1914-05-22

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 206, to incorporate The General Council of the Canadian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association.-Mr. A. Thompson.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of William Ewan Laurie.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Margaret Van Dusen.-Mr. Schaffner.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. KYTE:: Has a survey party been sent by the Government to locate a line of railway between St. Peter's and Sydney, as stated in the newspapers?


Mr. J. D. REID:: There are some survey parties at work along the line of the Intercolonial, but I cannot say at the moment if there is a party in the locality mentioned.


George William Kyte: This survey is not along the line of the Intercolonial; it is for the purpose of locating a new line between St. Peter's and Sydney.


John Dowsley Reid: I will make inquiry.



ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 291, to amend the St. John and Quebec Railway Act-Hon. J. D. Reid (acting Minister of Railways and Canals)
read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT ROGERS (Minister of Public Works) moved .second reading of Bill No. 205, to amend the Dry-docks Subsidies Act, 1910.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: Should this Bill become law, will it apply to dry-docks in regard to which contracts have been entered into, but in respect to which work has not yet been undertaken? Some considerable time ago a contract was entered into for a dry-dock at Vancouver, but no work has been undertaken with the exception of acquiring the site, which was done when I was minister.


Mr. ROGERS:: This amendment to the Act will not apply to any contract that has been let. In the case of Vancouver no contract has been let, and those who had prospected doing the work some years ago, apparently have failed in their endeavour. I do not know whether they will apply under the present amended Act. At all events the amendment would not apply to dry-docks where contracts have already been let.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bi1! :ead the second time.
The House then went into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-short title:
Mr. CARROLL:: May I ask the Minister of Public Works how much money has been paid out since 1910 in connection with the Act of that year?


Robert Rogers: I do not appear to have the figures as to the amounts paid out since 1910, but I can get them for my hon. friend if he desires to see them.


William Pugsley: If my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works intends that this Bill shall not apply to ports where contracts have been entered into for the construction of dry-docks, I consider that this section, if passed, will not carry out his view, because it provides that paragraph (a) of section 8 of the Dry-docks Subsidies Act of 1910 is repealed. Therefore, when this Bill passes, there will be no law except it in existence under which subsidies can be paid, because the previous Act which authorizes the Governor in Council to make payment of a subsidy of 3J per cent is repealed, and this will be the law providing for a. subsidy at the rate of 4 per cent. I do not complain in regard to the matter; I am inclined to think it better that it should be so, because even Governments to-day are obliged to pay 4 per cent for money; and in the case of docks which have not yet been actually undertaken

4 per cent is a reasonable rate of interest, when we bear in mind that the principal is not guaranteed and that the subsidy is only for a limited time.


Robert Rogers: I think my hon. friend is rather in error in regard to this matter. Paragraph (a) refers to subsidies on dry-docks of the first class.


William Pugsley: I am spea,king now of dry-docks of the first class.


Robert Rogers: It does not apply to any of the others, and I do not think it will have the effect stated by my hon. friend, and it is not intended that it should have that effect.


William Pugsley: Would not that necessarily be the effect as to dry-docks of the first class? The moment you repeal a statute under which the Governor in Council has authority to pay money and substitute for that another statute, then all payments must be made under the substituted statute or not made at all.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Might I suggest that the minister or the Prime Minister give the House a short statement as to the meaning of this Bill and as to how much money it is proposed to expend under it? I do not think the members understand what is proposed to be done.


Robert Rogers: This Bill is introduced in order that the Government may be able to secure the construction of a first-class dry-dock at Vancouver. Under the old law, it was impossible to find any company willing to undertake the construction and financing of a dry-dock on a basis of a subsidy of 3i per cent, and this Bill is to increase the subsidy to 4 per cent. In view of the increased cost of money at the present time, my hon. friend will understand that it is very difficult, in fact, impossible to finance on a basis of 34 per cent. The Bill was intended to correct this condition of affairs so that we might be able to secure the construction of a dry-dock at Vancouver.


Mr. EMMERSON:: Why confine it to
Vancouver? There are points that I know of that might have consideration just as well as Vancouver. '


Robert Rogers: Once this Bill is passed, it will not be confined to Vancouver, but will apply to any other first-class dTy-docks that may be built in future in any part of Canada.


William Pugsley: Has my hon/ friend
given consideration to the very urgent request made on behalf of the people of St. John for a change in the plan for the construction of a dry-dock at that port? The present contract, as my hon. friend is aware, provides for a dock only 900 feet in length. Since that contract has been entered into, there has been a very great advance in the construction of steamships, the tendency being to build larger ships. As the Government is aware, that view has been presented very strongly by the people of Quebec, and I believe the Government is now engaged in the construction of .a dry-dock, at the port of Quebec of a length of 1,100 or 1,150 feet. The people of St. John are strongly of the opinion that a dry-dock of the same length should be constructed at their port so as to be able to accommodate the largest steamships likely to cross, the Atlantic. If their request is acceded to and a new contract entered into for an enlarged dock, will this Bill, when it becomes law, apply to that enlarged dock as well as to docks which may be constructed at Vancouver and otheT places?


Robert Rogers: This matter was discussed when the resolution was introduced, and, as my hon. friend is aware, the people of St. John were anxious for the extension of the dry-dock at that port to a length of 1,100 feet. Application was made informally by the contractors who had in charge the work at that port, and we informed them that we were quite prepared to amend the contract to provide for a dry-dock 1,100 feet in length on the basis of the contract made for the 900 feet first-class dock. If the contractors are willing to come to an arrangement, we shall be very pleased to enter into a contract with them. I have word from Mr. Griffiths, who has that contract, that he will be on his way in a day or two to Canada, and this matter will be taken up with him when he arrives here. The Government will give it every consideration; and, if an arrangement can be come to with Mr. Griffiths the Government are prepared to be very reasonable in dealing with him with a view of supplying St. John as liberally as possible with a dry-dock of a larger dimension. I do not wish it, however, to be understood in the meantime that we would agree to the subsidy being fixed at four per cent, as the matter has not as yet been considered by the Government.


William Pugsley: This Bill gives the
Governor in Council the authority to make the subsidy four per cent, if it is considered desirable to do so?


Robert Rogers: Yes, if the Government considers it desirable to do so.


Mr. CABROLL:: I would suggest to the Minister of Public Works that, this being a general law, it should take in dry-docks of tire second and third classes as well as those of the first class. It is just as difficult for people to raise money or to float bonds for the purposes of one of these works as for the other. The effect of increasing the bonus to one class and not to the other will be to give a preference to the larger ports to the disadvantage of the smaller ports which in the future may try to secure dry-docks but which cannot maintain docks of the first class. I would suggest that the minister amend subsections a, b, and c of section 8 of the Act of 1910, in order to make this change applicable to all dry-docks.
There is another clause in the Act of 1910 which I would bring to the attention of the minister. It may be a matter concerning which I am not very well informed, but I know something of the company that proposed to build a dry-dock in the city of Sydney harbour. Section 3 of the Act reads:
The Governor in Council may, as an aid to the construction of any dry-dock, authorize the payment out of any unappropriated money.
When the promoters of a dry-dock go into the market for money, those who are asked to advance the money will turn up the Act, and there they see this word ' unappropriated They ask:	What would
happen if at any time there were no 'unappropriated ' money forming part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada? I understand this question has been actually raised by financiers who have been approached on the raising of money for dry-docks. They do not understand why the word ' unappropriated ' is there. The Act should be so worded that there could be no doubt about the Governor in Council giving this money at the rate of three and one-half per cent or four per cent, whatever it may be, when the dry-dock has been completed to the satisfaction of the minister and his engineers.


Robert Rogers: That is a point I have
never before heard raised, and so far as the department is aware the word in the statute to which the hon. gentleman calls attention has never caused any difficulty. It seems to me clear that the money must be paid out of the consolidated revenue, and, of course, out of money unappropriated.
fMr, Pugsiev.l


Henry George Carroll: But the minister can
see the possibility of there being no ' unappropriated ' money in the consolidated revenue fund.


William Pugsley: I was Minister of Public Works when the statute was framed, and it seemed to me then that we could not make it broader than it is. The Be-ceiver General is authorized to make these payments out of any funds that may be available, and I do not know any language which could more completely assure its being paid. Of course, Parliament could not declare that it should be paid out of any part of the revenues, for if money . were appropriated for other purposes it would have to be paid for those purposes. But when it is provided that the money shall be paid out of the unappropriated portion of the revenue, I think that is the widest power that could be given.
I agree entirely with my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) that it is desirable that if the rate of interest is to be changed it should be changed in respect of any dry-dock the building of which the Governor in Council may think it desirable to encourage. Quite a number of years ago, when the Government undertook to aid the construction of dry-docks, the rate of interest was put at 3 per cent. That was afterwards found to be too low, and it was increased to 34 per cent. Then, that rate was found to be too low, except for two or three places, like Port Arthur and Toronto. It has been found difficult to finance these undertakings under present legislation. The Minister of Public Works knows that the Government guarantee on railway bonds a few years ago was 3 per cent, and bonds so guaranteed could he sold nearly at par. But with the increased demand for money and extended opportunities for investment, the rate of interest has gone up, and to-day bonds guaranteed by the Government and bearing 4 per cent will mot bring very much more than 3 per cent guaranteed bonds would bring a few years ago. If the Minister of Public Works sincerely desires to encourage dry-docks, ought not he to take the bull by the horns and make the general guarantee 4 per cent? He knows that in the case of Halifax and Quebec, dry-docks could not be constructed unless the guarantee were 4 per cent, and in order to get over the difficulty the Government has determined to build the dry-dock at Halifax, I believe, to the length

of 1,100 feet, also the dry-dock at Quebec and the diy-dock at Victoria. So far as St. John, Vancouver, Sydney and many other places in Canada are concerned, where it would be of advantage to have dry-docks, it is left to private enterprise to finance the undertakings. If it is to be left to private enterprise, the terms ought to be made liberal enough to make the work of the promoters possible:	.


Robert Rogers: There is some force in
what is said with reference to the extension of the subsidy of 4 per cent to second and third-class docks. But we have no application or request far these in the department iat Jthe present time. Should such an application be made and should it be found impossible to secure the docks on a basis >at 3i per cent, I should be glad to come down to the House again and ask for further extension.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: I rather agree with
the remarks of the hon. membeir for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) and the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) that the guarantee of 4 per cent should not only apply to dry-docks of the first-class but to those of the second and the third-class as well. A dry-dock which answers the purposes designed and costs only $1,500,000 ought to receive a guarantee at the same rate of interest as a more expensive dock. Take, for example, the dry-dock on the inland lakes; it is not fair to compel us to build a dry-dock there which is more than sufficient for the requirements of the traffic simply to enable us to get the four per cent rate. Two years ago when the town of Owen Sound granted a bonus of $100,900 for the purpose of constructing a dry-dock in that town, the plans for which were approved and entirely satisfactory to the Department of Public Works, owing to financial difficulties, one of which was the low rate of interest, the proposition fell through. We have stuck to the project and we are submitting another by-law on June 6 under which the town of Owen Sound will give a straight cash subsidy of $10,000 a year for twenty years. I think that if we are willing to go down into our pockets for that amount in order to build a dry-dock which will cost in the neighbourhood of one and one-half million dollars, we are entitled to as much as the other dry-docks, a subsidy of four per cent. I do not see any just reason why the cheaper*class of dry-docks, provided they answer all the purposes for which they are intended, should not be
entitled to the same rate of interest as the larger dry-docks, which are more easily financed and which, in my humble opinion, would be financed even more readily at three and a-half per cent than at four per cent. A first-class dry-dock receives a four per cent rate, a third-class dry-dock receives only a three per cent rate, while the intermediate class receives a three and a-half per cent rate. I think that that is more than an injustice to the poorer class of dry-dock which does not receive the same rate as the others. If the dry-dock were not answering the purposes for which it was intended, that would be an argument against the granting of the four per cent rate, but when it is fulfilling all its purposes I think that it is entitled to the same rate of interest as is granted to the first-class dry-dock. I have not had time to speak to the minister personally on the subject; I received only this morning a letter from Owen Sound asking me to urge this matter on the Government.


Robert Rogers: To meet the suggestions
made, I beg to move:
That a new section be added as section 3, as follows:
The second section of this Act shall not apply to any agreement heretofore entered into between His Majesty and any incorporated company under the Dry-dock Subsidies Act, 1910, and paragraph (a) of section 8 of the said Act shall remain in full force and effect for the purpose of every such agreement and with respect to every matter and thing connected therewith.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend will agree that this matter ought to stand. The amendment proposes to change altogether the recommendation which His Royal Highness made to Parliament, which was that paragraph (a) of the section be repealed altogether and that a new law be passed providing for the rate of subsidy at four per cent. My hon. friend proposes entirely to change the resolution and still to keep the old Act in force as to contracts which have already been entered into. Apart from the merits of the ease, I think that if this new section were to be introduced the committee would have to rise and a new resolution be submitted to the House. I do think that my hon. friend ought to be reasonable with regard to aid to dry-docks. We know that when Mr. Monk was Minister of Public Works he wanted to assist dry-docks. When the hon. member for Ar-genteuil (Mr. Perley), was acting for him, I urged upon him that this change in the rate of interest should be made in order to make it possible for the people of Owen

Sound-a very enterprising town, where it has been felt- for a long time that a dry-dock ought to be constructed-the people, of Sydney, the people of Quebec, of Halifax, of Vancouver and of other places, have dry-docks. Instead of accepting my suggestion, he left the rate of interest as it was and provided that there might be paid this subsidy upon a largely increased cost. I pointed out to him that that would not do any good; that the only way in which the increased bonus could be got would be by having the dock nominally cost a great deal more than it actually does cost and that, therefore, it was utterly absurd to make such a change. The hen. member for Argenteuil will remember my having brought his attention to that point. Notwithstanding that, the Government insisted on pushing the Bill through. It had no good result whatever; nothing was accomplished by it. Speaking of docks of the second-class, the dry-dock at Port Arthur is of the second-class, and no dry-dock ever built in Canada has done better work for the country than the one at Port Arthur. Not long ago there was turned out from the shipyard there in connection with the dry-dock one of the most magnificent freight carriers that is to be found in any country, the Grant Morden, a vessel of large capacity, splendidly built, the pride of the people of Canada. In order to secure the construction of a dry-dock there-it was my great pleasure to turn the first sod when I was Minister of Public Works-it became necessary for the people of Port Arthur to make a very large contribution toward the work; I think they furnished a site as well. Works of this kind are of a national character, and the people of the community should not be called upon to impose any burdens upon themselves in order to secure their construction. In the case of Owen Sound, I am quite familiar with all that the hon. member for North Grey has said. Application was made to me when I was minister; I am inclined to think that the contract was actually entered into; at any rate, the town of Owen Sound was prepared to do everything possible to assist in the work. But if a dry-dock at Owen Sound, in connection with the shipping upon the Great Lakes, which is of enormous importance and of enormous magnitude, is as important in respect of Canadian trade as a dry-dock at an ocean port, why should the rate of interest in respect of a dock upon the Great Lakes be 3 per cent, and the rate of interest upon a dock at Vancouver be 4 per cent? What reason can be suggested [ Mr. Pugsley,]
for it, unless it be that the hon. member for Vancouver has more influence with the Government and has been more wideawake in this matter than the hon. member for North Grey? No other reason can possibly be suggested.
I am opposed to this amendment also upon the ground that it is an injustice to the people of St. John. The hon. Minister of Public Works knows very well that there is a contract for a dry-dock at that port in connection with other harbour work of great magnitude and of exceedingly great difficulty. No substantial progress has yet been made in the construction of a dry-dock. When the contract was entered into the people of St. John were asked to put their hands in their pockets and assist the work, and they were willing to do so. They were then put upon the same footing as Quebec, as Halifax and as Victoria. But since that time the Government have chosen to take hold of the dry-docks at these three ports as Government works, and propose to construct them out of the public moneys of Canada. The Government, therefore, will be able to manage those dry-docks and to make the rate for the repairs of vessels just as low as they may think desirable in order to encourage shipbuilding and ship repairing at those ports. But in the case of St. John, the shipping which occupies the dry-dock-and it will be the same at Vancouver and at the ports on the Great Lakes-will be called upon to bear the burden of the necessary interest in order to keep good the securities which will have to be issued upon these docks. These ports are being placed in an unfair position, particularly the port of St. John. The people of St. John find that today the Government are not only taking hold of these docks at other ports as Government works, but are proposing to make them 1,100 or 1,150 feet in length. At St. John the contract is for 900 feet. The people there want it to be 1,150 feet. A contract has been entered into with a company for the construction of a dock of the smaller size, and my hon. friend is now asking the committee to adopt an amendment which will tie his hands in respect to the dry-dock at St. John and compel him to say to the people of St. John: Parliament has tied my hands; I cannot increase the subsidy beyond three and one-half per cent, what it is today; even although I can do so in regard to Vancouver or Sydney, I cannot give you further assistance.* There has been very great delay in connection with the construction of the dry-dock at St. John and with

other work with which the Government has to do in connection with railway terminals at Courtenay bay. I am not going to speak about that, but there has been great and inexcusable delay. Now, my hon. friend, knowing that the people of St. John will come to him and ask the same measure of justice as is being meted out to other cities, and that interest up to four per cent should be given for an enlarged dock, asks the committee to tie his hands so that even if the Government may think it desirable to give four per cent he will be able to say that his hands are tied and he cannot give more than three and one-half per cent. Let me appeal to the sense of reason and fair play of my hon. friend. Let him not treat St. John with a less measure of justice than he treats other places. It is true that St. John is not represented by a supporter of the Government, so far as the city is concerned; but my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen) occupies the position of representative of the city of St. John and the county of St. John as well. So far as the people of the city are concerned, he is my colleague; he represents a somewhat different constituency to what I do because he takes in the parishes of the county as well. I want him to speak on this question. I want my hon. friend to intercede with the Minister of Public Works and ask that this matter shall stand over for a little so that a consultation may be had and so that the hands of the Government may be left free to give the same assistance to the dry-dock at St. John as it is proposed to give at Vancouver, in order that that work may be completed without delay. The people of St. John are getting very discouraged at the delay in undertaking this dry-dock. They are beginning to blame the Minister of Marine. They ought not to blame him, because I do not believe that the delay is his fault. The delay is due to his colleagues who override him and with whom he does not seem to have that influence which one of the ability and the long political experience and the high standing of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries ought to have. I do appeal to my hon. friend now, when this matter is before the committee, to appeal to the Minister of Public Works and endeavour to have this Bill so framed that my hon. friend will be able to go to him and ask him to enlarge this dock to 1,150 feet, making it the same length as the dry-docks at Halifax and Quebec are to be. made, and as I presume the dry-dock at Vancouver is to be made, because the people of that city will not be content with anything less. Let my hon. friend have this legislation so framed that the Minister of Public Works will be free to accede to the demands of the people of St. John and to his demand, and that the work of constructing this dry-dock upon the enlarged scale to which a port of the great importance of St. John is entitled may be speedily undertaken.


Mr. BORDEN:: As far as my hon.
friend's point of order is concerned, it does not seem to me that there is anything in it, for two very plain reasons. In the first place, this amendment does not increase the burden upon the public treasury; according to my hon. friend's argument, it diminishes that burden. In the next place, it does not change the appropriation of the money. Therefore, I can see absolutely nothing in the point of order which my hon. friend has raised. So far as docks of the second and third class are concerned, there is a great deal in what my hon. friend from North Grey has suggested. But, as pointed out by the Minister of Public Works, there is not at the present time before the department any application in respect of either the one or the other class.


William F. Carroll: What sort of dry-dock is to be constructed at the .harbour of Sydney by the Canadian Shipbuilding Company?


Robert Laird Borden: I am pointing out the
observation made by the Minister of Public Works; I am not familiar with the details of these several applications. If any application of that kind should be made to the Government, it would be a very appropriate thing for the Minister of Public Works to take into consideration a further amendment of the statute. He has already stated that such a proposal would receive his favourable consideration, but he does not think it desirable, at this stage of the session, to bring down a further resolution in view of the fact that applications of that character are not pending.
So far as the city of St. John is concerned, I think that the contract was entered into upon tenders called for by the hon. member from the city of St. John; in those tenders, as I understand, the dimensions of the dock were fixed. His present observations are therefore a reflection on his own conduct as Minister of Public Works, because, according to his own statement, he did not take sufficiently into con-

sideration the legitimate demands of the port of St. John. I would therefore be inclined to regard the observations of my hon. friend as either critical of his own conduct or as apologetic for it. The present Admih-istration has made a contract, if I remember correctly, upon the very tenders which the hon. gentleman called for. Up to the present time I am not aware of any application to vary the terms of that contract. It is possible that there may have been some application of which I am not aware, but none has come to my personal attention. If my hon. friend will bear these considerations in mind, I think he will come to the conclusion that if there is any blame in the matter it is blame attributable solely to his own conduct.


William Pugsley: I regret very much that my right hon. friend has the habit, of always, or nearly always, trying to justify some shortcomings of himself and his colleagues by reference to what the previous Government did.


Robert Laird Borden: I was saying it was a
shortcoming of my hon. friend.


William Pugsley: As an excuse for the
shortcomings of the hon. gentlemen opposite. That is no excuse. Suppose that, three or four years ago, I thought a dry-dock of 900 feet would be ample for the purposes of any of the ports of Canada, and suppose that since that time public opinion upon this subject had materially changed, would it not be reasonable that a change should be made if the attention of the Government was called to the changed condition? Matters move very rapidly in Canada. When I was present at the ceremonial of turning the first sod for the dry-dock at Port Arthur, if anybody had told me that at such an early date as this they would be engaged in shipbuilding and turning out magnificent steamships from that shipyard, I would scarcely have believed it possible. It has been possible, they buili the dry-dock in a marvellously short space of time, and I believe that they want additional accommodation. Take Col-lingwood, it was thought a few years ago that one dry-dock would be sufficient; but even before I left the position of Minister of Public Works I was called upon to enter into a contract for a second dry-dock there in order to accommodate the vessels which come to that port. My right hon. friend suggests that when I called for ten-

ders for a dry-dock at St. John, we had under consideration the building of dry-docks at Quebec and at Vancouver, and that 900 feet was considered the limit of length that would be required in a dry-dock. Nine hundred feet was considered the ultimate length to which these docks would ha-ve to be built. When this Government undertook to deal wfith dry docks they properly decided that, as far as Quebec and Halifax were concerned, docks should be 1,150 feet in length. Why should they have not so decided for St. John as well? Why should St. John be discriminated against? Why should it be said that there should be dry docks of greater length in these other ports and that yet, as far as St. John is concerned, the length of the dry-dock there should be that which three or four years ago was considered quite sufficient? My right hon. friend says that he has not heard of any request from St. John to change the length of the dry-dock. That is making a very strong indictment against my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, because the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows that the people of St. John have requested that the length should be extended to 1,150 feet. It has been called to his attention, it has been reported in the public press, the board of trade has urged it, all the newspapers have urged it, and yet the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has not apparently thought it of sufficient importance to speak to the Prime Minister on the subject. I cannot conceive it possible that my hon. friend wmuld view the matter so lightly as that, and I think that the Prime Minister must have forgotten what has been said to him with regard to it. The matter is one which is felt by the people of St. John to be of the very greatest importance.
The point I take now is this. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows that there is a contract for the harbour work at Courtenay bay, and that included in that contract is provision for a dry dock 900 feet in length. He knows perfectly well, and no one knows better than he, that the people of St. John feel very strongly, no matter how they may have felt four years ago, that, in view of the changed conditions, the dock should be extended to 1,150 feet. They are asking that the contract be changed. If, in the case of Vancouver, where there is a great deal of shipping, and where there will be a great deal of ship-repairing work to do, it is found necessary, in order to secure the construe-

tion of the work, to increase the rate of interest to 4 per cent, it surely will be equally desirable and necessary, in the case of the dry-dock at St. John, particularly in view of this change in the conditions, so that you may then have a dry-dock 1,150 feet in length. I ask in all sincerity: Why does the Minister of Public Works want to have his hands tied so that he cannot increase the rate of interest for a dry-dock at St. John the same as he is proposing to do at Vancouver and other ports where no contract has been entered into? No work on this dry-dock has actually been done, and it has not been determined as yet to extend it to 1,150 feet. I do not ask the Minister of Public Works to increase the rate to 4 per cent, but I ask him not to press this amendment. I appeal to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to urge him to leave the matter open, so that when an application of a more formal character comes before him, if he thinks it reasonable to increase the rate of interest the same as he can do in regard to Vancouver and other places, he will be able to do so, and he will not be able to say: Parliament, at my instance, and at the instance of the Government, it is true, has tied my hands, and I cannot give you additional assistance in the way of this increased rate to the extent of i per cent.
I ask that his hands be left free, that the hands of the Government be left free, so that they may take up this question of enlarging the dry-dock, and then, if it is found necessary, make the rate of interest 4 per cent. The Bill does not say that it shall be 4 per cent, but it only says that it shall not exceed 4 per cent; the present Act says that it shall not exceed 34 per cent. Surely it is only reasonable that it should be left discretionary with the Governor in Council to say what the rate of interest shall be.


Mr. HAZEN:: If my hon. friend fTom St. John (Mr. Pugsley) has succeeded in demonstrating anything in regard to the length of the dry-dock at St. John, it is that my hon. friend when Minister of Public Works did not possess a sufficiently comprehensive or wide vision to look ahead for a period of three or four years. My hon. friend from St. John now condemns his own action of three or four years ago in asking for the construction of a dry-dock at St. John which was to be 900 feet in length. His remarks prove that and nothing more. Now, I distinctly remember the speeches of the hon. gentleman and I
remember that he was pointing out in St. John that he had made provision for the construction of one of the finest dry-docks to be found anywhere in the civilized world-


William Pugsley: So it was at that time.


John Douglas Hazen: -a dry dock, to use the
hon. gentleman's language on the public platform, which would serve the 12 noon, needs of St. John for twenty-five or thirty years. Therefore, the hon. gentleman's statement simply proves if it proves anything, that the hon. gentlemen had not a sufficiently wide	vision	to look	ahead a fewyears and to realize	what	changes
might come. The hon. gentleman knows better than any man in this House, because he was all through the negotiations, that the question of whether the interest to be paid on the expenditure in connection with the dry-dock at St. John was 3i or 4 per cent did not influence that transaction in the slightest degree. The dock is ostensibly and nominally being built under the provisions of the Dry-Dock Act, but neither at St. John nor anywhere else has a company been got to build a dry-dock under the Act without something else being connected therewith. Therefore, in asking for tenders for the construction of improvements at Courtenay bay my hon. friend gave it to be understood that, in addition to the work specified in the call for tenders, whoever got the contract for the work in Courtenay bay, would, in addition to the dredging, building of the breakwater and docks, also have to build a dry-dock under the provisions of the Dry Dock Act. But for the dry-dock having been connected with the harbour works, the dry-dock would not have been built under the provisions of the Dry-Dock Act. In making out their tenders for this work, and knowing that they had to construct a dry-dock as well as the other works that were called for, the tenderers only submitted figures for the work proposed up to date and these contractors now say that if they are called upon to extend the dry-dock by 200 feet they are not willing to do that under the provisions of the Dry-Dock Act. _,They say that whether the interest be 4 per, cent or not they should have the right to revise their whole figures because it was on the whole of the works that they tendered, that they did not offer to build the dry-dock as a separate work and that in making up their figures for the other work they were able to make provision for what it would cost to build the dry-dock

over and above the aid provided by the Dry-Docks Act. These matters have been considered by the contractor, Mr. Norton Griffiths, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works and myself. We have had a number of interviews concerning the matter and the Minister of Public Works has expressly said, not only publicly but privately, that he is willing to enter into an agreement with Mr. Griffiths for the extension of the dry-dock to 1,150 feet instead of 900 feet on the same basis as he is now undertaking the other contracts. That is a matter for negotiation, which is being carried on. The last communication I had with Mr. Griffiths was that he would be here within a very short time, and would be prepared to take the matter up for consideration.
There is no doubt that a dock 900 feet long, as provided for by my hon. friend, is long enough for present purposes, and as stated by the hon. gentleman on the public platform it is one of the largest docks in the world. But having regard to the larger'ships that are now being built it would seem that though this dock may be sufficient-not for twenty-five or thirty years as stated by the hon. gentleman, but for a considerable period-it might be (better now to extend it to 1,100 feet rather than be called on in ten years or so to do it when it would cost relatively more than if done while the work is under construction. It is very desirable, if it can be done on proper terms, that the Minister of Public Works should undertake it. It should not be forgotten that the Minister of Public Works is hampered by the fact that the contract has been entered into and signed, that work has begun under that contract, that the breakwater is very largely constructed at Courtenay bay, and that considerable has been done on the dry-dock. The hon. gentleman says that very little progress has been made. I think he is mistaken in that. There has been considerable excavation of rock at the site of the dry-dock, and while that can still be easily extended without any great interference with the work, yet new arrangements have to be entered into, and I am in hopes that the Minister of Public Works will be able to (bring these agreements about. I have been working with that end in view. I do not believe that the question whether the interest under the Dry-dock Act is to be three and a half per cent or four per cent will influence this contract to any extent, because it has been made under other circumstances entirely apart from what would have been the case had the dock been built

under the provisions of the Dry-dock Act alone, and without any other contract being entered into at the same time.
I can afford to pass by in silence and contempt the statement made by my hon.
' friend that I have no influence with my colleagues in the Government. So far as my influence with my colleagues in the Government is concerned, I am quite prepared to put it side by side, looking at the results to our province, with the influence which the hon. member had with his colleagues in the Liberal Government. I shall say nothing further about that. I do not think the expression was worthy of my hon. friend, and I think he must regret having made it. At all events, it gives the impression to this House and to the country that in uttering such words the hon. gentleman is more desirous of making political capital against me than he is of assisting the constituency of the city of St. John.


William Pugsley: I am sorry I offended
my hon. friend. My misfortune is that whenever I state facts with regard to my hon. friend's position and apparent ' influence in the Government, I am liable to offend him. I am sorry for that. The reason I made the statement was because we have had such abundant evidence that my hon. friend does not seem to have the influence with his colleagues which he ought to have and which I think he is entitled to have, not only by reason of his great ability and strong personality, but by reason of has representing a constituency of the importance of St. John. My hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) contrasts his influence with his colleagues with my own, but of course, the public must judge as to that.
It would not do for me to say as to whether or not I had much influence with my colleagues, but we have this evidence to-day from the mouth of my hon. friend, that in the case of the improvements at Courtenay bay, even although the contract was not let until he came into office, he simply followed out to the letter what I, as Minister of Public Works, had planned and arranged for when the late Government was in power. That shows, at all events, that I must have had some little influence so far as my constituency is concerned. If my hon. friend will take other matters, such as the drill hall at St. John, the new post office, the wharves on the west side of the harbour, he will find that	all these works	are simply
being carried out as planned and laid down

by the late Government, when I was Minister of Public Works, and that appropriations had actually been made by Parliament for them then. If it were not that my hon. friend had the trail blazed for him, he would not have done much for the constituency he represents. He has nothing at all to which he can point with any degree of pride except work he has been carrying out in the way of completing what had been organized by the late Government.
My hon. friend says that I had called for tenders for a dock of 900 feet in length, and that therefore this Government is in no way responsible if it is too small to meet the requirements of the future. That is no excuse, because although I had called for tenders the present Government entered into the contract after they came into office. They were not obliged to do it, and they could have called for new tenders. My hon. friend knows very well that if he had not been able to say to his colleagues: you must do what the Liberal Government has planned out with regard to the port St. John, he could not have accomplished what had been planned for him and the carrying out of which had been made so easy for him. Does my hon. friend approve of extending the dry-docks to 1,150 feet or does he not? The people of St. John want to know this as they want to know about the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement. Since my hon. friend says I insult him when I say he has no influence with the Government, let me ask him if he was an approving party to that Gutelius-Bosworth agreement. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that at the last session of Parliament the Postmaster General asked this Parliament for an appropriation of $1,000,000 for the purpose of providing for an Atlantic steamship service, and he said that amount would be divided between six fast steamers, I think: the Calgarian, the Alsatian, the two Empresses, and the two ships of the Royal Line. The Postmaster General said then that there would be an open door, that iSt. John and Halifax would be placed upon an equality, that there would be no preference given either port and that the Government would see to it that each port should be given absolutely fair play. The people of St, John relied with confidence upon that assurance and believed that they would get fair play. That went on until the time came for the steamship lines to chose the ports for their winter service, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, through their officials, had a list of sailings published which showed that the Empresses
were to come to the port of St. John last winter. Tenders were called for from the grocers of St. John to supply these steamers, and the longshoremen were expecting the work to come to them as in previous years. But all at once came an announcement that the programme had been changed-that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had not previously been able to make a satisfactory arrangement for the bringing of freight and passengers over the Intercolonial railway between Halifax and St. John, but that they had now made an arrangement and were going to have the steamers stop at the port of Halifax. The result of that arrangement was that, during the present year, of the mail steamers, the Empresses and faster steamers of the Allan liners stopped at the port of Halifax. There was great indignation on the part of the people of St. John when they learned of that larrangement some weeks before it was -to go into effect; and they called upon my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, as their representative, to prevent that contract from going into effect. They were told that it had not yet been signed by the Minister of Railways, and that therefore it had not at that time received the sanction of the Government. They pressed in the strongest way possible my hon. friend to secure justice and fair-play for the port of St. John. Did my hon. friend do so? He did not. Had he influence with his colleagues which would have enabled him to do justice? He in effect says that he had. He in effect tells this committee that they may well believe that he is a gentleman of large influence with his colleagues, and that therefore he can get whatever in reason he may ask of them. Did he ask them not to allow that contract to go into force, which my hon. friend must have believed to be a discrimination of the very worst character against the port of St. John? Did he ask his colleagues to prevent that outrage from being perpetrated against the port of St. John? I belive that he must have done so. If he had that great influence, which he wants us bo believe he had then and has now with his colleagues-and I would really like to see him have all the influence possible, because he would then be able to do good for the port of fit. John-to induce them to do what he thought reasonable and fair, then the only inference is that he did not seek to bring any influence to bear upon the Government, and that this contract was entered into and carried into effect with the full approval of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

I have not been able to be present very much during this session of Parliament; but I have watched the newspapers with interest in the hope that I might ascertain the views of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries with regard to that contract, if he had any views upon the subject at all. He was challenged by my hon. friend from Carleton (Mr. Gar-vell), to state his views with regard to it. I have not observed that he has done so. I venture to say that my hon. friend believed that that contract was discriminatory against the port of St. John, and that it was an outrage upon the people of that enterprising city. We in St. John want no discrimination against our sister port; of Halifax, whose enterprise and energy we admire; but we want and we demand fair play, and when we have a representative in the Government, we expect him to demand fair play and justice for the constituency which he represents. Yet my hon. friend wil not venture to tell this committee that that was a just and equitable contract so far as the port of St. John was concerned. He knows it was not; he knows it was discriminatory; he knows that, after the Postmaster General said that the doors should be opened and that mo favouritism should be shown to either port, the Government, of which he is a member, through the Department of Railways and Canals, acting through the general manager of the Government railways, made a bargain with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company which induced them to stop their steamers at the port of Halifax and to change the arrangement which they had consummated for bringing those steamers to the port of St. John. He knows that, under that arrangement, passengers and freight were carried between the city of Halifax and the city of St. John at one-fifth, or perhaps even less than that, of the usual charges against the ordinary shipper of freight over that railway and against the ordinary passenger using that railway. I challenge my hon. friend to state to-day that that was a reasonable and fair contract; that it did not discriminate against the port of St. John. My hon. friend surely cannot say, what he said to the people of St. John as long ago as October last, namely, that he had not looked into the matter and that he could not say whether or not it was discriminatory, because it was his duty as a representative 
of the city of St. John to look into the matter carefully and ascertain whether or not it was discriminatory. If my hon. friend thought it was discriminatory-and he knew of the matter weeks before the arrangement came into force-then he must accept either one or the other of these two positions. He must say either that, knowing of this contract which was unfair and discriminatory and unjust to his constituents, he did not intercede with his colleagues in order to prevent it from going into effect, or that he did intercede bub that he had not influence enough with his colleagues to prevent this injustice from being consummated. If my hon. friend has the great influence with his colleagues which he in effect says he has, which I would like to see him have, it cannot be that he interceded unsuccessfully. Therefore we are driven to the other alternative, that my hon. friend, knowing of this contract weeks before it went into effect, and knowing its injustice and discriminatory character against the port of St. John, did not think it worth while to go to the trouble of interceding with his colleagues. I do not know which to believe. I hate to say that my hon. friend has not the influence, in view of what he has told the committee; and I hate to think for a moment that my hon. friend, knowing that this blow was about to fall upon the constituency which he represents, would not go to the trouble of interviewing his colleagues and pointing out clearly to them the discriminatory nature of the contract and the injustice! which was being inflicted on the people of the city of St. .John by it.


John Douglas Hazen: I ought perhaps to apologize to the committee for taking up their time in replying to the remarks of my hon. friend, considering that the committee are engaged in considering a Bill of very great importance, because it is possible that they are not very much interested in the political screed which has just been delivered by my hon. friend for simply one purpose, namely, to attempt to make party capital in the constituency from which we both come. I should have thought, did I not know the hon. gentleman so well, that a parliamentarian of his experience and standing would not have thought it necessary to put into my mouth words and statements which I never used. Knowing him so well, however, I know that there is no more unfair opponent in debate anywhere ; and I am not surprised at his quoting

me as saying things which I did not say, and which a reference to ' Hansard,' in which my remarks will appear side by side with his, will make it abundantly clear that I have never said.
Now, the hon. gentleman has referred to what he has done for the constituency of St. John. In the city of St. John the hon. gentleman is known as ' the great promiser.' The hon. gentleman was very strong in promise, but very shy in fulfilment. He was especially strong in promise on the eve of a general election. Although he was for years in the Government, he can hardly point to a public work in St. John, with the exception of the armoury, on which work was commenced during the time he was in office. In 1908, before the elections, he came down to St. John with plans for building a great harbour in Courtenay bay. He stated that if he wa<s elected in 1908, within twelve months thereafter ships of ten thousand tons and over would be sailing into Courtenay bay. But when we came to the elections of 1911 not a single blow had been struck. If he possessed the influence he would have us believe he had, how was it he did not get the contract signed for Courtenay bay before the election? Everything shows us that it was owing to the fact that he could not persuade his colleagues to sign that contract. Everybody knows how anxious he was to start that work. Tenders had been received. Why was it, with his position and influence with his colleagues, that he was unable to get that contract entered into before the general elections of 1911? It had to wait until the present Government came into power; and judging by my hon. friend's record in promise and fulfilment, I have no doubt it would have waited many, many months and years if there had not been a change of government and if I had not come back as representative of the city and county of St. John. Let me tell him, when he talks of public opinion in St. John, that that is what public opinion in St. John believes.
What else did he do? He talks about the mail contracts and about protecting the interests of St. John. I should think he would be ashamed to refer, either in this Parliament or anywhere else, to the mail contract and his connection with it. During all the years when the hon. gentleman was in Parliament as minister of the Crown he never insisted upon having the port of St. John placed upon the same level as the port of Halifax as to the receiving and sending of mail. It was 259
not until after the present Administration came into power that a fair opportunity was given to St. John to handle mails, because under the contract entered into by my hon. friend's Government from year to year, the mails had to be taken on and had to be discharged at Halifax, St. John being made a sort of way-port, the vessels coming from Halifax to St. John, going back from St. John to Halifax, taking on the mails there and sailing with them across the water. Since the present Administration came into power, for the first time in the history of Canada and of St. John, the port of St, John has been placed in an equal position with Halifax so far as carrying the mails is concerned. Last winter we had regular sailings into and out of the port of St. John, carrying the mails inward and taking the mails from Canada across the Atlantic. Had the hon. gentleman remained in power, the old state of affairs would no doubt have continued, no choice being given to the contractors, they not being allowed the slightest discretion, but compelled by the Government and the contract made under the Government to take these mails at Halifax and to discharge the mails at Halifax. Therefore it is, that I say that I am astonished that my hon. friend, having regard to his own record in this matter, should have the temerity to bring this subject before the House to-day with a view to making capital out of it. He knows that last winter was the first opportunity the port of St. John has had to show whether it could compete with other great mail ports on the Atlantic or not. The hon. gentleman has referred to the Gutelius-Bosworth agreement. Again I am surprised at his temerity. What was the action of the Board of Trade of St. John in regard to that. They asked that the agreement should be referred to the Railway Commission of Canada to determine whether it was or was not a fair agreement from a railway standpoint or not, and whether it was discriminatory to the port of St. John or not. The Government acceded to that request at once. The Railway Commission of Canada has been willing at any time to take up that matter for consideration. The Board of Trade of St. John retained counsel, one of whom was my hon. and learned friend, to present their case before the Railway Commission. And-will you believe it, Mr. Chairman-though retained by the Board of Trade of St. John, from that day down to the present hour my hon. friend, whether acting under their directions or

not, I do not know, has never taken the matter before the railway commissioners with a view to having the determination of the commission upon it? Whether that agreement, from a railway standpoint, was a proper agreement or not, is not for me to say. That is to be determined by men who are experts in railway matters. I could very easily come to a conclusion with regard to the matter, but would my conclusion be of value? It is a question for railway experts, for men like the railway commissioners, whose business it is to deal with matters of this kind. Mr. Gutelius, the general manager of the Intercolonial railway, entered into an arrangement, not to give running rights to the Canadian Pacific railway over the Intercolonial railway, but to haul the Canadian Pacific railway cars over the tracks of the Intercolonial railway between St. John and Halifax at certain rates. Had these been two railway companies, one company or the other would have gone to the Railway Commission and asked that the terms should be imposed upon what rights of this sort might be given. That not being the position, an agreement was entered into between Mr. Gutelius and Mr. Bosworth as to rates. As I say, the Government is perfectly willing that this should be submitted to the Railway Commission, and yet there has been no authoritative finding on it up to the present time. But whether these rates were justifiable from a railway standpoint or not, whether they are high enough to give a proper profit to the Intercolonial railway or not, this fact remains, that they are far, far higher than the rates agreed upon by the Government of which my hon. friend was a member with the Canadian Northern railway for the hauling of traffic from the city of Quebec to the city of Halifax. The figures on that point have been given to this House time and time again, and it is not necessary for me to take up the time of the House in referring to them now.
I do not think it will be necessary for me to trespass further on the time of the House. I do not propose to enter into a controversy with my hon. friend as to whether he possessed more influence with the Government of which he was a member than I possess with the Government of which I am a member. I can only say that my relations with my colleagues have been of the most friendly character, and have always found my colleagues willing to pay attention to any suggestions I have

ever made. As to the result of any influence which he possessed and which I possess, apart from the larger question affecting the general policy of the country, that is a matter, I repeat, which I am willing to leave to our constituents and to fight out before them when the proper time comes. But I might refer to the fact that a few years ago he was interviewed by the merchants of the city of St. John, the city council and the board of trade to have conveyors constructed from the elevator of the Canadian Pacific railway to the wharfs of the harbour, so that there might be better facilities for handling grain in the port, and he was unable to accomplish what the people so anxiously wished in that direction. The matter was taken up with me again last year, and the result is that these conveyers have been constructed by the Government of Canada and very great facilities have thereby been added to the means by which grain can be handled in the port and harbour of St. John. As to my hon. friend's position, my reference to it was based not un my own authority but on the authority of a gentleman occupying a very high official position in the city of St. John, a gentleman recently elected again by the public to the high position which he occupies, and who made the statement in public before a large delegation when this matter was being considered.


William Pugsley: Who is the gentleman?


John Douglas Hazen: The mayor of St. John, Mr. Frink. In view of those facts I think that my hon. friend should not try to enter into a discussion before this committee which can be neither edifying nor instructive to hon. members of the House, concerning matters which are largely of local import to our constituents. I. certainly would not have entered upon the discussion if my hon. friend had not done so. He himself brought it on by asserting that I had no influence with my colleagues in the Government. Having made the assertion himself, my hon. friend must not feel offended-and he spoke with a feeling and a passion that seldom characterizes his language in this House-must not be offended, I say, if I simply reply in kind. I repeat that he himself is responsible for bringing up this matter, which is one of merely local import and which we will both have an opportunity of discussing in the future before those to whom we are responsible for our seats in Parliament.


The CHAIRMAN:: I am afraid the discussion is going far from the item under consideration.


William Pugsley: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that I have a right to reply briefly to what my hon. friend has said. My hon. friend is wrong in saying that this is purely a local matter; a matter of local interest. I think the question whether or not a department of the Government should discriminate against any one city or any one community or any one province in the operation or management of the Intercolonial railway, which is owned by the people of Canada, is a national matter.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman knows that I did not refer to that as a local matter; what I referred to as a local matter was his charge that I did not possess as much influence with the Government of the country as the hon. gentleman did with his colleagues. My hon. friend is starting out by misrepresenting what I said.


William Pugsley: I never stated that the hon. gentleman did not possess as much influence with his colleagues as I did with mine; it was the hon. gentleman himself who made the comparison.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman is misrepresenting the facts again. I made no comparison; the hon. gentleman himself brought that subject before the committee.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has an
air of sincerity and truthfulness that is likely to impress those who observe him when he makes these assertions. But I wish to ask my hon. friend if, after I said that he 'does not seem to possess that influence with his colleagues which he ought to, he was not the first one to suggest that he would be willing to compare his influence with his colleagues with the influence which I had with my colleagues? It was the hon. gentleman himself who first sought to make the comparison. I am altogether too modest a man to suggest for a single moment that I had anything like the influence *with my colleagues that the hon. gentleman ought to be able to exercise, by reason of his commanding ability and his high standing in the Conservative party. My hon. friend says that I spoke with heat. I did, Mr. Chairman; I spoke with heat because of the indignation among the people of my constituency at the way in which they have been treated. Personally, I suppose it does not make any difference to me, except that I am a citizen of Canada, whether an in-259i
justice is meted out to any portion of the people of Canada or not; but I have to speak for my constituency, as representing the port of St. John, and I cannot help it if my hon. friend feels that something is getting him on the raw. It is my duty to speak for my constituency, and my hon. friend afforded me the first opportunity which I had of speaking about the Bosworth-Gutelius agreement. We are in this position that, after many months, my hon. friend rises in his place as a member of the Government and a representative of the constituency of St. John, and says that he really does not know whether or not that agreement was discriminatory against the port of St. John; that Mr. Gutelius says it was not, and what Mr. Gutelius says goes.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman knows that I said nothing of the sort.


William Pugsley: That is the effect of what the hon. gentleman said.


John Douglas Hazen: Not at all.


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend know that when the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, through its officials, advertised a list of sailings for the port of St. John, they did it under the then existing tariff arrangements with the Government railways? Does he not know that they said in effect that they would not go to Halifax but that they would go direct to St. John unless, so far as they were concerned, a more favourable arrangement was made? Does he not know that the Government, through Mr. Gutelius, made an arrangement more favourable than before, altering the tariff altogether so far as they were concerned, and that under the new and favourable arrangement which the Government made with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company they decided to abandon the port of St. John so far as their fast mail steamers were concerned and go to the port of Halifax? Is that not discrimination? I do not care whether the Intercolonial made five cents or five dollars a day out of this. The fact is that they changed the tariff upon the Intercolonial railway in order to induce the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to turn down the port of St. John. That was the object of it; that was the effect of it. They gave this tariff agreement to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company in respect of freight and passengers upon the mail steamers which made their terminus at Halifax. Under that

agreement, if, after landing the mail, the steamers were to go on to the port of St. John and discharge their freight, this agreement would not apply to them. It was only in case they discriminated in that way against the port of St. John that they would have the benefit of this remarkable agreement which the Government through Mr. Gutelius entered into with them. I regret that my hon. friend has misled the committee in a very important particular; that is, with regard to the determination of this matter by the Board of Railway Commissioners. My hon. friend says that the Board of Trade made a request to the Government to submit that agreement to the Board of Railway 'Commissioners and he says that the Government readily acceded to the request. Does not my hon. friend know that before the Board of Railway Commissioners could take that up at all the matter would have to be submitted to	them	by	the Minister ofRailways?	Does	not	my hon.	friendknow that he promised the people of St. John	that	the	agreement	wouldbe submitted to	the	Minister of	Railways, and is it not true that from that day to this the Minister of Railways has not submitted the agreement to the Board of Railway Commissioners? Does he not know also that I was appointed counsel on behalf of the city of St. John, together with the .recorder, to plead the case of the city of St. John before the Board of Railway Commissioners? Does he not know-and if he does not know I will tell him-that I communicated with the law clerk of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and asked him - if the agreement had been submitted; that he replied that it had not and that I asked him to advise me when it was submitted in order that I might take the matter up with the Board of Railway Commissioners? Never from that day to this did I, though I was the senior counsel on behalf of the city, receive any communication from the Board or from the Government or any information that the agreement had been submitted to the Railway Commission.


John Douglas Hazen: The chairman of the
board, Mr. Drayton, told me that he was willing to appoint a time to take that up, whenever an application was made to him, and no such application was made.


John Dowsley Reid: And he was notified accordingly.


William Pugsley: But does not my hon.
friend know that the initiative would have to be taken to the Minister of Railways?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


William Pugsley: And does he not know that he telegraphed to the people of St. John, to the Board of Trade, that the Minister of Railways would submit the agreement to the Board of Railway Commissioners?


John Dowsley Reid: I think the Minister of Railways notified the Chairman of the Railway Commission that he was prepared-, at any time the member for St. John wished, to take it up.


William Pugsley: I never was so informed; I made application in due form as senior cousel of the board, but never was informed that it had been submitted. I was informed of the promise to submit it, but never that it had been submitted. But what took place further at the Board of Trade when we had the pleasure of meeting the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Marine? I rose there and asked that the agreement should be submitted to the board. That was some fifteen days or so before the agreement went into effect. I asked also that its operation might be stayed until the Board of Railway Commissioners could decide the question. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in answer to my inquiries, made the statement that no matter what the Board of Railway Commissioners would decide, that agreement would become effective on the 15th of November and remain in force until the 15th of May. Is that true or is it not true?


John Douglas Hazen: That statement is substantially true.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member is certainly aware that the Railway Department were prepared, at any time he wished, to have that agreement taken into consideration by the Railway Commission.


William Pugsley: Certainly the Minister
of Railways took a strange way of letting me know, by keeping absolutely silent on the subject and never communicating with me.


Mr. MORPHY:: Did the hon. gentleman ever ask for an appointment, for a hearing by the Railway Commission?


William Pugsley: Yes, in this way-


Hugh Boulton Morphy: At a certain time?


William Pugsley: I communicated with the law clerk of the board asking if the minister had submitted the agreement and asking to be advised immediately of its being sub-

mitted; and from that day to this I have never heard from the Minister of Railways upon the subject.


John Douglas Hazen: All the hon. gentleman had to do was to apply and ask them to fix a day for hearing discussion on that agreement, and they would have fixed it at once.


Mr. GRAHAM :: Under the statute, the Board of Railway Commissioners has no power over this agreement, and the only way it could have been brought to the Board of Railway Commissioners was by a voluntary ^commitment with that board by the Government.


John Dowsley Reid: That was done too.


John Douglas Hazen: The Board of Railway Commissioners, it was understood, could not jlegally be called upon to do it. The Minister of Railways communicated with Mr. Drayton and asked him if the board would take it up and give a decision on it. Mr. Drayton expressed his willingness to do so; the Board of Trade of St. John were informed of his willingness to do it, and all that they had to do was to apply to him to name a day and a day would have been fixed, i


William Pugsley: Surely the Minister of Railways ought to have submitted the agreement to the board and asked the board to decide the matter, and then, in the ordinary course, the Board of Railway Commissioners would have notified the counsel.


John Douglas Hazen: Who was asking that this
should be submitted? It was not the Minister of Railways who was asking for the submission, it was the Board of Trade of St. John. The Minister of Railways got Mr. Drayton to consent that he would take) it up if an application was made for the purpose; and surely it was the business cf the Board of Trade to make the application.


William Pugsley: The Board of Trade was not a party to the agreement; the city of St. John was not a party to the agreement. The city of St. John was complaining of the agreement as being unjust to it and asked the Government to have the minister submit it to the Board of Railway Commissioners. They were assuming that the minister would submit it to the board. The minister, as far as I have been informed, did not lay it before the board or submit it to them. That is the only way this agreement could have got there. More than that, at the meeting of the Board of Trade in St. John, some two or three weeks before
the agreement was to come into effect, the Minister of Marine, in answer to my inquiry, made the astonishing -statement to the Board of Trade that no matter what the Board of Railway Commissioners might-decide as to its discriminatory character or otherwise, the agreement would go initio effect on the 15th of November and remain in force until its date of expiry, the 15th of May. That statement was made by the Minister of Marine as the minister now admits. We were making a reasonable appeal to the minister. We claimed that this agreement was unjust and discriminatory in its character; and the whole of the people of Canada were interested in it because it was proposing to use one of the great departments of the Government by way of discrimination against an -important sec-, tion of the people of Canada, and it was proposed to do this at the expense of the people of Canada. We asked that the operation of that agreement be suspended until after the Board of Railway Commissioners had decided; we were willing to argue it! before the board at any moment; but in the meantime we asked to have its operation suspended.. To our astonishment and utter amazement, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries said: No, the agreement goes into effect on the 15th of November, no matter what decision may be come to by the board, and it will remain in effect during the term of its operation.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Did the hon. member
ever make any complaint in writing of the lack of submission, or did he ask for an appointment in writing i.n- order that this matter should be heard?


William Pugsley: What took place is
exactly as I have stated. I -have stated fully what took place, and I think it is unnecessary to state -anything further. With regard to the influence of my hon. friend, far be it from me to detract for a moment from the position which my hon. friend has taken, that he has strong influence with his colleagues. I am prepared to believe he has.


John Douglas Hazen: I never said so. I said I left that to our constituents to determine.


William Pugsley: But my hon. friend said he had stronger influence with his colleagues than I had with -mine, because he was willing to compare the two. That must be because the result of the comparison would be that he had a greater influence

than I ever had with my colleagues. I hold the Minister of Railways responsible for what Mr. Gutelius did. No head of a department can shelter himself behind his deputy or his chief official and say the deputy did so and so, or my chief official did so and so; under our system the minister must take the responsibility. If I had been a member of the Government, and the Department of Railways were proposing to enter into an agreement which I believed to he unjust to any portion of Canada, particularly to my own constituency, I would have made a pretty good kick before I would have allowed it to go into effect; 'and if my kick had not been effectual I would have said to my colleagues: I cannot become a party to or responsible for the wrong which you propose perpetrating upon a portion of the people of Canada; I will hand back my seat to the people who sent me here, and see what they will say about it; I will not remain for a single moment in a Government which proposes to do injustice of that character. That is what I would have done. My hon. friend, however, does not seem to have felt it necessary to take that course.
My hon. friend says: Look at St. John and see how the late Minister of Public Works made promises which he never performed. If you go to St. John, you will see that with the exception of a little wharf upon the west side of the harbour to be used as a depot for the Department of Marine and Fisheries, every other work which has been going on there since my hon. friend became minister is work which was planned out and authorized by Parliament before the present Government came into office. That speaks louder than any words of either my hon. friend or myself.


John Douglas Hazen: That is not so.


William Pugsley: I did make the way
easy for my hon. friend. My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works came down to St. John and said that we had undertaken the Courtenay bay work too soon. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who now takes credit to himself for the Courtenay bay work, knows that Dr. Daniel, the late member. for St. John, said that Pugsley had planned out work which would take fifty years to accomplish. Judging by the slowness with which the present Government is going on with the railway terminals about Courtenay bay I think that they are trying to make

true the prediction of Dr. Daniel and that it will certainly take fifty years to accomplish the work planned out. They got Parliament to vote last year the money for the spur line to Courtenay bay but they have not turned a sod, they have not spent a dollar and all about the head of Courtenay bay, where the Grand Trunk Pacific four years ago, bought land for the purpose of going ahead with their terminals, is as silent as a graveyard, not a thing being done and my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, with his self-complacency, allows this state of affairs to continue. Notwithstanding the approach to completion of the line in the West, we find that not a thing is being done in regard to the terminals of the Grand Trunk Pacific in St. John and, I believe, the same is the case in the other eastern provinces of Canada.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Like Quebec.


William Pugsley: Like Quebec; it is on a par with their policy of degrading the Grand Trunk Pacific east of Cochrane. They seem to be wanting to bring some sort of lethargy, if not disaster, to the Grand Trunk Pacific in order to carry out some idea that they may have in their brains but what it is the people of Canada do not know. I will warn my hon. friend that the people of St. John are arriving at a stage when they will not stand very much more of the treatment which they are receiving from my hon. friend without protest.
At one o'clock the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at three o'clock.


William Pugsley: I am sorry the Minister of Marine is not present now, as I have a few observations to make in reply to his last statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Does not the hon. gentleman think I have been generous enough in allowing the debate to travel so wide of the question before the House?


William Pugsley: You have been so generous that I know you will not prevent me adding a few more remarks.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. gentleman try to make them brief?


William Pugsley: I will be very short.
The Minister of Marine said he thought I ought to be ashamed to refer to the Atlantic mail contract, because he said that the first time the port of St. John had been given

an opportunity to show its capability as a winter port was during last winter. While the Government, through the Department oi the Postmaster General, said that the dooT would be wide open, through the Department of Railways and Canals it took every possible opportunity of closing the door in the face of the people of St. John. By pretending to give an open door it in reality closed it up by reason of this iniquitous arrangement which was made by the Government through Mir. Gutelius, with the Canadian Pacific railway. Further, my hon. friend (Mr. Hazen) said that no doubt had the Liberal party remained in power the old arrangement would have continued. That old arrangement, was inaugurated in 1896, after the Government led by Sir Wilfrid Laurier came into power, and all the mail steamers were obliged to make their winter terminus at St. John. Before that time they had been allowed to nun to Portland, Maine. Notwithstanding the protests made over and over again by the people of St. John, the Conservative Government allowed Portland, Miaine, to be the terminus of the Atlantic, steamers-. When the Liberal party came into power there was a change and the mail steamers were compelled to make their termini at Canadian ports.


Mr. PELLETIER:: That existed before.


William Pugsley: No. Before that they had stopped at Halifax and gone on to' Portland, and the Minister of Marine will have the unhappy recollection of remembering that in 1896, after years of agitation, the people of St. John made up their minds they would not allow this injustice to continue any longer, and my hon. friend went down to defeat.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend knows that was not the reason.


William Pugsley: It was.


John Douglas Hazen: No.


William Pugsley: What was it?


John Douglas Hazen: The remedial school legislation had caused the hon. gentleman to run as an independent candidate, in order to split the Conservative vote; my hon. friend then belonged to the Conservative party.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend knows perfectly well that the chief thing which then agitated the people of St. John was the injustice they laboured under, and they were getting tired of it. il remember that
at one time, when the present Minister of Trade and Commerce represented King's County, several gentlemen spoke against this injustice which was being perpetrated upon the people of Canada, of allowing these subsidized mail steamers to go to a foreign port, and the Minister of Trade and Commerce said that it was a small thing for people to make a row about insinuating that it was rather beneath the dignity of the people of New Brunswick. That was what caused my hon. friend to go down to defeat.


John Douglas Hazen: No.


William Pugsley: Oh yes, there is no question about that. The people of St. John have the same feeling to-day as they had then; it will take a miracle to prevent my hon. friend going down to defeat again.


John Douglas Hazen: We will see when the time comes. I am quite sure I will get more votes than my hon. friend did in 1896.


William Pugsley: That is true, but in 1896 I was running with Mr. Hathaway, a good Conservative-


John Douglas Hazen: Not Mr. Hathaway.


William Pugsley: He was the president of the association under whose guidance we were running, but we were fighting for a cause in which we believed, and we were fighting between the two parties. We had a good many Liberals to support us and a good many Conservatives, more Conservatives than Liberals I should think, but these same 1,400 men are watching my hon. friend to-day and they remember how badly he acted towards St. John in 1896.


John Douglas Hazen: That is a very cheap remark.


William Pugsley: Which one?


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman knows.


William Pugsley: I am not aware of having made a cheap remark; it depends upon the viewpoint. My hon. friend thinks that any remark made in criticism of him or his Government is a cheap remark. During all these years the Liberals were in power the business of the port of St. John kept growing and as my hon. friend says, in all probability if the Liberal party had remained in power the same arrangement as to the steamers would have continued, and the result would be that both St. John and Halifax would have these great steamers coming into their ports. But with the change of Government, during the last winter port season, the exports of the

port of St. John fell away seven million dollars. That is the change of which my hon. friend seems to be so proud.


John Douglas Hazen: Is that what caused the fall in the exports from Boston?


William Pugsley: It is a fact that the exports fell away at St. John.


John Douglas Hazen: It is that which caused the fall in exports from Portland and Boston.


William Pugsley: I do not know anything about the exports falling away in the port of Boston. I know that the exports from Fort William and Port Arthur were greater than ever before in the history of_ Canada, and I do believe that that Canadian traflie should have found its way naturally to the seaport of St. John and the seaports of the Maritime provinces, and it is an extraordinary thing, in view of this immense increase in exports from the head of the lakes, that for the first time in the history of St. John as a winter port, the exports decreased to an enormous amount. If my hon. friend takes any pride in that he is welcome to it.


John Douglas Hazen: Does my hon. friend know that the large increase of $17,000,000 from the port of Montreal was due to the improved manner in which the railways last year handled the grain traffic from the West, as compared with the year before? The result was that millions of bushels of grain were brought out by the St. Lawrence route during the open season of navigation, that could not be brought out during the previous year because of the failure of the railways to handle the crop expeditiously. Therefore there was not as much grain left to be handled during the winter season as there was the season before.


William Pugsley: Does not my hon. friend know that the export of grain does not account for the decrease, and that there must have been a vast decrease in the package freight? At all events', the fact is that during the years the Liberal party was in power the business was increasing year after year from the Canadian ports, and the moment my hon. friend had an opportunity of dealing with the subject and made a change in the steamship service* the very first winter in which this change was effective the exports from the port of St. John fell away to the extent of $7,000,000.


John Douglas Hazen: Does my hon. friend think that the exports of St. John fell away because the Empresses went to Halifax and

the Canadian Northern steamers came to St. John?


William Pugsley: To my mind that would account to a very considerable extent as the Empresses carry large cargoes and the Royals are essentially passenger boats and carry very little cargo. More than that, the Empresses previously were working in harmony with the great Canadian Pacific Railway system at St. John, and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company brought in all the freight they possibly could to St. John for the purpose of its being shipped in the Empresses. It is a lamentable fact that, for the first time in the history of St. John as one of the winter ports of Canada, many longshoremen during a large portion of last winter were without employment. Among them are many of our best, our most industrious and deserving citizens; and for the first time since 1896, when the port of St. John was successfully started as a winter port by the Liberal Government-


John Douglas Hazen: By the Liberal Government?


William Pugsley: Yes, in 1897.


John Douglas Hazen: Oh, I am astonished.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has in mind a small subsidy of $25,000 which was given to the Beaver line previous to 1896, under circumstances which, I may say, did not reflect very much credit upon the Government which my hon. friend at that time was supporting. That was a very small and insignificant commencement; the real commencement was in 1897, after the Liberal Government came into power, when they cancelled the mail contracts for the service to Portland, Me., and when the mail steamers were obliged to come into the port of St. John. From that time on the progress of the port was great; its exports increased year after year, until, as I said, during the winter before last they were very large; but when this change took place, they fell off to the enormous extent of $7,000,000.
My hon. friend did not seem to like the criticism which I was directing towards him. I do not think it shows good judgment on the part of a member of the Government to complain of criticism. Hon. members are here for the purpose of criticising what they do not approve. It is riiy duty, as a representative of one of the constituencies of this country, to criticise where I find good reason for so doing, and in this particular case I have the best pos-

sible reason for criticising the conduct of the Government and that of my hon. friend as a member of the Government.
My hon. friend says that he almost felt inclined to pass over my remarks with silent contempt. Have I misquoted my hon. friend in that? Let me say that, for one who seriously thought my remarks deserving of silent contempt, my hon. friend has taken up a good deal of the time of the committee in endeavouring to make answer to them, particularly at a time when the Government are anxious for us to turn our faces away from them and to go to our homes so that they may avoid all criticism in Parliament, for some months at all events. No hon. member of the Government would venture to pass by the remarks of a member of this House with silent contempt. My hon. friend may have a great liking for treating protests with silent contempt. The people of St. John and their protests have been treated with silent con-tept by my hon. friend and by the members of this Government; but no member of this House and no member of the Government, unless he has a swelled head, would attempt to treat, with silent contempt and as unreasonable, criticism directed against the Administration of which he is a supporter. I would be sorry to think that my hon. friend, who was formerly reasonable, modest, gentlemanly and courteous, has such a swelled head as to render him unreasonable and discourteous. I will never fail in my duty as a member of this House in directing criticism against the department of my hon. friend, or against the Government, when I feel it is my duty to do so. My hon. friend, through his Government, has treated-I affirm it in the most positive manner-the people of St. John in a most unjust, unfair and indefensible manner. Since my hon. friend has been the representative of that constituency in this Government, he has taken away from St. John the opportunity afforded to it of becoming a great shipbuilding port. That is the first blow he struck at the port.. He has followed that up by the course which he allowed to be pursued with respect to the mail steamers. In respect to the suburban railway service into the city of St. John, the people have also been treated with silent contempt by my hon. friend and by his colleagues; but while I am a member of this House, I do not think that my hon. friend will venture to treat the remarks which I make with silent contempt, no matter how desirous he may be of so doing. He will find it necessary to answer the facts which I present.
He will endeavour to present ingenious and fallacious arguments in order to draw the attention of the House and the people of the country, and especially the people of his own constituency, away from the facts, but I do not think he can do so; and if I can prevent him, he will not be able to do so.


John Douglas Hazen: I feel I must again apologise for trespassing upon the time of the committee. The fault is not mine; it is the fault of the hon. member for St. John, and it must be attributed to the most extraordinary address which he has just delivered to the committee. I presume I ought to be very thankful to my hon. friend for this lecture which, from his exalted) wisdom, he has thought necessary to address to me in this Chamber, but I would like to inform my hon. friend that I have faced him too often and for too many years, not only in this Parliament but in another legislature, to be impressed by such remarks as he has just made, or to be influenced at all by the hon. gentleman's braggadocios and boasting as to what he has done for the constituency from which he comes.
My hon. friend has said that I stated that his remarks had better be treated with silent contempt. The hon. gentleman did not tell the whole truth. The remarks that I referred to when I stated that they had better be treated with silent contempt were not any arguments that my hon. friend advanced in regard to the city of St. John or the business of the country, but his personal references to myself, because I presumed that they were of no interest to the House. The hon. gentleman knows that; but, with the unfairness which the hon. gentleman always displays in debate, he twists that and says that I said his arguments regarding St. John had better be treated with silent contempt. The hon. gentleman knows that I said nothing of the sort. He knows that he has misrepresented me; that he has given to my remarks a meaning that they do not convey, and that he is twisting them into something that is not justified by what I said or by anything that has taken place in this House this afternoon. 1 must again express my surprise that a gentleman of his parliamentary experience should think it in good taste or good parliamentary manners or policy to endeavour to twist unfairly the remarks of a man who is discussing a serious question with him.
The hon. gentleman says I have treated with silent contempt the wishes of the peo-

pie of St. John. My hon. friend knows that that is not true. He knows that, in every matter in which St. John is interested, I have done my duty as its representative. He knows that no man in this House has been more zealous in the interest of his constituency than I have been in that of the constituency I represent now, or of the constituency I represented in another chamber. I can afford to throw back that statement in my hon. friend's face, and I say that it does not contain a single word of truth in regard to my conduct while I have been a member of Parliament or of The provinicial legislature.
My hon. friend always harks back to the election of 1896, although he does not refer to the part he played in that election. He at that time betrayed the party with which he had been associated for a good many years; for he had left the Liberal party to come to the Conservative, as he afterwards left the Conservative party to go back to the Liberals. In 1896 he was neither Liberal or Conservative; he was neither fish, flesh, fowl nor a good red herring. The hon. gentleman himself, talking to me here in Ottawa before the elections, told me that he saw no proper course for me to take but to support the Conservative party and its policy on the Remedial Bill. Yet the hon. gentleman in the city of St. John accepted the nomination from a branch of the Conservative party hostile to myself and to Mr. Chesley, because of our vote on the Remedial Bill, and ran as a candidate in opposition to that measure, not condemning the Conservative party, stating .on the hustings that he had no confidence in either party, and that he had no confidence in my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), under whom he afterwards served as a minister. [DOT]


William Pugsley: Not at all.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman denies it. I can produce-I think I can produce it -the report in a newspaper supporting him in that election, of a speech he made at the court house on nomination day, when he made that statement. I am making no statement now that I am not prepared to stand by. That was the statement of my hon. friend then. Now he harks back to 1896 and says I was defeated because the city of St. John was not satisfied with matters that had occurred in regard to the port. That was not the reason for my defeat. The hon. gentleman knows that the reason was the vote I gave in connection with the Remedial Bill. The hon. gentle-
man's own candidature was a protest against that action of mine, and he carried away from me, undoubtedly, a considerable wing of the Conservative party who, exercising the judgment they had a perfect right to exercise, did not approve my conduct in that matter and so voted against me.
The hon. gentleman refers to the fact that Mr. Frank Hathaway was the chairman of the committee under whose banner he was then running. That is true. But to-day I have no better supporter than Mr. Frank Hathaway; and I venture to say that there is not a gentleman in the city of St. John who knows Mr. Hathaway who will deny that that gentleman is deeply interested in matters affecting the port of St. John. To-day, as I have said, he is one of my warmest supporters and believes that I have done everything possible to advance the interests of the port. So, I do not think it does the hon. gentleman much good to bring forward Mr. Hathaway's name.
The hon. gentleman claims credit for developing the winter port business in St. John. The credit for that is due to the Conservative party, and while I do not wish to claim undue credit for myself, yet the fact is that the beginning of that movement was in the subsidy for a line of steamers from St. John to Liverpool, which my colleague and I were largely instrumental in obtaining. Certainly that was brought about when I represented the constituency, and very largely through my representation. From that beginning has followed the great business that has been built up in the years since thpn. When the Liberals came into power in 1896, the mail boats continued to run to Portland. The hon. gentleman has misunderstood my remarks, I think intentionally. What I said was that this is the first time St. John has had the opportunity to demonstrate that it is as good a port for the mail between Canada and Great Britain as any other Canadian port. For this is the first winter,
I think, in the history of St. John when the post office has delivered mails to steamers in St. John to be carried to Liverpool and other British centres, and has accepted mail from Liverpool, Bristol and other ports to be carried directly to St. John instead of having the business, as was the case under his Government, filtered through Halifax, when there were no direct sailings from St. John to the old country of steamers with mails. What has occurred this year has demonstrated that St. John

is able to hold its own in competition with other ports.
I have spoken because I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to make the statements, the absolute misrepresentations, he has made-that I have treated with contempt, or said that I could treat with contempt, arguments advanced by him in connection with the interests of St. John. He says, boastingly, that he will see to it that I shall not treat them with contempt. He [DOT]speaks as though I would be alarmed at the great and mighty man that he is. He must know me well enough by this time- we have opposed each other long enough- to know that I am not afraid of any argument that he may advance or any threat that he may make. I have been willing to meet him on fair terms, and am now, in this Parliament or any other; and I will not be deterred from doing what I consider to be my duty to my constituency, to my province, and to the country as a whole, as member and minister, by any remarks or braggadocio of my hon. friend. His statements are for campaign purposes in St.
. John and for nothing else, and for that he has taken up the time of the House. And he accuses me of taking up the time of the House. The hon. gentleman's coolness is something to admire, in view of the fact that he raised this question, and, when I responded to him very briefly, he started again introducing a lot of other matter entirely extraneous to the subject before the House, making it necessary for me to reply. Then he replied at great length. And, after all, he has what might be called the coolness-perhaps a stronger term might be used, but I will not use it-to charge that I have taken up the time of the House unnecessarily. For the time that has been unnecessarily taken up, the hon. gentleman, I think, must himself admit that he is responsible. I am not complaining of his taking up time as a member, for that is his right. But for some reason he thinks that political capital might be made against me by charging me with taking up time unnecessarily. That is not my custom, as I think hon. members will admit. I do not speak when there is no need of it, and, speaking, I generally confine my remarks to matters of my own department or my own province, matters in which I can give information to the House that will assist in the debate. So, I think the hon. gentleman's remarks in regard to myself taking up too much time are very unfortunate and
ill-natured, and especially unfortunate from a gentleman whose absence this session we have regretted but who, during the sessions he has been here, has occupied very often unnecessarily, more of the time of the House than almost any other member on either side.


William Pugsley: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am afraid that this whole discussion is out of order.


William Pugsley: But, Mr. Chairman, you did not call the minister to order,


John Douglas Hazen: I was replying to the hon. gentleman.


William Pugsley: But I commenced this
discussion, and under the amenities of debate, should have the final reply. My hon. friend has said that he will not be deterred by any remarks of mine from neglecting to do his duty. My only hope, Heaven knows, is, that he may be stirred up into doing his duty-that is all I ask. I want to put a little ginger into him; to stiffen his back; to put him in a better position to fight his colleagues who have ignored him. If I can strengthen him; give him greater vitality; make his voice stronger and his influence with the Government greater, so that justice will be done to the constituency he represents, nobody will be better pleased than I.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-1910, chapter 17, section 8 amended:
William F. Carroll: I have brought to the
attention of the Minister of Public Works my opinion that he is treating the matter of subsidies to dry-docks in a very small manner under this legislation. He takes out clause (a) of section 8 of the original Act of 1911 and amends it by giving to persons who put their money into first-class dry-docks the benefit of a 4 per cent rate. First-class dry-docks, mean, of course, dry-docks which aire first-class only because they have a larger capacity than those which are dealt with in clause (b) and (c) of that section, and I do not think that the minister is dealing fairly with the matter when he does not take in the whole of the sub-sections and give the same increase, 4 per cent, to the persons who put their money in dry-docks of the second and third-classes. He has said that there are no applications be-

lore his department for second and third-class dry-docks. If in any of our public harbours to-day a company were desirous of building a second-class dry-dock, which is a very large dry-dock and the most that many of our public harbours would be looking for, they would see that under this legislation they are allowed only 3 per cent. The minister has given us as a reason for introducing this amendment the fact that money is dearer, but money is no dearer to the builder of the first-class dry-dock than it is to the builder of the second-class dry-dock. If when making their applications they do not feel that they are going to get the 4 per cent subsidy, they may be deterred from taking action. The minister says that when applications come before him the law may be changed; I say that now is the proper time to change the law and to make it uniform in respect of the three classes of dry-docks which are anticipated by this law. I understand that application has been received from a company which has in view the building of a dry-dock in Sydney hairbour and obtaining a subsidy under the second clause of this section. There were two applications, one at the time the hon. member for the city of St. John was Minister of Public Works, in connection with the naval proposals of the then Government, and since that time another on a smaller scale, which would come within sub-section (b) of section 8 of the original Act. I say that a public Act should not be amended on the ground that there is pending an application for subsidies, under that Act. The law should be so amended that all persons interested in building dry-docks, whether of the first, second, or third class, should be put on an equal basis. It would be too late to amend the law after the applications were received, because persons who are desirous of putting their money into second and third class dry-docks will be deterred from making application if they are not sure whether or not there is going to be an amendment to the Act to bring them within the law as provided in the first section. The hon. minister may say that it is too late now to do this. If he feels that way about it, I would ask him to bring down an amendment at the first possible opportunity in order to make the law uniform. I am speaking generally for the ports of this country, where second and third class dry-docks would be a possibility, and where first class dry-docks might not 
be a possibility, but I have in mind especially the fact that the city of Sydney has voted 11,000,000 as a subsidy towards the building of dry-docks, and it would be an unfortunate thing if they should not have an opportunity of getting the same subsidy from this Government as any company which builds larger dry-docks in such places as British Columbia or in any of our larger harbours. The minister may have good intentions, and he may be in a position to say that he will arrange the matter if applications are received, but my hon. friend will not always be here, and his department should, when contemplating an amendment to any law, try to make it uniform in all particulars. I say again that if he thinks it would take too much time to send the resolution back this session and have it approved by the Governor in Council, he should at the earliest possible moment, at the next session of Parliament, bring down legislation to amend sub-sections (b) and (c) of section 8 of the original Act and make it conform with the amendment which he has now introduced.


Robert Rogers: I entirely appreciate the force of my hon. friend's argument. It is quite true that this amendment covers only the case of first-class dry-docks, and it is equally true that in view of the arguments that have been put forward to-day both by my hon. friend the member for North Grey and by the hon. member for South Cape Breton, perhaps it wbuld have been better if we had included the second and third class dry-docks as well. T can only say that it would be impossible for us to do this now under the present resolution, but I shall have the matter looked into so far as Sydney and Owen Sound are concerned, and if there is any possibility of there being applications in respect of dry-docks at those ports during the present summer, I will come down with a further clause to extend this provision to second and third-class dry-docks, because I quite agree that they are just as much entitled to it as are the first-class dry-docks. If no applications are liable to be received, I think we can reasonably depend upon such legislation being brought down at the next sitting of Parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to, and Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 193, to amend the Act respecting the

national battlefields at Quebec-Hon. W. T. White; Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 3-approval of Parliament:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend with him the plans of the work which has been done by the commission ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am informed that the plans are in the department and that they have been approved by the Governor in Council. I understand that the right hon. leader of the Opposition wished to know the reason for the change in clause 3. I shall submit to the House the memorandum sent by Sir George Garneau, president of the commission, giving the reasons for these changes. The memorandum reads: Quebec, January 3, 1913.
To the Hon. W. T. White,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. White,-
As explained in a conversation which I had with you a short time ago in Ottawa, the work of the National Battlefields Commission has been seriously hampered by the necessity of having to ask the approval of the Governor in Council at almost every step, even in matters of administration which could be handled more advantageously to the public interest if the commission had more discretionary power.
In the acquiring of lands for the park, after Parliament has specified the properties that may be acquired, it is particularly important that the commission should be enabled to act promptly so as to guard against the speculative increase of values which is the almost inevitable result of prospective acquirement of lands for public purposes. The commission has suffered seriously from this in the past.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Justice Audette, of the Exchequer Court of Canada, before whom a number of expropriation cases for the commission were heard last April, expressed the opinion on the Bench to the effect that he realized, under the Act as it now stood, that the commission was placed under a serious disadvantage in discussing prices with owners of land, owing to the fact that it could not conclude a purchase on terms which would be deemed very satisfactory without submitting the amount arrived at to the Governor in Council before the whole matter could be finally adjusted.	.
The obligation under which the commission is to submit to the Governor in Council the amount of a tender considered fair and just, after having investigated for their information the value of the land, does not give the commissioners that untrammelled power conducive to produce good results, it is not consistent with good business acumen. It involves procrastination, want of finality at the time the offer is made, and necessarily fails to achieve anything satisfactorily. An offer made to-day might not be approved by the Governor in Council for months and months, m the meantime the property goes up in value, the owner changes his mind and asks for a higher price. This of course may be renewed ad infinitum until the matter is forced into court.
Those are the main reasons given by Sir George Garneau, as chairman of the commission, for these changes. Further on he explains the matter from another point of view. He says:
I beg to submit to you, herewith, two drafts of amendments, approved by the commission at a sitting held on the 18tli of November last and which the commission thinks it is desirable to make to its charter (7-8 Edward VII., chapter 57), these amendments being calculated to do away with or, at least, to minimize the inconveniences found to result from the necessity of constantly referring to Ottawa before any of its projects can be carried out.
Under the first draft, the commission would only be required to have inuicated by Parliament the land it might acquire, and, then, it could go on with its operations to the extent of the funds at its disposal.
Considering the fact that these funds come from various sources, it seems reasonable that the commission should have authority to spend them for the attainment of its objects without being subjected to have each detail specially authorized by Parliament or by the Government. I understand that Parliament would not wish the commission to undertake anything which might involve expenditures not provided for, but this objection disappears by restricting the commission, as the first draft proposes, to the expenditure of money actually at its disposal.
The National Battlefields Commission strongly recommends that its charter be amended as per the first of the drafts here submitted; however, should it not be found advisable or possible to obtain an amendment along the lines of this first draft, it then recommends the acceptance of the second draft.
Under the provisions of the latter, the lands to be acquired would still have to be determined by Parliament, and the commission could make expenditures only to the extent of the funds actually at its disposal. The works of improvement, of construction or other upon the lands acquired could be proceeded with only after the approval, by the Government, of the plans and descriptions thereof and, naturally, the Government would be entitled, before giving its approval, to require such information concerning the proposed expenditure as it might deem fit. The commission would be only obliged to submit the plans and get them approved unless the Government expressly asked for further information. As to everything else, within the purview of the commission's charter, it would be invested with full authority to act without any special reference to Parliament or to the Government.
I am passing over a paragraph which refers more particularly to clause 4 of the Bill, which I may read when we come to that clause. The conclusion of the memorandum is as follows:
These additional powers are evidently necessary and I do not foresee that any objections could be made to their being granted.
I earnestly hope that you will feel justified in strongly recommending these amendments to the acceptance of the Government and that the commission will be given the powers necessary

to carry out successfully what it considers a great public trust.
Believe me,
Tours very sincerely,
(Sgd) J. Geo. Garneau,
Chairman N.B.C.
I may inform the right hon. leader of the Opposition' that it is the second draft submitted by Sir George Garneau that we have accepted. We thought that there was more guarantee under it from the public point of view, and the idea of the second draft has been accepted with some rearrangement as to form which the law officers thought right. But we have kept this idea, and it is embodied in the Bill now before the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The whole
object of the amendment contained in this clause is to remove the control of Parliament which was put in the statute when it was passed in 1908. Section 10 of the statute reads as follows:
No land or immovable property shall be purchased or acquired by the commission except with the previous authority of Parliament, and no expenditure shall be made by the commission until it has been approved by Parliament.
The amendment seeks to eliminate the last sentence:
No expenditure shall be made by the commission until it has been approved by Parliament.
Subsection 2 is as follows:
The commission shall, before entering upon any work of improvement or construction, or any other work involving the expenditure of money upon the lands taken or acquired under the authority of this Act, cause to be prepared plans of the proposed works showing locations, and submit the said plans for the approval of the Governor in Council, and the commission shall furnish such further descriptions or information to the Governor in Council as are required ; and no such works shall be proceeded with until approved by the Governor in Council ; and in like manner plans of the museum or any building to be erected within the park shall be subject, before the commencement of the work of building, to the approval, of Parliament.
The clause that it is now sought to insert in the Act in substitution of that reads as follows:
No expenditure shall be made and no liabilities shall be incurred by the commission until funds sufficient to cover such expenditure or liabilities shall be at its disposal for the purposes of this Act, and the commission shall, before entering upon any work of improvement or construction, or any other work involving the expenditure of money, upon the lands taken or acquired under the authority of this Act, cause to be prepared plans of the proposed works showing locations, and submit the said plans for the approval of the Governor in

Council, and the Commission shall furnish such further descriptions or information to the Governor in Council as are required; and no such works shall be proceeded with until approved by the Governor in Council.
As stated by my hon. friend, though the language is different, this clause is identical with the clause that is sought to be replaced, and with that I find no fault. The only exception is that the control of Parliament is at an end. The works authorized under this clause of the Act could not toe undertaken until they had received the approval of Parliament. I may say to my hon. friend, who was not in Parliament at the time, that the Bill, when first introduced in 1908, was very carefully considered, and the provision placing the control in the hands of Parliament was inserted deliberately. I thought at the time myself that it would perhaps be an impediment to the commission, that they would find themselves hampered in their proceedings, and that certain results might take place which would to some extent ' paralyse their actions. When we introduced the Bill there was no provision for the control of Parliament, but it was at the suggestion of my hon. friends on the other side of the House, then sitting on this side, that this provision for the control of Parliament was introduced. I refer my hon. friend to 'Hansard,' 1907-8, vol.
III.,	page 4,400. We were in committee upon this clause, which gave the Governor in Council control. Speaking on the second reading, or at all events on the second stage of the Bill, the then leader of the Opposition, now the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), had suggested that there should be control by Parliament. When we came to clause 10, after having read the clause, I contributed these words:
My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) wants to have ' Parliament ' substituted for the Governor in Council ' in this clause. I have no objection to that. My hon friend can express the idea as he wants to.
Mr. Foster:	Suppose property were purchased and Parliament were not in session?
Sir Wilfrid Laurier : Parliament would have to authorize it.
Mr. R. L. Borden:	Is it necessary to put
this Bill through tonight?
Sir Wilfrid Laurier:	We want to proceed
as fast as possible with it.
Mr. Foster : The Senate will not be in session until the 10th of March.
Mr. R. L. Borden:	This would require a
little consideration. I would not like to put it into such shape as to make it unworkable, but I would like Parliament to have some voice in it.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier:	I will reserve this sec-

tion and my hon. friend can think it over and make his suggestion.
On the following day the Bill came up again for discussion; the right hon. gentleman was not present, but the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said that he had talked the matter over with the then leader of the Opposition:
Mr. Foster:	I talked the matter over with
the leader of the Opposition this morning. He had carefully gone over the two clauses of this section, and he could see nothing better than to substitute, as was suggested by the right hon. gentleman himself, the Parliament ol Canada for the Governor in Council. .	.
I would suggest that the clause read as follows :	' No land or immovable property shall
be purchased or acquired by the commission except with the previous authority of Parliament, and no expenditure shall be made by the commission, except for the celebration of the tercentenary, until it has1 been approved by Parliament.'
After some discussion, the idea was accepted and embodied in the Bill that the control should rest in Parliament, and that nothing should be done by the commission, land purchased or money expended, except under the authority of Parliament. I think that then everybody must have been aware that it would mean the curtailment of the privileges of the commission, and that it would entail upon them perhaps some embarrassment. I am not surprised that Sir George Garneau states in his letter that the commission has been hampered in this way. The choice was presented to us of having the system of control or not having it. We adopted that policy deliberately, knowing what would happen, and notwithstanding any inconvenience which may have resulted to the commission, I do not see any reason why we should depart from the policy which was then laid down. I apprehended the difficulty which has taken place. The only remedy is to take proceedings for expropriation and secure a vote of Parliament. This law was in the first place very carefully prepared; the commission has worked satisfactorily, and even if, from the point of view of the commissioners, there have been some inconveniences, the interest not only of the commissioners but of the whole country were taken into consideration, and I see no reason why the law which was amended at the suggestion of hon. gentlemen opposite should be changed.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I do not think there is any great change in the clause which we propose to substitute. There is a change in the wording, but not in the substance. If my right hon. friend will compare the
law as it stood with the amendment sought to be made in this Bill, he will see that we retain the control of Parliament. The law as it stands now contains the clause which my right hon. friend has just read, and it says that:
No expenditure shall be made by the commission until it has been approved by Parliament.
These words disappear, I admit, but we re-enact in clause 11 something which was not there before, and which again gives to Parliament the control of the money. Clause 11 says that:
No expenditure shall be made and no liabilities shall be incurred by the Commission until funds sufficient to cover such expenditure or liabilities shall be at its disposal for the purposes of this Act.
In order to have funds at the disposal of the commission they must be voted by Parliament. The words which I have just read are not to be found in the law as it stands. Really, we do not take away from Parliament the power to control, but we express it in a different manner, because Sir George Garneau has found, and the officers of the department concur with him, that the Act, as it reads, is unworkable. The first paragraph of section 10 of the old Act reads as follows:
No land or immovable property shall be purchased or acquired by the commission except with the previous authority of Parliament, and no expenditures shall be made by the commission until it has been approved by Parliament.
The commission could not spend one cent until it had the authorization of Parliament. But the change 4 p.m. which is proposed, and which, in fact, has been made the practice, is that we come to Parliament, and ask for an appropriation, and by vote of Parliament we put a certain amount, in the Estimates to be at the disposal of the commission for such purposes. This Parliament votes the money, but after it has been voted the commissioners are still obliged to submit plans and get the authorization of the Governor in Council as to details.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the moneys at the disposal of the Commission came from this Parliament alone, the answer of the Postmaster General would be sufficient, but he knows that the commission expends other moneys than those voted by this Parliament.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That was true then, but it is not true to the same extent now.


Wilfrid Laurier: It may happen again that the provinces may choose to vote money for this purpose. At the time, I personally thought we were overcautious and that perhaps we might dispense (with some of the restrictions on the commission, hut Parliament came to the conclusion that it was better to err on the side of excessive caution. Notwithstanding the high authority of my friend, Sir George Garneau, for whom I have the highest respect and who has managed and will continue to manage the commission most satisfactorily, I believe there is no reason to change now what Parliament did deliberately then.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: When that statute
was passed, there was a large sum at the disposal of the commission which had been voted, not alone by this Parliament, but which was the result of general subscriptions, and grants by the provincial Parliaments.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It came from all over the empire.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, and the commission had this money at its disposal, available for certain purposes; but now it is different. The commission has nothing at its disposal now but the money voted by this Parliament, except a sum for the purchase of land. On the 30th of April last, the balance available for the purchase of land was $105,193.63, from which is to be deducted judgments in expropriation proceedings paid since that date amounting to $55,437.26, leaving a balance available of $49,756.37. That is all that is left of the different amounts which came from all over the empire, and that is only available for the purchase of property. The commission does not and cannot employ that money for the work it is now carrying on, and Sir George Garneau and his fellow commissioners are now in the position of any other commission appointed by the Government to spend money voted and controlled by this Parliament. 'A hen the commission had moneys not voted by this Parliament, there was very good reason for the proviso to which the right hon. gentleman has referred, but that reason has disappeared to a very great extent, and I think we might well trust the commission that they will not employ that money for any other purpose than that for which it remains in their hands. Sir George Garneau made these representations for himself and on behalf of the whole commission unanimously, as he stated, and the Minister 
of Finance' and myself came to the conclusion that we would not stand in the way.
I might mention to my right hon. friend that I will not insist more than I should to have these amendments adopted; we are simply doing it to meet the wishes of Sir George Garneau and of the commission. Mr. Ross, the very efficient officer of the Finance Department, tells me that in view of the changed situation he thinks the law as it is now is unworkable.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are there any other properties remaining to be expropriated by the commission?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: There is one or two 1 think.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it a large property?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It is the property belonging to the Ursuline Sisters. Sir George Garneau did his (best to settle it and I have done everything I could, but the matter still remains under negotiation. Of course nothing cian 'be done except under the statute.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have nothing more to say upon the subject. I wish to asK the Postmaster General if the commission has acquired from the Militia Department, or if the Militia Department has consented to give them, the magazine which is called the permanent building.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I am glad to say that
is settled, or practically settled.


Mr. RHODES:: I have nothing to say
with respect to the merits of this particular Bill, but I take this opportunity of suggesting to the Government and to Parliament that it would be wise to enlarge the scope of this Act, or to have another Act passed, with the object of taking in all of the more or less important battlefields in the whole Dominion.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is true that Quebec is the great battle-ground of Canada, but at tne same time many important battles were fought in various portions of the Dominion, tne result of which made possible the result of the great battle at Quebec. In a measure, it may toe said that these smaller battlefields are of as much moment in our history as are the Plains of Abraham.
I cannot say that I am as well acquainted as I ought to be with all the battlefields in Canada, but I have some knowledge of some of the battlefields in the Maritime

(provinces. At least four of them come to my mind. Louisburg was the scene of a struggle covering a long period of years,; and it occupied a strategic position. The result of the fight in those days had a bearing on the outcome of the fight at Quebec. There is the old Fort Royal at Annapolis, Fort Beausejour in the constituency of my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Em-merson), and Fort Monckton. All these forts had much to do with the early history of this country. With the exception of the fort at Annapolis, which has been taken care of in a piecemeal way by some special effort on the part of a group of individuals at Annapolis in previous years, these forts have been sadly neglected and are in a deplorable condition. The ravages of time have been such that, in a very few years, if they are allowed to continue as they have been in the past, they will ibe almost completely obliterated. It seems to me that now is the time to take charge of these battlefields and preserve them, so that future generations may have some idea of what they looked like in earlier days and of learning a lesson from them. A large expenditure of money is not necessary; a small amount judiciously expended would be of great benefit. The great thing is to have a comprehensive scheme of taking care of these various landmarks, with the view of teaching younger Canadians that we have a history of which we may well be proud, and that we do not have to go south of the 49th parallel or across the ocean to study history. We could go a very great way in encouraging the Canadian spirit by broadening the scope of this Bill so as to take in other battlefields. I commend this suggestion to the Government and to the House, and I hope that before another session of Parliament has passed some comprehensive scheme will !be brought down to carry out the object which I have briefly outlined.


Robert Laird Borden: There is a good deal of force in the observations of my right hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes). The subject has engaged to a certain extent the attention of the Government. The suggestion is made that the scope of the commission which we are now discussing should be enlarged for the purpose mentioned, and it has also been suggested that an independent commission should be constituted for the purpose which my hon. friend advocates. As far as the Quebec battlefields are concerned, I think the locations on 260
which they were fought are very largely private property. In some cases, however, very important historical spots, which were formerly in the ownership of the Crown, have passed into private ownership. I think all the lands in Louisburg are in private ownership.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Beausejour is entirely owned by the Government.


Robert Laird Borden: What about Cumberland?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The same, and the same with Annapolis.


Robert Laird Borden: The property at Louisburg, to which our attention has been more than once directed, has passed out of the Crown. In other places the property never was vested in the Crown. I cannot say more than this at the moment. In the earlier part of the session we hoped to bring down a measure in one form or another. The minister who had charge of the matter was not able to give the necessary attention to the subject, and therefore it will have to stand over for another session. There is, however, a good deal in what the hon. member has stated which commends itself to the attention of the Government.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope that some day
not too far distant the Ross rifle factory will disappear from where it is, because it is a ghastly sight there. The Martello tower is used as a water tank to provide water for the factory.
There are, I must say, no two opinions as regards the statement just made by my hon. friend from Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes), namely, that the battlefields of this country should be landmarks preserved by the Crown for the country. Last summer it was my privilege to be present, with the right hon. Prime Minister, at the centenary of the battle of Chrysler's .farm, and there was a splendid demonstration there. To my surprise, however, the day afterwards I read in the newspapers that the owner of that farm had offered it for sale at auction on the day of the demonstration, thinking that the great concourse of people there might help in the *sale. It was not sold, however, and it seems to me that this farm should not be sold except to the Government. The same remarks apply to the Chateauguay battlefield and to the other battlefields mentioned by my hon. friend. They should be pages of our history, so to speak, which belong to the people of Canada. I was very much
revised edition

shocked when I saw, the day after that great demonstration, that the descendent of Chrysler was offering at auction, before that concourse of about 15,000 people, the farm where the battle had taken place. Fortunately he did not find a high enough bidder; and 1 hope that, if the opportunity should occur again, the Government will avail itself of that opportunity and secure the farm for the people of Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Mr. BURNHAM:: Might I venture to
differ from some of the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on this point in so far as to say that it is unnecessary to buy material monuments in order to remember the great actions, either of individuals or of nations of the 'past; Nearly all the great things that have happened in this world-in fact, what we may call the great triumphs, either of the mind or of strategy-are stored in our remembrance, and serve their purpose in cultivating the nobler nature of mankind, not by the fact that they happened in a certain place, but by the fact that they happened under certain circumstances, at certain crises and were due to certain great moving principles. Simply to buy a farm-what is that? It does not signify anything. It does not signify that something took place there. What took place was an exhibition of Canadian patriotism. Look at the trackless deep. Look

at the mighty conflicts that have taken place on the ocean. Would you put a monument upon the ocean? Not at all.
From the beginning of the world you will find that in ninety-nine per cent of the cases it is impossible to locate the precise spot where these great things have happened. Therefore, I insist, it is far better to do something of a benevolent character -make a gift to the sick children's hospital in memory of the hero of Waterloo, do something for the orphans, something for the protection of women and children in memory of De Salaberry, Wolfe, Montcalm, or anybody else. But simply to buy a farm-there is nothing in that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 4-the commission may make by-laws:
Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I suppose there is no objection to that. This amends section 7 of the Act. Here is what Sir George Gar-neau says:
The commission further recommends that section 7 of its charter he amended in accordance with the project here appended which provides all the powers necessary for the internal government of the commission and for the maintenance, conservation and upkeep of the property of the commission or under its control.
The suggestions made by Sir George Garneau in this respect have been adopted with almost no change, except those which the law officer has thought it best to make in order to give it effect.


Wilfrid Laurier: That seems all right.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-approval of the Governor in Council:
Wilfrid Laurier: There is no reason for that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: When this was put in the statute of 1908 there was some further property to be acquired. But by the statutes passed in 1911 under my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), all the other properties which were necessary were given in the statute with all the descriptions. Now the Battlefields Commission is authorized by the statutes of 1911 to purchase these properties. So, if we have the authority of Parliament, it is deemed unnecessary to have the authority of the Governor in Council, and Sir George Garneau says that they may be handicapped

in the purchase of property; it would take longer, and the price might go up.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, but why leave out the control of the Governor in Council?


Robert Laird Borden: I did not read the report of Sir George Garneau, but looking over the * statute it is provided that the properties may be purchased, acquired and held subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. It was deemed undesirable that the limitation upon their holding should still continue, Parliament in the meantime having ratified it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot see
that. This is a very valuable control we are asked to give up. The commission cannot go beyond the statute in the purchase of the properties; and what (about the prices? The Governor in Council should approve the prices paid by the commission.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Nearly all the properties are now acquired and they are negotiating about the one or two properties still needed. As a matter of fact, they might close at any moment without waiting for an Order in Council. And we believe-the Tight hon. gentleman might not be of the same opinion-that we can trust the commission to do what is right. I know what has occurred about the Ursuline Sisters' property. They have been on the point of agreeing several times.


Wilfrid Laurier: Why not expropriate it?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: We would rather agree about the price; expropriation, we fear, being sometimes very uncertain. We might get the property cheaper by agreement than Dy expropriation.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the former statute
require the approval of the Governor in Council as to price?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes; and that is an important safeguard. I do not see why it should be taken away. I know some of the difficulties, of course.


Robert Laird Borden: I think there is a good
deal in what the right hon. gentleman says as to retaining control over prices. If that is removed, I think the Bill should be modified.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Since there is objection, and in view of the objection made by the Prime Minister as to the need of control of the Governor in Council, I think we 2G0i
might provide for contingencies such as Sir George Garneau refers to by authorizing the commission to purchase providing it does not exceed a certain price. Then they, might use their powers at any moment..
Section 5 struck out.	-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who are the new members of the commission?


Robert Laird Borden: That has not yet been
considered.
Bill as amended reported, read the third time, and passed.



BRITISH NATIONALITY NATURALIZATION.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 173 respecting British Nationality Naturalization and Aliens. He said:
It may be desirable that in making this motion I should say something of the causes and conditions that have led to its being submitted to this House, as well as in explanation of some of the important modifications which it makes in the law of British nationality and the law of naturalization as we now have it. The Bill deals with these two subjects. It is divided into three parts, the first of them dealing with British nationality, that is to say with the definition of what constitutes a natural born British subject. The second part deals with the naturalization of aliens, that is to say, with the methods by which persons who are not naturally bom British subjects may acquire the quality of British subjects. The third part of the Bill is general, making dispositions with regard to the carrying into effect of the provisions contained in these two first parts, and furthermore making some, provisions with regard to the manner by which a person possessing the quality of a British subject may throw off that quality, and to the status of aliens.
For many years there has been a great deal of dissatisfaction, both in the mother country and, in the Dominions with regard to the law respecting naturalization. As long ago as 18% a special committee was formed in the old country to study that law, to consider what amendments were advisable to it and to devise plans for its improvement. That committee made a report, but it does not appear that any action was ever taken upon it. The question may be said to have become an absolutely live question subsequent to or at the time of the report that was made
[Stage Direction]
by the interdepartmental committee appointed in 1899 and which, after a very careful study of the questions submitted to it, made its report in 1901. I think it may be said that there were two principal faults found with the law as it stood at the time of their investigation and as, I think, for practical purposes it still stands to-day; firstly, that it gave room for a large number of cases in which persons found themselves having a double nationality. In consequence of this, many people were so situated that there were two different countries of which they were entitled to consider themselves subjects or citizens, and two different countries which might claim from them the fulfilment of the obligations of such subjects or citizens. This with regard to the law fixing the status of a natural-born British subject. Principally, at all events, it was from the [DOT]condition of the law in that regard that this difficulty arose.
The other outstanding difficulty that it was sought to remedy or to obviate resulted from the fact that while unquestionably the Parliament of the United Kingdom possessed the power of enacting a naturalization law, and while, I think I may say equally unquestionably, the parliaments of the different British possessions scattered over the world possessed that same power, at all events in so far as regards a naturalization effective within their own respective limits, it was certainly, to say the very least of it, doubtful whether any one of these parliaments- either the legislatures of the overseas possessions or the home Parliament itself, under the legislation as it existed-provided for a naturalization effective throughout the entirety of the empire. The question is not free from difficulty. Everybody, I think, is perfectly agreed that the powers possessed by the legislatures of the different possessions did not go so far as to enable them to provide for a naturalization that would be effective to make the person availing himself of the provisions of the law to that purpose a British subject outside of the British possession in accordance with whose laws he had been naturalized. The question whether, under the existing legislation of the United Kingdom, a naturalization granted under its law was effective beyond the limits of the United Kingdom itself, and more particularly was effective within the limits of the self-governing possessions, may be said to have been, at the very least, doubtful. For my own part, however, after giving to
the question the best consideration of which I was capable, it seemed to me, and it seems to me still, that, under the legislation of the United Kingdom as it now stands, the naturalization provided for and granted under its provisions does not extend to make the person availing himself of those provisions a British subject in the overseas possessions; at all events, in the self-governing dominions upon whom has been conferred the power of legislating with regard to naturalization. I do not know that it is necessary to go into the discussion of the reasons that lead one to this conclusion. I may say that as long ago as 1874 the law officers of the United Kingdom, in a circular addressed to the governments of the different dominions, clearly accepted this view, and the text of the legislation upon the subject, to my mind, very clearly-perhaps it is too strong to say that, because there has been a good deal of divergence of opinion about it, but as I read it myself at all events- clearly supports that view. The history of that legislation is not very lengthy. There was no general legislation on the subject of naturalization in the United Kingdom before 1844. Before that time an alien became a British subject either by denization or denizenation, which consisted in the conferring upon him of that quality by the sovereign in the exercise of his prerogative, or by a special enactment for the case of the particular individual. It was only in 1844 that any general legislation providing for naturalization was enacted in the United Kingdom. Strangely enough, the possessions had preceded the home country by a very great distance in dealing with this matter. I understand that naturalization laws enacted by the legislatures of the different possessions go as far back as the reign of Charles II.; in 1535, so far as I have been able to ascertain, the first naturalization act was passed in Jamaica. When the Parliament of the United Kingdom enacted its first law upon the subject, the law itself did not in express terms, if my memory serves me rightly, declare what the territorial effect of that	law was	to	be.
but by subsequent legislation, by the Act of 1847, Parliament expressly declared that that Act of 1844 did not extend to the British possessions other than the United Kingdom, and furthermore went on to expressly declare that all past legislation as well as all future legislation that might be enacted by the legislatures of the different

possessions providing for the conferring upon aliens the privileges and rights of British subjects within the limits of those possessions bad been and should be effective. The law was in this condition at the time of the enactment of the British North America Act, which, as all know, conferred upon the Parliament of Canada general power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada. Among the particular subjects which it expressly declared to come within that description, although the enumeration was not intended to limit the powers, was the subject of aliens and naturalization. I think there can be but little doubt that power to legislate with regard to naturalization, as conferred by that Act, can only be taken to mean a power to legislate with regard to naturalization as the Parliament of the United Kingdom understood naturalization at the time of the enactment. The best evidence of what is meant by a statute is to be found in other statutes of the Parliament which make clear, what in the view of the Parliament legislating is understood by the particular terms in the statute that is sought to be interpreted; and when the power of legislating with regard to aliens and naturalization, as part of the general power to legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada, was conferred upon the Parliament of this Dominion, there was standing on the statute-book this special enactment of the statute of 1847 under which Parliament has clearly declared naturalization to be a local thing. After Confederation, by the Naturalization Act of 1870, the same principle was still recognized, and in attaching effect to the naturalization provided for in that Act, Parliament attached those effects in exact and precise terms within the United Kingdom; and the Act repeated substantially the provisions recognizing the validity of legislation passed in future by the legislatures of the different possessions providing for naturalization within their limits.
As I have said, there has been a good deal of difference of opinion as to whether or not the statutes of the United Kingdom, operate within the outside possessions in such a manner as to make a person naturalized under them a British subject within those possessions. For the reasons that I have given, and notwithstanding the very great respect I have for the opinions of people who take a different view, it seems to
me that we can accept the situation as having been and as being as we have stood under the laws .since the legislation of 1844 -because the legislation of 1847 was declaratory as to the effect of that Act-and as we stand to-day, there is no Parliament within the Empire that constitutionally can provide for a naturalization that shall be effective throughout the Empire, .and that to produce	that result
in a constitutional manner you must necessarily have co-operation between the home Parliament and the Parliament of the self-governing dominions, I have said constitutionally, because I do not for a moment want to be understood as suggesting that there is not legal power in the Parliament of the United Kingdom to pass any law and expressly declare it to be applicable within all or any of the British possessions. That legal power undoubtedly exists. The home Parliament enacted the British North America Act and the home Parliament, looking .ait it from a lawyer's point of view, simply could repeal the British North America Act; and where there is power to repeal there is power to modify, and the action of the home Parliament, if it chose to do so, in legislating with regard! to a matter coming within the legislative power of this Parliament, for instance, and making that law applicable within this Dominion, would be an overriding of the provisions of the British North America Act and, in effect, a repeal of that particular provision under which the Parliament had power to legislate in the matter in so far as the particular measure was concerned. But while we can all agree that there is that legal power, I think it is equally clear that the exercise of that legal: power would be absolutely unconstitutional. It is not a solitary instance under the British system of Government where there exists a legal power whose exercises would be unconstitutional and, for my own part, I have not the slightest doubt that if the home Parliament, after the enactment of the British North America Act, which is the constitution of Canada, should undertake to legislate with regard to this particular subject matter, or any other subject matter legislative power over which is conferred upon this Parliament, and declare that legislation effective within this Dominion, while that legislation would be law and the courts would have to Tespect it, nevertheless the action of the home Parliament in so legislating would be
[Stage Direction]
a violation of the constitution that has been conferred upon us and so being a violation of that constitution, that legislation would be unconstitutional. It follows if this view be right, and I may say without undertaking to pronounce any opinion upon the question of whether it was or was not right, that the home Government, when it was suggested to them, readily agreed to act as though it was right and declared expressly that they had no intention of seeking to have enacted iby the Parliament of the United Kingdom a law conferring the benefits of naturalization on persons in Canada without the co-operation of the Parliament of Canada. I may say further, as evidence of the acceptance by the people of this country of the view that certificates issued under existing legislation of the United Kingdom do not confer the benefit and advantage of naturalization within this country, I may point to the fact that in 1907 this Parliament passed an Act which would have been utterly unnecessary and absolutely useless so far as the United Kingdom was concerned, if the certificates issued by the United Kingdom were pro-prio vigore in effect in this country, whereby it was provided that person's holding such certificates should be an titled to be naturalized in this country vi ithout complying with the usual conditions with regard to residence; and that same enactment was made applicable to certificates of naturalization issued under the laws of any of the self-governing dominions. While our certificates were undoubtedly of no effect elsewhere within the empire, in virtue of this legislation of 1907, we did recognize and attribute a certain'effect to the certificates of the United Kingdom and the other self-governing dominions. I do not mention that to criticise but I mention it as evidence that this Parliament shared the view of the law officers of the Crown in 1874 that naturalization under the law of the United Kingdom was not, of its own force, effective within this country. I think people are pretty generally agreed now that it is a desirable thing that we should have a naturalization effective throughout the empire and the question that had to be faced was how that result was to be brought about without sacrifice on the part of the self-gove.ning dominions, of any portion whatever of the powers conferred upon them by their respective constitutions; in our case, without any sacrifice whatever of the powers conferred upon us by the British North America Act. The
£Mr. Doherty,]
matter was dealt with at the Imperial Conference of 1902, the Imperial Conference of 1907, and, finally, at the Imperial Conference of 1911. After the conference of 1902, and, if I mistake not, after the conference of 1907, Bills were prepared intended to be passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the purpose of bringing about imperial naturalization. These Bills, or the latter of them at all events, were discussed at the conference of 1911. The result of the discussion was that the Bills were not considered to be satisfactory. That conference agreed that a Bill should be drafted and submitted to the different dominions looking to the creation of an imperial naturalization and they agreed upon five things as being essentia] to such legislation, namely:
(1)	Imperial nationality should be worldwide and uniform, each dominion being left free to grant local nationality on such terms as its legislature thinks fit.
(2)	The mother country finds it necessary to maintain five years as a qualifying period. This is a safeguard to the dominions as well as to us, but five years anywhere in the empire should be as good as five years in the United Kingdom.
This latter sentence is an observation of Mr. Churchill.
(3)	The grant of nationality is in every case discretionary and this should be exercised by those responsible in the area in which the applicant has spent the last twelve months.
(4)	The Imperial Act should be so framed as to enable each self-governing dominion to adopt it.
(5)	Nothing now proposed would affect the validity and effectiveness of local law regulating immigration and the like or differentiating between the classes of British subjects.
In pursuance of the agreement so arrived at, a Bill was drafted and communicated to the different dominions1, I have said that the Bill was drafted in pursuance of the agreement so arrived at, but in some respects and in one very important respect, it did not seem to us to be in accord with all of these conditions. The other dominions, to which the Bill as originally drawn was submitted, accepted it. As so drafted and submitted, as I have said, the Bill did not seem to us to comply with one very essential condition of the conditions so laid down and agreed upon, namely, it did not provide that the effectiveness in Canada of the naturalization under the Bill itself, which was the Bill proposed to be passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, should depend upon its adoption by the Parliament of Canada. It did
5 p.m. provide that the effect of the Canadian certificates outside of
[Stage Direction]
Canada should depend upon the adoption by Canada ot the Bill which had been drafted and which it was proposed the home Parliament should pass. That did not seem to us to be a recognition of our absolute control over naturalization so far as its effects within the Dominion of Canada were concerned.
Mr. McKENZIE:: I did not quite catch the objection.


Mr. DOHERTY:: The objection that we
had to the first Bill was that while it did provide that Canadian certificates should not be valid in the United Kingdom or in the remainder of the empire unless- we adopted the Bill providing for naturalization, it made no such condition in regard to the effectiveness within Canada of the certificates to be issued under that Act itself by the Home Government. Under the Bill as it was submitted to us, and as I understand it was accepted by the other dominions, Canadian naturalization would be effective outside of Canada only conditionally on our accepting the provisions of this draft Bill and adopting them. Naturalization under that draft Bill by the authorities of the mother country would be effective in Canada whether we adopted that law or not. That seemed to us to be manifestly an invasion of our constitutional right to control naturalization in Canada and it seemed furthermore to us not to be in accord with the provisions agreed to at the conference of 1911 and more especially with the condition which made the proposed legislation and its effects adoptive by the Parliament of the self-governing dominions. It created a situation where we could get no further effect of our naturalization unless we adopted that law but it subjected us absolutely to the obligation of recognizing the certificate of the United Kingdom whether we adopted that law or not.
In the course of the correspondence, the Home Secretary agreed that if the Act produced that effect-and it was recognized it did produce the effect I had pointed out-it did not carry out the intention. After an interchange of suggestions for modification we arrived at the Bill which is now before the House. The purpose of the modification fixing who is to 'be considered a British subject by birth, is, to, as far as possible, obviate double nationality. Under the law as it stands to-day a person is a natural-'bom British subject if he is born within the realm, or if, being bom without the realm, his father is a natura'l-born British subject,
or if his grandfather was a natural-born British subject. The change does away with the provision in favour of the grandchild. A person born without the realm will hereafter be a British subject if his father, at the time of his birth, was a British subject. It was considered that the extension of the privilege gave rise to a large number of eases of double nationality, and that by putting an end to this privilege in favour of the grandchild you reduce very largely the number of such cases although the law does not pretend to obviate entirely that objectionable condition. I do not know that until all the nations of the world will have agreed upon some one definition of what should make a person a citizen of theirs, it ever will be possible to obviate the condition of double nationality. Under the common law, the essential condition of being a British subject by birth was to be born within the realm.
With regard to the subject of naturalization, the changes are in the conditions for acquiring nationality, and as compared with our existing law there are three substantial changes. Our law at present requires a residence within the Dominion of three years. Under the proposed Bill

which in that respect is identical (with the law now before the British House of Commons-the period of residence is fixed at five years. That period, however, is not required to be within the particular portion of the British dominions in which the naturalization is asked for and granted. The last twelve months of residence must be within that particular portion, but the five years may be made up of one year in Canada and four years passed within some other part of the British possessions, provided the period of four years be within the last eight years before the application. While you have a more severe requirement than at present, from the point of view of length of time, you have a less severe requirement in that the person asking for naturalization is not held down to passing the entire period within the particular possession in which he applies. He can fulfil the requirement by residence within different British possessions, provided he has passed twelve months in the particular possession in which he seeks naturalization, and has passed four years, within the last eight years, in the British dominions. It is required that he should have an adequate knowledge, under our Act, of either the English or the French language. The Act passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom provides for an adequate know-

ledge of the English language, but it goes on further to recognize that in any of the possessions in which any other -than the English language is official, the requirement may be an adequate knowledge of either the English language, or the other official language. And so we are providing in our Bill for an adequate knowledge of the English or the French language. The effects attached to the naturalization so granted are, I think, in substance the effects attached to naturalization under our law as it stands. The section sets forth in express terms that a naturalized person, would be entitled not merely to all the powers and privileges that -belong to a British subject by birth, but -that he is to have from the date of his naturalization, to all intents and purposes, the status of a born British subject. One purpose of the legislation is to do away with, as far as possible, distinctions between natural born subjects and naturalized British subjects. One respect in which that distinction is done away with is in connection with the nationality of the child. Under the law as it stood a child born out of the dominions in order to he a British subject, must be a child or a grandchild of a natu-ral-born British subject, while under this clause he must be the immediate child of a British subject, and he fulfils the requirement if his parent was either a natural born or a naturalized British subject.
There are other provisions, several of which are but the reproduction of the old law, and some of which are new, so far as they deal with the status of the child as regards naturalization.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the meaning of the words ' eight years before the application ' ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That means that the period of four years may be made up at any time within the preceding eight years. In other words, a man who comes to Canada to-day and who three years ago passed a period of four years in some part of the British Dominions, may pass a year in Canada and then be qualified for naturalization in so far as th,e period of residence is concerned.
Sections 8 and 9 are the sections which do our part towards meeting the requirements of adoption of the law now being enacted in the United Kingdom, in order to make the certificates of the United Kingdom effective within this country and to fulfil the condition upon Much our certificates are to be effective in the United Kingdom.

They also provide for the recognition of the effectiveness of the certificates issued by the Governments of the other selfgoverning Dominions in this country, and fulfil the conditions upon which our certificates are to be effective in those Dominions. By the legislation of the home Parliament, power is conferred upon the Government of any of the British possessions in general to grant naturalization under it. That general power is subjected, so far as the self-governing Dominions, namely, Canada, Newfoundland, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia, are concerned, to the condition of the adoption of that legislation. By sections 8 and 9 we in turn confer the same power upon the Secretary of State of the United Kingdom and the Governors of all the other Dominions who adopt this legislation to issue certificates which shall be effective in Canada, provided always that they are issued pursuant to the Bill now going through the home Parliament; and provided, as regards the other Dominions, that they adopt that legislation. Under this provision the British certificates and the certificates of all the other Dominions that shall adopt this legislation are issued, not only under the authority of their own legislation, but under the authority of our legislation; and because they are issued under the authority of our legislation, they are effective in Canada. Because they are issued under the authority of the legislation of the United Kingdom or of the legislation of the different self-governing possessions, they become effective, as regards those of the United Kingdom, throughout all the rest of the British possessions save any self-governing dominion that does not adopt the law; and because the law is adopted by the selfgoverning dominions, they become equally effective there. In other words, we -act, not only under our own legislation as regards the granting of certificates, but under the legislation of the home Government and that of every other self-governing dominion that shall adopt the same legislation. In the same way, the home authorities, and the authorities of the other self-governing dominions that shall adopt this legislation in issuing their certificates, will be acting, not only in virtue of the legislation of their own parliaments, but in virtue of the legislation of ours. The result is that, though the certificates of all these other dominions are valid certificates in Canada and give a man naturalization, they are so because this Parliament has so enacted and, vice

versa, when our certificates become effective elsewhere than in Canada, they are so effective because the proper Parliament, having jurisdiction in those other dominions, has empowered the issuing of our certificates. We think that we have arrived at a system that while it perfectly protects and leaves unimpaired our absolute control of who shall be naturalized in Canada, at the same time enables us, by co-operation with the home Parliament and with the parliaments of the other self-governing dominions, to create a situation where both their naturalization certificates and ours shall have an Empire-wide effect.
Under the legislation of the United Kingdom, it is provided that the effectiveness of the certificates in any of the selfgoverning Dominions depends upon the adoption by the Parliament of that selfgoverning Dominion of the' legislation under which those certificates shall be issued. It is further provided that this Parliament shall always, whenever it deems proper, be at liberty to rescind or repeal that adoption. Such an act on our part, of course, will put us where we were before this legislation, and will end the possibility of an Empirewide naturalization. I point out the fact of this provision, which I think is an absolutely essential one. If to maintain our right to control naturalization within Canada, the provision had been merely that a certificate would be effective in Canada only if the legislation were adopted by our Parliament, and stopped there, there might have been a grave question whether or not we, by the adoption, having given effect to the legislation, would be in a position to repeal that legislation, to repeal our adoption, and thereby put an end to it. We have, however, provided for that, so that we stand to-day in a position where, not by the subordination of any legislature or Parliament to any other, but by co-operation between the home Parliament and the parliaments of the different dominions, we bring about an Empire-wide naturalization; and each one of the dominions, as well, of course, as the United Kingdom, remains at liberty, if that system or the conditions that are now agreed upon or made common throughout, should prove unsatisfactory to any particular parliament, to repeal what it has done and go back to the position as it exists today.
The third part of the Bill deals with the status of married women and infant children, dependent persons, and makes certain
rules with regard to them which I think will be found not to be materially different from our law or from the law of the United Kingdom as it now stands. The principal difference will be found in this, that where there were provisions in our law and the British law especially dealing with that class of persons who had been British subjects and who had become persons that were called statutory aliens, under which provisions they had special methods of resuming their British nationality, all those provisions have been done away with; and, just as the naturalized British subject stands upon the same footing as the natural-born British subject, so also does the alien, who has become a statutory alien, an alien by reason of expatriation, or, in the case of a married woman, by reason of her marriage, stand in the same position as another alien, and require naturalization by the same process.
As regards our own procedure for the obtaining of naturalization, we have made some changes which, I trust, will be found advantageous and which aTe certainly important.
Under the law as it stands to-day a man proving his qualification for naturalization would simply go before a commissioner, justice of the peace or clerk of the court, and swear to his possession of the qualifications. That affidavit is kept by the commissioner, justice or clerk, and brought into court and handed in, and then it was hung up in the office of the court and notice of some kind given. Then, if, within a certain delay, no one came forward to make objection, the man got his naturalization, ipso facto.


Mr. MACDONALD:: The affidavit was read in the opening of the court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes; but no provision was made requiring proof before the court other than that affidavit. So, the only person who controlled the proof at all was this officer, of whatever kind he might be, who happened to take the affidavit, and the court was not called upon to look into the matter at all unless somebody was interested enough to come forward and make opposition. It might reasonably be expected that there would be, and I have had representation from all parts of the country that there have been, very grave abuses indeed-that these naturalizations were effected wholesale in many instances, people swearing to the affidavits having little if any comprehension of them, and, at all events, there was no effective control

over their statements and we were much exposed, and I think there is reason to believe that there must have been, under that system, many naturalizations which should never have been effected at all. The method, by which we propose to remove that is to leave in the hands of the courts the verification of the qualifications of the men to be naturalized-to require that proof shall be made before the court.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Under oath?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Bill does not prescribe the specific terms, but under it there is power to make regulations. But it is required that there shall be proof to the satisfaction of the judge of the possession of the required qualifications. On the judge being satisfied, the procedure will not be, as now, for the judge to issue the certificates, but his decision finding that the proof is sufficient and that the facts are established will be transmitted to the Secretary of State, and the certificate will be issued by the Secretary of State upon that decision. It is thought wise to surround with these additional precautions the procedure necessary to the acquisition of naturalization. It is thought desirable because, in the first place, we do not want people to be naturalized unless we are satisfied that they meet the requirements the law prescribes, and in the second place because it is a' good thing to impress upon the person seeking naturalization that what he is seeking is a something that is worth having, that it is not a mere incidental ceremony-as I have been told it has been represented to be in a good many cases-in virtue whereof the party is hustled into an election booth and his vote polled. We wish to bring home to the people seeking our naturalization that, from our point of view at all events, it is a serious and important thing and in consequence that we require proof, real proof, of the possession of the requirements, and we surround the making of that proof and the issuing of the certificate with such procedure as will impress upon the individual that the matter is one of importance and that he is receiving-what he really is receiving-a very valuable gift.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there a delay for the issuing of the certificate?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We have not fixed any specific delay. That might be a matter for consideration.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: Do I understand
that the Act will require a personal appearance of the party before the judge?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not in a position to say what the regulations will prescribe absolutely, though I must say that unless there should be shown to be some very serious objection to it, I think that would be a very wise requirement to be inserted in the regulation.


Mr. MARTIN:: I do not think the Act
provides for it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Section 21 provides:
The applicant shall produce to the court such evidence, that he is qualified and fit to be naturalized under the provisions of this Act, as may be required by the court,-


William John Macdonald: That means evidence under oath; any judge would hold that?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly.
-subject to such regulations as may be made hereunder.
We propose to make regulations which will require evidence under oath, and, as I say, unless there is some objection which I do not foresee, will require the presence of the party, or at least will entitle the judge to require his presence, in the court. That is all the more necessary mow because we have the requirements not only of residence but also of good character and what may be called the educational requirement-a knowledge of the language of the country. These are things which require careful consideration.
There is another provision that is of importance, and that is as to how certificates fraudulently obtained may be dealt with. Under the law as at present we have serious difficulty. In England they have no provision on the subject. In our country we have the provision under which a person who falsely swears the affidavit may be prosecuted for perjury and if convicted may forfeit the benefit of naturalization. That was very well when you could prove absolute intentional perjury. But there was no remedy provided by the statute where there was simply a misstatement of fact that might be the result of error. In at least one case the person has absolutely admitted that he had not the qualifications, but says: When I swore to that document I did not understand it. Still, such a person is in possession of the qualification of a British subject, and there is no method, at all events no clear method, of getting rid of that certificate and dispossessing

him of the qualification. We have provided, and the new English Act provides, power in the Secretary of State to withdraw the certificate where fraud has been established.
I do not know that any good purpose would be served by my going more into detail at this moment. My excuse for going so far into detail as I have done is that the matter is of importance and it seemed to me desirable, before we come to the details of the Bill in committee, that there should be put before the House, so far as I am capable of doing it, a clear general explanation of the purpose of the Bill and of the provisions that we think should be made.


Médéric Martin: I followed the minister's remarks as carefully as I could, and I desire to ask at this stage a question that occurs to my mind as to the effect this measure will have upon applications for patents in the prairie provinces. The minister knows that a man earns his patent in three years. Will the effect of this Bill be to hold up all patents for two years after they have been earned?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If I understand the law as it stands now-the hon. member is probably more familiar with it than I am- it is not in so many years that the settler earns his patents, but that after three years in order to have his patent he must be a British subject. The effect of this legislation, as I understand it, will be that he will not be a British subject as early as he otherwise would be.


Médéric Martin: What about his patent?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He will not be able to get his patent in three years now, of course. If it is understood that there is any right that is injuriously affected by that provision that difficulty could be met by legislation for the issue of the patent after the man had resided three years in the country even if he had not already obtained naturalization. I think it would be better to meet that particular question in that way than to modify our whole system of naturalization -if this proposed system be considered, as I certainly do consider it, to be an improved system-merely to meet that transitory condition. A man who hereafter comes and takes land with a knowledge that he will not be entitled to his patent until he has become a British subject will take it with the knowledge of how long be has to wait. I may further point out that many people will not have to wait so
long, because there are people who come into this country after having resided two or three or four years in some other part of the empire. These people will have to wait only one year or two years, as the case may be; so that the law will work both ways.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am sorry that I was called away during the very interesting address of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, and that, therefore, I missed part of what he said. The chief object of this Bill is to deal with the effect of the certificate of naturalization which is given in any one of the dominions of the empire. At present we have the power to grant naturalization letters to an alien, but the effect of them is limited to our own country. This has always been considered to be a very serious objection to the law. A very obvious illustration, one which has been quoted more than once in this House-is that of a man who is a British subject and who, if he goes to London, is no longer a British subject; he may be a German or a Frenchman or an American. The object, therefore, of this legislation is to provide that the naturalization which is given shall henceforth carry its effect all over the British Empire. Of course, we cannot, with the powers that we have, given to our certificate any such effect. If I understand my hon. friend aright, it is provided that in this matter there shall be reciprocity of legislation and reciprocity of powers among the dominions. I understand the purpose of this legislation to be that a British subject naturalized in Canada may present his certificate in London, or in any other part of the British Empire, and that it shall have the same effect as it has in Canada. That is very important legislation, which has been in contemplation for many years, and I am very glad that my hon. friend has at last achieved the making of these provisions. In Canada, the provisions of this legislation will create some confusion in respect to our naturalization laws, especially in the new provinces. I am aware that the British Government has been very chary of giving naturalization, and that the dominions, on the contrary, for very obvious reasons, have been very free with their legislation with regard to naturalization. We have been inviting persons from all over the world to settle amongst us, and this invitation has carried with it the idea that at the earliest opportunity we would give them every

right that we give to our own citizens. The period of probation before the letters of naturalization could be granted has been three years. I am aware that the British Government at one time objected very .strongly to the length of that period, and wanted to have it made longer. It may be presumed that it is in consequence of that that this important modification in our laws has been adopted, and that the period of probation will henceforth be not three but five years. As I say, this will certainly throw some confusion into the administration of the land laws in the western provinces. I suppose that the remedy for this may be found, not under this legislation, but by introducing an amendment to the Lands Act. There is nothing to prevent the period of probation before the patent is issued being limited to three years, which it is at the present time, and I suppose the Lands Act can be amended accordingly.
Mr. MAOlfONALD: That at last all the self-governing dominions of the empire have agreed upon certain common rules which shall entitle a person receiving a naturalization certificate from the authorities of any one British possession to be recognized as a British subject throughout the whole empire and abroad, is a matter of great satisfaction. I am not sure that my hon. friend, however, in drafting this Bill, has not made the situation a little too drastic. If I recall correctly the discussion that we had last year upon this question, it rather went upon the view that each one of these selfgoverning colonies, having statutory powers conferred upon it similar to those given to us in 1867, could stipulate the conditions under which persons could become British subjects within its own territory It w&s suggested that there might be in this coun,-try and in the others dominions a system which would provide for naturalization which would give the rights of citizenship within that particular dominion and that there could be a supplementary method by which empire citizenship could be created through certificate along the lines suggested in this legislation.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That may be so still. Under the legislation of the home Parliar ment, if we desire to have the two different kinds of naturalization, there is absolutely nothing to prevent our having it. Our Bill does not purpose to have it; we thought it more desirable to have one system.


William John Macdonald: I have always been a strong believer in the desirability and importance of settling the question as to the rights of empire citizenship. It does occur to me that a matter worthy of consideration is whether or not this Canadian Parliament should give up altogether for the time being-although they still possess the constitutional right to legislate in regard to it-the method under which they admit to citizenship in Canada aliens who come into this country. My hon. friend showed very clearly the exact status of this Parliament in that regard. Section 91 and the particular subsection of it which speaks of naturalization and aliens unquestionably confers upon the Canadian Parliament the right to legislate in regard to naturalization within the territorial hounds of this Dominion and the effect of that naturalization, while its extent may be a matter of argument, unquestionably is absolute within the bounds of Canada. The broad question involved in this legislation is that of imperial citizenship, and I am sure that we are all agreed as to the desirability of having it settled, but the question for us to consider is as to the wisdom of obliterating from our statute books altogether the provision under which aliens may be admitted to citizenship in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: You mean a double system of naturalization?


William John Macdonald: The way it was discussed last year, I think, was along these lines: there are persons who come into Canada, who become Canadian citizens, who make their homes here, who never go abroad and in regard to whose rights and citizenship no question will hereafter arise. The period of residence, three years, has always entitled them to the rights of citizenship within this country. It .has long been recognized that the Imperial Parliament would require a period of five years, and I think that in the discussion last year, if I remember correctly, it was pointed out that it would be quite possible to arrange some such system. The point for consideration at the moment is whether it is wise to do away with this provision in Canada of creating citizenship so far .as Canada is concerned. Perhaps my hon. friend the minister-I am sure that he is au fait on this subject-will tell us something about the conditions, for instance, in New Zealand. This country has always admitted to its citizenship persons without any residence

whatever, simply upon proof being submitted as to their intelligence and as to the likelihood of their being good citizens. Australia, I think, requires a (residence of only two years; we have required three, and the mother country five. It would be interesting to know the position adopted in the other self-governing colonies. It must be remembered that the rules governing naturalization in Canada under this Bill are very rigid. There has long been a vexed question of law as to whether domicile or nationality was the best test of a man's place in law. That question arises in connection with the distribution of estates, the rights of parties in regard to marriage and contracts of all kinds. The domicile of the party has always been the governing factor, but by virtue of this measure the distinction between domicile and nationality is practically swept away because the person who wants to take on nationality in Canada hereafter must swear that he intends to have his residence in His Majesty's domain or to continue in the service of His Majesty.


Charles Joseph Doherty: He has to swear his intention under our present law.


William John Macdonald: Hardly in that
definite way. I hardly think it was as stringent as this. For instance, a Canadian citizen who has gone to the United States, as unfortunately they have gone in great numbers in the past, under the existing laws can become renaturalized in Canada on a residence of three months. Under this it would require a residence of five years. I have had experience with ' this question, and in the industrial centres in my province numbers of men have come from-other countries and have become good citizens, taken up homes and interested themselves as Canadians. It is not desirable to practically compel a foreign citizen who has been here for five years to retain a lawyer to go through the cumbersome process provided in this Act, because in practice a person wishing to become naturalized would require to employ counsel. I have never seen that any great trouble has come to this countiy by extending to people who have taken up their homes here, once they have complied with the terms of residence, the rights of naturalization without very much trouble. While it is a priceless privilege to possess the right of being a British citizen, our legislatures have gone so far in recognizing the rights of aliens who hold property, and so
on, that so far as business reasons are concerned, no difficulty exists at all. The only privilege gained by the alien who takes out citizenship is the right to the franchise. I am inclined to the opinion that we ought to preserve upon our statute book legislation under which a son or daughter of Canada who has gone to the United States and wishes to come home again will not have to wait five years before resuming full British citizenship. There are many reasons well worth consideration why we should keep open the avenues by which a person can come in, and after three years' residence, secure naturalization. The preservation of those rights would not in any way impair or affect injuriously the creation of the method which my hon. friend proposes under which it will be possible for those who desire to do so to obtain through this channel certificate under which they become citizens of the empire in the fullest sense of the word. This is a matter in which, personally, I have always taken a great interest. I have always felt that while we talk a great deal about empire glory and about the desirability of the maintenance of the empire, a tremendous anomaly has existed in Great Britain and in every part of the dominions which form the empire in that we did not have legal machinery under which those who came to live amongst us and who desired to assume the responsibilities and to claim the advantages of British citizenship could do so by any process known to the law.


William Melville Martin: I agree with the Minister of Justice when he says that certain safeguards should be placed around our naturalization laws. British citizenship is not to be lightly regarded. At the same time, we in Canada have been bringing in people by the hundreds of thousands during the past number of years under representation that they can become British subjects in a period of three years; and I think that any changes that are made now should be made with a view to protecting people who have already come to Canada. I understand from the Minister of Justice and	the Minister	of	the	Interior
that some steps	will be taken
to protect people who have come in here and taken up homesteads so that they will not be deprived of the right of obtaining patents on the completion of their term of residence, as provided under the existing law. If the five-year period of residence should be enforced as against them, they

could not obtain their patents for two years if they had earned them. But it seems to me that there are some safeguards being thrown around the question of naturalization under this law wdiich are really not necessary. In the prairie provinces to-day the only procedure that is necessary to become a British subject is to take the oath of allegiance, get certificates from some justice of the peace, notary public or commissioner and from some person who knows the applicant, and to post these in the court house in the judicial district in which the applicant resides. Then I think in forty days it automatically comes before a judge of the district court and the applicant is naturalized if the papers are found to be in order. It is true that some abuses have crept into the naturalization proceedings in western Canada. I have known cases, in which I believe men have taken the oath of residence, followed by the oath of allegiance, without having resided three years in the country.
I find that the provisions of this proposed Act add to the existing qualifications one in respect to language. In addition to changing the period of residence from three to five years and providing that the applicant shall be of good character, the proposed law says that he shall have an adequate knowledge of either the English or the French language. I know a man living not very far from where I live who has been in this country a great deal longer than I have and who speaks neither the English nor the French language. I know that English and French are the dominant languages in Canada but there are just as good citizens as any Englishman or Frenchman who have been in the country twenty or twenty-five years, men who have come from countries in central Europe and who cannot speak either English or French. Their sons and daughters, who have gone to school, have learned the English language and in that case when the father goes to the office of an attorney he takes his son or daughter along with him to interpret. It seems to me that to insist on a qualification that a man must have an adequate knowledge of the English or French language is going a little too far, and I shall take the opportunity of calling the attention of the Minister of Justice to that point when the Bill is 'being considered in committee.
I can only reiterate what was said by my bon. friend 'from Piotou (Mr. Macdonald) in respect to the cumbersome nature of this Bill. In 'the West it will 'be imposing a hardship on a man who has resided for

five years in the country to insist that he shall go either himself or with witnesses before a judge and show that he has an adequate knowledge of the English or Trench language and that he possesses the other qualifications. I know from personal experience that it will be necessary for a man to employ a solicitor to go with him before the district or Supreme Court judge and see that the evidence is properly placed before the judge. Then it is provided that the certificates shall be sent by the judge to the Secretary of State. The judges or our courts are just as well qualified to issue the certificates and to place upon the 'applicant the stamp of British nationality as the Secretary of State is. Why is it necessary to send these papers all the way to Ottawa? Instead of it taking a month for a man to get his naturalization papers it will take two or three months. There are some other points that I propose to bring to the attention of the House when the Bill is before the committee.


Mr. OLIVER:: I think the trouble with
this Bill is that we have been looking to establishing for Canadians an imperial citizenship. We have not recognized that in undertaking to do that we must necessarily make provision for allowing Canadian citizenship to people throughout the empire. It is to that feature of the case that I desire to draw attention. At the present there is a demand made for certain rights on the part of certain citizens of the empire who, I believe, are busy landing, ox who are being held in quarantine, at Vancouver, and who claim entrance into the Dominion on the ground that they are British subjects. Our immigration law provides that as long as they are not Canadian citizens they do not acquire certain privileges. We, by this legislation, if I understand it correctly, give them all the status of British subjects.


Charles Joseph Doherty: All the status of the
native-born Hindn; that is the limit of what we give and it will not affect their Canadian citizenship.


Frank Oliver: I think it is a matter well worthy of consideration as to just how far we are warranted in building up in the minds of these people the idea that we are giving them a degree of British citizenship that they do not enjoy to-day. We have drawn around ourselves the idea of Canadian citizenship as a protection to the welfare of the Dominion. While I know what my hon. friend says, it does not alter my opinion. At the same time he is, by this

Bill, building up in the minds of people in the outlying parts of the empire an idea of common citizenship, and common right throughout the empire capable of being asserted in Canada as well as in other parts of the empire. That may he a good thing. It inay be that a citizenship thus 'built up will have no effect at all but I think we are close enough to a difficult situation to warrant my suggestion to the minister that in any case, instead of this Bill going into effect on the 1st of January, 1915, it should not go into effect until after another Parliament sits because there are conditions that may arise, just as in the case of this homesteading business, which has been mentioned. There may be conditions arising in connection with the exercise of the franchise and this matter should be thoroughly considered before the Bill goes actually into law. My bon. friend says that it may be repealed; so it may, but it is always a difficult thing to do away with rights once they are granted.
At six o'clock, the House resumed, and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILES.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Frederick Joseph Campbell.-Mr. Middlebro.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Georgina Beatrice Boyd.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 198, for the relief of George Andrew Crooks.-Mr. Schaffner.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 203, for the relief of Gustav Oscar Lindquist.-Mr. W. M. Martin.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 195, to incorporate the Canadian General .Council of the Boy Scouts Association.-Mr. Wright; Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not opposed to the Boy Scout movement in Canada; on the whole, I think it is a very healthy organization for our young boys. I would have preferred, however, to see this Bill promoted by the Minister of Militia, rather than by a private member. Could the hon. gentleman who leads the House inform me at what age .a boy is admitted to the organization? I believe that this organization
will ultimately give us a generation of good sound Canadians. I am not averse at all to military exercises for the boys, for I think it is a good thing that they should know the rudiments of militia and defence. While I would like to see the boys follow the drill at college under the eyes of their professors, I question the advisability of boys twelve, thirteen, fourteen or fifteen years old being taken away from their parents during the summer months and sent to camp. It is a matter of very great importance, and it seems to me that the Minister of Militia or the Government should have fathered this measure in order to give fuller explanation. In all our colleges, as the Minister of Justice knows, we have Cadets; and the Department of Militia sends every year, during the months of April, May and June, an officer to drill those boys. All of us who have been at the various colleges in the province of Quebec have followed those drills; and we do not complain noT object; but to take the boys from home during the holidays and send them to the camp during a certain number of days- may be found objectionable for many reasons. I only regret that the Minister of Militia is not in his seat so that he might have explained more fully the effect of this legislation.
I wish to reiterate here what was stated a few days ago by the Lieutenant Governor of the province of Quebec, Sir Frangois Langelier. One of the papers of that province stated that this organization was1 more or less connected with Free Masonry; and the Lieutenant Governor of the province immediately, when inspecting the Boy Scouts, denied this statement and denounced the paper as expressing merely the opinion of its editor and not the opinion of the people of the province of Quebec. I agree with the Lieutenant Governor in what he says. I think that the Boy Scout movement is a healthy one; but the Government should take hold of the movement, and it should be under the control of the Minister of Militia instead of being under another control; that is to say, the Government should lead in this matter and not follow other organizations.


John Douglas Hazen: The Boy Scout movement is not a military one.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, it is half military.


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Well, I would like my hon. friend to explain the movement. I do not know very much about it, except

what I have seen in the newspapers. I am not opposed to it at all; hut I would like to have a .measure of this kind, which affects the yeomanry of the country, and which, to a certain extent, will encourage our young men to join later on our militia system, explained more fully. I do not see the promoter of the Bill.


Mr. DAVIDSON:: Does my hon. friend favour the Salvation Army being placed under the Department of Militia? The same religious idea prevails in both movements.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not see what there is in the remark of my hon. friend.


Mr. R. B. BENNETT:: I think my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) is entirely mistaken as to the aims and purposes of the Boy Scout movement. I had the pleasure of hearing the founder of this movement deliver an address in Calgary at a meeting very largely attended. We have in Calgary now a strong organization of boy scouts as well as cadets. The Boy Scout movement can in no sense be said to he military; it has no military purposes nor aims. Primarily it desires to make young boys understand that they have a sense of duty towards those with whom they are associ-ated'.and towards those amongst whom they live. It teaches them courtesy-old-world courtesy, if you will-the desire to oblige those with whom they come in contact; to do kindly acts, and to live their lives as though they were trustees for what they hold, not for themselves, but for those
about	them,	and for the	generations	notyet	bom.	It is	really one	ofthe	most	inspiring	things in	theworld	to	see what	good has come	
of this movement among young hoys I have watched them come, sometimes from homes where they have been indifferently trained; and the result has been that they have been inspired by noble purposes, high aims, lofty ideals, to have a high regard for their duties as citizens, and to be a living example in the community sometimes to men much older. I am sure, if my hon. friend will look into the history of the movement, and analyse the conditions under which it has been founded, he will give it his hearty support. It could not possibly be placed under the control of the Minister of Militia, because that would destroy the very purpose for which it was founded. When Sir Robert Baden-Powell founded this movement, he had the idea of inducing young men and boys voluntarily to band themselves together and to strive towards a 
higher standard of manhood and citizenship, not under compulsion, but actuated by the high purposes, the splendid traditions of honour and duty that have come down to mankind from the past. He has been able to inspire these young boys with such sentiments as these, and it was for that voluntary purpose and not that they might become a military force that the movement was founded.
There has been some confusion between the Boy Scout movement and the Cadet movement. The Cadet movement in a certain sense is military. The Boy Scout movement is in no sense military. In so far as camps are concerned, they are purely voluntary. In the city in which I live a large number of these boy scouts go to Banff and form a camp. Their parents see that their scout master is a man of high character, and under his control they are willing that their sons should go to this near resort. The boys are taught to take the initiative in certain things. They go for long strolls, for the purpose of learning to reconnoitre, to get some idea of the geographical and physical aspects of the country, so as to be able to find that which may be lost. It is only a confusion of terms on the part of my hon. friend; he is confusing the Cadet movement with the Boy Scout movement. The main idea of the Boy Scout movement is that they must each day do some kind act, or act of chivalry, as it would have been called in the days gone by; and I think that inspiration will remain with them in years to come, making them loyal and good and true citizens in the community in which they live, and perhaps making them do something to offset the trend of the times towards militarism, because, if the golden rule is that the boys shall do a kind or chivalrous act each day, perhaps there will be less disposition to refer to some other rule which is not necessary.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the very explanation I was seeking, and I am grateful to my hon. friend for giving it.


John Hampden Burnham: I think I would be
wanting in my duty if I did not say a good word for the Boy Scouts. They have had such an admirable effect in the riding from which I come that there certainly would be a great void if they did not exist. As so admirably expressed by the member for Calgary, there is nothing really military about the movement. It is an offset, not so much to militarism as to material-

ism. It is a revival in a mild way of the days of chivalry, which have altogether disappeared under the ban of modern materialism.


Médéric Martin: Not altogether.


John Hampden Burnham: Well, of course, not amongst the Opposition. One of the most touching instances that I ever knew of occurred here in Ottawa two years ago. A little chap five years old was severely injured. He was hurried to the hospital in an ambulance and a surgeon performed an operation upon him. When he was asked why he did not cry, he drew himself up as best he could under the circumstances and said: 'I am a scout.' I sent the details to Baden-Powell, and I got an answer from his secretary that at that time the chief scout was on the Indian ocean, but that he would see that this newspaper clipping was forwarded to him. He said that we could rest assured that this was an instance in which they would all rejoice. I have found boys who were likely to go to pieces on the streets, who received no inducement to behave themselves, who were not being told to do so by anybody, and in whom the ethical side of Christianity seemed to have been entirely neglected. When, however, they found it incumbent upon them to behave themselves- why, I almost expect some day to see them members of this House, they realize their sense of responsibility so acutely and have developed the chivalrous side of their nature so admirably.


Mr. NESBITT:: I am very much in favour of this movement, but I do not see why the amount is so large.


Robert Rogers: I do not think that the amount is very large, considering the fact that the movement is spread over every province in Canada.


William John Macdonald: What is the capitalization for ?


Robert Rogers: The same as in almost any other corporation of the kind: For the development and advancement of their undertaking. They may hold lands in the different provinces, have their offices and so on.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
261	i

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice) for second reading of Bill No. 173, respecting British nationality naturalization and aliens.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In my judgment, no subject affecting the domestic welfare of the people is of more importance, especially so far as western Canada is concerned, than the Bill now under consideration. No subject has engaged more closely the time and attention of thoughtful men in western Canada than this. Our Canadian clubs, our boards of trade and allied institutions have been giving this matter a very great deal of attention and consideration. It has been the universal view-when I say universal, I mean that it has been the view of men of business, of professional men, of ministers of the gospel, and of others-in fact, of all the citizens of communities that have thought it well to interest themselves in this matter-that the period of residence in Canada necessary to obtain citizenship under the laws of our country has been entirely too limited. In other words, citizenship was entirely too cheap. This is not in any sense a party question. Men who have spoken to me most strongly on the subject have been men who differed from me in political matters; but they have been actuated by a patriotic desire to see placed upon the statute books some provision whereby there would be an assurance that those who had the benefits and privileges of British citizenship or of Canadian citizenship, in the sense in which the words have been used this afternoon, would have some proper and due appreciation of the benefits and privileges which they were obtaining. It seems to me that it is fundamental that that should be so. I am sure that the hon. gentleman who preceded me will agree with me that in the province in which we both reside there has been a very great laxity in so far as the enforcement of proper regulations is concerned with regard to the obtaining of citizenship. I once said in addressing a large gathering under the auspices of one of the Canadian clubs in Alberta, that it was not the fault of one party or of another that vast numbers of foreigners, using the word in the broad sense of the term, were gathered together a few weeks before an election, that suddenly there appeared amongst them a man whom they did not know and who had been



authorized either by the local or by the federal authorities to administer an oath; who asked them their names, who asked them to stand up, had them sign, or make their mark where they could not sign their names to oaths which they did not understand, took the papers and put >a certificate upon the back that he knew these men to be of good character.
These papers were hung up for a few days in the court house, and shortly after a certificate was issued on the payment of twenty-five cents, declaring the applicant a British subject. There was no going before a judge, as in eastern Canada. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) asked that question. There has been no change in this respect in Alberta and Saskatchewan since the early days. When courts were difficult to get at and only Supreme Court judges were in office it was not possible to enforce the law regarding naturalization as in the older provinces, and men became citizens of this Dominion in the easy way I speak of. And as a matter of fact in some instances they regarded themselves as being British subjects in the broad sense without having any proper appreciation of what they were doing, or what they had done, or the benefits and privileges they were obtaining. I really think there are very few men in this House who have an appreciation of exactly what took place in the western provinces in those early days. I have seen forty men converted into British subjects in an evening. The same has taken place with men to whom I was opposed politically; I have seen it time after time. Men were called up, perhaps an interpreter present, a question or two asked-' So help me God '-kiss the Bible, then let them make their mark or sign their name. By this process these men acquired a slip of paper, and when an election came they said they were British subjects, and produced the evidence. I remember a discussion I had a few years ago with a very thoughtful member of the Liberal party regarding the situation, and he said that possibly there was no matter of greater importance affecting our democracy than the naturalization of our alien population. It is for that reason that I am so glad that this Bill has been introduced-a step in the right direction.
My hon. friend said the term had been lengthened from three to five years. True. In all seriousness, and I am sure that those who live in the large centres of our western life will agree with me-places where you have a very large alien population, cities like Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton and
[Mr. R. B. Bennett 1
Vancouver-no words that I could use would clearly indicate just what the difficulties are of assimilating that population to British ideas and British ideals and giving them some aspiration for and appreciation of the future of this country. In view of the conditions, I think you will agree that if the time is extended to five years it is not too long. If the benefits of our citizenship and participation in our future are, as I think they are, privileges so great that they cannot be measured or expressed in terms that I might use, and if its obligations involve the engaging of the empire to which we belong in war, if insult is offered to our citizens, five years is not too long a term. I have been watching the progress of the United States in this matter, and in that great republic the period of probation is five years-so far as I can see it has been five years at any time during our lifetime. At one time they had an immigration of 700,000 a year for years together, and once it ran up over a million. And with these facts before them, and in spite of the desire of the politicians to get office, the common patriotism of the law makers of the United States raised them far above political considerations and they united to pass naturalization laws of the most stringent character. Under that law it became necessary for the alien who wished to attain what they considered the priceless benefit of American citizenship to first make a declaration of his intention and afterwards present a petition to the courts. My hon. friend from Pictou said this might be a costly process. Yet in the United States, with that vast cosmopolitan population looked after by trained politicians and widespread political organizations, the alien must declare his intentions, afterwards petition that court and have witnesses to speak for him, and only after he has shown that he has the necessary qualification does he receive his certificate. He is examined as to his knowledge of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, the list of presidents. He is supposed to have some knowledge of geography-of the border communities, north and south. If the House is at all interested, I would like to refer to the Naturalization laws of the United States, which provide as follows:
Sec. 4. That an alien may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States in the following: manner and not otherwise:
First. He shall declare on oath before the clerk of any court authorized by this Act to naturalize aliens, or his authorized deputy, in the district in which such alien resides, two years at least prior to his admission, and after

he has reached the age of eighteen years, that it is bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce for ever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly, by name, to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which the alien may be at the time a citizen or subject. And such declaration shall set forth the name, age, occupation, personal description, place of birth, last foreign residence and allegiance, the date of arrival, the name of the vessel, if any, in which he came to the United States, and the present place of residence in the United States of said alien: Provided, however, that no alien who, in conrormity with the law in force at the date of his declaration, has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States shall be required to renew such declaration ; Provided further, that any person belonging to the class of persons authorized and qualified under existing law to become a citizen of the United States, who has resided constantly in the United States during a prior of five years next preceding May first, nineteen hundred and ten, who, because of misinformation in regard to his citizenship or the requirements of the law governing the naturalization of citizens has laboured and acted under the impression that he was, or could become a citizen of the United States, and has in good faith exercised the rights or duties of a citizen or intended citizen of the United States because of such wrongful information and belief may, upon making a showing of such facts satisfactory to a court having jurisdiction to issue papers of naturalization to an alien, and the court in its judgment believes that such person has been for a period of more than five years entitled upon proper proceedings to be naturalized as a citizen of the United States, receive from the said court a final certificate of naturalization, and the said court may issue such certificate without requiring proof of former declaration by, or on the part of such person of their intention to become a citizen of the United States, but such applicant for naturalization shall comply in all other respects with the law relative to the issuance of final papers of naturalization to aliens.
Second. Not less than two years nor more than seven years after he has made such declaration of intention he shall make and file, in duplicate, a petition in writing, signed by the applicant in his own handwriting and duly verified, in which petition such applicant shall state his full name, his place of residence (by street and number, if possible), his occupation, and, if possible, the date and place of his birth; the place from which he emigrated, and the date and place of his arrival in the United States, and, if he entered through a port, the name of the vessel on which he arrived ; the time when and the place and name of the court where he declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States; if he is married he shall state the name of his wife and, if possible, the country of her nativity and her place of residence at the time of filing his petition; and if he has children, the name, date, and place of birth and place of residence of each child living at the time of the filing of his petition: Provided, that if he has filed his declaration before the passage of this Act he shall not be required to sign the petition in his own handwriting.
The petition shall set forth that he is not a
261*
disbeliever in or opposed to organized government, or a member of or affiliated with any organization or body of persons teaching disbelief in or opposed to organized government, a polygamist or believer in the practice of polygamy* and that it is his intention to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce absolutely and for ever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty* and particularly by name to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he at the time of filing of his petition may be a citizen or subject, and that it is his intention to reside permanently within the United States, and whether or not he has been denied admission as a citizen of the United States, and, if denied, the ground or grounds of such denial, the court or courts in which such decision was rendered, and that the cause for such denial has since been cured or removed, and every fact material to his naturalization and required to be proved upon the final hearing of his application.
The petition shall also be verified by the affidavits of at least two credible witnesses, who are citizens of the United States, and who shall state in their affidavits that they have personally known the applicant to be a resident of the United States for a period of at least five years continuously, and of the state, territory, or district in which the application is made for a period of at least one year immediately preceding the date of the filing of his petition, and that they each have personal knowledge that the petitioner is a person of good moral character, and that he is in every way qualified, in their opinion, to be admitted as a citizen of the United States.
At the time of filing his petition there shall be filed with the clerk of the court a certificate from the Department of Commerce and Labour, if the petitioner arrives in the United States after the passage of this Act, stating the date, place, and manner of his arrival in the United States, and the declaration of intention of such petitioner, which certificate and declaration shall be attached to and made a part of said petition.
Third. He shall, before he is admitted to citizenship, declare on oath in open court that he will support the constitution of the United States, and that he absolutely and entirely renounces and abjures all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, and particularly by name to the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of which he wras before a citizen or subject; that he will support and defend the constitution and laws of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bear true faith and allegiance to the same.
Fourth. It shall be made to appear to the satisfaction of the court admitting any alien to citizenship that immediately preceding the date of his application he has resided continuously within the United States five years at least, and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held one year at least, and that during that time he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same. In addition to the oath of the applicant, the testimony of at least two witnesses, citizens of the United States, as to the facts of residence, moral character, and attachment to the principles of the constitution shall be required, and the name, place of residence, anrl

occupation of each witness shall be set forth in the record.
Fifth. In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship has borne any hereditary title, or has been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility in the court to which his application is made, and his renunciation shall be recorded in the court.
Sixth. When any alien who has declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States dies before he is actually naturalized the widow and minor children of such alien may, by complying with the other provisions of this Act, be naturalized without making any declaration of intention.
Sec. 5. That the clerk of the court shall, immediately after filing the petition, give notice thereof by posting in a public and conspicuous place in his office, or in the building in which his office is situated, under an appropriate heading, the name, nativity, and residence of the alien, the date and place of his arrival in the United States, and the date, as nearly as may be, for the final hearing of his petition, and the names of the witnesses whom the applicant expects to summon in his behalf; and the clerk shall, if the applicant requests it, issue a subpoena for the witnesses so named by the said applicant to appear upon the day set for the final hearing, but in case such witnesses can not be produced upon the final hearing other witnesses may be summoned.
Sec. 6. That petitions for naturalization may be made and filed during term time or vacation of the court and shall be docketed the same day as filed, but final action thereon shall be had only on stated days, to be fixed by rule of the court, and in no case shall final action be had upon a petition until at least ninety days have elapsed after filing and posting the notice of such petition: Provided, that no person shall be naturalized nor shall any certificate of naturalization be issued by any court within thirty days preceding the holding of any general election within its territorial jurisdiction. It shall be lawful, at the time and as a part of the naturalization of any alien, for the court, in its discretion, upon the petition of such alien, to make a decree changing the name of said alien, and his certificate of naturalization shall be issued to him in accordance therewith.
Sec. 7. That no person who disbelieves in or who is opposed to organized government, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining and teaching such disbelief in or opposition to organized government, or who advocates or teaches the duty, necessity, or propriety of the unlawful assaulting or killing of any officer or officers, either of specific individuals or of officers generally, of the Government of the United States, or of any other organized government, because of his or their official character, or who is a polygamist, shall be naturalized or be made a citizen of the United States.
Section 8 deals with a point referred to by my hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin). No country bas invited to its shores a more polyglot or more cosmopolitan population than the United States, yet this section provides as follows:
fMr. R. B. Bennett]
That no alien shall hereafter be naturalized or admitted as a citizen of the United States who can not speak the English language: Provided, that this requirement shall not apply to aliens who are physically unable to comply herewith, If they are otherwise qualified to become citizens of the United States:	And
provided further, that the requirements of this section shall not apply to any alien who has prior to the passage of this Act declared his intention to become a citizen of the United States in conformity with the law in force at the date of making such declaration: Provided further, that the requirements of section eight shall not apply to aliens who shall hereafter declare their intention to become citizens and who shall make homestead entries upon the public lands of the United States and comply in all other respects with the laws providing for homestead entries on such lands.
This country having itwo official languages -not as the hon. member for Regina indicated because of the dominant character of the one or the other, but because there are two official languages-it is provided in the Bill before the House that the applicant for naturalization shall be able to speak either English or French. Section 9 of the United States law provides:
That every final hearing upon such petitions shall be had in open court before a judge or judges thereof, and every final order which may be made upon such petition shall be under the hand of the court and entered in full upon a record kept for that purpose, and upon such final hearing of such petition the applicant and witnesses shall be examined under oath before the court and in the presence of the court.
1 admit that in days gone by it would have caused extreme difficulty and hardship, and would have involved very great expense, if every -man desiring to become a citizen under our naturalization law had had to attend a court. But now that our population is increasing, now that district courts are held in nearly every village along the line of railway, it cannot be said that we ask too much of an applicant seeking the great benefits of our citizenship when we provide that he shall appear in open court.
I daresay that many men in this House have read that very thoughtful series of articles in The Century by one of the foremost professors of Wisconsin University, in which he referred to the grave and manifest danger confronting the people of the United States, by reason of the difficulties they have experienced in assimilating their population, notwithstanding the many safeguards in their naturalization laws. I have been told of these difficulties by many eminent Americans, professors in universities and men who have to do with naturalization in the United States. If that be so, let us

learn something, at least by history, and let us take a step in the right direction by imposing restrictions in this Bill, not in any sense a party measure, but as representing a combined effort on the part of the representatives of the people of Canada to see that those who come after us bear the standard of our civilization, and carry it forward with a due and proper appreciation of their responsibilities and their duties and their obligations. We cannot do that unless we do something to acquaint those who desire to take on our citizenship with its benefits and privileges, and also with its responsibilities and obligations. It is for that reason that I have ventured to make these observations regarding this Bill, because it is a matter in which, for some years past, I have taken a deep and abiding interest. I am not so much concerned about imperial citizenship as in having a proper domestic citizenship in the first instance; but I am glad that this Bill does make a move in another direction, because I had the pleasure not many months ago of addressing a Women's American Club, and one of the difficulties they had experienced had been to understand exactly where they stood with relation to citizenship. Many people in this country have been unable to understand exactly why they should come into this country, and, having taken an oath of naturalization, find themselves debarred from all the benefits and privileges which should belong to them as British subjects. You doubtless know that some people have left our shores believing that they were British subjects, but have found that the certificate of naturalization which they carried did not give them the benefit of British citizenship, and that beyond the three mile limit they were again citizens of the land from which they came, that they had to look to the protection of that flag and as they had disowned that flag in a sense, it was humiliating to them to have to make an appeal for protection under it. This Bill removes that difficulty and provides that the man who has British citizenship under it is a British subject wherever he may go, alike in India, South Africa, Australia and Canada; and that he carries with him the certificate that entitles him to the privileges of British citizenship and the protection of the British flag wherever he may go. If he be insulted in a foreign land, he will no longer meet with the difficulties that would confront him if he had only Canadian naturalization. He will now be able to say, as one of old did
when he was confronted by his enemies:
' I am a Roman citizen.' He will be able to say. 'I am a British subject, by reason of the naturalization conferred upon me by this Act.' My hon. friend from Regina (Mr. Martin) referred to the fact that after a certificate had been granted by a judge there should be a final certificate conferring upon the person naturalized the priceless benefit of British citizenship, and that that certificate should be issued by the Secretary of State. Why? Because it is an official state act and no longer the act of a court. It is an act of the state, speaking as a state. It is an act of one of these self-governing colonies of the empire and, if you like of the British Empire itself, speaking through its Secretary of State, under the seal of the department, conferring upon the individual the benefits, rights and privileges of British citizenship. That is the reason that it is so provided in the Bill. Hon. members have observed that the sections of the Bill are not peculiar to Canada at all, they are sections identical in term and form with those of a Bill now being passed by the Imperial Parliament. I have observed in the press that the Bill now presented to this House, with 'such changes as are made necessary by reason of our geographical position, has been passed by the House of Lords and is now before the House of Commons. The hon. member for Edmonton this afternoon referred to certain difficulties and dangers that might arise by reason of the passing of this Bill and the change which it might effect in what he properly termed purely Canadian citizenship. I think he confused immigration with naturalization. We have the power, under the constitution, to determine who shall come within our geographical boundaries. That power is given under the British North America Act. We may decide that a British subject from one section of this empire may not come within the boundaries of this country, so broad is the power conferred upon us by our constitution. The power of naturalization and the power to determine the class and character of immigrants who shall come within our boundary, are two powers separate and distinct. We are exercising to-night power to determine on what condition and on what restrictions and on what responsibilities and obligations men may take upon themselves the burden and privileges of British citizenship. We would exercise under another section of our constitution the power to determine what class of people we think should be admitted within our

boundaries. With deference to my hon. friend from Edmonton, I think possibly there is a confusion of terms in the expressions he used this afternoon. I cannot express very readily the pleasure I have in seeing such a measure as this placed upon the statute book, not in any sense as a party measure, but as one which embodies the best views and the soundest and most reasoned conclusions that representative statesmen have been able to arrive at after consideration of the views of every section and of the peculiar conditions that surround every portion of the King's dominions.


Mr. NEELY:: I do not want to be considered altogether reactionary, but there are one or two features of this Bill to which I must take objection 'before it receives its final reading. Every one of us is very anxious that all citizens of this country coming from alien countries should have a working knowledge of one of the official languages of this country, English or French. But I want to point out that this particular piece of legislation may have a very serious effect upon a considerable number of settlers on the western plains, if not in other parts of Canada. Subsection (b) of section 2 provides:
The applicant for a certificate of naturalization must he of good character and have an adequate knowledge of either the English or French language. I
I would like to know what the Minister of Justice means by the word ' adequate.' What does he propose to consider an adequate knowledge of the English or French language? Would the knowledge of the Speaker of this House who reads the prayers in French be considered an adequate knowledge of French? Would the ability to say ' yes ' and ' no ' to some very simple questions be considered an adequate knowledge *of the English language, or sufficient to qualify for a certificate of naturalization under this Bill?
We shall require a board of examiners who will have to lay down certain rules as to what constitutes an adequate knowledge, inasmuch as the Act does not define what is meant by an ' adequate ' knowledge of the English and French languages. Even amongst the members of this House I think you will find that there is a very great variety in the vocabularies which they possess in reference to both the English and French languages. Some of us may be conversant with, and may be able to use, so many thousand words, while

others may have a somewhat limited vocabulary. There is no limitation and no definition of the term ' adequate ' knowledge of English and French. If I may be permitted to give a personal illustration, when I first came here I conceived that it might be of great service to me if I spoka the French language so that I would understand a great many of the excellent speeches which are delivered in that language in this House. I took a few lessons, but I came to the conclusion that even at my comparatively early stage of existence learning a new language is a very difficult proposition. We have persons coming from European countries who do not know a word of English. Many of these people, even if they never learn a word of English, become good citizens and are just as loyal to the flag of this country as many who have been born under that flag. It is going to impose a severe penalty on this class of immigrant, who may be a first-class citizen in every other respect, if we are going to make his inability to learn a new language a bar to his securing a certificate of naturalization. I protest' with all the vigour in my power against the insertion of this provision in the Act. I shall be very glad indeed if when we go into -committee the Minister of Justice will kindly explain what he understands to be the meaning of the word ' adequate ' in paragraph (b) of section 2 of the Bill.
There is another feature of the Bill which looks to me, upon a cursory examination, to be exceedingly objectionable. I find it in various places in the Bill, particularly in sections 2 and 6. Section 6 reads as follows :
An alien who has been naturalized before the passing of this Act may apply to the Secretary of State of Canada for a certificate of naturalization under this Act, and the Secretary of State of Canada may grant to him a certificate on such terms and conditions as he may think fit.
The same authority is given to the Secretary of State in section 2 of this Bill. I do not think that any officer of the Government, or any member of the Government, such as the Secretary of State, should have any such power as it is proposed to give him by this Bill. It is altogether out of the question that the Secretary of State should be authorized to issue certificates of naturalization on such terms and conditions as he thinks fit. We should say here and now in drafting this Bill upon what terms and conditions the Secretary of State

shall issue a certificate of naturalization. Certainly this Parliament has the authority and responsibility and it would be taking away the right of the people through their representatives to delegate the authority to the Secretary of State or to give him any such power as that which is proposed here. I protest very strongly against this feature of the Bill. We have prescribed the method of application for a certificate of naturalization. In my own province, for instance, the application must be made-
-to a judge of the Supreme Court of the province or of any district court, sitting in chambers in the judicial district in which the alien resides.
Certain forms are gone through, the judge certifies that the applicant is entitled to his certificate of naturalization, that certificate is forwarded to the Secretary of State and still, after the judge who has made an examination into the facts of the 9 p.m. case has declared that the applicant is a fit subject for naturalization, it is left entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State whether or not that certificate shall be granted. In a case where a judge of the court decides that the applicant has the necessary 'qualifications to become a British subject it should not be in the discretion of the Secretary of State, but ipso facto, the Secretary of State should be required to issue the certificate to the applicant.


William F. Carroll: The observations that I have to make are practically along the lines of those which have been made by my hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely). I believe that considerable caution should be exercised in granting certificates to aliens who wish to become naturalized British or Canadian citizens, but I am not one of those who believe that- these safeguards should be of such a character as to place an absolute discretion in the hands of the Secretary of State to say whether or not a person shall become a British subject, a person whom he has never seen and knows nothing about. When a judge, after having seen the gentleman who may be making application for naturalization, after having examined him, after having heard what he had to say, decides to grant a certificate, his decision should not be overridden by the Secretary of State and we should not empower that officer to say: I do not think I shall grant this man a certificate and to decree that under such circumstances his word shall be final is not in accordance with the principles of justice and fair play.
As far as the question of languages is concerned, it is quite true that we have two official languages in Canada but I think the Aot is going a little too far in saying that only those who have an adequate knowledge of French and English shall become naturalized British subjects. It would be a good thing for all the people within the confines of Canada, for their own benefit, to have an adequate knowledge of French and English.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about the
Germans?


William F. Carroll: Yes, I am coming to the German question. We have in our part of the country a great many Germans and we have no better citizens than the gentlemen who come from Germany. Somehow or other the Germans, as, I suppose all other races, live in the same vicinity.
They do not mix with the people who speak English or French, and consequently they may live in Canada for ten or fifteen years without having an adequate knowledge of either language. It would be unfair to debar such people, if they are otherwise desirable, from becoming British subjects. In some of the eastern counties of Nova Scotia we have men who understand neither French nor English, who speak only the Gaelic, and it would be just as fair and proper to say that these men should be called aliens as it is to deny those of German extraction British citizenship because they cannot speak English or French. Section 6 of the Act is legislation which has never before been attempted in any parliament. It means that if twenty years ago a person came to Canada and after three years he became naturalized under the law as it then stood, when this legislation passes if that man wants to have the status of British citizenship he has to apply to the Secretary of State, and it is absolutely in the discretion of the Secretary of State to say whether he shall be granted a certificate of British citizenship, although he was granted that certificate fifteen years ago by a competent tribunal. That is the worst feature of the whole Bill. Under sections 18 and 21 it would appear to me that the applicant must appear personally in court, but to that I have no great objection, although, under the law as it now stands, he may appear by affidavit through his solicitor. But having satisfied the judge that he should become a British subject, it is still discretionary with the Secretary of State to say whether he shall or not. I lake objection to that, but not such strong objection as I do to section 6, which means that

hundreds and thousands of persons who have supposed they were British subjects for the past fifteen or twenty years, are really not so.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The effect of section 6 is not to deprive a man, who was naturalized twenty years ago, or last year, or yesterday, or to-day, of all the rights he got in virtue of that naturalization which is a local naturalization in Canada. But if he wishes to have the additional benefit that comes from a certificate under this Act, he must go to the Secretary of State and get one. The purpose is to give a man, because he has been already naturalized, the advantage that a man naturalized under this Act would get.


William F. Carroll: That being so, I withdraw my objection to the section, but I would point out that the draftsman does not make plain what is meant.


Robert Laird Borden: It was drafted by about the best draftsman in the world.


William F. Carroll: Notwithstanding that, I say that the section is not clear if it means what the Minister of Justice says it means.


Robert Laird Borden: It has been drafted under the supervision of the drafting staff of the British House of Commons. It is copied precisely from the British Bill.


William John Macdonald: The draftsman may not have been familiar with Canadian conditions.


Robert Laird Borden: It is not a question of conditions; it is a question of formally drafting the wording of the section.


William F. Carroll: Let us look at what the section says. It starts out by saying that the Naturalization Act i3 repealed by this Act, and then it goes on to say that an alien who has been naturalized before the passing of this Act may apply to the Secretary of State of Canada for a certificate of naturalization under -this Act. It does not say a certificate of naturalization under this Act will entitle him to British citizenship.


Charles Joseph Doherty: * Under this Act,' will so entitle him.


William F. Carroll: And so will a certificate that will be granted to any person hereafter under this Act. The section is certainly obscure. I believe that a judge would decide under this section that a person who had heretofore become naturalized must re-

ceive a certificate from the Secretary of State before he be a recognized British subject, because the existing Naturalization Act has been repealed and this will be the only Naturalization Act there will be on the statute-books of Canada when it becomes law. Notwithstanding the ability of the draftsman, in my humble opinion the section is obscure and of doubtful meaning. This is very important legislation and any regulation which will be incorporated in this Bill should be made by the Parliament of Canada and not delegated to the Governor in Council or to the Secretary of State. Some of the most important things connected with naturalization do not come before the view of Parliament at all, but are handed over to the Governor in Council to-provide for by regulation. Parliament has the power to make laws, and in an important Bill like this everything that has to do with naturalization should come under the view of Parliament, and be passed on by Parliament, and not handed over to the Governor in Council.
Although I am not a profound lawyer, I have very serious doubts as to what a judge would hold to be the meaning of that particular section, in view of the fact that the present Naturalization Act will be absolutely repealed by this legislation.


Mr. LEVI THOMSON:: With all due deference to my hon. friend, it strikes me that the explanation of the hon. Minister of Justice of section 8 is quite reasonable; and I believe that a judge, in deciding as to the meaning of that section, would decide it exactly as the minister has explained it. Will an applicant who has been naturalized under the old law have to go through all the forms that an alien will have to go through, or will he merely have to apply to the Secretary of State?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The intention of the section is to enable a person who has been already naturalized under our existing law to get the further advantage under this legislation without having to go through the whole procedure again.


William John Macdonald: What is the status of the man who is naturalized now?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The man who is naturalized now will continue to be what he is- a British subject within Canada.


William John Macdonald: Where is the section that says so?


Charles Joseph Doherty: We do not require to say so. Under the existing legislation he has become a British subject within Canada; he is that, and there is nothing in this legislation to take that away from him. The effect of the repealed Act is entirely exhausted with regard to every man's naturalization under it, and this Bill does not say that he will lose anything he has. Some men will get more than they have at present.


Levi Thomson: The Act was good
at the time he became naturalized, and this legislation does not take the naturalization away from him.
Something has been said about fraud being perpetrated in cases of naturalization. 1 am very doubtful if this Bill will prevent fraud absolutely any more than the existing legislation does. Stories have gone abroad that fraud is frequently perpetrated in regard to naturalization. My experience of naturalization has been in the country; and although there are now very few cases of naturalization in my constituency, because nearly every person there has been naturalized, I have seen hundreds of people who have been naturalized, and I have never heard of a case where any fraudulent act has been perpetrated with regard to time or otherwise. There may be some cases of fraud in the cities, but I think that most of the cases that we hear of with regard to fraud are made up. There may be some sin in the way of fraud in Tegard to naturalization, but there has been a great deal more sin, 'to my mind, in the lying and exaggeration that has' been done in regard to the cases of fraud. While in the cities there may have been much more of it than in the country places, I think there has been practically none at all. It would be a very sad thing for the impression to go abroad that there is much truth in these stories we hear. It is better for the people to conclude that there has been lying done in the country than that there has been fraud and perjury perpetrated, as has sometimes been claimed.
Perhaps the minister will tell us if this Bill is an exact copy of the Imperial Bill, as far as it is possible to copy it here.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Levi Thomson: The provision with regard to language is in the Imperial Bill also?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, in the United
Kingdom the English language alone, with the proviso that in any British possession, where there is any language that stands
on an equal footing, then either the one or the other, and we act on that.


Levi Thomson: In regard to language, it may be necessary to have that provision in order to entitle us to make our naturalization empire-wide; but it does not strike me as being very fair. In my boyhood days in Ontario, I came in contact with a great many Highland Scotchmen, who have made the best settlers, but who have never had a good knowledge of English in their lives.


Charles Joseph Doherty: They would not need
to be naturalized; they were bom that way.


Levi Thomson: That is begging the
question. The principle is the same, that a man must have an adequate knowledge of English or French.


Robert Laird Borden: At the end of five years.


Levi Thomson: Well, they have not.
Some of these men have lived there for fifty years and have not an adequate knowledge of the English language, but they make the best settlers in Ontario and they have made Ontario what it is. The same may be said as regards the Germans; in some of the constituencies where there are a great many German settlers, there are probably some old Germans who have made the best settlers, but who have not an adequate knowledge of English.


Mr. EDWARDS:: How does the hon.
gentleman interpret 'adequate knowledge'?


Levi Thomson: It is not my duty to
interpret the language of statutes provided by the minister.


William Cameron Edwards: I was just asking for
information.


Levi Thomson: If my hon. friend will permit me, I was just going to ask the question myself of the minister. I think it is my place to ask him.


William Cameron Edwards: Two in the dark seeking liglht.


Levi Thomson: I just want to throw
out that suggestion to the minister. The provision may he entirely necessary, but I shall be very much surprised if the imperial Bill uses the word ' adequate '.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Levi Thomson: Well, I think the British authorities should be induced to change that. We have heard so much of adequate protection in this country and every man

who bblieves in protection believes in adequate protection. It does not matter how high or how low it is, it is adequate protection, and we shall have hundreds of judges interpreting this taw, and there will be hundreds of different interpretations as to What the word 'adequate' means. I think it is a very unfair term, because it can be made to mean practically anything.
My hon. friend from Calgary (Mr. Bennett) is not now in his seat. I think he stated, in speaking of the terms of the American Act, that applicants must be able to speak the English language, so as to be able to be understood. If the qualification was that the applicants must be able to speak the English language so as to be able to be understood, or to be able to write it so as to be able to be understood, a test of that kind could be very readily applied. I hope that my hon. friend (Mr. Edwards) will not ask me to explain the word ' adequate ', because I cannot do so and I do not think that he can. One person will give one explanation and another, another.
With regard to the matter of good character, I do not know whether there is any way of getting over that or not. In my constituency there has to be an affidavit that the applicant is of good character before he is given a certificate, and I have never seen any one fail to get that affidavit; and I do not think any one will fail, unless he is a notorious reprobate of the worst character who has been convicted several times. This provison has been ineffectual in the past; and while it will not be as ineffectual as the word ' adequate ', it will be ineffectual in the future.
I think it would be well for the minister to consider whether some better means might not be found to test the applicant's qualifications in that particular. The reading which the hon. member for Calgary gave from the American statutes indicated a course that seemed to me a little better. It is true that the applicant there must show that he is of good character, but he must also show that he believes in constituted government. It is more important to show that a man has not been convicted of any offence and that he is a believer in constituted government, and therefore not dangerous, than to depend on evidence of good character, because every man can supply that.
But the most serious feature of the Bill to my mind is that referring to the Secretary of State. It seems strange that after a judge, who has been solemnly appointed

to his position, has had the applicant before him and has been in the very best position to judge whether the man is entitled to naturalization, when the judge's decision comes before the Secretary of State the Secretary of State has absolute discretion with regard to it. He may refuse it for a mere whim, if he be whimsical; he does as he pleases, and is not accountable to anybody. With all due respect, I think that very unwise. Many a time in the case of an appeal to a judge from the decision of a magistrate, I have heard the judge say that as to the credibility of witnesses he did not pretend to form an opinion different from that of the magistrate, the magistrate having heard the evidence and seen the parties must be the better judge of credibility. But in this case we reverse that principle entirely. Here is a case decided by a judge who is accustomed to testing such matters and is in the best position to test them. The Secretary of State may be a lawyer or he may not, he may have no knowledge of law, yet he is given power to throw out the judge's finding absolutely. I think the minister must see that that is a very unwise proceeding, and that there is no good reason for it. It may be well that the papers should go before the Secretary of State and I do not think there would be any harm to have a little delay- these things are often rushed through too quickly. It might be well to have the official signature to the document if the minister thinks it wise. But to say that it shall he in the discretion of the Secretary of State to decide whether the certificate shall be granted or not would be pure nonsense in my opinion. This I think one of the most objectionable features in the Bill, and one of the most objectionable features one could imagine in any Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time.
The House went into committee on the Bill, Mr. Blondin in the chair.
On section 1-definition of a natural-bom British subject:
Frank Oliver: A resident of the protectorate of Uganda, under this Act will, of course, have all the rights of British citizenship and be able to assert them in Canada. Whatever our law here is, he will be entitled to all the privileges under that law. Is that the same as the law is at the present time?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The only difference in regard to that, I think, is that the la/w here makes it clearer than it was before that a person who is .bom under the jurisdiction is held to be born within the King's allegiance. A person is born a British subject if he is born in a place which is within the British allegiance.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Subsection 3 provides:
Nothing in this section shall, except as otherwise expressly provided affect the status of any person born before the commencement of this Act.
Suppose a person is born in the United States and becomes naturalized in Canada, would he not, 'by the efflux of time, become a full-fledged British subject within the empire?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under section 6, a person in that position, by applying to the Secretary of State, may get a certificate under the Act which makes him a subject throughout the empire.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is there a departure from the present law under this first section?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under subsection (a)
there is no departure. Under subsection (b) there is this difference between the law as enacted by it and the law as it stands tc-day: the privilege of being a British subject, granted to persons bom outside of tl'J dominions, is limited to persons whose fathers were British subjects, whereas under the law as it stands that privilege was granted to persons born outside of the dominions whose fathers or granfathers had been natural-born British subjects. Under the law as now amended, the privilege dies not extend to the grandchild; on the other hand it is widened to the extent that under the law as it now stands it was required that the father, or grandfather, as the ease might be, should have been a natural-born British subject, the grandchild of a naturalized British subject or the child of a naturalized British subject would not have been a British subject. Under this provision as it is now to be enacted, the child of any British subject who is born outside of the dominions will be a British subject whether his father was a naturalized or a natural-born British subject, but the grandchild will not be a British subject.


Wilfrid Laurier: Take the case of a child born in the United States of a British subject. Under the law of the United States he is an American citizen. If
that person, who is a citizen of the United States, comes to Canada, may he claim to be a British subject also?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: He can choose between the one and the other?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, he can choose. So long as the two tests co-exist the test which makes nationality depend on the place of birth and the test which makes it depend on relationship, you will have the possibility of a man having a double nationality.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Suppose that person returns to the United States, having that double nationality, and certain duties are imposed upon by the law of the land; let us say, for instance, enlistment in the army. Would he be able to claim his privilege of Canadian citizenship to avoid enlistment ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think he would, because he would then be in the country whose law declared him to be a citizen of its own and no legislation that we could possibly enact would prevent that country from enforcing its own law'. Assuming that under their law the child of an American citizen born in Canada would be an American-about that I am not quite clear-the same thing might happen if he were born here of an American father, but we would not expect to submit to the American's contention that he was their subject and not ours, when our law says that because he was born here he is a British subject. So, as I said before, until all the nations come to adopt one single test of what constitutes being a citizen or a subject, we will never avoid the possibility of a double nationality. There are provisions further on in the Bill enabling subjects to throw off their nationality, .affording a means of getting rid of the double nationality so far as getting rid of the quality of a British subject is concerned. As between the United States and Great Britain, there is a convention of 1872, if I remember correctly, under which, by agreement between the parties, an American citizen who becomes naturalized as a British subject is no longer claimed by the United States as being a citizen, and vice versa. As to the British subject who becomes naturalized in the United States under the treaty, Great Britain agrees to recognize that naturalization and to recognize that change of nationality. But short of treaties and arrangement of that sort, it is very difficult to avoid the condition where a man may be of two nationalities.

Mr. 'SAM. SHARPE:	Will this legislation have the effect of naturalizing the children of foreign consuls residing here during their term of office ?


Charles Joseph Doherty: As I understand it, the child of an ambassador that is born within the British dominions is not a British subject, because, although he is born within the Dominion, he is not born within His Majesty's allegiance. You will notice that it is required that a man shall be born not only within the dominions, but also within His Majesty's allegiance. The child of a foreign sovereign born within the Dominion would not be a British subject, because his, father is recognized as a sovereign within the empire and as not coming under the control of its laws, and the same privilege is extended to the Ambassador as the personal representative of the Sovereign. As regards a consul, I do not think he has any such status as will prevent this law being applicable to his child.


Frank Oliver: In my judgment, an
amending statute would be more in line with present requirements if it provided for exclusion from British citizenship in Canada instead of confirming an inclusion in British citizenship in Canada of races and peoples who are not desirable in this country.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We are dealing with the definition of a British subject by birth and it is not very easy to delimit that into sections of the empire. A man is a British subject by birth at the moment of his birth; that quality is stamped on him, and I doubt very much whether the Parliament of Canada-and I am always inclined to take the widest possible view of our powers-has the power to determine that a person who at common law is a British subject shall not be a British subject in Canada. We are not talking about citizens, Canadian or otherwise; we are talking only about British subjects, and if we could get a clear idea of just what it means to be a British subject we could avoid a good many of the things that are apprehended. The fact that a man is a British subject makes him owe allegiance to the sovereign and entitles him to the protection that the sovereign gives to the subject, and that is all. It does not entitle him to live in Canada, it does not entitle him to come into Canada, it does not entitle him to vote, it does not entitle him to anything that the law of this country does not choose to give him. That is the full extent of it, and I do not know that

it would have any great influence, if we had the power, to undertake to say that classes of persons who, under the common law from time immemorial, have been British subjects shall not hereafter in Canada be British subjects.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know that I agree. It would be very important to have the power, but I do not think we have it If we had the power-and this is a question which is constantly recurring in British Columbia, where the province has excluded Asiatics from certain privileges of British citizenship-1 daresay it would avoid a good deal of the conflict that is sure to arise in that province. I agree that we have not the power, because under the Confederation Act we have the power to legislate on naturalization, that is, to give by legislatioin the right to certain parties who have no right by title of their birth. We cannot go beyond that.


Frank Oliver: We are confirming the
citizenship in Canada of people born under the King's allegiance; but we are also making provision that those who have not been born under the King's allegiance, but who have acquired citizenship in a part of the dominions whose characteristics and populations are not considered desirable in this country, shall also have citizenship here. For instance, the dependency of Hong Kong is a part of China, and a Chinaman who acquires British citizenship in Hong Kong has British citizenship in Canada, as I understand. That is the purpose of the Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, the Act does notj
deal with citizenship in the slightest degree. The naturalization portion provides for making a man a British subject. The hon. member himself is the author of an Act which contains the only definition I know anywhere of what a Canadian citizen is. The Act defines a Canadian citizen to be a British subject, plus a three years resident of Canada. That is the only definition of a Canadian citizen. If a man becomes naturalized under this Act he will not be a Canadian citizen any more than he was before. He will be a British subject; he will have that quality without^ which he cannot become a Canadian citizen; but in so becoming a British subject he will be no further advanced towards Canadian citizenship than the Hindu or the British subject who arives here from India. But we are not making Canadian citizens

il45
under this Act; we are providing to make British subjects.


William F. Carroll: Did not the old Naturalization Act make British subjects?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes, in Canada.


William F. Carroll: Is it within the knowledge of the minister whether any Chinese have been granted the rights of citizenship under the old Naturalization Act? I asked a question covering eastern Canada for the last ten years, but I can find no trace of any in that time.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not aware
whether any Chinese were naturalized or not. I know of nothing under the old Act that would prevent a Chinaman being naturalized, but I do not know of an instance where one was.


Mr. STANFIELD:: Two were naturalized in Truro in 1907.


William F. Carroll: It seems rather ludicrous that we should enact legislation permitting Chinamen to become British subjects1 when we impose on them a penalty in the form of a head-tax before they enter our territory and when, as a matter of fact, we will not admit any Chinese women to Canada.


Mr. STEVENS :: Oh, no; there are Chinese women coming in the same as Chinamen.


William F. Carroll: It seems rather ludicrous that we are trying to exclude Chinamen from Canada, as we impose a penalty in the shape of a head tax; yet, under our naturalization laws, we permit them to become British citizens.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: He would not be a Chinaman, then.


William F. Carroll: I suppose there could
not be anything in this Act to exclude them or to prevent them becoming British subjects, as that might take on an international character.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not see what we
would gain by saying that they could not become British subjects the same as other people.


William F. Carroll: I think it is wrong to
have them against British subjects.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then, perhaps it might occur to the hon. member that the provision that the Secretary of State should have discretion is not so utterly without reason as was suggested a moment ago. The theory in this Act is not to create in any man an absolute right to be naturalized, but simply
to create certain conditions without which a man shall not be naturalized. I am not referring to the Chinaman in particular, but there are conditions where it might not be good policy to naturalize certain people or certain classes of people; and I think the discretion of the Secretary of State might be a very useful thing under the circumstances.


William F. Carroll: It is too wide.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Sometimes you have to give a wide discretion if you want to create a position where the power may be useful in certain cases.


Wilfrid Laurier: You may give such a wide discretion that it may be exercised when not intended to be.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, if our position is that in Canada we can never produce any man to fill any position to whom discretion can be confided, then this is too wide a power to give to the Secretary of State; but, if it is a useful thing to this country that there should be a discretionary power, I would hate to admit that we could not do it, because we never can get a Secretary of State who can be trusted to exercise his discretion about a matter of this sort.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I quite appreciate the discretionary power of a minister of the Crown; but I would like the minister to tell the committee upon what he is going to exercise that discretion. I can find nothing upon which the Secretary of State is to exercise his thinking powers or his discretion except the certificate that he gets from the judge. The judge is supposed, after hearing the evidence, to furnish a certificate, which the applicant forwards to the Secretary of State, and that is all the evidence, as far as I can understand the Act. Apart from that certificate, is there anything else upon which the Secretary of State can exercise discretion?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The judge's decision that goes to the Secretary of State is to the effect that the applicant has complied with the express requirements of this Act; but this Act does not intend to say that every man who has complied with the requirements of this Act shall have the right to be naturalized; It provides the condition, without which a man shall not be naturalized. When he goes to the Secretary of State, there are many things that may present themselves. But if the policy of this country were that it was not desirable to encourage a particular kind of immi-

gration, that a particular class of people, for reasons that perhaps you do not want to go into or discuss, were not desirable, there might be a field there for the exercise of the discretion of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State might also have information, say that an individual who was seeking naturalization, was using our naturalization for the purpose of evading some responsibility to his own country, and we might put ourselves in a false position with regard to the inhabitants of that country, to which he owed an obligation. These things are conceivable. The hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) read a list of things that the United States lay down as matters concerning which the judge must inform himself. Let us suppose the applicant has laid evidence before the judge to satisfy him that he was of good character and the Secretary of State has certain information that leads him to know that the man is an anarchist-are we going to tie the hands of the Secretary of State and compel him to say that inasmuch as he has passed a judge in some remote corner of Canada where the evidence was not available, and he has succeeded in passing himself off as of good character, the Secretary of State has no option but to hand hmi a certificate of naturalization? There is a wide field for the exercise of discretionary power. If we prescribe certain conditions for naturalization, and then say simply that upon these being fulfilled the Secretary of State shall or may issue a certificate of naturalization, every man who complies with these conditions shall have a right to a certificate from the Secretary of State, no matter what the circumstances may be. The whole purpose of the provision, which is looked upon with so much apprehension, a provision which has existed in England since there has been a naturalization Act-


Wilfrid Laurier: For a very good reason.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know the reason.


Wilfrid Laurier: The reason is that the British people do not favour immigration into their territory. It was only at as recent a date as 1844, as my hon. friend said, that they had an immigration Act in England. Up to that time naturalization was a matter of the grace of the sovereign. But in this country it is altogether different; we want to open up our country to the world, and if we open up

our country to the world that implies the promise that everything we have we will share with those who come to help us to develop the country. That is the reason of the difference between this country and England. I am quite prepared to admit all the restrictions that my hon. friend has stated. There may be reasons why these restrictions should be imposed in the manner in which my hon. friend suggested impliedly when he recalled the words of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. Bennett) in quoting the law of the United States. The reasons are stated why a certificate should be refused. If a man is an anarchist, or there is some other reason why he is not to be admitted, let those reasons be stated. If a man applies to a judge for a certificate, and a neighbour comes and says that he is not of good character, that he is a fugitive from justice, or has been liable to police punishment, the judge is bound to take cognizance of those matters and refuse the certificate. But what we object to is the vesting of such a discretion in a man who is not a judicial officer, but who has political responsibility only. I quite conceive there are many occasions when a discretionary power has to be exercised by the Secretary of State, but the possession of such power is always liable to very serious abuses.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not question that
this power might be liable to abuse. Almost any power may be liable to abuse. It may be said that discretionary powers are particularly liable to abuse but you cannot enumerate all the things that may be good reasons why a man should not become a British subject. If we were legislating in order to create a right in somebody's favour it would be proper that a judge should determine it and that the matter should be ended. But we are not. We do not contemplate that a man, because he does certain things, is to have the right to be a British subject. After all, it is a matter of grant by the state. We must either allow somebody to have discretion or we must undertake to specify here and now, and put in the statute, every reason conceivable why it is desirable that a man should not be a British subject. Then our legislation wi'l assume such a shape that we will have created conditions undert which a man shall have the right to say; I must have a certificate of naturalization;, 1 have a right to it-no mattter what strong reasons may be in existence at the time.-which were not known before, why he should not be a British subject. It is true

that we will do our best under the section to see that he shall be of good character,, and to make him prove it, but it is obvious that in a country of this size a man who may not be of good character, is not going to the centre, to the place where people are likely to have information concerning his past life, to apply for a certificate of naturalization. The character of this man has been 'built up and acquired out-
10 p.m. side of this country very possibly. He is not going to go where people know all about him and his character. That is the kind of men we do not want. He may be a refugee and he may go to some Temote corner of the country and because there are no witnesses in that remote corner of the country he may be able to convince the judge that he is a man of good character. The Secretary of State may have information that that man is an anarchist or that for any other good reason he is an undesirable. Shall we compel the Secretary of State to say: This man went to the remotest corner of the Yukon and applied for naturalization; there was no evidence brought before the judge to show that he was of bad character, therefore, I, the Secretary of State, have no alternative but to grant him a certificate. If we want to create that sort of a situation there is nothing more to be said. But in the drafting of this Act we did not conceive that that would be desired. In the United Kingdom the Secretary of State has exercised this discretionary power from the outset- my right hon. friend says for the very simple reason that in England they do not want to encourags immigration while in this country we do.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is another reason; in the old country they have social laws, old age pensions, and the like and they do not want to encourage old men to become citizens.


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is one reason why they do not want to encourage immigration. The reason why the right hon. gentleman thinks the Secretary of State ought to be trusted with this power in England is that they do not want to encourage immigration while in this country we do. If in this country we want to encourage immigration that is a very good reason for supposing that the Secretary of State will be reluctant to turn people down. The Secretary of State is going to be that very untrustworthy person, a politician, and he will want to encourage immigration, and therefore, will not be disposed to unnecessarily turn people
down. If it was claimed that there were too many people coming into Canada and that we did not want to encourage them to come something might be said against this provision. This discretionary power is a repressive power. For instance if a person comes before the Secretary of State and the facts are established, the ordinary course will be that the certificate will be issued.
The Secretary of State who would exercise [DOT]his discretion capriciously and without being able to put forward reasons for it, would find himself confronted with a publio opinion that would very soon put a stop to that, and the Government to which he belonged would find that it could not afford to stand behind a Secretary of State who was using that discretion in a capricious or unfair manner. I do not think we should lack sufficient confidence in our public men to allow this discretion which might, under given circumstances, be so valuable to this country. We do trust ministers with matters as important, and in view of the great safeguard this discretion may be I think we might very w'ell take the risk. I admit that the words; it shall be in his absolute discretion, do sound formidable, but it is felt that it ought to be made perfectly clear so as to avoid the application of the doctrine that wrhen you describe conditions that a man must fulfil, and then say that a public officer may, upon fulfilment, grant him a certain thing, that imposes an obligation on the public officer. These words are as strong as they are, because it is thought wise to make it perfectly clear that the Secretary of State is not bound absolutely, because these things are produced, to hand out a certificate of naturalizaion to a person to whom he may have excellent reason for refusing it. If he does refuse it will be in an exceptional case and he will be answ'erable to Parliament and to the people.


William F. Carroll: The trouble is that he will not be answerable to Parliament because the clause says he may do this without assigning any reason.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There may be circumstances in which it would not be possible to give reasons, but in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred there would be no such contingency. I realize that probably one of the most difficult things to find in this country is willingness to trust anybody. That may be a good quality, but because of it we lose a great deal of the advantage the country might derive if it had servants whom it could trust and was willing to trust. After all, there is more wisdom in

the old country which looks upon this provision, as they have looked upon it from the beginning, as essential.


Robert Laird Borden: It has always been that
way in England.	-


Charles Joseph Doherty: Certainly since the Act of 1870 if not since the Act of 1844. The original law enacted in England has been preserved ever since, and it says:
The Secretary may, with or without assigning reason, give or withhold a certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from such decision.


William John Macdonald: England has not
much immigration for the purpose of settlement, but it has 'been the home of political refugees for centuries, and for political reasons the power was properly placed there in the hands of the secretary. But the conditions in Canada are different. We are in a new world, we are looking to get people from every nation, and there never has been in Canada a demand that there should be the absolute and intricate legal procedure which is set out in this law, before a man can get naturalization. We have been talking about imperial naturalization in this country and in England for years, the idea being to get some machinery by which we could get over the anomaly that in the various dominions, on account of constitutional difficulties, there was no way to make any person a British subject in the broadest sense of the term. I think the minister should have preserved our naturalization law, so that a man who came to this country, made his home, brought up his family, looked to live here the rest of his 'life, should be able to participate in Canadian citizenship without confronting him with technical difficulties. Canada is not the home of political refugees, and the conditions are different here from those in England. The idea of giving the power to the Secretary of State in England is, to prevent a political plotter from going over there and dbtaining citizenship with a view to protection.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I am not aware from the record of political refugees in England that they have usually looked for naturalization, and I do not think that is the only reason for reposing this confidence in the English secretary.


William John Macdonald: The English secretary would naturalize a hundred in a year where we would have to naturalize thousands.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I can quite understand there are not so many cases of naturalization in the United Kingdom. That is undoubtedly true; and probably the real reason why we have to provide for the proof being taken outside is in the first place by reason of the immense size of our country, and in the second place by reason of the very large number of people who come to be naturalized. But neither of those things has any bearing upon the question of the discretion of the Secretary of State. We might go back to the old system under which it was so absolutely simple that men who had no comprehension of what they were doing and with regard to whom there was not any responsible person to certify that they knew what they were doing were naturalized because a paper hung on a wall in an office for three weeks.


William John Macdonald: But you can let the paper hang now. You are following the same procedure.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The paper would hang, but the man would also have to go before a judge and adduce evidence. Whether he goes personally or otherwise, he will have to prove to the judge that these things are true. At present the judge says: 'Nobody opposes; you are naturalized.'


William F. Carroll: The hon. Minister of
Justice is wrong. The applicant must produce affidavits taken before a stipendiary magistrate that he is a respectable citizen of reputable character.


Charles Joseph Doherty: And those affidavits the judge need not read.


William F. Carroll: But when he does read them, as you are going to make him do now.


William John Macdonald: Why do you not trust his judgment?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do trust his judgment. The hon. member has only come in since I gave the explanation of the position of the judge. I trust the judge on the one thing he decides; and the Secretary of State will take as absolutely decided what the judge has decided that the man has met all the requirements of the Act; but if the Secretary of State knows of other things which are good reasons why this man should not have a certificate, are we going to tie his hands? That is the question. All this means is, that the Secretary of State is not under absolute obligation to hand out the certificate of naturalization, because an

applicant has succeeded in making his way through the procedure. It is a power that I have no doubt will be seldom or never exercised; but it is a power that, when the occasion comes that it is desirable that it should be exercised, will be an important one.


Henry George Carroll: Does the minister say
that under the present Act the applicant must now go personally to the court?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, that is most assuredly not the case. Just let us look at the things with which we trust the minister, now. The Secretary of State or the Governor in Council now can appoint a man as a commissioner to take affidavits under the Naturalization Act. I do not want to say that every one of these commissioners is not thoroughly respectable, but they are exceedingly numerous. What is the guarantee you have now? The commissioner takes the oath of the applicant; and if he is satisfied, he gives a certificate to that person of the taking of the oath. Then that person takes the certificate or some other gentleman takes 400 of them; goes down to the office of the court and hands them in, and they are hung up on- the wall where they stay for three weeks. At the opening of the court the names are read out; and ten days afterwards, or whenever the close of the court comes, the clerk -says to the judge, ' 400 applications for naturalization; is there any opposition?' And then-


Mr.   OAEEOLL@: The person's counsel
must -make application?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Just let me read the
statute. It may be that in many instances counsel do go and -make application; but here is what the statute says -shall be done, -and what, I am credibly told, is done. You may have as many counsel as you like; but under this statute if the counsel gets up and says and the clerk affirms it: There is no opposition, then the judge's certificate goes. Therefore a judge is not called upon to verify one -thing except that that paper has hung on the wall -and that nobody has come to make an objection.


Henry George Carroll: What about the affidavits?


Charles Joseph Doherty: He is not obliged to
verify them. I think he would not be failing in his duty in the slightest degree if he did not verify them, because the law prescribes that he is to verify one thing, namely, that there is no opposition.


Henry George Carroll: What is the good of the affidavit?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under the present Act, I do not know. I want to improve the Act.


Henry George Carroll: I may tell the Minister of Justice that the judges in our part of the country will ask if the counsel or solicitor has the affidavits, and will call upon him to read them in court.


Mr. S. SHAEPE:: The affidavits are made part of the record of the court; and, if a man commits perjury, he will be prosecuted.


Mr DOHEETY:: Of course, a man may be prosecuted for perjury, but we are speaking of what is done at the present time. Here is what the court is bound to verify:
Where no opposition has been filed to the naturalization of an applicant, and no objection thereto is offered during the sittings, the court on the last day of the sittings shall direct that the certificate of the applicant be filed of record in the court.
No doubt there is a penalty afterwards on a man who swears falsely; but we ate speaking about trying to provide protection that there shall be proof that a man has complied with the requirements. You can punish that man afterwards, tout he will have exercised his privileges as a British subject; and who is going to take upon himself to investigate the truth or falsehood of the affidavits with a view to punishment? Can any hon. member show me a case where somebody has gone to that trouble?


Henry George Carroll: I can point the Minister of Justice to a case where I was refused a naturalization certificate because I did not have a certain affidavit, which I was supposed to produce in court, in the nature of a certificate from a justice of the peace or a stipendiary -magistrate.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Did anybody object to
the naturalization in question?


Henry George Carroll: No.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then I say that the judge did a very praiseworthy thing, but the judge is under no obligation to do it. If you will look at section 15 of the present Act you will see who it is that has to be satisfied:
The alien shall adduce, In support of such application, such evidence of his residence or service, and intention to reside or serve, as the person before whom he takes the oaths aforesaid requires; and such person, on being satisfied ,with such evidence, and that the



alien is of good character, shall grant to such alien a certificate in form B.
So that a person, who has no qualification but that he has been appointed a commissioner to take oaths, is the one who has to be satisfied. What does the judge do? The judge says, ' Is there any opposition?' No. Then the law says: You shall confirm that certificate, solely because there is no opposition. I do not know whether hon. gentlemen think that that is a proper course and that that is better than requiring that a man shall make proof before a judge.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not quite understand that the procedure is so slipshod in our part of the country as the hon minister thinks it is.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not say what the judges do. I am pointing out what under the statute is the limit of their obligations. I am glad to learn that they do very much better than the statute calls upon them to do.


William F. Carroll: They do just what the statute requires them to do.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The statute says that if there is no opposition the judge shall confirm the certificate.


William F. Carroll: If there are no affidavits-


Charles Joseph Doherty: If there is no certificate, the judge cannot confirm it. But the commissioner having administered the oath that is required, and sent it in, the judge must confirm it if nobody objects.


William F. Carroll: There is no change in the procedure under this Bill.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I could give several instances illustrating the point. Two months ago the commissioners prepared the affidavits of upwards of one hundred Italians. They got certificates from other Italians as to character. These affidavits with the applications were presented to the judge, and the judge granted naturalization in batches at a time-a batch of one hundred at one time, and at others fifty or twenty-five. I know of applications made to another judge. Realizing that the applicants were of a character who should not be naturalized, yet not being in a position to refuse, he simply withheld his decision. In other words, he exercised his discretion and refused to grant naturalization by refusing to give a decision in the matter.


William F. Carroll: Then, the hon. gentleman does not agree with the minister that the judge has no discretion under the present law ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I say he exercised his discretion by simply refusing to give his decision.


William F. Carroll: But the minister says he must not refuse.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If he makes a decision, he must make it in favour of the applicant. The judge told me that by not acting was the only way in which he could avoid naturalizing those who were unworthy. That judge urged me to bring forward matters relating to naturalization which, I am glad to see, are covered by this Bill. As to the discretion given to the Secretary of State, I would oppose the Bill if that clause were not in it. I could give this House many illustrations of why .a provision of that kind should be retained in the Bill. As the Minister of Justice has pointed out there are many questions of policy on the part of this country which it might be unwise to discuss in a public way, and none know better than those hon. gentlemen opposite who have been in office and have dealt with these troublesome matters, the grave difficulties that present themselves when you are dealing with questions of naturalization and immigration.


William F. Carroll: Wherein does the procedure under this Bill differ from that under the present law? The minister says that the applicant need not appear personally-just as under the present law. Under the law the applicant has to produce an affidavit that he has been ini Canada continuously for three years-it is now extended to five years-and intends to continue living in Canada. He presents also a certificate of good character. Under the old procedure these affidavits were placed on record at the court either at the beginning or at the close of the session. All this is just what is required under this Bill.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The substantial difference is that under the present law the applicant has only to produce the certificate of a man who may have no judicial qualifications, a commissioner to take the oath under the law. This is sent to the judge and the judge acts upon it. But under this Bill the proof must be before the court and must satisfy the court. And where the court finds it necessary, as I have no doubt it will, it may require the presence of the party.


William F. Carroll: But the Bill specifies
what the evidence shall be.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not know where it specifies that.


William F. Carroll: Under section 2.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It specifies what fact3
shall be proven, but does not say how they shall be proven except that it must be to the satisfaction of the court. Just as when a man wants to collect a bill, he must show that there is the indebtedness and the judge must be satisfied with his proof.
But I understand that there was an agreement that other business should be proceeded with. I beg to move that the 'Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again,
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Dominion Lands and Parks-Contingencies, advertising, etc., $300,000.
['This is to improve the accommodation at a great number of places along the line, most of the votes running between $1,000 and $3,500.\n263J\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 12.55 a.m. Saturday.\nSaturday, May 23, 1914.']
Mr. ROCHE:: There is an increase here of $20,000. This is contingent upon the extension of the Dominion Lands Service which causes a corresponding increase in the contingent expenditures. This covers advertising, printing and stationary, travelling expenses of outside service officials including inspectors of Dominion Lands agencies; expenses of forest rangers, timber inspectors and homestead inspectors, including travelling outfits, also freight, express, telegrams and unforeseen expenses.
Protection of timber in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories and the railway belt in British Columbia, tree culture in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and inspection and management of forest reserves, $660,000.


Frank Oliver: Is the increase in connection with the general protection and management of timber, or in connection with the forest reserves?


William Roche: There is an increase in respect of tree planting from $57,000 to $61,000, in round figures; an increase in respect of the administration of the forest reserves from $239,000 to $259,000; an increase on fire ranging from $181,000 to $211,000; an increased expenditure at the head office consequent upon the enlargement of the service, $38,000 to $40,000, and an increase in respect of the forest products laboratories.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What success has the department met with in regard to tree planting?
262i


William Roche: Tree planting is conducted at the Indian Head nursery, and we have opened a branch lately at Saskatoon, which is largely the cause of the increase. Trees are being very numerously distributed through the Northwest, and I believe that in recent years the work has been very successful. I do not just recall the number of trees that were planted last year, but I think that the number runs into the hundreds of thousands. We are having an increased demand for trees, year after year, from farmers, principally in the- provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What kind of trees do you plant?


William Roche: I have not a list of them, but I think the elm and the maple are the two principal varieties.


Frank Oliver: I think that the department of the minister has been rather too comprehensive in its setting apart of forest reserves. I notice on a map of Alberta recently issued that a forest reserve has been laid out northwest of Edmonton, between the Athabaska river and Lesser Slave lake. I am quite aware that there is a territory there, a considerable area of which is, in all probability, not suited for agricultural purposes, but I notice that this reserve takes in a country which, if all reports be true, embraces quite an agricultural area. This territory is closely skirted by a railway line now under construction. I think that that reserve is of an entirely unwarranted area and that it takes in a large amount of country that certainly should not be reserved from settlement. At this particular time, when the prairie country available is largely occupied and when the homestead entries are going down, I think it is an unfortunate policy to make reservations of land that is properly suitable for agriculture and should be available for that purpose.


William Roche: The Bill that was introduced this session amending the Forest Reserves Act did not make provision for any additional forest reserve in the province' of Alberta, so that this reserve must have been created last year.


Frank Oliver: It may have been created last year, but it was not mapped. It appears on the map of this year.


William Roche: These lands are first set aside temporarily and prior to their inclusion as forest reserves they are examined. The report of the forestry reserve experts

that the area embraces land suitable for the purposes of reforestation and unfit for agricultural purposes must be received before the lands are incorporated by Act of Parliament as a forest reserve. I quite agree that if lands are suitable for agricultural purposes they should be kept outside the reserve, but if the judgment of those officers who examine and set aside those reserves is correct, they do not include agricultural lands.


Frank Oliver: The map shows that a projection of this reserve comes within about half a mile of the shore of Lesser Slave lake. My information is that there is a broad belt of territory between the shore of the lake and the foot of the hills. I notice that there is a large reserve declared north of Lesser Slave river and this reserve immediately south of the river, so that there is only a small neck of land available for agriculture along the Lesser Slave river. There is a railway going through that district, the rails are already laid and that railway is simply cut off from settlement through the creation of this reserve. We have numerous complaints of people being distant from railroads; it is a great drawback to the progress of out country where people axe distant from railroads and the great hope is that railroads will 'be constructed. But here is a railroad actually in operation and the land all along its western side for a distance of some 50 to 75 miles is simply cut out from settlement. I think that that is a m03t unfortunate reservation and I submit that the matter should be looked into. If there were no railroad there, it might be that the land would be unsuitable for some reason for agricultural purposes, but with a railroad right alongside, unless the land is very unsuitable it certainly should be available for settlement in the interests of the country, as well as in the interests of the railroad.
Mr. ROOH'E:	I understand that the
examination of this land was made in 1911, that it was temporarily set aside and that the Act was passed by Parliament last session. The examination went to show that it is a very high and hilly part of the country and that the reserve was, no doubt, set aside prior to the coming of the Tailway into that territory. I do know some places in the province of Manitoba where railway lines run right through reserves, which are shut off from settlement. I am quite at one with the opinion of the hon. gentleman that if the lands are at all suitable for 
settlement they should not be included in the reserve. But these lands were reported by the forestry department as being unsuitable for agriculture; the examination was made, of course, prior to the construction of the railway.


Frank Oliver: I would strongly urge that an examination be made of the eastern and north-eastern limits of this reserve called the Lesser Slave Lake Forest Reserve, that part of it contiguous to the railway, with a view of withdrawing it if it is found to be reasonably suitable for settlement.


William Roche: There have been no protests thus far.


Frank Oliver: Of course, the railroad has only just been constructed; there is plenty of vacant land in that vicinity yet and nobody would need to go in there at the moment, but I wish to put on record my protest and to say that I think an examination should be made with a view to withdrawal.


Mr. WARNOCK:: I think that agricultural land is included in some of the forest reserves, more particularly in the Rocky Mountain forest reserve. At the present time it is not required for agricultural purposes, but with the coming of railways and the development of some of the coal areas, this land will in ten years perhaps, be required for agricultural purposes. I presume it will be withdrawn if required for that purpose. I want to ask about the grazing of sheep. About 1883 an Order in Council was passed prohibiting the grazing of sheep in the area between the international boundary and Highwood river. Is that still in force?


William Roche: An Order in Council was passed some years ago, and I think it still stands. Some alterations of that Order in Council have been under contemplation, but have not yet gone into effect. I understand that the lands within the reserve have been withdrawn.


David Warnock: So they are now available for grazing sheep? Is it proposed that the sheep shall be under fence or are they to run at large?


William Roche: The forest reserves are not fenced.
Mr. WARiNOCK: There is liable to be difficulty between the cattle men and the sheep men. If the sheep are grazed on these reserves they should be under fence.


William Roche: I understand that an
association has recently been formed which wishes to discuss this question of grazing within the forest reserves, and the head of the Forestry Branch is going out to confer with them shortly.


David Warnock: Clause 53 of the grazing regulations makes provision against trespass and imposes increased tolls in case of trespass. It is rather a hardship to find the owners of stock guilty of trespass if they allow stock within the boundaries of forest reserve, especially when the stock have been entering these reserves for years past and the reserves are not fenced.


William Roche: The regulations are held in suspension pending the conference I have mentioned.


David Warnock: I shall call on the minister and discuss the matter with him, so as not to delay the committee.


Frank Oliver: It would be very unfair that the department should enforce trespass against stock going on unfenced property. That right is not given to the ordinary citizen, and should not be claimed by the Government. If the Government desire to lease rights on forest reserves, that is perfectly proper; but if they are going to enforce trespass they should fence the property.
Water-power investigations, $140,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For what is that money expended?


William Roche: The sum of $114,300 was included in the main Estimates of 1913-14. It is estimated that we shall require $140,000 in 1914, an increase of $25,700. This increase is required for surveys in the Winnipeg river basin, $3,000; storage survey of the Saskatchewan river basin, $17,200; enlargement of present works, including the publication of reports, etc., $5,500. That makes up the increase. The details of the Estimates are:
British Columbia hydrographic survey	$ 30,340
Manitoba hydrographic survey	 27,910
Power surveys, reports, etc., in southern Manitoba	 11,700
International waters, lake of the
Woods district	 5,000
Storage surveys in Winnipeg river
basin	 3,000
Power surveys, reports, etc., in Alberta and Saskatchewan	 6,350
Storage surveys in the Saskatchewan
river basin	 17,200
Administration of small water-powers. 1,000 Inspection of construction	 6,000
Drainage and reclamation	 12,000
Consulting engineers	 2,500
Head office and administration expenses	 9,000
Publication of reports	 8,000


Frank Oliver: Has the department made an examination of a possible water power on the Athabasca river at Grand rapids?


William Roche: I think that is in contemplation, but no real work has yet been done. We have a party in there now.


Frank Oliver: Has there been any investigation of the Rocky rapids on the Saskatchewan?


William Roche: There is nothing designated about the Rocky rapids.


Frank Oliver: Has there been an
examination of the Bad Throat river on the eastern side of lake Manitoba?


William Roche: Considerable work has
been done on the Winnipeg river, but arrangements are now being made to send a staff of engineers from Winnipeg to report upon the water-powers on the river to which the horn, gentleman refers.


Frank Oliver: Has there been any preliminary lease of water-powers granted on the Bad Throat river?


William Roche: No.
For surveys and works under the Irrigation Act, etc., $2,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the nature of this
work?


William Roche: determine the area of land which can profitably be irrigated from St. Mary and Milk rivers in southern Alberta the approximate location of the necessary canals.


Frank Oliver: Is part of this money to be used for the purpose of defining further possible irrigation areas and is that only in relation to the Milk river and St. Mary River basin or has it relation to any other area?


William Roche: This ie an additional grant for the coming year. It will be used in connection with the St. Mary and Milk rivers.	,


Frank Oliver: Only?


William Roche: Only.


Frank Oliver: It is to define the possible extension of the irrigation area?


William Roche: Yes.
To cover the cost of special surveys and other works in connection with the classification of irrigable lands on the western section of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company's irrigation block east of Calgary, $35,000.


Frank Oliver: What is this work?


William Roche: This is in connection with the reclassification of the land in the western section of the Canadian Pacific irrigation tract.


Frank Oliver: What is the occasion of
this reclassification? Is it in regard to the sale of lands to the Canadian Pacific railway *or to persons who have bought from the Canadian Pacific railway?


William Roche: To persons who have
bought from the Canadian Pacific railway.


Frank Oliver: To reduce their prices*


William Roche: Yes.
Canadian National Parks, $584,630.


Frank Oliver: How far are the Government prepared to admit responsibility for the results of government in the parks? There is the town of Banff and the Government have seen fit to take the responsibility of providing what may be called modem facilities in that town-the paving of streets, sidewalks, waterworks and fire protection. I am informed that last winter a large hotel and, I think,
11 p.m. some other buildings, were burned down chiefly because of the lack of water pressure owing to the hydrants being frozen up. Are the Government willing to put themselves in the same

position as an ordinary municipality and assume responsibility for this, or will they stand on their rights as a government in defence of their position?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: An ordinary municipality, where the hydrants were frozen up, would not be under any legal liability for the loss of a building burned down and I do not see why the Government would be in a worse position. Does the hon. gentleman contend that the municipality would be legally liable for loss by fire 'because the fire could not be put out?


Frank Oliver: Yes, if the fire fighting apparatus were not in proper working order. I have seen cases where action has been taken against a municipality under exactly similar conditions. The Government having taken upon itself the responsibility of a municipality I want to know if they are willing to assume the liabilities as well?


William Roche: My information is that
there was no liability until negligence or carelessness on the part of the Government had been established, and these facts were not established 'by an investigation.


Frank Oliver: Of course, that is an investigation by the Government of itself. Is the Government going to stand on its rights as a government or will it accept the ordinary position of a municipality? I am only asking for information because the people ought to know where they stand. The Government has seen fit to take the responsibility of a municipality and I want to know.


William Roche: I understand the departmental position in regard to this question was that if the facts were established fixing the responsibility upon us or, if it was shown that there was negligence or carelessness on our part, it was the intention of the *department to take up the point referred to by the hon. member for Edmonton with the Department of Justice in order to estab-iish What liabilities the Government were resting under. The question 'has actually not been determined.


Frank Oliver: The Government having
held an investigation on itself and found itself not guilty has decided not to do any-tnung more. I think that is hardly a fair position. The occasion having arisen I would suggest that the department, without waiting for further action in this particular ease, have the question decided by the Department of Justice so that people living in such a place as Banff will know whether

they may look for redress or not, I think it is a proper thing to have decided without any further delay.
Protection of reindeer herd, $3,000.


Frank Oliver: What reindeer herd is
this?


William Roche: I am sorry to say we have not obtained very good results from our reindeer experiment. We purchased a herd of fifty reindeer from Dr. Grenfell in 1911, which were shipped from Labrador to the Fort Smith country on the Great Slave river. There were seventeen lost in transit and thirty-three were landed, but only eleven remain now. The trouble is largely with the flies in that country, which cause them to stampede, and they have not yet been rounded up.


Frank Oliver: What number of buffalo have we?


William Roche: We have 1,500 and they
are increasing quite substantially. There are 152 more than last year, the increase being 700 since the herd was purchased.
Alpine Club of Canada, $1,000.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: What club is
this ?


William Roche: The Alpine Club of Canada was founded by Mr. Arthur Wheeler, and it has a world-wide membership. The club publishes articles in magazines and reports of its work are circulated throughout the world. The prominence given to Canada by these publications has done a great deal towards advertising us throughout the world.
Astronomical surveys, etc., $262,000.


Mr OLIVER:: There must be a mistake here; this is a decrease.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is the observatory to be moved from Ottawa?


William Roche: A large telescope has been purchased and after a year's experimenting it has been decided that location about eight miles outside of Victoria, B.C., is the most favourable for it. They claim they can do there two and one-half times more work and better work, owing to atmospheric and other conditions, than at any other point.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is the Ottawa observatory to be closed?


William Roche: No.
Immigration-contingencies in Canada, British and foreign agencies and general immigration expenses, $1,450,000.


Frank Oliver: The information that is
current through the country is to the effect that we have more people here just now than we have work for, and while the suggestion is not particularly appropriate to this item, I want to say that in my humble judgment the Government would be well advised to take more drastic action than they have yet taken to deal with the question of the increase in the labour supply. There is no doubt that somewhat unfortunate and serious conditions exist. I would take the liberty of saying that the Government is very much to blame for that condition, in not having exercised greater discretion than they did last year. However, that harm has been done, the people are here and the difficulty is facing us. I certainly think the Government should take more drastic action than they have yet taken to prevent until conditions change, any further increase of people looking for work in Canada.


William Roche: The present policy does not differ from that which has been in existence for a number of years. We advertise only for agricultural labourers and domestic servants, and in all our literature we emphasize the fact that no other class of labourers should come to Canada without assured employment. Recently I read a copy of a circular to the House which was sent to all the agents and to the steamship companies and was disseminated broadly throughout the motherland, stating that we did not require skilled or unskilled labourers to come to Canada at present. In addition to that and quite recently, I have given instructions for the following advertisement to be inserted in a number of the old country papers:
Owing to the world-wide financial stringency and the consequent curtailment of large works of development, the Government of Canada finds that there are now in the Dominion sufficient artisans and skilled and unskilled labourers to carry on all contemplated works during 1914, and consequently advises persons belonging to the above-mentioned occupations and desiring to emigrate to Canada,, to postpone such action until normal conditions again prevail. Demand was never stronger for farm labourers and female domestic servants, and these may come forward with the full assurance of finding work immediately upon arrival. There are also many excellent openings for farmers with capital.
I have taken means to disseminate this information throughout the countries from which we draw immigrants. Therefore I

think the Government have not been at all remiss in their duty in calling attention to the state of things, so far as the classes of immigrants are concerned that we are not desirous of encouraging to come to Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yet it is a fact, according to what I read this morning, after the meeting that took place yesterday of the labour unions of Montreal, that there are thousands of unemployed in that city, who evidently belong to that class of immigrants who come from central and southern Europe. The other day, when the mayor of Montreal convened the unemployed in order to listen to their grievances-I am glad to see him come in just now-he was obliged to employ five or six interpreters to explain to those unfortunate people that he would do his best to find work for the heads of families. His worship the mayor can speak English and French fluently, but it was found that, amongst those thousands of people, six different languages were spoken. Every day on the Champ de Mars at Montreal, you will see by the newspapers, there are thousands of men convening and clamouring for work or bread. It seems to me that, although the action taken by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior is very wise, it should be more drastic. We have certainly passed through a very serious crisis, unknown before in the annals of this country. I am told that the Angus shops, which are generally very busy, have closed their doors during the past winter, and even during this spring, and that not less than
2,000,	perhaps 3,000 men, have been refused work. The same is true with regard to the Canada Car Company, and other large industries in Montreal. The steamship companies ought also to be instructed to refuse to accept immigrants unless they came as agriculturists or as domestic servants, because all the large centres-I am speaking of the city of Montreal, but the same tale can be told as regards Toronto, Hamilton, Winnipeg and Vancouver-are glutted with the unemployed. I am more or less connected with the charities in Montreal amongst the Catholics, and last winter they strained every nerve to meet the situation. We have the St. Vincent de Paul Society, the Refuge de Nuit, and various other organizations, and we are simply feeding at present the immigrants who have come during the last few months from central Europe. It seems to me that at present the Government could do no better than to take very drastic measures to prevent the unfortunate immigrants from adding first to 
our miseries, and then to theirs. The mayor of Montreal is here, and I wish he would give his own explanation in regard to the matter.


Médéric Martin: I am not able to explain myself very well in the English language, but I have never seen such a situation in Montreal since 1896. I heard ttus morning of a foreman employed m the Angus shops, who used to have 700 men working in his department, but who has now only thirty-five. Every day we meet on the Champ de Mars about 4,000 people asking for work, and there are people sending me letters stating that, if I do not get them work, they will kill me. I am not afraid of such threats. Since I took office, the first week I gave employment to 6,000 people, the second week to 8,000, and last week I had 12,895 men working for the city. I think this week I shall have 15,000; but I am not able to do everything alone; I must have help from somewhere. I am very sorry to see the way things are going; and I think the Government ought to do something. I have received a delegation, with Mr. St. Martin at its head, asking us to give the people vacant lots to cultivate. 1 think it is the duty of the Government to go down to Montreal and assist these people to go out West. The shoemakers have been out of work since last November. There is no construction going on; everything is stopped. I do not know what is the matter, but I think we have too much protection and not enough people in the West. In 1911, when I was speaking to my electors, I said that under this Government this state of affairs would come about in two years, and that is what has happened. It is not only in Montreal, as my hon. friend from Rou-ville (Mr. Lemieux) has said. I have met men in the car going to Montreal who have told me that the same thing is true in Vancouver, Winnipeg and Sault Ste. Marie. People are coming to Montreal because they think Montreal is able to employ everybody in the whole country.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: What wages are being paid to the city labourers in Montreal?


Médéric Martin: $2.25 per day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Have you advertised
that pretty well?


Médéric Martin: We have never advertised that at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will get lots of
people if you do.


Médéric Martin: I do not think $2.25 per day is too much, considering the present high cost of the necessaries of life. I think that question must be settled, and those who are responsible for it are the Government-nobody else. Why do not they start the work on the harbour? A few days ago $9,000,000 was voted. But though the weather has been fine and that work might have started six weeks ago, everything in the harbour is stopped. Why? We do not know. I have asked the Prime Minister to give orders that that work should go ahead in order to help these people. This Government may be very able but it is not very lucky. As soon as these hon. gentlemen came into power everything started to go down. If the Department of the Interior will make known among these people that there are good farms for them in the West, and will assist them to go on the land it will be a good thing for the country as a whole and certainly for these people.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think that the experience of the hon. member simplifies the saying, ' It pays to advertise.' If I read the Montreal newspapers correctly, the hon. member on being elected mayor of the city advertised very extensively that he would find employment for all who desired it.


Médéric Martin: That is what we are trying to do.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The result was that people who were out of employment not only in Montreal but in other places in the province of Quebec rushed in seeking employment at the wages the hon. gentleman offered which were higher than the current rate. In any other city, were the mayor so indiscreet as to issue a similar advertisement, 1 am sure many unemployed would be found. He displays more anxiety to place responsibility on the Government than to improve conditions. If there is anybody who is more responsible than others for the large number of unemployed in Montreal ,t is the hon. gentleman himself with his indiscreet advertisement offering the unemployed more than the market rate of wages. Everybody knows that the same conditions do not obtain in such cities as Winnipeg and Vancouver. Building permits show that there is more building in Winnipeg than there has ever been before in the history of the city. But when we have the chief magistrate of Montreal putting in such an advertisement as he did, we know that he is not interested in doing away with unemployment so much as in making political capital.


Médéric Martin: I took the course I did because when I was elected mayor I found so many people out of employment and some of them robbing people in different parts of the city. I took the responsibility of ordering work to proceed to the value of $1,500,000 without the regular vote of the board of control and the city council.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Did not some Montreal newspapers accuse the hon. gentleman of putting in an advertisement that had the effect of causing people to give up their employment and seek employment in the service of the city?


Médéric Martin: No. In Montreal there has been a great deal of unemployment; every trades union has men out of work, and this condition has continued since last November. I never advertised to the effect my hon. friend has stated. I do not care what the newspapers say, for many times they do not tell the truth. When I was elected, I tried to help every one; I took the responsibility of ordering work to go ahead, as I have stated. It is not only in Montreal that there is unemployment, but in every city in Canada.


William Humphrey Bennett: Nonsense.


Médéric Martin: The hon. member may call it ' nonsense,' but everybody knows that what I have stated is the truth.


Frank Oliver: I think it a pity that the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) should undertake to minimize a condition which exists and which certainly requires attention at the hands of the Government and of everybody interested.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Mayors.


Frank Oliver: Yes, mayors and ail who occupy responsible positions. It is a very serious situation and it is necessary it should be dealt with. I did not wish to take up so much the actual condition as to urge upon the minister the necessity to take measures under the immigration laws to prevent the situation from being accentuated. While the hon. gentleman has told us that he carried out the plans that prevailed some years ago, the conditions have changed since then. There is an acute condition which requires drastic measures to meet it. The minister shall certainly have my support, and I think he will have the support of hon. gentlemen on this side in taking drastic measures to prevent the condition from being ac-

oentuated by immigration at this time. It is a peculiar feature of the case that immigrants from iCentral and Southern Europe who were formerly almost entirely agricultural and went upon the land, today apparently are not going on the land but are immigrating for the purpose of getting work in the towns. That is a new condition and one that should be met. I read in the newspapers the other day of the arrival of some vessels with immigrants from Southern Europe. These people may be under circumstances to go on the land, but I fear very much that a large proportion of these people are going to toe simply an added burden upon the labour and charity of this country. We may have a recovery, conditions imay toe better next fall -I hope so, tout if we do not have that recovery, every immigrant who comes in looking for work is going to simply accentuate the condition of last winter which "was not too good. I say I take this opportunity of urging upon the minister not to insist on simply following the precedent of two or three years ago when conditions were different, but to be ready to meet the special conditions of to-day with special measures. There has been a change all along the line. 'The people have not been going on the land in recent years as they have been formerly. Whether it is because we are getting a different class of people or what may be the reason, the fact is they have been going into the towns rather than on the land and consequently there is congestion in the towns. I know there is in Edmonton and that fact calls for the attention not only of the civic authorities and provincial governments but of the Dominion also, and especially in regard to immigration. We are not finding fault with what has been done: let that pass if you like. But the question of what ought to be done in the future is what I wish to impress upon the minister.


William Roche: The immigration returns
do not bear out what the hon. gentleman has said about the tendency of immigrants coming in in large numbers yet not going on the land in the same proportion as formerly. The number of homestead entries has been falling during the last two or three years, but the proportion of immigrants from continental countries going upon the land and getting homestead entries has kept up. For instance, out of
44,000	entries from all countries three years -ago, 8,700 were continental immigrants. In

the following year, out of 39,000 homestead entries, 9,000 were made by continental immigrants. The number of homestead entries dropped down to 33,699 during the last year, of which 7,757 were made by immigrants from continental countries, so that just as large a proportion of those coming from continental countries have gone upon the land as* heretofore. Another thing to bear out that contention is the fact that we pay bonuses only to those going upon the land and to domestic servants. Although we have had a large immigration from the continental countries, the number of arrivals last year being 112,881, we paid bonuses on 1,928 only. As a matter of fact, immigration has fallen off very considerably this year; there is no doubt that a good many of those who were in the cities were formerly engaged ini railway construction and came to the cities because during the money stringency the railway companies engaged in construction work have been laying off hands or have completed their lines. But many of these people could get employment in the country if they would only go and take it. I understand that many persons in Winnipeg who could get situations on the land if they would accept the same, but many of them will not do so. As the hon. member for North Ontario has said, a great many persons have flocked into the city of Montreal from outside points, having been attracted by the promise made by the mayor that he would find employment for those who were out of work. We do not encourage those who go to the cities and towns. I have impressed upon the steamship companies the desirability of their not bringing any immigrants outside of the classes upon which we are paying bonuses except those who are coming to assured employment. In an 'address which I delivered to 300 or 400 persons in Montreal I impressed upon the representatives of the steamship companies that we were not encouraging any persons to come except the classes upon which we are paying bonuses. Notwithstanding the fact that there is a big falling off of immigration this year, we are urged by hon. gentlemen opposite to take drastic steps to prevent certain kinds of immigration; next session I venture to say that they will make capital against the Government by reason of the falling off of immigration.


William Cameron Edwards: It is certainly to be regretted that there are many people in the

city of Montreal and in other cities seeking work and unable to get it. At the same time, there is a certain measure of retributive justice in it; it is the logical result of a policy which has been followed by both parties in this country for years. A policy which fixes an eight-hour day on government works is a policy which is calculated to drive men off the farms and into the cities. The eight-hour day is an im-possiblity on the farm; every gentleman in this House knows that what I say is true. Is it not natural that boys should leave the farm and come to the city under these conditions ? You fix an eight-hour day on government work; labour unions fix their eight-hour day; wages are fixed, as the hon. [DOT]member for St. Marys, Montreal, said, at $2.25 for an eight-hour day, and I presume it is so in that city. You cannot get a man to stay on the farm where he has to work twelve or fourteen hours a day, twelve hours a day at the least; he sees that the man in the city has an eight-hour day and he at once heads for the city. Petitions, largely signed, are presented to Parliament urging upon members to put through legislation favouring the shortening of the hours of labour beyond what is a possibility on the farms, and that has a tendency to drive men away from the farm and into the city. I do not think it is wise legislation. Perhaps from a political standpoint it would be unwise for a man representing a city constituency to oppose a largely-signed petition asking for legislation fixing an eight-hour day. As I do not represent a city constituency, I am, of course, able to speak more freely along this line than, perhaps, some others are. Permit me to repeat that the tendency of our legislation along the line of shortening the hours of labour in the city beyond what is possible on the farm has had the logical effect of inducing the men to go from the country into the city and that, to a certain extent, is responsible for the conditions that exist to-day in respect of employment.


Médéric Martin: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that $2.25 is too much for a labouring man in the city of Montreal?


William Cameron Edwards: No, I do not say that $2.25 is too high a wage, but I do say that $2.25 for an eight-hour day is a rate of wage which it is impossible to pay in the country. I do not think that I am extravagant when I say that a twelve-hour day is about as short as you can possibly have on a
farm. If you establish the same rate in the country for the twelve-hour day as you pay in the city for the eight-hour day, it means a wage which the farmers cannot pay, and the natural tendency is for the people to drift into the city I am quarrelling not so much with the $2.25 for eight hours as with the eight hours itself. I think the eight-hour day is too short a day in the city, and that we have made mistakes in the past in listening to the demands of unions and others for an eight-hour day. There are certain occupations where an eight-hour day is quite long enough, perhaps too long. In such an occupation as mining, the hours of labour should be exceedingly short, but I say most emphatically-and I believe that I express the feeling of many people in the country districts-that an eight-hour day for a carpenter or a mason is entirely too short.


Mr MEDERIC MARTIN:: Those who get $2.25 a day work ten hours a day.


William Cameron Edwards: I am speaking of the eight-hour day on Government work.


Frank Oliver: In regard to the question of immigration from central and southern Europe, my hon. friend says that he advises only those who are looking for labour on the land to come to this country. I think that the condition is such that he should not advise even those who are looking for labour on the land to come from central or southern Europe, because it is not convenient for those people to secure employment as labourers on the land.
They are not likely to get employment. Those people have come here ostensibly to look for employment on the land but really to get railway work. They are not suitable for farm labourers. Many of those who came in former years had cash sufficient to go on the land. People of that kind would be all right to-day, but those who are looking for employment on the land are not likely to get it because, owing to their lack of knowledge of English and so on, they are not suitable for that employment. The condition to-day is similar to that in 1907 when the Government of that day adopted radical restrictions against the coming to Canada of too many of these people. The conditions to-day call for severe and drastic action to prevent too large an influx this year, certainly from southern and central Europe. There is not the same demand for that class of labour to-day as there was a few years ago. My hon. friend says that the records show that these people

are settling on the land. I need only say that the unemployed in the cities of the West are very largely that class of people. That is evidence to me that they are not going on the land.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, $175,000.


George Perry Graham: There is a good deal of talk as to two members of this board retiring, and there is also a suggestion that the size of the board is to be reduced. There are other rumours as to the gentlemen who are to become members of the Railway Board. In fact it is a current rumour that a member of the present Government is to go on the Railway Board. Are two members to be succeeded by other members or is the board to be reduced in size?


John Dowsley Reid: The vacancies, of course, will be filled. I have not heard anything as to increasing or decreasing the size of the board. The Minister of Railways has been away for some little time and I do not know what his intentions are. This is the first I have heard of any member of the Government being appointed to the board.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The rumour is that the hon. the Minister of Inland Revenue is going to be appointed there soon to replace Mr. Bernier. But there are others who say that Mr. Bergeron is entitled to that position. The hon. member should not forget him, he did yeoman service for the party when he sat in the House. In the case of Dr. Mills, some effort should be made by the Government to utilize the services of a man of his experience. I am told that the salary of Dr. Mills and of Mr. Bernier ceased in January. It is felt .by the litigants and the railway companies that the experience of a man like Dr. Mills is very valuable indeed and that something should be done for him at his age, after the service he has rendered his country. It is really too bad to think that he should be left penniless now and without any employment. I am told that the commission would be only too pleased to retain his services in connection with their work.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think there is any truth in the report as to the Minister of Inland Revenue being appointed to the board. As to Mr. Mills, I understand that since his time expired as a commissioner he has received a salary of $3,600 per year as librarian to the commission. I understand that Chief Commissioner Drayton arranged this and that it was quite satis-

factory to Mr. Mills. I have had no conversation with Mr. Mills. I had to sign the Order in Council to make the appointment, and it was on a letter from Mr. Drayton to me as acting Minister of Railways and Canals asking me to recommend it to Council. I suppose Mr. Mills got his salary all the time.


George Perry Graham: There are two vacancies now on the board?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and when the Minister
of Railways and Canals comes back I have no doubt he will take the matter ulp.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada -to pay expenses in connection with cases before, $25,000.
This is the annual vote to pay counsel engaged to represent the department in cases before the Railway Commission.
Mr. MoKENZIE:	I find amongst the
returns that were brought down an item under ' legal expenses ' of $3,500 paid by the Department of Railways and Canals last year. I cannot expect the minister to have all information about these items and to bring down the details this evening but I would like him, when his estimates come up again, to have the particulars of the legal expenses.


John Dowsley Reid: Who is the money paid to?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: To Mr. H. F. McDougall and there is a letter signed by a gentleman named Little bearing date the 3rd April, 1913, which refers to the expenditure as being charged against cost cf litigation. I am aware that there was no litigation in connection with the matter. I am also aware that there are many conflicting reports and considerable correspondence as between officials of the department. I am serving notice on the minister that I will expect some explanation about this litigation, because, ae a matter of fact, I know there was no litigation at all.


Mr.   RETD@: I will get full informal
tion for the hon. member within a couple of days.
Governor General's cars-attendance, repairs and alterations, $2,500.


George Perry Graham: How many cars have
you now?


John Dowsley Reid: There are two cars. An
extra car was bought when His Royal

Highness came here a couple of years ago. The best car, that the Canadian Pacific railway had, was secured.


George Perry Graham: They had two before;
they must have three now.


John Dowsley Reid: We got an extra one anyway.


George Perry Graham: Then there will be
three?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.
Grand Trunk Pacific railway-remuneration to Government director of, $2,000.


George Perry Graham: What was in the last
Teport of the director?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not seen that report myself.


George Perry Graham: You see how much good one director on a board would be in connection with another matter that is now before the House. Here, we have one director representing the Government on the Board of the Grand Trunk Pacific and the minister does not know what he does report. He is not even a means of communication so that the Government may know what is taking place.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the name of
the director-Mr. Jules Hone?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.
Surveys and inspections-railways, $75,000.


George Perry Graham: What is that for?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the annual vote, and the money is expended making any surveys required in connection with subsidized railways, and it also includes the expenses of the inspection of the Grand Trunk Pacific.


George Perry Graham: That would include the expenses of Mr. Collingwood Schreiber?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


George Perry Graham: How much did you expend last year under that, item?


John Dowsley Reid: About the full amount.
To pay expenses in connection with the consolidation of the Railway Act, $2,000.


George Perry Graham: Who gets that money?


John Dowsley Reid: This work is
12 p.m. being done by Mr. Samuel Price.


George Perry Graham: Who is he?


John Dowsley Reid: A leading lawyer in Ontario.


George Perry Graham: A partner of the Minister of LaJbour?


John Dowsley Reid: He was, but not now.


George Perry Graham: Is he the same gentleman who was employed by the Ontario Government up in northern Ontario?


John Dowsley Reid: The same man.


George Perry Graham: Is he the same man that the Government sent out to investigate the labour dispute in British Columbia?


John Dowsley Reid: He is the man, and he did the work well in each case.
'Mr. GRAHAM: There is a great difference of opinion about that. He has displayed a remarkable versatility of talent. One position succeeds another. When the engagement he has in northern Ontario is over he is sent out west by the Labour Department, over which his former partner presides, and now he is put to consolidating the statutes. I am told that Mr. Price's name has been frequently mentioned in the province of Ontario for one of the vacancies on the Board of Railway Commissioners.


John Dowsley Reid: Not to me; it may have been to the minister himself.


George Perry Graham: His name is prominently mentioned as being a strong candidate for one of the vacancies. I think he would make a good man on the board, but get him permanently located somewhere, so that you can give some of the other boys a chance for some of the smaller things.
Trent canal, $178,000.


George Perry Graham: As the acting Minister of Railways is aware, there may be some discussion of the Trent Valley canal, but the items on page 100, 'staff and repairs to canals,' will cover any inquiry or discussion that may take place.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no objection to taking it up on that item.


George Perry Graham: I have no objection, then, to letting No. 120 pass.
Rideau canal-repairs and replacements of dams, $30,000.


George Perry Graham: There was some discussion three or four years ago about the Hydro-Electric Commission, as to whether some powers on the Rideau could be used for electrical purposes in eastern Ontario. Has anything been done about that?


John Dowsley Reid: There has been nothing done on the Rideau canal. They have taken up no powers or anything of the kind.


William Cameron Edwards: Early in the present
session, I suggested to the Minister of Railways and Canals the advisability of considering the lighting of the Rideau canal from Brewer's Mills to the city of Kingston. Mr. J. M. Campbell of Kingston has leased the power at Kingston Mills, and has erected a power house there with the intention of supplying Gananoque and the township of Pittsburg, between Kingston Mills- and Gananoque, and I thought that possibly the same gentleman might supply power to light the canal between Kingston Mills and the city, and also between Kingston Mills and Brewer's Mills. I received from Mr. Campbell an estimate as to the cost of that work. The initial cost was, according to this estimate, very much more than I had the slightest idea it would be; in fact it was so great that it would seem to me to put the idea out of question. Whether the canal could- be lighted from Kingston, Mills to the city from the power at Kingston Mills, at a reasonable cost for installing the poles and wires, is a question which I think the Government might very well consider. The installing of electric lighting from Kingston Mills to Brewer's Mills would, from the information I have, be very much more costly in' the matter of erecting the poles than it would be from Kingston Mills to the city. I have the estimate of Mr. Campbdl for that, and if the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham,) would like to look it over I am sure he would understand the matter much more easily than I would.


George Perry Graham: I shall be glad to see the estimate.


William Cameron Edwards: I should be glad to
have the hon. gentleman's opinion on it.
Canals-concrete facing, dam at Valleyfleld, $26,000.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman from
Beauharnois (Mr. Papineau), I understand, wished to ask me a question about this.


Mr. PAPINEAU:: I have a statement as to the expense already incurred by the contractor, and I want to submit that the deposit which was confiscated should be refunded.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman mentioned to me the amount the contractor had expended, and I stated to him that I would recommend that the deposit should

be refunded. That is the way the matter stands, and I will try to arrange it.
Trent canal-construction, $1,250,000.


George Perry Graham: I would like to know from the minister, what the condition of the work is, and how long it will take to complete. -There is another matter on which information should be given by the Minister of Justice before the Estimates are through. The Seymour Power Company have secured control of a good many powers on the old Trent canal system, and the newly developed power, under an arrangement the details of which I need not give now. I believe litigation between the Dominion and the province of Ontario is now before the courts. As I understand it, one of the large insurance companies is financing to a certain extent the Seymour Power Company, and there is a question of the rights of the power company being taken over by the Hydro-Electric system of Ontario. The Seymour Power Company have a network of wires, and are distributing power in the East quite largely. It is of course immaterial to the people who supplies the power, so long as they get it at a fair rate, and under the old arrangement with the Seymour Power Company, in order to safeguard the people, their rates were placed under the Board of Railway Commissioners. The Ontario Government have contended that the right in these powers is vested in the province, generally speaking, ,and the Dominion took exception to that contention. As a matter of fact, only a few years ago the Ontario Government had a staff of inspectors or caretakers at the different dams, and it paid them to look after these dams and for conserving the water at different points. They were justified in this because they received fees and dues from the lumbermen, and it was the business of the provincial Government to pay the caretakers. Voluntarily, some six years ago, the Ontario Government gave up to the Dominion all its rights in these dams, and were delighted to get rid of them because they had no revenue from which to pay for the care of them.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The supervision of them.


George Perry Graham: The Order in Council is quite sweeping and it shows they wanted to get rid of them. A little later the only power the Ontario Government then claimed they leased to one Culverwell at the rapids in the vicinity of Campbellford. Later Cul-verwell's rights were cancelled and the

Ontario Government desired to have the power vested in them. It is a question between the Dominion Government and the provincial Government. The Dominion Government contended that the Trent was in a different position from almost any of the other waterways in the Dominion and that the title, owing to the peculiar. conditions existing as to riparian rights and other circumstances, was vested in the Dominion. I would like the minister to be able to give us a statement from the Minister of Justice as to what the case was that was submitted to the courts, whether any decision has been given, and what stage the proceedings are in at present. I would like him to inform the House what powers have been developed over and above these now owned by the Seymour Power Company, how much more are expected to be developed and what this Government proposes w do with these powers. In other words, do they propose to hand them over to the province ot Ontario? I am not arguing they should or should not, but we ought to know what is to be done with these powers that are being developed as incidental to the construction of the Trent canal.


John Dowsley Reid: I know that the Minister of Justice has brought the matter before the courts but it has not yet come to trial. I will certainly get the minister to give me a full statement, so that I can have it for the hon. member before we take up any of the other items. There has been a good deal of trouble along the Trent canal in connection with the work. At Campbellford there has been some trouble on account of the removal of the dam of the Trent Valley Woollen Company. I think that matter came up in the hon. member's time. I have had quite a little trouble in regard to the dams all along the canal. Claims are coming in to have the dams renewed, and so on. I will have a full statement of that made, so that I shall be able to discuss the matter with the hon. member and give him all the information possible.


George Perry Graham: Can the hon. member
tell us the actual condition of the work on the canal? When will the Severn division be completed?


John Dowsley Reid: A contract was let a short time ago for the Severn division of the Trent canal. We had six tenders, of which the lowest was $130,278, and the contract was awarded to the York Construction Company, the lowest tenderer. I am informed by the chief engineer that there
are two more sections to let to complete the outlet into Georgian bay.


George Perry Graham: How long will it take to complete?


John Dowsley Reid: About four years yet before it will be completed and ready for operation.


George Perry Graham: What will be the total cost of the Trent Valley canal?


John Dowsley Reid: The Ontario and Rice lake division will cost about $7,000,000, and the Severn division about $3,000,000. There is another section in the interior that will have to be deepened, namely from Peterborough to Lake Simcoe. It is only six feet deep at present. No estimate has been made of that so far.


George Perry Graham: If that part is not deepened, how much will the canal cost?


John Dowsley Reid: $10,000,000, plus the original
cost.


George Perry Graham: What is the plus?


John Dowsley Reid: From the time the work was started until the end of 1913, we have spent on the Trent canal $12,464,651.64. That includes the Ontario and Rice lake division as being practically completed. We shall have to add to" that the Severn division, $3,000,000. Therefore the total cost will be probably $16,000,000. If we deepen that part from Peterborough to Simcoe, of which no estimate has yet been made, the cost of that will have to be added.


George Perry Graham: If you deepen that, you will have to have more conservation work on the lakes.


John Dowsley Reid: Not necessarily.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: There is some riprap
work being done on the canal from Balsam lake to lake Simcoe. Will the minister tell us whether that work is going on this summer, because it is very important that the sides of the canal should be preserved by this riprap? A number of men were employed last summer. Will any be employed this summer?


John Dowsley Reid: That is only repair work; and if any is necessary, it will be done by the repair gang.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Does that come under the general improvements?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


George Perry Graham: The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson) wishes to discuss something in connection with Campbellford, but I presume that can be done under the other item?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


George Perry Graham: The other night we
passed an item in regard to the Chambly canal. I remember on one occasion voting some money for the construction of a bridge at Iberville. Is any work being done on it?


John Dowsley Reid: There has been an item of
$52,000 in the Estimates for the last three or four years, on condition that the Quebec Government and the municipalities pay a certain amount towards this bridge. Nothing has been done up to the present time by the Quebec Government or by the municipalities, and therefore the item has been dropped this year. If the other parties are willing at any time to go ahead with their proportion, we shall then renew the vote.	*


George Perry Graham: I was under the impression that an arrangement had practically been arrived at by which the other parties were willing to contribute, and that a deputation had urged the Government to consider putting that item in the Supplementary Estimates. Of course, my hon. friend cannot say whether that will be done or not, but does he know of any such arrangement being reached?


John Dowsley Reid: One day last week a deputation asked me about this vote; and I explained to them that it was dropped, because nothing had been done for the last three or four years, although the vote had been in the Estimates. I also stated to them, that if the parties interested would do their share, I had no doubt that the Government would renew the vote.


George Perry Graham: We might take up the items under capital expenditure on the Intercolonial railway. The item 'Halifax-new terminal facilities' might be allowed to stand, as both members for Halifax are absent, and there will probably be some discussion on that item. Then the hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson), wishes to discuss the item with regard to the shops at Moncton. The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), wants to discuss the item relating to Mulgrave, and another hon. member desires to discuss the Sydney Mines diversion. The chairman might take up these items from the

beginning, and there may be others that I shall ask to stand. While I am on my feet I might call attention to the fact that capital expenditure on the Intercolonial railway is called for by this Government just as it was by the late Government. I took a sane view of this capital question and after the next election, when the hon. member (Mr. Reid), is not acting minister or anything like that I hope he also will have sane views on the subject.


John Dowsley Reid: I am getting a lot of light.


George Perry Graham: The Intercolonial railway, so far as my experience goes, does not encroach on the principle of proper capital expenditure any more than a railway company does. It may have done so years ago-I am not discussing that, for I do not know. When, for a short time, I was head of the Railways Department we secured the basis upon which the Interstate Commerce Commission of the United States settled capital expenditure and tried to adopt the same principles, except that at that time we used money out of revenue for works that the Interstate Commerce Commission would not let the company pay for in the same way. In a work on railway finance which I have read, the author lays it down that even a nail driven that is new and adds to the value is capital expenditure. The principle is sound. Under the new methods adopted on the Intercolonial railway, in laying aside a certain amount for renewal of equipment account and rail renewal account, money was taken out of revenue to the full extent that would be allowed if you applied the rules of the Interstate Commerce Commission. I suppose the acting minister can assure me that all this proposed capital expenditure is of that kind. I should hate to see the Government backsliding on this matter because the principle is a safe tine.


John Dowsley Reid: I believe the policy adopted by the hon. member is continued by the Intercolonial railway; there has been no change. I agree with him that the Intercolonial railway are charging to capital account such items as he speaks of. For instance, we have $900,000 appropriated for the strengthening of bridges. That work is necessary because the heavy engines and cars have made the old bridges dangerous.


George Perry Graham: You have to take out the wooden ones which you wanted to keep on the National Transcontinental.


John Dowsley Reid: These are iron.


George Perry Graham: But there are wooden ones you have to take out.


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


George Perry Graham: We want to make you
confess these things before we put through the Estimates.
Railways and Canals-chargeable to capital -Intercolonial railway-Chatham division of line and branch to wharf, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: Can you get through with that?


John Dowsley Reid: That is the end of it.
*Intercolonial railway-Chaudi&re Junction to St. Romuald-double tracking, $160,000.


George Perry Graham: What is that?


John Dowsley Reid: For a number of years the
question of double tracking from Levis to Chaudiere Junction has been under consideration and the application for the vote was made to read ' double tracking Levis to Chaudifere Junction/ Since the printing of the Estimates it has been decided to start the double tracking at St. Romuald and continue it to Chaudiere Junction. The distance is 3-77 miles.


George Perry Graham: How much will it cost to build?


John Dowsley Reid: It is heavy work. I have
here a detailed estimate showing a cost of $157,135. Add 10 per cent for inspection, engineering, etc., amounting to $15,715.50 and there is a total of $172,848.50.


George Perry Graham: Double tracking on your own right of way?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.
Intercolonial railway-diversion of line between Nelson and Derby Junction, $108,000.


George Perry Graham: How many miles, and
what are you doing there?


John Dowsley Reid: When the Government took
over the Canada Eastern railway they were operating two lines of railway along the south and north sides of the southwest Miramichi river within a short distance of each other. On account of the light local traffic on the south side of the river and heavy expenditure required to renew bridges on this line, it was decided to abandon it between Nelson and Blackville, and construct a line from Nelson to Derby Junction, making connection with the railway on the north side of the river. This means a saving of the maintenance of about 22J miles of line. A contract for the grading and 263
masonry has been entered into with K. R. Morrison, Ottawa, for $54,000.


George Perry Graham: What about the people
on the other line? Do you abandon bridges too?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, they had to be renewed or we could not run over them. There is one at Blackville.
Intercolonial railway-Fredericton-to increase accommodation at, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: What are you doing at
Fredericton?


John Dowsley Reid: This is a revote of unexpended balance voted in 1913-14: to brick station, f23,000; electric lighting, $7,000; station furniture, $1,000; drainage and concrete platform, $3,300; freight shed and loading platform, $6,500; land, about 38,000 square feet, and legal expenses, $23,000; grading and track work, $8,000; inspec-tiorn, engineering and contingences, $7,000; total, $74,500. There was expended at Fredericton $64,500, and we are asking for $10,000 to clean up this work.


George Perry Graham: You have not made an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific railway to occupy the same station at Fredericton?


John Dowsley Reid: No, not yet.
General protection of highways, $65,000.


George Perry Graham: How many highways
are you protecting?


John Dowsley Reid: This is the list of the work for 1914-15:
Subway at River street, Stellarton $ 7,300
Subway at Forbes street, New Glasgow	  8,150
Subway near Oxford station ..	..	11,000
Subway at Victoria street, Amherst	3,850
Subway 1.42 miles west of Little
Metis	 5,720
Electric gongs	 25,000
Eng neering contingencies, etc	 3,980
Subway at Cooks Brook between
Moncton and Shediac	 40,300
Subway at Young street, Truro ..	..	47,800

The appropriation for 1913-14 was $65,000; estimated expenses, $32,000; amount to be re voted, 1914-15, $33,000; amount to be voted 1914-15, $88,000; total, $121,000.
Intercolonial	railway-Hampton-subway
and facilities at, $40,000.


George Perry Graham: Is that to get rid of a level crossing?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. The present station
and freight shed are in a bad state of repair and larger and more modern buildings are required to handle increasing business. Rearrangement of yard tracks is necessary to provide car accommodation and switching facilities and subway will eliminate a dangerous crossing on a heavily travelled road across the yard tracks.
Intercolonial railway-installation of block system in connection with operation, $100,000.


George Perry Graham: Has the hon. gentleman had correspondence with a company that has some device for the elimination of accidents to a considerable extent? Has he made any tests on the Intercolonial railway during the past year and if not, has he any idea of making an appropriation to provide for such tests?


John Dowsley Reid: I have had correspondence
with some company; I forget the name of it. We are having tests made on the Intercolonial railway, but no reports have been made as yet. I shall have full information on the subject before the Estimates come up again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I see that some important railway companies in the United States have adopted the Marconi system on trains with considerable success. Has my hon. friend any experiments in this line on the Intercolonial railway, or does he intend to make any?


John Dowsley Reid: I noticed in a paper the other day a despatch stating that the system had been tried on the New York Central lines, I think, and had worked very well. We have done nothing on the Intercolonial railway; in fact, I do not know whether any of the other railways in Canada have tried it. At all events, it has not been brought to my attention either by any one interested in the matter or by the management of the Intercolonial railway.


George Perry Graham: The block system is pretty well established, I suppose?


John Dowsley Reid: From St. John to Hampton, 20 miles; Moncton to Painsec Junction, 7 miles; Windsor Junction to Halifax, 14 miles; Truro to Oxford Junction, 46-5 miles.


George Perry Graham: How long will it take to get the whole line under the block system?


John Dowsley Reid: The heaviest part of the
work will probably be finished next year. I

do not know that all the road will necessarily be under the block system.


George Perry Graham: You will run the through line on the block system?
M. REID: We will have it established where, the traffic is heaviest.
Intercolonial railway-installation of telephone system in connection with operation, $64,000. '


George Perry Graham: How is the telephone
system working out?


John Dowsley Reid: The amount voted for 1913-14 is sufficient to cover the installation of a telephone system between St. John and Truro. A contract has been awarded to The Hall Switch and Signal Company for the installation of the system between Moncton and St. John and tenders are being asked for its extension from Moncton to Truro. We have not got it under operation as yet. -
Intercolonial railway-elimination of level crossings and grades, $100,000.


George Perry Graham: What are you doing in Moncton under this vote?


John Dowsley Reid: The railway runs through the heart of the city of Moncton and in consequence there are a number of dangerous level crossings. The amount asked for it is to start work with a view of doing away with these crossings, as well as bettering the grades through the yard. Several proposals are under consideration but, it has not been finally decided which will be the better, from a railway point of view. The plans have not been made out as yet, but the item has been put in order that we may be enabled to start work as soon as we get plans satisfactory to the city and to the railway.


George Perry Graham: You are not going to put any more tracks on the level through the city?


John Dowsley Reid: No.
Intercolonial railway-rolling stock, $1,000,000.


George Perry Graham: Does the minister have the same trouble about other railroads stealing cars and not bringing them back?


Mr REID:: Yes, the same old trouble.


George Perry Graham: What rolling stock is
required?


John Dowsley Reid: 576 steel frame box cars at $1,190 each; 20 vans, steel frames, at $1,950 each; 24 passenger refrigerator cars at $1,850 each; 4 special cars for carrying



[Stage Direction]
heavy members for the Quebec bridge, $2,000 each; one motor inspection car, $200; six consolidated type locomotives at $25,500, and five switch engines at $16,600. The orders were given this spring. The orders for the locomotives go to the Kingston Locomotive Works.
George Perry Graham: Is there any official car in this?


John Dowsley Reid: No, not in this.


George Perry Graham: I cannot think why the Minister of Customs does not have a special car. The Minister of Public Works got a nice new one, a Yankee car it is true, and the Minister of Militia got himself a nice one. He did not have any vote for it. The Minister of Railways is setting a bad example in getting cars first and getting the supply afterwards. I understand that specifications have been asked for another new one for the Prime Minister. The Minister of Customs has nothing. After he gets, out of his temporary estate he will ibe merely a side issue compared with the other members of the Government. Is there no way in which he can get up his courage to make some recommendation along that line? He is now in the department with full power. Perhaps he might have car 28 made over and given to him.


John Dowsley Reid: I had the pleasure of using car 28, I think, once-


George Perry Graham: That would be enough.
Mr. REID-and that satisfied me with using private cars. Therefore I have not had any desire to have one for the Customs Department since. I think I had better continue to do as I am doing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will be satisfied with an automobile.


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot understand why my predecessor did not have an automobile for the department.


George Perry Graham: How much is to be spent for rolling stock?


John Dowsley Reid: 

Intercolonial railway-to increase accommodation along the line, $200,000.


George Perry Graham: What is this for?


John Dowsley Reid: This is to improve the accommodation at a great number of places along the line, most of the votes running between $1,000 and $3,500.
263J
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Reid, the House adjourned at 12.55 a.m. Saturday.
Saturday, May 23, 1914.