1914-06-09

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 191445.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Royal Highness the Governor General, transmitting Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1916, was presented by Mr. White (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.	,
Mr. WHITE:: The Supplementary Estimates now brought down have reference' to the recent disaster to the Empress of Ireland.



DOMINION LOAN FLOTATION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
William Thomas White: 
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Will that include
armouries?


William Thomas White: No, we do not borrow to
build armouries. That is not considered capital expenditure; it is met out of the consolidated revenue fund. My hon. friend from South Renfrew referred to newspaper comment. I would point out to him that there is usually newspaper comment of a critical character in connection with any large colonial loans which are being floated in the London market. Such comment is not unnatural and may be expected until money conditions are much easier than they are at present.


Mr. NESBITT:: What is it underwritten
at?


William Thomas White: Ninety-eight.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
National Transcontinental railway-further amount required, $1,000,000.
["I wish to tell the hon. minister that my opinion is as valuable to me as his opinions are to him. This is not\n\nthe first time that he read papers prepared by his officials, and the next day swallowed them in toto. If to-morrow or the next day the minister is brought face to face with the fact that this statement which he has read is an absolute tissue of falsehood, he will say: I read the statement prepared for me in the department; I am not responsible. The minister comes here with a statement containing coarse language, a production or an essay by a gentleman in his office who has nothing to do from one end of the year to the other but write such letters. I do not propose to lecture the minister or anybody else, but I want the minister to understand that his avoirdupois or altitude is not going to make the slightest difference to me. I submit that if any member in this House makes a statement that does not agree with what an officer would consider to be right, that officer has the right to protection. He has the right to take the matter up privately with the member, to set forth the facts and to prove that the member was mistaken. It is then up to the member to say in the House that he did misrepresent the officer in question, and if the member does not do so, the minister is within his rights in saying: I am aware that my officer has brought this matter up with the member; that he has or ought to have convinced the member that he was wrong; that the member has not explained the matter, and that as the officer has not an opportunity of coming here and defending himself, the minister will do so for him. But the minister comes here with an essay for which the country has paid the equivalent of many months' salary, prepared to blackguard a member of this House and to tell him that his statements are absurd and absolutely false. That is the kind of literature the minister has been putting on ' Hansard ' to-night. So far as we in Nova Scotia are concerned we shall try to defend ourselves and see that no Cowie is going to cowe anybody on this side of the House. Mr. Oowie will find that he will experience a day of reckoning if he thinks that he is at liberty to browbeat and bulldoze hon. gentlemen of this House as long as he has a minister to read his essays at two o'clock in the morning, when there is very little opportunity of criticism.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 1.50 a.m. Wednesday.\nWednesday, June 10, 1914."]
Mr. GRAHAM:: Why is this further
amount of $1,000,000 required for the National Transcontinental railway?


Hon. J. D. REID (acting Minister of Railways and Canals):: The commission decided that the $8,000,000 in the Main Estimates was not sufficient, and thought it advisable to put another million dollars in the Supplementary Estimates in case it might be required.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Are you going to bring the grades up to the standard?


John Dowsley Reid: The matter of grades was thoroughly discussed here last night and on previous occasions. Prom a point 100 miles west of Cochrane to Winnipeg, there

is no complaint about the grades. Any grades west of Cochrane, in regard to which there might be any complaints, would be within 100 miles of Cochrane, on what is known as the Fauquier contract. East of Cochrane, any grades in regard to which there might be any complaints would be within 200 miles of Cochrane. From the 200 mile limit to Moncton, there are no complaints whatever about the grades. From Cochrane east for 200 miles the work has not been completed. Therefore if any sags or grades are to be brought to the proper level, as suggested by the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley), there is no reason why the contractors cannot complete that portion, so that the grades between Cochrane and Moncton will be of such a standard as has been mentioned. For 100 miles west of Cochrane the line is completed and ready for opera. tion, and there are a few sags, not very heavy grades, that can be remedied at very little expense.
With regard to the operation of the road, it is the desire of the Government and, I believe, of every hon. member, that the operation of the portion between Winnipeg and Moncton should take place at the earliest possible moment. As I have stated, that portion will be ready for operation this fall; and if there are a few sags in the 300 miles, the Grand Trunk Pacific, if they take over the road, can remedy them, and the work will be added to the cost according to the terms of the contract. As long as any portion of the road is in the hands of the contractors, such as is the case in regard to that portion of the road from Cochrane 200 miles east, it is impossible to have a through operation by the Grand Trunk Pacific or in any other way that the Government might arrange. Therefore I think it is advisable to try to get the road completed at the earliest possible moment; and, if there are a few sags, they can be remedied in another season. In that way the public would have the benefit of the operation of the road at an earlier date than if the sags were remedied now.


William Pugsley: How many of these sags are there?


John Dowsley Reid: On contract No. 13, there are six; on No. 14, ten; and on No. 13, sixteen; making a total of thirty-two. The hon. member must hear in mind that, where there are any sags, the work has not been taken out of the hands of the contractors,
and they can all be remedied before the road is taken over. On the Canadian Pacific and the Grand Trunk main lines, the railway companies are all the time using ballast trains for the purpose of improving the levels or filling the sags without any interference with the traffic as a whole. On this new road, I think this could well be done without interfering with the traffic, and it would be much better to get a regular train service at the earliest possible moment than to wait for the remedying of the sags before taking over the road.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: As I understand from my hon. friend, all these so-called momentum grades cover a distance of 300 miles, namely, 100 miles west of Cochrane and 200 miles east of Cochrane; that is to say, there is a continuous portion of the road in which these grades are to be found. My hon. friend says, if it is found advisable these sags can be filled, as the work is still in the hands of the contractors.


John Dowsley Reid: Part of it. As regards the 100 miles west of Cochrane, the contractors have handed over the road completed.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is ready to be operated by the Grand Trunk Pacific?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Have the contractors any instructions to fill the sags or to leave them as they are?


John Dowsley Reid: The contractors who have
charge of the work for the 200 miles east of Cochrane are doing the work necessary for the completion of the road, and they will continue to work until the commission decides to take it off their hands. No instructions have been given to them to complete the work up to a certain standard. We can tell them to-day or to-morrow, even if they have the work up to a certain standard, to continue the work and make the grades up to a higher standard.


George Perry Graham: It is really refreshing,
after days of discussion, to find that my horn, friend, the acting Minister of Railways, has now thrown up his hands and is going to fix things. .


John Dowsley Reid: I have not thrown up my
hands.


George Perry Graham: Within 300 miles we can fix things before the contractors are re-

leased from their contracts; or, if the Grand Trunk Pacific do it, we shall pay them for doing it after the work is finished. I think we have accomplished something if we have accomplished that. I hope it is clear now that the country is to have a transcontinental line up to the standard agreed upon.
Quebec bridge construction-further amount required, $1,000,000.


George Perry Graham: Might I ask the minister when the ferry across the 'St. Lawrence at Quebec is to be ready? When he answers that, I think he might very briefly tell us in what condition of construction the Quebec bridge is. I remember, when another gentleman happened to be Minister of Railways he had to give this information about four times every session to the inquisitive Opposition. A very short statement will be sufficient.


John Dowsley Reid: The substructure is finished.


Wilfrid Laurier: On both sides?


John Dowsley Reid: The contractors for the
bridge have stated to me that they will have it completed at the end of the season of 1917. The report that I have here says that during the season of 1913 the construction of the piers and abutments was completed, with the exception of such work as pointing, cleaning the stones, and clearing up the site, and that this work will be entirely completed during the season of 1914. The superstructure is under contract with the St. Lawrence Bridge Company. In 1913 the shop made good progress in the preparation of final plans; they have fabricated and shipped to the site some 9,000 tons of bridge material, have erected a large part of their plant at the bridge site, and have erected two approach spans on the north shore of the river, thus making a start on the erection of the bridge proper. The payments made to this company on account of raw material received at the shop and material fabricated and erected, are: Total to March 31, 1913, $310,491.26; total to March 31, 1914, estimated, $2,200,000.
The future programme for this work, as estimated by the contractors, is as follows:
Season of 1914:	to fabricate and erect
the major portion of the north anchor arm, weight of this portion estimated at 15,930 tons; cost of portion erected, $2,870,000.
Season of 1915: complete anchor arm, north shore, and erect four panels of cantilever arm; erect about half of anchor arm on south shore; weight of portion erected,

23,285 tons; cost of portion erected, $4,200,000.
Season of 1916: complete cantilever arm, north shore, and complete anchor arm and one-third of cantilever arm south shore. Weight of material erected, 16,385 tons; cost of material erected, $2,947,000.
Season of 1917:	Complete cantilever
arm, south shore, and erect suspended span and float same into place; weight of material erected, 8,955 tons; cost of material erected, $1,620,000. This will complete the erection of the bridge with the exception of the framing of the floor and riveting. According to this programme, trains should be able to run over the bridge by the end of 1917.
That is the report of Mr. Monsarrat, which is confirmed by the conversation I had with the contractors.


Wilfrid Laurier: No changes
have been made in the plans as laid down?


John Dowsley Reid: None whatever. Mr. Monsarrat has had full charge, and there has been no change whatever.


George Perry Graham: Is this bridge company
giving satisfaction in every respect?


John Dowsley Reid: It is giving perfect satisfaction in every way, shape and form.


George Perry Graham: That is satisfactory to
me.
Welland ship canal construction-further amount required, $1,000,000.


George Perry Graham: As a matter of fact, there is no excuse for supplementaries like this. If they were needed the engineer in charge knew they were needed some months ago. The Department of Railways and Canals had come to be very little of a sinner as compared with other departments in this respect; they had practically got out of the supplementary estimate business to a large extent. If whoever is at the head of the department would sit tight and give his officials to understand that no supplementaries of this kind will ibe considered, this practice would be whittled down to the vanishing point. One of the difficulties is that at the last hour large supplementaries are presented to the House and we cannot discuss them. It is not the fault of the head of the department, nor of the deputy; it is the fault of the men in charge of the outside work, who figure at too small a price; but if they knew they could not get supplementaries they would figure on the safe side.


John Dowsley Reid: The Main Estimates were made up last fall. With the Welland canal, of course, we might let the Main Estimates go; but it is extremely important that the work should be all under way and completed as soon as possible. With the Welland canal as with the Transcontinental railway it is important to get the work completed. We could have let the Main Estimates go as they are, and not let any other contracts; but we decided to toy to get the work completed within a certain time, Mr. Weller, the engineer in charge, advised us that we might possibly exceed the Main Estimates and that we should have another million dollars in case the amount first asked for was not sufficient. I agree, however, that full provision for these works should be made in the Main Estimates; but with large works like these it is very difficult early in the fall to make an estimate covering all that may be required.


George Perry Graham: I do not want to lecture, and I know of some of the difficulties; but, if, when an estimate of this kind came-in, the fact were impressed upon the official that it could not be considered, the practice would not be kept up. On works like the Welland canal and the Transcontinental Railway Parliament does not stop at a million because they know that a certain amount has to be expended, and enough must be placed at the disposal of the Government, and that unless required the money will not be expended. Parliament is not niggardly in this respect, but on large works requiring millions, it is not fair to Parliament to have such large supplement-aries when the officer ought to know at the first that the money would be required'.


John Dowsley Reid: I agree with what the hon. gentleman has said.
Rideau canal-towards construction of bridge over Rideau canal at Pretoria avenue, Ottawa, $40,000.


George Perry Graham: There was a bridge over the Rideau canal in Ottawa for which the Department made a grant of $40,000. This is another, I presume!


John Dowsley Reid: This is the same one. There was an item of $40,000 towards the construction of a bridge over the Rideau canai, but the original proposed location has been changed. The bridge at Argyle avenue is being abolished, amid a change is ibeing made in the location.
Mr. GRAHAfM: Does the change meet with the approval of the department?


John Dowsley Reid: It meets with the approval of all parties concerned.
Trent canal-'further contribution to the county of Hastings towards the cost of construction of bridge over Trent river at Frank-ford, $2,540.


George Perry Graham: Are you sure there is nothing in this for provisions?


John Dowsley Reid: There was an arrangement made to pay a certain amount towards the construction of the Hastings bridge over the Trent river. The total was $22,540, and in the session of 1912, $20,000 was paid, leaving a balance of $2,540.


George Perry Graham: My point was: Is the minister sure there will be no charge for ginger ale, and that he will not find it necessary to appoint a commission?
Welland canal-Towards the construction of high level bridge over canal, $50,000.


George Perry Graham: Is this a bridge they have been building for some years?


John Dowsley Reid: Instead of a low-level swing, the city has applied for a high-level bridge.


George Perry Graham: What street is it on?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know what street it is on. But the mayor and a deputation were down several times, interviewing the minister and myself, and the city are willing to pay a large proportion of the cost, and have asked us to make this grant.
Chambly canal-Macadamizing road, $15,000.


George Perry Graham: What road is that? Has that anything to do with the road with which the Department of Public Works was concerned?


John Dowsley Reid: This road is not under the Public Works Department. For a number of years the Government have been constructing a roadway along the Ghamhly canal, and this is to complete that portion that is not yet done.
Lachine canal-St. Gabriel shed No. 1, $25,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have received many
letters from a gentleman in Quebec who claims to know something about engineering, and who states that the central arch of the Quebec bridge cannot be put up according to plans. The name of that gentleman is Mr. Richard. I do not know whether the Postmaster General has received communications from him, but he has written letter after letter to me and to one or two of my friends who are representatives



of the Quebec district. Has my hon. friend received any such letters?


John Dowsley Reid: Such letters have been received by the minister or by the department, and they have been referred to Mr. Monser-rat. The Department of Railways and Canals have the utmost confidence in Mr. Monserrat, and, of course, all such matters are referred to him. He must, therefore, assume the responsibility of whether or not the bridge is all right.


George Perry Graham: I can remember the time when there was trouble between the harbour commissioners and the Department of Railways and Canals with regard to harbour fees. Is there any difficulty now?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, there is some difficulty now. I understand that it is the policy of the department to charge harbour dues in respect of the new leases that are granted.


George Perry Graham: Charge fees equal to the harbour dues?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


George Perry Graham: I am not sure that that is quite accurate.


John Dowsley Reid: Wharfage charges equal to
the harbour dues are charged by the commission; at least that is the information I have from the officials.


George Perry Graham: Under the new leases?


John Dowsley Reid: Under the new leases.
Rideau canal-Renewing swing bridge, Smith's Falls, revote, $12,000.


George Perry Graham: Application has been
before the department for a good many years for the construction of a new bridge over the Rideau at Smith's Falls. This vote is for the reconstruction of the old bridge, is it not?


John Dowsley Reid: This is for the reconstruction of the old bridge.


George Perry Graham: They are not building a new bridge?


John Dowsley Reid: Not yet.
Rideau canal-Improving banks, canal at Ottawa, $50,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has my hon. friend a plan of the work to be done in the improvement of the banks of the canal at Ottawa?


John Dowsley Reid: The commission submitted
to me a statement of the work that should be done south of the Laurier Avenue bridge. They informed me that work amounting to

about $50,000 should be done this year and it is the intention to allow the Improvement Commission to do the work.


Wilfrid Laurier: I know the
views of the commission upon the subject, and if this vote be for the purpose of carrying out those views, I am in favour of it. Since the driveway was built along the canal the use of pleasure boats upon the canal has greatly increased, with consequent damage to the roots of the trees, which may die in a few years unless they are protected. The plan is to have a concrete wall from the bridge at Laurier avenue southward. If that is the object of the vote, and the commission can do the work very well, then it is very much needed.
Railways and Canals-Investigations under the Inquiries Act, $2,000.


Mr. CARROLL:: Is that for inquiries
which have taken place, or for inquiries which are expected?


John Dowsley Reid: That is to pay for investigations that have taken place.


William Pugsley: That of Mr. Ferguson?


John Dowsley Reid: To pay Mr. Ferguson and his expenses, $1,600; E. H. Caron, $400; total, $2,000.
Railways and Canals-Branch lines-working expenses, revote, $500,000.


George Perry Graham: This vote is put in in
case you take over some branch lines, I suppose?


John Dowsley Reid: In case we purchase any or arrange to take them over.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend contends that these branch lines cannot be taken over without special legislation; why does he want money to work roads that he says cannot be taken over? Our contention is that you can take them over with special legisation by making a contract and bringing it here for confirmation.
Hon. gentlemen opposite contend that they are prevented from doing that because the Senate has amended the Act. They can now take over these lines without any special Act except one confirming the contract. Is it under those conditions that the Government wants $500,000 in case it should exercise its right?


John Dowsley Reid: Of course we have now a Branch Lines Act, which was introduced by the hon. member for South Renfrew. Under that Act $500,000 was placed in the Estimates for the operation of any branch lines which might be taken over or leased

under the provisions of the Branch Lines Act. This is simply a revote for that purpose.


George Perry Graham: It does not say so.


John Dowsley Reid: It can be paid out of this.


George Perry Graham: It leaves the door open much wider. If the Government wants to take over other branch lines-


John Dowsley Reid: We may take over the line from Cape Tormentine. This is simply a revote.


William F. Carroll: Some days ago my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) asked the minister certain questions as to a survey party under the control of the Gov-erment working between St. Peters and the city of Sydney. Has the minister any further information with regard to that?


John Dowsley Reid: I told the hon. member the other day that I had received a telegram from the general manager of the Intercolonial saying that there was a survey party in that district with a view to finding out the best way of improving the grades of the Intercolonial railway. It may be done either by improving the existing line or by a diversion of the road.


William F. Carroll: Does the minister mean to say that the engineers are there with the idea of surveying the country for a line doing away with the present line between Grand Narrows and North Sydney?


John Dowsley Reid: They are there for the purpose of studying the whole situation and with the object of arriving at a conclusion as to what will be best for the whole district.


William F. Carroll: Have there been any negotiations between the Government and the owners of the St. Peter's road, with a view to taking over that line?


John Dowsley Reid: No negotiations of any kind.


William F. Carroll: Are the engineers Working on the St. Peter's end or the Sydney end of the road?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not that information, but will be glad to get it for my hon. friend. Of course, the chief engineer locates the survey parties.


Mr. LOGGIE:: On page 4629 of ' Hansard ' of last Friday the acting Minister of Railways is reported as follows:
Bridges are now being built across the river, or it is intended to build them.
322*
Is the minister providing for the construction of these two bridges? He says' they are now being built, but that .is an error. He also says that it is intended ti build them. Do I understand that the lederal Government will construct these bridges so that the residents on the south side of the river will be able to use the railway on the north side.


John Dowsley Reid: The matter is in the hands
of the general manager of the railway, and I do not know the exact position at the present time, as I have not discussed the situation with him recently. I understood from him last fall that bridges would very likely be constructed across the river that would be satisfactory to the people in that locality.


William Stewart Loggie: Will the Dominion Government undertake the construction of these bridges, or will they consider the matter? One of our local papers, commenting on the situation recently, said that it would be an unfair distribution of the public money if provision were not made for the construction of these bridges, that is, if the rails on the south side were to be taken up. Could not the minister provide a special vote for this special purpose of 'constructing bridges in order that the people on the south side of the river may have a connection with the north side? Without bridges it is impossible to get a vehicle across. There are no ferry facilities at all with the exception of an ordinary rowboat. If the Government are going to take up the rails on the south side of the river and take away from those people the privilege they have enjoyed for thirty or forty years, it seems to me that this Government should provide some money for the construction of bridges at that point. I know it will be contended that the local Government should do this work, but I do not think they are very flush of money at the present time, and they are already building a bridge opposite Newcastle. I think some funds should be provided for this purpose, even if it requires a special vote.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot put another item in the Estimates this session. I am not sure just what arrangement the Minister of Railways made with regard to this matter, but I am under the impression that it is receiving his consideration, and I think his decision will be satisfactory to the people there.


William Stewart Loggie: Is it not possible to use a portion of this $500,000 for the building of these bridges?


John Dowsley Reid: The money could not very well be taken out of this item, which simply provides working expenses in connection with branch lines. There may be some other item in the Intercolonial Estimates that it might be taken out of, but I am not sure about that.


William Stewart Loggie: If the minister will simply assure me that the Dominion Government will build these bridges, I shall be satisfied to wait until another session if it is too late to put in a vote this session. I want to be able to tell the people in that section of the country that they will have a bridge connecting with the railway on the north side.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot make any definite promise of that kind. The matter will have to be carefully considered by the Minister of Railways. He is going on a tour through the East .within the next month or so, and no doubt will have an opportunity of considering the whole situation.


William Pugsley: I thought a definite
promise had been given to the people when the Minister of Railways was down there before. The people there were naturally aggrieved at having a railroad which had been in operation for some twenty-five or thirty years removed, and, as I understand it, the injustice was recognized and a statement made to the people that these bridges would be built in order to give connection with the railway on the other side of the river. It does seem, to me that unless the acting minister is prepared to tell Parliament that these bridges will be built the people down there ought not to be told that they will be built by a minister speaking in an irresponsible way outside of Parliament. They ought not to be deluded by being assured outside of this Parliament that this accommodation will be given when the acting minister is not prepared in Parliament to give the same assurance to the representatives of the people. It seems to me quite proper that this assurance should be given. It would be most unjust to take away the railway accommodation these people have enjoyed for so long, and not provide some relief

from the deplorable condition either by means of bridges or otherwise.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not know what the hon. Minister of Railways said to the people on his trip East, but whatever he said will be carried out. I am really not in a position to give information to the hon. member as to what he promised on that occasion. I understand that the portion of the road from which the rails were taken up had got into a very bad condition.
A great many bridges would have to be built, there was not a very great traffib on that portion of the road and the rails are being taken up. I understand .that the rails are still on the road where the mill is. The opinion I have from parties in that section of the country is that with a little bridge or two across the river they would really be better satisfied than with the road they had owing to its being impossible to operate heavy trains and heavy engines on account of the bridges. I have not seen much opposition to the present scheme.


William Stewart Loggie: The minister on Friday last said that;
Bridges are now being built across the river, or it is intended to build them.
Who is intending to build them ?


William Pugsley: He was more positive last week than he is now.


John Dowsley Reid: No, I am just as positive now that the bridges are to be built.


William Pugsley: By whom ?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie) admits himself that the provincial Government is responsible for the bridges.


William Pugsley: No.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman just nods his head and says ' yes.'


William Stewart Loggie: What I say is that the local Government are responsible for roads and bridges ordinarily, but here is an extraordinary case. You have done away with a railway that the people have enjoyed for thirty or forty years, and it will cost a large sum of money to construct permanent bridges across the river. Under these circumstances it is the federal Government that we should look to far the construction of these bridges,


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman did not allow me to finish my remarks. The hon. gentleman admits that the provincial Government is responsible for roads and bridges

in New Brunswick, but he claims this is a special case.


William Stewart Loggie: Exactly.


John Dowsley Reid: Is it not reasonable that,
before final action is taken, the Minister of Railways and Canals should discuss the matter with the provincial Government and see what is advisable to be
12 noon, done, whether this Government or the provincial Government should build the bridges and where they should be located? That is the reason why it is very difficult for me to give definite information upon the matter or to arrive at a final decision.


William Pugsley: The minister, as quoted by my hon. friend from Northumberland, stated a few days ago that bridges are now being built or would be built to accommodate the people. Had the hon. gentleman any authority from the provincial Government for the statement that they contemplated building these bridges?


John Dowsley Reid: I have no information from
the provincial Government.


William Pugsley: That being so the minister must have intended to assure the House that this Government would build them. Is that not the natural inference ?


John Dowsley Reid: No, that is not the natural
inference.


William Pugsley: When the hon. gentleman has no intimation from the provincial Government that they intend to build the bridges, and when he states to the House that they would be built, does it not follow that the Government intends to build them?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I do not see that it follows.


Mr. TURGEON:: I remember the occasion when the Minister of Railways and Canals told the people of the locality that he proposed to take away that railway because it was, in his estimation, not a paying proposition, and that in compensation for the railway facilities he was taking away he would build a bridge, or two bridges-one for sure-across the river in order that the people might have connection between their homes and the station. When the Minister of Railways and Canals made that statement he made it positively and he conveyed the impression to the people that the Department of Railways and Canals in consideration of taking away that road would give the people their bridges
across the river. Therefore, it is the duty of the Department of Railways and Canals to assume that responsibility at once.


William Stewart Loggie: The department have had two years to consider this matter. It does seem to me that it is rather unfair to leave the matter over considering that the road has not been operated for nearly two years and make no provision for these bridges if the federal Government is to do the work.


William Pugsley: Before the last general election, it being known that the late Government was committed to the policy of taking over branch lines of the Intercolonial railway, in which the people of Quebec and the Maritime provinces, and I think more especially New Brunswick, because there are a larger number there than in any other province, are interested, the hon. member for Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler) endeavoured to strengthen his hand, not improperly, and he telegraphed to my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), who was then in Prince Edward Island, and asked him for an assurance as to the policy of the Conservative party so that it might be published in order to satisfy the electorate of the province of New Brunswick. I do not know what the terms of the telegram were- probably they were of a somewhat appealing nature-we have not had them disclosed -but the answer was in effect that it was the policy of the Conservative party to take over the branch lines of the Intercolonial railway. In effect it was that it was in the interest of the country and of the Intercolonial railway that they should be taken over. That telegram was sent previous to the general election of 1911. Nothing so far has been done, and not a single branch line has been taken over by this Government, although three years have passed away. It is true that in the last session of Parliament a Bill was introduced. Hon. gentlemen will remember that it was of a most extraordinary character when it was presented to the House. It provided that the Minister of Railways and Canals might take over any railway between the Atlantic and the Pacific whether it was in any way connected with the Intercolonial or not. It was a Bill that no one on that side of the House or this could support. It was drawn up in the most slipshod way that it is possible to imagine. When the Bill was before the House the

consensus of opinion on both sides of the House was that it was desirable to provide additional legislation for the taking over of the branch 'lines. The Bill was amended so that it met the views of both sides of the House although even then it gave the Governor in Council pretty extraordinary powers. The Bill went to the Senate and the Senate amended it simply in this respect that any contract for the purchase or lease of a road should be submitted to Parliament for ratification. The opinion of the Senate, as expressed by the amendment and the reasons which were given, was that Parliament should be informed of the price at which a road was taken over and be an assenting party to it. That was not an unreasonable view for the Senate to take but those of us on this side of the House who were exceedingly anxious to see this policy carried out did not insist upon the view which the Senate entertained. I think there was a general feeling of. disappointment that the Senate had felt it to be its duty to make that amendment. But during this session there has been no effort made to promote further 'legislation, if further legislation is necessary, and the Government are simply lying back and saying they will do nothing. I do not think that is proper conduct for the Government if it is really desirous of seeing these branch lines taken over. Now then, my hon. friend comes down and asks this committee to vote $500,000 for the working expenses of branch lines. The minister ought to tell the committee whether or not it is really intended to use this vote. There is too much disposition on the part of hon. gentlemen on the Treasury benches to delude the people into believing they are going to do something when they intend to do nothing. They have a strange notion that if they can advertise in the newspapers in some way that they intend to do things, it will satisfy the people just as well as if they did them.


George Perry Graham: Like the Farmers Bank.


William Pugsley: Yes, like their proposal with regard to the Farmers Bank, which their friends in another branch of the Legislature, who on every occasion will do whatever the leader of the Government desires they shall do, assisted most materially in defeating in the Senate.


George Perry Graham: The double-cross.


William Pugsley: Yes, the depositors in the Farmers Bank got the double-cross. In this case the Government come down with this item of $500,000 to induce the people of New Brunswick to believe that they intend to do something or other to take over the branch lines, but the minister should tell us now whether it is intended to utilize this vote or not. Under the authority which the Government has they can take the branches, and they can use this vote for operating them, but do they intend to do so, or is the appropriation put here merely as a sort of soothing syrup to the people who are interested in these branch lines? If the minister intends to use this money to operate any of the branch lines, let him tell us so; if he does not, then let it be stricken out, for in such case it is merely a pretense. It was included in the Estimates last year, but it was included then in view of the Government intending to do something. This year it was left out of the Main Estimates and restored in the Supplementary Estimates, undoubtedly on the initiative of the minister, and such being the case he should tell us whether it is intended to begin the operation of any of these branch lines or whether it is not. I do not hesitate to say that the Government could properly utilize this amount by arranging to take over the operation of such branch lines as would be in the public interest to operate, but we should have no more humbugging .and no more deluding of the people by the insertion of this vote in the Estimates if it is not intended to expend it. Let the minister tell us now that it is intended to use this vote in a businesslike way, or, let the owners of these railways, and let the people who are interested in them, look elsewhere for their efficient operation. I for one am not disposed to allow this item to pass without objection, unless we are told whether it is bona fide intended by the minister to act upon the vote during the recess.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) states that during the last 'campaign the hon. member for K'ings-Albert (Mr. Fowler) had a telegram from the Prime Minister with reference to the branch lines, but he did not tell us what that telegram was.


William Pugsley: I have given the effect of it.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman said that the effect of it was tfhart; it was intended by the Government to take over some of the branch lines.


William Pugsley: I did not say 'some'; I said the branch lines.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that the Government, (through the Minister of Railways, did introduce a Bill to enable the Government to take over the 'branch lines, and he knows that under the Act of 1911 it was impossible to take over these branch lines and operate them in a satisfactory <way, without amending the law. It is true that when that Bill was introduced in this House it w.as not drafted in a satisfactory form.


William Pugsley: The Government must be responsible for that. '


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman knows that when many Bills .are first introduced they are not drawn in satisfactory form, and that after discussion they are amended.


William Pugsley: That Bill was the limit when it was introduced.


John Dowsley Reid: At all events the Bill was
made satisfactory to every member in this House including the hon. member for St. John, and it passed here unanimously and was sent to the Senate. The right hon. the leader of the Opposition came in the next day, and he was the only member on the other side who opposed the Bill. It went to the Senate and the Senate threw it out, thus placing the Government in the position that they were not able to take over the branch lines as they intended.


Mr. MARCIL:: Is the minister correct in saying that the Bill was thrown out by the Senate?


John Dowsley Reid: It was amended in such a
way that it spoiled the Bill altogether, and the Government could no't operate under it.


Charles Marcil: Should a provision that
all contracts should be submitted for ratification to Parliament be considered as spoiling the Bill?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows that the amendment made by the Senate had the effect of changing-


Charles Marcil: The intentions of the
Government.


John Dowsley Reid: No. changing the construction of the Bill altogether.


Charles Marcil: The Government intended ignoring Parliament entirely.


John Dowsley Reid: Surely the hon. gentleman
will admit that when every member of the House, including the hon. gentleman himself, supported the Bill, the Government were not trying to do anything other than what was satisfactory and in the interest of the people of the Maritime provinces. Surely the Senate was not justified in so amending the Bill as to change its whole construction.


George Perry Graham: What are" you going to
do with this $500,000? Are you going to wipe out the Senate?


William F. Carroll: The hon. minister says that we have nothing on our statute-books now that will allow the Government to counteract the action of the Senate last year and to carry out their policy in regard to branch lines. If he is correct, this vote cannot be used; but he knows he is not correct, because there is provision in the laws of this country now for the taking over of branch lines. To say that the Liberal majority in the Senate was instrumental in killing the branch line policy of the Government is not giving this House a correct statement, and the minister should not make such a statement. He is on the horns of a dilemma. If he is right, it is absurd to ask for this vote. If he is wrong, he should make a correct statement to the House, and be honest enough to tell us that he is wrong. I believe that the whole alleged policy of this Government with reference to branch lines is for the purpose of bewildering, if not fooling, the people of this country.
In regard to the survey that is going on at the present time between St. Peters in the county of Richmond and Sydney in the county of Cape Breton, certain questions were asked of the minister on three or four different occasions by the,hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) and myself. When the question was first asked, the minister said that he knew absolutely nothing about such a survey. On the second occasion the right hon. leader of the Government was asked and he seemed to know nothing about the matter. Later on, when the hon. member for Richmond put the question direct to the acting minister as to what this survey party was doing in that part of the country, the acting minister said that it was with a view to improving or changing grades on the Intercolonial. The hon. min-

ister does not know anything about the situation there, or he would not make such a statement to the House. He made the statement again this morning. How can you change the grade on the Intercolonial at a point forty miles away from the Intercolonial where the survey party was working a few days ago? No negotiations have been going on for the acquisition of the St. Peter's and Point Tupper road, which is in that vicinity. I can tell the minister, from a telegram which I have just received, why the survey party is in that vicinity. There is a little council election taking place at G'oxheath to-day, and this survey party is in that district and is being worked for all it is worth in connection with that election. '


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think that is the case.


William F. Carroll: I have the telegram in my possession. From the answers given by the minister I am fully assured that there can be no other object in view, because to change Or improve the grades of the Intercolonial by making a survey forty miles away is absolutely absurd. If the minister knew the situation, he would realize the absurdity of his statement.
The question of branch lines has been dangled before the House and the country by this Government. The Government have apparently not been sincere in anything they have done. The acting Minister of Railways says that every member of the House agreed that the Bill in regard to branch lines was a good Bill. Does that mean that it was a good Bill? Bills have been sent to the Senate before, and amendments have been made to which this House afterwards has agreed as being good amendments. It is a childish argument to say that, because this Bill passed this House without opposition and was amended in the Senate, as I believe, to protect the public moneys of this country, the Bill was killed.


Charles Marcil: Spoiled.


William F. Carroll: It probably was spoiled. It spoiled the intention of the Government, without the approval of the representatives of the people of this country, to say: There is an election going on in the county of Restigouche, in the province of New Brunswick in a week or two, and we will take over another road in another county where there is an election in order to influence public opinion in that part of the 
country. That Bill was bad legislation, and the Senate were absolutely right in making this Parliament responsible for votes of money which might be granted towards taking over branch lines, and in not leaving the whole thing to the will of the Minister of Railways, who is after all but one member of this House. There is on the statute-books of this country to-day ample and sufficient legislation for taking over every branch line of the Intercolonial wherever it may exist.


Mr. RHODES:: Where is the legislation?


William F. Carroll: You do not need legis-[DOT] lation. There is written and unwritten legislation. I presume my hon. friend, who is a lawyer, is aware of that fact?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Where is the authority?


William F. Carroll: You do not need any
authority. Parliament can always take over branch lines. How did this Parliament take over the Canada Eastern? How did it take over any line that has been taken over by Parliament? '


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: By the Government coming to this Parliament and getting legislation.


George Perry Graham: After it was done?


William F. Carroll: That is just what I wish to see. I wish these matters to be in the hands of Parliament, and I say that the Senate were absolutely right in the manner in which they amended the Bill last year.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Of what advantage would the legislation of last year with respect to branch lines have been after the amendment made by the Senate, if it is always competent for Parliament to pass an Act to take over any single branch line? It would simply mean that Parliament could do what Parliament always can do, namely, pass an Act to do some special thing. In my opinion, the amendment of the Senate absolutely defeated the object of the Bill.


William F. Carroll: Parliament can take
over a branch line now. When I used the word ' legislation ', perhaps I did not use the proper word. This Government has the power to take over any branch line they want-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Subject to Parliament.


William F. Carroll: -Subject to ratification by Parliament. The acting Minister of Railways this morning said that we were not able to do that, because the Senate

had spoiled the Bill of last year. What was the necessity for this vote if the Government could not do it? They have done it in the past and they can do it now. I could point out to my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) various roads that the Government have taken over.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: Would the Government have power to pay for a road, and could they afterwards have that power confirmed hy Parliament.
Mr. CARROLiL: Ilf they had a Governor General's warrant they could do it.


John Dowsley Reid: No, they could not.
Mr, CARROLL: I am not sure. They could do all the business that was necessary.


Angus Alexander McLean: That ie exactly what the Bill of last year contemplated.


William F. Carroll: If it only contemplated that, I do not know what good it would be. It contemplated it in this way, that it handed over to the Minister of Railways power that should have been vested in this Parliament. It gave him the power to take over any indivdual road that he might decide to take over, without coming to Parliament for ratification and without being responsible to Parliament for the amount of money he might spend in connection with the matter. There ie .all the distinction in the world between the Minister of Railways going down to the province of Nova Scotia this year and negotiating with any company there for the taking over of iany lines that are feeders to the Intercolonial, making all the necessary arrangements and coming .to Parliament for ratification, in which case Parliament would know all the details of the arrangement, and this Parliament giving the Minister of Railways power to take over any railway without Parliament knowing afterwards whether the terms on which it was taken over were good or bad. My hon. friend from Cumberland and the hon. member from Prince Edward Island will see a very great distinction between these two lines of action.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Did you vote for the
Branch Lines Bill last year?


William F. Carroll: There was no vote taken.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then you cannot criticise these terms now.


William F. Carroll: Did my hon. friend vote against every piece of legislation in this
House during the time he was in Opposition?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot recollect. I
have been in the House for some years. But my point is: the -hon. gentleman cannot criticise this legislation now because he did not object in the previous session. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) supported the legislation and supported these terms.


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend is mistaken in saying that I cannot criticise because no legislation exists. What I am pointing out is that the Government had all this session to bring in legislation. The Bill brought down last session, in the estimation of the Senate, was faulty, and they amended it in such a way as to commend it to business men-not party politicians, but those who have the interest of railway enterprise- and of the public money at heart. I am going to conclude by saying that this is an absurd vote, if, as the acting Minister of Railways has told us, the Government have no power to take over roads, and that the unfortunate Senate-which helped out the Government so much last night in their difficulties with the Farmers Bank-made such a grievous mistake last year that nothing could be done to take over the branch lines of the Intercolonial railway. Why, the senator from Cumberland, an appointee of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden), voted against it.


John Dowsley Reid: We are not talking about
the Farmers Bank.


William F. Carroll: I know it is not savory to the hon. member for Cumberland and to other hon. members opposite to know what happened in the Senate last night. I can only, in a humble way, voice the sentiments of the hon. member for St. John and say that the policy of this Government with reference to branch lines is not one which commends itself either to the House or the country. They have no policy. They are not endeavouring, and do not intend, to do anything in regard to branch lines. Their intention was to lead the people to think that the branch lines were to be acquired, and they have told the people that the Senate killed the Bill, when they have now full power to take over the branch lines.


Mr. WRIGHT:: It seems to me the issue is a very clear-cut one. If the hon. gentleman does not believe that the Government intends to acquire the branch lines, he

will be perfectly justified in voting against this measure.


William F. Carroll: Does the hon. gentleman know what Bill we are passing?


John Dowsley Reid: This item.


William Pugsley: It seems to me unfortunate that in a Parliament, where apparently every member of this House is favourable to taking over the branch lines, some means could not be devised which would enable that thing to be done. Why *should Parliament declare itself to be absolutely helpless? This difficulty is that this House, led by this Government, does not seem to be willing to recognize that the Senate is an essential branch of the constitution and that the Senate has a perfect right to amend Bills in a way which commends itself to their judgment or to reject them. They do that frequently. They did it in regard to the Farmers Bank Bill; they did it in reference to the Bank Act and the Post Office Act; they do it constantly in reference to important matters.


George Perry Graham: They might do it too in reference to redistribution.


William Pugsley: But the Government,
simply because the Senate made an amendment, seems to be in a state of sulks in regard to this Branch Lines Bill. They say, because the Senate may interfere with our legislation, we are not going to attempt tc legislate for what we believe to be in the public interest, but we will meet the matter' by putting in a vote for meeting expenses, and thereby we will induce the people to believe that we intended to do something, if it had not been for this wicked Senate. I would like to point out to the minister what was done at the last session so that we may see whether, after all, it wa? reasonable, and whether the action of the Senate does not open up a way by which this matter could be easily accomplished. As the Bill passed the House last year it gave authority to the Minister of Railways to construct any new lines to the extent of twenty-five miles. The Senate did not interfere with that, and allowed that power to remain in the Bill just as it was. The Bill provided for the leasing or purchase of any branch line not exceeding two hundred miles in length. The Bill did not provide an appropriation for the purpose, and I doubt very much if the Government would feel it to be within its power, even if the Bill had passed just as it went

through the House, to actually pay for the road until it had an amount put in the Estimates and voted by Parliament. What did the Senate do ? In the Bill as it passed the House it was provided that any agreement for lease or purchase should be laid on the table of the House within fifteen days after the opening of the session. The only amendment the Senate made was to put in the words ' for ratification.' Now, when the Government would come down with an item in the Estimates of so much money to pay for the branch lines which have been acquired, surely that would be a ratification. Therefore, the Government, by not actually providing that the money might be paid over in the Bill which passed through the House, recognized the propriety of the Senate doing exactly what it did. In the ordinary course the agreement would be laid upon the table, in accordance with the Senate amendment, and if there was an item in the Estimates to pay for the road which was acquired that would be a ratification by Parliament. Surely, if in the judgment of the Senate, that was the proper thing to do, in view of what is the ordinary practice, that was not taking such a course as to offend this high and mighty Government and make them say that they will withdraw into their shells and do absolutely nothing. If they would recognize that the Senate is an essential and important branch of the constitution and introduce a Bill at this session framed along reasonable and fair lines, I have no reason to doubt but that it would meet with the unanimous approval of this House, and that the Senate, in accordance with the view they expressed last session, would be entirely willing to pass it through. All the Senate asked for and intended to ask for, in my judgment, was that when the time came for paying the money, before it was actually paid over there should be an appropriation by Parliament. Suppose there was authority given to build a bridge, before the money would be paid the item would appear in the Supply Bill in the ordinary way, and that would be the case where there was the purchase of a railway. What I complain of is, that the acting Minister of Railways cannot tell us what it is intended to do with this item of $500,000 or whether it is intended to do anything. I say that is insulting Parliament, and the Minister of Railways must not think that he is above Parliament. Parliament controls the money of this country acting as trustees for the people, and before Parliament passes an appropriation of half a million dollars it

has a right to be informed by the acting minister as to whether it is intended to use that money and how it is intended to use it. I say that putting this item in is simply making a pretense to the people of the Maritime provinces and of Quebec that the minister intends to do something, while at the same time the acting minister tells us in effect that he has no intention of doing anything, because, forsooth, the Senate chose to amend the Bill of last session. I do put it to the minister in all seriousness and sincerity, as one who honestly believes that it would be in the public interest to have such branch lines taken over, that he ought to be able to tell us whether or not he intends to use this money to operate any branch lines. If he satisfies this committee that he does intend to do so, we will cheerfully pass the item. If he does not, he should not ask Parliament for a large appropriation which he does not intend to use, which he has no thought of using, and which he believes he cannot use. Surely in doing this he is not treating Parliament with the respect to which the representatives of the people are entitled.


John Dowsley Reid: I should not like the hon. member to think that in placing in the Estimates the item we are now discussing, I intended to treat him or any other member of the House with disrespect. The item was put in with the intention of spending the amount if the Government finds it necessary to do so. The hon. member knows that in 1910 the Branch Lines Act was passed, and that in 1911 the then Minister of Railways and Canals had to introduce an amendment to that Act for the reason that under the statute as it stood he could not take over branch lines. That is evidence that the Act was not workable in so far as the taking over of the branch lines in the lower provinces is concerned. The hon. member now admits that the first thing this Government did was to try to remedy that difficulty by introducing a new Act. It is true that the Act as first introduced was not satisfactory and was withdrawn, but a new Act was passed that was satisfactory to every member of the House. The hon. member says that the only change the Senate made was the insertion of the two words ' for ratification.' To anyone who did not have the Bill before him or who did not understand the situation, that would look like a fair amendment. But the hon. member knows that after the Bill had been discussed in
the House by the hon. member for the city of St. John, by the hon. member for South Renfrew, and toy every member on the other side of the House, who all agreed to the Bill as being perfectly satisfactory, the right hon. leader of the Opposition objected when it came to the third reading. The Bill, however, went through, and the Senate, in accordance with the wishes of the right hon. leader of the Opposition, put in two words which -changed the whole meaning of the Bill.


William Pugsley: How did they change the meaning?


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill read this way:
Provided, however, that a copy of every such lease or contract of purchase shall he laid before Parliament within one month after the execution thereof, if Parliament is then sitting, or, if Parliament is not then sitting, within ten days after the opening of the next session thereafter.
They changed it to read this way:
Provided, however, that such lease or contract of purchase shall he laid before Parliament for ratification.
In this way they put the Bill back to the 3ame position in which the law was in 1910, making it of no effect. The whole question is: What are we going to do with the money iprovided in this -appropriation? As I understand the law of 1910, if a road is equal to the etandard of the Intercolonial railway, it may toe taken over and operated until Parliament meets. We may use a portion of that money for working expenses until such time. There is a portion of road between Sackville and [DOT] Cape Tormentine which we may have to take over, in connection with the car ferry, and we may require the amount for -that. This item of $500,000 has been in the Estimates for some time; we are just revoting that amount, -and if it becomes absolutely necessary to use it f-or some purpose of that kind, we shall have the money to pay working expenses.


William Pugsley: At last the minister
says that he is of the opinion that under the legislation of 1910, in the case of a road which comes up to the standard and is certified by the chief engineer as being suitable for operation as part of the Intercolonial system, there is the power to lease and that this money may be used for operating pending the obtaining of further authority from Parliament. If the minister says seriously that it is intended to use

this appropriation for that purpose, I have no further objection to the item.


Charles Marcil: As the minister knows,
the new railway from New Carlisle to Gaspe is in first-class condition, equal to the Intercolonial railway. Unfortunately, a part of the road from New Carlisle to Mata-pedia is not in good condition. Last year the minister sent a commissioner down to the county of Bonaventure to hold meetings in the various parishes of the county for the purpose of taking up claims against those railways. The commissioner has reported to the Governor in Council that $82,000 should be paid in satisfaction of those claims. The acting Minister of Kail-ways and Canals referred that report to the Justice Department and the Justice Department has decided that the commissioner exceeded his powers; that he went far beyond the powers conferred upon him by his appointment and reported upon claims with which he had no business to deal. The people down there want to know whether they have been fooled again or whether any part of the money for the payment of their claims is to come out of this vote.


John Dowsley Reid: The matter has been submitted to the Justice Department, and, not having had a final report from the Justice Department as to what action should be taken, I am not able to give the hon. member any information.


Charles Marcil: The minister is aware that Mr. Newcombe has submitted his report, . and it has been brought down to the House in a return. Mr. Newcombe declares that there is no liability whatever on the part of the Government or of Parliament in the matter of these claims; that the sole liability rests with the Quebec Oriental railway, which acquired the Atlantic and Lake Superior railway under an Act of Parliament passed some eight, years ago. I managed to introduce into that Act an amendment providing that when the Quebec Oriental railway acquired this road it would become liable for claims for labour, board and material. Mr. Newcombe declares that the sole liability of Parliament towards the people of Bonaventure, who built this railway, is that of the Quebec Oriental Tailway. I should like to know whether the Government intends going beyond the report of the Deputy Minister of Justice and paying the other claims which have been reported upon by the commissioner.
 '


John Dowsley Reid: The matter is now before
the Justice Department for opinion upon the question as to whether we should take any further action in the matter or as to whether the parties themselves should proceed against the railway. We are awaiting advice from the department along that line.


Charles Marcil: At Matapedia a new gravitation water service has been introduced. A hydrant has been placed between the station and the Kestigouche club for the protection of the station and the freight shed. I would like to remind the minister that this small village which is huddled close to the station has been destroyed by fire twice within the last ten years. Should another fire break out and the wind be in a certain direction, the village would again be wiped out because the people could not cope with the fire with the appliances they now have. I would like to ask the minister if it would not be possible to have a long hose kept in the station so that in case of fire it could be used to protect the adjoining premises as well as the Intercolonial Tailway. I understand the minister intends to enlarge the freight shed, and this will bring it quite close to the village. The minister knows that the buildings are all in a bunch and lying in the bottom of a valley, and if fire were to break out under present conditions nothing could save the Kestigouche Club house and the other buildings.
There is another matter which I would like to draw to the minister's attention. As you emerge from the snow-shed you come to one of the most dangerous crossings on the Intercolonial railway. When trains are stalled people are often held up for an hour at a time. The proposal has been made by some people that a subway should be built underneath the crossing. Has any report been made in regard to that?


John Dowsley Reid: So far as better fire protection in Matapedia is concerned, I suppose the Intercolonial railway have just sufficient hose at present to protect their own property; but it is certainly a reasonable request that a few more hundred feet should be provided for the protection of the whole village. I have always thought it good policy to have a double quantity of hose in case of breakage. I will give instructions to the general manager to order a sufficient quantity of hose to protect the whole village. In regard to the other matter, there

is no item in the Estimates for a subway at Matapedia. This is the first time the matter has been brought to my attention, and I am unable to say whether a report has been made. I will make inquiries, and if we have a report in the department I shall be glad to mail it to the hon. member.


Charles Marcil: If no report has been
made, the minister might have the matter looked into, because Matapedia is one of the most important stations in that district. The traffic is very important and constantly growing.


John Dowsley Reid: If there is no report in the department I will write the general manager to have a report made so that it will be available at the next session of Parliament.


Charles Marcil: I would like to point out to the minister, although this is a matter under the control of the Minister of Public Works, that the approach to the interprovincial bridge at Matapedia has never been completed. Perhaps the minister will ask his officials to look into that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I just wish to say a
word or two in reference to what my hon. friend has said about the future purchase of the Gaspe railway-the railway running from Matapedia to Gaspe basin-part of which is in good condition and part of which is not. I discussed this matter in the House some time ago, and I understood that my right hon. friend was going to consider the matter of the Government acquiring this branch line. I simply want to remind him that forty years ago it was contemplated to be a branch line of the Intercolonial and the first twenty miles were built, but the idea was abandoned and now the line is owned by a private concern. I think the Government under the present conditions could acquire the road on very fair terms, and I hope my hon. friend will give this matter his earnest consideration because the people of the whole peninsula are eagerly looking forward to the day when the Government will operate the read.


John Dowsley Reid: I have not forgotten the
request of the hon. member and will give it my consideration.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: There is a very bad crossing at Sylvan valley, a short distance west of Antigonish station. I merely mention the name because the
facts are all in the office of the department. Several persons have been killed there, and certainly an overhead bridge should be built at that point. A new station should also be built at South river. It was virtually decided on by the late Government, but nothing has been done in that direction by the present Government. Repairs are also badly needed to the station at Tra-cadie. The health inspector some time ago reported against the insanitary condition of the station, which is in a very bad condition. This station should be put in proper shape and the grounds attended to. As I do not want to delay the Estimates, I merely mention the places referred to. The facts in each case are in the possession of the department already.


John Dowsley Reid: I will draw the attention of the general manager of the Intercolonial railway to the statements made by my hon. friend.


William Stewart Loggie: In. regard to the matter
to which I referred some time ago, I understood the minister to say that he was willing to have a bridge built from the south to the north side of the river. I believe the rule is for the Government to pay for approaches from the King's highway to a station, and I think this bridge would come under that policy. I would like to ask the minister if that is the case?


John Dowsley Reid: The Minister of Railways
will consider it when he is down there this summer.
Railways and Canals-To provide car ferry, construct terminals and necessary connections- Refund of security deposited by the Halifax Dredging Company, Limited, on tender for car ferry terminals at Carleton Point, P.E.I., $39,975.


John Dowsley Reid: This is a refund to the
Halifax Dredging Company, Limited. This company tendered for work on Prince Edward Island with the 'expectation o'f being able to use the stone on Prince Edward Island, but they afterwards found that it was not suitable for the purpose, and refused to go on with the contract.


George Perry Graham: Who was in the company?


John Dowsley Reid: I really do not know. The
junior member for Halifax and the Prime Minister have both urged that this claim be paid.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.

Intercolonial railway, $1,887,100.


Mr. McKENZIE:: I desire to bring to the notice of the hon. acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Reid) the dismissal of a man in my county who, I think, was not properly dismissed. A man of the name of Cameron, a railway conductor, was up for trial some time in the month of August, 1913, charged with drinking, and a brakeman named Brydon was called as a witness to prove that he had been drinking. In the course of his examination Brydon was asked: ' Do you drink yourself.' Brydon had admitted that he had taken a drink at his home at breakfast time, about six o'clock in the morning, and before he had gone on duty. With no other evidence against Brydon than that, he was dismissed. This investigation took place on the 18tli August, 1913, and on the first day of September, 1913, a new regulation came into force. This regulation started every man on the road with a clean sheet. I will not trouble the minister by reading it. It is ' Canadian Government Railways, Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railway, regulation, circular No. 5,' dated the 1st September, 1913, and signed ' F. P. Gutelius, general manager.' This is the regulation that started the demerit marks. There were no demerit marks against anybody on the 1st September, 1913; everybody, as I say, was started with a clean sheet. Brydon, who now lives in Sydney, but who formerly lived in my county, started out with a clean sheet on the 1st September, and on the 27th October, without ever being apprised that there were any demerit marks against him, he received this notification from Mr. L. S. Brown, the superintendent of that division of the road:
' New Glasgow,
Monday, October 27, 1913.
Mr. D. J. Brydon,
Brakeman, Intercolonial railway,
Sydney, C.B.
Dear Sir,-This is to notify you that you are assessed for sixty demerit marks and your services dispensed with at once for using intoxicating liquor before going on duty at Sydney on the morning of the 18th of August last. You will please hand over to chief des-patcher Dunne any property you may have belonging to the railway.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) L. S. Brown.
I submit that this is pretty hard treatment. Here is a man who had stated, before this regulation came into force, that he had taken a drink of liquor before going on duty, and how, after this regulation is

introduced, he is told that the demerit marks were placed against him because he had taken a drink on the 18th August, although he had started out without the slightest stain on his character as a railway man on the 1st September. I am sure that the hon. acting minister is logician enough to see that it is absolutely absurd to go back into this month of August, collect these demerit marks and carry them into the operation of this new rule, which, on September 1, started this man off with a clean sheet. Mr. Brydon had a great many friends, and there was a petition sent to the department, signed by a great many leading Conservatives of the place, asking that a further investigation be held and that this man be given a fair show. I find that the petition is signed by Mr. W. G. Egan, president of the Liberal Conservative Association of Cape Breton, James Maddin, ex-Member of Parliament, who was a member of this House for a great many years, and a large number of the leading members of the party to which the hon. minister belongs. Brydon, having ibeen on the road for ten or fifteen years and having become accustomed to this kind of work, at his time of life is not very well fitted for hard work outside of the work to which he has been trained. I hope that the minister, particularly in view of this strong petition coming from leading men such as those I have named, will inquire further into the treatment meted out to this man and do for him whatever he thinks ought to be done in view of the circumstances.
If the minister will read the regulation of the 1st of September he will see that the crime in connection with liquor is to be under the influence of liquor while off duty or to take liquor while on duty. This subjects a man to dismissal, but the offence as presented by Mr. Brown in his notification was simply that this man had taken a drink of liquor before he had gone on duty on the 18th of August, 1913. I submit that does not come within the rule, because there is not a particle of evidence that he was intoxicated, and there is no evidence that he took a drink while he was on duty. The evidence is all the other way. That is all I have to say on that point.
I asked the minister some days ago for some information about a payment of something in the vicinity of $4,000 by the Intercolonial railway to my friend Mr. H. F. McDougall, a gentleman who was at

one time a member of this House, and a gentleman against whom I have nothing to say. I simply say that if Mr. McDougall thinks this Government is legitimate prey, and that he has as much right to get money from them as anybody else, and if they have money to give for which they have no justification, I suppose he might as well come and get some of- it as other people.
I want to know from the minister upon what ground this money was paid. I want it distinctly understood that I am making no particular charge against Mr. McDougall, because if he thought he could get easy money here he had a right to come and look for it. Mr. McDougall sells sand and gravel, particularly to the steel works in Sydney. He built a siding somewhere in the vicinity of Grand Narrows to a sand beach and it was built so badly that the ordinary engines of the Intercolonial could not go on the siding without breaking through. Mr. McDougall was told that if he was to receive the services of the road it would toe on a special agreement that had to get a light engine and pay a special rate which was agreed upon -as $35 for each trip of the engine and crew. The engine came a distance of seventy-five miles from Sydney to Grand Narrows, that is, the round trip, whenever occasion was required to take Mr. McDougall's cars from the siding to Sydney. That went on for many years; tout as soon as this Government came into power Mr. McDougall -made a claim against the Intercolonial railway for over $6,000 for this extra charge for. the use of this engine. Every officer of the road was against the payment of this claim. Mr. Brady, t)he general superintendent, was dead against it, Mr. Pottinger was against it, and Mr. Campbell the chairman of the board and the deputy minister was receiving letters from these parties and trying to reconcile the advice he was receiving from his officers with evidently what the minister wanted to do. At last they appointed a commission to inquire into the matter, and they agreed they would abide by the finding of Mr. J. B. T. Caron, who was the legal adviser of the Intercolonial Bailway Board. Mr. Caron went to Sydney and took sworn evidence from every man who 'had anything to do with the hiring of the train and the hauling of the sand, and Mr. McDougall was given every opportunity of putting his evidence before him. The report of Mr. Caron consists of five typewritten pages, and is dated the 5th of June, 1912, and (he reports to the department that Mr. McDougall has
not the first shadow of a claim to compensation.
Mr. Caron says that Mr. McDougall was treated precisely like every other man who was doing business with the road, and that he had a well-defined agreement for the use of the engine and crew and that he deserved nothing. In face of that report the Minister of Bailways got an Order in Council through directing that about half this money should be paid. I submit that there was no justification for this. What was the good o'f appointing a commissioner if it .was not the intention of the Government to stand by his finding, which was [DOT] clear-cut and explicit. Mr. Caron reported that there was no money due to Mr. McDougall, and yet in the teeth of that we find the Government paying this money without getting it voted by the House, on the pretext that it is for legal expense. I protest against the paying-out of the money of the people in this way. If the Government has presents to give to old friends I am fully content that Mr. McDougall should get his share, but if moneys are to be paid out on any kind of just principle, I would like to know on what principle this money was paid out.
There is another matter to which I wish to call the attention of the minister. The Intercolonial is now operating the new section of the road1, between George's Biver, Sydney Mines, and North Sydney, and I understand that there are no station agents at Florence and Little Bras d'Or which are important points, and at which a good deal of business is done. I would ask the minister to see that the road is manned in such a way that those who do business with it shall be given every convenience and facility.
1 am also informed that, where this extension of the line is going through the town of North Sydney, it is taking a very zigzag, irregular course, and that the width of the right of way is not by any means uniform, the narrowing and widening being done for the purpose of avoiding the trouble of taking property that might be regarded as expensive. In going through a town, a road can do a good deal of damage at best; but it is certainly desirable that the width of the right of way should be uniform, and I think that the damage would be lessened by making the whole road of the same width. In going through this town, the road crosses at least three streets; and so far as I know, it is intended that the road shall cross- them at dead level. In the busiest parts of the town it is very

dangerous to cross streets on the level, and I trust the minister will see that overhead crossings are put particularly at the busiest streets. I am sure it was decided under the former Administration to put an overhead crossing in the town of Florence where the railroad crosses the busiest part of the town, and it was also decided to put an overhead crossing where the railroad crosses the highway right at the end of the bridge at Little Bras D'Or. It was thought by Mr. Brady that the proper and only safe way was to make an overhead crossing .there, and that it was not a difficult thing to do. These are the principal matters that I wish to bring to the attention of the minister.
So far as the discussion that has taken place this morning in regard to branch lines is concerned, I am not going to discuss that question now. The Government know where I stand upon that question, and I trust that before long something will be done to accommodate the people of Victoria in particular, who have no railway accommodation at all. If the minister is able to give satisfactory replies in regard to these matters, I do not think I shall bother him again on his Estimates.


John Dowsley Reid: In regard to the Ibrakeman
on the Intercolonial who has been dismissed, I must admit that I am not fully aware of the whole facts, not having had them before me up to the present time; but it is quite evident from the statements made by the hon. member that this man has been dismissed for having taken liquor. Every one will agree that, if any official of a railway, and especially a conductor or brakeman or engine driver, is found guilty of an offence of that kind, he should be relieved at once of his position, because life is in danger. In this case, it appears, however, that the offence was prior to an order that had gone into effect in regard to drinking. In cases of this kind on the railway, I understand that an investigation is held by the officials of the railway; and, if the results of the investigation are not satisfactory to the employee, the latter may appeal to the Trainmen's Association to which he belongs to look into the case, and they would take the matter up if they found that the employee had been unjustly dealt with. I will, however, look into this man's case again; and, if there is anything that can be done for him, I am sure the Minister of Railways will have no hesita-

tion in reconsidering the matter of the facts justify such action. It appears to me, however, that his case must be weak, because the Trainmen's Association usually take up a case when any official has been found guilty of some act and has been dismissed.
With reference to the case of Mr. H. F. McDougall, the facts are practically as stated by the hon. member. A refund was made to Mr. McDougall. It is true, it was charged up at the time to legal expenses. The item was paid through that vote, and was immediately afterwards transferred to the proper vote of the Intercolonial at Moncton. It does not follow from the fact that this refund was placed in the item of legal expenses that Mr. McDougall was paid for legal expenses. The hon. member stated that a commissioner was appointed, namely, Mr. J. B. T. Caron, and that he reported against this case. As I understand it, Mr. Caron was one of the commission appointed for the management of the Intercolonial; and he looked after the claims made against that railway. An appeal was taken from the decision of Mr. Caron to Mr. Cochrane, Minister of Railways and Canals. Mr. Cochrane and the officials of his department went into the case again, with the result that they found Mr. McDougall had been charged $35 a day for a special engine to draw the freight on this line of railway; and that he had also been charged the full freight charges, so that he was paying for the engine and the freight charges as well. After going into the matter thoroughly, it was reported to Mr. Cochrane by the officials of the department that, in their opinion, Mr. McDougall had been overcharged. Accordingly Mr. Cochrane and his officials decided that- a portion of the amount for the freight should be refunded to Mr. McDougall. They retained the amount for the use of the engine and a portion of the amount for the freight; and in that way the matter was settled, and the Order in Council as recommended by Mr. Cochrane passed.


William F. Carroll: Who made the contract with Mr. McDougall for the use of the engine?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Brady, the Superintendent of the Intercolonial railway. It is a very usual thing for any person who has a claim against any department, if he feels that his claim is justifiable, to appeal to the deputy minister and the head of the department for their further consideration and decision.

That has been the custom in every department for very many years. This is a case in which an appeal of that kind1 was made to the minister with the result that he confirmed Mr. Caron's decision to a certain extent; in other words, he gave about half of what was claimed to Mr. McDougall. So far as I can understand the matter from the Order in Council, I do not think that the decision of the minister was unreasonable. If Mr. McDougall was paying $35 a day for an engine to draw his oars, and paid the full freight in addition, it really seems to me rather exorbitant, and that the minister was justified in refunding to him a portion of the freight so Maimed.
With reference to the line in Victoria, as I understand the situation-of course, the hon. member understands it much better than I do, for I have never been in that section-the original line runs from George's River to Sydney, but the grade was very heavy and a diversion was made from George's River to North Sydney; and now the line is being built from North Sydney to Leitoh's creek in order to make that connection. That work is under contract and is toeing proceeded with as fast as possible. The hon. member complains that the railway company is making the right of way in some.places a little narrower than usual in order to save expense, whereas he thinks the railway should take all the property and keep the right of way a proper width. I have not heard of that complaint before. I agree with the hon. member that the railway should be kept a uniform width, and I think that has been the custom not only on the Intercolonial railway but on all railways. But there are cases where it may be advisable, on account of valuable property, to take not the whole property, but just the width that would be necessary to run the trains. Perhaps at this section, there may be something of that kind. I can only make inquiries of the general manager and see what the situation is, and learn why he is deviating from the policy of having the right of way a uniform width.
Then there is the other complaint, that the railway has been completed for several months and that there are no agents at the stations to accommodate the public and to receive freight, etc. As I understand it, that road is really not in full operation yet; we have not put on a regular service.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I understand that all
the freights go around that way.


John Dowsley Reid: That may possibly be; but
I understand that they are really not giving passenger and freight services yet. But the placing of a few agents along the road for a short distance is not a serious matter.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: They are needed in
only two places.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot see. any objection
to that. The cost would be small, and unless the train service is very limited I see no reason why it should not be done. I will take the matter up immediately with the general manager, and find out why agents are not there, with a view to having them placed there at once.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is a serious matter for me to have brought up this matter of the payment of the money to Mr. McDougall, but I want very briefly to justify the position I have taken by reading the following letter from the general superintendent, Mr. Brady:
Moncton, N.B., February 13, 1912.
A. W. Campbell, Esq., C.E.,
Chairman, Government Railway managing Board,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-Replying to your communication of the 5th instant, referring to mine of the 2nd relative to H. F. McDougall's application for refund, am returning you herewith the documents you sent me.
Replying to the portion of Mr. McDougall's letter which is underlined: No application was received from him for any siding except for one at Christmas island, in 1910, when he was informed we would put it in at his expense under the usual agreement.
We would consider requests at any time on the above basis.
Replying to the questions on the statement attached as follows:
Answer to question 1:	The rate of $35 per
day, in addition to the freight charges, was quoted because it is fair rate.
It was distinctly understood at that time that the $35 was to be separate and apart from the freight charges.
Trainmen have to be paid, for 10 hours for any length of time less than that, and engine-men have to be paid for 10 hours if out over 5 hours. The distance return trip is 79 miles.
The engine rate was imposed because, had the siding been in such condition that we could have put our standard road engines on to it, we could have handled the product at no expense over and above the cost of haulage.
See Minute No. 1352 reading as follows: H. F. McDougall of Sydney, writes re charge of $35 per day for the use of which we make of a locomotive on his siding outside of Sydney, and further asks that we furnish him with a number of rails to extend this siding. Decided we furnish him these rails at the usual charge per ton, and to continue the charge of $35 per day for the locomotive.



He was advised to this effect on June 10, 1911.
Question No. 2 :	No such thing has ever occurred to my knowledge. Rule No. 28 ' general instructions to agents and contractors ' governs such cases and is not departed from.
This case is not exactly similar to the case in the rule but amounts to the same thing so far as expense to the railway is concerned.
Then, he has questions here that I have not got:
Question No. 3 :	The statement is not true.
No similar service is given to any with no extra charge for the engine to my knowledge.
Question No. 4 :	The rate of $3 per hour is
correct in accordance with rule No. 28 ' general instructions to agents and conductors '; and engines have not been hired to others at any different rate to my knowledge.
Question No. 5 : No applications received from him for sidings except as per second paragraph of my letter.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) F. P. Brady,
General Superintendent.
The whole case has been gone into by the general superintendent, and he returned it June 4. If there aTe officers in the minister's department who can be frightened into changing their rulings, and giving a different verdict altogether within a few hours, it is inexplicable to me, but that is what was done.
Mr. BOU'LAY: I want to .say a few words about the question of branch lines on the Intercolonial railway before the subject is concluded. I heard several members on the other side express the opinion that it will be detrimental to the interest, not only of the Intercolonial railway, but of the whole country, if these branches that are paying expenses are not bought as soon as possible. I will mention the Baie des Chaleurs railway, the Caraquet railway and the International railway, I am particularly familiar with the conditions respecting the International railway. This is a short road, but a great deal of traffic is carried upon it, and if it were a branch of the Intercolonial, I think it would pay three or four times the expenses of its management. Many people of my county do business along that railway and they are greatly inconvenienced by the fact that it i3 a private road and that there is no connection at all with the Intercolonial. If we want to make a trip of 125 miles on that road, it takes us forty or forty-eight hours to do so. If it were the property of the Intercolonial railway, surely the same trip could be made in twelve hours. Until the road is made a branch of the Intercolo-

nial, I hope that the management of the Government railways will make an arrangement with the owners of the road with a view to connecting with the Intercolonial at one point at least, so as to enable us to avoid staying overnight in Campbellton every time we go down the line. If the Government makes up its mind to lease any railway, I think this should be the first one to be leased, because it is one of the most important lines in that district. It is used by many passengers and a lot of lumber and general freight is carried over the road.
I presume the minister did not clearly understand what I said in French the other day, and I may be permitted to repeat my remarks in English. I complained that we did not have our fair share of patronage on the Intercolonial railway, particularly in connection with the sleeping and dining car service. There are twenty-six conductors on the sleeping cars, and only four are taken from the province of Quebec. If the minister would drop a line to the manager of this branch, Mr. Archibald, I think he would be willing to give to the province of Quebec in this respect the justice which it deserves. Now is the time to put new men on; I think he should take eight or nine from the province of Quebec in order to give us fair play. With respect to the dining car service, it would be a very easy matter to satisfy the people of the province of Quebec. The dining cars are left off at Ste. Flavie on every triip. When an express train goes down from Montreal in the morning, the dining cars are taken off at Ste. Flavie and left there until the next morning. It would be just as well to run the dining cars from Montreal to St. Flavie. It would mean the same amount of shunting and movement of trains, would mean no additional expense and would give the province of Quebec a chance to furnish conductors, cooks and others who are employed on these cars.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I am thankful to the
hon. member for having come to my assistance in the matter of the Caraquet railway. It has been my duty every session for a number of years to call the attention of the Government to the conditions affecting that line. It is certainly one of the most important branches of the Intercolonial in the province of New Brunswick, and I hope that the voice of the hon. member for

Rimouski will have some influence upon the Government and particularly upon the Department of Railways and Canals, and that his desire will be fulfilled within a short time.


George Perry Graham: What rolling stock does the minister intend to buy?


John Dowsley Reid: That $1,000,000 is really a
book-keeping item. I think that for some little time for the purchase of rolling stock there has been an amount paid over and above the vote, and the amount has reached such a sum that it is necessary to put in a special item to cover it. I think the Finance Department advances money for the purchase of rolling stock.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Has the minister any plans for new rolling stock this year?


John Dowsley Reid: Last year we purchased 600 freight cars and about 25 engines; we are not purchasing very much rolling stock this year. We are providing twelve steel sleeping cars, six suburban cars, one 120-ton wrecking crane and one scale test car. I remember that the hon. member for the city of St. John was complaining very much about suburban cars, and I found the same condition at Halifax. I put in the Estimates, therefore, an amount to provide for the purchase of three suburban cars for St. John and three for Halifax. With the amount provided .in the Main Estimates, this is all we will require for rolling stock this year.


John Howard Sinclair: The present financial conditions are felt so much by the railways that most of them have stopped giving orders to the places where railway stock is manufactured. If the Government really require cars at the present time, I would suppose that they could make very favourable contracts with the parties who are engaged in that business.


John Dowsley Reid: Some orders have been given which will be paid out of this vote. We are giving orders for all that we require; in fact, for more than we require.


John Howard Sinclair: How many freight cars does the department require this year ?


John Dowsley Reid: We do not require any this year. As I have said, the Government last fall ordered 600 freight cars, and no additional cars are required during the present year. These 600 will be coming in for this year's use.
323j
Towards the construction of a railway to connect Montreal with the National Transcontinental railway, $1,000,000.


George Perry Graham: What is this $1,000,000 for ? Is the Government going to build a road ? If so, where, and how much is it going to cost ?


John Dowsley Reid: I am afraid that I cannot answer the hon. gentleman's three questions very fully; but I can say that when the Transcontinental railway was being constructed from Winnipeg to Moncton, no connection was provided between the Transcontinental and the city of Montreal other than that of coming down by Cochrane. It has been felt by the people of Montreal, and indeed by the Government, that a connection should be made between Montreal and the Transcontinental, and the Government have decided to build this connection themselves as part of the Transcontinental system.


George Perry Graham: Has any contract been made with the Grand Trunk Pacific to operate that section?


John Dowsley Reid: Nothing has been done yet in that direction.


George Perry Graham: How much will it cost?


John Dowsley Reid: We cannot have an estimate until after the surveys and plans have been made by our engineers. We are asking for $1,000,000 for the purpose of making the surveys and plans, and if the cost is not unreasonable, we shall have something left with which to start the work.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Government of the province of Quebec has taken a very deep interest in that branch line. As my hon. friend is aware, the Government of the province of Quebec has subsidized a railway to be built from Bell River to some point	on James bay.	That	company	hashad	surveys made,	and	I think	hasselected its terminus on James bay. During the last five or six years the Government	of the province of4 p.m. Quebec,	and	especially	the
Department of Colonization, has received some very interesting reports concerning that section of the country. The soil is fertile and well adapted to cultivation. In fact, something like twenty townships have already been surveyed, and not more than a month or so ago a number of settlers from the old parishes went up to that part of the country, on the first train to run from Harvey Junction to some point on the National Transcontinental

railway, for the purpose of selecting homesteads.


John Dowsley Reid: There was a special train load of them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Besides the question of colonization and settlement, for which, as my hon. friend knows, the French Canadians are peculiarly fitted, the Government of the province of Quebec is under the impression that in the years to come when the Hudson Bay railway is built, tapping as it will the rich and fertile wheat belt of the Northwest, and when the Hudson Bay strait is closed as it is for about seven months in the year, the grain can be carried from Port Nelson or Fort Churchill across Hudson bay, which is open practically all the year round, to the James bay terminus of the Quebec railway, in the northern portion of Quebec, thence to Bell river, and from there over the Government road to Montreal, Quebec, St. John or Halifax as the case may 'be. So I think the plan of the Government is a very laudable one, and will be very much appreciated by the people of the province of Quebec, and especially by the people of Montreal. I do not suppose that either Government ever contemplated that a great Transcontinental would be built without going to a big city like Montreal, which is the commercial metropolis of Canada. This connection will not only develop Montreal but all the ports of Canada. I understand that the company which has signed a contract with the Quebec Railway Department for the construction of a road between Bell river and James bay has already completed its surveys from the Transcontinental to Montreal, that they have gone to very great expense and are practically on the eve of starting the work, but I do not know just what has been done. I understand that the Government subsidized that line. At all events, the company has gone to great expense in surveying that section of the country, and perhaps the Government could utilize those surveys which were made by very eminent and practical engineers, and without rushing the work begin construction at the earliest opportunity. I believe that this section between Montreal and the National Transcontinental will be of the greatest benefit not only to Montreal and the province of Quebec but to the East generally, and to the West also. I therefore hope that the minister will consider the possibility of utilizing the surveys that were made by this company, as that would obviate the delay of two or three years in the construction of 
this road which would elapse if the Government undertook to survey this section themselves.


Mr. BORDEN:: What my hon, friend has said in that regardisdeserving of very careful consideration, and we are prepared to give it that consideration. I think, as my hon. friend mentioned, that a subsidy was given for the line from Montreal to the Transcontinental, but I believe that the company could not carry out the work even with the subsidy.


George Perry Graham: The subsidy was granted but the company did not succeed anyway.
I am in favour of the Government building a line from Montreal to the Transcontinental, and would like information as to what it would cost.


Robert Laird Borden: Estimates were made of
the cost of the road. Of course, we do not embark on such a project without knowing something about it. The road is about 300 miles long-


George Perry Graham: Running through a
pretty rough country in places.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be a fairly expensive road. I would not like to give an estimate without having figures before me. I' do not suppose that any estimate could be regarded as very accurate except in so far as it was based on surveys. Some surveys have been made, I understand, and I suppose the Minister of Railways will have the advantage of knowing what those surveys show.


George Perry Graham: Surveys were made of
two different routes.


Robert Laird Borden: Very likely that is the
ease. Under all the circumstances, it was thought that the course that is now proposed would be the better one.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Might I call the attention of my right hon. friend to the road from Belle river to James bay? That road is under the special care of the Quebec Government, has been subsidized quite heavily by them, and I would ask my right hon. friend if he does not think that this Government might help Quebec in the early completion of that road. I know that the Government are generous enough to give the Government of Sir UomeT Gouin a chance o! adding that new link to the chain of railways.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not been able to give sufficient consideration to this matter to be iable to form an opinion, and I am

not quite sure that I -would be able to form an opinion on the information at present available. The project -would involve the unloading of the grain at Nelson or Churchill, transportation by steamer to some point on James bay and loading again into cars. Whether or not that would be a more economical method of transportation than by the Transcontinental railway, I am not quite sure, and I do not suppose that any one can be quite sure.
Mr. L'EMIEUX: I would not like, not being an expert, to pass judgment on the water route and the railway route, but from calculations I have seen, it seems to me that this long waiter stretch would seriously effect the rates in favour of the former. However, it is too late in the session to discuss this point. I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman is quite sympathetic with the project.


Robert Laird Borden: I know that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canale (Mr. Cochrane) gave a good deal of consideration to this particular project, as involving the possible utilization of the Hudson Bay railway in case the navigation of the straits should prove more difficult and the season of shorter duration than has been expected. I can assure my hon. friend that this will have very caTeful consideration.


William F. Carroll: I had a letter this morning from Mr. Ross, of Ross and McDonald, Olice Bay, the letter being from Louistburg, about some claim that Mr. Ross had against the Department of Railways and Canals in connection with the building of a road iat the Grand Narrows some years ago, and if the minister will be kind enough to give me a memorandum as to whether this matter is under consideration, I will be obliged to him.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, I will get a complete memorandum land give lit to my hon. friend.
Post office-Outside service, salaries and allowance, $6,429,920.75.


Mr. BUREAU:: I received a letter in answer to an inquiry I made in the House some time ago as to what constituted the district of Three Rivers as far as post office inspection was concerned. I -asked whether Three Rivers was a sub-station or a main station.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Did my hon. friend receive that letter from -some of my officers?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.	[DOT][DOT]


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Stating what the area of the district w-as?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, stating that the area embraces N-icolet, St. Maurice, Three Rivers -and Maskinonge. Is Sherbrooke an office or a sub-office?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is an office by itself.


Jacques Bureau: Why should Sherbrooke be an office by itself and Three Rivers only a flag station?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is not a flag station, it is a very important office, tout heretofore it did not exist as an office and now it has been constituted as a suboffice. Sherbrooke is an office with an inspector. The area of the Sherbrooke inspection district is much larger than that of Three Rivers. We have, also established a suboffice for the Montreal division at Joliet.


Jacques Bureau: It may be that the territory of the Sherbrooke office is -larger, but as far as the relative importance of the two divisions is concerned, the comparison is in favour of Three Rivers. Outside of Sherbrooke there is no town of any great importance, while in the Three Rivers division, you have Three Rivers, La Tuque, Grand Mere and Sbawinigan Falls, all growing and important towns. Is it on account <xf the importance of the division of Sherbrooke that it is made -an office by itself while Three Rivers is made a suboffice or a flag station?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend cannot call -it a flag station. It was nothing during the time his friends were in office; it is something now.


Jacques Bureau: Sherbrooke was nothing
either.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Three Rivers did not even have a flag. The whole question resolves itself into this, that the area of the Sherbrooke inspection office is larger while the area of the Three Rivers suboffice is smaller. We have started by giving -a suboffice to Three Rivers; we may come to the conclusion that we will require a head office there by -and by but we have gone so far -and it is some -amelioration at all events.


Jacques Bureau: That is not the question at all. The Postmaster General says there was nothing there before. I answer there was nothing -at Sherbrooke. I do not see why Sherbrooke should lead Three Rivers if it is put upon the ground of the business
513G

that is done in the two places, but since the minister's excuse is that it is on account of the larger area I am satisfied although I do not want to have it go out to the public to-morrow that he found nothing and he made something.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will not do that.


Jacques Bureau: I know he will not do
that

no! I base my statement entirely upon a comparison of what is now existing. I say nothing as to what existed before because there was no office in either place. If area is given as the reason why an office has been established at Sherbrooke and a suboffice at Three Rivers I am satisfied with the answer although not with the condition.


Mr. McCREA:: Some little time ago I
made some inquiry in this House in regard to the car which had been purchased for the minister's department. The reply I got was that a second-hand seven-seater Packard was bought at a cost of $4,500. The car is a 1910 model and has been in use consequently for four years, and $4,500 seems a very extravagant price for a car of that kind. How did the minister come to buy a seven-seater Packard for that work and from whom did he buy it?
Mr. BiiLLETi Ei{:	The car was purchased in Montreal.


Francis N. McCrea: From whom?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The deputy minister does not remember the name, but he says it was from a jeweller in Montreal.


Francis N. McCrea: He was a lucky jeweller
to get $4,500 for a second-hand car of that kind. I have used some touring cars, and when I came to dispose of them I never was able to get more than half their original price and then I could not sell them for cash.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My officers inform me that this car had been in use for only two or three months and was practically new. It was damaged toy fire in Montreal and the body of it was repaired afterwards, and the price was considered very reasonable.


Francis N. McCrea: It could not be practically new when it was a 1910 model.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It was practically
new when we purchased it.


Francis N. McCrea: As a matter of fact was not that car in the service of the Po-st Office Department at Ottawa last year?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will make inquiries and inform the hon. gentleman, if he thinks it is that important.


Francis N. McCrea: I have a certificate here
from the registry office showing that a car was used by the post office here with the marking number 4,189, Packard model 1910, and the maker's number of the car was 1,270. The car now in Sherbrooke is registered under that same number. If it was the same car that was in the service of the post office here, I do not understand how it came to be bought from somebody else for $4,500. It seems to me the post office is putting on a little mite of extravagance. If there "were any reason at all to have a car for the Post Office Department, I do not think a seven-seater Packard was necessary. We have accused the Minister of Militia of being extravagant, but he was satisfied with Fords, which cost only about $700 each, and a Ford would answer the purpose of the Post Office Department here very well. But the Post Office Department is ready to pay $4,500 for a car that evidently has been in use for at least four years.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I say no.


Francis N. McCrea: But it is a 1910 model,
and these cars do not lie around the makers shops for three or four years. The chances are that car was sold in 1909.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: When that car was
bought it. had been in use for only two or three .months.


Francis N. McCrea: But it is a 1910 model and was built in 1909 and possibly sold then. The tires for this Packard car would cost about $300, whereas the tires for a Ford car could be bought for $20 each or $80 in all.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have some news to tell my hon. friend (Mr. McCrea), which has been impacted to me by the deputy minister, and that is that this car was . bought by the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux).


Rodolphe Lemieux: Never.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Then, let the matter
stand, and I will get all the information. My deputy minister tells me that he is under the impression that this car was the one purchased for the Montreal office.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is he under the impression, or is he sure?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am saying what
the'deputy minister tells me. I have asked that the matter stand over in order that I may be able to get the information.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is completely at sea in that statement, and I think he will have to apologize.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, I will not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You will not?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is no apology
due.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Postmaster General is completely at sea when he states that I as Postmaster General bought that automobile in Montreal. That is not true. When I was Postmaster General I bought a car for Mir. Gaboury, the inspector at Montreal. Whether it was a Packard or not I do not know, but I know it was a good car. But when my hon. friend succeeded me, he bought from a jeweller in Montreal an old car which had been injured by fire. The name of that jeweller is Mr. Caron. Is that right?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not know.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will you inquire?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will get the information. I do not want to wait for it now.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I just want to tell my hon. friend that he has made a mistake-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I may have done so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: -and that the deputy minister is making a mistake when he tells the minister that the old car was purchased by the member for Rouville. I said the department in 1909 or 1910 bought a new automobile for the use of the superintendent in Montreal, Mr. Gaboury; and it is still used by him, if I mistake not. But when my hon. friend became Postmaster General-I did not want to refer to this matter, but since my hon. friend has tackled me with it I must give out the facts-he bought from Mr. Caron in Montreal a car which had been injured by fire. The car was repaired. I do not know how much he paid for it. It is the car to which my hon. friend from Sherbrooke (Mr. McCrea) has just referred. That car was then transferred to Ottawa, and was used by Mr. Bolduc. Is that correct?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If I do not know,
what is the use of insisting?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was that car brought to Ottawa-yes or no?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will tell my hon. friend when I have made inquiry about the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The car was brought to Ottawa for the use, let us say, of Mr. Bolduc, Superintendent Rural Mail Delivery Branch. The case came up before the House last session, and that was the answer given by my hon. friend. A new car has now been bought for the use of Mr. Bolduc, and the old car bought from the jeweller in Montreal in 1911 by my hon. friend has been transferred to Sherbrooke, and now my hon. friend is heroic and brave enough to lay that baby at my door. I am enough of a sinner to take care of my own sins. I am responsible for one automobile bought for the use of Mr. Gaboury, superintendent of the post office at Montreal; and my hon. friend, who is a progressive statesman, has bought two, the old one which was used at Ottawa by Mr. Bolduc, superintendent, Rural Mail Delivery Branch, and which has since been transferred to Sherbrooke for the use of Mr. Dastous, inspector of the Rural Mail, and Mr. Bolduc has been provided with a new car. That is a fair statement; and why should my hon, friend persist in saying that I had bought not only a car in Montreal in 1909 or 1910, but the old car from the jeweller, when he knows very well it was bought under his Administration for Mr. Bolduc's use, and that Mr. Bolduc now has a new car and that the old one has been transferred to Sherbrooke? Is that a fair statement?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It may be quite fair. I will have the exact information as soon as possible and give it to my hon. friend. If his statement is all right; we will agree with him, and we shall all be happy over it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is not satisfactory. My hon. friend has his deplity and his assistant deputy beside him, and he ought to know how many cars have been bought since he has been in office. I know I bought one in Montreal for the superintendent, and I know my hon. friend has bought two since, one which has just been transferred to Sherbrooke and a new one which Mr. Bolduc is using in Ottawa. Why does my hon. friend say: It may be; I

do not know; I will inquire. He has all the information right by his side.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The deputy minister tells me now that he cannot verify the facts without looking into the matter. It is at the request of the deputy minister that I say we will verify the facts. If my hon. friend is Tight, we shall be happy to tell him so. If Mr. Bolduc could give me the information now, I would give it to my hon. friend.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend ask Dr. Coulter if the member for Rouville, when he was Postmaster General, bought other cars than the car for the Montreal post office and the truck cars for the Toronto post office?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The deputy says my
hon. friend bought one car; but whether it is that car which was left in Montreal or the car which has been transferred to Ottawa, he is not in a position to say without looking into the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At six o'clock my hon. friend and his deputy minister will return to their respective offices. To-night wi'l my hon. friend state whether that ear is still in Montreal, and whether the two other cars are not, one in Ottawa and the other at Sherbrooke?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We will give the hon. gentleman that information.


Francis N. McCrea: I might give a little information which I have in regard to this matter. There was a car in the service of the Post Office Department at Ottawa registered in 1912, marker number 11795. The description of the car is as follows:
Trade name, Packard, body burnt and remade.
That surely is the car referred to.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is circumstantial evidence.


Francis N. McCrea: Style, touring car; colour, brown.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That should be blue.


Francis N. McCrea: Motive power, gasoline maker's name, Packard Company; name of present owner, the Post Office Department; address, Langevin block, Ottawa.
The other description I have is as follows:
Marker number 4189; trade name, Packard model (1910) ; serial number 1270; style, tour-

ing car; colour, black, yellow wheels; motive power, gasoline-
And so on. The description says that this vehicle was previously licensed in the province of Ontario under number 11795 in the year 1912, and that the registration was made by the Post Office Department. The car in Sherbrooke is registered under the serial number. 1270. I would like the minister, when he is getting the other information, to find out if it is true that this car was owned by the Post Office Department and was in the service of the department at Ottawa, and was later transferred to Sherbrooke, how it happens that I was told that it cost $4,500? If this car belonged to the Post Office Department and was in service here, why should any price have been paid for it? Why should not the infofmation have been given to me that this car had been in the service of the Post Office Department at Ottawa and had been transferred to Sherbrooke? It is impossible that this car could have been bought from somebody for $4,500, seeing that it already belonged to the Post Office Department?


William Chisholm: Perhaps
the minister will also tell us what other members of the Cabinet are supplied with cars at the country's expense, and the prices paid for them.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I can answer only for my department.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In March I asked the minister in reference to the amount paid for rural mail and parcel post boxes, and he answered that there had been an order for a certain number of boxes, I forget how many, given to the International Mad Equipment Company, Limited, of Toronto, who, apparently, were the same people who were making the rural mail boxes before. This contract was given at $4.25 a box, and they were to be supplied by the department to individuals who required them at $4.50. Those who had the old rural mail box were to be allowed $1.50 for the return of a certain locking device which would cost the people who had already paid $3, the same price as the new one. There is a man of the name of Wilcox from the south riding of Oxford, not my riding, who has a great grievance; he claims that his box is very much better than the other, and that the report by the department to the minister claiming that the box was not durable, was not made of proper material, and that there was a spring in it that would not stand the weather, is not cor-

reet, as Mr. Wilcox says that the box was only a sample, that it was not understood to be a sample of the material, but simpiy the form of box. He states that the box accepted by the department was only nine inches high and twelve inches wide, and would not take in the size of parcel that it would be required to take. He also states that his box was offered to the department for $3, not $4.25, and that the part of the old box required by the department to be returned was not worth more than twenty-five cents to replace, and that the people making the box are getting an excessive profit when they can allow $1.50 for a twenty-five cent part returned. Now, my friend Wilcox claims that his box is fourteen inches wide by fourteen inches deep, that it is very much more convenient than the box that was accepted, that there was favoritism shown, and that he did not have a fair opportunity to compete. He says that he has a petition, which he showed me, and it would reach from my seat over to the minister; also that mail couriers who had seen his box and the other-or a picture of the other box, I would not like to say which-were agreed that his box was very much the superior. And, as it is $1.25 cheaper, I would like to know from the minister why he accepted the tender from the Toronto people in preference to that of the honest yeoman from the south riding of Oxford. He has shown the box to a great many people. He certainly had a very long list of names of men who agreed that his box was very much the best.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The reason why the Wilcox tender was set aside is fully set out on the file which my hon. friend has moved for and which has been placed on the table of the House. I think my hon. friend will find that the report of Mr. Bolduc, superintendent of rural mail, goes into the comparative merits of all these boxes, and he will find in it the reason for the Wilcox box not being accepted. I would like very much to have obliged Mr. Wilcox, but I do not think the test he proposes to dhoose between these boxes is a good one. He says he has spoken to the mail couriers about it; that they have seen his box, but that they have only seen -a picture of the other. My hon. friend will agree with me that that is not a very proper way to make a comparison.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The cut is often very
much better than the original.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We asked for tenders, and have -received seven or eight, and we have- had the boxes on exhibition in Mr. Bolduc's office for a very long period. I asked Mr. Bolduc to show these boxes to members of the House who -are interested in rural m-ail, and to note their opinions of them. I submitted the matter to officers of the postal stores, and to machinists, to people who know something about it. The boxes were brought to the Privy Council when the question was up there. Every one has, agreed that the box I have purchased is by f-ar the -best, and that is the reason why it has been dhosen, amongst others, in order to give service. I would like -to have favoured Mr. Wilcox; 'but without being desirous of saying anything that would hurt his feelings, the officers of the department tell me that if the Wilcox box is worth $3 the other is worth $6, and that there is no possible comparison. Then, Mr. Bolduc, who is a reliable and trustworthy officer, has made a report, which has been confirmed by the deputy minister and the head of the postal stores, and my hon. friend will find that report on the file strongly recommending -adoption of this box. We have acted accordingly.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have these reports, but he, of course, claims that they are prejudiced. I have a lot of correspondence from Mr. Wilcox which I should be glad to submit to the minister.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As I have read the report, I -asked the 'hon. gentleman to supplement it by giving the names of the members whose opinion was canvassed by Mr. Bolduc. There is -a statistical table at the end of one of these reports in which it is stated that the 'boxes have been under examination for so many weeks or months, and that tne opinion of members was canvassed. I -asked Mr. Bolduc to give a 'list o-f the members who had been canvassed, because I never heard of any such exhibition at his office. I think it would have been better to have had the -boxes exhibited in the House, so that all the members might have had a chance to pass judgment on them. I have no doubt that the box selected is the best; -but I have not had the privilege of seeing it, -and I understand from the report that people are clamouring because they have been ignored. Personally; judging by the old -box, I would say that the one selected is the best, but I have not seen it. I am told that -it is a box adapted both for

parcel post and letters. Happy and fortunate are the members wiho have seen it.


Mr. MORPHY:: Permit me to make a statement in fairness to Mr. Bolduc. Happening to have business in the rural mail department, I have been in his office frequently, and on one occasion I saw all these boxes there. Mr. Bolduc pointed out the purpose for which they were there, and asked me, in an open and frank manner, which one I would like best. I looked them all over, and selected one that met with my approval as a member of this House. I did not know to whom any box belonged, nor did the superintendent of rural mail delivery tell me who were the manufacturers; he left the matter entirely to my independent judgment. If that method was pursued by Mr. Bolduc with other members, it w.as an essentially fair way of obtaining the judgment of the members without prejudice or favouritism.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Which one did you choose?	.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I did not know who made it; I do not know yet, and I do not care.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was in Mr. Bolduc's office the first day of the session. Mr. Bolduc himself was not there, but one of the gentlemen in the office showed me the boxes; I did not look at them, because I did not pretend to know ianything about them.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many have 'been bought?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We have provided for 100,000, to be delivered and paid for only as required.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much per box?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Mr. iLEMI'EUX: The owners of old boxes have the privilege of returning them to the department, and the department will give them new boxes for $1.25. Is that the case?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: $1.50. The department pays the difference, so that the farmer who has an old box is put in the same position as the man who takes a new one.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. minister, according to the returns which I have here, asks council for authority to buy boxes at $4.25.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: $4.50; we were able to bring the contractor down in his price to the extent of 25 cents a box.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Some time ago the city council of Woodstock sent a petition to the hon. minister, as follows:
That your petitioners would most respectfully present the claim of the city of Woodstock for free mail delivery both from the amount of business transacted and the earnings of the office. This city is the home of a: number of large manufacturing establishments, as well as the centre of one of the best farming districts in Canada. The population of the city, including the contiguous territory, served by the Woodstock post office, is about 12,000.
We would direct attention to the subjoined list of fourteen places in Canada which have free mail delivery, but the revenue from which in 1912 was lower than that of the Woodstock office.
Your petitioners therefore pray that the department may be pleased to direct that the city of Woodstock may be granted the benefit of free mail delivery. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
There is also a letter from the board of trade along the same line. On March 13 I put to the Postmaster General the following questions:
1.	Would the Postmaster General say when rural mail delivery was established at St. Hya-cinthe, Que.?
2.	What was the population at the time?
3.	What was the revenue at the time?
4.	What was the population at the time the last census was taken?
This question was asked in respect of various places. I looked up the population of some of these places; St. Hyacinthe had a population of 9,797; Three Kivers, 13,691; Niagara Falls, 9,248; Fredericton, N.B., 7,208; Owen Sound, Ont., 12,258; Sarnia, Ont., 9,947; Sault Ste. Marie, 10,984; Charlottetown, 11,203; and so on. The answers to these questions were very clever. The hon. minister is certainly very capable in his answers; he must 'have dictated them himself. Some of them are as follows:
Niagara Falls: On the 30th May, 1911, under the late Government, when the population was less than 12,000, and the revenue a little less than $20,000. It is presumed that this was done for political reasons.
Three Rivers: The letter delivery in Three Rivers was established on the 22nd August, 1907, under the late Government, when the revenue of the office was under $20,000. It is presumed that this was done for political reasons.
Fredericton:	Service established 7 th May,
1913 ; population, census of 1901, 7,250; revenue, $21,072; population, last census, 7,208;. This was done because the rule as to population does not apply when the service is, as in the case of Fredericton, for the capital of a province.

St. Hyacinthe:	Service established 29th
August, 1907, under the late Government, presumably for political purposes.
The population of St. Hyacinthe was 9,500, and the villages of St. Joseph de Hyacinthe and La Providence, both of which were in the area to which the letter carrier service was given, had a population of 1,500 and 1,000 respectively, making the total 12,000.
The revenue of St. Hyacinthe was $10,799.91 and that of St. Joseph de Hyacinthe $246.80, making a total of $11,146.71. (There was no post office in the village of La Providence the residents used the St. Hyacinthe post office.
Owen Sound. Service established 1st June, 1910; population, municipal census 1909, 12,091; revenue, $23,633.72 ; population, last census, 12,558.
There is nothing wrong with that, except that the revenue was $23,633, as against $30,000 in Woodstock. I would draw your attention to the fact that the requirement of the Post Office Act is that there shall be a population of 12,000 and a revenue of $30,000.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Sault Ste. Marie did not have the necessary population; but had a revenue of $22,751. According to the census of 1911 the population was 10,984, but according to this answer the Postmaster General received very reliable information that the population was over 12,000, and he acted on that information. I could easily have got that information for him myself in regard to Woodstock. All you have to do is to swell the municipal assessment a little. My hon. friend objects to giving us mail delivery because we have not the necessary population. I have read this letter to show that my hon. friend was very ingenious in his answers. He tried to answer in such a way that I would not be able to publish them at home, but he was fooled there entirely. He did not know the fellow he was dealing with, for I did publish them at home showing that the late Government had given letter delivery in places not entitled to it ' for political reasons,' as my hon. friend says, and also for other reasons. My people were not so ignorant as not to see that my hon. friend could easily find reliable information when he wanted to give a particular place letter .carrier delivery. I do not know that I have anything further to say about the matter except that it would have been very easy for the Postmaster General to have overlooked the population of Woodstock .seeing that our post office has a revenue of ^30,600, and that with the suburban residents who come to Woodstock for their mail our population is easily 12,000.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend thinks the answers were prepared in such a way that their publication might be hurtful to him.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: To my party.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: And he says that the people could see through the letters. I am very happy that the information given in the answers was such that my hon. friend could publish it, and get the benefit he thought he would get.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why did my hon. friend think it necessary to add ' for political reasons ' when I did not ask for that at all?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It will tell my hon.
friend why. If I had not said that, my hon. friend would have had a strong case against me and my party.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: No stronger than I have now.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is a matter of
opinion. I will return my hon. friend's compliment, and say that his questions were very clever too, and of such a nature as to put me in a hole if I had not been on my guard. I do not think that the most shrewd cross-examiner 5 p.m. could have framed the questions in a more clever way. My hon. friend has been trying to get letter delivery in Woodstock for a long time. We told him that the rule in the department was to give letter carriers only to places that had a population of 12,000 and a revenue of $20,000. My hon. friend asked: Have you not established rural mail here, there, and the other place where the population was not 12,000 and the revenue not $20,000? If I had simply given him a yes or no answer the hon. member would have published it and said: Look how unfairly Woodstock is being treated. Instead of that, I gave him the facts. It is true that letter carrier delivery has been esablished in certain places which had not a population of 12,000 or a revenue of $20,000. Take the city of St. Hyacinthe, for example. The people in the province of Quebec know that there were strong political reasons for giving that place letter carrier delivery, although it did not come within the rules. My hon. friend did not ask about Hull, which is the worst case of all; so much so

that I have considered whether we should not take their carriers away. Once a letter carrier delivery is established, however, it is not easy to take it away.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the population of Hull?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am informed that it is between 7,000 and 8,000 I am giving my hon. friend from Oxford that information although he did not ask for it. Let me tell my hon. friend why we have to keep within the rules as much as we can. The service is developing, particularly in the West, to such an extent that every other day I receive requests to extend the mail service. Some are wanting a more frequent service, and others who are brought in touch by a branch railway being completed want an improved mail delivery. If all these requests were granted, our expenditure would be increased by $3,000 or $4,000 every day. My hon. friend will understand that if the Post Office Department is to be administered in such a way that it will not be a financial wreck, it is impossible to grant all these requests. We have to keep within certain rules, and the rule laid down is that the place must have 12,000 population and a revenue of $20,000 before it gets letter carrier delivery. Woodstock has a very large revenue of which my hon. friend has reason to be proud, but the question of population is of more importance than revenue.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I should think it would be the opposite.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No. Places with a
large population must have letter carrier delivery in order to receive a proper service. Delivery prevents the post office from being crowded by all these people coming in for their mail.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They will come anyway.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Our experience is to the contrary. Wherever we establish letter carrier delivery the post office is relieved of a good deal of work, and from the congested condition it would otherwise be in. My hon. friend has made several requests for letter carrier delivery in Woodstock, and so have several other gentlemen to whom I gave the same answer as I gave my hon. friend. My hon. friend seems to doubt that we have reliable information in regard to Sault Ste. Marie. As a matter of fact,

I could not have had better information. The municipal census had been taken, and the facts were placed before me by the hon. member for the county (Mr. Boyce). I am speaking from memory, but I am pretty sure that is the case.
I asked the gentlemen from Woodstock who were here if they had a municipal census as a result of which they could show that they had the required population, and I said: ' The moment that you show you have the population you will get the letter delivery because I do not want you to run away with the idea that I am refusing Woodstock on account of political reasons. The moment you can show to me that the last census is wrong, or that since then the population has increased to a sufficient extent to entitle you to a letter carrier service in the city of Woodstock, I will give it to you.' I told them just what I told my hon. friend from North Oxford today. We do not go absolutely by the rule that the last census shall govern, because, if we did, we would be ten years without a change of conditions and without establishing a letter carried delivery system in important towns. The last census showed that the city of Woodstock had a population of less than 12,000. My hon. friend says that he can show that the population is really 12,000 or over. If he does show me that he will have the letter carriers.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My letter from the minister lays it down as a condition that the revenue should 'be $20,000. I do not agree with the minister that the population should govern rather than the revenue because the whole system depends on the revenue. If we were not getting a revenue from it we would not be able to continue the service.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Of course, revenue is a factor.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Revenue is the whole
factor in the Post Office Department, and I do not agree with the minister that revenue should not govern more than population. Our town has a third, or a half, more revenue than is required. I do not say that I can give reliable information as to a population of 12,000, but I do say that I can give just as reliable information probably as the towns that got this delivery service because we are accustomed to these boosting towns, their claims as to population and that sort of thing, and I have not much faith in a municipal census. However, I will say for the minister that he did

give the same answer to his political friends that he gave to me; so that they did not get any more satisfaction than I did from him.
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM: Did time permit, it would be an interesting subject, if only from the psychological point of view, to analyze and discuss the attitude and position of the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) when on his feet in this House making explanations and discussing his department, as compared with his position while operating and performing in his department. When he is in the House asking for appropriations, he surrounds himself with a halo of virtue, and appears to 'be the personification of all that is fair and just, the acme of political righteousness and fair play. Politics will not influence him in the slightest. He is only concerned in performing his duty as Postmaster General in the interests of the country as a whole. He recognizes that he is the trustee and servant of the people, and that he must give a wise, honest and just administration. When he is operating fn his department, however, he is not the innocent Mr. Hyde that we have here, but he is the cynical Dr. Jeykell. The minister pretends to be fair and just in these matters. I want to call attention to several cases of injustice, to show how absolutely unfair, unjust and tyrannical is his conduct in the administration of his department, and particularly in connection with the cancellation of mail contracts. Not only is his conduct illegal, inexcusable and unjustifiable in every particular, but it is conduct that a big man, such as a minister of the Crown, the Postmaster General, should not be guilty of. When it comes to taking advantage of poor contractors in the country, who have not the wealth of the country behind him to enable them to go into court and get justice, I think it is time that the House should know the attitude of the Postmaster General. I was reading just at noon a commentary on Shakespeare, and I came across the following description of I ago, in Othello, the Moor of Venice:
Iago is cruel and fraudulent because he finds a pleasure in fraud and cruelty; he has no belief in honesty-does not think there is any such thing in the world. .	. He has a natural
turn for dishonesty and trickery, and would rather gain his ends by deception than by straightforward conduct. He is proud of his cunning, and is witty also-full of that ill-natured sarcasm which delights in giving pain to others.
This description could not apply to the Postmaster General, but there are acts performed in the department of the hon. gentleman that could be attributed only to a. character of the description of Iago. If Iago were supervising the work of the Post Office Department, I do not think he would resort to anything more cruel than some of the acts which have been performed by officials in his department, particularly in regard to the dismissal of postmasters and the cancellation of contracts, and, reading the evidence that has been given us of the deception, dishonesty and meanness which have characterized these cancellations, we must conclude that some Iago must have access to the department and must be running things there.
Let me refer to the case of a contract that was entered into for the carrying of the mail between North Lochaber and West Lochaber. When the minister enters into a contract with a contractor for the carrying of the mails between certain dates, the minister has no right to cancel the contract until the termination of the period of service for which the contract was entered into unless he can show that in the public interest it is necessary to do so. He must show that there are grounds in law and justice for such cancellation. They must be reasonable grounds. He can cancel a contract, it is true, but it must be for reasonable cause and for some reason which is in the public interest. He should not break faith capriciously. Now, let me come to the case of this contract for the carrying of the mails between North Lochaber and West' Lochaber. This is the case of the renewal of a contract; it is only a small thing, but it is the small things that show how the business is conducted in the department of the hon. gentleman. In this case the contract was for carrying the mails a distance of five miles, and the amount involved was $81.50 per annum. That contract expired on the 30th June, 1913. On the 21st May, the superintendent, Mr. Anderson, wrote to the post office inspector authorizing a renewal of the contract, and on May 26 the post office inspector wrote to the contractor offering to renew his contract on the same terms and conditions as the service was previously performed. I am going to read the post office inspector's letter, so that you will see for yourself what it contains:
Halifax, N.S., May 26, 1913.
Dear Sir,-I beg to inform you that the Postmaster General has been pleased to authorize the renewal of your contract for the mail service between North Lochaber and West Locha-

ber for a further term of four years, dating from 1st July next (1913).
Please inform me as soon as possible whether you will be willing to accept this offer of the department. You, of course, understand that a contract can only be renewed on the existing terms and conditions. If, however, you do not care to continue at the present rate, the service will have to be put to tender.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) W. E. Maclennan,
Post Office Inspector.
There was an offer, not solicited by the contractor nor suggested by any of his friends, but an offer made by the department of its own motion. Mr. Stewart answers:
North Lochaber, June 5, 1913. Post Office Inspector,
Halifax.
I have decided to take a renewal of mail contract for the term of four years.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) George A. Stewart,
North Lochaber.
You will observe then that this was an offer to renew the contract for four years, and that he unqualifiedly accepted the offer. Mr. Stewart decided to carry on the work as usual. On the 5th of August, 1913, after Mr. Stewart had been running his contract for nearly two months, this letter was written:
Antigonish, August 5, 1913. Hon. L. P. Pelletier,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Pelletier,

A mail contract at West Lochaber now held by one George Stewart has expired. I should like to have this contract transferred to Mr. Hugh D. Cameron.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) E. Lavin Girroir.
I ask any hon. gentleman on this side of the House, if after this contract had expired and a new contract had been entered into, he would write to the late Postmaster General when the Liberal party was in power, asking him to perpetrate such a high-handed act. What must have been the mental condition of Senator Girroir when he wrote this letter to the Postmaster General, asking him to violate the King's word given in a solemn contract with this subject of His Majesty. Did the Postmaster General reply to this letter that the department had entered into a contract with this . man, and that he would have to keep his word, and that it would be a despicable thing to perpetrate such an injustice; did he inform Senator Girroir that hp had been notified the previous March that the contract was about to expire and that he did not make a representation then when he was asked to? Did the Postmaster -Jr. W. Chisholm.]
General tell Senator Girroir that a contract had been entered into with Mr. Stewart, and that it could not be broken unless for some good reason in the public interest? Not at all. Let the Postmaster General look at that file and he will not see on it any reason in the public interest to break this contract with Stewart. The Postmaster General did not write to Senator Girroir in the strain you would have expected him to, deception, dishonesty, and what is virtually fraud, in order to break the contract, and they alleged that Mr. Stewart had entered into a different form of contract altogether. On August 5 Senator Girroir wrote to the Postmaster General asking that Stewart's contract be transferred, and on August 29 there is this letter of the post oflace inspector written to Mr. Stewart:
Post Office Inspector's Office,
Halifax, August 29, 1913.
Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of authority, from the department at Ottawa to arrange for a transfer of your contract for the mail service between North Lochaber and West Lochaber to Mr. Hugh D. Cameron. I am, however, instructed that you must first duly execute and return the forms of renewal for a further term of four years from the first of July, 1913, which forms were sent you on the 24th July last. When this has been done, the necessary form to effect the transfer to Mr. Cameron will be forwarded foi execution. If the same sureties who signed the renewal do not intend to act for Mr. Cameron, the names, occupation and addresses of his proper sureties should be submitted at the same time.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) W. E. Maclennan,
Post Office Inspector.
Mr. George A. Stewart,
Mail Contractor,
North Lochaber.
The Post Office Department makes the suggestion to the post office inspector that Mr. Stewart wanted to have his contract transferred, but the fact is that Mr. Stewart knew nothing at all about the proposition until he received the letter which I have read on the 29th of August, and to that he replied:
North Lochaber, September 1, 1913. Post Office Inspector,
Halifax.
Received yours on the 29th, you were mistaken about handing me forms. If you did I never got them, you wrote me asking if I would accept a renewal of mail contract. I wrote you that I would but I am not going to take it and transfer it over, if the Tories thought they would get me to do that they are mistaken, let them get Hugh Cameron to fix up his own papers. I am not going to hunt bondsmen for him, that is just what I expected from the dirty Tories there is nothing too low for them to stoop to.
(Sgd) George A. Stewart.

That letter is commented upon by some of the officers of the department who, although servants of the people, seem to think that men working for the country in humbler positions as mail couriers are of commoner clay, and they intimate that this fellow is very saucy and impudent, and deserving of ill-treatment because he dared to write that letter.


Mr. BLAIN:: Was the contract to Stewart renewed for a further term of four years ?


William Chisholm: Yes.


Richard Blain: Was it actually renewed ?


William Chisholm: I am not aware of any formal contract being entered into.


Richard Blain: It seems to me that it was not renewed.


William Chisholm: The post office inspector wrote to Stewart saying that he was authorized to renew the contract on the same terms and conditions. There is the offer to Stewart. Then Stewart wrote an unqualified acceptance of that offer, stating that he accepted the contract on the same terms and conditions, and he continued on with the work, and as a matter of law and justice it was a binding contract.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend says that the Post Office Department broke the contract, but there is nothing in what he has stated to show that Stewart's contract was renewed for a further term.


William Chisholm: Every law student
knows that when you make an offer, as was done in this case, and that offer is unqualifiedly accepted, that is a binding contract whether it is under seal or not. When a man proceeds to carry on the work under the same terms and conditions as was ths offer here, the contract is just the same as if a new contract had been entered into. Senator Girroir still keeps busy and anxious, and on the 10th of September he writes:
Antigonish, September 10, 1913.
G. C. Anderson, Esq.,
Superintendent Mail Contracts,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Would you please let me know how mail contracts of George Stewart west side Lochaber stand. I have written about this before, but apparently the matter has been overlooked.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) E. Davin Girroir.
Senator Girroir does not suggest there was not any renewal of the contract; he does not suggest there was not any binding agreement between His Majesty and George
Stewart, but he knows his man and he says: You must break this contract with Stewart and transfer it to Hugh D. Cameron.


Richard Blain: Why would he require to enter into another contract if he had already entered into one ?


William Chisholm: The Postmaster General had to enter into a new contract with Hugh D. Cameron, the friend of the Tory party. I am surprised at my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) trying to bolster up a bad case of this kind, when I remember the high and lofty-minded position he assumed when he was in opposition. I know he feels in his heart that this thing is so reprehensible that it cannot be defended, and he is ashamed of it. On October 13 the Postmaster General is written to. Mr. Stewart naturally thought that the Postmaster General would be a man of honour and that he would not allow such an imposition on him by the Halifax office, and so he thought he would appeal to the fountain of justice and fair play, and he wrote:
North Lochaber, N.S.,
October 13, 1913.
Hon. L. P. Pelletier,
Postmaster General,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir-On the 26th of May last I was advised by the post office inspector that the Postmaster General had been pleased to authorize the renewal of my contract for the mail service between North Lochaber and West Lochaber for a term of four years, dating from the 1st of July next ensuing. I agreed to the renewal of the contract and made my arrangements accordingly. On the 29th of August I received a letter from the post office inspector at Halifax stating that your department had arranged for a transfer of my contract to one Hugh D. Cameron. This I thought pretty high-handed dealing. If your department considered it necessary to make a change in the contractor, why did you not make the transfer on the 26th of May-
The day that the department authorized the renewal.
-or on the 1st of July?
The date that the contract would expire.
Instead of that His Majesty the King, through the Postmaster General of Canada, solemnly contracted for the carrying of the mails for a term of four years. I am aware of the fact that the Postmaster General or the King reserves the right to cancel a contract, but I have also understood he exercises that right only where the cause should be assigned. Had the mail been given to Hugh D. Cameron, or anybody else, last July, I would not complain, but having made different arrangements than I otherwise would have made by reason of the fact that the Postmaster General renewed the contract on his own motion and not at my request,
514C

I consider that you are guilty of a downright injustice for which there should clearly be redress between man and man. On the 24 th ultimo I have another letter from the post office inspector stating that the temporary arrangements under which I was performing the service would terminate on the 3rd of September. There was no temporary arrangement. It was a definite contract for four years from last July, and the letter of the 24th of September shows to what depths your department will go to find excuses where no justification for such high-handed conduct exists. Why resort to such misrepresentations? Is it any wonder that all decent, self-respecting people are disgusted with the manner in which your department has degraded itself? I expect that in common decency you will at least give me three months wages inasmuch as you cancelled the contract virtually without notice.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) Geo. A. Stewart.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Stewart intended to leave the country. He had other arrangements in view; but as he got a renewal oi this contract and for certain other reasons, he decided to remain at home. He made arrangements for the carrying of the mail; for instance, he invested in a new carriage for the purpose. Therefore he had a right to complain, and he said to the Postmaster General that the least the department ought to do for him would be to give him a three months' allowance or to compensate him for the expenditure to which he had been put. The postmaster General did not reply to Mr. Stewart's letter; but Mr. Anderson, superintendent, was made to reply as follows:
Ottawa, 16th October, 1913.
Dear Sir,-I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 13th inst. with reference to the contract for the mail service between North Lochaber and West Lochaber.
Your contract expired on the 30th June last, and the department will authorize a renewal. Renewal forms were sent for execution by the inspector, but were never returned. As the service was being performed after the 1st of July without any signed contract, and you had been given an opportunity to renew it and had not done so, the department decided to give the contract to Hugh D. Cameron at the same price.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) G. C. Anderson,
Superintendent.
I know Mr. Anderson, and I know that he would not of his own initiative write a letter of that kind unless he was required to do so by some higher authority, because there is a suggestion of falsehood contained in that letteT, as was pointed out quite clearly by Mr. Stewart when he wrote again to Mr. Anderson as follows:

North Lochaber, N.S.,
December 8, 1913.
Mr. George C. Anderson,
Superintendent Mail Service,
Ottawa, Can.
Dear Sir,-In reply to your favour of the 16th of October re service between North Lochaber and West Lochaber in which you allege as a reason for cancellation of the contract made between the King, represented by your minister and myself, and the giving of the contract to Hugh D. Cameron, that I had failed to execute renewal forms at the expiration of my contract on the 30th of June last. I have only to say that this is a miserable excuse, a subterfuge unworthy of any honourable business man, to say nothing of a representative of the Crown. I hold a letter from the post office inspector who, I would take it, is authorized to act for the department in . this matter, which letter is dated May 25, 1913, and in which it is stated as follows:
' I beg to inform you that the Postmaster General has been pleased to authorize the renewal of your contract for the mail service between North Lochaber and West Lochaber for a further term of four years, dating from the 1st of July next. Please inform me as soon as possible whether you will be willing to accept this offer of the department. You, of course understand that a contract can only be renewed on the existing terms and conditions. If, however, you do not care to continufe at the present rate, the service will have to be put up to tender.'
To this I replied that I was willing to continue on the terms of that letter. The renewal was, therefore, completed on the then existing terms and conditions. I was not asked to sign any new contract or give any new bonds for the reason as you will see that such was not necessary, my acceptance of the contract being on the terms stated in that letter. If a new contract were necessary, why is it that my attention was not called to it in the meantime? I have, therefore, only to repeat what I have stated in my letter of October 13, and to insist that under the circumstances at least three months' w'ages should be paid me.
I went to expenses that I would not have incurred believing entirely on the good faith of the King's representative and his agreement to a renewal of the contract for a further term of four years from the 1st of July last under the same conditions which I carried the mails during the four years previously.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) Geo. A. Stewart.
It is common knowledge, that when the time comes for the renewal of these contracts, although a renewal form is provided, this form is not sent immediately. Weeks, months very often elapse-in fact I have known of cases where over a year has elapsed before the formal new contract had been entered into. The binding agreement was there the moment there was an acceptance of the offer made. The formal contract was only the evidence of that, and it would be necessary for the purpose of binding the sureties; but in these small

contracts everyone knows that the department, where the contractors are reliable persons, is not in a hurry about having the formal ccmtracts entered into. That is the position so far as Mr. Stewart's case is concerned.
I have several other cases of a similar knd where the department has broken its contract without assigning any reason whatever for doing so. In this case it is only a matter of $87.50, hut it is an outrage that any citizen of this county should be treated in that manner. That is not the worst feature of it. It iss debasing to the department. What will the officials of the department be expected to do when they know that the high and mighty minister himself not only countenances these things, but actually authorizes them? If it were for no other reason than that, namely, the degradation, the lowering of the tone of the department and of the country generally, this House should censure such conduct. What can we expect from the smaller men when the biggeT men break their word of honour, violate their agreement with impunity, as has happened in this case?
I am not going to refer to a few other eases of a similar kind that have arisen in my own county. But I must call attention to another case of juggling with tenders. The Postmaster General calls for tenders; the tenders are received, instead of awarding the contract to the lowest tenderer, he communicates with the holder of the patronage in the particular district and says: To whom do you want to give the contract? and they manipulate the thing, and invariably a Conservative gets the contract at the lowest tender if he wants it. If they can find a pretext for passing the lowest tender over if it happens to be from a Grit, it is done, and the contract goes to the higher tenderer when he is recommended by the patronage committee. I protest against that sort of thing, because it is doing away with the system of tender and contract and fair competition. It is making a farce of calling for tenders. Often a man has asked me to fill out a form of application for tender, and I have said to him: What is the use of your putting in a tender? You are a Liberal and you will not get the contract. Unless you want to hurt your Conservative friend and neighbours who may also be tendering by making them come down to your figure, you had better 324
not put in a tender at all, because you have no chance of getting the contract even if you happen to be . the lowest tenderer. If there is a Tory who will accept the contract at your figure it will go to him.
Let us isee how that worked out in the cage of the Livingstone iCove-Antigonish service, which is a pretty large contract, namely, about a thousand dollars. Tenders were called early in tire winter and there was ample time for the receipt of tenders in 1912, because the service was to begin on the first of July, 1912. I find on April 13, 1912 a letter written, from Mr. J. J. Cameron, who was the late Conservative candidate in Antigonish, and who was defeated.
I may say that there is not a more high-minded, upright and honourable man in the county of Antigonish than Dr. Cameron. As a politician he has been a hard hitter, and has worked and struggled for his party in the days of adversity in Antigonish, sacrificing both time and money; and if there is any man who deserves recognition at the hands of the Conservative party in Antigonish, or who should receive decent treatment and common courtesy, it is he. I am sorry to say that the Conservative party there has not treated him with that decency and courtesy which he deserves, not only as a man, but as the candidate of the Conservative party who ran several elections for them. I repeat the treatment accorded him by selfish politicians who ousted him was shameful in the extreme. Although Dr. Cameron, being the candidate, was supposed to look after the patronage, the Tories there turned him down. It is the only case I know of in the history of Canada where a defeated Conservative, who desired the control of the patronage not for the patronage itself but as a matter of selfrespect, had that privilege taken from him. If he was good enough to be the Conservative candidate and put up such valiant fights for the party as he had done, he surely was good enough to handle the patronage. But they got him out of the patronage. On April 17, thinking he still had the patronage, so he thought, for he wrote the Postmaster General:
Dear Sir,-Would you be good enough to let me know the names and prices of those who tendered for mail contract from Livingston's Cove to Antigonish which will expire July 1st next. As a candidate at the last election for this county I would like to get this information and in return will give some direction or



recommendation as to what is best to do and believe me.
Yours respectfully,
(Sgd) J. J. Cameron, M.D.
You would suppose that that information would he sent him, hut what does the Postmaster General, through his assistant deputy minister do? This is the answer he makes:
April 20, 1912.
Dear Sir,-I am directed by the Postmaster General to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 17th instant, asking for the names and prices of those who tendered for the mail service between Antigonishi and; Livings ton's; Cove.
In reply, I am to say that the matter will receive the consideration of the department.
Yours truly,
(Sgd) H. B. Verret.
Very polite indeed. It ' will receive the consideration of the department.' But they did not give the Conservative candidate- who was supposed to get it, the information. They added insult to injury. To insult him still further, the assistant deputy Postmaster General writes to Senator Girroir, who had secured control of the patronage, as follows:
April 20, 1912.
Dear Sir,-Dr. Cameron of Antigonish, under date of 17th instant, has asked the department to furnish him with a list of the tenders for the mall service between Antigonish and Livingston's Cove.
I am directed to furnish you with a list of the tenders for such action as you may deem desirable. The following tenders were received,
viz:
J. R. McAdam, Malignant Cove	$ 944
Angus McPherson, Georgeville	 990
Chas. McNeil, Morar	 1,000
There are altogether eight tenders; I need not read them all.
The tender of J. R. McAdam of Malignant Cove at $944 per annum being the lowest was accepted on the 4th instant.
H. B. Verret.
On April 20, the assistant deputy writes to Senator Girroir that the tender of J. R. McAdam, being the lowest, was accepted. You would suppose that steps would be taken at once to put that contract into force, but what do we find? On June 29, 1912, Senator Girroir writes to the Postmaster General as follows:
Dear Sir,-I enclose herewith copy of a letter which I have received from Mr. Verret, Assistant Deputy Postmaster General, and reply thereto with respect to above matter.
I am very anxious indeed for many reasons to have this contract awarded to Mr. Angus McPherson and can only repeat what I said my letter to Mr. Verret.
Would you kindly give this matter immediate attention and let me know what can be done for Mr. McPherson.

McPherson, as I stated, was not the lowest tenderer, but the second lowest, and you will observe that Senator Girroir has the effrontery to write to the Postmaster General suggesting that Mr. McAdam should be passed over without giving any reason to justify it. What opinion must he have of the Postmaster General? Did he know his man when he made such an indecent suggestion? What an undignified position for the Postmaster General to be in, when the senator suggests that he should depart from the spirit and letter of the law, and not award the contract to the lowest tenderer? But that is what happens when Dr. Jekyll is working in the department now in the Langevin block. The senator writes that he is anxious * for many reasons ' to have this contract awarded to Mr. McPherson. I find a note from Mr. Anderson, the superintendent, on May 21, 1912, to the inspector. (Is the date correct?)
Re Antigonish and Livingston's Cove.
The tender of Mr. J. R. McAdam at $944 was accepted on the 4th ultimo.
Will the inspector be so good as to say what action has been taken on this tender and how the matter stands.
There is no question there as to his not being entitled to have the contract awarded to McAdam; it states distinctly that it is his. The next thing that happened is a letter of June 29, 1912, from Senator Girroir, in which he refers to another mail contract-St. Andrews and Beauley service -suggesting that the lowest tender in that case be passed over and the contract given to the next man, Mr. Punch. Then he says in this same letter:
I have not heard from you with respect to the Livingston's Cove mail route. You will remember that I wrote to you some time ago expressing a desire that this contract be awarded to Mr. Angus McPherson and alleged that McAdam, the lowest tenderer, was not a man of means and that he would not be in the position to give a good service.
I am writing the minister to-day about the matter, also in order -that he may give it consideration at the same time with you.
I trust that there will be some way of arranging this contract for McPherson, as the public generally are desirous that he obtain it.
It seems to me that in the meantime Senator Girroir became wise-whether through correspondence or an interview with the department, I do not know-to the fact that it was necessary to allege some reason for passing over the lowest tenderer; and they framed up a charge that this man was not a responsible person. I am going to show in a minute or two a telegram in which the senator says: Give

it to Mr. McAdam if not to Mr. McPherson. He was apparently quite reliable enough then; the public service would have been served then, and everything would have been perfectly satisfactory. Now he says: ' I trust there will be some way of arranging this contract for McPherson, as the public generally are desirous that he obtain it.' I want to direct attention for a minute or two to who this McPherson is. He was virtually a myth. When later on he had an opportunity of getting the contract he said in effect: ' I did not put in a tender for myself at all. I will have nothing to do with it.' What I am getting is the suggestion by Senator Girroir that the responsible minister should pass over the lowest tenderer in violation of the spirit and letter of the law. Here is a telegram from Senator Girroir, addressed to the Postmaster General:
Want to know at once what decision arrived at in respect to Livingston's Cove and Anti-gonish mail route. If contract cannot be given Angus McPherson would prefer it to go to lowest tenderer and be awarded at once.
I do not know the date of this telegram. The copy brought down is not dated; likely it was early in September, but the senator states that he would prefer that the contract should be given to McAdam, the man whom he stated on the 29th of June had no property and was not a responsible person, because he was ' not a man of means.' Of course that statement was false, as I will show later on. We go on a little further. Mr. Anderson writes to the post office inspector, inquiring whether the contract had been entered into, and whether McAdam's sureties have signed a bond. Then there is a telegram from Inspector McLellan, dated September 30, 1912:
Ee Antigonish and Livingston's Cove, inquiry not yet completed. One surety good, the other said to be without property. McAdam prepared to furnish satisfactory security in the same way as tenderers in other cases.
In order to get some pretext for passing over McAdam, the Conservative friends of Senator Girroir searched the records and discovered that there was no real estate in the name of J. E. McAdam. He is a married man, forty-two years of age, with a family, and was living with his father and mother at home; and the father's property is worth something in the vicinity of $3,000, I should say. He is a taxpayer and an elector of the county.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is he a Grit?
324i


William Chisholm: Yes. They discovered he had no property in his own name. But' Mr. McAdam got on to this, and wrote a-letter saying: I will give you any surety you require, if my present sureties are not satisfactory. This letter does not appear on the file, but there is just as good as it on the file. A telegram to Superintendent Anderson, from Inspector McLellan, advising McAdam, who was prepared to give any security required. In his letter, to which I referred, he offered other security-two sureties in the sum of $25,000 each, who would justify under oath, or, if that was not satisfactory a bond from a guarantee company.
What are sureties for, I should like to know? Is it the policy of the department to refuse to accept a contract from a man because he does not happen to have $1,000 in his own name? Is a man less able to take charge of a mail service simply because he does not happen to be registered as worth $1,000 or $2,000 in real estate or personal property? If a man is of good character and provides proper sureties, the department should not refuse to accept his services. Although McAdam was prepared to arrange satisfactory surety, the department passed over his tender, which was the lowest, refused to recognize him, and [DOT] awarded the contract to Mr. McPherson. In the meantime the service was being performed at a loss to the country. The man who performed the service from July 1, 1912, to May 1, 1913, was being paid $125 a month. Ten months at $125 is $1,250; and if McAdam's tender had been accepted, the cost of the service during that period would have been only $786. The department, therefore, simply threw away about $500 in an effort to dishonestly favour a friend. These, I presume, are the businesslike methods to which my hon. friend the Postmaster General was pleased to refer to a little while ago when he was talking about free delivery. On October 26, 1912, the following letter was written by Angus McPherson in reply to a notification that the contract had been awarded to him;
I received your letter of the 23rd instant notifying me that my tender for the Antigonish, Livingstone's cove mail service was accepted with instructions to commence on 1st November next.
Now, in view of the fact that I tendered for this mail service to begin on the 1st of July last, as was stated in my tender, and the department failing to notify me until nearly four months afterwards that my tender was accepted, I concluded that my tender was rejected and therefore made arrangements mak-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not intend to make a speech of the same length as my hon. friend. If he thinks the matter to which he referred is of sufficient importance to keep the House in session for an hour, it is his plain duty to do so; and I am not going to quarrel with him about it.


William Chisholm: If there is any fault, it lies on your side; you should have brought down your Estimates earlier.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am sorry I have not the file, so that I could answer the remarks of my hon. friend.


William Chisholm: I will hand it you.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have frequently asked gentlemen on the other side to notify me as to when they intended to bring up any special matter like this, in order that I might have the files here and coul-d not be accused of any lack of courtesy.


William Chisholm: Here is the file.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Just one moment. My hon. friend has had his -say for an hour, and now it is my turn, although I will not speak for that length of time. During this session and last I have put on the table of the House about 425 returns, some of them very voluminous. I do not suppose that it is expected that I shcul-d carry all these matters in my head, or be able to deal with them as any hon. gentleman can who has a particular file before him. My hon. friend has used some violent language, and seems to have a great dislike to myself and to Senator Girroir, hut I am not going to take -any notice of that at all. I am going to he as courteous as any man could be, and will take no notice of the big words he thought he ought to use. People who use language of that kind without justification generally regret it themselves, afterwards. My hon. friend seems to have a special kind of hatred against Senator Girroir, 'but I have no douibt that if he were here he would 'be able to answer my hon. friend.


William Chisholm: I rise to a question of privilege. The Postmaster General has intimated that. I made an attack on Senator Girroir. I said nothing unkind about Him; all I did was to read his letters. So far as the Postmaster General is concerned, if Ins conscience troubles him he is welcome to think I have not the respect for him his

position should command. I did not condemn or attack men but their acts and deeds.
* Mr. PELLETIER:	My hon. friend has
risen to a question of privilege in order to force me to my seat, but it turns out that it is not a question of privilege at all. I say that my hon. friend was not justified in using the language he did. Dr. Jekyll and Hyde-that is all right, but it does not amount to a rupee so far as I am concerned. If my hon. friend has all these bad ideas, what can I do ?


William Chisholm: Do not do it again.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am going to do in the future what I have done in the past, because I have always done what I thought was right.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Lord have pity on him then.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: In regard to these
automobiles about which my fion. friend from Rouville has inquired. The first automobile bought in Montreal was a Packard. It was purchased by the former Postmaster General for $6,500. The second car was also a Packard, the original price of which was $6,500 but as it had been damaged by fire we got it for $4,500.


Rodolphe Lemieux: By whom was it bought?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: By Mr. Gaboury.


Rodolphe Lemieux: During the time my
hon. friend was Postmaster General?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes. This car was
sent to Ottawa and is now in use at Sherbrooke for the installation of the rural mail delivery.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am very glad my hon. friend has given the information. I thought the deputy minister had made a mistake when he said that I bought that second car. Are the Post Office Estimates to be taken up again this evening?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, I think the Marine Estimates will be up. The Poet Office Estimates will likely be up again tomorrow.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like information on two points before the Estimates come up again. First of all I would like in round figures the number of rural mail boxes per province; and secondly, some sort of statement as to how the parcel post system is working out. As parcel .post is a new de-

partment I would like my hon. friend to make a little statement on that matter. I also intend to say a few words about parcel post.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have a statement
about parcel post here.
At six o'clock the 'committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Department of the Naval Service-to provide for the maintenance and upkeep of ships, naval college and dockyards of Halifax and Esquimalt, $1,000,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend has no statement to make?


Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Naval Affairs):: I have no particular statement to make. This item is the same as that which was included in the Estimates last year. It provides for the upkeep of ships, the naval college, dock-yards, and everything of that sort. The items are made up as follows:
Pay of officers and men, stores, repairs to ships and vessels, repairs to dockyard machinery, miscellaneous dockyard services, repairs and maintenance of buildings, new machinery on dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt, construction of lighters and other service boats, harbour defences, and naval volunteer reserve.


Wilfrid Laurier: The information of my hon. friend is certainly short and-I will not say, sweet nor sharp-but it does not give anything more than we have in the printed book. We shall be interested to know where the naval college is, how many professors are there, and how many pupils.


John Douglas Hazen: At present on the roll of the naval college there are eighteen cadets who joined in January, 1911, eight who joined in January, 1912, six who joined in January, 1913, and six who joined in August, 1913. The reason for the division in 1913 is that the date of the opening of the college was changed. That makes thirty-eight students. Of that number eight are on H.M.S. Berwick.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
course of study and what is its duration?


John Douglas Hazen: The course of study is now three years. The course of study originally was two years, but it was changed to three.


Wilfrid Laurier: What does
the course include-mathematics, literature, languages and technical studies?


John Douglas Hazen: The course includes technical and other studies. It embraces English literature, mathematics, and studies of the sort which will fit a man for service in the navy or in any technical profession.


Rodolphe Lemieux: French also ?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are there any diplomas issued at the end of the studies ?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: What becomes of the students when they have their diplomas ?


John Douglas Hazen: Of those who entered
originally a number are given commissions in the Royal navy and arrangements have been made by which eight graduates will be given commissions in the British navy each year. Other cadets will no doubt enter upon careers in connection with the hydrographic survey and work of that sort. The course is one which, like the course of the Royal Military College at Kingston, fits a man not only for naval work, but for work in any other profession that he chooses to go in for. Only a small proportion of the graduates from the Royal Military College at Kingston enter upon a military career. Many of them engage in civil engineering, engineering of other sorts, and other scientific pursuits. It is believed that the course of the naval college will equip men equally well for naval and other careers.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is a difference between the naval college and the military college. The military college prepares young officers to take service in the Canadian forces; but, if I followed closely what was said by my non. friend as to what became of the young men who were instructed at the naval college, there are many careers open to them which my hon. friend mentioned, but he never mentioned the Canadian navy. They can enter any service other than the Canadian navy. I suppose it is not intended that they should become officers in the Canadian navy ?


John Douglas Hazen: When we have a navy, of course they will be.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it anticipated that we shall have a navy, or that we shall not have one at all ?


John Douglas Hazen: That is a question of policy which I think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden) will have to inform the House about at a later date.


Wilfrid Laurier: I thought in my innocence that the Minister of the Naval Service would have something to say about that; but I am surprised-no, I am not surprised-that he is the minister in name only, and that as to the policy of the department over which he presides he cannot say anything at all. Well, we will take it at that. My hon. friend has told us that there is also a ship, the Berwick, engaged in this service. I never heard the name of that ship before. Where did we get her ?


John Douglas Hazen: This is not our ship. This is a ship that belongs to the British navy, upon which the young cadets who joined in 1912 have been granted by the British navy the opportunity of cruising and of receiving practical naval instruction.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has it been
lent to the Canadian navy?


John Douglas Hazen: No. By arrangement with the Admiralty they are taken for training on board a ship which belongs to the British navy.


Wilfrid Laurier: What becomes of the famous Niobe?	.


John Douglas Hazen: The famous Niobe is in
good condition and is being taken care of, but she is at present lying in the harbour at Halifax not doing any cruising.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it intended to use the Niobe in any way?


John Douglas Hazen: That is a matter that may develop in the future.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is rather chary of information on this subject; but the ministerial papers say it is intended that the Niobe and the Rainbow shall become training ships.


George Perry Graham: Training ships for what?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know; I am not very inquisitive.


John Douglas Hazen: They may be used in connection with the naval volunteers that will be organized very shortly.


Wilfrid Laurier: Perhaps I
shall be more fortunate in getting information if I ask about the dockyards at Esqui-malt and Halifax.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Perhaps it would be
better for the Minister of Marine to ask his two colleagues, the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) to retire for a few

moments while he is giving this information. He perhaps might feel more easy and comfortable.


John Douglas Hazen: I think we are getting
along very we'll. The dockyards at Halifax and Esquimailt were taken over by Canada from the British Admiralty on the understanding that they would be maintained by us in a proper state of efficiency. They are being so maintained and they do a large amount of work in making repairs, not only for naval vessels, but for vessels of the fisheries protection fleet and other Canadian ships. These dockyards also do work in connection with the buoy service.


Wilfrid Laurier: How much of this one million dollars is intended to cover the expenses of the naval college?


John Douglas Hazen: I will give you the details of the vote. Niobe, $270,730; Rainbow, $125,635; naval college, $81,710; dockyard at Halifax, $188,000; dockyard at Esquimau, $88,600; naval volunteer reserve, $200,000; salaries at headquarters, pension contribution to imperial navy, miscellaneous, $45,325.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will the hon. gentleman give us some information about the naval volunteers?


John Douglas Hazen: I shall be gi

 to give the right hon. gentleman full information. The force will consist of officers and seamen raised by voluntary engagement from among seafaring men and others who may be deemed suitable for the service in which such volunteers are to be employed. The term of engagement will be three years, and re-engagement for successive periods of three years will be provided for up to the age of 45 years. The purpose of this volunteer force is to provide men to take active part in the naval defence of the Dominion. They would be required for the following purposes amongst others:
1: To serve on board His Majesty's ships.
2.	As personnel for the Examination Service at the defended ports.
3.	As personnel for the mine-sweeping service at the defended ports.
4.	To supplement the existing staff at the wireless telegraph stations.
5.	To man the visual signal stations on the coast.
6.	To act as censors of wireless telegraph messages.
7.	To collect naval intelligence and act as intelligence officers.
8.	As personnel for steamers which may

require to be hired by the Naval Service Department in time of emergency.
The details of the organization of the naval volunteer force have not yet been finally worked out, hut the main lines will be approximately as follows:
The force will consist of one main division, with headquarters at Ottawa. This division will be subdivided into three subdivision's :
Atlantic-from the Atlantic coast to longitude 72 W.
Lake-from 72 W. to 102 W.
Pacific-from 102 W. to the Pacific coast.
The city of Quebec is thus included in the Atlantic subdivision, and the city of Winnipeg in the Lake subdivision.
The force will be organized in companies of 100 men, and it is proposed at the beginning to organize such companies in some of the larger centres. LateT on it will he possible to have companies formed in smaller places, or even to organize parts of companies in places which could not raise a full company.
The volunteers will be divided into three classes as respects the training which they will receive:
Class 1

will drill partly on shore at their headquarters and partly on shipboard. This class will embrace volunteers living reasonably close to the naval stations or who can easily be reached by a training ship.
Class 2-will drill ashore at their headquarters-will receive instruction in boat work, signalling, gunnery, etc. This class will embrace the volunteers who would find it difficult to leave their headquarters to train on shipboard.
Class 3-will not drill on shore but will receive training on board ship. This class will embrace, fishermen, seamen and men who follow the sea as a profession. It is proposed that they should be given training on the Niobe or the Rainbow or ships of the fisheries protection fleet, so as to acquaint them with the rules and discipline of the navy and to train them in gunnery, signal work, etc.
This classification would probably be varied to suit local conditions, and could hardly be rigidly adhered to.
It is proposed that the training shall consist of twenty-one days annually or its equivalent in drills counting five drills as equivalent to one day.
Instructional officers would have to be provided and it is hoped to obtain these from the British Admiralty.
The sum estimated for the expenditure on this service amounts to $200,000 and would be distributed as follows:
Instructional force-pay	$ 12,000
Naval volunteers	 18,000
Recruiting expenses-advertising, medical inspection, etc	 4,000

Guns	$ 40,000
Erecting guns	 6,000
Clothing	 35,000
Victualling	 3,000
Boats	 6,500
Naval stores-permanent	 4,000
Naval stores consumable	 3,000
Gunnery stores-permanent	 30,000
Gunnery stores consumable	 6,000
Hire of drill halls	 7,000
Hire of boathouses	 1,500
Caretakers	  3,000
Travelling expenses	 7,000
Stationery and printing	 3,000
Furniture, fuel, light, etc	 3,000
Freight	  3,000
Contingencies	 5,000
Total	$200,000
The pay provided for the officers will he the same as the pay adopted for the Canadian navy. The men's pay will be a trifle higher than that provided by the naval regulations so as to bring it about at a par with the pay of the militia.
Requests have been received from several places for information with regard to this movement, and certain places have expressed a desire to organize companies immediately, and it is anticipated that there will be no difficulty in obtaining the required number of recruits as soon as the organization has been definitely provided for, and the department is prepared to provide instructional officers.
During the last year there has been a purely volunteer organization of this sort carried on at Victoria, B.C., and there has been a great deal of enthusiasm about it. The only assistance it has received in any way from the country has been that we have placed at the disposition of that organization certain properties in connection with the dockyard at Esquimalt, where the men carry on their drill. This organization is especially anxious that it shall receive recognition as a volunteer force in the same way as naval volunteers are recognized in other parts of the British Empire.
That in general is an outline of what is proposed to be done in connection with the naval volunteer movement. It will be a purely volunteer force like the Militia of Canada; and, as I have pointed out, instruction will take place in various places so as to fit these men for serving on board ship, acting as signalling officers, taking charge of guns, etc., for purposes of defence.


Wilfrid Laurier: Under what
statute is my hon. friend proceeding?


John Douglas Hazen: The Naval Service Act.


George Perry Graham: Is it still in existence?


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not
know if I caught aright the information given by my hon. friend. I understood him to say there were to be three or four stations,-one on the Pacific ocean, one on the Atlantic ocean, and one on the Great Lakes.


John Douglas Hazen: 
Wilfrid Laurier: This matter
invites some discussion. But, before I proceed with the main discussion of the item, let me call the attention of my hon. friend to the station which he intends to place on the Great Lakes. I am not sure as to the wisdom of the policy elsewhere-as to which we shall probably have a little more to say later on-but *as to the wisdom of my hon. friend having a training station on the Great Lakes, I am fully awaTe that there are training stations on the south shore of the lakes-volunteer organizations. My hon. friend, however, is aware that these are state organizations, not federal organizations. I am pretty sure of what I say, namely, that up to the present time the federal authorities have resisted all pressure put upon them to have a training station upon the Great Lakes.


John Douglas Hazen: They are partly federal
stations.


Wilfrid Laurier: Since when
have they been so?


John Douglas Hazen: Recently, some time this
spring.


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall be
obliged if my hon. friend will bring down the correspondence and other information in regard to that point. If there has been any such development as my hon. friend has stated, it must !be of very recent date. The federal authorities have tolerated the action of the state of Michigan and the state of New York in having training stations at different points on the lakes; but,

in view of the treaty of 1817, which limits the armaments on the lakes, they have always refused up to this spring to have any such training stations. That being the case, it would have been far better for my hon. friend to remonstrate with the federal authorities against this innovation and to endeavour to get them to continue the condition that has existed for nearly a hundred years, namely, that neither the American Government nor the Canadian Government should have any force on the Great Lakes. If we are now opening the door and commencing to have training ships on one side and on the other, there is no telling what development will take place; and, if we engage in a contest with the Americans, the certainty is that they will be the iron pot and we shall be the earthen pot; that is, they will have a very strong force and we shall have a limited one. Apart from the merits of the question, to which I shall allude presently, I must express to my hon. friend my sincere regret that, instead of doing what he has done, namely, following the action of the Americans, he has not remonstrated with them and endeavoured to have them undertake to continue the treaty, which has been kept in force scrupulously by both parties for nearly a hundred years.


John Douglas Hazen: Canada has always protested against the establishment of training ships or foreign war vessels on the Great Lakes; but we do not propose to have war vessels or training .ships upon the lakes. The naval volunteer force will be at places like Toronto and other places on the lakes. The men will come under one or other of these two classes:	Class 1 will
drill partly on shore at their headquarters and partly on shipboard; class 2 will drill ashore at their headquarters, receiving instruction in boat work, signalling, gunnery, etc. This class will embrace the volunteers who will find it difficult to leave their headquarters to train on shipboard. There is no intention of establishing any ships whatever on the Great Lakes. Petitions have been received from several places for the establishment of this volunteer naval reserve force. Nothing will be done that might conflict with the understanding that has existed for so many years with regard to armed forces on the lakes. These men will be simply naval volunteers. If it is necessary to give them training on board ship, they may be sent to Halifax to Ibe instructed on the Niobe for a few days, just

in the same way as troops are being brought to Petawawa for the purpose of being trained and drilled.
I can assure my right hon. friend that there is no intention whatever of taking any steps that will do violence to the understanding to which he refers, and which has existed for so many years. With regard to whether or not those volunteers on the American side are recognized by federal authority, my information is that at the present session of Congress an Act has been passed which recognizes them from the federal standpoint.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand there are to be no training ships on the lakes. Am I right?


John Douglas Hazen: That is quite right.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have two training ships-the Niobe on the Atlantic, and the Rainbow on the Pacific. We have certainly moved within the last three years, and the present Government have taken a step which was not anticipated at all at the last election. Perhaps it is just as well, since my hon. friend has not done it, that I should read an Order in Council passed by the Government, which was laid upon the table at my request, and which is in these terms:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had before them a report dated 14th May, 1914, from the Minister of the Naval Service, stating that several recommendations and representations had been received from persons and parties in the Dominion urging the organization of a naval volunteer force.
The minister observes that an independent organization of this nature has already been established in British Columbia and has been carrying on drill and training under the directions of various officers of the Department of the Naval Service, so that the time seems opportune for the organization of such a force on the following basis, namely:
1.	The officers, petty officers and men of the naval volunteers shall be persons who volunteer to enroll to carry out the prescribed annual drill or training and to serve in the Naval Service when called out.
2.	The naval volunteers, if called out in the event of an emergency, will be required:
(a) To serve in the vessels of the Naval Service of Canada or in those of the Royal navy;
(b)	As personnel for the examination, minesweeping and other subsidiary services at the different ports;
(c)	As signalmen, wireless telegraphists and in such ranks and ratings as are required for establishments on shore.
3.	The force to be raised shall consist at present of 1,200 men, together with the necessary officers and permanent staff.
4.	The training of the naval volunteers shall comprise seamanship, including handling of

boats under oars and sail, knotting, splicing, rigging sheers and derricks; drill with guns and rifles, including firing practice; company and field gun drill; torpedo and electrical instruction ; engineering and stokehold work; signalling, wireless telegraphy, first aid and kindred subjects.
This training shall be conducted in such manner as shall be prescribed by the Minister of the Naval Service from time to time.
The committee, on the recommendation of the Minister of the Naval Service, advise that a naval volunteer force be organized forthwith in accordance with the provisions above set forth.
As I said a moment ago, the Government has advanced a long step since the election of 1911. In that year it was well understood that if the Conservative party came Into office the Naval Service Act, which had been passed the year before, was to be wiped off the statutes; it was not satisfactory to a certain portion of the Conservative party, chiefly located in the province of Quebec, because that branch of the Conservative party did not believe in any naval expenditure whatever. It was not satisfactory to some portions of the Conservative party in other provinces, because it created a Canadian service, and the motto of the party then in opposition, now in office, was: ' One Throne, one Empire, one Navy.' Sir, one thing is settled now- that the Naval Service Act is to remain in force; as to that there can be no dispute. My hon. friend is organizing a force under this Act, and he tells us-I put the question to him, and he told me in so many words and syllables-that the present force is organized under the Naval Service Act of 1910. Therefore, it is settled once and for all that the Naval Service Act is to remain on the statute-book.
My hon. friend is commencing now to organize a volunteer force of 1,200 men. These men are enlisted for three years, like the volunteers in the militia force; they take an oath; they become responsible to the call of the Government; they are liable when called for service-at the present time let us hope that there shall be no occasion to call them except for drill-but in an emergency, in case of war, they can be called out. But they are called out for what? To serve in the vessels of the Naval Service of Canada and in those of the Royal navy; that is to say, we are training men at the present time for the service of the Canadian navy. One Throne, one Empire, one Navy! This is the natural corollary, and it is the policy of the Government-to train naval men for the service of the Imperial navy. It cannot be for a Canadian navy, because my hon. friend the minister in charge of the department (Mr. Hazen) has just told us that he is not sure that we shall have a Canadian navy. This is still in the air. But in the meantime we have understood that at some date or other we should have a permanent policy upon this question. It is slow in coming; it has not come; it is coming by degrees; and this is one of the first steps to be taken.
Now, Sir, to crown the cup of humiliation of the gentlemen who are behind the Government, there are two things. The despised Niobe, the contumelious Niobe, which has bad so much ignominy heaped upon it, is to be made use of; she is not to be sold for old iron, as we have been told, but is to be kept in the waters of a Canadian port to serve as a training ship. This is to be on the Atlantic. On the Pacific we shall have a repetition of the offence. The despised Rainbow, which was taken from service some few years ago for the patrol of the waters of the Pacific ocean, is also to become a training ship. Another humiliation : we have been told on the floor of this House more than once that the Canadian people were so engaged in other things that it was impossible to recruit soldiers; that if we wanted to have sailors we would have to go elsewhere; that we could not find men; that the men on board the Rainbow and Niobe had deserted; and that the task of trying to recruit in Canada had been given up in despair. My hon. friend expects to have 1,200 men in the service; he thinks there will be no trouble at all about securing them. He tells us there is great enthusiasm already. I am aware that there has always been great enthusiasm in the province of British Columbia for a service of that kind, and that there has been a volunteer association there. I am not aware that there has been any such association in Quebec or in the Maritime provinces so far. But, perhaps under the fostering care of my hon. friend, he will be lucky enough to develop enthusiasm in the hitherto recalcitrant provinces.
I again call the attention of the House to these words: that these volunteers will be called upon to serve on the ships of the Royal navy. So that, in case of emergency, the men who are to-day going to volunteer in British Columbia, on the lakes, on the St. Lawrence river and on the gulf, can at any time be called upon to serve, not upon Canadian ships, but upon the ships of the

Royal navy, and to be scattered all over the world,	and disembowelled upon
the seas	of Japan and	China.
Here we are .just where we were three yeaTS ago. Who could have imagined that my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Coderre), my hon. friend the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nan-tel), and, shall I say also, the right hon. gentleman who presides over the deliberations of the House at this moment, should have lived to see the day when under the aegis of a Conservative Government men should be taken from Canada to be disembowelled upon the seas of China and Japan? Sir, revenge has come to many of us upon this side of the House who endeavoured at much cost and sacrifice to do what we believed to be our duty. We wanted to have a navy on our shores for our own defence, and we acted in accordance with the views of our friends on the other side of the House. They, however, have changed their minds, and now we have what was never contemplated: Canada becomes a training station for the imperial navy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there no explanation from the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Borden)? No explanation from the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier)? No explanation from the Minister of Inland Revenue (Mr. Nantel)? Well, if they are not willing to explain, I shall have to say a few words in order to put plainly before the public the facts of the case. We all remember the policy adopted unanimously by this House in 1909, when the right hon. gentleman, then leader of the House, and my right hon. friend the then leader of the Opposition, both agreed upon a Canadian naval policy. We know further that in the following year an Act was passed entitled the Naval Service Act of Canada. We know that this Act was assailed from the moment it was placed upon the statute-book. In the province of Ontario it was attacked by the frothy jingoes, who 'contended that it was a separatist policy. In fact, the whole stock in trade of the jingo Tory party 'in Ontario was: First of all, Laurier was responsible for the Ne Temere; then, in sixteen or seventeen constituencies, Fielding had ruined the depositors of the Farmers Bank; in some other constituencies, Laurier was aiming at the annexation of Canada to the United States; and in many back concessions it was whispered that Laurier was the agent of the Pope of Rome. The cry in the province of Quebec, engineered

by the Postmaster General, the Minister of Inland Revenue, the chairman of this committee, and many others, was that Laurier had sold Canada and the French-Canadians to John Bull by placing upon the statute book that most nefarious legislation, the Naval Service Act of Canada. My hon. friend the Postmaster General and the Minister of Inland Revenue stated everywhere they spoke on the hustings that the poor children of French Canadians would be compelled to serve on board the battleships of John Bull and expose their lives for the defence of a flag for which they did not care. In fact, one of them said that in order to secure our political liberty our ancestors had been obliged to bore holes with bullets in that flag. The enlistment of our young men was not to be a voluntary enrolment; it was to he a conscription such as they had in Germany, in France, and generally on the European continent. In the election of Drummond and Arthabaska our friends on the other ' side of the House, the tri-coloured fiag-wavers, even sent emissaries into the back concessions with brass buttons-it was at the time of the census-and these pseudo officers were asking the good wives and good mothers how many children they had, because forsooth that .infernal Laurier wanted to take their children and, under the Naval Service Act, enlist them in the Imperial navy. We know what success such misrepresentatione had in the province of Quebec. Sir, in 1911 the Liberal speakers in that province could barely be heard on the platform when they attempted to explain the provisions of the Naval Service Act of 1910. After the election, the right hon. the present Prime Minister, our opponents said, was going to repeal that diabolical Act-yes, Sir, repeal it on the first day of the first session of this Parliament. When Parliament convened, the following question was put by the hon. member for Yamaska (Mr. Mondou):
1.	Does the Government intend to propose to repeal the Naval Service Act?
2.	If so, does the Government intend, in case of such repeal, to propose another act containing the policy of the Government in the matter?
3.	If such other act is proposed, is it the intention of the Government to submit the same for the approval of the people before being put into force?
The following reply was made:
Mr. Hazen:	The answer to each of these
three questions is-'Yes.'	After such consideration and inquiry as may he necessary, the Government will present its naval policy

to Parliament and to the people. That policy will undoubtedly require legislation which will involve the repeal of the present Naval Service Act. In the meantime that Act will remain on the statute book for purposes in connection with fisheries protection service and otherwise. Before any permanent naval policy is put into force, the people will he given an opportunity to pronounce upon it.
Sir, are we now to be told that our young men who are going to serve as volunteers not only in the Canadian navy but in the Imperial navy as well, will serve fqr the protection of the fisheries ? Mr. Chairman, you know as well as I do, so does .the Postmaster General, and so does the Minister of Inland Revenue, that according to this Order in Council, surreptitiously passed in the dying days of this session, our young men will be called upon to serve in the Imperial navy, nothing more and nothing less; And the Niobe and the Rainbow-the tinpot navy-will be used as training ships for our Canadian boys, thus fulfilling every condition embodied in this abominable Naval Service Act of 1910 with this exception, however, that according to that Act, our young men could not serve in case of emergency on the other side of the water without the sanction of the Canadian Parliament. That was a manly policy, it was a Canadian and truly patriotic policy. Sir, by this Order in Council our young sailors can pass automatically to the Imperial navy without the Canadian Parliament having ever been consulted. It is only right that this should be made known to the people of Canada, and it will be made public between the few months that will elapse between prorogation and the convocation of Parliament next session.
Sir, we were told that Canada could not afford to man ships, that the seamen serving on 'board the Rainbow and the Niobe were not Canadians but mostly all English. When the Postmaster General delivered that great Imperialistic speech of his on the floor of this House in December, 1912, he declared that wo could not enlist Canadians in the British navy. Of course the Prime Minister had previously said that we could not expect to have a Canadian built navy within fifty years. My hon. friend the Postmaster General went one better, and said that besides we could not get the men. I have his exact words here. Referring to the Liberals, he said ('Hansard,' page 1099):
Do they know that practically they could not get men in this country even for the Niobe and the Rainbow? Do they know that we must go to England to get men to man those ships? Do our friends know what wages-
Of course, he was sizing up the question to his own measurement:
-what wages are paid on hoard those ships, and what wages are paid on hoard British warships? It is an interesting matter to know this, when these great men are launching this great policy. Let me tell them. In Canada ordinary seamen are paid 50 cents a day in Great Britain they are paid 28 cents a day.
I would like to know what wages our young men of the Niobe and the Rainbow will be paid when they will be called upon to serve on ships in the Imperial navy. Later on, when my hon. friend from Beauce (Mr. Beland) interrupted him, the Postmaster General asked:
Mr. Pelletier: Where, then, are you going to find your men?
Mr. Beland: We are going to find them in Canada.
Mr. Pelletier: Let me tell my hon. friend from Beauce, who was Minister of Marine and Fisheries-*
He made a mistake there.
-for a few days, that, without either increase of pay or conscription, he would not get enough men in Canada for a sltarboard watch. Now, our hon. friends have told us they are not in favour of conscription. But their theory does not hold together, their policy does not stand on its own feet. I have here something that may help them. I have been handed a little Bill, which never saw the light of day very much hut on which I find the following words:
And then he quoted an Act which wajs supposed to have been introduced by the late Mr. Prefontaine when he was Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Aikins) also spoke on the naval question on that occasion. He was speaking of conscription, and I asked the following question:
Mr. Lemieux: Why should we have one in Canada?
Mr. Aikins: I will tell you. The people of Canada are occupied in the development of Canada. We have a young population. They are occupied in the development of Canada; they are receiving very high wages, and, assuming that the three dreadnoughts, which are to be for a time part of the Imperial navy, were to he manned by Canadians, the rate of pay would have to he twice as much or more in order to induce Canadians to go on board, than that paid to the seamen that are on board the dreadnoughts In the old country.
Mr. Lemieux: Can Canada afford to pay?
Mr. Aikins: Canada can afford to pay; hut can the people of the United Kingdom afford to double the wages of their ordinary seamen in order to man their own vessels? Put the two English and Canadian vessels side by side. The Canadian on one dreadnought is paid twice or three times as much as the Britisher on board another dreadnought, then what will happen?
Mr. Oliver: Is that an objection?
515'j


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: I would consider myself wanting in duty if I did not say a few words in this discussion from an angle a little different from that occupied by my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux). My right hon. friend leading the Opposition and my hon. friend from Rouville, would be perhaps a little less human than they are, if they did not take what party advantage there is to be got from the policy that *stands behind the vote .under the consideration of this committee. Personally, having learned my politics in the old land, I endeavour to view matters of foreign policy-and I think the committee will, do me the justice that in the many debates we have had upon this .subject I have given, evidence of that fact-I have endeavoured to view questions of foreign policy from a non-partisan standpoint, as often as it is possible to do so in the common interests of this country and of the British Empire.
I rise to congratulate my right hon. friend at the head of the Government, and the Government, upon the policy, as far as it has been outlined and developed by the Minister of Marine this afternoon, and as far as I understand it. My right hon.

leader said that the Government had advanced; but there is a very important sense in which they have receded. We aTe voting to-night one million dollars of expenditure, while last year there was a proposition from that side of the House to spend a concrete sum of $35,000,000, and to go from $35,000,000 to $1,000,000 is receding, not advancing. In receding, I am bound to say that the Prime Minister is not unaccompanied, because while he made a proposition to spend $35,000,000 in a certain way which I very strenuously, and I hope always respectfully and in all seriousness, opposed, there was another proposition which involved an expenditure I should say somewhat larger, so that there has been receding all around upon this question. I want to congratulate my right hon friend and his Government, from my peculiar angle, and with my somewhat ardent views, perhaps, upon that very outstanding feature of the situation. As far as this vote develops a policy, I want to congratulate the Prime Minister further; I want to congratulate him upon the moral courage of having his Minister of Marine stand up here and lay down a policy which I believe, in common with my friends near me, is the nucleus of a proper policy for Canada. I do not think that to recede from a false position-and I do not want to assume any more than my right hon. friend would be prepared to admit himself-is a matter for humiliation. On the contrary, it is a matter for congratulation; it requires moral courage to recede from a false position. Perhaps I should offer my congratulations to both sides of the House, because I do not see that there is any great enthusiasm at the present moment for what are known', I think, as fleet units.
I want to congratulate my right hon. friend the Prime Minister still further on being a party, with his Government, to the development of Canada along sane lines of national progress. On the whole, I think that the policy as it has been expounded by the minister in charge will meet with very lllarge approval from the people of this country. The Minister of Marine has given us the nucleus of a policy which is creditable in every way to a self-reliant people. I stand absolutely where I have always stood in principle upon this matter, and I rise from a sense of absolute duty to protest against any too-partisan view of this question, and to make it easy for the Government to take what I believe to be a sound
position, and a position in which they will lead the whole Canadian people along the lines of a sane national development, inside, if you like, a sane imperialism. I think the committee will do me the justice of feeling that I have the right to congratulate not only the Government, but the members of the Opposition, and the country, and the empire-for I also am human- upon the fact that those of us who from the beginning of these debates over five years ago pleaded that we should not be carried away by what is commonly called, jingoism, to the exaggeration of emergencies or to the imagination of emergencies, are justified by the events ot to-day.
It is a long time since this navy question emerged; It was in my first session of Parliament, I think, on the 29th of March, 1909, that these debates began, and while it is true that upon the occasion of the very first debate my hon. friend who now holds the portfolio of Trade and Commerce had considerable war-paint about his person, I am not at all sure that my right hon. leader was not attired in hues almost as glaring. There was a good deal of emergency in the air at that time. I think I owe it to myself to recall that even in that debate I protested against our being carried away too far by this idea of emergencies. Last year there was an emergency on to some limited degree, more limited on the other side of the House than on this side, to the extent that $35,000,000 would be less money than would be necessary to buy two fleet units. I think the country should be congratulated that the emergency is over. I rose to offer very sincere words of congratulation to the Government upon the sane point at which we have arrived in our national history, and I trust my hon. friend the Prime Minister will not be too much put out by what has fallen from the lips of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). If I were to criticise my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) I would say he has no excess of that generosity which would characterize a brave man in the moment of what he even conceives to be a victory.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do not be too hard on
me.


Michael Clark: I should not like to be one-tenth as hard on my hon. friend as he was trying to he on my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. I beg to offer these congratulations in the very best spirit; congratulations to the Government, and

congratulations to the country, and congratulations to the empire, that for the moment the German menace and a lot of menaces are not as near as they were, and that the nation has a fair chance of being embarked upon a non-partisan, rational development of its naval defence policy.


Mr. BOEDEN:: I can assure my hon. friend (Mr. Michael Clark) that I was not very much affected by the remarks of my hon. friend from Eouville (Mr. Lemieux), because he seemed throughout his speech to be engaged in firing only blank cartridges. He resorted a good deal to the scrap book; but he did not give us any reminiscences of the young man who, a good many years ago, wrote a certain noted letter with regard to the absolute duty of Canadians not to take any part whatever in naval defence, and who uttered a stirring rebuke to the Chamber of Commerce in the city of Montreal for their venturing to pass a resolution with regard to that subject.	[DOT]


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend is not
too accurate. I shall have to make another speech.


Frederick William Borden: If the next speech of my hon. friend is not more accurate than the one which he has just uttered, I think he might spare the House. Also he did not give us any reminiscences of a young man who engaged very actively in a campaign in 1896 in the province of Quebec, which campaign was largely directed towards making the people of that province acquainted with the enormity of the Conservative Government, which under very peculiar conditions had brought down a certain grant for arms and ammunition. My hon. friend the member for Eouville has no recollection of that campaign, no recollection of participating in it, no recollection whatever of the literature which was distributed by the party of which he was a member in that province at the time. If he had any recollection of these incidents he would perhaps consider himself very much humiliated by the speech which he made to-night; but, as he has no recollection of them, as these matters pass very gently and easily from his mind, my hon. friend is inclined to be somewhat exuberant in his criticism of the Government. I have not yet learned whether or not he is opposed to the proposal made by the Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am against the Government.


Frederick William Borden: I think that is the explanation of the whole matter. My hon. friend is against the Government, whatever it may do; and in that respect he offers a striking contrast to the broad-minded example of the hon. member for Eed Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) who sits behind him. It would be better for my hon. friend the member for Eouville to fashion himself in that regard a little more upon the hon. member for Eed Deer, who when important matters are under consideration, is able to free himself for the time being from the feeling that he must always oppose the Government on every conceivable subject, and who is ready to give the Government credit if he thinks it is taking a commendable course according to his judgment and his point of view. My hon. friend from Eouville, however, can hardly be expected to change his mode of thought and his general temperament at this stage of his career, and I have no great hopes that he will follow the example of the hon. member who has spoken from the seat just behind him.
I am not going to rehearse the naval debate at all. We had enough of it last year. All I have to say with regard to it-


George Perry Graham: We had a lot of it.


Frederick William Borden: I think my hon. friend
from South Eenfrew agrees with me. All I can say is that I never used the word ' emergency ' in the speech with which I introduced our proposals, but I presented to the House a statement from the Admiralty which as I believed gave a true appreciation of the conditions with which the empire was confronted with relation to the necessities of common defence, and I based upon that statement certain proposals which passed this branch, but not the other branch of the legislature. As to the truth, accuracy and sincerity of the statements which were furnished to us from official sources, and upon which we based our proposals, I have only this to say, that, since our proposals tailed in this Parliament,
for reasons upon which I shall not dwell, it has been found necessary in the mother country to make a certain provision by reason of our failure to bring that assistance which we had proposed to bring. According to my apprehension, that perhaps is as good justification of the action which we proposed to take at that time as any one in



[Stage Direction]
this House or in this country ought to desire.	.
My hon. friend the member for Rou-ville could not get through his speech without referring to the word ' autonomy.'
Rodolphe Lemieux: It is in the dictionary.


Robert Laird Borden: It is in the dictionary,
but it is not so much in the dictionary as it is in the mind and brain of my hon. friend. It haunts him; it gives him bad dreams all the time. Whenever he wakes up in the morning, he thinks his autonomy is to be destroyed; and when he goes to bed at night, he dreads lest it shall be gone when he awakens in the morning. My hon. friend really has not any fear about it; but he thinks that it is a good catchword, and that it will be useful later on when he raises the bugbear of the disappearance of our autonomy. Who has threatened the autonomy of Canada? Has the British Government or the British Admiralty done so? Has any one on this side of the House or on the other side done so?_ I have yet to learn that anything of the "kind is contemplated; the reference of my hon. friend in that regard is absolutely gratuitous, and it has absolutely nothing behind it in the mind of himself or of any other gentleman on the other side of the House.
So far as this proposal is concerned, it is based upon requests which have come from different parts of Canada, that men might be permitted to engage in certain naval training just as men in Canada are permitted and indeed encouraged to engage in military training. It was thought desirable that the opportunity should be given to them. Is my hon. friend for or against our action in that regard? He has not told us. If he really is against it, I suppose he will make a motion condemning the Government for having embarked upon a proposal of this kind. If on the other hand he is in favour of it, then it seems to me he is taking up a great deal more of the time of the House than is necessary under the circumstances.
Some reference was made by my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and also by the hon. member for Rouville to what was said last year as to the difficulty of getting men to engage in a permanent naval service in Canada. Every one in this House knows that the permanent force of Canada at the present time is composed, if I remember rightly, of 75 or 80 per cent of men born outside of Canada-in the United Kingdom. The Royal Northwest Mounted Police is composed, to the extent of 75 or

80 per cent, of men born in the United Kingdom! What is the reason for that? The reason, which I explained last year, is, that there are so many opportunities in Canada for men to engage in active pursuits which are more remunerative that they do not feel inclined to enter either a permanent naval force or * permanent military force, or even the Northwest Mounted Police, which presents many attractions to men who are fond of military life. That, however, is entirely consistent with the fact that a great many thousand people enroll themselves in the volunteer militia force of Canada. What is the reason why Canadians engage in the one and not in the other? It is that men can enter the militia force of Canada without foregoing the opportunities which this country affords to them of making a livelihood, of saving money, of doing well in the world; whereas if they become members of a permanent military or permanent naval force, those opportunities would be absolutely lost. Therefore, while it might be a very difficult thing to get men in Canada, either on the Atlantic' or on the Pacific coast, to become members of a permanent naval force, many men are eager to enter a volunter naval force just as they enter the volunteer military force of this country.
In either case, as I said last year, all material considerations to which I have alluded would disappear absolutely if the country had need of their services; and therefore, there is nothing incongruous in the proposals of the Government, which are perfectly sane and reasonable and along the lines laid down on this side of the House last year. It would be very difficult in this country at this time to raise a permanent naval force, just as it would be difficult to raise a large permanent military force. But it is quite possible that we may make a considerable advance in the organization of the force which my hon. friend the Minister of the Naval Service proposes. I hope that the proposals which he has placed before the House will result in the training of a large number of men; and I do not doubt that, if occasion offered, and an emergency arose, these men would be quite prepared to serve their country either in the Canadian navy or in the Royal navy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not doubt it. The hon. member for Rouville doubts it; therefore he says, ' hear, hear '.

Some lion. MEtMBEBS: We do not doubt it.	.


Frederick William Borden: I am glad to have the
commendation of my hon. friends. I am glad that on this question at least we are united in our views. This view is not new, so far as I am concerned, because I said the very same thing last year. I said that while men in Canada would not be disposed, by reason of the considerations to which I have alluded, to engage in a permanent military force, I did not doubt that Canada from one end of the country to the other would be ready to come forward. in any emergency if the country were in danger-That is all that this means. I did not doubt that then; I do not doubt it now.
My hon. friend from Bouville seems to be disturbed by the provision in the Order in Council that these men may be called upon to serve in the Canadian navy or in the Boyal navy. That is a term of the Order in Council. Every man engaging in naval service will know precisely what it means and what his dnties will be in case war should come; and no Canadian, I think, will be disposed to shrink from entering the service on that account. I do not doubt that a considerable force will be raised under these proposals, nor that it will be useful and effective, when occasion requires.
Something was said by my hon. friend from Bouville about this Order in Council having been passed in a surreptitious manner. May I ask to what he alludes?


Rodolphe Lemieux: At the end of the
session.


Frederick William Borden: I see. Are all orders passed at the end of the session surreptitious measures?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Some.


Frederick William Borden: Seme, but not all. My hon. friend argues that Orders in Council passed at the end of a session are surreptitious only in some cases; that is the only qualification which he gives. This Order in Council was passed in the same way as other Orders in Council. Intimation of it was given to tho press, and when my right hon. friend noticed it in the press he made inquiries across the floor of the House, and asked that it be laid on the table, and it was laid on the table at once. If there had been any desire for secrecy it might have been left until the 325J
session was over. It was not left ; it was passed during the currency of the session, and intimation was given to the press, because we had nothing to feaT by reason of the passing of this Order in Council; we were not afraid of any criticism that might "be directed against it; and my hon. friend the member for Bouville did no justice to himself when he endeavoured to insinuate, rather than state, that, there was some attempted secrecy; there was none, and no one in the House knows it better than he does.


George Perry Graham: One of the ministers in the debate yesterday quoted these words:
While the lamp holds out to burn
The vilest sinner may return.
We are taking the sinners over in a bunch to-night, and there never were bigger sinners on this naval question than the gentlemen I see looking at me. But do you not think, Mr. Chairman, that the Government is out of order? They are discussing a matter which is on another part of the Order Paper in the form of. a Bill to abolish the Naval Service Act. If the Speaker were in the Chair I would ask him for a ruling. The Government has actually introduced ;an item and brought on a discussion upon a question which has been side-tracked in another part of the Order Paper. But I am afraid I would not like to appeal to the Chairman upon it, because I might get him tangled up on details. How are we going to be extricated and see where the Government is? The hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. L'Esperance), who has just left the Chamber, early in the session gave notice that he was going to wipe the Naval Service Act off the statutes; he was going to do it because some twenty men around him in the House had given their pledge that it should be done. Whatever else the others might do who are in the Government, or wanted to get in, he, at least, was going to clear the air and wipe out this Naval Service Act. Of course, he did not show the courage necessary to wipe off a slate with a sponge. His Bill has been put in the governmental scrap heap, and the Government have brought in an item which, my hon. friend the minister of the Naval Service says is to be expended under the Naval Service Act, which was to be wiped out a few weeks age. A good many bon. gentlemen bad promised to vote for that Bill. I am told, that if it came to a vote, at least fifteen or twenty would be forced to vote for it. Now it has gone the way of all the earth.


Robert Laird Borden: They said that some on the other side were going to vote for it too.


George Perry Graham: They were not well informed. The Government made sure it did not come to a vote either. I am not sure but that they invited the hon. member for Montmagny to go away for a trip, which he did; and, after going away and enjoying himself, after serving notice on the Government, he returned to find his baby, buried, or as the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) says, embalmed and cremated-dead beyond hope of resurrection; and the Government he has followed so faithfully actually introduces an item under the Naval Service Act. We may take this for granted, that the Naval Service Act is not going to be repealed; the Government dare not repeal it, and we told them that months ago. I can imagine I see some hon. gentlemen hanging back a little. They may need some helping along, but they are coming, and, after taking this first taste of the Liberal policy of a naval service developed under the Naval Service Act, they will get accustomed to it. After all, it is the only policy for the Dominion of Canada which is worthy of its citizens. And I am not chiding the Government. I am just sympathizing with them in the difficulties they are in, and I hope the hon. member for Montmagny will not be too severe upon them for taking advantage of him.
Just one other point. I am glad that hon. gentlemen opposite now repudiate all their criticisms of the Niobe and the Rainbow. The afflictions of office are bringing them to a saner frame of mind. You know, Mr. Chairman, that all over the country the Niobe and the Rainbow were jeered at as being of no use. It was claimed that the money spent on them was wasted, and whenever an accident occurred to one of these steamers, it brought joy to the hearts of the Government members. Whenever there was an accident; whenever the Rainbow or the Niobe ran on a rock, there was great rejoicing among hon. gentlemen opposite; the Government almost seemed sorry that the boat had not gone to the bottom, and the Conservative press featured it with big headlines. I am glad that the Government has seen the error of its ways and that it has rebuked its followers in that respect. To-night the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who, under the Naval Service Act, is the head of the Naval Service of Canada, which will never 
be repealed, says that the Niobe and the Rainbow are going to be used for the identical purpose for which the Liberal Government purchased them. These two ships were never purchased as fighting ships; they were purchased from the British Government at the suggestion of the British Admiralty for the purpose of training men for a Canadian navy. I welcome the Government in their adoption of the only sane policy which can be imagined for the Dominion of Canada. I shall not gloat over the Government's accepting the policy of the Liberal party; I merely refer to it as a fact. I earnestly entertain the hope that in the future the Government will follow the procedure which they have now started, and that they will not be stampeded by any body into an emergency that is only in the clouds. I hope and trust that they will not see thunderbolts when there is no thunder ; that	they will not see any
flashes of lightning where there is no cloud. I congratulate the Government upon their gradually getting back to the policy unanimously adopted by this House in the year 1909. So long as they proceed along the lines of developing in Canada, slowly it may be, something that will be our own; something that will be Canadian; so long as they proceed along the line of defending our own commerce as it grows in time of peace and of coming to the assistance of the mother land willingly and gladly in time of trouble, they can count on my support as a member of this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am not, I confess, so charitable as the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) and the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark). I cannot congratulate the Government upon the course which they have adopted, because they have gone only part of the way; they have shown some repentance, but they have not shown any desire to correct their error. It is quite true that at last we have adopted the Naval Service Act; we are thankful thlat this matter is settled. We shall no longer have public opinion diverted from its true purposes, because it is a settled fact that the Naval Service Act will be maintained. But my hon. friend has met the Naval Service Act only half way; he is giving us a Naval Act emasculated of its best features. My hon. friend told us a moment ago that he wanted to have naval volunteers as we now have volunteers on

land. But wbat is the use of having naval volunteers if we have no ships? The policy of my hon. friend last year was ships without men; this year his policy is men without ships. What is the use of going to this expense? The hon. member for Bed Deer a moment ago congratulated the Government for having taken a fall from $35,000,000 to $1,000,000. I may point put that they could have fallen still lower, for what is the use of training men at an expense of $200,000 if we have no ships to put them	in?	If we	are to	haveno navy,	we	do not want	anysailors; it	is	absurd	to talk otherwise. My	hon.	friend	tells us	that
the men may be taken into the imperial navy. For my part, I object to that policy, and have always objected to it. I have [DOT]always taken the view that if we are to take any part in our own defence-and I believe that we should do so-we should do it ourselves, like men, having our own ships and our own men also. But that is not the policy of my hon. friend. He does not realize to what dangers he exposes himself on the part of his national allies. Last session when another branch of the legislature rejected the offeT made the Government of $35,000,000 to buy ships, we were told in the province of Quebec that that policy was much better than the policy of the late 'Government, because the proposal was to offer ships and ships alone, whilst our policy was a tribute of blood. For my part, I cannot congratulate hon. gentlemen opposite; nor can I be .as charitable as is my hon. friend behind me, foT although the Government have gone so far, they have not gone far enough.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This is >a very interesting and amusing spectacle indeed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: This is the first time so many Grits have applauded me; I thank, them very much indeed. Let us not look at this .matter with such outbursts of assumed 'indignation ag those which were a feature of the remarks of the hon. member for Rouville. My hon. friend often takes this attitude before the House and the country, and one who did not know him might, perhaps, take him seriously.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish , Armand
Lavergne were here.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: If Armand Lavergne
were here he would be sitting side by side
with my hon. friend, because he has been against me very much during the last two years. My hon. friend surely knows me well enough to be quite sure that he will not prevent me from saying what I have to siay. Hon. gentlemen opposite pretend to-night to be very happy; their countenances seem to show that at last they have found something to put joy into their hearts.
The right hon. leader of the Opposition has stated in a few words his views on this question. We have answered the old argument about the poor people of this country being disembowelled time and again. He had no sooner taken his seat than the hon. member for Rouville stood up, and went so far in his speech that a man of good judgment sitting just behind him was obliged to put his hand on the hon. member s head and say:	Gool down young
man, cool down, you do not know what you are talking about just now. Is not that amusing? The next moment we heard from the hon. member for South Renfrew, who, although he does not pretlend to be witty, really is witty, whereas the hon. member for Rouville tries to be witty but cannot. Did not the hon. member for South Renfrew say that this Government had adopted the Laurier naval policy?


George Perry Graham: To some extent.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: He said that we had adopted the Laurier naval policy.


George Perry Graham: I said that they had to lead the members slowly along towards it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The echo of my hon. friend's words had hardly died away when the right hon. leader of the Opposition stood up and said. This is no policy at all. Last year they had a policy of ships without men, and this year they have a policy of men without ships. Just contrast for a moment the speeches of those two neighbours on the front benches. One says one thing, and the other says just the reverse. The hon. member for South Renfrew says that we are embarking on the Laurier naval policy, and his leader, who ought to know something about that policy, stands up and administers a rebuke to the hon. member for South Renfrew and to the hon. member for Red Deer. And you call that a happy family! My hon. friend from Rouville said that the Conservative family must bte a very unfortunate and unhappy one, but we do not give on the floor of this House such an exhibition as we have witnessed on the

other side. Let my hon. friends opposite get out of that what comfort they can.


Jacques Bureau: That is funny.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for Rouville has succeeded in making a mountain out of a mole hill. Our good friends on the other side say that we are without a policy, without any issue on which to go to the people, and they think that they themselves have at last
10 p.m. found something to tell the people in their respective constituencies. Let us see what it is. We were told by the hon. member for Rouville that we were riveted to the policy of Sir Wilfrid Laurier.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 'To pervert it,' I added.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Those were not the words used. My hon. friend sees now that he has gone too far, and would like to recall that sentence. We have not gone back to the Laurier naval policy, and I hope to God we never shall.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do not take the name of the Lord in vain.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for South Renfrew has told us that the Laurier policy was simply to use the Nioibe and the Rainbow as training ships. Ignorant as I am of the history of this country, and more especially of its recent history, I was under the impression that the Rainbow and the Niobe were only the forerunners of twelve other ships that were to be constructed under the Laurier naval policy. Is that a fact or is it not? Let those who laughed a moment ago answer that question.


Jacques Bureau: What are the twelve hundred men forerunners of?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Let us stick to my question. We .have bean told to-night that the policy of the late Government was simply to have two ships for training purposes. Let us look at the statute-book; look at the declarations which have been made on the flooT of this House; look at the Order in Council; look at the tenders which were prepared by the late Government, and you will find that it was proposed to have a navy which could not fight -a ridiculous and impossible navy, composed of ships which would have been a disgrace to Canada. That is what the Laurier naval policy amounts to. There it is, and there it is to stay, and history will speak of it as an ahsnbitely-if I may

be pardoned the word-absurd and impossible proposition. Is that our policy today? Nobody will say that it resembles it in the least. The	right hon.
leader of the Opposition himself says that we axe going to have	men
without ships. The Laurier naval policy was to have ships which would be unable to fight, and to put men into those ships. The distinction is easily understood by gentlemen who will understand it. I have described the Laurier naval policy of 1910. What was the policy of my right hon. friend last year? It was to have two fleet units, one on the Atlantic and one on the Pacific. Is that a fact or is it not? That is the latest policy of the right hon. leader of the Opposition. To-day we are asked by a certain number of young men who have been training of their own volition to allow them to enter upon a naval career. We have said: Yes, that is all right.


Michael Clark: How much are you going to give them a day?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: You fooled them once.


Jacques Bureau: You cannot fool them
twice.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We will see about that later.	[DOT]


Jacques Bureau: Next summer perhaps.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friends are
very desirous of having an election next summer. They have been asking for an

election ever since we have been in power. These hon. gentlemen, instead of devoting their energies to the promotion of measures for the welfare of the country, have been clamouring for an election. We saw the results in the Liberal stronghold of Chateauguay. We were told that we dare not go before the people of Quebec with our naval policy. We had a by-election in Chateauguay, our policy on the naval question was put side by side with the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, the electors were invited to decide as between them, and in that Liberal stronghold where never since Confederation had a Conservative been elected, and where, as we were told, we dare not show ourselves before the people, our candidate received the approval of the electors. Let our hon. friends opposite ponder over that fact because while they apparently have high hopes, I am afraid they are going to be sadly disappointed.


Jacques Bureau: I asked the hon. Postmaster General a question and he said he was coming to it. He told us that the Niobe and the Rainbow were the forerunners of a great fleet. I asked him what the 1,200 men were the forerunners of but my hon. friend has failed to give me an answer.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I just answered the
hon. gentleman. I said that we had been asked by a number of young men, principally in British Columbia, who had volunteered to organize themselves, to give them opportunities for a naval training. They told us that they were willing to adopt this as their career and that it was a career that- they, as young Canadians, would like to enter upon. We have simply met their wishes by giving them the opportunity which they desire. We are told by hon. gentlemen opposite that this is an organization under the Liberal Naval Act. Well, everybody who is in good faith, and I know that everybody opposite is in good faith, will admit that this movement could have been organized under the old Cartier law. But that law was repealed by the Liberal Administration in 1910.


Wilfrid Laurier: You should
have said that in 1911.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I did say that in 1911 but I added that there were features in the Laurier law of 1910 which never should have been put on the 'statute-book.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What features?
' Mr. PELLETIER:	We will not enter
into that. I have said that many times on the floor of this House and I am not going to repeat myself to-night even if it were to please my hon. friend from Rouville, and everybody knows that it is such a great pleasure to me to please him as often as I can. To-night he will have to excuse me if I do not gratify him and discuss all these matters.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not for my sake, but
for the sake of Armand.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Armand can take
care of himself. My hon. friend has too many people to take care of. My hon. friend has not forgotten the meeting which he had with Armand at St. Hyacinthe and be has kept Armand in remembrance ever since. My hon. friend .always has a keen remembrance of anybody who has .done him what he considers a bad turn, and therefore he brings Mr. Lavergne into the discussion to-night. My hon. friend remembers the very sad day of the great St. Hyacinthe meeting. But, at all events', I think, as I said at the outset, that my hon. friend has really found a mare's nest. He is trying to build up a mountain out of a most natural and most reasonable thing and a thing which, to my .mind, is very far from the Liberal policy and the Laurier Naval Act. I may be right or I may be wrong, but hon. gentlemen will admit that after all my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) sounded the right note to-night. But that does not suit some hon. gentlemen opposite for the reason that they would like to make a little political capital out of this matter.


Jacques Bureau: We do not know anything about that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I know that my hon. friend from Three Rivers does not; he is a saint in politics and never makes any political capital, but perhaps other hon. gentlemen do. Let me commend to my hon. friends opposite the patriotic words which my hon. friend from Red Deer has uttered here to-night and which I think might have been accepted by hon. gentlemen if the strong desire to make political capital had not been burning in their hearts. I think we will understand one another better after this and that my hon. friends will realize that -they are trying to do an impossible thing when they undertake to make the people believe the foolish things which they have said here to-night or to accept the

appeals which they have addressed ifco them and which they were apparently -able to get them to accept -during the last fifteen years. But, the day for that is gone.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend has discussed every other subject which he could think of but he has not answered my question. He has told me that a number of young men in British Columbia had asked the Government to allow them to train as seamen but I want to know what the 1,200 men are the forerunners of and, furthermore, upon what ships they are going to train.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I have answered the
question.


Jacques Bureau: I want an answer as to
the ships. Is it the intention of the Department of the Naval Service to purchase new ships, or to have new ships built, or to use those that they have?


John Douglas Hazen: I think that my h-on. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau) was not in the House when I explained what had occurred and what it is proposed to do. These men will train a -certain number of days each year, just as the militia train now, and then they will supplement the training which they receive on shore by training on 'board ship and for this purpose the ships -that belong to the country, ships like the Rainbow and Niobe, and ships belonging to the fishery protective service, will be used.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it intended that these men will ever fight?


John Douglas Hazen: I am quite sure that if
the occasion -comes when any fighting has to be done, being Canadian, they will not run away.


John Howard Sinclair: I notice that mine sweeping is one of the subjects that the cadets are to be trained in. Will the minister be good enough to tell us what that branch is?


John Douglas Hazen: It is a well known branch of the training in the navy. In cases where harbours have been mined, and where there is danger of the mines being exploded by ships passing into the harbour, means are taken to what they call sweep the harbour so as to protect vessels from the danger of the explosion of these mines.


John Howard Sinclair: Does it involve submarine vessels ?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Mr. ROBB:: The Postmaster General has taken considerable satisfaction out of the

congratulations of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark); but it strikes me that the congratulations of the hon. member would have been somewhat more justified had the Prime Minister shown the same courage in 1911 as he has to-night. Had the right hon. gentleman in 1911 insisted on giving his naval policy to the electors of the province of Quebec, he would not have been placed in the humiliating position of being unrecognized by his supporters and allies in that province. It is well within the memory of most men in this House that in 1911 the allies of the Conservative party in the province of Quebec, many of them its most influential members, refused to go on the same platform with the Right Hon. Mr. Borden because they did not share his views on the naval question.


Michael Clark: They will go now.


James Alexander Robb: It is a question whether they will or not. The Postmaster General has just told us that the naval policy of the Government was endorsed in the late election in Chateauguay. Had the Postmaster General when he was in Chateauguay during that election, proposed the policy that has been propounded to-night, and had the Conservative candidate been then returned, he would have had some justification for his statement. But during the campaign in Chateauguay last fall, not only did the representatives of the Government, from the minister down to the humblest speaker of the back concessions, not present any permanent naval policy, but the people were told distinctly by the Postmaster General that the Government would not present any permanent naval policy before it was submitted to the people. Le Devoir of the 7th of October, stated in a leading article, commenting on the Chateauguay election, that the Government could take no credit for the people having approved their naval policy, because as a matter of fact the Conservative candidate was a man of peace and had run away from the naval policy of the Government. This editorial in Le Devoir states emphatically that the Postmaster General told the people of Chateauguay that no naval policy would be entered on until it had been submitted for the approval of the people. Apparently the Government have now developed a little more courage and, as has been pointed out, they are taking another step in advance. But when the Postmaster General claims that the people of Chateauguay pronounced upon the policy of the Government

oi65
in the Chateauguay election, he is contradicted directly by his own leading organ in the province of Quebec.


Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: Translation.) Mr. Chairman, the sight witnessed in this House to-night is of exceptional interest. How far we are from the principles proclaimed at the Lorette meeting! What a wonderful change has been wrought in the men and their views! However; as regards the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) my surprise is not so great. The hon. minister has accustomed us to sudden metamorphoses. Like some butterflies he readily adapts his colouring to that of the meadows over which he flits.
I am somewhat more surprised at the stand of some other members hailing from the province of Quebec and especially from my district. While the hon. member for Rouville had the floor I noticed the hon. member for Montmagny suddenly effecting his exit. Is it not that same hon, gentleman who, in the early part of the session, introduced a Bill for the repeal of the Laurier Naval Act? He had made that promise to his constituents and the contents of his Bill were published in every newspaper of the province of Quebec. Unfortunately, the state of his health did not permit him to carry out his pledge, and shortly after he departed to travel over the high .seas and breathe the invigorating air of European climes. To-day he is back, we have seen him in this House a few moments ago, and now he has this rare opportunity to call on the Government to do away with every vestige of that law which he denounced in such strong terms.
All the other representatives from the district of Quebec who support the Government had also promised, and even sworn, to have that Act repealed, if their party were returned to- power. Yourself, Mr. Chairman (Mr . Blond-in), you remember that all the church steeples in your county were called to witness that this accursed Act, ae you called it, would be struck from the statute hook at the very first session following on the elections. Indeed, I remember well that you prayed at the church door of every parish in the fine county of Champlain, the patron saints of both sexes,-since the hon. ' .member for Three Rivers heard you make that same appeal to St. Genevifeve,-to esn-(lighten the electors under their protection, so that they might vote against that nefarious Act the effect of which would be to have our children butchered, for the sake of the British, in every quarter of the [DOT]world.
My hon. friend from L'Islet, whom I do not see at his seat just now, is also losing a fine opportunity of fulfilling his pledges to his electors. Great heavens, what .abundant tears did he not shed! He carried his election through blood first, last .and all the time. The Liberal party he .would say, had written a bloody page in .Canada's history, and he took the solemn .covenant to have that page torn from our .annals.
The hon. member for Bellechasse, whom I see at his .seat, is also well aware that he would never have been elected, had he not made similar promises. The same may be said of the hon. member for Rimouski: he would never have entered the precincts of Parliament had he not taken the same solemn pledge.
We have now reached the third .session, and as yet nothing has been done. And what do these hon. gentlemen say in the province of Quebec to excuse the apathy of their Government? They say the Laurier Act is not repealed, but it is practically a dead letter in the statutes and we have not carried it out.


Mr. LAVALLEE:: Hear, hear.


Ernest Lapointe: Let the hon. gentleman who has just said 'Hear, hear', get up, .if he dare, and assert that the Order in Council creating a naval reserve is not *based on the Laurier Act and even does not exceed its provisions.
The hon. Postmaster General, though he .was far from favouring the Naval Bill of *1910, seemed to rejoice over the statement *made by the hon. member for Rouville that .the Government, in passing that Order in .Council, had given effect to that Naval Bill which he had so mercilessly condemned. The hon. Postmaster General is making a grievous mistake. That Order in Council goes a good deal farther than the Naval Bill of 1910. There is nothing in that Act to justify this paragraph of the Order in Council, dated May 18, 1914:
2. The naval volunteers, if called out in the event of an emergency, will be required:
(a) To serve in the vessels of the Naval Service of Canada or in those of the Royal navy;	[DOT]
I challenge the world to find a paragraph, a section, a single word, in that Act of
511.

1910 that warrants the provision in the Order in Council which I have just read.
The hon. Prime Minister has made fun of those who speak of autonomy. Has he forgotten that, of his supporters in this House hailing from the province of Quebec, not one was elected in 1911 as a Conservative, hut all of them as autonomists. Not one of them acknowledged the right hon. Prime Minister as his leader. All are aware of it. They repudiated him on every husting and refused to appear by his side during the electoral campaign.
The hon. Postmaster General contends that the leader of the Opposition in this House voted last year for the establishment of two naval units, one on the Atlantic and the other on the Pacific. The hon. gentleman well knows that it was not the right hon. leader of the Opposition who then had in hand the destinies of the country. A Bill was introduced. toy the Government providing for the expenditure of $35,000,000 to build three dreadnoughts which were to be handed over to the British admiralty.
The stand we took -was that if we were bound to disburse that money we preferred applying it to the creation of a Canadian mavy destined exclusively to the defence of Canada and the protection of Canadian interests. In other words, we contended, and we still contend, that it was preferable to spend our money in the country rather than send it over to Great Britain. We do not regret that stand, and we are Toady to compare it before the people with that of the Government, so soon as an occasion offers.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the sarcastic references of hon. gentlemen on the other side, when speaking of the Niobe and the Rainbow, wiill he reiterated by them after the establishment of that naval reserve. These two velesels will be used for the training and drilling of the men whom the Government is going ,to enlist under that Order iim Council.
I say, in conclusion, that the Government has by its action justified and vindicated the stand taken by the right hon. leader of the Opposition, in respect to that naval question. It is also the condemnation of the campaign carried on in the province of Quebec by his opponents, and the supreme humiliation of those who were returned as a result of that campaign. Their course in this House has been in open

contradiction to the views they advocated with .such violence.
I do not hesitate to say that the statements made and the stand taken by the Postmaster General to-night are marked by a show of political cynicism which has no parallel in the history of Canada,


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: (Translation.) I throw back with contempt that insult at the face of its author.


Ernest Lapointe: (Translation.) The hon. gentleman has so much contempt heaped on his head, that he can spare some for the use of others.


Mr. EDWARDS:: I want to call attention to a sentence made use of in 1910, which seems to be in line with this discussion. The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) stated that the Niobe and the Rainbow were not intended to be used as fighting ships, merely as training ships. The questions that suggest themselves to my mind are these: Why were they training ships? What was the object in training men? The reason I ask these questions is because of the words made use of by the right hon. leader of the Opposition when he was introducing the Naval Service Bill in 1910. At page 1733 olf ' Hansard ' of January, 1910, you will find him using these words:
No man in this country, under the Naval Service Act or any other, will he liable to military service on the sea.
Why the training ships? For what purpose are the men being trained? The right hon. the leader of the Opposition says to-night that the former policy on this side of the House was ' ships without men,' and now it is ' men without ships.' I might refer my hon. friends opposite again to the words used by the right hon. leader of the Opposition himself in introducing the Naval Service Bill:
No man in this country, under the Naval Service Act or any other, will be liable to military service on the sea.
What is his explanation of that?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am surprised at the question of my hon. friend. The explanation is the same as if he were in England. He knows that there are men there who are trained for the service; he knows there is no compulsion, and that' every man who goes on board a ship does so voluntarily. It will be the same thing in Canada as in England.


William Cameron Edwards: I understand that a man who goes on board a ship for naval training signs up for a certain length of time. In the event of war, during the time for which he had signed up, would he be free to step off the ship, or would he have to serve?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am again
surprised at my hon. friend's question. Every one knows that every volunteer, whether on land or on sea, binds himself for a certain number of years to obey the command, whether it comes from the naval or from the military authorities.


William Cameron Edwards: That is exactly as I
understand the situation; but it seems to me that it is not in line with my right hon. friend's words in introducing the Naval Service Bill, namely, that no man under that Act or an.y other will be liable to military service on the sea. It seems to me that, if a man signed up for three years and during that period war took place, he would have to serve.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He would be a volunteer in the first instance.


William Cameron Edwards: I am assuming that he had volunteered.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is a different matter.


William Cameron Edwards: Take a number of men signed up to train on the Niobe or the Rainbow for three years. I assume, if hostilities occurred during those three years, they would be obliged to serve. Yet we are distinctly told by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition that they would not be liable to serve.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: He said they were not
forced to sign.


William Cameron Edwards: I am giving the words of the right hon. gentleman.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You have misunderstood him.


Jacques Bureau: I do not think the hon.
member is serious, because the whole fight in the province of Quebec was on the question of allies, of masters or servants; and whether the Act was an Act to force every man over eighteen years and under sixty years in the province of Quebec to go into the navy, to sign an agreement whether or not he wanted to serve. The words of my right hon. friend mean that, if a man does not want to serve, he need not enroll. It must have been an effort of imagination on
the part of my hon. friend to endeavour to give it any other meaning the same as it was at the time of the debate last year when he tried to believe that I was not a Canadian.
The Postmaster General said that it was very funny to-night to hear this debate. For once in my life I agree with him. It is not only funny, 'but ridiculous. When you look back to 1911 and think of the fight that was waged, Mr. Chairman, you do not have to scratch your head very hard to remember how you said: We do not want any of our children to be disembowelled outside of the limits of Canada; it is enough to have a volunteer land force; we do not want our men to be compelled to go on the high seas of China or Japan and to be disembowelled.
I confirm what my hon. friend the member for Kamouraska (Mr. Lapointe) has said. This is the greatest piece of cynicism ever worked by any man inside or outside of Parliament. You remember yourself, Mr. Chairman, when you came to Three Rivers on the 6th of August, 1911, what was said. You said that Laurier was the destroyer of the French-Canadian race, in fact of the whole Canadian race. Mr. Bourassa, Mr. Monk, yourself and others said that is was a shame to enact such a law as the Laurier law. The .man you put up against me denounced the drill hall that bad been built at Three Rivers under Liberal rule, because, as you said, it was bringing into the hearts of the children the idea of warfare, o.f destruction of their fellow citizens; that we were holding before them a red rag, and that all we would create in Canada would be a thirst for blood. To-night the Postmaster General, after having fooled the electors of the province of Quebec, after having stolen the elections by carrying them on under false pretenses, with the assent and approval of the Tory party of Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and other provinces -we all know that they were fighting the election on the disloyalty cry, and you were fighting it on the disembowelling and the bloodshedding of our grandchildren-the Postmaster General, in answer to the question, which I put to him when he said that the Niobe and the Rainbow were only the forerunners of a greater fleet which was to be built for carrying our children, born and unborn, to foreign seas to be disembowelled-as to what this was the forerunner of, said: This is to allow a few boys in British Columbia who want to go on the ships and train, and for that purpose we

want a million dollars. The Order in Council reads:
Several petitions and representations have been received from persons and parties in the Dominion urging the organization of a naval volunteer force.
That shows that British Columbia is not the only province from which representations have come. But be that as it may, I want to impress upon the House and upon the country that, in 1911, the Nationalist party, allied with the Tory party, with you yourself, Mr. Chairman, attheir head,claimed that we were not to allow our children to serve in the Royal navy under any circumstances, although to serve in the Canadian navy would not be so bad; and they hunted up all the dictionaries and encyclopedias to make the word 'may' mean 'shall.' It was said that the power to dispose of their children was in the hands of this toad man Laurier, who did not care about sacrificing his children, because he did not have any. I do not want to make any allusions to the Prime Minister or the Postmaster General; they are young yet. They said that Act was such an awful thing that a man who had children would never dare to put on the statute book such a law as the LaurieT Naval Act.
A great outcry was made because Mr. Fielding had s-aid in the House: 'When England is at war, Canada is at war'; therefore, they said: 'Gentlemen, and you mothers and sweethearts, supposing England has to fight Japan or any other country, your children will be carried away under this nefarious law of Laurier, who has no children and does not know what the love of .children is, to be disembowelled on a foreign sea. - It is rather a ridiculous spectacle to-night to see the Postmaster General get up and say he is just doing his djuity, and to see him roll the British flag around his head and shoulders and lift his hands to heaven-as some hon. gentlemen lifted their hands to the steeples and saints of some of the churches-and say: 'I am the only patriot, the only Britisher; I never had any policy, I never preached anything else to my fellow-citizens but patriotism, but giving their blood to England, not only in the Royal navy but in the Canadian navy.' You may well say it is funny. Well, Mr. Chairman, the Postmaster General said we could not fool the people. There was a very clever American, revered in the United States, who said that you could fool some of the

people some of the time, tout that you could not fool all of the people all the time. The people were fooled in 1911, but I can tell my hon. friend the Postmaster General, who has just come in, and will give me his ear for a second, that he succeeded in fooling them in 1911; but let me te'l him that he cannot fool them again. They are awaking to his promises, and to his acknowledgment of leadership. My hon. friend just now said that the hon. member for Rouville must have had some axe to grind in referring to Armand Lavergne. Not at all. I understood the hon. member for Rouville to mention him as the leader of my hon. friend the Postmaster General. And if I remember aright, and if his paper L'Evenement reports him aright, he made that acknowledgment and bowed and offered his services as one of the most humble followers of Armand Lavergne at the meeting held at nomination time at Lorrette. Under the circumstances, I think I will not go as far as my hon. friend from Red Deer did in congratulating the Government-a Government which has taken three years to find out it has been in the wrong and to open its eyes to the light, and another party called the Nationalist party, who took so long to find it out. They do not deserve congratulations. I think the people at the head of affairs in thie country ought to find out in less than thirty-six months what is required for the good of the country. You cannot deny the fact that the policy of training these men. on the Niobe and Rainbow is exactly what we wanted to do.


Mr. DEMERS:: Not for the Royal navy.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend is right: it was for the Canadian navy but what they want it to be is for the Royal navy. How are my hon. friends opposite going to redeem their pledges? One of them said: In twenty-four hours-and another, a little wiser said in two weeks-after we come into power that nefarious law will be repealed.	Yet it is still on the statutebooks. My hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. L'Esperanee), who is just coming in, has still on the Order Paper .a Bill to repeal the Naval Service Act. Is he going to force it through or not? Under what law is this volunteer force established if not under the Laurier law? And under that Act it is expected to raise 1,200 men as volunteers, and in the future

12,000 and more. As my right hon. leader said:	If you cannot give ships without
men to England, you will give England men without ships. Where will they stop, and what is the meaning of all this? I say, Sir, as has been said by somebody just now, I do not know who, it is because there is need of cementing the two parties, which were at the antipodes at the time of the election, and which had to come together to form the majority of my right ' hon. friend the Prime Minister, and they are giving on one side and on the other.
I understand the thing is going to be worked because the emergency has gone, and the $35,000,000 with. it. What surprises me is the great scandal that was aroused by the provision in the Naval Act that Parliament should be summoned in fifteen days, and could place the battleships at the disposal of His Majesty to be sent to the battleline and put into action. And to-day, without any summoning of Parliament, without any Order in Council even, just under the direction of the minister, any of these seamen in British Columbia or in the eastern provinces will be sent as sailors to the Royal Navy. I say, Sir, if there is any cynicism in this world, it is in the denunciation of Laurier as being unpatriotic and so selfish that because he had no children he did not care about sacrificing the children of others under his Navy Act. And these men, who brought terror into the female population in the province of Quebec, come to-night and say: We must do it; of course we formed an alliance with the Tories and we must stand our share; therefore we have to swallow it, and swallow it we will; and your boys will train, and if we see fit to send them across the sea you need not be afraid, thfcy will not be disembowelled, they will get fat lighting and by getting lead in their bodies. That is the only explanation I can give.


Mr. D. A. LAFORTUNE (Montcalm):: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I cannot feel indifferent to this navy question; it did cost me so much work, so much worry, so much hardship and so many sacrifices, that I would fail to get my share of justice were I not permitted to make a few observations. Here is what I have to say: A talented man, a man of note, a smart orator, an extraordinary demagogue, took part in the contest of 1911. He caused us very much
trouble, he did our friends and our party a great deal of harm. I have mentioned Mr. Bourassa, the chief editor of Le Devoir.
Mr. Bourassa scoured the province and cried out.everywhere:	No navy! Cursed
be the navy! Laurier is a miscreant, he has no feeling, he would, by all means, send our children over to Japan and to China, and have them killed in behalf of England; children will be taken away from their mothers' womb and be sent out to get killed. And the people believed him.
Mr. Bourassa had with him the Postmaster General, a talented man^ a distinguished man, but an artful blade. He cheered heartily at what was said by Mr. Bourassa. I do not blame Mr. Bourassa, he was paid for his treason. He succeeded in getting $100,000 from the Conservatives to start a newspaper in which he owns most of the stock, and, moreover, he was paid $5,000 a year as chief editor.
I do not blame the Postmaster General either. He became a minister. But he changed a good deal.
I do not blame the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel). He wanted to be a minister and he is a minister. But I remember the time when he cried out with indignation: ' No navy! I would have one of my wrists cut off rather than to see a navy under construction.' Well you may believe me, Mr. Chairman, he did not put his arm, he did not even cut his little finger.
The Hon. Mr. Coderre succeeded in unhooking a portfolio for himself. He is a distinguished man, a talented man; I know him very- well. But he had never been in this Chamber before, hq had no political training. This gentleman cried out everywhere : No navy! Down with Laurier! He is a miscreant, he has no feeling.
The hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. Lesperance) made similar utterances. This one is a brave man, although he has somewhat brought me into danger. I told him I would vote for the repeal of this naval law if he "pressed the adoption of his Bill. But he made off to Europe, and to-night he will vote in favour of the navy. He said: I want this law to be repealed; it must be torn off the statute-book, or I shall resign my seat.
Well, Sir, what are you doing with your promises? What surprises me in all this is the fact that men of note, honourable men, representatives of public opinion, and even ministers of the Crown, do not keep their word.

Mr. Bourassa said, when I met him in the parish of Sainte Julienne, in my county: The members who voted in favour of Laurier's law will be cursed by their children and by their grandchildren. He advised our children to curse us because we used our judgment, because we acted according to the dictates of our conscience and to the opinion of a leader in whom we had confidence.
That navy question caused me very much trouble and came pretty near causing my death. To-day, those gentlemen on the other side of the House testify to the fact that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was right.
The hon. member for Montmagny has given me no opportunity to vote for the abolition of the navy, so far, because he remembers that I told him, at the beginning of the session, that I would vote with him. Why did he not press his Bill? Yet, those gentlemen claimed that the naval law was awful, that it was robbery, tremendous squandering. Was not that Mr. Laurier a terrible man, though! Such was the language they used, and all the speakers on the Nationalist or Conservative side were cheered to the utmost. They condemned Laurier, but they added that Borden's policy was still worse. They said: He is not our chief, he does not know what he wants and we shall drive him out when we get to power. When the Prime Minister came to the Monument National, all those good Nationalists secreted themselves. He was accompanied but by Mr. Marechal, an eminent lawyer, I admit. Mr. Monk refused to go there because, to his mind, Borden's policy was still more dangerous than Laurier's policy.
When those gentlemen came to power, they asked Parliament to vote $35,000,000 to England as a contribution. The Prime Minister went over to London and promised to have those $35,000,000 voted for ilie Imperial navy. But he forgot that there were Liberal senators at Ottawa. Mr. McKay, Mr. Dandurand, Mr. Beique and others refused to vote those millions. The thirty-five million contribution was voted down by the Senate and so quick, too, that it did not even begin to savour of firkin. The Liberal members of the Senate know what Canada wants. They refused to send thirty-five millions over to London and secure work for the workmen in England while our own workmen are dying with hunger. No, they would not, by any means send thirty-five millions over to England. Honour to them ! If we have

kept our millions we owe it not to the Conservative but to the Liberal members of the Senate; they are serious, disinterested men, men who have the interest of the country at heart, and they have just given another proof of it by refusing to vote in favour of the Bill concerning the Farmers Bank. They want justice to be done.
The Postmaster General told us, a moment ago, to wait and that we would see later on. Let me tell him, in my turn, to wait and that he will see later on. When we find that a man has deceived us once, we are done with that man; we do not want to have anything more to do with him. Henri Bourassa, who is a man of refinement, an able writer, was deceived and he will not be caught again. He went everywhere to address the electors and he was left at liberty to tell lies wherever he went, because nobody came forward to contradict him. But when he visited my county I went to meet him, and I said to him: 1 You do not tell the truth,' and it did not take me long to satisfy my electors, and my opponents did not succeed in defeating me as they did in the case of so many other Liberal candidates. They said: If Borden or those who will be called upon to lead the country fail to repeal that law, we will resign under no delay.
There was just one of them who did keep his word, and I am glad to testify to that fact. That man was the late lamented member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). He had declared that not a cent would be spent previous to this legislation being submitted to the people. The poor gentleman has disappeared; let us respect his ashes. He had entered the Cabinet because he was confident that they would be true to the word which had been given. He stepped out of it, he resigned when he discovered that they were about to deceive him. Yet, the Postmaster General said to-night: ' We are united.' Yes, you are united, just about like Mr. Monk was riveted and padlocked to his portfolio, as he said, although he went out of the Cabinet a few days later. Maybe the ministers are just as united as they were at that time.
The hon. Prime Minister has alluded tonight to the speeches delivered by the Liberals during the contest of 1896 against the purchase of rifles by the then Minister of Militia (Mr. Desjardins). So we did denounce that purchase because those rifles were worthless, they went off by the breech, they were plateless rifles which killed the men who used them. We were

against the idea of buying such weapons as those.
The Order in Council now before the House shows that children may be asked, may be ordered even, to serve outside of the Canadian soil. I deny the Prime Minister and the Government the right to call Canadian children out to serve outside of our soil. I say that you have no such right under the constitution, and that such an order would be illegal and unconstitutional.
To the hon. gentlemen who are now sitting on the Treasury benches, to those who cried out:	' Cursed be the navy!'	' Down with
the navy!' I say:	'You have no right to
pass that Order in Council before taking a referendum, before making sure of the trend of public opinion on this question.
' I have no fear,' said the right hon. Prime Minister to-night. I know that those gentlemen have no fear. But we will see, when the people have been consulted, what has become of them. Speaking for myself, I say that it will be so much the better for those who change their opinion so suddenly if they can get re-elected. The people will remember that they swore everywhere that not a cent would be spent previous to a referendum being taken. And when the people take offence he kicks pretty hard and it is a serious thing, you know.
The Postmaster General said that he had no fear either. He does not fear to contradict himself and to reverse his own opinion. It is his business. I am not here to abuse anybody. I make my remarks in good faith and because I think I have a right to make them. But I wonder if there is anything more precious in a public man than being true to his word. A poor man, a poor devil who would fail in this respect would be told that he has no honour, because he did not keep his word. And those who preside over the destinies of the nation should be permitted to come and reverse their own opinion? I do not believe so, and the electors, who are their judges, will call them to account. The hon. Postmaster General knows that the opinion of the people does not always agree witn his own. He has had to put up with many defeats, as I had to put up with some myself.
I took part in the by-election in Chateau-guay and so did the Postmaster General. He heard the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Sevigny) declare and assert that $35,000,000 would absolutely be all we would vote for the British Admiralty, and that the Government had given no other pledge. There again fraud was indulged in. They
made all kinds of promises, they promised even railroads and bridges. In order to carry the election, they promised a railroad, a bridge which they would build on the St. Lawrence to connect Chateauguay with the shore opposite, they bought sheep at high prices-


Mr. RAINVILLE:: (Translation.) A wager of $100 was laid.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) Who talks of a wager? The hon. member for Vercheres! Here is another Liberal who became a Nationalist and then a ministerialist, and forgot all his promises.


Mr. BOULAY:: (Translation.) Was not
the hon. member to resign his seat if the Liberal candidate in Chateauguay were not elected?


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) No.
The member for Dorchester was to resign his seat; but he dared not do so, because I was not afraid to meet him. He was to resign his seat, also, if the naval law were not repealed. He had promised his electors, in 1911, to do so, but he did not keep his word. They made all kinds of promises in order to deceive the electors, and to-day they are forgetting them all. It is easier. In a by-election a government is always stronger. All the Conservatives gathered together in Chateauguay, all the ministers went there and resorted to all the means of influence they had at their disposal. The election was protested. What will be the result of this? I do not know, for nobody can tell what the end of a lawsuit will be. But I say that, were the campaign to begin over again to-morrow, the Liberals would get their candidate elected and secure the defeat of the present member whom I respect.
The hon. Postmaster General claims that he has not changed his opinion; but those who have some experience and who have been acquainted with him, who have lived with him, know that he has not always been of the same opinion in politics. In 1886 he was our most prominent Liberal orator, he has made us some very fine speeches; but he has changed to a great extent since that time. I do not blame him for it, it is his business; but when he says that he never changed, we must take his word cum grano salis.
The Postmaster General was not serious when he said that what the leader of the Opposition did was a disgrace to Canada. Did not Mr. Laurier lead the country for

sixteen years and with honour in every respect? How then can the Postmaster General come to the conclusion that he was a disgrace to Canada? The hon. minister has forgotten himself, evidently, because he does talk and discuss better than this, as a general rule. He was wrong in saying that our leader was a disgrace to Canada, and he brings no evidence to show that he may be right. A man who has led the country for sixteen years and who has been in public life for about fifty years cannot be a disgrace to his country. Later on, when the Postmaster General comes to know where he is, he will admit that this expression of his was altogether uncalled for. He is not unconscious of the fact that he failed to do justice to our leader and to himself by using a word of that kind.
The Postmaster General said that the Liberal party intended to build two fleets, and to have the one on the Atlantic and the other on the Pacific. But he forgot to mention that they were to be built for the protection of Canada and not for England. Those ships were to protect us and to protect our trade. What harm would there have been in this? You are approving tonight what we did when we voted the naval law and you are doing us justice at last. If Henri Bourassa were present, he would no more advise my children to curse me. He did not know whereof he spoke; but he wanted to win the price of treason. He was obliged to fight us, as he had severed his connections with the Liberal party. The Conservatives had enlisted him, they had him in their ranks, and, of course, they had to pay him. But he became comical to the utmost when he taxed us with corruption, with slavishness, with being at the manger. Well, the ministers who are sitting on the Treasury benches to-day are at the manger, in their turn. There is no harm in that, but what makes them guilty and condemn-able is the fact that they accused us of invading the manger, of being corrupted and slavish. Do we not love our families as much as they love their own? Do I not love my wife and children as much as they love their own? Is not the piece of land on which I live as dear to me as the piece of land on which they live is dear to themselves? Have I not as much patriotism as they have? They accused us of being slavish and corrupted because we thought otherwise than they did. Well, gentlemen, you are doing us justice to-night by accepting what we have done, and you are using this as a stepping-stone to make yourselves

greater. You had succeeded in satisfying the people that Laurier's policy was not good. That was your right and your business, as it will be our right to come back to power. Shall we succeed in coming back to power? We do not know. The life of governments is very uncertain. I remember that, when Alexander Mackenzie went again before the people in 1878, he had a majority of seventy-five in this House, and that, when the election was over, he had a minority of seventy-five. In 1911 Mr. Laurier had a majority of forty or fifty, and after the election he had a minority of about the same number. Yes, the ministerial life of parties is most uncertain; but what I know is this, that the people will do us justice. Shall we be able to plead our case well enough and to bring forth enough arguments to get a verdict in our favour? History will tell. At all events, we find such serious contradictions in what the hon. ministers have done since 1911 that, as for me, I do not dread my electors. If I had but the contradictions of my opponents to show them, I would have enough already.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) They are
going to leave you.


David Arthur Lafortune: 
Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to reply to the hon. member for Montcalm (Mr. Lafortune). He is a very good fellow, but I think there is a great defect with him; he seems to suffer frbm a lack of memory. Having spoken about twenty minutes on this navy question last year, he could have dispensed with repeating to-night the same thing as he said then. The hon. member alluded to an Order in Council, and the hon. member for Kamouraska has quoted it also. 1 would like to hear that Order in Council read, so as to know the contents of it.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) Here it is. Would you, please, Mr. Chairman, have this Order in Council handed over to the hon. member for Rimouski?


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) It is a
pretty long document to read; there are two pages to it, I think.


Rodolphe Lemieux: (Translation.) Just one page, and if my hon. friend allows me, I will read him paragraph 2, that is, the one we are dealing with:
2. The naval volunteers, if called out in the event of an emergency, will be required:
(a) To serve in the vessels of the Naval Service of Canada or in those of the Royal navy;
This is the paragraph you were alluding to. The hon. member for Kamouraska said that there was no clause in the law of 1910 having reference to this question, and that the Order in Council went beyond all that which is contained in this law. I think the member for Kamouraska and the member for Montcalm are lawyers-


David Arthur Lafortune: Have you any doubt about it?


Mr BOULAY:: -and that, as suet, they must have understood the law of J010. They were present in Parliament and they must have understood each clause of the law. Section 26 of this law, in favour of which those gentlemen have voted, says that:
26.	The Governor in Council may organize and maintain a force to be called the Naval Volunteer Force.
This is most explicit. And section 27 adds:
27.	The Naval Volunteer Force shall consist of officers and seamen raised by voluntary engagement from among seafaring men and others who may be deemed suitable for the service in which such volunteers are to be employed.
Therefore, the Order in Council referred to does not go beyond the intention of the law of 1910 at all, and, if it does, I fail to see how, because section 26 provides for the creation of a volunteer force of the navy.
My hon. friends on the other side of the House would like to see us get rid of those two ships, the care of which they have imposed upon us. It is not our fault if we have to support the burden of maintaining those two ships. We are not going to run them ashore or to leave them unemployed. According to our friends on the other side, the reason why those ships were bought is that they should be used only as school-ships. If we utilize them to that purpose



I do not see how our friends can find anything amiss in that.


David Arthur Lafortune: (Translation.) But
you were to sell them as scrap-iron.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) We cannot sell them; they are not good enough. The Niobe, after being staved in against the wharf at Yarmouth, was refitted with wood. It cannot be used any more as a warship.
We are pretty well pleased with the answer of the hon. Minister of Marine to a question which was asked, last year, by the hon. member for Yaraasku (.Mr. Mondou), and I think that the forecasts of our opponents will not be realized. The hon. minister declared that nothing would be done with respect to a permanent naval policy before the electors had been consulted. True it is that we have asked and shall ask again that the law of 1910 be repealed, but we are fully satisfied with the statement we got from the Government, and I am sure that the electors in my county are fully satisfied with it also. The previsions of the hon. member for Kamouraska do not always come to pass, and the proof of this is that when he addressed a meeting in my county, on the 14th of September, 1911, he predicted that I would be defeated by a great majority, whereas, on the 21st of September, seven days later, I was elected by a majority of 432. I hope he is making another mistake as to the result of the coming election.


Mr. R. LANCTOT:: (Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but I wish to criticise some of the assertions made by the hon. member for Rimouski. He told us that the Niobe and the Rainbow were good for nothing. We have heard a good deal said about those ships during the election of 1911. My opponent told the electors that those ships were only good to be sold as scrap-iron at half a cent per pound. If they were good for nothing at that time, they are good for less than nothing to-day, after four years. Why, then, spend money to maintain seamen on board those ships? Evidently, they are worth less to-day, and why, then, should we risk the lives of those seamen, of our children, as the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Demers) says? In a short speech which I delivered last year on the contribution of thirty-five millions, I said that the Government had not only to send dreadnoughts over to England, but that they also wranted seamen to man those ships. I see, now, by this Order in Council, that the Gov-
ernment intends to train twelve hundred seamen. This shows that my prevision was well founded. If it is not the intention to continue the policy of the late Administration, I fail to see why it would be necessary to train seamen in order to send them over to England.
Our opponents said, in 1911, that our law was not made for Canada, that this country had positively no use for it; but that it was made with a view to sending our children over to England and having them disembowelled in the seas of China and elsewhere. What they said was awful and spread terror in every heart. In the province of Quebec we lost at least fifteen seats on account of that question.
The hon. Postmaster General knows very well that he won his election because he was against the navy. When he scoured the province together with his leader, Mr. Armand Lavergne, entreating the electors to vote against the Government because they had passed the naval law, the electors believed in what he said as they believed also in what was said by all those who got elected, like he did, by this means.
I say that the Minister of Marine has not the majority in this House to ask us to vote those millions for the purpose of training those seamen, because the people had declared themselves against this policy in 1911.
The Prime Minister told us to-night that we, the Liberals, had talked against the armaments, against the purchase of rifles in 1896. Why not use the same kind of reasoning, said he.
Our friends the Ministerialists-the Nationalists of 1911-denied their present leader and told their electors that, in fact, Borden's policy was worse than Laurier's policy, because the former would send our money over to England, whereas we, the Liberals, would keep our money and build a fleet with it.
This question was discussed for such a long time in the House, that I shall deal with it no longer, and shall now say what I think about another matter. In 1911 we spent, for the militia, six millions and a half, and -we are going to spend fourteen millions and a half in 1914-15 for the sanae purpose. I say it is now time that we should be careful. We have too many obligations to meet, too much expenditure devolving upon us to continue that way without going to our ruin. I say that we are not to-day in a position to organize a navy, owing to engagements already entered

into. As for me and as for my electors, I say that this kind of policy is no more in keeping with our views or with the views of the people, and I do not say so out of any fear of not being supported again by my own constituents on the navy question which I approved in 1910, but because the Government refused to follow that policy and preferred to ask $35,000,000 for dreadnoughts which they would send over to England. I claim that, for many years to come, this House, Liberals and Conservatives as well, should leave this naval policy aside and completely so, say for ten or fifteen years, in order to deal with our own business. For my part, I declare here to-night, that if my electors ask me to be their candidate for another term, my platform will be this:	'No navy and no contribution for many years to come, because we have not the means to face such an emergency, and I am sure they will approve this platform as they approved it in the past.


Herménégilde Boulay: (Translation.) I am not
in raptures with the military and naval expenditures. However, I wish to show that the hon. member for Laprairie is mistaken when he says that the Government is asking $2,460,000 for the navy this year. As a matter of justice to the country and to truth at the same time, let the hon. member look at the Estimates and he will find that the $2,460,000 are not merely for the naval service, but for the service of the whole department, as it was previous to the law of 1910, including, for instance, the protection of fisheries, $375,000; the purchase of new steamers, $230,000; the hydrographical survey, $390,000; the radiotelegraphic service, $370,000, etc. The naval service itself takes but $200,000, or just about that sum, and this is to maintain the Niobe and the Bainbow, and to pay the crews of those two ships.


Roch Lanctôt: (Translation.) Let the
hon. member look at the Estimates for 1914-15 and he will find that I am right.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: (Translation.) This is for all the services, including the hydrographical survey and others, such as the tidal service, which existed a long time before the naval law was adopted.


Mr. LANOTOT:: (Translation.) That
may be correct, but there are other items further on in this blue-book, which include the service? I have just mentioned. Why not prepare those Estimates so that they 326}
shall be accurate. They are prepared by the Minister of Marine-


John Douglas Hazen: I wish to amend item 223 by adding after the word ' Esquimalt ' the words, ' and for naval volunteers.' .


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
John Douglas Hazen: I desire to call the attention of the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Lanctot) to the fact that the vote for the Department of Naval Service is $2,460,-
000.	Of that amount $1,000,000 is for the Naval Service, including maintenance and upkeep of ships, naval college, dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt and the naval volunteers. The Naval Department, in addition to what may be especially referred to as the Naval Service, takes care also of the fisheries protection service, for which the appropriation is $375,000. For the fisheries protection service, providing for new vessels, the amount is $230,000; for hydrographic surveys, $390,000; for the radiotelegraph service, which is the wireless telegraph service, $370,000; for the tidal service, $45,000; and for patrol of northern waters of Canada, $50,000. The hon. member for Laprairie will see, therefore, that although the total vote for the Naval Service is $2,460,000, $1,000,000 is for what is described as the Naval Service and in that million is included care of the dockyards at Esquimalt and Halifax, which we are bound to take care of after we have taken them over from the British Government. The amount for volunteers, which we are discussing now, is only $200,000.


Roch Lanctôt: The $200,000 will be added to the $1,000,000?


John Douglas Hazen: Not added to it, but included in it.


Mr. MORRIS:: I had no intetition of taking any part in this discussion; had it not been for certain remarks made by the hon. member for Huntingdon (Mr. Robb), I should not have done so. That gentleman has been pleased to make an assertion to-night which I feel called upon to refute. He has said that I deserted the policy of the Conservative party in my election last fall. To that I wish to give an emphatic denial. Neither in the election of 1911 nor in	my	election in	1913	did Idesert the policy of the leader of	this Government	and	of the
Conservative party, notwithstanding the fact that I was approached by acquaintances


Wilfrid Laurier: That is a
laTge .amount for repairs to steamers.
Mr. HiAZEN: This is not only for repairs; it is for maintenance, for the wages of the men on board, provisions and everything of that kind. It is the same amount as has been voted year after year.


Wilfrid Laurier: .Can my hon. friend give me the names of the steamers?


John Douglas Hazen: The steamers on the east coast are the Canada, the Curlew, the Constance, the Gulnare, and the Petrel. On the west coast: the Malaspina, the Galiano, the Restless, .andi the Falcon. On the west coast we usually charter one or two vessels; on the great lakes: the Vigilant.
Fisheries Protection Service-to provide for new vessels, $230,000.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to draw the attention of the minister to a case of very great bravery on the part of Captain Murdock of the Steamship Dufferin of Sherbrooke, N.S. I have been trying for some time to get this matter before my hon. friend, but as his estimates were not before the House I have not had an opportunity. The incident to which I refer happened in connection with the wreck of the City of Sidney on the Sambro ledges of Halifax harbour. The Dufferin commanded by Captain Murdock was with several other vessels carrying on the work of salvage. A small boat containing two men capsized, and its occupants were thrown into the sea. With great courage a man named William Snow went to the rescue, and succeeded in getting both men into his boat, but before he could get back to the ship his boat also capsized and the three men were thrown into the water. A number of boats were around and quite a number of men looking on, but none of them went to the rescue. The water was very rough and a high sea running. Captain Murdock seeing the men

were in great danger asked, one of the fishermen to lend him a boat. He and a young chap by the name of Herbert Evans sprang into it and started out to rescue the three drowning men. The account of their attempt is given in the Halifax press, and perhaps the best way would be for me to read it:
Around lay the flotilla of boats, with fishermen and others, who had evidently decided that they were unable to aid them. Captain Murdock, of the Dufferin, who was on board the Sydney, threw lifebelts to the men. There was no lifeboat at hand, but a dory with two fishermen in it was near the ship.
Captain Murdock called out to them to give him the boat. They climbed aboard the City of Sydney, while Captain Murdock embarked on his perilous row for life. He had prepared to undertake the rescue single-handed, when from the crowd along the wrecked steamer's rail a young lad, Herbert Evans, a deck hand on the Cabot, climbed down the side and jumped into the dory's stern.
The attempt to reach the men seemed utterly hopeless. The little boat would be lifted on the crest of the incoming combers, and then sink from sight in the hollows. At last the capsized dory was reached. Wm. Snow was quickly hauled on board. Robert Snow, exhausted, had sunk, but Burns was clinging to the bow.
Evans grasped his collar, but when a sea tore the dories apart, Burns was wrenched from his grasp and sank.
It was a thrilling rescue in such a sea, and there was intense excitement among the spectators as a sheet of foam rose above the breaking surf, and It seemed the boat would be lost. Oil had been poured on the water enabling the rescuers to come alongside the ship.
August Burns, who from the bow of the Sydney had watched the death of his brother, boarded the dory and rowed William to the Dufferin.
Men from the steamer Cabot, a quarter of a mile away, jumped into a lifeboat, but were too far away to reach the scene in time.
Both the drowned men leave widows and families.
You will see from this report that the men who are deserving of some recognition are Captain Murdock of the steamship Dufferin, William Snow, who first went to the rescue, and Herbert Evans, a young deck hand of the Cabot. Any one who has seen a storm on the Sambro Ledges will realize the courage displayed by these men. I am bringing this matter to the notice of the minister in order that it may be looked into by the life-saving branch of his department, with a view to suitably recognizing the bravery displayed by these three men, if that has not already been done.


John Douglas Hazen: I have no recollection of this matter having been brought to the attention of the department before, but I think my hon. friend from Guysborough
has taken a very proper course in bringing it to my attention now. I will have the facts of the case looked into with a view to recognizing the bravery of 11 p.m. these men who went to the rescue. It is sometimes difficult for us to decide whether a case is one calling for recognition by the department or whether if might not be better dealt with by the Koyal Humane Society of Canada, which recognizes acts of bravery of this sort and attempts to save life generally. It is perhaps a question where this case would fall, but it seems to me that the Department of Marine and Fisheries might very well make some recognition of the bravery of these men, and I will ask the deputy minister to bring it to the attention of the life-saving department with that end in view.


Robert Laird Borden: I entirely concur in the appreciation expressed by my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) of the great courage which these men displayed in an endeavour to save the lives of those who were in danger of being drowned. I know Captain Murdock very well, and all who know him appreciate him as just the man who would undertake so brave an act. The circumstances to which my hon. friend from Guysborough alludes were brought to my attention by a gentleman in Halifax, who sent me the same press clipping, or a similar one, to that which the hon. member for Guysborough has read, and asked whether any steps could be taken to bring the matter to the attention of the Royal Humane Society of Canada. I had very great pleasure in forwarding the account of the rescue, together with the letter of my correspondent, to that society, and received shortly afterwards an acknowledgment of its receipt. I do not know whether they propose taking any action, but the circumstances have already been brought to their attention. It is a case well worthy of recognition from some source.


John Howard Sinclair: There is another matter to which I would like to refer for just a moment in case I might not have another opportunity. I have been asked by the relatives of Joseph LeBlanc, who died on board the steamship Canada, to make some inquiries into the circumstances surrounding his death and burial. I do not do it with the desire of criticising the department, unduly although I think some of its officers in Montreal must have been slightly at fault in this matter. This sailor belonged


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think that any of the officers of the Department of
12 m. Marine and Fisheries, or the Department of the Naval Service, are in any way culpable in connection with this matter. The facts of the case are that Joseph Leblanc, who was a native of Port Felix, Nova Scotia, joined the Canada on April 11, 1913, as an ablebodied seaman at $25 per month. On the 28th of July, a little more than three months afterwards, he was sent to the Montreal General Hospital during a visit of the Canada to that city suffering from emphyema complicated with bronchial pneumonia and he died on the 27th of August. The doctor communicated with the captain of the ship which at that time was in Halifax. The telegrams that passed between the doctor and the captain of the ship were as follows:
Montreal, 22nd Aug., 1913. Commanding Officer Canada,
Dock Yard, Halifax.
Leblanc died in hospital yesterday.
(Sgd) Dr. Ower.
Immediately on receipt of this, on the same day, a telegram was sent to Mrs. Benjamin Richards, Port Felix. Leblanc was an unmarried man and he belonged to East Port Felix. The telegram read:
22nd August, 1913.
Mrs. Benjamin Richards,
East Port Felix.
Joseph Leblanc died yesterday Montreal General Hospital; communicate Dr. Ower re burial.
(Sgd) J. Bond.
On August 23, Captain Stuart of the Canada, having caused the despatch of the
22nd to be sent to Mrs. Richards, wired Dr. Ower at Montreal, as follows:
Unless you receive instructions from Leblanc's relations will you ask agent Marine and Fisheries to bury body.
On the 27th of August Dr. Ower wired to the captain of the Canada that Leblanc's body had been buried by the Sailors' Catholic Club of Montreal. No word had been received from Mrs. Richards in answer to the telegram that had been sent her by the captain of the Canada on the 22nd inst., but on the 27th inst., six days after Leblanc had died, the captain of the Canada received this telegram from Mrs. Richards: August 27, 1913.
The Captain Canada,
Shelburne, Nova Scotia.
If Government will forward J. Leblanc's body Mulgrave free of charge it will be met there, otherwise please have buried Montreal.
Mrs. Richards.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister got Mrs. Richard's telegram there?


John Douglas Hazen: This is a copy of it.


John Howard Sinclair: The answer from Mrs. Richards came on the 23rd to Montreal.


John Douglas Hazen: We have no answer of that sort in the papers here. Leblanc died on the 21st, and on the 22nd the captain of the Canada, having been notified by the doctor of the hospital, senit a telegram to Mrs. Richards, "and there was no word from Mrs. Richards until the 27th. That is what the files show.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the date of Mrs. Richards' telegram?


John Douglas Hazen: At the time of Mr. Leblanc's death the ship was in Halifax, and Leblanc having died on the 21st, the doctor of the hospital sent a despatch on the 22nd to the captain of the Canada, telling him that Leblanc had died in the hospital the previous day.


John Howard Sinclair: Did I not read a telegram from Mrs. Richards on the 23rd of August to the captain at Montreal requesting that her brother's body would be sent?


John Douglas Hazen: That is not in accordance with the information we have here. The captain was not in Montreal. I do not see how the telegram should be sent to the captain in Montreal.


John Howard Sinclair: Because it was from Montreal she got the message.


John Douglas Hazen: No, the vessel was in Halifax then, and the message went from Haii-

fax. On the 22nd the following telegram was sent:
Montreal August 22, 1913. Commanding Officer Canada,
Dockyard, Halifax.
Leblanc died in hospital today.
Dr. Ower.
On the 22nd of August, 1913, the following telegram was given by the captain of the Canada to J. Bond, A.B., cousin of deceased on board:
Mrs. Benjamin Richards,
East Port Felix.
Joseph Leblanc died yesterday in Montreal general hospital communicate Dr. Ower re burial.
On the 23rd the captain of the Canada wired to Montreal:
Dr. Ower,
Montreal.
Unless you receive instructions from Leblanc's relations will you ask agent Marine and Fisheries to bury body.
Stuart.
On August 27, Dr. Ower telegraphed: The Captain, Canada,
Shelburne, N.S.
Leblanc's body has been buried by the Sailors Catholic Club, Montreal.
Dr. Ower.
On the same day, the 27th of August, the following telegram was received by the captain of the Canada from Mrs. Rieihards:
If Government will forward J. Leblanc's body Mulgrave free of charge it will be met there, otherwise please have buried Montreal.
That is the only knowledge we have as to Mrs. Richards having sent a telegram with regard to her brother's body, ana she did not send it until the 27th of August, and on the same day the captain of the Canada replied to that:
Leblanc's body has been buried by Sailors' Catholic Club, Montreal.
the
The fact seems to be that when the captain of the Canada was informed by the doctor of the hospital of Leblanc's death, lie at once communicated with Mrs. Richards on the 22nd of August, hut he received no reply from Mrs. Richards until the 27th, and Leblanc had been buried in Montreal in the meantime, and of course it was impossible to send the remains to Nova Scotia Positive instructions were given to Captain Stuart to send all telegrams sent and received concerning the matter and to give us full information. Captain Stuart sends this memorandum:
All communications from me to Mrs. Richards were by telegram through his cousin on hoard, J. Bond. On receipt of wire from 
hospital reporting the death I sent for Bond and gave him the following telegram to send to his (Leblanc's) relations: 'Joseph Leblanc dead Montreal General Hospital, wire. Dr. Ower, M.G.H. re burial.' On arrival Shelburne I received one wire from Dr. Ower saying ' Leblanc burled in Montreal by the Sailors' Catholic Society, another from Mrs. Richards saying ' if Government will forward body Mulgrave it will be met there; otherwise have it buried Montreal.* I then gave Bond the following message to send Mrs. Richards ' Leblanc's body has been buried Montreal by the Sailors' Catholic Society.' Time and distance did not permit of communication by letter.
C. J. Stuart,
Commanding Officer.
Liverpool, May 5, 1914.
These are the facts, and they certainly show that no blame can be attached to Captain Stuart. I may say that all the expenses of the funeral were paid by the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The deceased was buried in a lot in the Catholic cemetery which is set apart for sailors. My hon. friend Mir. Sinclair has referred to the fact that perhaps something should be done in the way of assistance for a child which the hon. member says Leblanc adopted. Leblanc had only been a few months in the service of the Marine and Fisheries Department as a sailor on board thle Canada, and our information is that this child who was living with him was a nephew, and that the father of the child is living and is well able to provide for it.


John Howard Sinclair: That does not appear
in the record.


John Douglas Hazen: We have had communications about it and that is the^fact.


John Howard Sinclair: The record the minister first presented was very incomplete.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman was
courteous enough to notify me that he would bring this matter up when the House was considering these Estimates, and I instructed the deputy minister to get all the information he possibly could about it. When the hon. gentleman's question was answered we gave him all the information we had at that time. At an earlier date in the session my hon. friend asked certain questions, the answer to one of which is as follows:
On 22nd August the commanding officer Canada telegraphed Mrs. Richard the news of her brother's death and asked her to communicate with the hospital concerning the burial, otherwise the agent of Marine and Fisheries Department would arrange it. Ship proceeded to sea on 23rd August, and on arrival at Shelburne on 27th August-

Apparently that is not quite correct. The ship was at Shelburne on the 23rd.
-a wire was received from Mrs. Richard as follows: 'If Government will forward Joseph Leblanc's body free of charge to Mulgrave, we will meet it there; otherwise please have buried Montreal. Advise answer.' A letter from Mrs. Richard dated 25th August, asking for the body to be forwarded free of charge, was also received by the Prime Minister.
That letter was dated the 25th of August. It was not received at the Prime Minister's office for eome days afterwards. Immediately Ujpotn its receipt, inquiry was made at the hospital and it was found that Le Blanc had been buried for some days previous to the receipt of the letter. I am quite sure-, the officials of the department, in a case of that sort, would do everything right and proper, if the matter were called to their attention. In this case, no word having been received from the sister until six days or more after Mr. Le Blanc's death and until several days after he was buried, it will be seen how impossible it was to comply with the request of Mrs. Richard.


John Howard Sinclair: My information in regard to the matter is altogether different. I was particularly careful to get accurate information from Mrs. Richard. I asked her to get a copy of the telegram she sent from the office of the Western Union at Whitehead, which ehe siaid she sent on the 23rd of August. She sent me the telegram and it was dated the 23rd of August and not the 27th. I have no doubt at all that the telegram was received on the 23rd of August, either by a marine official or some other person in Montreal, and that it was transmitted in some way later on, so that the captain received it on the 27th at Shelburne, Therefore I thought that some person was at fault because, while this telegram was sent on the 23rd of August, the morning after Mrs. Richard received the news of her brother's death, no acknowledgment was received. The relatives were waiting at Port Felix to get some reply to the telegram, and they did not receive any. They are honest people. I know them well, and I have taken great pains to verify the facts.


John Douglas Hazen: To whom was the telegram sent?


John Howard Sinclair: To the captain at Montreal.


John Douglas Hazen: He was not at Montreal.


John Howard Sinclair: That was not Mrs.
Richard's fault.


John Howard Sinclair: Then some one else must have received the telegram.


John Douglas Hazen: If Mrs. Richard sent that telegram to the captain of the Canada at Montreal on the 23rd of August, it certainly did not reach the captain's hands on that day. The very day he got it he took action with regard to the matter and wired to the hospital again at Montreal. If Mrs. Richard had carried out the directions contained in the captain's telegram of the 22nd, in which he told her to communicate with Dr. Ower at the hospital at Montreal, the matter would no doubt have been attended to and the body of Le Blanc sent down, because the doctor would at once have communicated with the Marine Department at Montreal, and they would have sent the body to Nova Scotia. They would have paid the expense of sending it down and there would have been no trouble at all in regard to the matter. I do not believe, however, there is any culpability attaching to any official of the department, either in the local agency at Montreal or on board the steamer or here at headquarters, because we knew nothing about the matter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: So as to facilitate matters, will my hon. friend allow me to bring to his attention something which properly comes under this item, because we are discussing the fishery protection service? I am sorry to say that there is sadness and bereavement in many homes on the coast of Gaspe to-night after the terrible storm which has been raging for many hours on that coast.


John Douglas Hazen: The same thing is true in Gloucester county, N.1B.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have received a letter, which only confirms what I read in the press of this evening, from one of my old electors from the county of Gaspe, namely, Mr. Elias J. LeMarquand, of Newport point, Gaspe, Que. He is a wealthy merchant of that place and writes as follows:
Dear Mr. Lemieux,-The weather bureau is supposed, as far as I understand, to order signals up when a storm is on the way from the 1st April. The many thousands of fishermen depending on these signals put out their fishing nets last evening and also left their boats afloat to take advantage of the present good fishing, with the result that during the night a howling snow storm set in as severe as the worst experienced in March. From the severity of the storm it must have originated thousands of miles away. The snow is fully six inches deep with telephone communication completely crippled so that no news of the most appalling loss on the coast can be ascertained. In this place alone, ten boats have been washed

ashore and wrecked and the loss of hundreds of nets will not be known till the storm is over. The loss to the coast is simply inestimable at this early or commencing stage of the fishing where thousands of fishermen have fitted out for the fishing on which they and their families depend for a living.
a little further on he adds:
The present value of fish is the highest yet [DOT]ever known. This fact has induced thousands of young men to take to the fishing and this disaster will not only swell up the losses but completely discourage them.
I understand that my correspondent wrote some years ago to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries asking him that outlying fishing places not within sight of the storm signals be notified of coming storms. My correspondent says in regard to that point:
A few months later I received a most indifferent reply; many complaints of the same nature must have followed mine as a 'phone box was added to the service.
Tours truly,
(Sgd) Elias J. LeMarquand.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not remember receiving such a letter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am inclined to believe that my hon. friend has given the matter his usual attention. The Government has been very generous by the further Supplementary Estimates which have been placed before us to-day. I see that an amount of $50,000 has been inserted in them to provide for the relief of sufferers from the recent Empress of Ireland disaster. I suppose there is no comparison between the two cases as regards the magnitude of the disaster; but I am told that there are at least twenty to twenty-five fishermen who have lost their lives in this storm. I do not know if my hon. friend has ascertained the number. Perhaps he would think of doing something to alleviate the losses which, in many cases along the coast, will be irreparable, and I refer to his best judgment to see whether or not something should not be done for the bereaved families.


John Douglas Hazen: I would be very much obliged if my hon. friend would send me a copy of that letter.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It will be in 'Hansard.'


John Douglas Hazen: I would like to have
inquiry made to see if there is any foundation for the charge that there has been negligence on the part of the Signal Service. The storm to which my hon. friend refers not only caused a great deal of destruction and loss of life on the Gaspe coast, but I judge that in the county of Gloucester

there has been a loss of life nearly, if not quite, as great as that on the Gaspe coast. I can only say in regard to the suggestion made by my hon. friend that I will take the matter up with my colleagues and consider it.


Herménégilde Boulay: I feel it my duty, as representing the county of Rimouski, to read an *article thait appeared in Le Progree du Golfe on February 27 last, suggesting certain ameliorations for. navigation in that county. First, the writer of this article says there should be a light on Mechins wharf. I think that light was put on this spring. He suggests further on that a range light should be placed at Matane, and I think that will be very useful. I have been corresponding with the department about it for a couple of years, but I have net yet succeeded in obtaining it. I think it would be useful, particularly to the sailors who use that wharf. The article reads as follows:
Memorandum on the Navigation of the St.
Lawrence.
Is the navigation of our great river St. Lawrence a subject worthy of the particular attention of this Government? That is a question which should he of interest, not only to those who are entrusted with the management of public affairs, but to all those, as well, who are concerned with the welfare of our seamen, fishermen and others.
To be brief in the expression of what we have to say in this connection, we shall content ourselves with inquiring from the hon. Minister of Marine and from the hon. member for Rimouski how it is that, despite the orders given last year for the putting up of a light at the Mechins wharf, nothing as yet has been done for the protection of people frequenting that harbour, which provides a natural refuge for coasting vessels?
How is it that we never can succeed in obtaining a light inside the port of Matane, in line with the light outside and pointing to the entrance of the port?
Many a time have poor mariners been obliged to spend nights on the sand banks at the entrance of the harbour, with the waves beating furiously On them.
It will not be out of place to state here that a fog whistle has been put up at Ste. Ffilicitfi to prevent ships from coming. too close to the shore in misty weather. A few particulars may be, given. The former Administration was careful to have that fog whistle set up in a place where smuggling was going on, within a curve, the terminal points of which would be, to write in a way to be understood, Cape Chates and the gas buoy of the Matane shoals. The site which would have been, and still is, the most convenient as a fog alarm station, is from the first designated by nature: I mean the Cap 8, la Beleine, in the parish of Ste. FOlicitA about seven miles lower down than the present site.
Since the putting in of that siren, our seagoing vessels have on several occasions struck a submerged rock situated a little lower down.

Through the medium of certain newspapers the notion has been spread that it was a wreck; a story concocted to throw the credulous off the track, and with the object of saving one's skin in an inquiry. The funniest of it all is that steamship owners take it seriously.
Does not the stranding of the ss. Kensington, .at Matane, as well as of others whose keels sweep the bottom every summer, plainly show that it is urgent to improve that part of the river St. Lawrence?
Let the Government put a light and build an alarm station at Cap k la Baleine: they will thereby have done really good service to navigation. That point would also furnish the highest and best site for a Marconi station.
Cap a. la Beleine, once Cap Chatte, is passed, is as important as Bic. Heretofore very little attention has been paid to that fine cape. However, there is a great depth of water at that point, so much so, that it would be possible for a ship to get close enough to shore to render conversation possible with people on the shore.
I want to give that information, because I believe it will help to make navigation safer.
I heard the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) yesterday suggest that pilots should be taken off the boats at one place and taken on at another. As Rimouski county is the place where these pilots are taken on and put off the boats, I feel it my duty to say that I do not see how his suggestion could be very easily carried out without putting the country to double the expense. If I had a suggestion to make, I think the following would be of some use: boats coming down the St. Lawrence all make for the place called Father Point, where there is a boat to receive the pilots that are leaving their boats; and the boats coming up are also making for the same point. Consequently, I am greatly surprised that no accidents have happened so far. These boats running to meet each other in opposite directions, coming to the same point in foggy weather, might certainly have caused accidents before this. But the possibility of accidents might be avoided by giving orders to the boats coming down the St. Lawrence, after leaving their pilots at Father Point, to go out a little further. The channel is thirty-five miles wide there so that there is ample room, and when these boats have left their pilots they should go a few miles away from the route' of the other boats coming up. I think if such an order was given, and the order boats coming up the St. Lawrence, which always beep as close to the shore as they can, follow the same course, I think any possibility of an accident of that kind would be avoided.
Fisheries Protection Service-to provide for new vessels, $230,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: How many vessels are you going to build?


John Douglas Hazen: Three, I think. I do not say we will build them all. We want a small vessel for use on the Great Lakes, the estimated cost of which is $30,000; one new vessel for the Atlantic coast, at an estimated cost of $175,000; and the remainder is to pay the balance of expenditure on the two new vessels on the West coast built in 1913-14.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend say that the vessels will be built in Canada?


John Douglas Hazen: Without any doubt whatever. All vessels built for the Government will be built in Canada. I have already announced that as the policy of the department.
Hydrographic Surveys, including the survey of Hudson Bay, $390,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: How far have
you proceeded with the survey, on Hudson bay especially?


John Douglas Hazen: Of this amount it is estimated we will spend $110,000 in Hudson bay this year, the same as last year, in connection with the hydrographic survey at the approach of the Nelson river, and on patrol work investigating the straits in the autumn. $25,000 will be expended in surveys in James bay; $25,000 for Lake Ontario; $25,000 for Lake Superior; $45,000 on the Atlantic coast for the continuation of the survey of the St. Lawrence river outside of Father Point, and $100,000 for the Pacific coast for survey work in the vicinity of the Queen Charlotte islands.
Radio-telegraph service-to provide for the building and maintenance of wireless stations, $370,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In view of the inestimable service rendered the other day by the Marconi wireless on board of the Lady Evelyn, the Eureka and other vessels around the place where the disaster occurred, may I suggest to my hon. friend that he should have the Marconi system on board every ship, no matter how small, in the service of his department, and that he should induce as many of the officers of his vessels as possible to become thoroughly familiar with the operation of the wireless system. We are coming to realize more and more that the Marconi system is one of the greatest devices for the safety of human

life and it is most important that all our sailors should have some knowledge of it.


John Douglas Hazen: Everybody will agree with what my hon. friend says as to the advantages resulting from having vessels equipped with the Marconi system. We had a practical illustration of that in the case of the Titanic. There is no doubt that if it had not been for the Marconi system, not nearly so many people would have been saved. It is altogether probable that every person on board the Cobequid, which went ashore last winter on the coast of Nova Scotia at the entrance to the Bay of Fundy, would have perished from cold and exposure if the vessel had not made its condition known by wireless, with the result that vessels made their way to the wrecked steamer. Another striking illustration is afforded in the case of the recent terrible disaster on the St. Lawrence. I think that this country is in the van so far as wireless service is concerned. We have a chain of wireless stations extending from the gulf of St. Lawrence up the St. Lawrence to the Great Lakes, and we have a chain also on the Pacific coast extending to Prince Rupert. These have proved time and again of very great value as aids to navigation. The hon. gentleman suggests that every boat in the Government service, no matter how small, should be equipped with the Marconi system. That is a matter foT consideration. Of course such equipment is attended with considerable expense, but that is not a matter to be considered at all if human life is thereby saved. The Bill which was introduced last session providing for equipping passenger steamers under certain circumstances with wireless, was a most advanced measure; I think no country in the world is ahead of us so far as legislation in that respect is concerned. Of course we can by legislation compel every boat to be equipped with wireless, but in the case of boats which do not carry passengers, very considerable expense would be entailed. In order to make the service efficient, two wireless, operators are necessary, one being on duty all the time and it will be seen that the expense of installation of wireless would be a great burden on small vessels belonging to private individuals. So far as the Government is concerned, that element would not, of course, stand in the way to as great an extent as it would in the case of private individuals. We will, so far as we think it necessary, equip our ,boats with wireless; a good many have it already. I shall bear in mind the suggestion of my hon. friend with regard to the matter.

Control of the northern waters of Canada, $50,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: What steamers are employed in that work?
(Mr. HAZEN:	The Mary Sachs .and the
Alaska. The Karluk, which was employed in this service, was unfortunately lost in January last, under conditions with which my right hon. friend is familiar.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are they on the Pacific or on the Atlantic?


John Douglas Hazen: They are on the Arctic.


Wilfrid Laurier: By way of the Atlantic or of the Pacific?


John Douglas Hazen: The Pacific.
To assist in the establishment, maintenance and inspection of cold storage for bait, the conservation and development of deep sea fisheries, and to provide for better transportation facilities for fresh fish, $150,000.


John Howard Sinclair: When this matter was under discussion on a previous occasion, the hon. minister said that the express rates at the present time were but one-third of what they were when the late Government was in power. I looked the matter up and I discovered that the rates for through express and through freight from the Maritime provinces to Montreal are exactly what they were in 1910.


John Douglas Hazen: I think I made a statement showing exactly how the matter stands; it is on ' Hansard.'


John Howard Sinclair: The express rates are
the same; the only difference is that the local rates have been very largely increased. The rate on fresh fish from ports in the Maritime provinces to towns along the line of the Intercolonial railway have been very largely increased by the present Administration. There is not much use in assisting the transportation of fish by putting a little money into one pocket and taking it out of the other. The old policy of assisting the express rate to the extent of paying one-third of the rates on through packages from the Maritime provinces to Montreal is still continued by the present Administration. As I say, local rates have been increased, and instead of making the conditions better, as the minister .said at the time we had the former discussion, the Department of Railways and Canals made conditions a great deal worse than they were prior to the change of government in 1911. I had expected that the minister would straighten this out, and tell the House and the country the facts.


John Douglas Hazen: I made an error in the statement I made in the House when the Estimates were up before, but I corrected it the next day, and the correction appears in 'Hansard.' Practically the whole of this item is for the transportation of fresh fish. To encourage rapid development of the fresh fish trade, the department pays one-third of the ordinary express charges on shipments of fresh fish from the Atlantic coast to points in Quebec and Ontario, and from the Pacific coast as far as Manitoba. A cold storage freight service is also operated from the Maritime provinces two days each week. We guarantee that the earnings on these cold storage cars shall be two-thirds of those of a minimum carload of 20,000 libs. During the past summer an additional service was inaugurated whereby a cold storage express car leaves Mulgrave on Saturday of each week, shipments from Halifax being included in it at Truro. We guarantee that the earnings on this car will be at least equal to the earnings on 10,000 lbs., plus the cost of icing the car. Tip to the present time the shipments have been greater than 10,000 lbs. except on six occasions, so that the cost to the department of this service has so far been practically restricted to that of icing the cars. Up to the end of December, the department's expense on this service has been $26,288.38 from the East, and $38,986.03 from the West. It is expected that this year there will be not only a much larger call on the vote on account of the additional amount of fish that will be shipped, but it is the intention to have a through express cold storage service to Toronto. That accounts for the increase over last year.
Mr. BeWlTT FOSTER: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a matter of very great importance to the western counties of Nova Scotia, particularly the counties of Kings and Annapolis. For the past seven or eight years the fishermen of those two counties on the bay of Fundy have found it extremely difficult at certain seasons of the year to get bait. So great has the difficulty been that at times they have had to go to Grand Manan and other places to secure it. Inasmuch as the department is providing cold storage cars for the transportation of fish, it occurred to me that the minister might consider the establishment of a cold storage plant for bait at Hall's harbour practically 'halfway between Digby and Cape Blomidon. If this matter were taken up
by the department I am sure that the prominent persons interested in this business down there would be not only willing to devote their time to the management of the business,, but would be willing to help in any way they possibly could.


John Douglas Hazen: We have power to help
in the establishment of these cold storage plants for bait to the extent of one-half of the cost, providing the cost does not exceed $4,000. We will assist either private individuals or companies in this way if it is demonstrated that a suitable place has been selected, and that the bait will be satisfactory to the fishermen. If there are iany private individuals or companies in the district to which my hon. friend has referred, we shall be glad to assist to one-half the cost if we are satisfied that it will meet the requirements of the fishermen.
To provide for construction and completion of dredging plant, etc., in river St. Lawrence-[DOT] further amount required $655,000.
To provide compassionate allowance to Mrs. Corono Edmond, widow of the late Edouard Farley, who was fatally injured while discharging his duties on dredge No. 7, Ship channel, $2,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where do you intend
to build that dredge?


John Douglas Hazen: I might explain that this item is in the Supplementaries through an accident, it should have appeared in the Main Estimates. We have asked for tenders and the dredge will be built in Canada. It is to be used for the dredging of the St. Lawrence below Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no objection to dredging below Quebec if you build the dredge at Montreal.


John Douglas Hazen: We shall see who is the lowest tenderer.


John Howard Sinclair: How long was Edouard Farley in the employ of the Government?


John Douglas Hazen: He had been in the employ of the department a number of years when he was killed in the discharge of his duties through ,am accident to the machinery on board the dredge.


John Howard Sinclair: What was he doing?


John Douglas Hazen: He was an engineer and
was killed by the bursting of an emery wheel. When a workman is killed in the discharge of his duty, toy the law of the province of Quetoec his family is entitled to $2,000, and we have fixed on that amount

to harmonize with the provincial law. We thought that a man working for the Government should not be treated any worse than a man working for a private individual or firm.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend from
Richelieu (Mr. Cardin) 'brought a similar ease to my attention. He is not here now, but I will tell him to send the particulars over to my hon. friend.


John Douglas Hazen: We will have it looked
into at once.
To provide for the removal of obstructions in the Fraser river, B.C., $60,000.


John Douglas Hazen: This is a matter of very great importance. There was a landslide in the Fraser river which completely blocked the river so that it would have been impossible for the salmon this spring to have made their way to the spawning beds had steps not been taken to have that obstruction removed. We believe that we will have a right of action against the Canadian Northern Pacific, for the amount when we have finished the work, and we intend to hold them liable.
To provide for an investigation into the fisheries of Hudson Bay, $15,000.


John Douglas Hazen: We are receiving daily
inquiries at the department about the fisheries of Hudson bay, and* we are sending a party up there to investigate.


John Howard Sinclair: You bad a man up there last year.


John Douglas Hazen: We had a mam up there who was a professor in a university.


John Howard Sinclair: You had a man who
knew nothing about fish or fisheries.


John Douglas Hazen: The man we sent up there was a gentleman who is-
1 a.m. Mr. SINCLAIR:	I refer to
Mr. Tanner, of Piotou.


John Douglas Hazen: We did not send Mr. Tanner; we sent a scientific-


John Howard Sinclair: I will show you his
report.


John Douglas Hazen: That gentleman was not
sent by our department.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not know what
department he was sent by, but he was sent by this Government to investigate something in regard to the fisheries and he recommended that, as the Esquimaux up there are engaged in the fisheries and as they are good Canadians, they should

share in the fishing bounty. If the minister is going to employ anybody to go to Hudson bay to tell us about the fisheries I would suggest that he send somebody who knows something about the question and can give us intelligible information.


John Douglas Hazen: The gentleman to whom
my hon. friend refers was not sent by my department t-o Hudson bay or anywhere else; he was sent up there by the Department of Customs.


William F. Carroll: Has the minister received any communications from the lobster fishermen of Nova Scotia, in particular the island of Cape Breton, as to an extension of the present lobster fishing season?	.


John Douglas Hazen: I have received not only from the lobster fishermen of Nova Scotia but also from the lobster fishermen of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island some communications asking that there should be an extension of the season. I received similar requests last year and I declined to accede to any of them. The regulations have been fixed after consideration and I have taken the position, and I intend to continue to take it, that these regulations ought to be observed. Practically there has never been a season in which the lobster fishermen have not asked for an extension of the time. They give some reason every year in support of their request for an extension but the conclusion I came to was that if these regulations were going to be of any use, in protecting the lobster fishery they ought to be observed. Last year I refused the request for an extension and in doing that I had the approval of the officers of the department. My belief is that, these regulations being made for the protection of the fisheries, it is in the interest of the fishermen and of the country generally that the regulations should he observed. The result will be that there will be more fish for the fishermen to catch in future years. That is the policy I have pursued and that is the policy that I am pursuing this year.


William F. Carroll: That seems to be a very stringent rule, notwithstanding the 'fact that "the officers of the minister's department approve its enforcement, because there are conditions existing which call for some relaxation of the regulations. There was a condition existing along the southern coast of Cape Breton which would certainly have led the officers of the department, if

they had known anything about it, to have advised the minister ,to extend the time. It is all very well to say that we have these regulations and that we must stand by them but does not the (minister see that occasions might arise when these rules should be relaxed? The season began on the 15th April this year, but it was well on into May before any traps were set out because the ice was on the shore until about the 1st of June, and I think that in a case of that kind the minister should take into consideration the protests that come from that part of the country in reference to the season. I am willing to grant that there should be rules and that where ever possible these rules should be adhered to, but I do think that when the drift ice stays on the coast of Nova Scotia until about the 1st of June these rules should be relaxed and that in the present year the season for lobster fishing should be extended. There is a situation which has scarcely ever been known to exist and if the Government do not relax the rules the results will be serious to the lobster fishermen of Cape Breton.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish to impress upon the minister the importance of this matter. I have read a great many letters from my own constituency and adjoining ones urging that something be done to relieve the situation amongst the lobster fishermen. One reason that makes it harder than usual is that this is the first year in which the latter part of the season has been curtailed about ten days. In addition to that, work was commenced very late in the spring and this has made it particularly difficult for the lobster fishermen. I think this is a case to which the minister ought to give his consideration and I believe that he ought to give the lobster fishermen the same time that they formerly had especially on the south coast of Nova Scotia. I do not think the same trouble exists on the north shore. I am informed that the lobster fishery is good on the coast of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island but it has been poor on the southern shore of Nova Scotia owing to the fact that there is a lot of ice on the coa,st and to the other fact that the minister has cut ten days off the end of the season. These two circumstances make the situation very urgent this year. I sent the minister a letter the other day written by a
small packer on the coast of Richmond in which he complains very bitterly and says that if the rule is enforced the small packers will come out very badly and that they will not be able to pay their bills let alone make any money. The rule has been relaxed before. It has been done frequently in years past and there is no good reason why it should not be done again because these regulations must not be regarded like the laws of the Medes and Persians as not being susceptible of change when circumstances warrant it. If the minister will send to his officer on the southern shore and ask them for a statement of the facts, I am sure that he will be impressed with the information that he will receive from them. He ehoiuld not sit dm his office and allow himself to be influenced by some person in an upper room of the Eastern block who does not know and is not in touch with the exact situation on the coast of Nova Scotia.


John Douglas Hazen: Everybody admits that the lobster fishery, unless it is protected, will pass out of existence. Lobsters have been getting fewer and smaller year after year and unless the lobster fishing industry is to give out altogether it must be given much better protection than it now enjoys. The regulations have been good and the laws have been good but influences have been brought to bear that fishery officers and ministers have not been able to resist. The result has been that year after year the lobster industry has been falling off and the lobsters have been getting smaller and fewer.
If the industry is worth saving, and I think it is, we have to enforce the law, and that is what I have been trying to do. It is a difficult thing for a minister to do, considering the pressure that is brought to bear on him by political friends and opponents alike. I declined last year to extend the season for lobsters in any case, and so far I have refused this year. If we persevere in this for a few years I believe the result will be a better catch of lobsters, and the fishermen will reap the benefit. Of course there is always a plausible reason given for extending the time, and for years in the past the department went on extending the time until the regulations were more honoured in the breach than in the observance. At times I have thought it would be better instead of close seasons and open seasons by a matter of regulation, that the season

should be fixed by statute. That would be easier for the minister, because now I have to put my back against the wall and resist all the pressurie brought to bear on me from my own province as well as from others.


William F. Carroll: Does not the fact that
the law is made by regulation show that it was intended to be relaxed?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The lobster season along the coast of Cape Breton and Victoria which commences in the middle of April now and ends on the 16th of July, whereas formerly it used to- toe from the first of May to the last of July. I understand the minister is trying to protect the lobsters by extending the time back to the middle of April, but if he extends it back to Christmas and the first of January of course the lobsters would be absolutely immune, because the ice' would protect them. There is an old saying that the Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath, and possibly it would he true	to say that the lobsters
are made for man and not man for the lobsters. If the minister could arrange with the polar currents and the Esquimaux so that these ice floes would not be sent down to prevent lobster fishing during the time the fishermen are allowed to take lobsters, it would be a good thing for the fishermen. The minister will, however, see that there is no use of our trying to deal with the icebergs, and so we will have to deal with the minister, and he will have to recognize that he must give way to some extent. I understand that this year, until about the last of May, there was not a lobster caught anywhere along the coast of Victoria county because the water was packed with drift ice. The people there depend for their living on catching lobsters, and while I agree with the minister that there should be every possible protection for the lobsters, yet I submit there must be a season of reasonable length when lobsters can be caught. If the people of Victoria and Cape Breton have no opportunity of fishing this year within the regular season, they certainly should be given some opportunity to catch lobsters. If the ice keeps them from fishing when the minister says they can fish, then they should be given some time to prosecute their calling when they would not be prevented from doing so by climatic conditions. The regulations have been changed thousands of times before, and I think in such urgent circumstances the minister

should extend the time again. I ask the minister not to absolutely make up his mind until he enters into a mutual reciprocity with the drift ice, so that the drift ice will pay attention to his regulations.


John Douglas Hazen: The season in the district referred to is from the 15th of April to the 16th of July, and during a great portion of that time there would be no ice.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There was ice for six
weeks of the season this year.


John Douglas Hazen: That regulation was
recommended by the shellfish commisision and concurred in by the Advisory Fisheries Board and by the officers of my department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Was there a man from Cape Breton on that board?


John Douglas Hazen: There was one from Nova Scotia, one from New Brunswick, and one from Prince Edward Island.


George Perry Graham: I would like to call my hon. friend's attention to an article in the Montreal Daily Herald of to-night in regard to the Montreal harbour? It is headed: 'Politics and the harbour of Montreal: A bit of history connected with Captain Demers' retirement as harbourmaster.' The first paragraph reads as follows:
Captain Bourassa has been appointed harbourmaster for the port of Montreal, with Captain Symonds as his assistant. "The present harbour master, Captain Demers, is again reappointed to his former position with the Dominion Government as wreck commissioner.
The article seems to indicate that there has been a good deal of politics mixed up with this, and that the arrangement is a bad one. How did it happen?


John Douglas Hazen: There is nothing of that sort in it at all. I can assure my hon. friend Captain Demers was for a number of years wreck commissioner of Canada, and was a very capable and competent officer, so far as I am aware. His record was an excellent one. The Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, about a year and a half ago, the commissioners being Mr. Stephens, Mr. Ballantyne and Mr. Geoffrion, advertised for a harbourmaster in the press. They had a large number of applicants, among whom was Captain Demers, because the salary they were offering was larger than the salary being paid to the wreck commissioner.


John Howard Sinclair: Was Captain Roper one of the applicants?

.Mr. HAZEN : Yes. There were forty or fifty applicants, and the commissioners selected Captain Demers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When did he become an applicant?


John Douglas Hazen: He waa an applicant when they advertised. Captain Demers was selected and was appointed. Captain Lindsay was appointed his successor in the department as wreck commissioner. After the report was received from the commission appointed to investigate pilotage matters, it was necessary, in order to carry out that report, to appoint a superintendent of pilots who would have supervision over the Montreal and the Quebec pilots. It was an office of great responsibility, and, looking around for a suitable man, for the position, I considered that Captain Lindsay, who had been wreck commissioner and who had had command of a transatlantic liner, was the best man available; I appointed him, and that left the position of wreck commissioner vacant. When it became vacant, Captain Demers had a friend of his give me to understand that, if the position were offered to him, he would accept it, as the position of harbour commissioner in Montreal was not congenial to him. I was very glad to find right at hand a man who had had experience as wreck commissioner and who had filled the position with credit to himself in the department. I therefore offered the position to Captain Demers and he accepted it. I understand that the harbour commissioners have since then appointed Captain Bour-assa, the assistant harbour commissioner, to be harbour commissioner in Captain Demers' place.


George Perry Graham: Will my hon. friend read the article which is on the front page of the Montreal Daily Herald ?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend tell me in what year this position of harbourmaster was advertised ?


John Douglas Hazen: It was during the time that Mr. Geoffrion, Mr. Ballantyne and Mr. Stephens were commissioners. I think they ceased to be commissioners on the 1st of January, 1913. Therefore it would be m January and February of 1913, because the new harbour-master went on duty at the opening of navigation in 1913.
When the fishery items were before the House on a previous occasion, the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) 327
criticised quite severely what is known as the Monthly Bulletin issued by the Fishery Department, which gives certain seafish statistics. That bulletin is prepared and made up by an official in the department, namely, Mr. Cowie, who was appointed some time before I took office as Minister of Marine and Fisheries. In justice to Mr. Cowie, I want to read to the House the following statement which he had prepared with regard to the criticism that was made upon that bulletin at the time the fishery items were under discussion :
The undersigned being responsible (or the fisheries statistical work of the department, has the following observations to make on the discussion and criticism of the department's monthly bulletin of sea fisheries statistics, which took place on Friday, the 3rd of April last:
It may be stated at the outset that, in order to economize space and paper during the slack season, the statistics of those counties in which small quantities, or one or two kinds only, are landed, are not tabulated, but are shown in a compact form on the first page of the bulletin. If fishing has not taken place at all in a county during the month the fact is carefully noted also on the first page. A casual glance, therefore, at the first page of any issue of the bulletin should have prevented Mr. Sinclair from falling into the error of stating that some counties were omitted entirely from the bulletin.
Mr. Kyte condemned the bulletin on the ground that the February issue shows for Richmond county a catch of 6,000 lbs. of smelts, valued at $120, or 2c per pound; while for Antigonish and Guysborough counties the price is given as 5c per pound. Typographical errors occur at times, and are corrected in succeeding bulletins,-the catch of smelts for Richmond county in the February bulletin was one of such. The officer's return shows 2,000 lbs. valued at $120, or 6c per pound, which conforms to the price in the neighbouring counties. The error was duly corrected in the March bulletin. The figures for Cape Breton county represent a catch of cod, and not one of smelts as was supposed by Mr. Kyte.
Mr. Sinclair proceeeds to prove that the quantities given in the bulletin are 'merely ridiculous,' by comparing the shipment of fish over the Intercolonial railway from Canso, during January, 1913, with the quantity shown as having been caught and landed in Guysborough in the same month. He values the January shipment at $60,000, which at ljc per pound equals 4,000,000 pounds. One of Mr. Whitman's telegrams, on which he bases his argument, dated January 24, the usual closing time for the haddock season, tells of another stormy week, indicating that the preceding week had also been stormy, and that the week's landings were 150,000 pounds. By allowing an equal quantity for the previous stormy week, Mr. Sinclair's figures leave the huge catch of
3,700,000	lbs. to be caught and brought to land by Canso fishermen in one short week of one of the stormiest months of the year,-obviously the thing is simply an impossibility. Mr. Sinclair should know that the quantity shipped from Canso in January, 1913, bears no relation to


John Howard Sinclair: That statement is not correct.


John Douglas Hazen: Well, my hon. friend will have an opportunity to correct it later.


John Howard Sinclair: I think it hardly fair that an official should make statements
like this at a time when they cannot be discussed and dealt with.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman made a very severe criticism of the work of this official, and it is only fair play to this official that he should have the opportunity of placing his statement on ' Hansard 9


John Howard Sinclair: I think the minister has chosen a very curious time to do it, at this hour of the morning.


John Douglas Hazen: This is the only opportunity I have had since it occurred. (Reading):
A record of the work performed and the amount of travelling done by every overseer in the service is sent to the department, weekly, and this shows that Overseer Dillon, of Guys-borough, not only visited Canso, but all the other fishing stations of his district as well, at the end of December and again at the end of January. In order to corroborate this record and to make sure as to whether or not the overseer got his figures from the merchants, the inspector of fisheries for the district was requested to visit the fishing sections of the country to investigate the matter, and report upon the accuracy of the Guysborough figures in the bulletin for January, 1914.
His report, W'hich is hereto attached, proves that Mr. Sinclair's information is only fragmentary, and that his assumptions are grossly erroneous. It is accompanied by a statement from each of the fish merchants exactly similar to that supplied by them to the overseer, and completely corroborates the figures contained in the bulletin.
Mr. Sinclair ends by stating that the whole work of collecting the information and publishing the bulletin costs not more than $1,200 annually, and asks how* such important work can be done on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts for that paltry sum. The explanation is simple: the undersigned having a sufficient grasp of the *whole business of fishing, took advantage of the existence of a great staff of officers who were travelling practically every inch of the coast, and so arranged things that the work of securing the required statistical information is accomplished by these officers in the course of their travels, without really adding much to their official burdens. The cost might easily have mounted to five or six thousand dollars, but by the exercise of economy coupled with efficient management, the expense is what it is.
It is submitted that the foregoing makes it clear that the adverse statements made in the course of the criticism were totally inaccurate, quite uncalled for, and altogether unfair.
It is not claimed that perfection has been reached in the matter of collecting statistics under the present system; but, notwithstanding assertions to the contrary, the fact remains that the fisheries statistics of Canada are to-day far more reliable and intelligible than at any time since such records have been kept.
Now, there is a communication attached to that, signed by Mr. Hoc-kin, inspector of fisheries, and dated Pictou, May 4, 1914, which reads:

Having reference to file 55.6 letter April 25.
I went to Canso on the 30th ultimo and with Mr. Dillon called upon the fish buyers there, who kindly gave me a duplicate of the reports they had furnished to overseer Dillon showing the quantity of fish caught and landed in Canso during the month of January, and I enclose a schedule giving the names of fish buyers from whom the statements were received and the quantity stated by them.
I was also given in some instances the actual catch of individual fishermen whose names are included in the report and enclose a statement giving the reported catch-the fish buyers figures and the proportion caught in January and December.
I may say that the reports as given will include 90 per cent of all the fish caught in January in the county of Guysborough. The overseer had received statements from the merchants when he made up his report and he has not understated the quantity caught and landed in Guysborough for the month of January.
I think there is one instance in which the fish should not have been included, viz: that of Messrs. A. and R. Loggie, of Mulgrave, who say that the fish reported by them were bought from fishermen at Petit de Gras, Isle Madame Richmond county.
I am Sir,
Tour obedient servant,
R. Hockin,
Inspector of Fisheries.
P.S.-I may add that Mr. \V. G. Matthews from his records stated that there were only seven days in January that fish were caught and landed.
Annexed to that is a statement showing quantity of fish caught and landed in Guysborough county during the month of January, 1914, showing a total of haddock, 6,947 cwt.; cod,761 cwt.; hake, 87 cwt.; and pollock, 5 cwt. There is also a statement showing reported individual catch of fishermen who landed fish at Canso, and the fish buyer's statement of quantities caught in December, 1913, and January, 1914.
I feel in fairness to the official whose duty it is to make up this bulletin, and who has been so severely criticised, that his statement ought to be on ' Hansard.'


John Howard Sinclair: I regret very much that the minister did not do me the courtesy to tell me this morning that he was going to bring this matter up. If he had done so I would have been better prepared with the figures to show that the statements of his officers -are altogether misleading. I was very careful in collecting my information at the time and I gave the minister the name of the gentleman who furnished me with the information, who is one of the most reliable gentlemen in Nova Scotia, and I have no doubt whatever that his information is absolutely correct. I do not think it is very dignified for the minister to 327J	j..
shelter himself behind an official. It indicates a lack of courage.


John Douglas Hazen: I am not sheltering myself.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister ought to be responsible for the bulletin he issues. It is undignified for him to present a statement reflecting upon an hon. member, drawn up by a subordinate officer, -and read it to the House. He brings this matter forward and reads a statement made by this official when he does not know whether the statement is correct or not.


John Douglas Hazen: Will the hon. gentleman
pardon me? The hon. gentleman referred to Mr. Cowie and took the opportunity, as I recall, to reflect on his competency. I take full responsibility upon myself for anything that occurs in my department; the minister has to take full responsibility for any matter that he may have anything to do with. But everybody knows I do not make up these statistics. If they are not correct and it is brought to my attention, my duty would be to get officers who would see that they are correct. Mr. Cowie makes out a strong case to show that he was correct, and that my hon. friend's criticism was unfair.


John Howard Sinclair: I still say that the minister has taken a very undignified position when he puts forward Mr. Cowie in this way. If the minister had given me an opportunity to furnish him with the exact facts, which I have, but have not here at the present time, I could have shown him very clearly that the statements made in the Fishery Bulletin were altogether inaccurate. I was able to point out, -when I brought the matter up, the names of the fishermen, and the quantity each caught. I went very carefully about it so that there could be no mistake, and I was able to show that in one week there was as much fish landed at Canso alone as in the whole county.


John Douglas Hazen: It is quite clear that the
hon. gentleman cannot be convinced.


John Howard Sinclair: It is quite clear that the official statistics must be inaccurate. The minister does not dare to contradict the. statements made in the correspondence which I have presented, because he knows that they are drue. They were furnished to me by a merchant in Canso who knows what he is talking about. In one week the quantity of fish caught at Canso alone was as large as the amount credited to the whole county of Guysborough in a month.

The county of Guysborough has a coastline of 120 miles, on which there are a large number of fishing stations. My hon. friend will not say that his fishery officer travels over that entire district and gets correct information, 'because he does not do it, and I can prove to my hon. friend that he does not do it. He sits in his office and guesses at the amount of fish that is caught along the coast. It would be a month's work for a man to travel along the coast of my constituency, and consult each fisherman .and get even an approach to correct information. I say that it is 'absolutely impossible to get correct information under such a system as we now have. What answer does my hon. friend make to the assertion that he is spending $1,200 in getting information of that kind which $12,000 or even $120,000 would not begin to pay for and obtain upon a correct basis? Are we to understand that these officers travel the coast for nothing? The idea that information of that kind can be obtained all along the coast of the Maritime provinces, compiled at Ottawa and given out to the public through the expenditure of $1,200 is simply absurd. I knew that the statistics -that were being sent out through the country were an injury to the fisheries, not a benefit, and in order to give the minister an idea of the condition that branch of the department was in I took the trouble of collecting this information for the particular month Tn question, and did it with great care and exactness. We have the statement read by the minister and made by one of his officials that that information is not correct. Does he know whether it is correct or not? How does he know that the facts sent to me by a reputable merchant of Canso are not correct? My hon. friend's correspondent does not pretend to say that the proper officer went to the individual fishermen I have named and found that any part of the information which I have given rwas incorrect. I say that it is an undignified procedure for the minister to read the statement of Mr. Cowie, a sub-officer, and place it before the committee as the answer of the Government. If he has any facts that he wishes to lay before the committee as correct information, we shall he very glad to hear them, but I submit that it is not a proper course for the minister to allow an official 
who has been subjected to criticism to write a document of that kind and to read it to the committee as if it were the truth, when I am able to prove to the minister, if he will give me an opportunity of doing so, that it is not true.


Mr. KYTE:: The hon. minister, in the
statement which he read to the committee, referred to a criticism I made on the occasion to which the hon. member for Guysborough has referred. The assertion I made as to the incorrectness of the statement as to the value of the smelts caught in my county remains as I made it. Mr. Cowie now admits that there was a typographical error.


John Douglas Hazen: A typographical error that had been corrected before the criticism was made in this House.


George William Kyte: I have not the papers before me to verify the statement made by Mr. Cowie, but I do say to the hon. minister that it is unfortunate that he did not advise him to revise his report before it was read in the House, containing, as it does, such discourteous language in respect of the hon. member for Guysborough. So far as the statement I made is concerned, I stand by it; the statement as to the quantity and prices of smelts caught in the county of Richmond is absolutely incorrect. I say further that the information which the minister purports to give with regard to the quantity of fish caught in the county of Richmond is a pure guess and nothing more. He has no source of information that would enable him to give correct information to the people interested in this subject, and unless he revises the system by which he obtains his information the $1,200 spent for this purpose will be absolutely wasted.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to convey to the minister the information that he must not bring documents into this House at this hour to insult members, written by his officials for that purpose.


John Douglas Hazen: Allow me to tell my hon. friend that it makes absolutely no difference to me what he tells me, and that I decline to be lectured and browbeaten by him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to tell the hon. minister that my opinion is as valuable to me as his opinions are to him. This is not

the first time that he read papers prepared by his officials, and the next day swallowed them in toto. If to-morrow or the next day the minister is brought face to face with the fact that this statement which he has read is an absolute tissue of falsehood, he will say: I read the statement prepared for me in the department; I am not responsible. The minister comes here with a statement containing coarse language, a production or an essay by a gentleman in his office who has nothing to do from one end of the year to the other but write such letters. I do not propose to lecture the minister or anybody else, but I want the minister to understand that his avoirdupois or altitude is not going to make the slightest difference to me. I submit that if any member in this House makes a statement that does not agree with what an officer would consider to be right, that officer has the right to protection. He has the right to take the matter up privately with the member, to set forth the facts and to prove that the member was mistaken. It is then up to the member to say in the House that he did misrepresent the officer in question, and if the member does not do so, the minister is within his rights in saying: I am aware that my officer has brought this matter up with the member; that he has or ought to have convinced the member that he was wrong; that the member has not explained the matter, and that as the officer has not an opportunity of coming here and defending himself, the minister will do so for him. But the minister comes here with an essay for which the country has paid the equivalent of many months' salary, prepared to blackguard a member of this House and to tell him that his statements are absurd and absolutely false. That is the kind of literature the minister has been putting on ' Hansard ' to-night. So far as we in Nova Scotia are concerned we shall try to defend ourselves and see that no Cowie is going to cowe anybody on this side of the House. Mr. Oowie will find that he will experience a day of reckoning if he thinks that he is at liberty to browbeat and bulldoze hon. gentlemen of this House as long as he has a minister to read his essays at two o'clock in the morning, when there is very little opportunity of criticism.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 1.50 a.m. Wednesday.
Wednesday, June 10, 1914.