on that river have been built by the Dominion Government and others by the local Government. No wharfage is charged on those wharfs built by the local Government, and of course it is a hardship to farmers who have to pay fees on the wharfs built by the Dominion. I am glad to heaT the minister say that no charge will be m.ade on Government wharfs, for example, on the river St. John.


John Douglas Hazen: I move that the following be added as section 4:
This Act shall come into force on the 1st clay of January, 1915.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.

John Douglas Hazen: If there is no objection, we will take up Bill No. 71, to consolidate and amend the Act respecting Fisheries and Fishing. A number of amendments were made to this Bill by the Committee on Marine and Fisheries, and the Bill as amended has been reprinted, but I understand that only a few copies have been circulated, and so, except with the approval of the hon. gentleman (Mt. GraHam), leading the other side of the House, I cannot take it up.


George Perry Graham: I think it is all right.


Mr. PARDEE:: Does this relate only to salt water fishing?


John Douglas Hazen: No, to fishing generally. I may say that this Bill was thoroughly explained by me on the 16th of February on its first reading. Later, on my motion, it was referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries. That committee held altogether three meetings for the discussion of the Bill, and gave its provisions very careful attention. The committee suggested certain amendments, which amendments have been incorporated in the Bill; and, as the measure left the committee, I think there was practically no objection to it, as the members of the committee seemed to agree that the amendments we made were in the interests of the public and the fishermen. The Bill is *quite satisfactory to myself and to the officials of the department.
The House went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.


William F. Carroll: In some cases the powers of justices of the peace are conferred upon fishery officers. In what cases and under what circumstances is this authority given by the Government?


John Douglas Hazen: Every case stands on its
own merits. In some sections of the country, especially in the northern portions of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, there are no justices of the peace and, in order to have any enforcement of the law at all, or any tribunal before which information can be laid and matters tried, it is necessary to appoint these officers

justices of the peace. These are not the only places where such officers are appointed, although a large number of the officers are not vested with this power. I do not think we have ever had a case where a fishery officer has made an arrest and then tried the case himself as justice of the peace. Under this Act we are extending the power of appeal. Under the old Act the only appeal was to the minister; under this Bill we are giving the power to appeal to a judge of the county court. In view of those two powers of appeal, one to the county court judge and the other to the minister, and of the necessity that exists in parts of the country for conferring'this power, the committee, after fully discussing the matter, decided that the Act should be left as it is.


William F. Carroll: In my humble opinion, this practice is absolutely contrary to the method in which law should be enforced in this country. In the county of Inverness the fishery officers in the old days were given this jurisdiction, and invariably they tried the cases themselves. There was no appeal then, and perhaps it makes it a little easier for the person who does not receive justice in such cases to have recourse to a higher court. But it is a hardship on the person who does not receive justice in the court below to appeal, and I think this Act should be amended so as to cover only the cases to which my hon. friend has referred. In Nova Scotia there are very many rivers, and in those districts there are innumerable justices of the peace -too many. I think it is against the spirit of British law and British fair play that the man who lays the information or who is directly concerned in laying the information with regard to an infraction of the law should try the case himself.


John Douglas Hazen: The same practice exists in connection with the mounted police.


William F. Carroll: If it does, it is wrong; the principle is absolutely wrong. I care not how fair a fishery officer may be. there is the temptation on his part to render a verdict against a man in a case in which he is directly interested. I be-5 p.m. lieve that the minister would be doing justice if he would confine appointments of these ex-officio officers to places such as he points out, where it is impracticable to carry out the law in any other way. In Nova Scotia there is no necessity for any such law as this. I am not condoning the man who violates the fishery regulations, but if
[Mr. Hazen.1
we are to have the matter properly adjusted, it must be adjusted before a justice of the peace or a stipendiary magistrate who is not in any way connected with the case. This is an old grievance in our province. This is not the first time I have brought the matter to the attention of the Government of this country. I brought it to the attention of the late Government by memorial several times, and I am sorry to say that I got very little redress. I think the minister would meet with considerable approbation in our part of the country if he were to arrange this matter in some way so that fishery officers would not act in their own cases.


John Douglas Hazen: This provision has been in the Act for a great many years, and since I have been in the department no complaint has been brought to me, from Nova Scotia or elsewhere, that any injustice has been done. The statement made to me by the fishery officials of my department is that this power has been sparingly exercised, and I may say that my intention is to exercise it only in those cases in which it is necessary to do so. I realize that there is a great deal of force in what my hon. friend says, but it would be impossible, in a Bill like this, to define the different districts in which these appointments should be made. They have to be made in certain parts of the country if we are to have any enforcement of the law at all. That being the case, I think it would be a pity to strike this provision out of the Act, and I will insist, as far as I can, upon its going in. All statutes are liable to some abuse. No matter how carefully the statute is drawn, there is scarcely a case in which there cannot be some abuse or some injury under the law. But in passing laws we have to act on the assumption that discretion will be exercised and that common sense will prevail. If it is found in the future that abuses arise and that the liberty of the subject is interfered with in any way, I do not hesitate to say, in view of the discussion that has taken place to-day, that 1 would consider very seriously some amendment which would cover those sections of the country where we have to have these officials. I do not think, however, that a-the* present time there are abuses which make this necessary, and I hope that my hon. friend will not urge his objection.


Mr. FOWLER:: Did I understand the
minister to say that under the provisions of the law the same person is prosecuting officer and judge?


John Douglas Hazen: No, that has never occurred in a single instance. But there were certain fishery officers named by the Governor in Council who might be authorized by the Governor in Council to exercise the powers of a justice of the peace. This Act makes these officers ex officio justices of the peace within the districts for which they are appointed to act as fishery officers; but a case has never occurred where the fishery officer has laid a complaint and then has sat to try the case.


William F. Carroll: Oh, yes.


John Douglas Hazen: If an appeal were made
to me from a decision of that sort, I would consider it an absolute outrage, and would at once reverse the decision. In the northern parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta there are districts where there are no justices of the peace. This gives these fishery officers the same powers as are given to mounted policemen in those districts.


George William Fowler: There is a vicious principle running through this legislation, that a man charged with a certain duty as a fishery officer for the prevention of offences against the Fishery Act, who becomes by authority of his office a prosecutor, is clothed with the powers of a magistrate, so that he is permitted to act upon a case in which he is practically, no matter who lays the actual complaint, the real prosecute." and also the judge. It seems to me that two of the arguments that have been used as reasons for the continuance of this legislation are rather weak. One is its antiquity. That is a<n argument which it is not necessary to controvert, because it controverts itself. The fact that a wrong has been perpetrated for a long time .is no reason why the wrong should continue. Therefore we can set aside at once the argument of antiquity. As to those- districts which are so remote that it is impossible to get a magistrate-and I have never seen a district so remote-the appeal would be no protection at all, because the parties are so far away that the expense of an appeal would very far outweigh any resulting advantage. Except for very special occasions, this is legislation that should not be permitted. The Governor in Council might take power under this Bill to pass an Order in Council, under certain circumstances, especially appointing some officer in such a remote district as the minister speaks of, with power to act as a magistrate as well as a preventive officer; but if this applies all
over the country, as I understand it does, it is very vicious and bad legislation that should be wiped off the book.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Has the hon. member considered the question of our jurisdiction to pass legislation providing for the appointment of magistrates, which is a matter falling within the powers of the provinces?


George William Fowler: I had not considered
that phase of the question, but of course this Government could ask to have them appointed by the provincial authorities.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why could not the provincial Government be requested to appoint the fishery officers justices of the peace? The case of the mounted police is not on all fours. The mounted police are patrolling the whole country and they must have the right to mete out swift justice. It should not be permitted that a man could lay the information and try the case. In such a case an appeal is not sufficient.


John Douglas Hazen: That is not the case.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The Government may appoint ex officio justices of the peace who are fishery inspectors. Such an officer would lay the information and try the case, and then you give the right of appeal.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman is
wrong in saying he lays the information.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: He prosecutes.


John Douglas Hazen: He does not.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Then who sets the law in motion?


John Douglas Hazen: One of these fishery officers, and he goes before a justice of tfie peace. It may be that the justice before whom he goes is another fishery officer who is invested with this power.


George William Fowler: The minister says that it never occurs that an officer lays the information and tries the case. How does the minister know it?


John Douglas Hazen: It has never occurred
since I became fiead of the department.


George William Fowler: Perhaps it has not come to the minister's notice because there has been no appeal, as the expense of an appeal, owing to the long distance at which the person involved lives from the place where the appeal would be heard, makes it impossible for him to take the appeal, and he would prefer to suffer trie wrong

and injury. The minister cannot say it has never occurred; it is more probable that it has occurred many times than that it has never occurred, and that these men have put up with the injustice. I think the best way would be to wipe out the legislation.


William F. Carroll: I am not opposing this clause of the Bill for tfie mere purpose of opposition. I want to point out that for years Mr. A. C. Bertram, fishery officer for the island of Oape Breton, tried all his own cases, and in those days there was no appeal'to a higher court. Mr. James Cody, who was fishery officer in that section of the country before Mr. Bertram was appointed, also tried all his own cases. There was no appeal in those days to a higher court. Mr. Bertram, a gentleman for whom I had the greatest regard, and who is now dead, probably tried those cases very fairly, but a great many objections were taken at that time. Mr. Bertram lived at North Sydney. There were fishery guardians who had been recommended by him and who were appointed by the fishery [DOT]officer. When they got information tend. ing to show that a person was contravening the regulations they would lay that information before their chief, Mr. Bertram, who would try the case and collect the costs because he was a stipendiary justice of the peace. From his decision there was no appeal. That was carried on year after year. If what the minister says is correct, that no officer will try a case in his own jurisdiction, what is the necessity for this legislation at all? The jurisdiction of the fishery officer is very large. In the four [DOT]counties of Cape Breton there is only one fishery officer.


John Douglas Hazen: Only one inspector.


Mr. KYTE:: Inspector, or fishery overseer.


John Douglas Hazen: Guardian.


William F. Carroll: Guardians are not fishery [DOT]officers. They are simply appointed temporarily in the summer. If the fishery [DOT]officers do not try, and are not supposed to try, their own cases at the present time, why appoint them ex-officio justices of the peace?


John Douglas Hazen: The fishery guardian lays the information, not before himself, because he has no power, but before one of the gentlemen who is an inspector in his district. That does not mean that he is trying it himself. If a fishery inspector happened to be one of those who is vested
[Hr. Fowler. 1
with this power, can you imagine the inspector laying the information before himself and trying the case himself? It may be the overseer who is vested with this power. The officers of the department tell me that it is absolutely necessary, if we are going to try to get our fishery act enforced that this power should be vested in these officers. There is no provision of the Act that they are more opposed to having cut out than this provision. They do not believe that any injury will result to anybody as a consequence of it. I do not suppose that there is any such state of affairs existing as my hon. friend has spoken of as having existed in Mr. Bertram's day. My hon. friend has spoken in regard to the fact that the inspector is, in a way, over these other men, and would naturally be influenced by what these other guardians or overseers would say. The same thing is absolutely true in many cities and towns throughout the country where the police magistrate is responsible for the conduct of the police force. In many cases the police magistrate is a member of the police commission which appoints the policemen. Yet, it is not claimed that a police magistrate should not try an offence because the information might be laid by a policeman appointed by himself. You might as well argue that a police magistrate would be influenced by a policeman, owing to the fact that he is responsible for his appointment. The officers of the department are sincere in their belief that it is necessary that we should have this provision if we want the Act enforced. But if it is brought to my attention in the future that it has caused any hardship-which it has not done in the past for a great many years-we will try and deal with the matter in some other way. The committee of the House on Marine and Fisheries considered the whole thing and reported this provision favourably.
Now, I would like to say a word in reply to the matter brought up by my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte). In the Act as inserted he will see this provision:
A moiety of every pecuniary penalty levied by virtue of this Act shall belong' to His Majesty, and the other moiety shall he paid to the prosecutor other than a fishery officer or fishery guardian.
This is taken* out because it was felt by the committee that the provision in the old Act under which the informer got half of the fine was not a desirable one as it was too great an incentive to the fisharv

officer to lay an information, -where perhaps he would not he justified in doing so.


William F. Carroll: If I could get from the minister the assurance that he would not give any person in Nova Scotia any such authority as this I would not oppose it any further.


John Douglas Hazen: There are some who have that authority now.


William F. Carroll: They should not have it. It is provided that .a person shall be exofficio a justice of the peace in the district for which he is appointed to act as fishery officer. We will take the Margaree river over which there is one fishery officer and from eight to twelve guardians. These guardians are supposed to watch at night and they may suspect a man of poaching or of illegally setting a net. They are directly responsible to the fishery officer who has jurisdiction as a justice of the peace in that vicinity. The guardian is called upon to go before the fishery officer and lay an information and the fishery officer, being a justice of the peace, is empowered to try the case. He is directly interested in securing a conviction against all poachers, and this is an instance where a person is the judge in his own case. He is interested in his capacity as a fishery officer and in many other ways. Why should there be any necessity for such a thing? In the -province of Nova Scotia, I am sorry to say, there is a justice of the peace in almost every house. It is an outrage that a fishery officer should be given such powers when we have men at every angle of the road, at every turn, some of whom are capable and some otherwise, of enforcing the law. I can see some force in the argument of the minister as regards outlying districts in the West, hut surely in the Maritime provinces there does not exist any necessity for appointing a fishery officer as a justice of the peace, a fishery officer who will he trying a case within his own jurisdiction the information in which has been laid before him by one of his -subordinate officers. I am not going to oppose the matter any further than to say I think the minister should not appoint in the Maritime provinces at least any fishery officer a justice of the peace to try these cases.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend may rest assured that I will not appoint them unless I think they are necessary.


William F. Carroll: I know something about Nova Scotia and the stipendiary magis-114
trates and I cannot -conceive of any part of the province where it is necessary to appoint a fishery officer a justice of the peace to carry out the regulations of the Fisheries Department. It is not according to British principles of fair play and justice and I hope it will not he done.


George William Kyte: The criticism directed against this section, appears in the mind of my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) to have reference to poaching along rivers. We will take, for instance, the case of a lobster factory. The fishery officer has jurisdiction to see that the regulations in regard to legal packing of -lobsters are carried out. There is no guardian who has any jurisdiction in regard -to the matter. The fishery officer comes along and v-isits the lobster factory. He finds a seed lobster on the premises of the lobster packer. Under this section the inspector has the right to lay an information, to issue a summons and to try the case. There is no other person to co-oper-ate with him in enforcing the law. This section would be useless if it were necessary to call in some other person to enforce the law with him. I knew of a case, during the incumbency of the late Mr. Bertram in the office of fishery inspector, on the island of Cape Breton.
Mr. Bertram was endeavouring to enforce the size limit, and, visiting the factory, he -saw the shell of a lobster which apparently in life -had been undersized, and he -said to the packer, 'You- have violated the law.' The lobster packer denied that such was the case, but Mt. Bertram said: 'Here is the body of this lobster which I have found on the shore adjoining the factory, and it is under size.' Mr. Bertram considered that this evidence was sufficient to justify him in convicting the lobster packer for violating the regulations. Mr. Bertram himself laid the information; he issued the ordinary process; he tried the case, and he convicted the lobster packer. I do not think for a moment that Mr. Bertram was not acting conscientiously in endeavouring to carry out the law; he knew that it was extremely difficult to detect infractions of the size limit, and he felt that in this case he would make the lobsteT packer pay the fine. But I do not think that any independent justice of the peace would ever have convicted the lobster packer upon such evidence. Under this -section, I understand, the same thing may happen. We all know that the fishery officers UTe not selected for their



qualifications to carry out the law, or to administer it, or to interpret it, but that they are selected because of other considerations. I am not going to say that every justice of the peace in Nova Scotia is absolutely competent to properly inter. pret the law, but there is, at least, a presumption that the justices of the peace are impartial, and that they will give such judgment as their knowledge of the law and the evidence will enable them to give. I objected to this section in the committee, but the majority was against me. I support the argument of the member for South Cape Breton, and ask that the operation of this section be suspended so far as Nova Scotia is concerned.


Bowman Brown Law: I agree thoroughly with all
that has been said by the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll). In addition to the reasons he has given, there are two other reasons why this section should be omitted from the Act. Fishery inspectors are appointed purely for political reasons, and when there is a change of Government, no doubt the men appointed by the present Government will have to leave office, so that they are not in an independent position to decide as to whether a man is or is not guilty of a violation of the Fisheries Act. I do not say that because a man is a Conservative he would convict a Liberal more readily than he would a Conservative, but I do think they are, most of them anyway, prone to lean to their own political side. Another objection I have to this provision is, because of the large areas over which these inspectors have jurisdiction. Mr. Fisher, for instance, has jurisdiction over Shelburne, Queens, Yarmouth, Digby, Annapolis, and, I think, Hants, and it appears to me that there would be great expense and delay caused, if Mr. Fisher, who might be in Lunenburg, had to be sent for to try a trivial offence against the Fisheries Act in the county of Hants. It wouM be much more satisfactory all around, and the law would be better enforced, if these offences were tried before ordinary justices of the peace, who are quite plentiful in Nova Scotia.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Under what authority does the minister take the right to appoint justices of the peace?


John Douglas Hazen: It has been done ever since Confederation, I have not given consideration to the matter. I presume that former governments must have been satisfied as to their jurisdiction. I do not know that the 
right has ever been questioned in the courts in connection with this Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The moment you appoint a justice of the peace, you are creating a court, which, although it may be an inferior court, is a court nevertheless, and is within provincial jurisdiction, and not within the jurisdiction of this Parliament. The only federal court we ever created was the Supreme Court of Canada, and the authority for the creation of that court is expressly given in the British North America Act. It never seems to have been contended, that we could appoint a justice of the peace, except in connection with this Act, and perhaps the notion is borrowed from the Northwest Mounted Police Act, under which we have special authority from the Imperial Parliament.


John Douglas Hazen: The Fisheries Act was
passed originally shortly after Confederation, and the Mounted Police Act did not come into existence until some years later. The notion, therefore, could not have been taken from the Mounted Police Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am not sure that
this provision was in the original Fisheries Act. Whether it was or not, the mere fact that a thing should go unchallenged for forty-five years does not make it law. I do not like to ask any special favours for Nova Scotia, but I would urge that this law should not apply to that province because there is, I believe, a vicious principle in the law. A man certainly cannot lay information before himself.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why not?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would be so absurd that no reasonable man would do it, although apparently he could under this provision. There is a provision in the law that a justice of the peace must be satisfied thaf a cause of action exists before he can take an information. Of course, he could argue with himself and convince himself that there was a cause for action. I presume that he would not find very much difficulty, when he saw a man poaching on a river, in convincing himself that there was a reason for laying an information. He could criticise the information and see, to his own satisfaction, that it complied with the law. He would no doubt satisfy himself that the form of the information was satisfactory-that it complied with the law and that an offence was disclosed by it. As the information would be his own handiwork, he could easily satisfy himself upon that point. Of

course, he could swear himself; he could give evidence himself; he could crossexamine himself; he could at the same time take down the evidence, and he could believe or disbelieve himself just as he thought proper. It is possible that he would not believe himself. If so, then of course the accused would get away. There
is,	I think, a natural tendency for a man to believe himself, particularly when he is sworn by himself. This is a most extraordinary kind of court. It is well worth while for my hon. friend the minister to consider the matter. If this section were being put forward by somebody who was not a lawyer, I would be a little slower in condemning it; but as it comes from an eminent lawyer of vast experience, an exattorney general, and as it has passed through the hands of another distinguished lawyer as chairman of the committee, I think it gives another lawyer of some small experience like myself some justification for making a dead set upon it and killing
it,	if possible. If the minister will not say that he will let this section stand for the present, I shall be obliged to move that it be struck out. I make that motion subject to its being taken back, if the hon. minister will say that he will take this section into his consideration.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It is not very often
necessary to supplement anything that my hon. friend from Victoria and North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) says, because he usually covers the whole ground; but on reading over section 5 hurriedly, I feel that my hon. friend has not done justice to the powers of this fishery officer. It is quite true that the information will be laid before him, and I presume that he could issue the summons or warrant himself. He could try the case and believe or disbelieve himself; but, as I understand it, suhsection 3 of this section is something new, and has been added by the present minister.


John Douglas Hazen: At present there is a section in the Act exactly similar to this one, except that it says:
The Governor in Council may appoint-
This gives the minister, without going to Council, the power of appointing these fishery guardians. The reason of the change is that for years, until two or three years ago, in spite of the provision in the Act that these fishery guardians had to be appointed by Orders in Council, they were 114}
never so appointed. Suddenly some one in the department awoke to the fact that these officers had to be appointed by Orders in Council; and, as it is merely a perfunctory matter on the part of the Council to appoint a man whom the minister recommends, it has been thought better to leave it in tne hands of the minister rather than in the hands of 'Council.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That only carries the matter to the point of absurdity, because we know that the minister would appoint as police officer the same man who was fishery guardian.


Mr. STEVENS:: They are temporary employees.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Unless my hon. friend wants to provide places for his friends to a greater extent than we are charging him with doing, he will appoint the same man. Then this justice of the peace, witness and jury, could also be the officer who executes the warrant.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman misunderstands the matter. The only persons whom the minister can appoint under this section are the fishery guardians. They are temporary employees; they are not fishery officers. They are obliged to do certain work during certain months of the year. The persons who would be vested with the powers of justices of the peace must be appointed by the Governor in Council.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What officers would they be?


John Douglas Hazen: Fishery inspectors and
fishery overseers. The fact of their being appointed fishery inspectors and fishery overseers by the Governor in Council does not at all vest them with the powers of justices of the peace. That has to be a separate matter. The hon. gentleman will see that the section reads:	[DOT]
The Governor in Council may appoint fishery officers whose powers and duties shall be as defined by this Act and the regulations made under it, and by instructions from the minister.
Then:
Every fishery officer, who is authorized by the Governor in Council to exercise the powers of a justice of the peace.
This has to be a separate authorization.
Subsection 3 refers to those people who are not classed as fishery officers, but are

simply fishery guardians. They are appointed by the minister.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That does not preclude my hon. friend from appointing the same persons with the dual capacity.


John Douglas Hazen: No, but it would be absurd to appoint the same man as fishery overseer and fishery guardian or as fishery inspector and fishery guardian.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If I understand my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) and other members from Nova Scotia aright, the department of my hon. friend is capable of doing a good many absurd things.


John Douglas Hazen: Nothing as absurd as that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Take the case of Captain Landry and similar appointments.


John Douglas Hazen: The incident referred to by my hon. friend did not happen while I was minister; it happened while the other Government was in power.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Before 1896.


John Douglas Hazen: Well, that is a long time
ago-	->


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In case I might forget it, I wish to say to the minister that when this Bill comes up for a third reading, I will move that subsection 2 of section 5 be struck out. I am not quite sure' what the procedure may be, but it would seem fair to tell the minister of my intention.


John Douglas Hazen: The procedure, I think, is very plain. On the motion for the third reading, the hon. gentleman will move that the Bill be not now read the third time, but that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole, with instructions to amend the same in the manner he desires.
I do not know whether any notice is necessary or not.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think it is not necessary in a public Bill, if it is required at all; it is only in a private Bill.


John Douglas Hazen: However, we can look up the practice.


George Perry Graham: I think my hon. friend (Mr. McKenzie) is only making sure that he is within the rule. Of course, it was a courtesy to the Government to_ inform them of his intention, but I think it is not necessary under the rule in the case of a public Bill. In the case of a private Bill notice must be given.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-fry, parr or smelt not to be killed:
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does this provide that a salmon weighing less than three pounds cannot be caught?


John Douglas Hazen: No; it can be caught with a hook and line.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Last year I had a call
from some friends who were going fishing, and who were told that they would not be allowed to catch salmon under three pounds. It is absolutely contrary to all the laws of human nature that a man, after catching a salmon weighing two and three-quarter pounds, should throw it back into the stream; it simply cannot be done.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock. SUPPLY.
The House in Committee of Supply.
Department of Mines-Civil Government [DOT] Salary of Deputy Minister, $5,000.


George Perry Graham: Could the minister give us the names of his chief officers in this department?


Mr. CODERRE:: Mr. Brock is the deputy minister. Before being appointed deputy minister he was the director of the Geological Survey. He has not been replaced as director. Professor Haanel is director of the Mines Branch of the department; Mr. Marshall, accountant; Mr. Sauvalle, chief translator; Mr. Groves, editor. Other employees are:	Messrs. Marshall, Bell,
Paradis, Loux, Ainsborough, Levesque, Haanel, Wait, McLeish, Wilson, Frechette, McKenzie, Lindeman, Connor, Hudson, Stanfield, Blizard, Robinson, Ells, Casey, Cartwright, Cole, Von Anrep, Ogilvie, and Pereira.


George Perry Graham: The hon. gentleman, in . these various branches, has an increase of some twenty-five in the number of employees and of about $32,000 in salaries.


Louis Coderre: There is an increase in the number of employees of fifteen, three in the department proper, six in the Mines Branch, and ten in the Geological Survey Branch. These new employees have been deemed necessary for the welfare of the department.


George Perry Graham: Are the new men appointed under section 21 of the Civil Service Act?


Louis Coderre: The positions have not
been filled yet. We aTe creating the positions and fixing the salaries, and if the Estimates go through the appointments will be made later on, according to the law. Practically none of the appointments are made under section 21 of the Civil Service Act; they are nearly all made after competitive examination, according to the law.


George Perry Graham: The reason I asked that question in reference to the new appointments being made under the Civil Service Act, is that I find in several departments under the present Government things are found possible that were never found possible in my department when I was a minister. There were appointments that I desired to make as Minister of Railways and Canals, even of a minor character, but I was never able to get the Civil Service Commission to view the matter as I did, and I could not make those appointments. But under the present Government, in nearly all of the departments, appointments are made in a way that I was not permitted to make them. I was wondering if the Civil Service Commission had recanted, or if the Government had driven a coach and four through the Civil Service Commission and the law.


Louis Coderre: Probably my hon. friend is under a mistaken impression, because of

an answer which was given to a question put by the hon. member for Russell (M.r. Murphy) on the 11th February last, and which was not complete. The answer had been prepared by the Civil Service Commissioners, but after Hs production I found it was not complete. As the answer is found to-day on page 698 of 'Hansard,' it is only an enumeration which shows what appointments in all the departments have been made without any examination or competition. As a matter of fact, all these appointments have been made according to the law. The number of appointments given on that page is 361, and if this answer is followed up, it would seem that all of the 361 employees had been appointed by ministers in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Service Act. As a matter of fact, 101 of these employees have been nominated under section 21 without competitive selection; 48 have been nominated under section 21 after competitive selection by the commissioners, and 85 have been selected and appointed by the commission after special, open competition, that is to say, competitions which were held between May and November; 131 have been appointed under section 22 of the Act in the lower grades. For these appointments section 22 does not impose a competitive examination.
Mr. GRAHAM; That is the loop hole.


Louis Coderre: This is for sorters,
messengers, and other officials lower than the third class. My hon. friend will see now that appointments by the Civil Service Commissioners according to section 21 are not as numerous as they would seem to be by a reading of the answer.
Mines and Geological Survey-Mines Branch -investigation of ore deposits economic minerals, peat bogs, determination of fuel values of coals, lignite and peat of Canada, including wages of machinist and labourers, and additional machinery; investigation of ore dressing, including housing of roaster, wages of labourers, machinery and equipment of laboratory; collection of information regarding minerals and metallurgical industries and operations, $86,000.


George Perry Graham: The question of ore deposits is a very large and important one.
I noticed in the report of the province of Ontario for this year that the value and quantity of output have very largely increased. If I remember correctly, the value is something like $52,000,000, which is certainly very encouraging. My own opinion is that we have in various parts of Canada mineral deposits of which we know very little at the present time. We have very large deposits of iron ore in the province of

Ontario which seem to be of a low grade. I was told the other day by one of our manufacturers of steel rails that they import at least ninety per cent of the ores to mix with ours. On the other hand, we export quite a quantity of low grade iron ore for use on the other side of the line. As far as export and import are concerned, they merely constitute an exchange. It would be of great value to the country if we could adopt some process that would enable us to utilize these low grade ores. It has been stated on several occasions that we have in Ontario what we call Bessemer ore and that in a short time we would be able to use a much greater percentage of our own ore in the manufacture of steel rails. Up to the present time the idea has not been brought to fruition. Could my hon. friend give the committee any information as to the prospects of our being able to use our own ore in larger quantities in the manufacture of steel rails?


Louis Coderre: I do not think I can
answer this question now, because, as my hon. friend said a few minutes ago, it is a fact that our iron ore is of such low grade *that those who are interested in the deposits have lately approached the Government in order to get a bonus. This question has not been decided yet. They claim that the grade of the iron ore being low, it is absolutely necessary to enable them to compete effectively with the American ores which are richer, to obtain assistance from the Government in one form or another. I have read in the papers that they have mentioned a bonus as being tiie form in which this assistance could be most advantageously given. But nothing has yet been decided in that matter.


Mr. ARTHURS:: I would like to ask the minister whether his department have made any investigations into the electrical process of smelting refractory ores in Canada.
I understand that the trouble with our ores is that they are either refractory or contain large quantities of sulphur.


Louis Coderre: I am told that the Government have had experiments made with the electrical process of smelting and that the results of these experiments have been supplied to the interested parties throughout Canada.


George Perry Graham: That would be by Dr.
Haanel.


Louis Coderre: By Dr. Haanel. I may be allowed to add that about 17 per cent of

the iron ores smelted in Canadian furnaces during 1909 was of domestic origin. This small proportion is due to the fact that we have not as yet discovered merchantable deposits of sufficient magnitude to meet requirements. The iron and steel companies of the Maritime provinces, it is true, secure the major portion of their ore supply from Newfoundland; but the Ontario furnace-man is almost entirely dependent for his ore upon the American ranges of Minnesota and Michigan, and in 1909 he found it necessary to import from the United States over 71 per cent of the amount required. While our supply of merchantable ore in Canada is limited, we possess enormous quantities of low grade material, not so regarded, which have been, so to speak, in reserve and which have hardly been touched.
To render these impure ores in fit condition for the manufacture of iron and steel necessitates the application of a concentration process, and the fact that the vast majority of our low grade iron ores are of the magnetic variety suggests the adoption of magnetic concentration as a means whereby they may be utilized with profit. We are experimenting in the laboratory 'at Ottawa with the concentration process.


Mr. NESBITT:: As a matter of fact; you have not made any progress in finding out a process which will make the smelting of our low grade ores commercially profitable?


Louis Coderre: No, not yet.


George Perry Graham: That is one of the questions that comes up with the Government in discussing the suggested aid to this industry. Quite a number of those who ask for aid to the industry say that it ought to be confined, if any be given, to ores smelted in Canada. Others say that it should be given to ores smelted, or exported, or shipped. It would be oi great interest to the province of Ontario particularly, if it could be possible to discover a process by which our immense deposits of low grade ore could be made merchantable and profitable. Personally, T travelled considerably in the territory where these ores are found even before we knew we had silver deposits. I tramped over a good many of the ore prospects and it was then hoped that some process had about been discovered by which the value of this ore could be greatly increased. I want to find out if we have succeeded in finding that process or if we are still searching it.


Louis Coderre: Dr. Haanel, in a report upon this subject says:
The present installation will treat only a certain class of iron ores and by one method only. Additional machinery is required, if we are to undertake the testing of iron and other ores on a broad scale.
There is no testing laboratory in Canada sufficiently equipped to carry on experimental work of this character, and investigators are forced to go to the United States or elsewhere if they wish to make experiments of a practical nature When the Zinc Commission was investigating methods of metallurgical treatment for the lead-zinc ores of British Columbia they were obliged to carry on their experiments at Denver, Colorado, because there was no Canadian laboratory available. Our universities, it is true, possess well equipped and experimental laboratories, but they are used solely for educational purposes, and the experts or professors in charge have not the time, nor do they advertise their willingness to undertake work of public nature.
As previously stated, the present concentration plant is Installed in a small room originally intended for a repair shop. This necessitated unavoidable crowding of the various apparatus to an extent that absolutely precludes the possibility of adding additional machinery.
It is apparent that if we are to enlarge the present installation in the direction of a National Testing Laboratory more room is required. This may be secured in a comparatively inexpensive manner by building an addition to the fuel testing station, so that it forms a continuation, one story high, at the back of the present structure.
The addition should be large enough to accommodate the new apparatus required without dangerous crowding of machinery and at the same time afford plenty of space for any additional installation as may bei required from time to time. It is advised that the proposed addition should have a floor space of 57 by 60 feet. That is to say, the addition should have the full width (57 feet) of the present structure, extending 60 feet hack, and may he constructed hy simply adding three walls and a roof to cover this floor space, together. with the necessary partitions.
I would, therefore, recommend that the Public Works Department place in their Supplementary Estimates an amount to cover the construction of this addition. Provision has been made in the main Estimates of the Mines branch for the- purchase of the necessary machinery.
A couple of weeks ago the Department of Public Works purchased a site on which is to be erected the roasting ore building, in which experiments will be made on a larger scale. The company is asking a bonus from the Canadian Government because it claims that it cannot now concentrate on a commercial basis.


Charles Murphy: Where is this building to be situated?


Louis Coderre: Near the site of the fuel-testing plant.


George Perry Graham: I am inclined to think

that more real aid can be given to the industry by working out this problem for it than by giving it a bounty to experiment with itself. What progress -has (been made in experimenting with the manufacture of peat? Some years ago I took quite a little interest in the manufacture of peat into a marketable commodity for fuel. Having come very close, however, to some people who have invested in plants for the manufacture of peat, I have now become a doubting Thomas regarding it. Experiments have been carried on for some years, but I have yet to learn that a method has been discovered by which the peat in our peat bogs can be converted into marketable briquettes. No real advance has been made. I have feen tests made of the briquettes; they burn nicely and give out a fine heat, -but they have been only a spasmodic success and have been manufactured in small quantities. Can the minister tell us if the -people of Canada may expect our great peat bogs to be utilized in a practical manner? We have a sufficient amount of peat in the Dominion of Canada to protect us from all the coal barons in the world, if the Government has solved the problem how to manufacture peat. If I remember aright, the great difficulty was in getting rid of the moisture in the raw material. Another difficulty was that the briquettes though they looked very inviting at first, and produced the desired result, disintegrated in a very short time leaving very little behind but a few shovelfuls of mother earth.


Louis Coderre: When I was appointed at the head of this department, I received a memorandum from Dr. Haanel, Director of Mines Branch, on that very subject. The memorandum was made after the experiments in Alfred, Ont., -had been completed. As my hon. friend will remember, the Government bought a peat bog in the province of Ontario a few years ago. A plant was installed there and experiments were made according to the air-dried process. In that memorandum Dr. Haanel stated that the experiments showed that it was possible -by that process to produce those briquettes in *such a way that the enterprise would pay commercially. A gentleman of the name of Shuttleworth, from London, England, h-as for years taken a great interest in that industry. I am told that he has already spent $50,000 in experiments with the air-dried process and with another process by -means of pressure. Mr. Shuttleworth wanted to buy the bog at Alfred, and the 
-Government plant there, and to work the -peat with the air-dried process, according -to the discoveries made in the work done under the supervision of Dr. Haanel a few years before. The Government sold- the peat bog to Mr. Shuttleworth.


Charles Murphy: For how much ?


Louis Coderre: Six dollars an acre. I do -not know what sum was paid for the plant.


Charles Murphy: Wh-at is the total amount received by the Government?
-Mr. CODERRE: $2,284.25. There are two companies to-day manufacturing peat, one at Alfred, Ont., and one at Fa-rn'ham, Ont. They have tried to produce briquettes on a commercial basis, and sell them at a price which would enable the peat to compete with coal. The Government give a subsidy of $1,500 a year to the Canadian Peat Society to encourage this industry.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Have these men made a commercial success of the industry? Did not your experiments amount to nothing, after all?


Louis Coderre: Mr. Shuttleworth bought the Alfred peat bog only six months ago, so that I have no report to show whether he has made it a success or not.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The minister has an item here for investigation of ore deposits, economic minerals, peat bogs, etc. He has sold the peat bog. What does he propose to do in regard to peat with any of this vote?


Louis Coderre: To investigate other bogs and report as to the quality and quantity of the peat.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: A gentleman at London, Ont., has been experimenting with peat at his own expense for some years. Did the department ever look into his process for recovering peat on a commercial basis?


Louis Coderre: I have no information
on this point.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: His name is Dr. Mac-
William. Would it not be a good idea for the Government if they are expending money in trying to recover peat on a commercial basis, to look into Dr. MacWilliam's process and see what advance he has made? In Russia they -are able to recover peat on a commercial basis and sell it against coal or wood in very large quantities; but the process is by hydraulic pressure. I have a sample of the Russian peat at home, and it is superior to anything I have seen made

in Canada, although I have seen peat from the various Canadian peat bogs, made by the department and by others who have been trying to manufacture it. Why should not the Government look into the Russian process? We have enormous peat bogs all through the country. If we could manufacture peat on a commercial basis, there is no reason why we should not supply our people with this class of fuel. It is a success if it is properly manufactured. Peat produced by the air-dried process pulverizes and is no good.


Louis Coderre: Personally, I have no information on that subject. But the reports on the experiments made at Alfred with the air-dried process oblige me to come to a different conclusion from that which the hon. gentleman has stated. According to the reports, it has been demonstrated that it is possible by this process to produce briquettes of peat which will compete commercially with coal and wood as a fuel.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How long will it remain exposed to the air without pulverization?


Louis Coderre: It was only after the report was made that this gentleman from London bought the Alfred bog and plant which the Government owned. The report and explanation given to him by Dr. Haanel convinced him that he could produce peat there on a commercial scale and at a competitive price. He has been experimenting since he bought the property, but the results of those experiments I do not yet know.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I know that every year since I entered this House there has been a vote of money for Dr. Haanel to carry on experiments with peat. I have read his reports so far as they have been printed; but the mere fact that nobody has taken hold of the property, nobody has invested money in it, except this Mr. Shuttleworth, who is making the experiments at a very low cost, proves to me that the practical men in the peat business do not believe that Dr. Haanel has discovered a process that can be made commercially .successful. I do not wish to say anything against Dr. Haanel, but I believe that the money which has been spent has been wasted so far as he has gone, and I feel more confident in that opinion because nobody has taken hold of this process with a view to supplying peat fuel in competition with coal. It is time we quit spending money
for nothing. I have no objection to spending money for anything of value, but to spend money year in and year out, as Dr. Haanel has done, on a process that he could have tried out in a year, is a waste of money.


Louis Coderre: These experiments at
Alfred ended a few years ago, and the Government is not spending more money there. As I stated a few moments ago, the plant has been sold to Mr. Shuttleworth.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Apparently some part of this vote is to be spent there.


Louis Coderre: That money will not be spent on experiments of the same kind. Part of it is for investigation of the various peat bogs in the country, to learn their extent and the quality of the peat in them.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: This item is so mixed
up with other things that it is hard to tell what is going to be paid.


Louis Coderre: This item covers the
following expenses:
Expenses of fourteen parties to be put
in the field during the season. . .. [DOT] [DOT] ?56,000 Plant and equipment and operating
expenses of one dressing plant.. .. IMUO Plant and equipment and operating expenses of fuel testing station....[DOT]
Total	*86-000
The parties to be placed in the field include the following:
a. Metalliferous Mines Division.
(1)	Dr. A. W. G. Wilson-Copper mining and metallurgical industries, $3,000.
Continuation of work. In continuation of work already begun, an investigation of recent advances and experiments in the hydro-metallurgy of copper will be instituted.
(2)	E. I,indeman-Iron ore deposits (magnetometric surveys, $5,000.
Continuation of work. Areas in Canada not yet examined by Mr. Dindeman and his staff will be surveyed during the field season. ,
(3)	Staff officer (to be appointed)-Mining and metallurgical industries of Canada, $2,500.
Under the direction of the chief of the division, an assistant engineer will be employed in collecting and compiling such additional information as is required for the completion of the second quinquennial report on this subject.
(4)	Gold and copper deposits of the Yukon,

Continuation of investigations now u"d?J way. The estimated expenditure includes field and travelling expenses, equipment and honorarium of a special engineer who will be engaged for this work.
(5)	Unforeseen expenses, $500.	_
b. Non-metalliferous Mines Division.
(1)	Mr. Howells Frgchette-Limestones in
Quebec, $1,750.	_ , , ..	,
It is proposed that Mr. Frechette make a study of limestones of the province of Quebec.

(2)	Mr. H. S. de Schmid-investigations of certain non-metallie minerals, $1,750.
It is proposed that Mr. de Schmid secure data regarding the occurrence in Canada, mining, and preparation for the market of certain nonmetallic minerals, including barytes, fluorspar, pyrodusite, talc and infusorial earth.
(3)	Mr. L. H. Cole-Moulding sands of Quebec, $2,500.
It is proposed that Mr. Cole report on the sands of the province of Quebec, as to their suitability for foundry purposes.
(4)	Mr. S. C. Ells-bituminous sands of Alberta, $4,500.
If is proposed that Mr. Elis will continue his investigation of the deposits of bituminous sands in the province of Alberta. This work was commenced in 1913. The estimated cost includes field expenses and laboratory investigations.
(5)	Dr. W. A Parks-Building stones of Canada, $3,600.
Dr. Parks will continue his investigation of the building and ornamental stones of Canada. Unforeseen expenses, $900.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the minister think there is anybody in his department more capable of devising means for profitably smelting copper in any form than some of the Canadian copper companies? I am sure there are many large corporations interested in copper in this country which are quite capable of looking after any experiments that are to be made in regard to copper smelting.


Mr. BELAND:: We had a letter from the hon. Minister of Mines to-day announcing the distribution of a monograph on the coal resources of the world. There are many persons in France, capitalists and other gentlemen, who would be interested in this publication, and I wish to ask the minister whether he intends to have it translated into French?


Louis Coderre: The monograph on the coal resources of the world will be distributed this week. The volume contains reports in German, English and French The matter as to whether or not the French will be translated into English and the English into French has not been taken into consideration. If this were done, that part of the report which is printed in German would have to be translated too and the expense would be great. This monograph is not an ordinary report of the department; we have to pay for it, and the price is rather large.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I understand that the report is published in three languages.


Louis Coderre: Yes.


Charles Murphy: Before we get too far away from the subject of peat, which was 
under discussion, and on which the hon. member for North Oxford contributed some valuable information, I would like to say that the opinion of practical men who are interested in the subject is that the experiments conducted by Dr. Haanel have been a failure, that the money which has been placed at his disposal has been wasted, and that no beneficial results have accrued, either to the Government or to the people interested in this industry, from that expenditure. The minister has told us that the plant and the peat bog at Alfred have been disposed of for $2,284.25. Would my hon. friend tell the committee what amount of money was expended by the Government at Alfred for the bog and the plant?


Louis Coderre: If I remember well, the peat bog was sold for the price that was paid for it by the Government, $6 an acre. So far as the plant is concerned, Mr. Shuttleworth has bought only a part of it, paying what Dr. Haanel thought was a fair price for it. The Government expended a certain amount of money for a siding put there by the Canadian Pacific railway, and that money has been repaid by Mr. Shuttleworth to the Government. These various sums made up the total which I gave a few moments ago, $2,284.25, which represents the cost of the bog, siding and conveyancing fees.


Charles Murphy: Do I understand the
minister to say that the amount the Government has received represents the cost of the bog, the cost of a new siding and conveyancing fees?


Louis Coderre: Yes.


Charles Murphy: What nas been the total amount expended there in connection with Dr. Haanel's experiments ?


Louis Coderre: The amount which has been spent, which includes the amount spent before as well as since I took office, amounts, I think, to $25,508.98. I am surprised to hear that the experiments conducted by Dr. Haanel have produced no good results. I may not be a good judge of the matter, but I have read Dr. Haanel's report with great interest, and he seems to be sure that these experiments have demonstrated that by means of
9 p.m. the process which has been followed there, peat can be put on the market on a commercial basis. He has told me that that process is the one which has been followed in Norway and Sweden, and of course the experiments in

those countries have met with considerable success. He does not know of any reason why, under the same circumstances, similar success should not be attained here by means of the same process.


Charles Murphy: I would point out that the mere saying that he believes it will be a success does not make it a success. My hon. friend has supplied the committee with figures showing that the difference between what the Government has received for its peat bog and plant and what has been expended represents an outlay of over |23,000, for which the Government or the people of the country have received no return. A few years ago Dr. Haanel was equally confident that he was going to work wonders in electrical smelting at the Sault. So far as I am personally aware, all that ever came from those experiments were a few rather ornamental paper weights; beyond that, I do not think the country ever saw anything as a result of those experiments. That being the case, I would like some further information from my hon. friend with reference to this plant and the experiments at Alfred. There are large deposits in the county of Russell which I have the honour to represent, and the plant at Alfred is situated almost on its eastern border, so that my constituents have a very live, practical interest in these experiments. I understood my hon. friend to say that his own opinion did not quite coincide with that expressed by Dr. Haanel. If that is so, my hon. friend's opinion is, I think, in harmony with the opinion entertained by the practical public generally. My .hon. friend stated that the plant at Alfred and the peat bog there had been sold to the Shuttleworth Company, of Brantford. He also stated that the company had made experiments there last summer but he did not know the result. My information is that the result has been a failure and that the plant has again been sold. Has my hon. friend any information as to the present owners of the plant at Alfred?


Louis Coderre: No, this is the first intimation I have had that the Shuttleworth Company had sold it.


Charles Murphy: It has been demonstrated before the committee this evening that the ' experiments of Dr. Haanel have been anything but an economic success, and I would like to know if it is the intention of the Government to test any other process than the process that is alleged to have been under investigation by Dr. Haanel.


Louis Coderre: There is no provision
for that in the Estimates.


Charles Murphy: What is the fuel-testing plant in the western part of this city used for?


Louis Coderre: This plant is to test
fuel. It is used to test peat in the gas producer and also to test the heating qualities of Canadian lignites and coal, The fuel-testing plant could not be used to manufacture the peat or briquettes which have been produced at Alfred.


Charles Murphy: Will my hon. friend
afford any other gentleman or company who may have a process for the manufacture of peat an opportunity of having a test made at the plant in this city?


Louis Coderre: I do not know whether that experiment could be made. I am told it is very doubtful.


Charles Murphy: If a person like the gentleman mentioned by the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), interested m having a test made in which the country would be interested, applied to my hon. friend, would he afford opportunity for testing such a process, as has been done in the past by Dr. Haanel?


Louis Coderre: This plant in Ottawa is for testing the quality of fuel, not to manufacture.


Charles Murphy: Is it a fact that Dr.
Haanel has advised that no further Government money should be spent on peat plants?
Mr. CODERRE? Yes, Dr. Haanel has told me that he could not recommend that any more money be spent, because he contends, as I said before, that he has found in that air-dried process the very means of producing peat on a commercial basis.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend from
North Oxford has afforded proof that this is not the case, and I have a letter here corroborating that. Would my hon. friend 1st the committee know how much of the amount covered by the vote we are now considering is to be utilized by Dr. Haanel for any experiments he may be carrying on?


Louis Coderre: $16,700 and $13,300, a
total of $30,000 for the ensuing fiscal year.


Charles Murphy: My further information
is that about $100,000 had been expended by Dr. Haanel, or under his direction, in connection with these peat tests, and that the result has been a complete failure. I would suggest to the minister, who is of

course not under any responsibility for the expenditure or the result, inasmuch as the department has only recently come under his charge, that he stop further expenditure until he has satisfied himself personally by the report of or on the authority of practical men, that some beneficial results are likely to be obtained from the expenditure of these large amounts of public money. Like the hon. member for North Oxford, I am not acquainted with Dr. Haanel; I do not know what his qualifications are; but I do know that there is a very general complaint about his methods and lack of results among that portion of the public to whom one would naturally look for practical information on the subject. My hon. friend from North Oxford inquired a short time ago how the money was spent.
I have here one item in a return giving the number of citizens of the United States who have been employed by the departments of the Government. I see a gentleman mentioned as having been engaged under an agreement with Dr. Haanel, to whom $6,000 were paid, to make a repo-t on the petroleum and natural gas resources of Canada.


Louis Coderre: What year?


Charles Murphy: The year is not given, but this Teport was brought down at the present session. The gentleman's name is Mr. P. G. Clapp. It looks as if Dr. Haanel is given a free hand to spend public money when and how he pleases. He has engaged a gentleman at a salary far in excess of what the higher paid officials in the service are receiving. This report to which I refer contains the names of a number of other citizens of the United States, who apparently have been similarly engaged for possibly similar work. I would like the minister to tell the committee under what circumstances this particular gentleman, who received $6,000, was engaged, and how agreements came to be made with several other persons whose names are mentioned in this return as having been engaged by the Department of Mines.


Louis Coderre: Mr. Clapp is a petroleum expert who was engaged a year ago last summer. Four thousand dollars have been spent for himself and his party, and he has received $2,000 for his report.


Charles Murphy: I would like to know from my hon. friend if he would entertain a proposal likely to result in producing
fMr. Murphy.]
peat fuel that could be manufactured economically, and could be disposed of at a low figure, in competition with other fuels, to the public on a commercial basis.


Louis Coderre: I do not know. I have heard and read of the experiments which have been carried on in the past, first by the pressure process, and later by the air-dried process. The pressure process has not given satisfaction. I thought, after having read Dr. Haanel's Teport on the experiment with the air-dried process, that at last we had found something which might be of advantage to the commercial .communities. But, according to the statement of my hon. friend, that is not the result. We in the department have confidence in Dr. Haanel. While he may not have succeeded in all the experiments that he has been called upon to make, he has a great reputation, and we thought that this process could be relied upon. I want to *say to my hon. friend that personally I do not know.


Charles Murphy: My hon. friend would not reject any proposal in the direction of making a new experiment merely because Dr. Haanel has advised against the expenditure of any further money in that direction-a direction in which he has himself failed?


Louis Coderre: No. My hon. friend reminds me that about six months ago a gentleman by the name of Mr. Graham came to my office and represented to me that he had another process, that he had found the true recipe for producing peat as fuel on a commercial basis. I listened to him many times, -but he did not seem to agree with Dr. Haanel. Since Mr. ,Biock was appointed deputy minister, he has met Mr. Graham, and I have received lately a report from Mr. Brock. Mr. Brock does not think Mr. Graham's proposal a proper one for the department to entertain. We have refused for these reasons to comply with the request of Mr. Graham that the Government should spend about $3,000 to buy a plant to enable him to proceed with his experiments.


Mr. PROULX:: Has the Government disposed of the peat plant and land at Alfred?


Louis Coderre: Yes, the Government
sold to Shuttleworth.


Charles Murphy: I have every confidence in Mr. Brock's opinion on this or on any other matter within the purview of his

office. If the minister relies on Mr. Brock he will not at any time go far astray. I am pleased to learn that, merely because Dr. Haanel has advised against a further expenditure of moneys, in a direction in which he himself has been a failure, the minister will not turn down any new proposal. What purpose does the fuel-testing plant, on which we spent $40,000, serve now?


Louis Coderre: It is used for testing
peat as a producer of fuel gas, and also for testing lignite and coal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Mr. Edmond Ory, of Lille, France, vice-president of the Western Collieries, near Frank, Alberta, has written to me complaining of certain regulations enacted by the Government some years ago. The Western Colleries, and other collieries, purchased from the Government years ago certain mining lands, and they are' now subject to a royalty of about ten cents per ton on the product. Some years after this purchase, legislation was passed by which no more coal mines could be sold, but the coal lands were leased for a long term, ninety-nine years, I think, and the royalty, on the product of these lands was fixed at five cents per ton, instead of ten cents per ton which the other collieries had to pay. There is a discrimination in this, and those who have to pay the ten cents a ton naturally and justly protest. This is an important question., as these gentlemen have invested a large sum of money in the collieries, and employ a great number of hands. I think it is only fair that their request should be complied with. Mr. Ory writes to me, because I became acquainted with him in Europe. When the Franco-Canadian Treaty was being negotiated, Mr. Ory, who is a good friend to Canada, had great influence with some of the ministers in France, and helped us very materially to obtain that treaty. My own opinion is that the Government should pass regulations, bringing all the mines under a uniform system. Mr. Ory has prepared a draft petition which I shall later present to the Secretary of State, but I am informed that it should perhaps be addressed to the Minister of the Interior.


Louis Coderre: If the hon. gentleman
sends me the petition, I shall give it my serious consideration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The petition is addressed by Mr. Ory to the Secretary of State. I have now the petition drafted by Mr. Ory, and I shall read it so that the minister may become cognizant of it:
To the Honourable Louis Coderre,
Minister of Mines,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-On two different occasions, in January, 1906, and in August, 1911, we presented to your predecessor, the Hon. Frank Oliver, a petition explaining to him the difficult position which most of the mining companies of the Crowsnest Pass were in and asking him to agree to reduce from 10 cents to 5 cents the royalty charged by the Canadian Government upon every ton of coal mined.
In support of our claim, we pointed out that on account of the 1908 Coal Mining Act, the various coal mining companies were treated in a very unequal way. In fact, the owners of coal lands bought prior to the 1901 Coal Mining Act are exonerated from any royalty and several of our bordering neighbours and most serious competitors are in this advantageous position. The owners, who, as we have done, have bought their lands under the regulations of the 1901 Coal Mining Act, that is to say during the period from 1901 to 1908, have to pay a royalty of 10 cents. From 1908, the coal mining lands have been leased instead of being sold and the leaseholders pay a 5 cent royalty.
Consequently it happens that, the considerable amounts spent to acquire the coal mining lands, sums bearing no interest, the owners of these coal lands bought under the regulations of the 1901 Coal Mining Act, are charged with an excessive tax of 10 cents per ton whilst their competitors, the leaseholders who have had neither, to spend these amounts of money in order to acquire the coal mining lands, nor to bear the trials and the charges which weighed heavily on the new companies, are in a privileged position and only pay 5 cents per ton.
This is an inequality of treatment which must be brought to light, upon which we particularly draw the kind notice of your Government and which we point out with the strictest confidence in your personal sense of justice.
An inquiry has shown that out of eighteen companies four only have been able to pay dividends during the last ten years. Futher-more, one of them has just been put in liquidation and we have, ourselves, been obliged to shut down our oldest mine at Lille (Alberta) where for the last few years we have had heavy losses and which has cost us $1,500,000.
Since fifteen years we have invested in our concern about $5,000,000 without receiving any dividend. Canada has largely benefited of our endeavour and of the wages we have paid which actually amount to more than $800,000 yearly; all the advantages and profits coming from our concern have been profitable to your country only.
Is it not fair that the Canadian Government should discontinue to weigh upon our company to such an extent as to discourage and ruin us, and that they should leave us, by reducing the royalty and putting us on the same footing as our competitors, the hope of realizing at last a small profit?
In leaving us in the hopeless position in which we now are, under regulations which give the Government alone all the profits of the concern, the money from the north of France would fatally be diverted from Canada, for which we however feel such a great sympathy.
These facts, showing that the companies of

our coal mining district are undergoing a crisis and are unable to bear a tax which, as the royalty exceeds in most cases the net profit realized, call for a reform.
We beg to hand you herewith copies of the petitions presented to your predecessor in January, 1906, and August, 1911. The situation explained in these documents has become worse and it is very urgent that relief be given even in the interest of the other important trades supplied by our mines such as:	railways, smelters, cement works, etc.
The Canadian Government alone can improve this so alarming situation by reducing, as we are asking you, the royalty charged on the coal mined by the companies which are under the regulations of the 1901 Coal Mining Act, from 10 cents to 5 cents per ton.
Confident in your good-will and in your great sense of justice, we are, Dear sir Tours respectfully,
West Canadian Collieries, Limited,
(Sgd) A. Wicart,
Chairman.
(Sgd) Ed. Ory, Vice-Chairman.
February 21, 1914.
This letter was transmitted to me by Mr. Ory with the request that I put it into the hands of my hon. friend after I had looked it over. As I explained a moment ago, Mr. Ory is a personal friend of mine, and that is the reason why he comes to me. I believe under the circumstances that my hon. friend ought to take this request into his consideration and bring the matter before Council and obtain a decision in regard to it.


Mr. ROBB:: 
Robert Laird Borden: The introduction of such a Bill has been under consideration by the Government. In fact, I think it was under the consideration of the late Administration, as Mr. Templeman had prepared a Bill which he was about to introduce. After the Bill was submitted for the consideration of the Government by the Department of Mines, some question arose as to how far it might 
conflict, in the terms in which it was framed, with provincial legislation. It was not desired, of course, to override provincial legislation even if we had the power to do so, except in so far as might seem to be absolutely necessary in the public interest. Some negotiation and discussion with provincial authorities have gone on, I believe, and I understand that the Bill has been submitted to the consideration of the parliamentary counsel. While I have not any personal knowledge of what has been done in that regard during the past few weeks, I am given to understand that the difficulties which have arisen are now almost altogether, if not altogether removed. If that be the case, the Bill will again come under the consideration of the Government. Probably at an early date my hon. friend the Secretary of State will be able to make an announcement.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. friend the
Secretary of State says that they have not found a successful process of manufacturing peat by hydraulic pressure. A good friend of mine, who has been in Russia investigating the subject, and who is a very capable man in that line, tells me that a very successful process by hydraulic pressure .is employed by the Russian Government. So far as my experience has gone, and I have investigated this peat problem to a considerable extent, I find that the air-dried process has not been a success, owing to the fact that the peat pulverizes too quickly when it is exposed to the air.


Louis Coderre: The Government do not intend to spend money on the air-dried process. So far as the other process mentioned by my hon. friend is concerned, the Government have not yet taken it into consideration. I may say to my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) that I thought at first that the communication which he read to the committee should have been sent to me as Minister of Mines; but, after reflection, I believe that the royalty is imposed by virtue of a regulation passed by the Minister of the Interior, and I would suggest that the communication be sent to him. Of course, I myself will take the matter into consideration, because I am informed by Mr. Brock that he believes that something should be done in that matter along the lines referred to by my hon. friend.


Mr. OLIVER:: 
Mr. A. D. FOSTER:: I desire to ask the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), as a matter of information, is that particular section within the borders of Alberta?
'Mr. OLIVER: Yes.


Arthur de Witt Foster: I was struck with the same thing that the hon. member has brought to the attention of the House, some months ago, when I had occasion to prepare a short essay upon the natural resources of northern Canada. In addition to the tar sand of which he has spoken, there is an immense quantity of natural oil in that section of the country. It was so stated by prominent engineers, among them Mr. J. B. Tyrrell, who spent many years in that northern country. The indications are that there are the most wonderful oil possibilities there of -any part of the world. Without going into any extended remarks, I think that the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton is very timely. Only a short time ago I r-an across an engineer, who is a chemist as well, who had spent three months in that very section of country at an expense to himself of $1,500 to $2,000, and his report upon that section of country was very glowing, so much so that private capital will no doubt be interested in that part of northern Alberta along the Athabaska river at no distant day. I would join the hon. member for Edmonton in pressing upon the Government to make a speedy examination of that part of the country with a view to preserving this valuable natural asset for the people of Canada. Of course, it may be that this should come under the local Government of Alberta, but I should think that it is a work that might be fittingly done by the Dominion under this vote. Quite detailed statements of the resources of that country were given before a committee of the Senate in 1907, I think, many engineers testifying to the natural resources in minerals, both metallic and non-metallic, of that portion of northern Canada.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON:: I am glad to join in the remarks of my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and to support the -suggestion that the Government without undue delay undertake the investigation of these tar sands. I have been interested in this subject ever since I first talked with men who went to the Klondike by the Edmonton route. The tales they brought into the Yukon regarding the vast deposits of these tar sands interested me then, and since then I have read all the reports and other material I could secure on the subject. All reports of travellers who have gone over that territory agree that the area covered by these bituminous sands is very considerable. The depth of the deposit also is great. As to the quality, while it varies from point to point, 1 believe it averages fairly high as compared with bituminous sands in other parts of the world, for instance Trinidad and some of the Balkan States. Up to the present time it has been difficult to secure any capital to develop these sands because of lack of transportation. But now a railway is pushing north and shortly will bisect this bituminous sand area for many miles. I have


Louis Coderre: A few months ago one of the officials of the department, Mr. Ells, visited the Athabaska district for the purpose of examining tar sand conditions there and making a report. He obtained several samples, which are being examined here and in New York. As soon as the investigations which are being carried on are completed, the report will be printed and distributed. The same may be said of the question raised by the hon. member for Kings, N.S. Officials of the department have been on the ground, have made examinations and taken notes, and the report will be prepared and distributed in due course. Certainly a reform is necessary so far as the printing and distributing of the reports of the Mines Branch are concerned. I am glad that the hon. member for Yukon has brought the matter up. A few weeks ago, speaking with my deputy in regard to the matter, we 10 p.m. came to the conclusion that these reports should be printed and distributed more promptly, and, on account of the lack of space in the Printing Bureau, we see no other means of doing so than by having them printed outside. A certain firm in Ottawa has been consulted; I do not know what action will be taken, but something will be done along that line as soon as possible,


Frank Oliver: Has the report of the investigation made by the officer mentioned by my hon. friend been printed yet?


Louis Coderre: No; as soon as the result of the investigations are made known, the report will be printed. I cannot tell exactly when it will be available.


Frank Oliver: When was the investigation made ?


Louis Coderre: Last summer.


Frank Oliver: I wish to commend the department very strongly for having made an examination of the tar sand, and for having undertaken a thorough investigation of the quality and properties of the material secured. Although an undue length of time has elapsed since the investigation was made by the officer of the department, the public have not yet got the results of that investigation. This is an instance closely in line with the conditions alluded to by the hon. member for Yukon. Matters move fairly fast in this country, particularly in the West, and it seems to me that, the expectation being that there will be material results, the value of the investigation is seriously minimized by delay. This examination was made, my hon. friend says, last summer. If the results of that investigation were available to the public to-day, any capital which might become interested because of the investigation and its results would have the whole of the coming summer in which to operate, but if the result of the investigation does not become available to the public until some time during the coming summer, then action by capital cannot be secured until the following season, that is, two years from the date on which the examination was made. I .am quite aware that scientific people do not consider the material or economic sides of the matters with which they are concerned, but it is the business of the Government to see that the material and economic sides are considered. I submit that in this particular case the fact that there will be an -unnecessary delay of a full year before action can be had on the examination that was made, leaves the Government and the department open to serious criticism, for not having given the public the full advantage of the expenditure that has been made. I wish to commend the department for the measure of actual experiment that they have undertaken; but I wish to repeat and emphasize the importance of the practical work which should be undertaken in this connection. The examination and analysis of the tar sands that have been brought out is, of course, entirely desirable. But I am asking the Government to concentrate their attention upon the necessity of road making in that country and the possibilities of those tar sands for road making. While a chemical analysis will no doubt afford information to a certain degree, more than analysis is required, there must be actual experiment on a commercial scale before really 115
valuable information can be secured and it is for that purpose that I trespass upon what I may call the inattention of the minister a second time. It may be that this material will have no value for road making, -and that possibility precludes action by private capital and enterprise in demonstrating its use. It is for that reason that we ask the Government to make the experiment out of this vote. On the other hand, I believe that the probabilities are good enough to warrant the Government in making that expenditure.
i Mr. CODERRE: I am informed that the official who went to that district to study these tar sand deposits returned to Ottawa only in the latter part of October and has since been studying the material he brought with him. It will be understood that the -more care there is exercised in the studies and investigations the more valuable the results to the general public will be. I understand that the report will soon be ready and it will then be published and distributed. Does my hon. friend mean by actual experiment- that the Government should go into road making?


Frank Oliver: Experimentally.


Louis Coderre: If the results of the tests that are going on in New York and Ottawa demonstrate that these tar sands are useful for road making, while I do not know if the Government could go into the actual experiments, still if we can and have the money available for the purpose, we will try to do something on -that line.


Frank Oliver: The minister has absolutely caught.the idea I wished to convey. I quite appreciate that it is desirable to understand the properties of these tar sands before it would be advisable to undertake actual experiment; it is in order to induce this Government to make actual -experiments that I have so strongly urged my case to-night. In order to serve an absolutely useful purpose, the Government would have to take a further step and carry on actual experiments to a sufficient degree and on a sufficiently large scale to demonstrate the possibilities of these tar sands in road making. Possibly these tar sands may contain a number of elements that may have many different uses.
I am not urging that the Government should take steps in regard to any of its other possible uses; I am urging the idea of the possibilities in regard to road improvements. If the analysis that is now being made demonstrates to the satisfaction of



the Government that the material is of no value, they would not be warranted in going farther, but if the test now being made indicates that this material has a road-making value then my urging is that they go on and make an actual experiment so as to demonstrate the fact. A railway is being built into that country and if actual demonstration has proven the value of this material for road-making, once the railway is completed, the work of the development of the tar sands and of road improvements in the prairie country can go on together. Unless there is a demonstration in the interval, before the road is completed, there will have to be a measure of time lost after the road is completed before the article can be used where it is so much required.
Mines Branch-Investigation of metallurgical problems of economic importance, $10,000.


Alfred Thompson: I would like to draw the attention of the hon. Minister of Mines (Mr. Coderre) to the very great importance of having his officers keep a lookout for any radium ore. Radium is an element that is becoming of increasing importance particularly in the medical world. Some of the things that have been done with it border seemingly on the marvellous. Although I do not know of any ores in Canada which contain radium, it is possible that there are some. I was glad to notice the other day that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), in replying to a question which was directed at the Government, gave us the assurance that the Government was paying some attention to this very important element.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The Ontario Government have offered $25,000 for the discovery of radium.


Alfred Thompson: Yes, the Ontario Government have offered a bonus of $25,000 to any man who will discover, within the fou * corners of the province of Ontario, radiumbearing ores. The United States Government have retired from entry all lands containing radium-bearing ores. In Austria, where the present supply, I understand, comes from chiefly, they have passed an * Act prohibiting the export of any of their radium-bearing ores. It seems to me, in view of the very great importance and of the potentialities of this mysterious element, that it might be worth the consideration of our Government, not only to retire from entry for the present these ores, but to offer to the world a substantial bonus for

the discovery of radium-bearing ores. If that were done the prospectors throughout the length and breadth of our country would apply themselves to the discovery and th'e reduction of some of the minerals which contain radium, such as pitchblende, car-notite, and autunite. I find, upon looking into this interesting subject, that in the whole world there is only about one and one-third ounces of radium. That has come chiefly from Austria. The European exploiters of this very expensive mineral have somewhat raised the price. It is an exceedingly difficult thing to secure. In the first place, it seems to be exceedingly rare, and judging from the history of radium up to the present time, it is very expensive to reduce the ores and recover the radium salts. The Government of the United States are paying some attention to this matter. The Government of Ontario have already offered a bonus and I understand that the Government of British Columbia are also following along the same lines. I submit for the consideration, and I hope the favourable consideration, of my hon. friend the Minister of Mines that he might take this matter up with the Government and, if at all possible, offer to the prospectors and people in Canada who are interested in our minerals a substantial bonus for the discovery of radium-bearing ores.


George Perry Graham: The other day I had a question on the Order Paper in reference to this matter, and it was answered by the Government. I wish to emphasize what the hon. gentleman (Mr. A. Thompson) has said. The reason I put that question on the Order Paper was this: I had had a good deal of correspondence with a gentleman who persists in believing that he knows where there is a deposit of these ores. He feels very confident on the subject. If that be the case, I think this country ought to do anything in reason to encourage the exploration and discovery, if possible, of these ores. Of course, this man, like many other prospectors, may be wrong, but he thinks he is right, and he is not in a position to go out and secure these ores unless some aid is given to him.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would suggest to the
minister that he reserve the radium in these ores.


Mr. ROCHE:: An Order in Council was passed the other day having that object in view.


George Perry Graham: That will be a powerful
order.


Louis Coderre: As far as this question is concerned, I can only >say to my hon. friend from the Yukon (Mr. Thompson) that a pamphlet is being prepared by the Department of Mines which will give the necessary information to prospectors. Field parties will look for radium-bearing minerals during the coming summer. I remember that quite recently my hon. friend the member for Yukon spoke to me about the question of a bonus. The deputy minister has prepared a memorandum on that point which will be brought before the Government very soon. I do not know what the Government will do, but I feel assured that serious consideration will be given to the subject.
Mines Branch-For apparatus and equipment, salaries of inspectors, chemist, machinist, clerical assistance, and travelling expenses in connection with the investigations of the manufacture and storage of explosives in Canada, $55,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the minister tell us what the department does in reference to the investigation of explosives?


Louis Coderre: A Bill concerning the
manufacture, storage and transportation of explosives will be presented to Council soon, and, if approved, will be submitted to the House. If it becomes law a certain amount of this money will be immediately applied.
Geological Survey Branch-Explorations and surveys, $175,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: I wish to know why Mr. M. H. McLeod was dismissed from the Geological Survey.


Louis Coderre: I am told his engagement terminated two years ago.


Alexander William Chisholm: Why ?


Louis Coderre: The deputy minister
tells me that Mr. McLeod was never a permanent employee, and was only employed in field parties during the summer months.


Alexander William Chisholm: Mr. McLeod had been in this service for the last thirty years, and he was admittedly very efficient in his particular work. He devoted his whole life to the collection and classification of rock, and there are letters extant from Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Selwyn who speak of him in the highest terms. True, he was only employed for nine months in the year at field work, but in winter he was usually employed by the department doing clerical work. Mr. McLeod did not take any part in politics. As a matter of 1154
fact, he has taken no part in politics of late years, and he was not at home last election. It is extraordinary that such a man, with such high attainments and such a high reputation in the service, should be summarily notified that his services were no longer required. In justice to Mr. McLeod, he should be told why his services were dispensed with, and I must insist on getting that informa tion. If all the rock in Canada has already been classified, I can understand, but perhaps it is that some day in the past he is supposed to have voted Liberal, and his sin is visited upon him by the Government.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Perhaps he had a relative who did.
,Mr. CHISHOLM: That may be, but I will not discuss that until I get the information.


Louis Coderre: A return was prepared, which I laid on the table of the House some few days ago, and on perusing that return carefully I did not see stated in it why Mr. McLeod was dismissed. Personally I have no knowledge of the case, but if the hon. gentleman wishes me to ask the minister who was in the department at the time, I shall do so.


Alexander William Chisholm: I realize that the present minister could not be personally aware of the facts, but I have a strong suspicion that Mr. McLeod has been dismissed for no other reason, than on account of representations made by personal enemies of his in the county. That being so, I expect the present minister to do Mr. McLeod the justice of offering him his position back again. You can realize what a desperate case this is; here is a man who has spent thirty years of his life to become efficient in a particular line of study, and when his services become most valuable to the country, he is driven out of office. Mr. Fletcher wrote several years before, that a better man could not be got for this work, and Mr. McLeod's services having then been dispensed with Mr. Fletcher succeeded in getting him reappointed to office. It is a deplorable thing that a man like Mr. McLeod should be put out of the service on the representations of some irresponsible parties. I know that he is not a political partisan; if he were I would not stand up here to defend him. In justice to the department, in justice to the Government, in justice to the public service, the minister should offer Mr. McLeod his position back again. I do not know

that Mt. McLeod will accept the position, in view of the shabby treatment he received. If I were in his place I would not, unless sheer necessity drove me to it, but anyhow it would be a decent thing for the minister to take such action. I ask that one of these items be allowed to stand until the information is brought down, as to why Mr. McLeod was dismissed.


Louis Coderre: Will any item do?


Alexander William Chisholm: If the minister assures me that I can bring the matter up again, if the information is not given, I shall be satisfied.


Louis Coderre: Certainly.


Frank Oliver: How many parties will
be employed in northern Alberta during the coming season and what lines will be followed?


Louis Coderre: We will have in northern Alberta two geological parties, and one topographical party for mapping.


Frank Oliver: What will be their field of observations? What locality will they traverse?


Louis Coderre: Lake Athabaska will be the operating base. One of the parties will work north of the lake and the other south o t it.


Frank Oliver: East or west of the Athabaska river?


Louis Coderre: East of the river.


Frank Oliver: Both on the north and the south side of the lake?


Louis Coderre: Yes.


Frank Oliver: Where will the third party work?


Louis Coderre: The third party will be the topographical party, to complete the work of the survey of lake Athabaska and its tributaries.


Frank Oliver: Are the purposes of these parties, which will operate north and south of the lake, scientific or economic?


Louis Coderre: Both scientific and economic?


Frank Oliver: I hope that, when the
parties return in the fall, we shall be able to get the results of their efforts before the close of the following winter.

Geological Survey Branch-For collection and purchase of specimens for Victoria Memorial Museum, $15,000.


Mr. BOULAY:: Mr. Chairman, before that item is passed, I would like to make a suggestion to the hon. minister in connection with the Victoria museum and the Archives Department. As these buildings are visited every day by a large number of people, it is important there should be there men able to speak both languages.
1	visited recently the Archives Department. It contains many things of great interest, but we would take a much keener interest in them if we had the help of guides speaking the French language. Of course the men there are most obliging and courteous and extend all the information they can in their own language; but we are not in a position to gather their whole meaning, as if the explanations were given to us in French. I may add that we are often accompanied, we members from the province of Quebec, by persons who do not understand a single word of English. So we are bound to act as interpreters for the benefit of the people accompanying us, and it goes without saying that we are not always in a position to give as good satisfaction as if the explanations were tendered direct by men in a position to describe in the French language the works of art, paintings and other objects exhibited in the various departments.
I think that if the hon. minister would accept the suggestion I have just made, he would be doing something which would be appreciated throughout a great part of the province of Quebec, as well as by Frenchmen who visit this country. Surely old country Frenchmen who pass through Ottawa do not fail to pay a visit to the Victoria museum and the Archives.


Louis Coderre: The Victoria museum is open to the public every week day from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., and on Sundays from
2	to 5 p.m. The men who attend on visitors belong, to the Dominion police staff. My department has no control over those men. I am at a loss to say to what department my hon. friend should apply, but it is certainly not to the Department of Mines. I am informed those men are under orders from the Department of Public Works.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.42 p.m.
Thursday, March 19, 1914.