1914-06-06

HOUSE OF COMMONS. APPOINTMENT OP OFFICIALS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that he had directed the Clerk of the House to lay upon the table his recommendation and other papers respecting the appointment of Mr. J. A. D'Astous, as a reviser of translation, and Mr. Henri Trudel, as translator on the debates staff of the House.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: May I ask if Mr. Trudel has passed the necessary examination?


Mr. SPEAKER:: Yes.



THE EMPRESS OF IRELAND DISASTER.

Mr. BORDEN:: I would like to read to the House further telegrams of sympathy which have been received in connection with the disaster to the Empress of Ireland:
Brisbane, June 6, 1914.
Hon. Premier,
Ottawa, Ont.
Heartfelt sympathy citizens South Brisbane in recent awful disaster.
Mayor Allen. Brisbane, June 1.
Hon. Premier,
Ottawa, Canada.
On behalf Queensland Government and people, please accept our sympathy with you at appalling loss of life in connection with sinking of 
Empress of Ireland, and also deepest sympathy with the injured and bereaved ones.
W. H. Barnes,
Acting Premier.
Regina, Sask., June 4.
Hon. R. L. Borden,
Ottawa, Ont.
All the officers and members of the Regina Board of Trade in regular meeting assembled desire to express our heartfelt sympathy with those who have been bereaved on the occasion of the unfortunate and unparalleled catastrophe in the sinking of the Empress of Ireland on May twenty-ninth. Regina in common with other communities mourns the untimely loss of useful lives.
S. C. Burton,
President, Regina Board of Trade.
From Governor of Jamaica to His Royal Highness the Governor General:
Kingston, June 4, 1914.
On behalf of Jamaica desire to express sincere sympathy in the loss of so many lives by the disaster to the Empress of Ireland.
(Sgd) Manning.



IMMIGRATION OF HINDUS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. OLIVER:: I wish to remind the right hon. the Premier of the inquiry I made yesterday in respect to the Hindus in Vancouver harbour, and of his promise that the Minister of the Interior would make a statement in regard to that matter to-day. I hope the minister's statement will be more full and frank than that with which we have been favoured so far.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think I made
any distinct promise. I said:
It is my belief that the reports are very largely exaggerations. The Minister of the Interior has not reported to me in regard to the matter, as I think he would have done if anything unusual occurred. I will direct his attention to the inquiry of the hon. member.


Frank Oliver: Would my right hon.
friend road a little further?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.
Mr. Oliver: Would the minister, instead of restricting himself to saying that the newspapers are not correct, say exactly what the position is ?
Mr. Borden: Yes.


Mr. ROOHE:: I have just had placed in my hands the following memorandum from the Superintendent of Immigration:
The ship arrived at Victoria, B.C., on the 21st ultimo with 376 Hindus aboard, but without any bill of health. Arrangements were made with the public health authorities to pass quarantine and the ship proceeded to Vancouver, where in accordance with instructions issued

by the Dominion immigration agent, she anchored in the harbour about half a mile off shore. The medical and civil examinations have been in progress since that date. Counsel for the department called attention to the necessity of holding a board of inquiry, sitting on each individual case. This necessitates considerable delay. The examinations are being conducted on board ship, rather than on shore: first, because of our lack of facilities on shore, and further, to prevent unnecessary communication between the Hindus resident in Canada and those who are now applying for admission, and further to prevent escapes.
In the medical examination 90 of the Hindus have been rejected, while at least 4 have been landed as returning to Canada after having acquired domicile in this country. The examination is proceeding and all those who can comply with the regulations will be admitted.
The allegation that Hindus are starving from lack of food is a gross exaggeration, according to reports received from the Dominion Immigration agent at Vancouver. Yesterday I wired our agent to see that passengers do not suffer from hunger. Reports to hand this morning indicate that an offer was made yesterday to the charterer of the vessel, Gurdit Singh, to place provisions aboard and it was proposed to supply 2 tons of flour, 300 lbs. of rice, fruit and other articles, but the representatives of the Hindus refused, unless in addition to the flour, rice, fruit, etc., they were given ginger, cabbage, purified butter, milk, 50 live sheep or goats, 100 live fowl, 200 boxes of cigarettes, red pepper, spices, crates of eggs, etc. The department has offered an arrangement by which the charterer of the ship (who claims to have 1,500 tons of coal for sale) can unload his cargo, but this has been refused. The hunger strike, which has been so widely advertised, is said to be only apparent, as information secured from the ship's officers shows that Hindus are eating food at night and that food is available to meet the present requirements.


Frank Oliver: I am not particularlyinterested, nor do I think the country is, as to whether these Hindus live on fish or fowl.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: Or red
herring.


Frank Oliver: What I am interested in knowing is whether or not the Government is enforcing the Order in Council passed some time ago which absolutely excludes white people from the coast ports. If it [DOT]is being enforced I do not see why there should be this extraordinary delay in passing upon the applications of these Hindus for entry. If it had been a shipload of white artisans a decision would have been reached long ago. I would also like to know whether legal proceedings have been taken, and if that is the cause of what seems to be the unwarrantable delay of the department in dealing with this matter?


William Roche: I can only say that the Order in Council is being enforced
against the Hindus just as it would be against any other class of people. As the hon. gentleman knows, these men have a right, in common with every other person seeking access to Canada, to demand a board of inquiry. The examination is proceeding, but necessarily involves considerable delay, because many of the Hindus are not conversant with the English language, and interpreters and counsel have had to be engaged. A separate inquiry is held in the case of each individual, and that involves considerable delay. Those Hindus are endeavouring to prove that they are not labourers in some instances, and if one provision of our Immigration Act is not sufficient to exclude them, possibly another provision may be sufficient. Of course, we cannot take charge of the vessel and send these people back without holding an inquiry. All we can do is to prevent them landing until each individual case has been inquired into, and that will take some time.


Frank Oliver: I saw it mentioned in the papers that while this vessel was lying at anchor a shipload of Chinese were admitted into British Columbia. If this Order in Council is effective only against white men and Hindus, and not effective against Chinamen, and if it is in accordance with the law as it stands, I wish to repeat the suggestion I made before that while the House is in session means should be taken to alter the law so that that anomaly shall not be continued.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman is
going too far in making an argument, instead of asking a question.


William Roche: The Order in Council is
effective against the Chinese and will 'be enforced against the Chinese.


Frank Oliver: The papers report-


William Roche: Oh, the papers!


Frank Oliver: I would-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Government Orders.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

William Chisholm: I wish to
call attention to a matter which affects the privileges of the House as well as the privileges of a member, and myself in particular. I refer to a motion that was made on the 16th of March requiring the production of certain papers. This matter has been brought to the attention of the House on more than one occasion in the hope that
495t

the Minister of Customs (Mr. J. D. Reid) would see the propriety of complying with the order that was made. The minister is above any individual member of the House, or perhaps he thinks he is, but the House is above him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. member desires to enter into a discussion regarding this matter it would be out of order at this stage.


William Chisholm: I submit, Your Honour, that I may bring up anything affecting the privileges of the House at any time. This is a matter that affects the privileges of the House, as I shall prove to you toy quoting an authority that you will recognize.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then I take it that the hon. member proposes to make a motion in connection with this?


William Chisholm: Just so. As I stated, ministers are obliged to obey the orders of the House. It is laid down in Bourinot, page 364, that:
If a person neglects or refuses to furnish a return or frames it so as to mislead, it is a breach of privilege.
Then Bourinot says, at page 371:
The right of a member to obtain information from the Government within the limits previously described is so undoubted that it seems almost beyond the power of a minister to keep the practice within narrower bounds and thereby save much public money.
There is a declaration that the right of a member to obtain information within certain limits is undoubted. The limits are described on pages 364-367. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs will search these pages in vain to find any justification for his conduct. But that is not all. On page 367 Bourinot says:
It is the duty of the minister submitting papers not complete to give the reason why the order could not be more fully complied with and then the House will judge whether the reasons are satisfactory and act accordingly.
I can quote oases where the minister has claimed the right to withhold papers but I cannot find any case that is on all fours with this case because the eases I find in the authorities are those where there was at ah events a semblance of compliance and not a refusal to produce the papers. In this case there is not the slightest pretense or excuse for the refusal to comply with the order. If there were any such excuse that excuse should not be kept from us. The order of the House having been made, the

duty of the minister is to comply with it. Either the motion was, or was not, in order and if it was not in order it was the right and privilege of the minister to take exception to it at the time. Let me quote from a statement made toy the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie on March 17, 1874:
Every member was entitled to information when he asked it; it was never refused by any Government. The hon. Minister of Public Works had no right to assume a member was asking for anything improper. That doctrine would enable a minister to use his majority, when he saw fit, on a matter of opinion, to refuse information.
The papers which were referred to on that occasion were:
Copies of all papers, letters, and correspondence relating to the dismissal or replacement of William Robertson, clerk of works and inspector under the contract for building the penitentiary, Dorchester, N.B.
Sir Charles Tupper did not claim that the papers could be withheld but he rather objected to the production of the papers because of the unimportance of the matter under consideration. But the principle was laid down that the production of these papers' was the right of the member. Let me quote what Sir John Macdonald said as recorded at page 494 of 'Hansard' of that year:
The practice in Canada had been so long in existence that, unless by arrangement made by both sides of the House for more strict supervision, they could not well resist the motion; the practice had prevailed so long that a refusal would be regarded as an attempt to stifle inquiry.
Then he went on to say:
Still, he thought hon. gentlemen would admit that indiscriminate motions for papers already returned constitute a crying evil.
But he lays it down that it is the right and privilege of the member to move for papers and to get them. I made my motion on the 16th March and you will see how the minister has neglected to comply with it. Here is the return:
Sessional Papers, No. 77 T.
Return to an order of the House of Commons, dated March 16, 1914, showing a copy of all recommendations, protests, petitions, and representations received by the Government or any department or minister thereof, regarding the appointment of the present collector of customs at Antigonish, and of all the letters, telegrams and correspondence relating thereto.
(Sgd) Douis Coderre,
Secretary of State.
Ref, No. 346.
Mover: Mr. Chisholm, (Antigonish),
May 14, 1914.
Customs Department.
G	83912.
Return, (so far as concerns the Department of Customs) to an order of the House ot

Commons, March 16, 1914, ' that the proper officer do lay before this House a return showing a copy of all recommendations, protests, petitions, and representations, received by the Government or any department or minister thereof, regarding the appointment of the present collector of customs at Antigonish, and of all Ihe letters, telegrams and correspondence relating thereto.'
Respectifully submitted,
(Sgd) John McDougald,
Commissioner of Customs. Department of Customs,
Ottawa, March 18, 1914.
G.	80827.
October 22, 1913.
Wm. Chisholm, Esq.,
Antigonish, N.S.
Sir,.-The H-on. the Minister of Customs has been pleased to authorize your employment as acting collector of customs at the port of Antigonish, N.S., with salary at the rate of $1,100 per annum.
Mr. Inspector D. C. Macdonald will administer to you the usual oaths of office and allegiance, in duplicate, one copy to be sent to the department, the other copy to be handed to you, and the certificate to be filed at the port.
Customs Officer A. B. Mclsaac, will remain at Antigonish to assist in the work of the port, until the 1st December next.
It is to be understood that this employment may be discontinued at any time at the discretion of the Hon. the Minister of Customs.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd) John McDougald,
Commissioner of Customs.
On the face of the return it is absolutely incomplete. Does any hon. member of the House suppose that a collector of customs would be appointed without a recommendation being made by somebody? Where is the recommendation on which this appointment was made? Where is the authority for the appointment? As a matter of fact there was a recommendation made and there was -more correspondence in connection with the matter. The appointment of a collector of customs is a public matter. It is a matter in which the public at large, as well as the people of Antigonish, are interested inasmuch as the people pay that man's salary. Any recommendations that were made respecting the collector of customs ought to be brought down in compliance with the order. I happen to know that there was a recommendation made in this ease. The appointment that was made was a very unpopular one. The Conservative party in Antigonish were dissatisfied with it.
Senator Girroir, who had charge of the patronage after the former collector of customs died, refused to take the responsibility of making a recommendation, and he suggested that delegates be appointed from each district in the county, to meet and decide who should be given the collec-torship. These delegates met and deliberated and several names came before them, and, on the casting vote of the president of the Conservative Association, John Boyd was recommended. But Senator Girroir refused to endorse this recommendation, and notwithstanding that he had previously assured the delegates that he would abide by the decision of the convention, he afterwards made a recommendation by telegram to the Commissioner of Customs asking that Mr. W. C. Chisholm of Heatherton should be appointed. Then the president of the Conservative Association, speaking for the association, sent a letter to the Minister of Customs in which he described all the facts, stating that Senator Girroir had first declined to assume responsibility himself, and then asked for a convention to make the recommendation, that he had refused to carry out the recommendation of the convention when it was made, although he had agreed in writing that he would abide by the decision of the convention, whatever it might be. The president of the Conservative Association enclosed this written agreement of Senator Girroir to the Minister of Customs, The Minister of Customs will not get up on the floor of the House now and deny that he got that letter. I know, as a matter of fact, that he did. I do not know it from Dr. W. F. McKinnon, president of the Conservative Association, personally, as that very respectable and trustworthy gentleman did not take me into his confidence. But the whole Conservative party in the country were indignant, and Dr. McKinnon had no hesitation in telling the party what he had done, and the contents of the letter are within the knowledge of the people of that district, although they are denied to this Parliament. It is a matter of small concern to me, whether that letter is brought down or not; I am placing the matter before -the House in order to vindicate the rights of Parliament. Hon. gentlemen on the other -side must remember that they may be in the same position themselves some day. Is a minister forsooth, to tell this House of Commons that he is the sole judge as to whether or not he -shall bring down a document? I repeat that the Minister of Customs received this letter-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member is exceeding the rule in going into the full details of the history of this matter. The question is, whether the Government should bring down these papers as a matter of the right of every member of Parliament to get

information, and the remarks of the hon. member would be more appropriate if he would address himself to that feature.


William Chisholm: I am explaining to
the House what is the nature of the document, so that the House may understand that it was neither private, nor confidential, nor personal. I say that when that document was sent to. the Minister of Customs it was not intended to be regarded in any such light. There is nothing to justify the minister in withholding this document, because all the surrounding circumstances show that it was not intended to he either private or confidential, but on the contrary that it was a public protest made by the Conservative Association of Antigonish through their president. If there is any information required of this, I may mention the fact that the Prime Minster himself was advised of the letter sent to the Minister of Customs, and as the minister from Nova Scotia he was asked to cause action to be delayed until such time as the representations made on behalf of the Conservative party and the people of Antigonish could be fairly considered. Cushing lays down the reasons for refusal to produce papers in Parliament. His first statement is, that it must be on account of state reasons, and as we all can appreciate there could be no state reasons for refusing to bring down this document. Cushing gives another reason to the effect that papers should not be brought down, if it is contrary to public policy to bring them down, and nobody can say it would be against public policy to bring them down in this case. Then Cushing says: Documents that are private and confidential are not brought down, but as I have shown these are neither private nor confidential. I submit that no minister is justified in saying that he has the right to determine whether a thing is private or not. If a document is marked ' private ' or if the circumstances are such as to indicate it is private, he has the right to refuse to bring papers down, but if he can hold back such a letter as that which I have referred to, then the minister, if he so determines, could withhold all information from this House. The authority lays down:
It is the duty of a minister submitting papers not complete to give the reason why the order is not complied with, and then the House will judge whether the reasons are satisfactory and act accordingly. .
I ask that the minister now disclose to the House, in accordance with parlia-

mentary practice, why he withholds this information and why he brings down a report that is incomplete, and after he has told these reasons it will be time for the House to act accordingly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman send up his motion ?


William Chisholm: I move that the House adjourn.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not the motion that should be presented to the House, under the rule.


William Chisholm: I claim that I can bring the matter up any time as a matter of privilege, and without a motion, substantive or otherwise.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Order. I think it is properly a matter of privilege; but when the hon. member told me he intended to conclude with a motion, I did not expect it would be a motion for the adjournment of the House provided for in another rule, which says that in the event of something of urgent importance being brought to the attention of the House, a request should be made for leave to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing it, and then, if the House agrees, it may be discussed. But, this is a different thing.


William Chisholm: When the minister has stated the reasons why he has not brought down the information it will be for the House to determine how to act. I purpose moving a resolution then, if necessary, or if you wish I move now:
That it is the duty of the Minister of Customs to comply with the order of the House of March 16, 1914, relating to the appointment of the collector of customs at Antigonish.


Robert Laird Borden: My non. friend has taken up a good deal of time in discussing a matter that does not seem to be of very great importance. There is no objection to his motion passing. Of course, it is the duty of the minister to comply with the order of the House. As a matter of fact, he has already complied, we understand. The question of compliance with such orders of the House has been under discussion many times in Parliament in my experience, but I have never heard, up to the present time, any suggestion that documents essentially private in their nature and coming from persons exercising patronage must necessarily be brought down and laid on the table. As a matter of fact, the question of the confidential character of

such communication must always be in the judgment of ministers of the Crown.


William Chisholm: Does the right hon. gentleman say that these are confidential documents?


Robert Laird Borden: I say that any documents not brought down are, in the judgment of the minister, private and confidential. The House is not concerned with them; they are not appointments, or anything in the nature of appointments to the public service. The responsibility for such appointments is on the minister, and the minister may listen to recommendations from one source or from another, but it does not necessarily follow that the files of the House shall be encumbered with documents to which possibly no attention may have been paid. I have known extreme cases while I was in opposition. I remember at the moment, one arising about 1898. I moved for one particular document, being a report from an officer of the Government in respect of a claim against the Govern-ernment.	If I	remember correctly,it was	made	by Mr.	Shanley.
I moved in this House for that report, giving its date and a full description, and the order passed the House. Yet the document was not brought down, because Mr. Blair, who was then Minister of Railways and Canals, said that it was not in the public interest that it should be brought down-notwithstanding that the House had ordered it- and it has never been brought down from that day to this. These matters must always be in the judgment of the ministers of the Crown, and in this respect the Government take full responsibility for the course they have taken in this matter.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The case has been very -well set forth by my hon. friend, from Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm). A motion was made for certain documents concerning an appointment made in the Customs, and amongst other papers called for were the recommendations upon which the appointment was made. If the recommendations under which the appointment was made were confidential, nobody would pretend that they should be brought down. But my hon. friend asserts, and has reason to believe, that there were such documents that were not of a confidential nature. No exception was taken by the minister, and the order passed that all papers, including recommendations, should be brought down. That is the order of the House, and the order must be complied with. I admit that
the Prime Minister is right when he says that a minister must exercise judgment in this matter. But we know that, according to the doctrine laid down on the other side, in a debate concluding only yesterday, the minister is bound to exercise good judgment, and if he does not exercise good judgment he is liable to the consequences. If the minister tells us that the recommendations on which the appointment is based are of a confidential nature, he is not obliged to bring them down. But it is for him to say whether or not they are of that nature. My hon. friend from Antigonish is right in this: the Minister of Customs made an appointment. I am sure he did not know personally the gentleman who was appointed-somebody suggested his name. It may have been perfectly open; the recommendation may have come from the merchants of the town of Antigonish, from the Board of Trade, or from any person; it may have been of a confidential nature. If the papers are of a confidential nature, he is not bound to bring them down, but if they are not he is bound to bring them down. My right hon. friend has no objection to the passing of the motion. It is for my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) to say whether he has complied with the order of the House or not. If they are confidential, there is nothing more to be done; but if not my hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr. Chisholm) will have to consider what further steps he will take. He will certainly have some recourse.


Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Customs):: I remember the order in question. I gave instructions that all the official papers in my department relating to the matter should be brought down, and they were brought down. If there is any other correspondence in connection with this matter, it was considered by me to be private and confidential. The right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) knows that while he was in the Government similar orders were made by the House for papers in connection with appointments to office, and never in one case, I believe, did the right hon. gentleman bring down private correspondence in connection with these matters. But, so far as this appointment is concerned, I may say that I discussed it verbally with certain parties.


William Chisholm: How about the telegram?


John Dowsley Reid: There may be other telegrams or letters considered by me as private, and

I certainly would not, on any terms, bring down papers of a private and confidential nature.


William Chisholm: How about the recommendation of the Conservative Association decided at a general meeting?


John Dowsley Reid: If there are any such documents, I do not consider them public documents. I assume full responsibility for any appointments made in the Department of Customs, and I also reserve the right to get any information I feel to be necessary in order to decide who should be appointed to any office in my department that may be vacant.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: The doctrine is a new one, that the House is not entitled to know the recommendations for appointment to office. I have never known even the present Administration to refuse this information. I can show dozens of recommendations to office incorporated in returns that I have in my desk. If any person had written to the minister a private and confidential letter stating that a certain person was not a fit and proper person to be appointed to office, that might fairly be withheld. But communications, such as those referred to by my hon. friend from Antigonish, are different from that. One of these arises out of a convention of the whole Conservative party of Antigonish; surely there was nothing private about that; it is well known in Antigonish and throughout that part of Nova Scotia. It is absurd that the minister should say that a document which has come into his hands arising out of a meeting of that kind in regard to an appointment to office is a private document. If such a document can be refused to the House, it is open to any department to refuse any information of this character.


William Chisholm: It is certainly a new doctrine-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This is not a substantive motion; therefore the hon. gentleman would not have the right to reply except with consent of the House.


William Chisholm: With the permission of the House, I desire to make one statement. The Minister of Customs certainly lays down a new doctrine when he says that it is unnecessary to bring down recommendations to position or office. The Postmaster General, who is a good lawyer, brought down a return recently, and in the file there was a letter written by Senator

Girroir to the Postmaster General, marked private and confidential. The letter made complaints against the postmaster at Harbour au Bouche, and asked that another person be appointed in his stead. On the same file there is a letter from the Postmaster General to Senator Girroir, stating that the recommendation on which me change was made was this same letter which was marked private and confidential, but, inasmuch as it was marked private and confidential, he wished to take the liberty of putting it on the file and using it as a public document if there were no objection. The Postmaster General recognizes that it is necessary to have the recommendation of some responsible party, and he gets permission of the person who writes a private and confidential letter to use it as a public document; yet the Minister of Customs says there is no necessity of bringing down such recommendations.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Miscellaneous-grant towards defraying the expenses of the Jubilee Anniversary of Charlottetown Confederation Convention of 1864, $20,000.
['With regard to the claim of the Ontario Government, when this settlement was made that Government agreed to limit any claim it might make to the dues it would have got under the lease had it been continued. This timber was worth to the Pembroke Lumber Company its value as it stood when we took over the land, but to get the timber they would have to pay dues to the Ontario Government. So they pay us the value of the timber, subject to a deduction for the dues they would have had to pay to get it, and the Ontario Government agree that as regards their timber claim they would limit it to the amount representing the value of the dues.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.\nMonday, June 8, 1914.']
Robert Laird Borden: My right hon. friend will remember that in 1864 delegates of the governments of the Maritime provinces gathered together in convention in Charlottetown to consider the question of maritime union, that delegates of the united provinces of Upper and Lower Canada came to that convention and that they postponed their deliberations in order to enter into a larger convention which would take into consideration the foundation of the present Confederation. The people of Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, are desirous of commemorating that historical event, which is invested with certain significance. When the application was made for the grant we were informed that the cost of the celebration would amount to a very considerable figure; the balance is to be raised by private subscription.


Wilfrid Laurier: Under what
organization is the celebration to [be carried out?


Robert Laird Borden: I think the matter is in
charge of a committee under the presidency of Hon. F. L. Haszard, a judge of the Supreme Court of Prince Edward Island.

With Mr. Justice Haszard we have had all communications.
Mr. LEM1EUX:	I hope that my hon.
friend between this and next session will have time to consider the idea of com-meimorating the fiftieth anniversary of Canadian Confederation, with a view to making an announcement as to what steps are to be taken in that respect.


Robert Laird Borden: I agree with my hon.
friend that the subject should be taken up; I hope that next session we may be able to make the announcement that he suggests.
Grant towards defraying the expenses of the Imperial Press Conference in 1914, $25,000.


Robert Laird Borden: A press conference of
various leading journalists from all parts of the world is proposed; I am not absolutely sure that it will take place this year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that it will take place this year.


Robert Laird Borden: When representations
were made to us with regard to the matter, we expressed some doubt as to whether .the organization of a conference on so large a scale could be successfully undertaken within the time limited, and we must have some assurance as to the representative character of the conference before arranging to pay any portion of this sum.


Wilfrid Laurier: Anything, of
course, which will advertise Canada we should readily agree to, and I imagine that this organization will be of that character. So far as that is concerned, I have no objection, but I should like to know who are promoting this organization.


Robert Laird Borden: A committee of Canadian journalists, of which Sir John Willison is, I think, the chairman. I am not able at the moment to say who the other members are.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Perhaps the hon. member for Edmonton knows something about it.


Frank Oliver: I have had no communications to lead me to understand that the conference will take place this year, but as I am not following the proceedings very closely I am not an authority.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The reason why I say
that the congress will meet this year is because in a monthly circular issued by the Imperial Press I observed an announcement that the conference would meet this year. The article dealing with the matter was accompanied by photographs of Sir John Willison, Mr. Dafoe of the Winnipeg Free Press, and other noted Canadian journalists. It seems that there is a central committee in London acting in co-operation with the Canadian committee.
Grant towards defraying the preliminary organization expenditure of the Canadian Peace Centenary Association, $25,000.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER,: How is. the
money to be expended and to whom voted?


Robert Laird Borden: The Canadian Peace Centenary Association was organized on June 4, 1912, for the purpose of organizing the celebration in Canada of the centenary of the signing of the treaty of Ghent.
The project of holding this celebration had been broached first in the United States and afterwards in Great Britain. So far as is known, the first person to make the suggestion publicly was the Hon. Mackenzie King, who mentioned the proposal at a ceremony held at Harvard University in 1910. The American Committee was organized soon after and has been in operation for about four years. The British Committee was the next- to be formed, and the Canadian Association came into being as the result of the interest taken -in this country in the proposals put forward.
The president of the Canadian Peace Centenary Association is Sir Edmund Walker, and the executive committee comprises:	S. Baker, M.P., Hon. Justice
L. P. Brodeur, LL.D., George Burn, Esq., Hon. G. A. Clare, M.P., Hon. Senator Raoul Dandurand, K.C., LL.D., Lieut.-Col. F. D. Farquhar, D.S.O., W. M. German, Esq., M.P., Hon. Senator Robert Jaffray, Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, C.M.G., M.A., Ph.. D., Hon. Sir Alex. Lacoste, K.C., D.C.L., LL.D., Travers Lewis, Esq., K.C., C. A. Magrath, Esq., Chief Justice, The Hon. Sir Wililam Mulock, K.C., K.C.M.G., LL.D., Hon. G. H. Perley, M.P., Sir Joseph Pope, K.O.M.G.,	C.V.O.,	I.S.O,, Elias
Rogers, Esq., Albert Sevigny, Esq., M.P., Hon. Clifford Sifton, K.C., Mrs. F. H. Torrington, J. C. Walsh, Esq., W. G. Weichel, Esq., M.P., Major 'C. F. Hamilton, and C. Cambie, Esq. The members of the association now number upwards of one thousand, and great interest has been shown in the proposal by the churches, the press, public bodies, and the general public.
In May, 1913, delegates from the association attended an international conference

held in New York between delegations from the three bodies concerned in the movement. At this conference the general lines of a celebration were agreed upon. The proposals fall under four headings:
1.	The erection of visible monuments, as enduring memorials of the Century of Peace.
2.	The holding of appropriate public demonstrations.
3.	The carrying on of an educational propaganda in the schools, designed to impress upon the pupils the benefits of peace.
4.	The holding of suitable religious exercises.
On June 5, 1913, following the holding of this conference, in reply to Mr. W. M. German, M.P., I made a statement which included the following paragraph:
While the Canadian Peace Centenary Association is an unofficial hody, the Government strongly sympathizes with and approves of its object and purpose of promoting good will and peace between the nations of the world. The Government Is disposed to give favourable consideration to a grant such as that mentioned in the question in case similar action should be taken in other countries.
la. June, 1913, the association secured the services of Mr. E. H. Scammell as organizing secretary. Mr. Scammell in the eleven months which have elapsed since his appointment has visited every province in the Dominion, has addressed a great number of meeting, and has carried on an effective work of organization. At present arrangements are on foot for the holding of upwards of 60 local celebrations, and new places constantly are being added to the list. Work also is being prosecuted along other lines of the proposals. Offices have been taken in the Hope Chambers.
On February 20 last, in reply to Mr. W. G. Weichel, M.P., J made a statement in which, after recalling my utterances of June 5, 1912, and stating that the Government still adhered to them, I noted the work done by the association and the similar bodies ini Great Britain and the United States and said:
I am informed that a Bill appropriating a sum of money for the purposes of the celebration is now pending in the United States Congress. In answer to my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Weichel), I beg to say that, subject to the approval of His Royal Highness the Governor General, it is the purpose of the Government to insert in the Supplementary Estimates to be introduced this session the sum of $25,000 for the purpose of defraying the preliminary expenditures incurred in the work of organization.

This vote is requested in accordance with this statement and by reason of the considerations which I have briefly set forth.
Amount required to meet expenses of Technical Board appointed to consider questions relating to the level of the lake of the Woods, $10,000.
'Mr. OLIVER: In what connection were questions raised with reference to the waters of the Jake of the Woods?


Robert Laird Borden: There have been very
difficult questions, which have been referred to the International Joint Commission.


Frank Oliver: It was in that connection that questions were raised, and this evidence was taken for that purpose?


Robert Laird Borden: I have a memorandum
here which explains the matter fully:
With the concurrence of the Governments of Canada and the United States,
12 noon several questions affecting the levels of the lake of the Woods have been referred to the International Joint Commission under article IX of the Boundary Waters Treaty for investigation and report. As the question of levels affects the various departments of the service, it was deemed advisable to name a board, composed of various members of the departments concerned, to look into all the various intricacies of the reference, and to prepare a report for the Government so that its policy regarding the matter might be framed upon sound investigation. The board is composed of Honourable J. D. Hazen, chairman ; S. J. Chapleau, Department of Public Works; D. H. Fraser, Department of Marine and Fisheries; W. J. Stewart, Department of the Naval Service; J. B. Challies, Department of the Interior, and H. G. Acres, representing the Hydro-Electric Commission of Ontario.
None of these officers received any extras for serving on this board, but the amount of $10,000 is placed there to cover small investigations, surveys and clerical assistance required in the collection of data now in the hands of the various departments.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is there a
similar board in the United States?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware that there is. My hon. friend will remember that in the United States all such matters are under the charge of the engineering staff o: the army, and in that way they have a much better organization for the purpose of protecting their country's interests than* we have in this country. For that reason we think it desirable in the public interest that this board should be created.


Frank Oliver: I understand that the city of Winnipeg applied to the Joint Waterways Commission for power to take the water from the lake of the Woods. Has the

Waterways Commission decided that they have jurisdiction in that matter, and, if so, have they given the city permission?


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that the decision was entirely satisfactory to counsel representing the interests of the Dominion of Canada, but what the precise nature of the decision was I could not tell my hon. friend at the moment. I will have an inquiry made and give my hon. friend the information on concurrence.


Frank Oliver: The jurisdiction of the
commission was admitted, then?


Robert Laird Borden: There are various incidents in connection with the matter which I cannot now quite recall. First of all, a certain contention was put forward on behalf of the province of Ontario, and, if I remember correctly, it was afterwards modified. All I can say with certainty at the moment is that the question did come in some form or other before the commission at a meeting held in Washington some time ago. I remember distinctly being informed by counsel who represented Canada on that occasion that the decision of the commission then arrived at was entirely satisfactory from our point of view.


Wilfrid Laurier: The point of
danger is not to the city of Winnipeg, which, I believe, has the right to use the waters of the lake of the Woods. The point of danger is from applications which have been made by some American cities which wished to divert the waters flowing north and turn them eastwards towards lake Superior. That is the difficulty. For my part I think the board which is presided over by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has very valuable work in hand and can do a great service to the country. I would like to know if the board has been at work already, and whether it has made a report.


Mr. HAZEN:: The board was organized only a short time ago. In the first place, they had a great deal of work to do collecting and collating information upon this matter which is scattered about in the different departments. That work is now going on, but no report has been made up to the present time.
To provide for expenses in connection with Royal Commission to inquire into the state of the Departmental Records, including payments to Sir Joseph Pope, $1,000 ; E. F. Jarvis, $1,000; Dr. A. G. Doughty, $1,000 ; F. J. Audet, secretary, $500; and A. P. Archambault, messenger, $100, $3,850.


Robert Laird Borden: It was thought necessary, I think about a year ago, to make some inquiry as to Government records scattered around in the various buildings in the city of Ottawa under the jurisdiction of the various departments. A commission was appointed, and it has bestowed a very large amount of time and labour on the work, with results that are very useful indeed. I shall be most happy to show to any hon. gentleman the report which they have submitted; it is very well got up indeed. Their work resulted in the discovery of very valuable documents scattered in out-of-the-way places. For instance, a number of old and important documents relating to the early days of the Militia Department were found in an old stable or shed on Sparks street; and similar illustrations could be given.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My right hon. friend should have the report printed.


Robert Laird Borden: Of course, the whole report is very voluminous, and I think there are also eight or ten volumes of typewritten matter as an appendix to the report. I think I laid the main report on the table of the House some time ago. Under the circumstances it was thought to be only proper to make this small allowance, which is really only a slight remuneration for the labour which was imposed on the commissioners in the discharge of their duties.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think the report should be printed and indexed.


Robert Laird Borden: I shall be very glad to take into consideration what my hon. friend from Rouville suggests as to the printing of the report. I hardly think it will be necessary to print the appendix.
Royal Northwest Mounted Police-Contingencies-Travelling expenses, $600.


Frank Oliver: I saw a statement in the papers that it was intended to send an expedition into the far North to take measures in connection with the death of explorers Street and Caldwell of Ottawa. Is that a fact?


Robert Laird Borden: It is not undertaken as a punitive expedition, but for the purpose of making the tribes in the North understand that the safety of white men must be assured. A good deal of information was collected as to the incident to which my hon. friend refers. The particular tribes in that part of the country do not know anything about our laws and customs. I think it is a custom among them having the

force of law that under certain circumstances and conditions every man is at liberty to take the law into his own hands and to redress his private wrongs. In that respect they are in a condition of civilization which our ancestors were in perhaps two or three thousand years ago. They have not been brought very much in touch with white people. The difficulty of sending an expedition into that country for {purposes of punishment might be very considerable and result in the end in a very much worse condition of affairs than prevails at the present time. I took the opportunity of consulting my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition in regard to this matter, because I knew he had had a great deal of experience in similar cases, and the conclusion at which I arrived and which was based upon the report of the comptroller and other officers of the Northwest Mounted Police was one which I understood he approved of. He thought it desirable that there should be an expedition sent there for the purposes to which I have alluded. It is to be hoped that the result of the expedition will tend to improve the conditions amongst the Indians, and it is felt that better results will follow this expedition than an expedition of a more aggressive character.


Frank Oliver: When is the expedition to go ?


Robert Laird Borden: I think it has started already.


Frank Oliver: What is the strength of it ?


Robert Laird Borden: I have not that information but I will get it for my hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: These Indians of the North are mostly, if not altogether, Esquimaux, and they are of a very peaceful and kindly nature. The time is perhaps remote when there will be any considerable settlement in their country, but at the same time I think we should gradually extend our jurisdiction to those northern waters and regions. There is nothing of which we can avail ourselves in these lands at the present time, but they are full of coal and perhaps other minerals, and at a perhaps not distant period these lands are bound to become very valuable. It is of the greatest importance that the jurisdiction of the Canadian people and of the Government should be asserted quietly as it is proposed to do at the present time. The force that is to be sent to that country is a very limited one and, from the character of the officers, is a very good one. It is well to let the

Indians know that the white man and the Canadian Government are their friends and protectors.


Frank Oliver: While the Main Estimates of the Mounted Police were under consideration I drew the attention of the right [DOT]hon. gentleman to the fact that the criminal conditions existing in the prairie provinces to-day is more pronounced than that which has prevailed in past years. In the papers that came the other day there was a case mentioned in which a justice of the peace was shot to death by two or three outlaws or miscreants without any reasonable provocation, and to-day the countryside is alarmed and the people are out trying to find the assassins. I do not wish to lay any blame upon anybody, but I want to emphasize the point that conditions tending towards lawlessness are more extreme to-day than they were some years ago and that the increase of population has not tended to the decrease of the lawless element but rather has tended to the increase of it. I think it only right that the Government should have that point emphasized to them.


Robert Laird Borden: The comptroller has sent to me from time to time reports respecting certain items that have appeared in the public press. The reports which he has sent to me I have always regarded as fairly satisfactory. I have not them under my hand at the present moment, but if my hon. friend would like to see them I shall have them in concurrence and communicate them to the House. I think that, as far as the performance of their duties by the Royal Northwest Mounted Police is concerned, the reports which I will then communicate will be found thoroughly satisfactory.
Pensions-To increase the pension of Mrs. Margaret Johnson Brooke, from 75 cents to $1.25 per diem, $182.50.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is this?


Robert Laird Borden: Mrs. Margaret Johnson
Brooke is the widow of the late Staff Sergeant Brooke, who was drowned while on duty in 1903. She was granted a pension of 75 cents per diem, representing one-half of the pay of her deceased husband. Unfortunately, the shock of his sudden death upset her reason; she became insane and is confined in the asylum at Verdun, Quebec. The cost of her maintenance at Verdun is 1.25 per diem and up to the time of the inquest, a short time ago, the balance was paid by her father. She has no relations who are in a position to support her and.

under the distressing circumstances of the case, she being unable to take care of herself, it is proposed to increase the pension to $1.25 per diem to permit her to remain in the asylum.


Rodolphe Lemieux: While we are discussing this question of pensions, may I bring to the attention of my right hon. friend a case which is not similar but which is germane to the present one in a sense. I have been asked by many persons, amongst them friends of the Administration, to bring it this year again to the attention of the Government. I refer to the case of Madame Hector Fabre, widow of the late Canadian commissioner in Paris. My right hon. friend is aware that Mr. Fabre was the first Canadian commissioner appointed by the Government in France some thirty years ago. He had been a very prominent public man in Canada, especially as a writer. He was, in his day and generation, the most eminent writer in the French language in Canada. When he was appointed commissioner, although our trade with France was somewhat limited, and although the immigration from France was very small, Mr. Fabre, thanks to his many relations in France, thanks to his connections with the journalistic and intellectual world, contributed immensely towards the better knowledge acquired by the French people of Canada and her resources. At that time Mr. Fabre received from this Government a very small salary-I think something like $3,000 or $4,000 a year. As our country grew in importance and the number of people visiting France increased, every year, he was obliged not only to give all his time to his office but to draw upon his own private resources in order to maintain the dignity of his position. He died three years ago and it was my sad privilege to attend his funeral when I was in Paris. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty) knows that he was beloved by all those who came near him. He was extremely popular in France and certainly by his writings he advertised Canada and secured for us most precious friendships. I would not say that he left his widow penniless, but he left her in poor circumstances and she cannot maintain, with her private resources, her station in life, Sir, what has happened since the death of Mr. Fabre? The Government has appointed Senator Roy as commissioner in France and his salary as commissioner has quite properly been raised from $4,000 to $12,000. Every one acknowledges that the Canadian commissioner in Paris, as in London, or in 313
any of the large European capitals, but especially in London and Paris, should receive a decent salary so as to enable him to do justice to his position and to represent worthily his country. During Mr. Fabre's lifetime, he had the title of Canadian Commissioner, but he received a very paltry salary although he had all the responsibility of representing this country in one of the greatest capitals of the world. His family has forwarded to me, and I think to. the Minister of Justice and others as well, certain documents which show that during his tenure of office, he, being a most generous and kind-hearted man, continually took his own money to pay for the maintenance of Canadians who unfortunately were stranded in Paris, and to send them back home to Canada. This occurred in quite a number of instances. I wish to read the following affidavits:
I, the undersigned, Eug&ne Meiffre, being duly sworn, depose and say:
That I am in business at Ballu street in Paris, France.
That during twenty years I have known intimately Mr. Hector Fabre, in his lifetime Commissioner General for Canada and France, and I had the greatest friendship for this gentle soul who has conquered the respect of all Canadians in France.
That Mr. Fabre continually helped Canadians in Paris and often spoke to me of these poor beings whom he pitied so much, and to whom he felt in duty bound to give money, although it was never returned to him.
That Mr. Fabre's charities were well known, .and according to him he must have spent from 2,500-3,500 francs a year either to help Canadians or to send them home.
(Signed) EugSne Meiffre.
Sworn before me in Paris on the 19th March, 1913.
Edgar Attwell Smith, British ViceConsul, Paris.
I, the undersigned, EugSne Capdeviel, do depose and say:
That during eleven years I was the office boy of the late Mr. H. Fabre, and had to pay the rent and expenses of the Canadian Government offices.
That Mr. Fabre always requested me to buy the steamship and railway tickets of the persons whom he sent back to Canada, and that I have given several times upon orders from Mr. Fabre to Canadians in need, sums ranging from 15 francs to a few hundreds of francs.
That I accounted for the expenses to Mr. Fabre, who checked them but never took any note thereof.
That the said charges and costs must, in my opinion, have exceeded 3,000 francs a year, and that over and above the said charges I may state that every year Mr. Fabre spent 15,000 francs for office expenses, divided as follows:
Francs.
Bent	 6,650
Contributions	 800
Three employees	 4,400
Heating	 850



Lighting	 700
Supplies	 500
Repairs and up-keep of office ..	500
Correspondence	 600
Insurance	 74
15,074
Money received for offices .. .. 12,852
Yearly loss paid by Mr. Fabre..	2,222
That it is through me that the said sums were paid for about ten years, with the exception of the wages of the three employees, which I fixed at a minimum sum, and which sum must have been larger.
That I know that Mr. Fabre received 12,852 francs a year as indemnity for above expenses, and in view of the fact that Mr. Fabre spent for office expenses.alone 15,064 francs, he paid out of his own pocket 2,222 francs a year for office expenses. There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Fabre spent out of his own pocket 3,000 francs a year in charities and about 2,200 francs for extra office expenses.
(Signed) E. Capdeviel.
Sworn and acknowledged before me at the British Consulate in Paris on 22nd April, 1913.
Edgar Attwell Smith,
British Vice-Consul, Paris.
I, the undersigned, Count le Moyne de Mar-tigny, being duly sworn, do depose and say:
That during twenty years I have been the daily companion of the late Mr. Hector Fabre, Commissioner General for Canada and France;
That during the whole of that period I was familiar with his many charities to distressed Canadians who came daily to ask him for assistance, which he never refused.
That Mr. Fabre spent yearly out of his own pocket 3,000-4,000 francs to help Canadians or send them home. I remember a Canadian family named Pate, composed of the wife and three children whom he assisted during one year and sent home. In that case alone he spent nearly 3,000 francs.
That his time and money were always at the disposal of Canadians and his acts of charity are well known to his friends and to all those who had relations with him.
That Mr. Fabre spent altogether at least 3,000 francs a year in charities or to send Canadians home, and that the said charities must have cost him during those twenty years over 60,000 francs.
(Signed) Count Le Moyne de Martigny.
Sworn before me at the British Consulate in Paris on the 28th March, 1913.
Edgar Attwell Smith,
British Vice-Consul, Paris.
Sir, again I say, let the Government remember that the late Mr. Fabre, during his lifetime, and out of his modest income, rendered most valuable services to Canada. He, with his brilliant pen advertised our country throughout France as no other writer could. He died with hardly any savings, and, although his widow is not penniless, yet she is too poor to maintain in Paris where she resides her station in life. On behalf of the family,' a family of patriots, and the many friends and admirers of this distinguished Canadian, I would ask my

right hon. friend to consider this case and to see whether or not a sum of say $10,000 might be granted to recoup his widow for the many large sums of money the late Mr. Fabre spent during his term of office, first, in assisting distressed Canadians in France, and, second, in representing worthily the country he loved so much.
Mr. BORDEN; I realize that the salary Mr. Fabre received during the period he occupied his important position was very inadequate, not only when viewed from certain standards, but also in consideration of the many calls made upon him then, and of the expense which he was obliged to incur in connection with his position. The Government also realizes that Mr. Fabre was a very distinguished man, and that in many ways he rendered good service to his country. My hon. friend will, however, realize that there are a great many other claims of a somewhat similar character that are constantly pressed upon the Government, and that it is very important in the public interest that no principle should be established which would involve embarrassment in the future. The principle, that because the salary of a public servant during his term of office was small, we should make provision for those who survive him, is a pretty broad principle to lay down. Personally, on the general consideration of this claim, I viewed it with a great deal of sympathy, as I am sure all the members of the Government did. This question and a great many similar and analogous questions are now under the consideration of a subcommittee of the Privy Council for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not there is any solid foundation upon which we can proceed in reference to any one or more of them. At the moment I cannot add anything to [DOT]that.
The hon. member alluded to the salary that Mr. Roy draws. When we came into power we found Mr. Roy drawing a certain salary; but, in addition, he had been accorded the privilege of acting as an official director of some company which, as I understand it, was established to make investments in Canada. He was also receiving a salary from the province of Quebec as a representative of that province. We arrived at the conclusion, after certain representations made from different quarters, that it was inadvisable that Mr. Roy should occupy an official posi-sion such as he did in connection with a company, as other companies desiring also

to make investments in Canada might consider that the company with which Mr. Roy was connected enjoyed special advantage by reason of that connection. We thought it inadvisable, also, that the representative of the Dominion a6 a whole in Paris should also represent a particular province. On the other hand, we had no desire to dispense with the services of Mr. Roy, and we desired to deal with his case in a considerate manner. We took up the question by correspondence and verbal conversation, and, in order to give him practically the same status which he had enjoyed under the arrangements theretofore existing, we decided to increase his salary to $12,000. Of course, he han to relinquish the considerable remuneration he received from the company, and also the salary he enjoyed from the province of Quebec.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The sub-committee, I
understand, will examine all these claims?


Robert Laird Borden: A very large number of claims, not all exactly analogous to this, but all more or less connected with the subject.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My right hon. friend
will see that this one comes under that.


Robert Laird Borden: This, undoubtedly, will
be placed before the committee.
Miscellaneous-To compensate William Tate of Prince Albert, for expenses incurred by him in connection with illness contracted while serving with Prince Albert volunteers during the rebellion of 1885, $1,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Tate was engaged
in scoutng in the rebellion of 1885, and after the engagement at Duck lake, on the 26th of March of that year he was sent with despatches to Prince Albert, and received injuries through the long cold ride, having to remain in the saddle for fifteen hours. After eleven years suffering from hemorrhoids he was operated on in the Royal Victoria Hospital, Montreal, incurring expenses of over $1,000. It is proposed to grant him this indemnity therefor. I have very full particulars here with regard to this case. On the occasion referred to, after being in the saddle for fifteen hours on this ride, he had to receive medical attendance. He continued to suffer for many years afterwards, and eventually, on the advice of Dr. Bain he went to Montreal and was operated on toy Dr. Bell. Between March, 1885, and the date of the operation, he had to employ outside labour to do the work of his farm which he was unable 3134
to perform owing to his injury. His expenditure for medical attendance, medicine, surgical treatment and the employment of men on his farm amounted in the aggregate to at least $1,500 We have thought it reasonable to bring in a vote to compensate him to the extent of $1,000, which is the amount expended for medical attendance. The comptroller is of the opinion that the sum of $1,500 claimed is well within the limit of the loss which Mr. Tate sustained in actual cash, if we include the labour he has had to employ on his farm. That, however, is excluded, and Mr. Tate is willing to accept $1,000. I think that under the late Administration a somewhat smaller amount was proposed, but Mr. Tate did not agree to accept it. The matter has been standing for some years upon the question of the amount of compensation-not with regard to the principle of compensation-for the injuries which he sustained.


Frank Oliver: I am not finding fault with the decision of the Government to pay this claim except in this way: We are aware that a large number of similar claims arose out of the 1885 rebellion, as must necessarily arise under any such conditions, and it seems invidious that Mr. Tate's claim should be paid and others ignored. As I say, I do not find fault with the payment, and I presume this claim is a just one; but it certainly is a matter for remark and gives rise to very serious consideration, that one claim out of a large number which have been standing for so many years should be paid, and only one should be paid. I do not wish to minimize the services rendered by Mr. Tate, but these services were no greater than those rendered by many other men at the same time and under quite as difficult circumstances. I do not wish to put the matter in a nasty way, but I confess that it looks as if this claim were being paid as a matter of political pull rather than as a matter of merit.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not aware of any political pull about it. I have not heard a word of politics upon the subject, unless possibly it is to be found in a report of the late comptroller of the Northwest Mounted Police. The only suggestion coming from any person connected with active political life is contained in the following:
Mr. T. O. Davis, M.P. for Saskatchewan, assures the undersigned that of his persona] knowledge Tate has suffered continuously since the rebellion and apart from indirect losses

through physical incapacity, has been put to very considerable expense for medical and surgical relief; and that although he has no reason to doubt that the $1,500 claimed by Tate is well within the limit of his actual loss and expenditure, he is satisfied that he would accept a smaller amount, say $500 in settlement of his claim.
It turned out that that was incorrect; it was offered to him, but he thought it inadequate.


Frank Oliver: What is the date of that report?


Robert Laird Borden: The date of writing is not given here, but the report must have been made some years ago. It was under consideration by the late Administration. I am informed that the Government of my right hon. friend Sir Wilfrid Laurier were willing to pay $500, but Mr. Tate was not willing to accept it. This is not at all for services; it is merely a partial compensation for actual losses sustained through the injury which Mr. Tate received during that rebellion.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not a distinct recollection - of this matter, but I am sure that my hon. friend is opening the door somewhat wider than he thinks when he goes into this kind of claim. After the rebellion of 1885, the Government of that day, under Sir John A. Macdonald, settled all the claims which arose from that rebellion. From that day to this there has been a constant pressure upon all governments from certain parties claiming that they should receive compensation which was not given to them at that time.


Robert Laird Borden: I have not heard of any of these claims since the Northwest Mounted Police came under my administration; if I do hear of them, I shall endeavour to give my best consideration to them. So far as this payment is concerned, it does not even go as far as the principle of a pension; it is merely compensation for actual injury sustained.
Transcontinental railway-operation of line from Moncton to L6vis, $175,000.


John Dowsley Reid: The right hon. leader
of the Opposition asked for any correspondence in connection, with the purchase of the railway from the viaduct to St. Malo shops. I stated to him that the negotiations had taken place verbally and had been carried on by myself during the absence of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals, and by the minister himself since his return. The price asked by
I Mr. Borden.]
the Canadian Northern Railway Company was very much more than either I or the minister thought the line was worth, and the result was that the Minister of Railways and Canals had decided to expropriate the line and have the prices fixed by the Exchequer Court. That the minister verbally advised Major Leonard, the commissioner, to do so is quite evident from a letter which was addressed to the minister, dated June 4, as follows:
Dear Mr. Cochrane:
In pursuance of our conversation of the 2nd instant, I am filing to-day plans for the expropriation of the five miles of the above line between Cap Rouge and St. Malo, and will notify the Canadian Northern to that effect.
The chief engineer is instructed to get this line into repair at the earliest possible date, so that the Grand Trunk Pacific can obtain coal during this season of navigation at the Quebec harbour and store it on our line for the necessary operation west from Quebec during the coming winter.
Yours sincerely,
(Sgd) R. W. Leonard.
In the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals, I replied as follows:
Dear Mr. Leonard:
In Mr. Cochrane's absence I have yours of the 4th instant in which you state that you are filing plans for the expropriation of the five miles of the Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia railway between Cap Rouge and St. Malo.
I think it would be better to file expropriation plans in order that the title may be obtained.	*
However, for your information, I may say that this portion of the road has been purchased. Mr. Cochrane, the regular minister, has agreed to purchase the road from the Canadian Northern for the amount of one hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars.
As soon as you are able to have the title proved, I wish you would see that the purchase is completed on the basis of the amount suggested above.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd) J. D. Reid,
Acting Minister of Railways and Canals.
That is about the way the matter stands. This Canadian Northern hne passes the St. Malo shops and, by arrangement with the Canadian Pacific railway for the joint use of the terminals in the city of Quebec, which extend to the St. Malo shops, we shall have access not only to the union station but to all parts of the Quebec harbour around the Louise basin. In addition to that, after the tunnel is completed, we shall be in a position to run through trains direct to the Canadian Pacific railway station in Quebec. With the new station which is being constructed on the Champlain market with the ferry crossing the river and with the acquisition of this line, there is no doubt

that we shall be able to take through freight and passengers to all parts of the city of Quebec, thus carrying out everything that was promised the city of Quebec, except the tunnel, and that will be completed as soon as possible.


Wilfrid Laurier: Very far from it. My hon. friend will have a lot to do before he establishes communication round the harbour at Quebec by means of this line. He will have a line of railway five miles in length from Cap Rouge to the shops at St. Malo, but he will have to make an arrangement with the Canadian Pacific railway to get communication between the shops at St. Malo and the union station. Last year the Minister of Railways told us that he was contemplating buying this Canadian Northern line to establish communication with the shops at St. Malo, and it has taken him one year to come -to any kind of conclusion in the matter. We find that an agremeent has been made, but no papers have been signed; I suppose that next year the contract will be entered into. But even when this is done he will not have completed arrangements to get all round the city. He will have arranged for the taking of his lame ducks for repair from the tracks at Cap Rouge; but he will have five miles of railway communicating wdth the shops at St. Malo, but, if 1 am correctly informed, that will not take.him to the shops; he will still have more to do. But even supposing it does, What communication will he have between the shops and the union station? That will have to be arranged with the Canadian Pacific railway. Then again, there is no communication between the Champlain market station and the line of the Canadian Pacific railway. We were told last year by the minister that this was to be attended to by the harbour commissioner. What in the world the harbour commissioner would have to do with building a line of railway there is more than I can understand. When we come to discuss that matter I shall have to have an explanation from my hon. friend as to what has been done since last year in that regard. The fact is that in this matter there has been negligence unpardonable. My hon. friend has to-day told us that he has made arrangements for the acquisition of that line, but he has not laid the contracts before the House, although a year ago he told us that negotiations were in progress, it has taken him twelve months to arrive at an agreement wnich is not yet reduced to writing or embodied in a contract. What are the terms of this arrangement? The Canadian Northern railway have sold this line, but I am told they must have reserved some rights on it.


John Dowsley Reid: No rights.


Wilfrid Laurier: What becomes lof their line, then? They have a railway system running from Ottawa to Quebec, and for that main line they must have access to the river front, to the bridge; otherwise? it would be of little use to them. Does my hon. friend say that the Canadian Northern railway have surrendered their line and have reserved no rights whatever on it? They go towards the bridge by that line, they have sold five miles of it and my hon. friend says they have reserved no running rights over it.


John Dowsley Reid: The right hon. gentleman
knows that that piece of line of the Canadian Northern railway has not been used for months; it is not part of their main line into Quebec at all.


Wilfrid Laurier: What did
they build it for?


John Dowsley Reid: They built it, as I understand, to get material around at the time.


Wilfrid Laurier: The Canadian Northern railway is the owner of the Quebec Central railway and it is part of their business, and it is common sense that they should have a line of communication from one line to the other. It is part of their system, part of the very Canadian Northern railway system to which we have given $45,000,000. The Canadian Northern railway have built a line of railway from this city of Ottawa to Quebec, and the two lines must be connected. My hon. friend tells me that the Canadian Northern railway have reserved no running rights at all over that line. If they have not done so they are not as good business men as I had supposed them to be.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: And they are not treating the junior partner right.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, they are
not treating the junior partner right. My hon. friend had better inquire further and he will find that there must be some condition attached to the sale of that five miles of railway.


John Dowsley Reid: So far as I am aware, there are no conditions, and they have not been using this line for months.


Wilfrid Laurier: They built it for fun?


John Dowsley Reid: No, they did not build it for fun; but at the time they built it they used it to get heavy material around to the bridge.


William Pugsley: Did not they get a
Dominion subsidy for it as well?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot speak as to that.


Mr. GRAHAM:: My hon. friend might be ready at three o'clock to answer these questions: How much will it take to put the line into, good operating condition? What is the weight of rails and condition of the road? Is it the intention of the Government to build a lock at what is known as Morton's lock on the Rideau?


John Dowsley Reid: That is an old story.


George Perry Graham: I understand it has been promised -within six weeks by a member of the Government. Will there be an item for it in the Supplementary Estimates?


John Dowsley Reid: The Estimates for this year
are all down.


George Perry Graham: I cannot find it unless
it is hidden away under some other item.
At one o'clock, the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: I would just like to say a few words with regard to an item on page 52 of the Main Estimates providing for additional facilities at Riviere du Loup at a cost of $77,600. These improvements have been under contemplation for many years. It has been proved-I think the minister must have the information in his department-that by unloading the coal at Riviere du Loup instead of at Levis as at present, the management of the Intercolonial would save in the neighbourhood of $15,000 a year. Mr. Gutelius himself admitted last year in the presence of the Riviere du Loup Board of Trade that that was a fact. More than that, he said that the Grand Trunk Pacific would also profit by it if the coal were unloaded at Riviere du Loup. If this Government ever purchases the Temiscouata railway which con-[DOT] nects with the Grand Trunk Pacific at Ed-mundston, the Grand Trunk Pacific would be able to get its coal more cheaply and quickly at Riviere du Loup than at Levis where it is unloaded at the present time. He said that as soon as the Department of Railways and Canals were ready to make this expenditure at Rivifere du Loup he would be willing to spend thousands of dollars for new facilities and machinery at 
Riviere du Loup. On page 70 of the Main Estimates there is an item providing for wharf improvements at Rivifere du Loup at a cost of $50,000. Could the minister tell me if any arrangement has been made between his department and the Department of Public Works to proceed with this work at once ? When we were discussing the Estimates last session, I asked Mr. Rogers when he expected to call for tenders, and he told me they would be called for at once; but I do not think it has yet been done. I think the time has arrived when we should have a definite statement from the minister as to whether any such agreement has been made with the Public Works Department, and as to when it is intended to proceed with the work.


John Dowsley Reid: I have discussed this matter several times with the Minister of Public Works, and I understand that he intends to proceed with the work as early as possible. I agree with every word the hon. member has said. I have before me a statement showing that if the coal were unloaded at Riviere du Loup it would save thirty cents a ton or $15,000 per annum.
I shall urge the Minister of Public Works to go on with the work as early as possible in order that we may save this $15,000 per annum.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Will the minister
assure me that he will urge this upon the Minister of Public Works?


John Dowsley Reid: I have just stated thaf so far as the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned we will urge the Minister of Public Works to proceed with this work at the earliest possible moment.


Mr. PELLETIER:: As the Minister of Public Works is not present, I may say that this matter has been under the con-, sideration of the two departments for a long time. The difficulty has been that the work was to be done by the two departments jointly. Some time last year, during the early fall, I think, I succeeded in getting representatives of the two departments to go down on the spot to meet Mr. Gutelius, whom I asked to take a personal interest in this matter. Mr. Tremblay represented the Department of Public Works. Mr. Gutelius presented a report, and as'a result of bringing the two departments together I can say definitely that the work will be proceeded with before long. As my hon. friend says, it is a matter of interest not only to the locality but to both the Intercolonial and the Grand Trunk

Pacific. My hon. friend has just heard what the acting Minister of Railways has said, and I have myself made efforts in that direction for some time. Pressure of business, however, has prevented the work from being started up to the present. I remember the Minister of Public Works making the statement last year to which my hon. friend has referred. I shall be very happy to see this work undertaken, not only in the interests of Riviere du Loup, which is very much in need of it, but in the interests of the country at large.


Mr. ETHIER:: Is it the intention of the Government to bring a railway subsidy Bill down this session?


John Dowsley Reid: Not so far as I am aware.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Has the Government been approached for a subsidy by the railway running from Midland to Montreal, and is it the intention of the Government to treat that railway as others have been treated?


John Dowsley Reid: I remember some persons connected with that railway interviewing me with reference to subsidy. I gave them the same answer that I would have given to anybody else. As far as that railway company is concerned, there have been no promises made, nor will we make any promises. Whenever subsidies are taken up, if subsidies are to be granted next session to any railway companies, all applications will be taken up and considered, and we will then have to consider whether we will grant that or any other company a subsidy.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: That means, I understand, that the company, on its own demand or request, will be treated in the same way as any other company coming before the Government?


John Dowsley Reid: That company, like any other company, will be treated on its merits.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: On the same footing?


John Dowsley Reid: They are all on the same footing, and they will all be treated on their merits.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I would like to ask the minister if there is any reason why it should not be treated as being on the same footing?


John Dowsley Reid: As far as I am concerned, there is no reason why that or any other railway should not be treated on the same basis, but if the hon. gentleman wants an
answer as to whether it is the intention to give that railway a subsidy-


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: No, I do not.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no promise, and they will all be treated alike on their merits.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Is there any reason why this company should not be treated as any other company?


John Dowsley Reid: Every company will be
treated on its merits and in no other way.
I promised my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition that I would submit a plan of the station at the Champlain market, Quebec. The plan is on the table and I have called it to the attention of my right hon. friend. With reference to the line of railway from Viaduct to St. Malo, five or eight miles in length, he asked me what it would cost to put it in a condition equal to that of the Transcontinental railway. In discussing the purchase of this railway, the Canadian Northern railway said that it would not take more than $2,000 per mile. I am informed by the chief engineer of the Transcontinental railway that it might take between $20,000 and $30,000 to put it in perfect condition, or in the same condition as the Transcontinental railway.


Wilfrid Laurier: Do not believe it.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: Has the Government any intention of being represented before the Privy Council in London in the appeal of the several railways against the judgment which has-been rendered in the court of appeal in Montreal regarding the injunction with reference to the work being done on the line of the Central railway between Ste. Agathe and St. Adolphe in the county of Argenteuil? Has the Hon. Mr. Perley, who left yesterday for London, received instructions to that effect?


John Dowsley Reid: I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. gentleman an answer.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I ask the question only. I do not want to put the Government in an embarrassing position, but I would be glad to get the answer as soon as possible.


John Dowsley Reid: I really know nothing about the matter, as this is the first I have heard of it.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I understand that the
Government has no intention of taking

action against the company, and that it will be treated as other companies are.


Mr. LACHANCE:: Is there any direct
connection between the Transcontinental and the Canadian Northern at Cap Rouge?


John Dowsley Reid: The line which we have purchased, and which we were discussing before the House rose, gives the Transcontinental railway, as I understand it, connection right through the city to the union station and to the harbour. We have connection over this Canadian Northern railway line with the St. Male shops, and we have access to the harbour toy reason of the fact that we have running rights over the Canadian Pacific railway in accordance with the agreement which we have made, so that we have a line right through. As far as the Canadian Northern are concerned, they have their main line between Quebec and Montreal; they do not connect directly with the bridge and they do not want that connection. If they have any freight that they wish to transfer to the Grand Trunk Pacific to go over the bridge, they will transfer it where the connections are at the city of Quebec. They are not asking to go to the bridge, and they do not require this portion of the line. Even if this short piece of line that we have acquired did not afford access to the St. Malo shops, it would be important as giving access to the union station which will be used by the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Pacific railway. Then, it is the intention to build the tunnel.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When?


John Dowsley Reid: I will come to that in a
moment. It is the intention to build the tunnel. The hon. gentleman knows it will take some time; it may take a year or a couple of years to complete it possibly. Is it not a good thing to have direct connection into the city of Quebec for which purpose we get this line already built? We will have, it may be within a few weeks, an entrance right into the union station and beyond to all parts of the harbour.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: From Ottawa to Quebec?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, and from all the other lines..


Arthur Lachance: The minister is aware that the Transcontinental railway at Cap Rouge is on top of a steep hill, probably 200 feet high, and that there is no connec-

tion between the top of the hill and the Canadian Northern railway.


John Dowsley Reid: It is not necessary.


Arthur Lachance: Is there any connection between the Transcontinental railway at Cap Rouge and the Canadian Northern railway?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member knows
that all exchanges of freight between railways are made at the terminal points. They do not stop half-way along the railway and make changes of that kind. It is at the terminal point at Quebec that the exchange will be made between the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend said
that this tunnel would be built within two years.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not make any such
statement; I said that this tunnel is to be built and that it might take a year or two years. No person knows what obstacles they may meet with. Does the hon. gentleman say that it is not well to have this connection right into the union station so that we can have the use of the lower side of the harbour at Quebec, and the elevator and terminals there? I think it is a splendid idea.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a splendid idea if you have the idea of humbugging the people of Quebec with the tunnel until after the next general election, because it will never be built. Have you an amount in the Estimates for the tunnel?


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Chairman-


Rodolphe Lemieux: Answer the question,
yes or no.


John Dowsley Reid: Wait until I answer the first question. As far as humbugging is concerned, the hon. gentleman must agree with me when I say that during the many years he represented the eastern part of Quebec there was no one who did more humbugging than the hon. gentleman himself. Since this Government came into power we have been doing everything we could to improve the harbour of Quebec and everything connected with it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: (My hon. friend knows that the Government does not intend to build that tunnel. Is there an amount in the Estimates for the construction of the tunnel this year?


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman knows
that there is an appropriation of several million dollars for the Transcontinental railway, and that out of that vote the Government have power to build a tunnel or to do anything in connection with the railway.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Government has
power to do almost anything; they have power to pay the depositors in the Farmers Bank; but what I want to know is, where is there a tittle of evidence that the Government is going to start the construction of the tunnel this year? There is nothing in the evidence to show, and it is only part of the great humbug that is being played at the expense of the people of Quebec.


John Dowsley Reid: I again make the statement that the tunnel can be built out of the vote for the Transcontinental railway, and that it is not necessary to have a separate item for the construction of that tunnel. That item includes the tunnel, and therefore there is an item in the Estimates for the tunnel.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the estimated
cost of the tunnel?


John Dowsley Reid: I did not make that up.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you any plans?


John Dowsley Reid: The Transcontinental Commission no doubt has plans and estimates of the cost of the tunnel, but I have not these estimates before me. I will get the information for the hon. gentleman.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister lay
on the table of the House the specifications and plans, and the approximate cost of that tunnel, and state when tenders will be called for?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot say whether the
plans are yet completed, but I shall be glad to give the hon. gentleman any information that is available.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for Rouville has made a statement on this matter to-day, simply in order to have his papers in Quebec publish it with flaring headlines, as they have been doing for the last two or three years, and it is just as well that I should straighten this matter out now. We have no Sunday newspapers in Quebec, but the remarks of the hon. member for Rouville will appear in Monday morning's Liberal newspapers, and it will be stated that the hon. member for Rouville
had told the House of Commons that the tunnel was all humbug.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: You are accustomed to
being told that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The people of Quebec were accustomed to being humbugged for the fifteen years the Liberal Government was in power, but that is not the way it is going to be now. I point out to the hon. member for Rouville that a plan has just been laid on the table of the House which shows the location of the tunnel.


Rodolphe Lemieux: But there were two
plans not very long ago.


Joseph Arthur Calixte Éthier: I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, that this discussion is out of order. We are dealing with the Canadian Northern line between Ottawa and Quebec, on a question put by the hon. member for Quebec Centre (Mr. Lachance); but the discussion has wandered off to the tunnel. The Canadian Northern passes through La-chute and Two Mountains, and I have something to say on that matter. I do not see why the Postmaster General had to get up to take the place of the acting Minister of Railways.


The CHAIRMAN:: The Postmaster General was answering a question put to him.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My hon. friend from
Two Mountains (Mr. Ethier) had better wait a moment; he will have his turn by and by. It will be seen from the plan which has just been laid on the table of the House that the location of a tunnel is shown, and, as the hon. gentleman knows, this plan comes from the Transcontinental Railway office. I am not concerned as te whether or not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) believes that there is an attempt to humbug the people of Quebec, but I will tell him that while the people of Quebec have been humbugged in the past by the Liberal Government, I do not intend to stand by and let them be humbugged in the future. I would remind the hon. member for Rouville that the question of the tunnel was dealt with by the Hon. Mr. Cochrane as well as by the Prime Minister, who, at a banquet tendered him last fall by the citizens of Quebec of both political parties, announced that the tunnel would be built. I am not a bit worried as to whether the hon. member for Rouville thinks or does not think that is humbugging the people of Quebec; but I tell the people of Quebec from my seat on the floor of this House that faith will be kept with

the declaration made by the Prime Minister in that respect before the Citizens of Quebec. My hon. friend from Rouville is [DOT]afraid that if that tunnel is built it will not suit his party, and that his newspapers in Quebee will lose a good chance of making political capital out of the fact that the word of the Prime Minister has not been kept. But let me tell him that the declaration made by the Prime Minister has been renewed in this House this morning and this afternoon by the acting Minister of Railways, and, when the tunnel is realized, as it will be, the declaration of the hon. member for Rouville that it is all humbug will count for nothing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not know whether the word ' humbug ' is parliamentary or not, but if it is-


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: You were the first to use it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It will be remembered that at the first session of this Parliament the Postmaster General stated most positively-as positively as he declares this afternoon that the tunnel will be built- that there would be no Champlain Market station, and that it would be a blunder to have a station there.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I never said that.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yesterday, however, the Postmaster General stated as positively, and with apparently as much honesty as in the first case, that that was the very place for the station. 1 believe that this tunnel is being held out merely as a bait for the people of Quebec in the next election; I believe that the Government does not intend to build that tunnel, and that it never will be built. The very best evidence of that is the very vague and mysterious answer given a moment ago by the acting Minister of Railways. It is plain that the Government does not wish to be committed to that scheme, and it will never be carried out.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. member for Rouville is doing now what he is in the habit of doing: he is putting words into my mouth that I never uttered. He says that at the first session of this Parliament I declared that I was absolutely opposed to a station at Champlain market, and that a few days ago I declared that I was in favour of a station being erected there. These are not the facts, and it is no use trying to deceive the people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What did you say yesterday?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will tell my hon. friend once more what I did say. When we came into power there was a plan for building a large station at the Champlain market, but with no other accommodation. for the Transcontinental at Quebec.


George Perry Graham: No.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No use denying it.


George Perry Graham: I do deny it most emphatically. That was not the plan.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: The hon. gentleman
may say what he likes but I have seen the plan twenty times. And the plan a3 outlined was to have only one station and that at the Champlain market. There i3 no use denying it.


George Perry Graham: I do not deny that.
But the hon. gentleman said that there was to be no other accommodation for the railway.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No other station accommodation.


George Perry Graham: That is not what the
hon. gentleman said.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Then we agree that
the only station that we were to have at Quebec was the one at the Champlain market. That is a fact, and it cannot be denied. When we came into power, we decided that the station at the Champlain market was not a proper one, that there was no place there for a proper terminal station for Quebec. I was opposed to that plan then and am opposed to it now. We discarded that plan. Other plans were made for a union station down at the Palais, and also a local and smaller station at the Champlain market. So, instead of one station as outlined by the late Government the Transcontinental will have two stations at Quebec-a large freight 'and
passenger	station at the Palais,	anda smaller	freight and	passenger	station	at	the Champlain	market.	So,what	is	the use	of the	hon.gentleman	saying I was	opposed to	the
Champlain Market plan, and am for it now. That is not the fact. I was opposed to having only one station in that small place. There is room there for a small station, but not room for the large station which the late Government intended to

put there. So we have replaced this big station with a union station at the Palais and a smaller station at the Champlain market. If that is not clear, I do not know how to make anything clear.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Some time last evening the item of the Trent Valley canal was reached. I understood that the discussion on that subject was to take place to-day. But after I left the House my hon. friend from West. Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) undertook to go into the question of the Trent Valley canal, particularly with reference to the report of the commission on the canal. This report, though dated 19th February, 1914, was placed in the hands of members of this House only during the last week of April. But I am sorry to say that in the meantime it was spread broadcast through the Conservative press of the country-as is usual in the case of such commissions nowadays-by some agency or authority unknown to me. It is used for the purpose of poisoning the public mind as to the contents of that report and the evidence on which it is based. If you search the files of the Conservative newspapers during the last week of February and the first week of March you will find some very flagrant and untrue references to the report itself. Members of the House, as I say, did not receive copies of the report until the last week of April. I was asked if I would go into the matter, and I did so. I had intended moving an amendment to the motion for Supply, but no opportunity having been given me since I took the matter up, I am quite prepared to discuss it now without moving the motion which I had intended to move, but from the same standpoint as that from which I would have discussed the matteT. The motion is as follows:
This House is of opinion that the report of the commission appointed to investigate the Trent Valley canal is partisan, unfair and misleading in many of Its findings and in others is contrary to the evidence adduced before the commissioner and should not be received by this House.
That is my estimate of the report at the present moment, founded upon a careful reading of a large portion of the evidence- I confess I have not read every line of it as it comprises some 600 or 700 pages of typewritten material. Last night my hon. friend from West Peterborough undertook to deal with that report. I had not the opportunity of hearing him, but I have had the opportunity and pleasure of reading
to-day his remarks as they appeared in ' Hansard.' It was a Royal Commission that was appointed for this investigation. The appointment was made on the 14th of October, 1912, and the commission was authorized to investigate the charges with regard to the purchase and use of explosives on the Trent Valley canal. That is the single point. Subsequently, on the 28th of November, 1912, the powers of the commissioner were enlarged, and he was authorized to carry on an investigation into the general administration of the canal and the conduct of its employees. The commissioner appointed was Mr. G. Howard Ferguson, a member of the local legislature of the province of Ontario. After some investigation-though not by any means a complete or thorough one-Mr. Ferguson placed his report on the table of the House on the 18th of February last. My hon. friend from West Peterborough last night, I think, made an effort to evade the report altogether. I do not wonder that he evaded it.
I think that after calm consideration of the findings in the report any hon. member will come to the conclusion that this House would not be justified in acting upon it. There are findings in the report which are contrary to the facts proven in the evidence; there are allusions which cast a slur upon the names of many honest citizens in the neighbourhood of Peterborough which are most unwarranted. The commissioner must have been very forgetful or very careless in regard to the evidence which he had heard, because he made findings which were unwarranted, untrue-I do not mean purposely untrue but really untrue as applied to the facts which he has found. There are one or two points in the report of the commissioner which I think the House might consider. There is no doubt that in the office system adopted in connection with the canal there were grave irregularities. In fact, there was apparently no office system at all; things were permitted to go on which should not go on under a business staff. And, in so far as the commissioner confines himself to matters of that kind I have no exception to take to his report. But he goes further-for whatever reason I know not, unless it be to blacken the record of the former Administration and uphold the record of the present Administration. If that be his reason it is an improper reason and he has fallen far short of the aim he had in mind.
Now, his first commission asked him to deal specifically with the single question of the supply of blasting powder. And the

first portion of his report, the first two or three pages deal precisely with that question. And the only irregularities he found in regard to blasting powder, if there were irregularities at all, took place under the present Conservative Administration-not a single item has been found incorrect under the former Administration. It is strange to note that no irregularity was found until the present Government exercised patronage in the appointment of a man who had not heretofore acted in connection with the supply of blasting powder. I am informed that after the general election and change of Government one Cinnamon, of the town of Lindsay in the riding of the 'Minister of Militia was authorized to purchase blasting'powder for the canal and that his appointment was largely if not entirely due to the bon. Minister of Militia.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	I rise to correct
the hon. member on that point. The gentleman to whom he has made reference, Mr. Cinnamon, was never, directly or indirectly, agent for blasting powder on the Trent canal and the Minister of Militia knew absolutely nothing, directly or indirectly, concerning him.


Hugh Guthrie: 1.	That I am informed and verily believe that my name is mentioned in the investigation that took place before G. Howard Ferguson, K.C., In connection with the affairs of the Trent canal in which it is stated that my name figures a number of times on the pay sheet as a labourer.
2.	That I am informed and verily believe that the following is a synopsis of the report of the said G. Howard Ferguson relating to me:
A. Carr is undoubtedly an assumed name for somt one who drew pay regularly as a labourer during 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909. After exhaustive inquiry I was unable to find any one of that name who had ever been in Peterborough. The superintendent himself admitted that he could not see where the Government ever got value for some three hundred dollars paid to A. Carr in this way. It is the most glaring piece of fraud practised upon the Government.'
3.	That I never at any time worked as a labourer for the Department of Railways and Canals in connection with the Trent canal nor was I aware until after the investigation herein that my accounts against the Department of Railways and Canals were wrongfully entered in the books of the department for labour

instead of for just claims which I had from time to time against the department.
4.	That during the years 1906, 1907, 1908 and 1909 I was engaged from time to time by Mr. J.	H. McClellan the superintendent of the Trent canal at Peterborough and by his accountant E. S. Clarey as a stenographer and did certain typewriting for them from time to time.
5.	That the charges for my services as a stenographer against the Department of Railways and Canals were made by me in the ordinary course of business as a stenographer and at the regular rates and my accounts were paid from time to time for such services in the ordinary course of business.
6.	That I never at any time charged for such services any excessive amount nor did I ever make any charge against the department except such as I would make against any other customer who might call at my office to have such services performed.
7.	That the Department of Railways and Canals received full value for all the money that was ever paid to me for my services as a stenographer and I am at a loss to understand why my identity was not disclosed in my oc-counts against the department as there never were any reasons why there should have been any concealment in respect to my claims made from time to time.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
(Sgd) Agnes Lake.
Declared before me at the city of Peterborough in the county of Peterborough this 18th day of April, A.D., 1914.
(Sgd) R. R. Hall,
A Commissioner, etc.
There is this to be said about Miss Carr. Her accounts did appear on the pay-list under the class of labourer. I suppose it was for work done that her accounts were sent in, and so she might properly have been placed on that pay-list juet as she was, but I agree with the commissioner in his finding that there was a very improper system of accounting in the office. Many reputable business men of Peterborough sold goods in connection with the construction of that canal and the maintenance of the boats required on it, and in case after case where their accounts were sent in, their names were added to the ordinary pay-sheets and the amounts paid as wages, whereas they were really in payment of accounts for specific goods. This system seemed to have been in general use. Hotelkeepers, boardinghouse keepers, photographers, grocers and others were all treated in the same way. Their bills, I am informed, are actually lying in the office at Peterborough at this moment, but, instead of their bills being sent forward to Ottawa, as would have been proper, their names were put on the pay-list, and they drew that much pay as labourers or

whatever they might be termed on the paylist.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. member think that is right?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I said I agreed with Commissioner Ferguson that that is a wrong system; but it is not a fraudulent one.	*


John Dowsley Reid: It is if the Government should not have paid the accounts.


Hugh Guthrie: It is not fraudulent, and Miss Carr's statement that her accounts were put in and that she received her pay for nothing more than was due, surely must be accepted. I cannot understand the object of the commissioner in making the finding he has made, that this is a fictitious person and a dishonest payment. I appeal to the hon. member for West Peterborough to .say whether he thinks that finding is correct.


Mr. BURNHAM:: We were absolutely unable to find out who Miss Carr was. I never heard of her in my life before, and we were astounded to find out at last who she was.


Hugh Guthrie: And you did find that she was a stenographer, having lived practically all her life in Peterborough.


John Hampden Burnham: In the office of Stratton and Clarey, and that is the reason we could not find out about her.


John Dowsley Reid: The Peterborough Typewriting Company, I think it is.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that is correct. I understand she has a room and does work there or goes to offices as may be required. Her work was not steady but at intervals; her bills were correct and she swears to them, and there is no evidence to the contrary.


John Dowsley Reid: Does she state that she handed over the checks to the Typewriting Company?


Hugh Guthrie: No, there is no suggestion in any of the evidence or any affidavit that any such thing was done. I find fault with the commissioner for finding, on the evidence of McClellan solely and only, a man who he .says was dishonest and deceived people over and over again, that this is a fictitious name and a dishonest payment. The woman
4 p.m. contradicted him flatly, and the House will take her statements

*as against the evidence of a man proved to be a thief and a deceiver.


John Dowsley Reid: The only objection I have to the affidavit is that, of course, these accounts were all paid by checks from the department. Instead of filling out her name in full as it should have been done, so that we would know whether the signature was that of a woman or of a man, she signed just 'A. Carr,' and then the hon. member states that she received this money and kept it for herself. As I am informed she was an employee of this firm as mentioned by the hon. member for West Peterborough, and the only evidence that confirms that is that Miss Carr received the cheques, endorsed them ' A. Carr ', and handed them over to the typewriting company by whom she was employed, and that firm collected the money.


Hugh Guthrie: Even so, what more
likely than that a girl employed by a typewriting company .should cash her cheques with the cashier? Mr. McClellan estimates the amount as $300 for the whole four or five years. The question is, what are we going to do? Are we to accept the statement of the acting Minister of Railways, who knows nothing about this transaction, or the statement of Howard Ferguson?


John Dowsley Reid: What statement?


Hugh Guthrie: That she went through
this performance of cashing her cheques.


John Dowsley Reid: I will show the hon. gentleman the cheques if he likes.


Hugh Guthrie: That proves nothing. It is not unreasonable that she should cash her cheques, as she got them, at the cashier's office. On the evidence solely of the discredited McClellan, discredit is sought to be cast on this respectable woman whose claim for work done might easily and properly have appeared on the pay-list. I believe she sent in her voucher every time. I am sure my hon. friend will say nothing against the Peterborough Times, which is the most friendly paper in the world to him. He would not say that the Peterborough Times would be guilty of any wrong-doing in connection with this transaction.


John Hampden Burnham: Nor do I say that Miss Carr was. What is all the fuss about? She endorsed her cheques over to the typewriting company. She has just been made a stool pigeon for these other people.


Hugh Guthrie: The fuss is that she was a fictitious person, and that the payments in her name were dishpnest.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He approves of that.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think so.


Mr. MORPHY:: The payments alleged to have been made to this lady were before the present Government came into power, were they not?


Hugh Guthrie: Certainly.


George Perry Graham: Still she may be respectable.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I understood the hon.
gentleman to say that the trouble started after this Government came into power.


Hugh Guthrie: Let us turn to another item. The commissioner finds:
So far as superintending the canal and safeguarding the public interests is concerned it is amply proven that there has been no serious attempt to do so. McClellan seems to have engaged himself largely with matters of political patronage and pleasure seeking jaunts at the public expense, and the bills for liquor and other refreshments and meals on the boat eloquently testify to his popularity as an entertainer. The evidence shows that these entertainments have ceased since the fall of 1911. The last bill for liquors and cigars to regale the guests of the superintendent aboard the Bessie Butler is paid in October, 1911. The confectioners and grocers accounts have ceased since that date.
In that finding, Mr. Howard Ferguson must have to-een very forgetful of the evidence which was submitted to him, which clearly showed that the entertainments continued. The evidence is most positive upon that point. I turn to page 9 of the report, and I will give the House the exact language of the commissioner:
William Hewitt is caretaker of some small dams at Hawke Lake. He is paid $1.75 a day and board and the free use of a house and fuel owned by the department at Hawke Lake. He has been permitted to buy provisions and furnish his house. For June, 1910, his grocery bill at one store was $10.26 ; July $34.40 ; August $73.54; September and October $27.02. It is obvious that no attempt was made to control this expenditure and from the nature of the goods purchased. Mr. Hewitt lived both luxuriously and extravagantly. It is costing the Government at least twelve hundred dollars a year to maintain Mr. Hewitt at a job that should not cost half that. As a result of the disclosures elicited in my investigation McClellan cancelled this improvident arrangement with Hewitt and engaged him at $60 per month, and even this rate of wages is in my view excessive.
That was in the year 1910. when the Liberal Government was in power, the commissioner says. But Hewitt was not there

in 1910 nor in 1911. He went there in 1912 on the recommendation of the Minister of Militia and Defence as is shown in the evidence given before the commissioner.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What is the commissioner's name?


Hugh Guthrie: G. Howard Ferguson.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Do not give it for the shame of this -eountry.


Hugh Guthrie: This finding of the commissioner which I have just read is not justified by the facts. Instead of condemning some Liberal appointee he made the mistake of condemning Mr. Hewitt who was appointed by the Minister of Militia and Defence in 1912. I believe that Mr. Hewitt is an excellent man in every way, and is doing his duty. I have the bill here for the groceries supplied for the entertainments in the summer of 1913-not in 1910. The bill is not out of the way at all, there is no extravagance about it, but the point I make is that these groceries were consumed by the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham), and the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Sex-smith).	*


Mr. SEXSMITH:: None of it was con-.
sumed by me. My expenses were paid by another firm altogether.


Hugh Guthrie: I say that this bill is not out of the way at all, but that this man Hewitt has been condemned by the overzealous commissioner who thought he was dealing with a Liberal appointee whereas he was really the appointee of the Minister of Militia.


John Hampden Burnham: I paid for everything I got; that is all bosh.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You will have
to resign now.


Hugh Guthrie: I think that the commissioner ha3 made a perverse report in this matter. It may have been forgetfulness because there were 700 or 800 pages of typewritten evidence, but it looks to me to be actually perverse. The finding is altogether against the evidence, and there is also a sentence in the affidavit which looks to me to be deliberately perverse. Hewitt was an estimable gentleman appointed through the influence of the Minister of Militia.

Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Appointed straight by me.


George Perry Graham: He is one of the best fellows up there, too.


Mr. HUGHES:: None better in the
world.


Hugh Guthrie: County of Peterborough,
To wit:
In the matter of the investigation of the Trent canal by G. Howard Ferguson, K.C.
I,	William Hewitt, of the township of Stanhope, in the county of Peterborough, caretaker of the Hawke Lake dams, do solemnly declare-
1.	That I am informed and verily believe that my name appears in the investigation into the affairs of the Trent canal conducted by Mr. G. Howard Ferguson, and that the following is an extract from Mr. Ferguson's report:
William Hewitt is caretaker of some small dams at Hawke lake. He is paid $1.75 a day and board and the free use of a house and fuel owned by the department at Hawke Lake. He has been permitted to buy provisions and furnish his house. For June, 1910, his grocery bill at one store was $10.26; July, $34,406 August, $73.54; September and October, $27.02. It is obvious that no attempt was made to control this expenditure and from the nature of the goods purchased Mr. Hewitt lived both luxuriously and extravagantly.
Well, I do not believe that.
It is costing the Government at least twelve hundred dollars a year to maintain Mr. Hewitt at a job that should not cost over half that. As a result of the disclosures elicited in my investigation McClellan cancelled this improvident arrangement with -Hewitt and engaged him at $60 per month, and even this rate of wages is in my view excessive.	, _	.
2.	That Peter Grozell was the caretaker of the Hawke Lake dams for about 15 years prior to my appointment as caretaker of these dams in the month of April, 1012, and that Peter Grozell was in control of the Hawke Lake dams in the months of June, July and August of 1910, and for a long time prior .thereto and down to the time that I was appointed caretaker as his successor.
3.	That in April, 1912, I was appointed caretaker of the Hawke Lake dams on the recommendation of the Hon. Col. Sam. Hughes and have been caretaker of these dams ever since.
4.	That I never at any time prior to April, 1912, worked for the Dominion Government nor had anything whatever to do with the Hawke Lake dams nor did I ever at any time order any goods upon the credit of the Dominion Government on my order or for my use prior to the month of April, 1912.
5.	That I was employed by the Government as caretaker of these dams at $1.75 a day and was to have the free use of a small house owned by the Government and also free fuel.
6.	That my house is situated about 22 miles from Minden and that my nearest neighbour is about two and a half miles from my house.
7.	That the Hawke Lake dams comprise about eight in all and it takes about three days or so to make a trip by canoe to inspect these dams.

8.	That my inspection of these dams is made in the winter time on snowshoes and by canoe in the summer time and in case it is stormy I have to walk the shores of these lakes to make my inspection.
9.	That there are no settlers living within miles of at least six of these dams and the shore is a long and lonesome one and at times a dangerous trip to make.
10.	That on or about the first of February, 1914, Mr. Bartlett, the accountant of the Trent canal at Peterborough, took stock of the Government supplies at my house at Hawke Lake and requested me to come to Peterborough.
11.	That I came to Peterborough on or about the first of February, 1914, and met Mr. J. H. McClellan in his office, and Mr. G. H. Ferguson,
K.C., the commissioner, and Mr. Ferguson produced before me certain accounts for June, July and August for the year 1913.
12.	That the account now produced and shown to me and marked as exhibit ' A ' to this my declaration is a copy of the account that Mr. Ferguson showed to me in Mr. McClellan's office when I was being examined by him.
13.	That I told Mr. Ferguson on my examination that I did not order the goods contained in said account marked ' A ' and did not remember getting these goods, and at this point of my examination Mr. Samuel Clegg, who was sitting in the adjoining office, came in and explained to Mr. Ferguson and Mr. J. H. McClellan who was there that practically the whole of this account was for goods that were ordered by Lew Manning and were consumed on the occasion that Mr. J. H. McClellan, Mr. J. H. Burnham, M.P., Mr. J. A. Sexsmith, M.P., and Mayor Bradburn and others were present on an inspection trip over the Trent canal in July, 1913, and Mr. Clegg further stated that Mr. Hewitt did not know anything about them. Mr. Clegg then stated to Mr. McClellan that he knew all about these accounts, and Mr. McClellan said he did and he reminded Mr. Clegg that he was also present on this inspection trip.
14.	That I board the men who are employed -by the Government to make repairs upon the Hawke Lake dams, and the goods ordered in June, 1913, and August, 1913, were consumed by the employees of the Government whom I boarded while certain repairs and work was being done on the Hawke Lake dams.
15.	That the names of the men I boarded and who were employed by the Government on the Hawke Lake dams will no doubt appear on the pay sheets that were sent in to the Government.
16.	That Mr. Ferguson on my examination did not produce to me any accounts for June, July and August, 1910, and the only accounts he drew my attention to on my examination was for the months of June, July and August, 1913, and September and October, 1913.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
W. Hewitt.
Declared before me at the city of Peterborough, in the county of Peterborough, this 27th day of April, A.D. 1914.
S.	T. Mead,
A Commissioner, etc.
Surely that clears up the finding of the commissioner in regard to luxurious and extravagant living and in regard to the unholy expense which the Government was put to in maintaining this man, Hewitt, at the Hawke Lake dams. Now he is working there for $60 a month and the commissioner says that this is even far too much.


James Joseph Hughes: Too much?


Hugh Guthrie: The commissioner says it is too much. I agree with the Minister of Militia that this finding is not only untrue but that it is grossly exaggerated in every respect and there can only be one object in placing it there, and that is to blacken the record of the former Administration. Unfortunately for Mr. Ferguson, he did not know that Mr. Hewitt was a man of high character and that he had been appointed by the present Minister of Militia and Defence. Then, there is the affidavit of Mr. Clegg which corroborates Mr. Hewitt's affidavit in every line. Clegg tried to give his evidence. Perhaps I had better read his affidavit also. It is as follows :
Province of Ontario,
County of Peterborough,
To wit:
In the matter of the investigation of the affairs of the Trent Valley canal by G. Howard Ferguson, Esquire, KC.
I,	Samuel Clegg, of the city of Peterborough, in the county of Peterborough, agent, do solemnly declare:-
1.	That I was employed as an overseer on the Trent canal from about the year 1906 to the month of March, 1914.
2.	That I am informed and verily believe that the following is an extract or a summary of an extract taken from the evidence given before G. Howard Ferguson, K.C., in connection with his investigation of the Trent canal affairs which reads as follows:-
'William Hewitt is caretaker of some small dams at Hawke lake. He is paid $1.75 a day and board and the free use of a house and fuel owned by the department at Hawke lake. He has been permitted to buy provisions and furnish his house. For June, 1910, his grocery bill at one store was $10.26; July, $34.40; August, $73.54 ; September and October, $27.02. It is obvious that no attempt was made to control this expenditure and from the nature of the goods purchased Mr. Hewitt lived both luxuriously and extravagantly. It is costing the Government at least twelve hundred dollars a year to maintain Mr. Hewitt at a job that should not cost half that. As a result of the disclosures elicited in my investigation McClellan cancelled this improvident arrangement with Hewitt and engaged him at $60 per month and even this rate of wages is in my view excessive.'
3.	That during the years 1910 and 1911 the said William Hewitt was not a caretaker of the dams in the vicinity of Hawke lake but on



the other hand one Peter Grozelle was the caretaker of these dams at Hawke lake.
4.	That some time after the time of the defeat of the Laurier Administration in September, 1911, the said Peter Grozelle was discharged and the said William Hewitt was appointed by the incoming Borden Administration as the caretaker of these dams on the recommendation of the Hon. Col. Hughes, M.P., for Victoria and Haliburton, in the place and stead of the said Peter Grozelle.
5 That the caretakers of the dams in the vicinity of Hawke lake were formerly employed by the Ontario Government and after these dams were transferred to the Dominion Government the caretakers were employed by the Dominion Government in the same way as they had been previously employed by the Ontario Government and received so much a day and their board and house rent free and when work was going on in the vicinity of the caretaker he boarded the men employed by the Government on the different works and the Government paid for the necessary supplies in connection with the boarding of the men in its employ. This same system prevailed before and after the elections in September, 1911.
6.	That the said grocery bills hereinbefore referred to were for groceries furnished for the year 1913 and not for the year 1910.
7.	That while the said G. Howard Ferguson was examining the said William Hewitt at the office of the superintendent of the Trent canal at Peterborough I was present in the office of the superintendent but was not actually in the same room when the said G. Howard Ferguson was questioning the said William Hewitt in reference to his account for July, 1913, which contained it was said a good many luxuries and extravagances. The said William Hewitt told Mr. Ferguson that he did not remember receiving the goods referred to in the July account and Mr. Ferguson said it would be necessary to telegraph Mr. Soward of Minden, the storekeeper who supplied the goods.
8.	That in the Course of my duties I happened to remember what these goods were supplied to the said William Hewitt for and I volunteered the statement to Mr. Ferguson that the goods referred to in the July account were ordered by Mr. J. H. McClellan, the superintendent of the canal, to be furnished and sent with a cook to provide for a party that he was taking up to Hawke lake to go over the reservoir waters in connection with the Trent canal and among the party who were taken over the reservoir waters on this occasion were J. H. McClellan, the superintendent, myself as overseer and Mr. J. H. Burnham, M.P., for West Peterborough, and Mr. J. A. Sexsmith, M.P., for Bast Peterborough, and Mr. W. H. Brad-burn, mayor of Peterborough and several others.
9.	That after Mr. Ferguson heard my statement he directed his stenographer not to take down my statement as to the purpose for which these goods for the month of July, 1913, were used.
10.	That the said William Hewitt also stated to Mr. Ferguson at this time that he remembered the occasion of the visit of this party to Hawke lake.
11.	That Mr. Ferguson's statement that no attempt was made to control Mr. Hewitt's expenditures and that the nature of the goods

purchased by the said William Hewitt showed that he lived both luxuriously and extravagantly is not borne out by the facts and unjustly reflects upon the said- William Hewitt as he is not to blame for goods that were actually purchased upon the order of Mr. J. H. McClellan as superintendent for a party of gentlemen over which the said William Hewitt had no control, and who consumed the luxuries that the said William Hewitt is unjustly charged with consuming.
12.	That the provisions referred to in the account for August, 1913, were purchased to supply board for the men -working for the Government in repairing dams during the month of September, 1913.
13.	That I have knowledge of these matters on account of being overseer for the canal in this vicinity ,at the time.
14.	That the pay sheets in the department in connection with work done upon these dams in the vicinity, of Hawke lake will show the names of the men who were employed in September, 1913, and who consumed the goods purchased in August, 1913.
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
S.	Clegg.
Declared before me at the City of Peterborough in the county of Peterborough, this 17th day of April, A.D. 1914.
V. J. McElderry,
A Commissioner, etc.
Here is the ease of a man sitting in the office of the commissioner, in the presence of McClellan, not being called as a witness but voluntarily making a statement, and the commissioner says to the stenographer: ' Strike that out of the evidence.' No evidence is contained in the printed record as to what Hewitt said, and how are you to regard such a finding as that. It is a perverse finding; it is contrary to anything that appears in the evidence; and it is denied by the two men who were of the party. Surely that finding, and many of the other findings of this commissioner, this House will absolutely disregard. I will pass over the cases with reference to one dollar and a dollar and a half amounts, and I will refer to the case of Mr. Hollings-head, formerly manager of the Bank of Ottawa at Peterborough. It is charged that Mr. Hollingshead is down on the pay-list as a labourer, and that is commented on in the findings of Mr. Perguson. I believe Mr. Hollingshead is a man of established position, he is a banker of repute, and the charge against him is that he signed the list as a labourer and got payment of an account. So he did sign, and he got his payment, and he did the work. But the commissioner seems to think there is something irregular about that.


John Dowsley Reid: Did he do his work as a labourer ?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know that he did, but there are many of the prominent residents of Peterborough, including the editor of the Peterborough Times, who supplied food and other materials, who are put down as labourers.


John Hampden Burnham: The Times people did not put their name down.


Hugh Guthrie: The office put it down.


John Hampden Burnham: That is the point. Do not forget ' for this and other accounts.'


Hugh Guthrie: 
John Hampden Burnham: It is only crazy.


Hugh Guthrie: Then there is a reference to the case of Mr. Nelson, another stenographer, and at page 10 of the report it is said:
William S. Nelson, who styles himself as a broker, and runs a typewriting office in Peterborough, figures almost monthly on the pay-roll for years back as a labourer. He admits never having worked as a labourer. The cheques received by him were really to pay for typewriting supplies and typewriting, and in connection with an illustrated booklet on the subject of the canal, published by Clarry, the former accountant.	..
I need not read Mr. Nelson's affidavit; it states.-that he sold typewriting supplies and he did typewriting work, and he sent in proper bills just as he would to any other person dealing with him and he received the money, but his name is down on the pay-roll as a labourer. I have a lot more of these affidavits, but I need not worry the House with them. Then the report states, for example, that T. Lane sold some pillows for one of the boats and it was paid for by putting Mr. Lane down on the pay-roll as a labourer. Then there is a reference to the account of Mr. G'. R. Nixon, a Peterborough hotel-keeper, whose claims for board for employees of the canal was paid for by putting Mr. Nixon down on the pay-roll as a labourer.

Instead of his account being made out on an ordinary form, his account was put in that way, his name was put on the list and the amount opposite his name shows the amount that was paid to him. Gibson, a jeweller, from whom they bought an alarm clock and a badge for the watchman, was paid in the same way, and makes a similar affidavit. None of these men were asked if they had sold goods, nor were they asked for their accounts-not one of them, though they all lived in Peterborough.


John Hampden Burnham: They were not charged with anything.


Hugh Guthrie: No, there is nothing in the charge.	,


John Hampden Burnham: You do not see the
point.


Hugh Guthrie: I do see it. I say that there was improper bookkeeping, a very poor system of bookkeeping, but there is nothing in the chaTge of wrong-doing.


John Hampden Burnham: I will show you some thing.


George Perry Graham: Very unfair to thesQ people to use their names in that way.


John Hampden Burnham: Certainly. I tried to remedy that. I have admitted it fifty times in the press.


Hugh Guthrie: I am not bound by
your admission, and do not care for them one way or the other.


John Hampden Burnham: I am replying to the ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham).


Hugh Guthrie: The name ' W. H. Robinson ' appears in these papers. This refers to Mr. Robinson, of .the Peterborough Times, the leading Conservative journal of that part of the caim-try. He had a little account of $3.60 for printing, a perfectly proper account, and it was paid in the same way. Then comes the case of Gainey, a barber of Peterborough. His was a very small claim, but he was paid for work as a labourer, though he never worked on the canal as a labourer. Here is his affidavit:
I never was employed as a labourer upon the Trent canal at any time and was unaware of the fact that my name had been entered as a labourer in the books of the Trent canal under the supervision of J. H. McClellan as superintendent thereof until after the report upon the investigation herein.
That during the year 1907 I furnished certain cigars upon the order of such superintendent of the canal in the ordinary course of my business,

which cigars I am informed and believe were used upon the Government boat operated under the superintendent, and my accounts in respect to them were paid for in the ordinary course of business.
That I made the same charges to the superintendent'as I would to any other individual for any goods X supplied in the ordinary course of business.
Then there are O'Brien, I think it is, who runs a grocery store, Hoover, cabinetmaker, and S. Oak, a fruit dealer and Blake, a florist, who supplied flowers for [DOT]funeral.


John Hampden Burnham: That was a rich case. That was there twice.


Hugh Guthrie: I had better read that affidavit, for the evidence is very weak and the finding is very weak too.
I,	Arthur Blake, of the city of Peterborough, florist,-
This is another man who was never called as a witness.
-do solemnly declare that
1.	I am informed and believe that my name appears in the report of C. Howard Ferguson, Esquire, K.C., in the investigation of the Trent Valley Canal affairs.
2.	Any sums paid to me through the office of the superintendent of the Trent Valley canal at the city of Peterboro, were paid to me for flowers, wreaths, or for flowers furnished for decoration purposes about the locks, and I received the ordinary market price and no more, for flowers, wreaths or plants sold by me to the Trent canal office.
3.	I never acted as a labourer or worked or was employed by the Trent canal system, in any capacity whatever.
4.	The only manner in which I had any dealings with the Trent canal officers at the city of Peterborough or elsewhere, was for the supplying of flowers, plants etc., for which I received only the market price as I before stated.
The total amount is a small one, but I have not the figure before me at the moment.
Now I come to an item in the report in which G. Howard Ferguson, commissioner, once more gets his case mixed. He examines McClellan, tne superintendent, 1 should say, for a good many hours, and finds him deceptive and dishonest. His is the chief examination in the whole evidence, and on McClellan's evidence the commissioner bases his report in large part. Certain sums of money had disappeared from time to time, for which McClellan was accountable. They aggregate about $2,000. The first was a sum of $15 of rental money which he received but makes no account of. You find that referred to at page 11 of the report. The next is $10 from the Provincial Treasurer on account of storage of boats. There is no

account of this money. A larger amount of money is referred to at the bottom of page 11 as follows:
In tlje summer of 1910 McClellan sent a dredge to Lindsay to do work for John Ritchie and Company for which they paid to McClellan $550. This money was never paid to the Government and McClellan is unable to account for it. His statement is that he may have drawn the cash for it and left it with Clarry the accountant to hand over to one Davidson for the Liberal campaign fund. (Evidence page 393, 394, 469 and 470). He admits that large sums of money that should have been remitted to Ottawa were contributed to the Liberal election fund. In a short investigation in the hopelessly muddled account I was able to trace about $2,000 which he says went in that way.
Now, this is the evidence of Mr. McClellan whom the commissioner finds to be a thief and a deceiver as stated on the third page of his report. Mr. G. Howard Ferguson is a lawyer of experience. He never called a single witness implicated by McClellan to contradict that statement. The inference I draw from the report is that he did not believe McClellan and that this is what he intended to convey But he should have done it in sterner and more explicit language. All the men who have been implicated by McClellan in respect of these sums of money aggregating about $2,000 have been accessible and could have been examined at any time. Mr. Stratton's name was used. During the investigation he was in Toronto. It is true he was in the hospital, but he was conversing with friends and was doing business, and was able to give evidence if wanted. Now, he is in his home in Peterborough. Another gentleman whose name was given is in. Edmonton, and he sends down an affidavit that he is willing to be examined. Another has gone, I think, to Calgary. On evidence of that kind, from a man whom he has called a thief and a deceiver, the commissioner does not make a finding that money went to the Liberal campaign fund, but he makes an insinuation that this was what had become of money which McClellan could not account for and which in reality he had put in his own pocket. Read page 11 from top to bottom, give it an honest reading, and I am satisfied that not a man in this House would conclude that the Liberal party or an agent of the Liberal party, or Mr. Stratton, or any one connected with Mr. Stratton, ever received one copper of this money, but this man McClellan himself was the sole recipient. But when the commissioner questioned him, as he did question nim, the only thing he could say was that he must have given
it at odd times for political purposes. Perhaps I had better put in some of the evidence on these points. Here is one affidavit:
Canada, Province of Alberta, To wit:
In the matter of an investigation pertaining to the general administration of the Trent Valley canal conducted by G. Howard Ferguson.
I, Ernest Simpson Clarry, of the city of Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, agent, do solemnly declare:
1. That I am the person referred to as 'Clarry' in the evidence of J. H. McClellan, superintendent of the Trent Valley canal, given herein, a portion of which I have read.
2.	In note in the said evidence of Mr. McClellan his reference to giving certain cheques or moneys to me for campaign purposes, which reference or statements are untrue.
3.	As a matter of fact, I never at any time received from Mr. McClellan or any other person for him one dollar of money to be used for election campaign purposes nor as a contribution to any campaign fund, nor did I ever hint at or ask him for any.
4.	During all the time I was connected with said office I never paid any money to Walter
S.	Davidson (mentioned in said evidence) nor to any one for him for election campaign purposes nor as a contribution to any campaign fund.
5.	I never saw or received any of the cheques or moneys mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof nor do I know what became of same, or any part thereof.
Here is another by Mr. Walter Stewart Davidson:
I, Walter Stewart Davidson, of the city of Calgary, in the province of Alberta, Barrister-at-law, make oath and say :

1.	That I have read the copy of the report of
G.	Howard Ferguson, Esq., in connection witl* his investigation of the affairs of the Trent Valley canal, and have also read the evidence of J. H. McClellan in so far as reference is made therein to myself.
2.	I understand from the evidence of Mr. J.
H.	McClellan that he desires to convey the impression that certain moneys which were received by him in his capacity as superintendent of the Trent Valley canal, and which were not accounted for by him to the Government, were given to E. S. Clarry, Esq., to be handed to me for the use of the Liberal party in West Peterborough.
3.	In reply thereto I say that never at any time was any money in any shape or form, either directly or indirectly given to me for political purposes, either by E. S. Clarry or J. H. McClellan, or by any one else in any way connected with the Trent Valley canal, and I verily believe that at no time did the said J. H. McClellan ever give any money to the said E. S. Clarry to be given to me or to any one else for political purposes or for the use of the Liberal party, or any person connected with the Liberal party.
4.	That during the period mentioned in the said report I was intimately connected with the organization of the Liberal party in West Peterborough, and I verily believe that the evidence of J. H. McClellan, In which he states that he made contributions to the Liberal party
*988

out of the funds of the Trent Valley canal is a deliberate falsehood.
W. S. Davidson.
That is sworn to by Mr. Davidson in Calgary. Next comes the declaration of Mr. Stratton:
I,	James Robert Stratton, of the city of Peterborough, in the county of Peterborough, publisher, do solemnly declare that-
1.	It has been reported to me that J. H. McClellan, formerly the Trent canal superintendent, has stated that I asked him for money for campaign purposes out of the funds of the Trent canal or for him personally.
2.	I say that I never asked J. H. McClellan, either directly or indirectly for any money or any subscription for election purposes, or any money for me in any of my elections.
3.	I never asked E. S. Clarry or any one else to canvass J. H. McClellan or ask him for money for a campaign fund at any time.
4.	I never instructed W. S. Davidson, a solicitor of the city of Peterborough, or any other person by that name, to ask J. H. McClellan or canvass him for a subscription for any campaign fund or for any other purpose.
5.	No sums of money at any time nor in any manner were paid to me by J. H. McClellan or by any person for him, for any campaign fund or for me personally, and any such statements made by any person, are absolutely untrue in every particular.
This declaration was made at Peterborough on April 9 by Mr. Stratton. The next is that of Mr. Robert Richard Hall, a former member of this House, as follows:
I, Robert Richard Hall, of the city of Peterborough, in the county of Peterborough, barrister-at-law, do solemnly declare that-
1.	I have been informed that J. H. McClellan, formerly the superintendent of -the Trent canal at the city of Peterborough, stated that I had intimated to him that if his salary was increased, that I would expect to get half of the increase with him.
2.	I say that I never intimated directly or indirectly to J. H. McClellan or to any person on his behalf or through any person upon my behalf, that I would obtain or attempt to obtain an increase of salary for the said McClellan, upon ti e terms that I should receive one-half of the increase of such salary, or any part of the same, and any statement of McClellan to this effect, is absolutely without foundation and absolutely untrue.
3.	The matter was never discussed or never mentioned by me to the said McClellan and I know of no reason why he should fabricate such statement and place it upon the records of the investigation of the Trent canal.
4.	I never asked the said McClellan either directly or indirectly by any person on his behalf or through any person upon my behalf, for money or consideration for a campaign fund or for myself personally, and any statement made by the said McClellan to this effect, or by any other person else to this effect, is absolutely untrue and without the slightest foundation.
Before reading the last affidavit I should have mentioned that McClellan declares in his evidence that he had some arrangement

with Mr. Hall of Peterborough whereby if he received an increase in his salary as superintendent of the canal Mr. Hall was to get half of it. When Mr. Ferguson heard McClellan make that statement, why did he not send for Mr. Hall and get his evidence? Not having done that, why does he bring his name into this report; why does he make mention of the statement at all? The commissioner makes no finding upon it; he says McClellan states so and so, but he does not say that he believes him. To show the animus of the commissioner, it is sufficient to point out that he has brought in the name of Mr. Hall without calling him as a witness and without saying in the report:	I do not believe a
word of the evidence of Mr. McClellan. This unfairness runs through the whole report. The next declaration I wish to read is that of Clem Gordon, as follows:
1.	That I was for about eight years foreman and later for eight years more overseer on the Trent canal down to the first of March, 1912.
2.	That I never was asked by the Hon. J. R. Stratton or by any person, or persons on his behalf to subscribe to any election campaign fund in which he or any person else was interested, and I never did in fact subscribe to any e'eotion campaign fund during the whole time I was employed on the Trent canal nor was I asked to subscribe to any election campaign fund by any person or persons whomsoever.
Mr. McClellan makes an aspersion upon tills -man's name also. If hon. gentlemen go through the whole of the list they will find that in thirty or forty cases McClellan says that this man received so and so and that this man did so and so, and that this man should have done so and so, but the commissioner does not say that McClellan is telling the truth, although he makes insinuations against honourable citizens of Peterborough.
It will be remembered by those who were in this House prior to the elections of 1911 that the Government was undertaking a work that probably should not have been undertaken, that of the Newmarket canal. In the summer of 1911 the dredge Holland, which was employed on the Newmarket canal, was, on the recommendation of the engineer, taken down to Peterborough for use on the Trent canal. In regard to this the Teport says:
In the year 1911 the dredge Holland was purchased by the department on the recommendation of the engineer at the cost of upwards of $16,000. She is a combination of orange peel and suction dredge. She originally belonged to a firm of contractors who were working on the construction of the Newmarket canal. The contractors made default in their work and the

dredge might have been confiscated by the Government at that time. She was transferred by the owners to the Standard Bank from whom the Government purchased her. Mr. Grant informs me that the original purpose was to use her on the Holland river where the excavation consisted of loose earth and silt. She was brought to Peterborough and tied up on the bank of the canal where she still lies. Mr. Grant says that she was never made use of because the Newmarket canal was abandoned subsequently to the purchase. The evidence of every one whom I questioned upon the subject is that her machinery is a splendid type and in excellent condition.
In the storehouse in connection with the maintenance department there is almost a complete outfit of dredging machinery, bought some years ago with the alleged purpose of constructing a dredge.
Now, we had one excellent dredge brought to Peterborough in the summer of 1911, and also machinery stored there for the construction of another, so that when the Liberal Government went out of power there was plenty of equipment and machinery had it been employed. Here is a part of the finding I cannot understand:
Notwithstanding the fact that these two dredge outfits were available and could surely have been utilized, a new dredge called the Auburn was built by Mr. Grant in 1912. His original estimate was about $19,000, while the cost amounted up to $26,000. The engineers seem to have taken upon themselves to build this dredge without any appropriation being made therefor. The Auburn is what is known as a clam shell dredge and the material that she is best adapted to handle is much the same as the class of work for which the Holland was intended.
What strikes c-jie as most remarkable is that the Government-
That is th-e Conservative Government:
What strikes one as most remarkable is that the Government should have locked up no less than $25,000 or $30,000 in two dredge outfits and a third dredge is built without any attempt at utilizing any of the splendid machinery or parts already on hand. In other words the Government has invested from fifty to fifty-five thousand dollars in dredge plant and have but one operating dredge costing $26,000.
Thus you have a practically complete outfit for a second dredge, and in spite of that, in 1912, after the management of this canal passed out of the hands of the Liberal Government and into those of the present Government, the Government deliberately set to work to build another expensive dredge.


John Dowsley Reid: The Holland is not any good.
Mr. GUTHRiIE: But Ferguson finds that the Holland is good.


John Dowsley Reid: No, he does not.


Hugh Guthrie: He savs:
Mr. Grant informs me that the original purpose was to use her on the Holland river where the excavation consisted of loose earth and silt. She was brought to Peterborough and tied up on the bank of the canal where she now lies. Mr. Grant says that she was never made use of because the Newmarket canal was abandoned subsequently to the purchase.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: The dredge was not brought down by the ^Conservative Government, but by the Liberal Government.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree with that. That was in the summer of 1911. Mr. Ferguson
says:
The evidence of every one whom I questioned upon the subject is that her machinery is a splendid type and in excellent condition.


John Dowsley Reid: That is, the machinery. The hull and other parts of the dredge are not in such a condition that she could he used. The machinery is good, but not the hull.
.Mr. GUTHRIE: Mr. Ferguson has made the finding. I say that some of his findings-the only word that describes them is 'rotten.' They are absolute nonsense when placed before a body of men who have reasonable intelligence. That was done, not under the late Government, hut under the present Government. Mr. Ferguson says the Government have spent $26,000 in duplicating this plant. What are they going to say with reference to Ferguson? He has made that finding, forgetting his dates or for some other reason, I cannot tell what, but he has made a finding directly against the present Government.
Take another of his findings. There is one just as interesting which refers to matters under the present Administration. At page 10 I find:
In the year 1912 a small boat called the Manlta,-


John Hampden Burnham: The employees were old appointees, that is the trouble.


Hugh Guthrie: This would 5 p.m. not have gone on under the late Administration.
In the year 1912 a small boat called the Manita-	.
The hon. member for West Peterborough knows that boat:
-was rented by McClellan from William Robertson-
That should be William H. Robertson, proprietor of the Peterborough Times; but in this report it is put in as some man named William Robinson, and wherever the name William Robinson appears in what I am about to read, it should be

William H. Robertson, proprietor of the Peterborough Times. The finding continues :
Was rented by McLellan from William Robinson for use on the canal at $8 a day; McClellan agreeing to do whatever repairs were necessary for this purpose. Rent was paid from 26th of May to the 12th of June while she was being repaired. Rent was paid for her also for six days while she was being laid up in the fall. The spring repairs cost $259.12. She worked twenty-six days for the engineer's department for which they paid McClellan's department $208. She worked for McClellan's department twenty-seven days during that season. The naltnce of the time she worked for Sir William Mackenzie who paid Robinson $8 a day for her. McClellan sent the whole outfit on to Mackenzie's work and Mackenzie paid rental, wages and maintenance while actually on the work. McClellan's department paid for delivering her at Mackenzie's work and paid for her while returning from the work. Robinson complained that the boat had been badly used and seriously damaged and McClellan in the spring of 1913 spent $331 on repairs.
That is since 1912.
The result of operations with this boat is that she cost in repairs 1912, $259 ; 1913, $331; rent, $504; total, $1,094, received from the engineers, $208. The net cost of the boat to the Government was $8S6 for twenty seven days work, or about $33 a day.


John Hampden Burnham: Who exposed all this?


Hugh Guthrie: This was all exposed, I suppose, when the hon. member for West Peterborough discovered that Mr. Robertson was getting such a good boat from this Government. He has had his old craft renovated at the expense of the people of Canada, and Mr. William H. Robertson got the benefit of it and got it under the management of the present Government, and he would be getting it yet if it had not been exposed, as it has been exposed in the press and Parliament of Canada.
Take the report from beginning to end, here and there the commissioner pokes a hole, as he thinks, in some member of the Liberal party. He speaks of $600 worth of liquor and cigars being bought at a hotel in Peterborough, and says that that stopped in 1911. I do not know whether it stopped or not, but the report says so, and I have ' not had_ time to go over the whole of the evidence in that respect. But I know it did not stop in 1913 in the grocery accounts for luxuries in connection with the famous trip that was made by both members for Peterborough to look at the dams.
I know that the finding is false in regard to Hewitt, and I think that the Minister of Militia will see the propriety of denying that. Mr. Hewitt is an honest man, and he should be vindicated by the Minister of Militia.

The commissioner makes a most glaring statement that a man who had been told to walk around a dam was practically worthless, was receiving too much money for his labour, and should be cut down to some very small amount. Yet since this Government came into power, and since this report was issued, the Government have increased this man's pay; in the face of this report, he received an increase of $16 a month, and has been given a telephone besides. Yet Mr. Ferguson finds that he is simply marking time around there, and that his services should be dispensed with altogether. What Confidence can we place in the report? On the dynamite charge, which was the first charge for which a commission was issued, the whole trouble arose under the present Government when Cinnamon was appointed as middle man and received a rakeoff of five cents a pound. The whole trouble occurred in 1912 and 1913. That disposes of the dynamite. The ruinous prices that have been paid for the Manita have all gone into the pocket or were for the benefit of W. H. Robertson of Peterborough.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	Eight dollars a
day is nothing for a steamer like that.


Hugh Guthrie: No, but they got a new boat every spring. I am not making a fuse about that; it is the commissioner who makes the fuss. He says that Miss Carr is a fictitious person and that somebody stole the money. This woman is willing to come and give evidence before Parliament if necessary; and so it ie with eighteen or twenty other persons whose affidavits I have not read to the House. This man Giroux, I think is the name, whom I have mentioned is absolutely unnecessary, and yet the Government has increased his salary by $16 and given him a telephone.


John Hampden Burnham: Giroux has been suspended.


Hugh Guthrie: I may not have the
right name, I cannot find it now.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Hewitt?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I stand by Hewitt. He has been cut down, and falsely and maliciously charged, as I believe, with extravagant living at the expense of the people of this country. As a matter of fact he lived very moderately. I have no doubt that he is a very excellent man, but he has been charged with ordering groceries

which were not required in the interest of the public service, and is practically made cut to be a scoundrel. The implication is that he has defrauded the Government. With all these facts before you, Mr. Chairman, and with the dominant fact that not one of these people was called as a witness although they were all available and willing to testify, what kind of a star chamber investigation would you call this proceeding? What kind of an investigation was it? The only complaint made is than there was not a regular system of keeping accounts. Everybody knows that the accounts were kept on file, and 'are still on file in the office of the Peterborough canal.


John Hampden Burnham: That is absolutely untrue.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. gentleman
must not say that unless he has control of the office.


John Hampden Burnham: I know it has been
changed.


Hugh Guthrie: I am talking of the time of the investigation. There were men sitting around who wanted to give evidence and to impress upon Mr. Ferguson that Hewitt was a new appointee, but the commissioner says: Strike that out. If we could get Nelson R. Butcher's man who took the evidence to show the original transcript we should find that it had been stricken out, but Butcher will not produce the book, as he says it is private. It was stricken out deliberately in order that Mr. Ferguson could make this fuss. With all these facts before us, will any one say that we can place any reliance on the finding ? Any one who reads the evidence will agree with me that only one specified charge has been established, and that is against McClellan. It is to be found on page 5, and I will read it again:
This report sets forth a comparatively few of the irregularities and fraudulent practices in vogue in the office under Superintendent McClellan's supervision. He has not only practised deception and dishonesty himself, but has condoned it and winked at others and has proven himself hopelessly incompetent for the position he holds.
He was the chief witness, and in nearly every case the sole witness, and the finding is based on the evidence of that man who was both a deceiver and dishonest. I understand that he has been dismissed since the report' came out. I do not know him personally, but I see him around the corridors occasionally.
I was shocked when I read ' Hansard ' this morning to see that my hon. friend from West Peterborough had been guilty of what I can only term a gross breach of propriety. He undertook to read letters marked ' private and confidential ' from a former member of this House, and he proclaimed the contents broadcast. I do not know what the contents of the letters were. I notice that they are not in yesterday's ' Hansard.'


John Hampden Burnham: Because I did not take the trouble to take them into the Debates office.


Hugh Guthrie: Perhaps it is just as well they are omitted. I think my hon. friend the member for West Peterborough, for whom I entertain a high opinion, was guilty in this case of a very grave impropriety.


John Hampden Burnham: Would you not read them in court ?


Hugh Guthrie: No. My hon. friend knows that the property in a letter is not in the recipient alone but also in the writer.


John Hampden Burnham: That is a new doctrine.


Hugh Guthrie: I can give my hon. friend citations if he wants them. Folkard's Law of Slander and Libel says:
A person who writes a letter to another, does not thereby give him the right to publish its contents to the world. The writer has a right to control the act of publication; and is entitled to an injunction to restrain the unauthorized publication, whether it be for profit or otherwise. It is not because the letters are written in confidence, or because the publication of them may wound the feelings of the writer that the jurisdiction of the court in cases of the sort is founded. The property in letters remains in the person to whom they are sent; but the writer has this kind of property in them, that he has a right to restrain the publication of their contents; and the right descends to the legal personal representatives of the writer.
Time and again our courts in Ontariohave restrained the publication of certain letters.


John Hampden Burnham: In matters of public business?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. If my hon. friend had listened to the Prime Minister this morning he would have heard a confirmation of my opinion in every respect. It could not have been more plainly or better stated than it was by the Prime Minister this morning when he said that letters marked ' private or confidential ' in relation to public business should not be disclosed.


John Hampden Burnham: He did not say ' should not ' but ' need not


Hugh Guthrie: He said that if they are not private or confidential they ' need not ' but if they are marked private or confidential they 'should not'.


John Hampden Burnham: No.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friend will see it in ' Hansard '. I am sorry my hon. friend used these letters, and I have no doubt he regrets it himself now. From what I am told there was nothing in the letters bearing on the Trent Valley canal except perhaps the recommendation of a man to do this, that or the other work. They might as well have been left unread. I do not see how it is going to help my hon. friend from West Peterborough because he told this House that the Liberals and Conservatives were all together in this grab, and thaj, one party was about as bad as the other. I have tried to demonstrate, and I think I have demonstrated that there was no grab about it except by McClellan. I am very sorry my hon. friend made public the contents of the letters, and I hope that when he sits down with the minister and goes over this evidence and the report he will agree with me that the report is not a fair one, at least in this respect: that a man has been unwarrantably defamed, and that insinuations have been made against him without a scintilla of evidence to support them.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: Superintendent McClellan was the former Liberal candidate for Parliamentary honours in West Peterborough. I have known him since he was a boy. Mr. Clegg is a good staunch Liberal, and so is Mr. Clarry. I want to say this much for Mr. McClellan:	I do
not believe the finding that has been presented to-day by my hon. friend or the finding of the commissioner in regard to McClellan. Mr. McClellan was, in the time of our predecessors, under the direction of Mr. Stratton, who was the member for Peterborough. Mr. Stratton had a man in his office named Clarry, and there is no use of disguising the fact that Mr. Clarry was Mr. Stratton. The business was transacted through Clarry. I do not know any of the details, but it was a matter of common report up and down the canal that Clarry was the man who did the business. For instance, Mr. MeClennan did not attend to the banking of the cheques but they would be endorsed by him and Clarry, would deposit

them, or he was supposed to deposit them. If the whole thing was thoroughly looked into I am satisfied that McClellan would come out pretty clear of any thing seriously wrong with regard to himself.


Hugh Guthrie: Notwithstanding the
view of the commissioner?


James Joseph Hughes: I am not discussing the commissioner; I will discuss him later on. Mr. Hewitt, who is referred to very adversely in the report, is >a gentleman who dives in my riding. Nearly all of these works are in the riding that I have the honour to represent. Hewitt is as square a man as ever lived. He was put in there to take care of the dams when the other man was relieved of this duty. He is a long distance away from the purchasing centre, stores and that sort-of thing, and during Liberal rule, as well as under our own rule, the workmen on the dams and along the canal when in that vicinity used to get their meals at his house and the account was paid for by the Government. The Government of the day, no matter which party wras in power, paid these accounts. If a number of men were working on the darns in the locality, as frequently happened during the summertime, they got their meals at his place. If parties of inspection came along, such as were referred to by my hon. friend from South Wellington, I do not think there was anything wrong in charging these accounts to the Government. It is as broad as it is long and there can be no objection to it. There was something said about the purchase of liquors. The Minister and Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) came along on an inspection trip, and I have read a report in which it is stated that something was charged up against him. It would be simply outrageous if the Government steamer were not to be allowed to entertain the Minister of Railways and Canals upon the occasion of the opening of the canal. There was not a reeve, a warden, a member of Parliament, or a man of prominence along the entire route of the canal who was not invited to the opening of the canal. My hon. friend the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Le-rrueux) who .had just returned from Japan, came up to open the lock at Kirkfield.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I invited my good
friend to be there also.


James Joseph Hughes: Not at all; I did not have the consent of anybody to be thexe, becau&e I had as much right to be there as the hon. gentleman had.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Then the hon. gentleman came without an invitation?


James Joseph Hughes: No, but I was just as *much a party to it as my good friend, and he learned to his sorrow that the gentleman who ran the show that day was not the hon. Postmaster General but the present Minister of Militia and Defence.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I saw how strong my hon. friend was in the back concessions.


James Joseph Hughes: Rather. There is only one other matter that I wish to refer to, and that is what has been said with reference to the purchase of explosives. The first I heard of it was on the occasion when Mr. Cinnamon told me that there was a terrible report about this explosive business, that the superintendent was dealing with the Kingan Hardware Company, of Peterborough, that they were supplying short weight, and that it had been so reported by a man named Hamilton. I think Hamilton should be dismissed from the canal-1 do not care who appointed him. He was not appointed by me, although he was in my riding. He had known for weeks that this explosive was coming in 36-pound cases instead of 50-lb. cases. He must have been keeping this information up his sleeve. Cinnamon naturally wanted to sell all of the explosive that he could on the works, and when the time came this was sprung on the community as a scandal against McClellan. When I heard this I telephoned to McClellan and asked him about it, and he said that he knew nothing about it but that he would inquire into it. He rang me up next day and told me the explosive which used to be put up in 50-lb. packages was now put up in 36-lb. packages, and that the balance was all there in Kingan's warehouse and was Government property. It seems that Kingan had the control of this particular kind of explosive that the people were familiar with, and that that was the only explosive that they would use. I had never heard of this five cent rake-off until to-day. I do not know what deal was made between Kingan and Cinnamon, whether Kingan appointed him as agent and paid him this five cents extra or not, but I do know that it was Hamilton's duty, the first morning he found that he had 36-lb. cases instead of 50-lb. cases, to report it, and not allow it to run on for weeks until he thought he .could make out a scanda' against McClellan.


Hugh Guthrie: It was he who discovered it, and he is highly commended by the commissioner.	,


James Joseph Hughes: He discovered it and let it run for weeks before reporting it.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not according
to the report.


James Joseph Hughes: I am telling you what
the facts are. A number of gentlemen and merchants along the line of the canal, such as Mr. Burgoyne of Fenelon Falls and other men, at Minden and elsewhere, have been more or less scandalized by having their names mentioned in this report. These gentlemen have performed services or sold goods, but their names are put into the report and they are placarded up and 'down the country as having been connected with something for which they are blameworthy. They should get their pay if they are honest men. I admit that the system of bookkeeping was bad. The conduct of this man Clarry in the office in Peterborough was most reprehensible, but in the great majority of cases the Government got- dollar for dollar for everything that it paid for.
I do not think it is fair to Mr. Burgoyne and others that their names should be publicly dragged around in this fashion.


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend from South
Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) claims that this report was circulated for the purpose of poisoning the mind of the public. He also complains that the members of the House were not able to receive a copy of the report until the last week in April.


Hugh Guthrie: I said did not receive
it.


John Dowsley Reid: I laid the report on the table of the House, I think, in the month of J anuary.


Hugh Guthrie: It is not dated until
the 14th February.


John Dowsley Reid: I mean on the 18th February. As to the first mention of it being made in the public press, I will say that the newspapers got the matter from the report that I laid on the table at that time. The fact that the members did not see the printed report earlier, I suppose, was the fault of the Printing Committee of the House of Commons. It is they who order the printing of these reports and therefore no blame can be attached to the Department of Railways and Canals for the matter not being before the members at an earlier date.

I do not agree with the hon. member for South Wellington that the report casts any reflection upon the parties that are named in it. Surely my hon. friend does not think it is right and honest that men who supply goods should be put down on the pay-list as labourers and that they should receive their pay in that indirect way? Surely it cannot be said that it was right, and honest, and just, that in the settlement of these accounts the names of the parties should be put down on the regular pay-list for so many days' work as labourers, the parties signing the receipt.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: It should be said in justice to Mr. McClellan that these works were carried on at distances of a hundred miles apart at various points.. Mr. McClellan did not know the men and never saw the men. In my riding the foremen took charge of that and McClellan did not know anything about it.


John Dowsley Reid: I am not saying whose fault it was, but I say the names of these parties were put on the pay-list as labourers, and so far as the public records are concerned they show that they were paid as labourers and not for the goods they had supplied. The ex-Minister of Railways and Canals will agree with me that there is no reason why legitimate accounts, even for supplies such as those mentioned, should not be put through in the regular way, stating what they are for. They would then be passed on by the auditor's department and paid in the regular way.


Mr GRAHAM:: No reason whatever.


John Dowsley Reid: Whoever is to blame, whether it is Mr. McClellan or the accountant, there is no reason in the world why these accounts should not have been sent to the Canal office at Peterborough, certified to by the proper officer there, and sent to the department here and paid. If the accounts had been properly paid the names of these respectable people in Peterborough would not have been brought before the public in the manner in which they were. But the commissioner had to state the facts adduced before him in evidence, and as the accounts were in the office at Peterborough he had to show how they were paid and who got the money.


George Perry Graham: I agree with my hon. friend that the commissioner had to show how the. accounts were paid, but do you not think in justice to men such as bank managers, he should have called them and taken their statements from their point of

view. I do not blame the commissioner for condemning the system, because it is all wrong; but when a prominent citizen's name was mentioned before him in this connection, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for him to have telephoned that gentleman and asked him what his side of the case was. I think it was altogether wrong for the commissioner not to give a leading citizen whose name was mentioned a chance to clear himself from any imputation that might have been cast upon him.


John Dowsley Reid: I do not find that anywhere in the report the commissioner claims that these persons did anything wrong; he simply shows that the names are improperly entered, even though the accounts be honest and just. Now, with reference to Miss Carr, the commissioner found the name 'A. Carr' on the pay-list, and it is quite evident from the statement made by the hon. member for West Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that nobody knew who ' A. Carr ' was, and Mr. McClellan in his evidence states that he does not know who ' A. Carr ' was.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: He thought it was a man.


John Dowsley Reid: I suppose he did, and consequently they could not find out who it was. I do not think any fault will be found with the commissioner for stating at the time that he did not know who ' A. Carr ' was, who was entered on the pay-list as a labourer, although ultimately it turned out that A. Carr was a typewriter in the office of a firm in Peterborough in which Clarry was interested. There is no reason why, ii typewriting was done for Mr. McClellan or Mr. Clarry or anybody else in connection with the Trent canal, that it should not have been charged for as typewriting and paid for as typewriting.


George Perry Graham: I agree with that.


John Dowsley Reid: But when this account was paid for by putting A. Carr down on the pay-list as a- labourer at a dollar and a half a day, it deceived the department, it deceived the minister, and it deceived everybody else. To pay for typewriting by putting down the name of the typewriter as a day labourer doing work on a dam, seems to me to be altogether wrong. When these facts appeared it would seem to the commissioner or to anybody else that the paying of an account for typewriting in that way must be to cover up



[Stage Direction]
some wrong-doing, because one would naturally suppose that if the account were honest it would be paid for in the usual way. Take the case of a manager of a bank, signing as being paid for so many days' labour. I do not think that is right, and I do not believe any man in the House will think it is right.
George Perry Graham: Did any bank manager
sign the pay-roll?


John Dowsley Reid: Signed the pay-roll. As my
hon. friend knows, the pay-roll is made up every month, it being the regular printed pay-list, and on that list was the name of the bank manager as a labourer for so many days at $1.50 a day.
Mr. GRAHAM I suppose he is not down as a ibank manager?


John Dowsley Reid: No, he is down as a labourer, and he receipted the account and got the money. Any bank manager who would do that, I do not care who he is, in my opinion, when he signed the pay-roll, knew that he was doing something that was not right, and as a bank manager he would not allow such a thing to go in his bank.


George Perry Graham: Have you a pay-roll
there that a bank manager did sign?


John Dowsley Reid: I have not got one here, but I will show the hon. gentleman a pay-roll later. I am informed by the officers of the department that that was what was done and that very month these names appeared on the pay-roll. I will ask Mr. Bell as to that. I can understand how some of these others might do it and not know it was wrong, because they are not used to business methods. For instance, Mr. Hewitt might do it without thinking there was anything wrong about it, because he has no business training in such matters. The accountant goes around and says to these men:	Here is a pay-list, sign these
accounts.


George Perry Graham: Nine-tenths of them would do that.


John Dowsley Reid: I take it for granted that so far as the items standing in Mr. Hewitt's name are concerned, the date ' 1910 ' is a clerical error; it should have been 1913. But the only point I wish to make is that amongst those listed as ' labourers,' there are some men who should not have signed as receiving money as labourers; in that they were wrong and deserved censure. Others were not to blame, being ignorant of the way accounts were paid.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps they did not know what they were signing-were merely shown the space in which to sign.


John Dowsley Reid: Would the manager of the Bank of Ottawa, or any other bank, sign for a payment of that kind and not know what he was doing ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If I saw the form to be signed, I could judge better.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member for South Wellington claims that the Order in Council was first passed to investigate the matter of explosives. No doubt charges were made of irregularities and the Minister of Railways and Canals ordered the investigation. But when the commissioner went to Peterborough no doubt he heard rumours of other irregularities. It is a good thing the matter was investigated in order that it might be put right. Surely no hon. member will say that it would be right to have this continued. It is the best thing that ever happened, not only for the Trent canal but for Canada generally, that matters of this kind should be found out and put in proper position. I do not say that the men who supplied these goods did it with any wrong intent. But I do blame, and blame very seriously, those men who knew better yet who signed a pay-roll as labourers. Those men did wrong and have earned censure.
So far as concerns supplies for entertaining people visiting the canal-ministers, exministers, or members of Parliament-my opinion is that it would be a great thing for Canada if every member of Parliament could visit all the works under construction in every part of the Dominion, so that we might know better what we are talking about when these matters are brought up in the House. And if the minister or the superintendent invites people there in order that those people may understand the work better and be able to discuss it more intelligently, I see no reason why the accounts should not be paid. But I object to these accounts appearing as payments to labourers instead of appearing for what they really are.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree with the hon. minister's statement in a general way. But what does he say of the finding of the commissioner in this respect? Is it not entirely wrong?


John Dowsley Reid: The commissioner went into the accounts. And, remember, you may do this extravagantly. But if I were minister of that department or acting at the time, and accounts were sent in for the reception

of visitors of this kind, I would not hesitate to pay them, and let the public know what I had done. If I were in that position and accounts came in in which the manager of a bank and others were shown as being paid as labourers, I would not pay the accounts at all, because I would assume that there was something dishonest about them. I certainly regret that the names of many prominent citizens of Peterborough-
Mr. SAM. HUGHES: And Victoria.


John Dowsley Reid: -and Victoria were brought out in this connection. But I do not see how it would be possible for the commissioner to make a report setting forth irregularities, such as putting on the paylist as labourers the names of those who had supplied goods, instead of paying them in a legitimate way, without mentioning names. I do not-see how, without mentioning names, he could justify his conclusion. The hon. gentleman may say: Why not call these men and see what they had to say about it? But there is no dispute about the accounts. So, I cannot see what object there would be in calling many of these parties simply to show that goods had been supplied.
Mr. tsUBNHAM: What about Clark's account in the Examiner office?
Mr. EhlD: I do not know that particular account, it was an account for printing or something of that kind. But even if some of these men had been called they would simply have said: There is an account for goods supplied and ordered by some official of the Trent Valley canal, Mr. McClellan or some other; the account is right, and I was justly entitled to be paid for the goods. Well, no one disputes that. 1 cannot see how the commissioner could send in a report setting forth the facts without giving the names of the parties1. I am sorry that the names of many persons in Peterborough and Victoria were brought into the report, but I cannot see how the commissioner could have done it in any other way if it was in the public interest that a thorough investigation should be made. I believe that this report will have good results not only in respect of the Trent canal but in respect of other canals throughout the Dominion; it will have the result of making the officials in the Department of Eailways and Canals as well as in other departments attend to business more closely and see that nothing of this kind occurs again.


John Hampden Burnham: With regard to Stratton's letters and my reading of them, I think it is a well-understood fact that when the mark of privacy or confidence is put upon a letter or document for the purpose of concealing fraud or impropriety, that very facts releases all confidence in the bona fides of the letter. There is no necessity of arguing that matter. As to the labourers, the reason why these persons were put down as labourers was in order that a system of fraud might be carried on successfully. I will give you two instances. Clark was the accountant in the Examiner office. There was an account running in the Examiner office which never should have been there and it was paid by putting Clark down as a labourer. Who will say that that is a proper thing to do?


Hugh Guthrie: Itobinson was put down as a labourer.


John Hampden Burnham: I am giving you instances in which it was a case of absolute impropriety. Take the unfortunate case of the man Sheridan. Sheridan died and the men on the canal subscribed for a funeral wreath. Their names were put down as labourers; the account was sent to the department and paid and Clarry and these men put the money in their pockets. No doubt this Government is a heaven-sent (government, but how they were on the eve of September 21, 1911, to have all these things flashed upon them is something [DOT]more than I can understand; it gradually unfolded itself. I was on my guard night and day, because I was surrounded by men [DOT]who were as crooked as a ram's horn and I am mighty lucky that I did not get into all sorts of trouble that I never dreamed [DOT]of. When you are in the midst of the enemy, you have to look out, especially *when the enemy is as crooked as a ram's horn.
With regard to Miss Carr, I have already said that I do not know her; nobody seems to know her at all. This circumstance is simply used as a cloak for fraud; everybody thoroughly understands that. It is a very great pity that names of thoroughly honest citizens were improperly used, but we know how that happened. If you want to do a rascally thing, you get behind the name of a man who stands well with the people; that is the artifice of a rascal.
Mr. Denham, president of the Quaker Oats Company of Peterborough, owns large waterpower properties in that district. The superintendent and manager of the Canadian

General Electric Company of Peterborough, Mr. Patterson, also owns large water-powers. Not a day would pass but they would ring roe up time after time saying that the water was improperly handled; that one minute they would have 3,000 horse-power and the next 1,500, and so on. I would say to them: McClellan says so and so. The superintendent would say: That is not right. I said: the first time McClellan goes up to the head waters of the Trent-which are some 120 or 130 miles back, and entirely outside my constituency-we will go up and see what can foe done; you fellows pay your expenses and we will pay outs. We organized an expedition; we had the mayor of Peterborough to represent Peterborough; we had Mr. Denham to represent the Quaker Oats Company, Mr. Patterson to represent the Canadian General Electric and Mr. Sexsmith to represent his constituents. We went up there and we spent the most active two or three days I have spent in years. We were walking day and night, and as for anything in the way of luxury and picnicking, the thing was a perfect farce. We travelled during the night fifteen miles in'a continuous downpour of rain and up to our knees in mud. It is ridiculous to call this luxury; at any rate, it is not what I am accustomed to. I then wrote to Mr. Denham and told him that after Mr. Ferguson's report came out there might be trouble about these things; that certain circumstances might foe misconstrued. I asked him to make a statement and he made a statement in which he said that they paid all their own expenses. The Quaker Oats Company paid Mr. Denham's expenses, the General Electric paid Patterson's and certainly I paid my own. I do not agree with that part of the report which says that the men lived luxuriously; I saw no evidence of luxury. I saw nothing but hard work; some people may call it luxury, but I do not. So far as I was concerned, I refused to stay in Hewitt's house all night, I slept in the automobile. Denham stayed with me for a while, but about two or three o'clock in the morning he said:	I cannot stand
this; I will have to go into the house, which he did.
It will be observed that I did not charge Stratton or any of these men with having a cigar or a bottle of soda along the canal at the Government's expense; as a matter of fact I for one do not think these people are small enough to saddle such things on the Government. I may say by the way that I provided myself by way of estoppel
with a statement from Mr. McClellan that neither personally or politically was I ever engaged in a trip at the expense of the Government. As to this man Clarry, he was the kind of chap of whom we read in the works of Dickens. He was a great little scavenger; there is no question about that. You cannot generalize by quoting single instances, but you can show something to substantiate your assertions. Mr. Clarry got up a history of the Trent Valley canal and thought, I suppose, that he would get a great deal of glory out of the thing. He had it typewritten by Nelson; Nelson was put on as a labourer and was paid for doing this work on the history of the Trent Valley canal for Clarry. Who is going to say that is right? Certainly it is not right; Clarry was not honest. The report shows that the investigation discloses the conditions only on the surface. Anybody who lives in Peterborough or in the Trent district knows perfectly well that if this is what appears after a sort of hen-scratching on the surface, heaven only knows how much there is below.
I asked this man Eastwood:	What do
you mean by all this note shaving of these poor wretches who are employees on the canal; that is thoroughly wrong. He had them listed on a number of sheets of paper. He brought out several of these sheets at the time, and how much do you suppose they would amount to by the summer? I made a calculation myself, and I believe that they amounted between $400 and $500 a year for years. That is what the shoving of 50 cents and 75 cents apiece on all these employees meant. As for Vincent Eastman raising a row because a thing of that kind was discovered in his bank, he had better think again before making another complaint of being caught at that sort of thing, (because in one instance when he was caught he forked over on my demand. He knew that it was wrong, and said so. There is the case of Joseph Yelland, who was a foreman working on the canal. The hon. member for South Wellington, who certainly did himself justice in the dissection of the report, with all his usual skill and intelligence, did not refer to this man. What did Yelland say? He said he was brought in against his will from doing carpenter work on the canal on piers, wharfs, etc., and was rammed into Stratton's committee room for two weeks; he had to stay there in spite of himself, and his time was paid for by the Government. Is that right? The whole thing is

not worth looking into. As a matter of fact, they were a lot of common rascals and they *were caught at it, and that is the whole thing in a nutshell.


George Perry Graham: I want my friend to except a large proportion of these citizens of Peterborough from the term of rascals.


John Hampden Burnham: I do not say all these other people, certainly not. Mr. Gibson is one of my most intimate friends.


George Perry Graham: This report is another evidence that the principle underlying the appointment of royal commissions is being departed from. The royal commission was intended to be a judicial tribunal, to find out the real facts of a case; but under the present Government we have seen the appointment as commissioners of the very strongest partisans, who are liable tb bring in reports not always warranted by the facts. While the intention in appointing royal commissions was to take investigations out of the political arena and really get at the truth, in at least two cases during this session the reports have been so strongly partisan that you have to go over the evidence very carefully to get at the facts, and you are not much farther ahead after you have read the report than you were before. I do not object to an investigation one iota; what I do object to is that the names of prominent persons, who were within a stone's throw of where thia investigation was held, should be published to the world as having received pay in a manner in which they ought not to have received it, or for work which they never performed. The explanation of the minister is in a way right from his standpoint. But, let us take it home to ourselves. Supposing the name of the hon. member for West Peterborough or myself appeared as implying that we had put in an account for certain services, that we had got our check and receipted it, and then, in a few weeks, it was spread broadcast over the country that we had been fraudulently accepting pay as labourers. I say the commissioner made a great mistake and perpetrated an injustice on a lot of respectable people in Peterborough by not calling them before him and asking them to answer a few questions. From what has come out here to-day, it is evident that members on both sides have unanimously agreed that in nearly every instance these people are altogether innocent of any wrong-doing. Still the public have a suspicion, it has been thrown out in this report that there

is something wrong on their part. So far as the irregularity in the office is concerned, I would not defend it for one moment. These names should never have been put on the pay-list for anything except what they had done or furnished. The proper way to do, no matter what the account is for, is to get a voucher, send in the account and have it passed and paid by cheque to the man, paid for what it was and for nothing else. Any account that cannot be paid in that way is not a legitimate account and should not be paid. There is no doubt about that. But the commissioner did not exercise due diligence to protect the innocent parties in his finding. In reference to Hewitt, I cannot be accused of defending a Liberal, as he is a Conservative, as every one knows. In the county of Hastings and in the surrounding country I have a good many friends and many relatives, and I know this man Hewitt. I would trust Hewett with anything I had.


James Joseph Hughes: Hewitt does not live in Hastings.


George Perry Graham: I said ' and the surrounding country': You will find .some of my relatives in your county-and I am afraid they vote wrong from my point of view. This charge will stick to Hewitt as long as he lives. It should not. No person is called upon to exercise as great care as a man in a semi-judicial position to avoid injuring innocent parties. No name should be used until there has been the fullest investigation. What Hewitt did was absolutely right. That brings me to the point of supplies for visitors. I agree with the acting minister and the member for West Peterborough that that is too picayune for a commissioner to have anything to do with in a report. If the members of this House from the western parts of Canada and from Ontario could be induced to go down over the Intercolonial railway, for instance, mc'e frequently than they do, they wotdd become the strongest advocates of Government ownership of the Intercolonial, because there is no better run road in this country than the Government railway. It would be the same if members of Parliament could be induced to go over the Trent Canal system; they would find that it opens up one of the best tourist districts in America, and one of the most beautiful. Besides it will be useful for freight purposes as well. Any money that is expended in taking members of Parliament or any other prominent men over our public works is money well expended, and I am here to defend it no matter whether the expenditure is made

by-a Conservative or a Liberal. It is all nonsense for a commissioner to take time to bring in findings against anybody for spending a few dollars in taking public men over our public works because tiiat is money well expended.


John Dowsley Reid: It is only the way they were paid.
Mr. GRx\HAM:	Ferguson finds the
money was expended in luxurious style. Hewitt spent these large amounts in boarding men working on the canal under contract and I guarantee that if he is like most boardinghouse keepers he did not make much profit.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	And he was getting no pay for boarding them.


George Perry Graham: No, in a sense, and now he has been cut down to $600 a year. Let me say that the minister, notwithstanding this report, should put Hewitt's salary back where it was.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	Hewitt boarded
these men and the Government paid the grocers. Now, Hewitt does not board the men but charges them. I understand that he will in future charge any man for any board he gets.


George Perry Graham: And it will cost the
Government more than before.
Mr. SAM. HUGHES:	But it will free
Hewitt from any charge of graft.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps I am too tenderhearted but I consider it is most unfair to bring a man, no matter what his views may be, whose only capital is his reputation, and have a report made about him of this kind in which there is absolutely not one word of truth, particularly where the commissioner had before him evidence absolutely contrary to his report. I say that the Government are under some obligation to Hewitt to straighten this thing out. As to the result of the report itself, I earnestly hope that it will be to better methods of account keeping.
It has not been shown except for one or two minor cases that my hon. friend has mentioned, and which I have not had time to look into, that any moneys paid ought not to have been paid; therefore, in that respect there has been no loss to the country. The most that can be said- although I am not here to defend any person-is that the system of book-keeping used in the office was very efficient, and I am glad to hear that that is to be changed.
I would advise the officials engaged on the Trent Valley canal or any other officials not to do this kind of thing-no matter who asks them. When money has to be spent let it be spent in the proper way; send the accounts into the department and have them O.K.'d by the auditor, and then if there is any wrong-doing it will not be the fault of the officials.


John Albert Sexsmith: As my name has been mentioned I would like to make a little explanation.


George Perry Graham: The apology is accepted.


John Albert Sexsmith: Some time in the early part of July of last year, Mr. Denham, the manager of the Quaker Oats Company in Peterborough, told me over the ' phone that he was arranging a party to look over the Trent Valley water system with a view to its power possibilities, and asked me if I would be kind enough to make one of the party. I accepted not with any idea of having a picnic but with the object of gaining some knowledge of the Trent Valley waters. I agree with the hon. member for W est Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) that it was no picnic; in fact, it was the hardest two or three days I ever put in my life. I went on Mr. Denham's invitation, and I understood that the Quaker Oats people were paying their share of the trip. Even if the Government paid for it I think it would have been perfectly justified.


George Perry Graham: Do not do it again.


John Albert Sexsmith: I would do it again
under similar conditions.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Miscellaneous-British Columbia better terms commission, $40,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the work being done by this commission?


Robert Laird Borden: This is the Better Terms Commission. The position of the matter at the present time is that British Columbia prepared its case and some discussion between the two Governments took place as to whether the claims set forth in the case did not extend beyond the scope of the commission. After negotiations in regard to that, an arrangement was made that certain claims should not be pressed, and the case is being amended. I believe that the amended case is about

499=

ready and that as soon as the amended ease has been filed the case for Canada will be filed. In the meantime, the chairman has not been appointed. The reason that he has not been appointed is that we are desirous to know, before making the appointment, how long the proceedings will probably occupy and where the meetings will be held. It is difficult to give very definite information about these matters until both cases are filed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who represents the
Dominion Government?


Mr. BOEDEN:: Mr. Martin.


Rodolphe Lemieux: An excellent appointment.


Frank Oliver: Eoughly, what is the contention on the part of British Columbia? What do they claim in the way of better terms?


Frederick William Borden: They claim that the
natural conditions of the province are very different from those in other provinces and call for enormous expenditures on public works in the way of putting in roads, bridges, etc. They build roads there which cost, I think, $20,000 a mile.


Frank Oliver: No doubt certain miles
would cost that.


Frederick William Borden: They put forward a claim of that character. It was presented, in the first place, at the Interprovincial Conference about eight or ten years ago.


Frank Oliver: I understood that at that time their claim was for an additional $100,000 a year by way of subsidy. Is that the limit of their claim?


Frederick William Borden: No, they got the $100,000 additional at that time, and it was desired that they should accept that in full. The resolutions which were presented to the conference, and which formed the foundation of the resolutions presented to this House, declared that it should be in full. But when the Imperial Act was framed, founded upon an address to His Majesty which had been passed by this House at the time, that particular provision was not inserted, as it was held it would be an attempt to fetter the future action of Parliament.


Frank Oliver: About how much do they claim, or has that come to the attention of the Government yet?


Frederick William Borden: I do not think that they have put it in the form of an exact state-
ment of the amount. They simply put -forward certain matters upon which they base a claim for further financial consideration. My recollection is that no exact amount is named.


Frank Oliver: Is it to be understood
that the Dominion is contesting that claim, or has the Dominion an alternative proposition to make?


Frederick William Borden: No, we have no alternative proposition to make. We shall endeavour to put the case on behalf of the Dominion in an effective way. The case on behalf of the Dominion has not yet been submitted to me, and it has not yet been prepared, but the preparation of it has been entrusted to Mr. Martin, K.C., of Montreal, acting in conjunction with the Minister of Justice and the Deputy Minister of Justice.


Frank Oliver: What is the composition of the commission? I understand the chairman has not been appointed. How are the other members of the commission appointed?


Frederick William Borden: The Government of British Columbia appoint one, the Government of Canada appoint another, and the Secretary of State for the Colonies appoints the third. Provided that the two commissioners could have agreed, they would have appointed the third, but they were not able to come to an agreement, g,nd therefore we had to call upon the Secretary of State for the Colonies to appoint the third commissioner, who will be the chairman.
Pensions

To provide for the payment of a pension to Mrs. Mary E. Fuller, on account of services of Simon J. Dawson, negotiating with the Indian tribes in the lake of the Woods district, 1869-1873, $600.


Frank Oliver: What is the explanation of that?


Frederick William Borden: Mr. Dawson, as reported to me by officers of the Department of the Interior, had, for a certain number of years-I think about four years-performed very important services on behalf of the Government in connection with the incidents alluded to in the item. At that time he did not receive any compensation whatever from the Government for his services, but they are regarded by the officers of the Interior Department as being very valuable. This lady is his only remaining relative. The matter has no doubt been before my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver).


Frank Oliver: No, I do not recollect
that it has.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I think my hon.
friend is the only person to whnss attention it has not been called because it has been brought forward by a great many hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House and in the Senate as well; in fact, it has been pressed very strongly on my attention ever since we came into office. There was no opportunity to look into it very carefully until last year and then I asked some of the members of the Privy Council to consult with the officers of the Department of the Interior and to come to a conclusion as to the merits of the case. My recollection is that Mr. Perley made a very careful investigation and reported that he thought the circumstances were such that a small pension might properly be granted to Mrs. Fuller.


Frank Oliver: This is supposed to be an annual payment?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Frank Oliver: What is the relationship
between Mrs. Fuller and the late Mr. Dawson?


Robert Laird Borden: She is the only relative
who survives him and she is in very needy circumstances.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Perhaps this case might encourage my right hon. friend to consider favourably the case I mentioned this afternoon.


Robert Laird Borden: There is some force in
what my hon. friend says.


Frank Oliver: I have no doubt as to
the value of the services rendered by Mr. Dawson, although I am not personally familiar with them. I know that he did give valuable service to the country in the early days of the acquirement of the Northwest, and later on. The only question about this vote is as to the relationship between Mrs. Fuller and the late Mr. Dawson, which does not appear to be very close.


Robert Laird Borden: My recollection is,
although I am not sure, that this lady was dependent on Mr. Dawson during his lifetime. It is quite clear that Mr. Dawson never did receive any consideration for the services he rendered.


Frank Oliver: I am quite sure he
rendered services that were never put on the books, but if the Government is entering upon a general policy of pensions, I would like to mention to my right hon. friend the 3151
case of the widow of the late William Ogilvie, once Governor of the Yukon.


Robert Laird Borden: That has been brought to my attention and I shall endeavour to have it considered by the sub-committee of the Privy Council.
Militia-Annual drill, $2,000,000.


George Perry Graham: There is an increase in this item?


James Joseph Hughes: The force to be drilled this year will be greater than last year, by several thousand men. We have also increased the pay for horses twenty-five cents a day, and the rations for the men will cost five cents per day more.


George Perry Graham: How many men will
drill this year?


James Joseph Hughes: About 63,000.


George Perry Graham: I see that the members of Parliament are invited to the camps.


James Joseph Hughes: I have done myself the honour to invite the members of Parliament. I have again and again seen in the past that when members of Parliament have come to the camps no recognition is extended to them, and it has always seemed to me that that is not right. The officers were delighted last year to entertain such members of Parliament as honoured them with a visit.


George Perry Graham: Will the minister guarantee there will be no one to see how much we eat, as was the case on the Trent canal?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will we have to bring our baskets?


James Joseph Hughes: No, the culinary department will be properly equipped.


William Chisholm: Yesterday, when the Bill to give relief to the depositors of the Farmers Bank was under consideration, the Minister of Finance said that the amounts to be paid to the depositors, would not be liable to be seized under execution for debt. Is there any regulation in the Militia Department to the effect that the $100 Fenian Raid bounty cannot be seized under the Collection of Debt Act or under execution for debt. Again, suppose the veteran who if living would be entitled to a bounty, died unmarried, and had been living with some near relative, who would be entitled to the bounty?


James Joseph Hughes: All that is arranged by the Minister of Finance. We issue the certificate and the Department of Finance issues the cheque. I had a consultation

with the Minister of Finance on the matter, and the Minister of Finance in order to meet the case mentioned by my hon. friend 'will take the precaution to see that the *cheque shall not be subject to garnishee. I understand the law says that the money shall be paid to the legal representatives of the deceased.


William Chisholm: I have in mind the case of an old man who died a short time ago, who before he died had his property taken away by his creditors and he went to live with his daughter-in-law.
Letters of administration will likely be taken out, and the administrator will be required to pay to the creditors, unless there is some regulation to prevent it. In such a case as I have spoken of, the creditors should not be allowed to have any portion of the money.


James Joseph Hughes: The daughter should
have it. As I understand it, the cheque goes direct to the legal representative and cannot be sidetracked. Whether the Finance Minister will agree to divert it contrary to the statute I cannot say. But there will be few of such cases.


William Chisholm: The departments, as
a rule, do not recognize an assignment under local statutes?


James Joseph Hughes: I understand they do
not.


Mr. CABBOLL:: Several cases have come under my notice which the minister will probably be asked to pass upon. In case of the death of the volunteer, the money must bo paid to the widow or legal representative, but to establish the position of the legal representative resort rnnsr be had to the courts which may cost a large proportion of the $100.


James Joseph Hughes: Formerly, in case of the death of the soldier, letters of administration had to be taken out. But under the new law which has been passed, it is provided that the money shall be paid to the widow or legal representative.


William F. Carroll: But the man may die
intestate leaving no will, and to pay to the ' legal representative ' means going to the court.


James Joseph Hughes: But that would be necessary in any case.


William F. Carroll: This $100 may be the
only thing in the world belonging to these

people, and it would be a pity to have it eaten up in costs.


James Joseph Hughes: I understand the Minister of Finance has authority to settle that matter by Order in. Council.


William Chisholm: Does the Order in Council control as against the statute ?


James Joseph Hughes: He can make it payable to the widow, or, if there is no widow, to the next legal representative.


William Chisholm: That is exactly the trouble-there you get back to the creditors. Why not make it payable to a son or daughter living with him ?


James Joseph Hughes: I understand such cases have to be submitted to the Department of Justice, and that is beyond my sphere. But there has been little trouble in these cases so far.


William Chisholm: The minister will endeavour, as far as possible, to deal with this $100 as a bounty, and not as due to the deceased ?


James Joseph Hughes: That is the rule of the department.


William F. Carroll: In the case of an application. being sent in which the person is mistaken in his qualifications, is the applicant notified?


James Joseph Hughes: Every time. Immediately. We take it for granted that every application is absolutely honest. We show the applicant where he has fallen down and ask him to substantiate his case.


William F. Carroll: I was writing to some persons as to their applications and I find that in some cases the affidavits are not authenticated as having been sworn before a commissioner. I was going to write to Mr. Panet, who is always very courteous-


James Joseph Hughes: Very kind. If the hon. gentleman will drop him a line, any explanation will be given.


William F. Carroll: Only one word more. I hope the department will as speedily as possible pay these claims. It would take a great deal of trouble from everybody who has to do with the county.


James Joseph Hughes: We are paying now at the rate of about two hundred and fifty a day.


William Chisholm: ' Does the department insist upon the certificate of death from the official issuer of death certificates?


James Joseph Hughes: We follow the legal form, whatever it is.


William Chisholm: I understand that the department has been insisting upon a certificate of death. Of course, the official certificate is the best evidence of death. But other evidence ought to be accepted in its absence. Suppose a widow making application. She swears that she is the widow of a certain deceased, who died on such a day. This is certified by the comrade of deceased, who says that he knew A- B- in his lifetime, and that said A- B- wa3 enrolled in the regiment. Why should not those two declarations be accepted instead of an official certificate?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not see why not.


Mr. BRADBURY:: A few evenings ago a discussion took place with reference to veterans' claims. I was called out of the House at that time. I have a matter I desire to call to the attention of the minister, the case of those who took part in repelling the raid that took place in Manitoba in 1871. Oldtimers in Manitoba will remember that we had a Fenian Raid from across the border in that year. Colonel Irwin was then in command of the permanent force in Winnipeg. He took the permanent force from Winnipeg to the boundary line accompanied by one hundred volunteers from the city of Winnipeg to replace the invaders, Before leaving he called on Captain George Newcombe, of Poplar Point, and instructed him to bring a company from that place, known as the Poplar Point Rifles, to hold the fort in 'his absence-old Fort Garry at Winnipeg. Mr. Newcombe, who is now in the employ of the Department of the Interior, came into Winnipeg with one hundred settlers armed, took possession of the Fort and held it. Mr. E. G. G. Hay, one of the old-timers of Manitoba,	one of Manitoba's oldest and
most	respected citizens, brought up
about fifty men from St. Andrews which is in my own county and joined Captain Newcombe's force. This combined force held the Fort for fifteen to eighteen days while Colonel Irwin was at the boundary. These men were under arms and were paid by Colonel Peebles who was the paymaster under Governor Archibald at that time. I claim that every one of these men is entitled to any grant to be paid to Fenian Raid veterans. I am satisfied that if it had not been for the fact that Colonel Irwin went to the front with his force of one hundred and fifty men-one hundred volunteers and the rest regulars-and from the calling in of the volunteers of Manitoba to hold Fort Garry, the affair would have been much more serious than it turned out to be. My ibon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) brought up this matter a few nights ago and I wish to supplement what he so well said on that occasion. These men ought to be taken care of. A good many of them are living at the present time. I have been petitioned time after time, and I have petitioned the department on this subject, but I must say I have received no encouragement that the case of these men should be considered.
I think that the claims of these men ought to be considered. There is no doubt, as in the case of a man like Mr. Hay, who is a very old man, that the $100 is not a very great consideration to many of these persons, but it seems to me that they ought to receive recognition just the same as others who have taken part in the defence of the country.
Mr, HUGHES: The veterans of the Red river rebellion of 1870 were granted their scrip; those who took part in the Northwest rebellion of 1885 got their scrip also, and those who went to South Africa got their scrip. In consequence the old veterans, of 1866, many of whom turned out and gave weeks of actual service, thought themselves slighted; hence the agitation of the veterans of 1866 and 1867. Owing perhaps, to the fact mentioned by my hon. friend, that the people of Manitoba were in such good circumstances that they did not have any desire to apply for the bounty, at the time this Bill was put through we had no applications from the people of the Northwest. The facts brought up by the hon. member for Edmonton were laid before the Assistant Adjutant General; he looked into the matter, but it was too late to do anything this year.


John Howard Sinclair: Some of the Fenian
Raid veterans have been inquiring of me as to whether or not they will be entitled to receive their medals after they have qualified for the bounty. Quite a number of persons did not apply for the medals when they were being granted, and they are now looking for them. I should like to have some indication from the minister as to what his policy is in regard to conferring medals upon veterans who are receiving the bounty.


James Joseph Hughes: My predecessor had the necessary legislation passed whereby these

people automatically become entitled to medals. Proof that a man is entitled to the $100 is proof that he is entitled to a medal.


John Howard Sinclair: All they have to do is apply?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know that they even have to do that.


William Pugsley: Are the medals of gold or of silver?


James Joseph Hughes: Silver.


John Howard Sinclair: Are they available now?


James Joseph Hughes: No, the medals have to be obtained-I think some of them are in now-and	then the name has to be
engraved on the rim, that takes a little time.


Frank Oliver: Does the minister know
whether or not the volunteers who served in the raids referred to by the hon. member for Selkirk have been considered eligible for medals and if any applications have been made?


James Joseph Hughes: The matter has never
been considered by me. I do not know what my predecessor did in the matter; I shall look it up and let my hon. friend know if he so desires.


Frank Oliver: I may say that when the Bill was first brought down mentioning the dates 1866, 1870 and 1871, it never occurred to me for one moment that the men who took active part in the Manitoba raid were not included.


George Henry Bradbury: We in Manitoba all understood that they were eligible.
Militia and Defence-Cadet service, $392,500.


William F. Carroll: Does the department
grant anything to the Boy Scout movement?
Mr. HUGHE'S: We cannot do anything in that line, as the Boy Scout movement is not a military organization. We encourage it all we can, however.


William F. Carroll: A number of boys were taken from the town of Glace Bay last year to go into camp at Kentville; is that under the Department of Militia?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, that is under our
cadet system.


William F. Carroll: That will go on this year also?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes.


William F. Carroll: What is the general scope of the assistance the department gives in the way of taking these school boys away during the holiday'5 Mr. HUGHES: We ration and transport them, but we do not pay them. The theory is that the boys would outgrow uniforms, so we contribute $1 a year towards their clothing.


William F. Carroll: What boys are eligible?


James Joseph Hughes: In each division we
have cadet organizers, officers who see that the cadets are properly organized and trained.


George Perry Graham: How many are there altogether?


James Joseph Hughes: There are 44,000 cadets; of course, we do not take them all to camp; some of the young lads do not go.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to refer for a moment to an order which has recently been issued forbidding the 65th regiment in Montreal to accompany the host on Corpus Christi day. I hold no brief for the Church, but this matter has created quite a turmoil in Montreal, and I should like to know from the hon. gentleman exactly the nature of the orders which have been issued. I may say, en passant, that for thirty years we have had in Montreal the 65th Regiment, composed almost exclusively of Catholics, and every year this regiment takes its place in the ranks of the procession on Corpus Christi day. The question, I suppose, is whether or not the regiment should bear arms. Would my hon. friend explain the matter, and set at rest the many rumours which are afloat? In reading not long ago a history of old Quebec immediately after the British conquest, I observed that on Corpus Christi day the British regiments garrisoned at Quebec formed a guard of honour when the host was passing through the streets of the old capital. Of course, that is not within my personal knowledge; as I have said, I read it in a history of the old days of Quebec immediately after British domination commenced. To my knowledge, for the last thirty years the 65th Battalion in Montreal, to which some members of my family once belonged, has always formed a guard of honour on that day. Last year several battalions in Montreal took part in a race around the mountain, organized by the Montreal Star. To that I have no objection, but the criticism against the decision of the minister, as

given by the newspapers, is to this effect: that if the regiments of Montreal are allowed to take part in a race organized by an enterprising newspaper, there is no reason why the regiment composed exclusively of Catholics should be debarred from taking part in the procession on Corpus Christi. Besides, my hon. friend himself has set the example; last year he attended the very fine demonstration held at St. Irenee. Our friend and colleague the hon. member for Charlevoix and Montmorency (Sir Eodolphe Forget) is the honorary colonel of the 65th Battalion, and I am bound to say that he has done a great deal for that regiment.
Last year there was a demonstration at St. Irenee. The whole regiment was invited; the Minister of Militia was present, and a religious service was held. Somebody, I do not know whether the information is reliable or not, stated that at the moment of the blessing, when my hon. friend knelt down with the officers and soldiers, he made the sign of the cross, but with the left hand. Of course this is only hearsay. However, he was present himself and he can testify that there was nothing pernicious and nothing mysterious against the mother country in any of those demonstrations. In fact they ought to be encouraged. The man who serves his God will naturally serve his country. I hope that the explanation the minister will give will set at rest the excitement which exists among those who belong to the regiment. At present no such explanation has been given, and I could read from the press which is friendly to the Government very bitter criticism concerning the orders given by my hon. friend. I do not understand why the order has been issued. It does not do any harm to see the regiment in a procession, especially if the regiment is composed exclusively of Catholics; nor do I object, at a church parade, to see the Protestant soldiers go to their respective churches as the Catholics go to theirs. My hon. friend on Sunday last was himself present at a church parade in Montreal and I suppose that the 65tli was one of the regiments which took part in it. I do not see why, if you permit regiments to go to their respective churches carrying their arms, you should object to seeing Catholic regiments forming a guard of honour at a Catholic demonstration or a Protestant regiment at a Protestant demonstration, the regiment being present and adding to the dignity of the ceremony.


James Joseph Hughes: I am not aware from
what source the hon. gentleman gets the
inspiration that I have issued any order. The regulation is as old as the militia * system and I have made no change of any kind. Perhaps I can best explain it by reading an interview which appears in today's Montreal Gazette, as follov'?:
Col. the Hon. Sam Hughes, Minister of Militia and Defence, interviewed to-day concerning the regulation about carrying of arms by soldiers in religious processions and the agitation emanating from Montreal concerning it, said:
'No order or regulation, directed against any corps, any creed, or any race, concerning the carrying of arms in church parades, or religious processions, has been issued by me.'
'The regulation is as old as the hills, and the practice still older, that when troops attend divine service they never carry arms. There are only two exceptions throughout the Empire to this regulation, one is active service, in presence of an enemy and the other is in India and kindred places. The arms, in both cases, are carried so that in case of sudden emergency the troops would be ready for active service.'
The minister could scarcely comprehend the statement that he had any objection to troops taking part in any divine service. "Why,' said he, ' at St. I rf-nfe, in Quebec, last year, I was more than pleased to join the 65th Regiment of Montreal in their divine service. Indeed, if I had time nothing would give me greater pleasure than going to Montreal again this coming Sunday and marching with the boys *f the 65th to their divine service.'
The rule is, and it is certainly not a new one, that side arms only are worn.
'On two occasions,' continued Col. Hughes, 'within recent months, the Department of Militia and Defence has had to refuse permission for two corps, almost entirely Protestant, to have their rifles for Sunday operations. For the life of me, I cannot see why any one would want to carry a rifle to divine service. I have yet to find an officer, of any creed, who endorses the carrying of rifles, or who takes exceptions to this well established rule.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: In church parades they carry only side arms?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, only. There is no objection in the world to the 65th or any other regiment doing that. The 65th has a warm spot in the corner of my heart. I attended divine service with them last year and whether or not they suffered from my presence, I certainly was not a bit the worse of it. It was a very nice service and a very nice sermon upon 'duty.'


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was it before you left
for Europe?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, it was while I was on the tour in a special train to the Maritime provinces. I might point out that there is nothing in the world under the regulations to prevent the 65th turning out for divine service to-morrow the same as they

did last Sunday, and if I were in Montreal nothing would afford me greater pleasure than to walk out with the officers and boys of the regiment, and I would have not the slightest hesitation in taking part in the .service. But the regulation is there and I see no reason why it should be changed. Personally I think it would be quite out of place to have the rifles in church.


Rodolphe Lemieux: This seems satisfactory, but what about the custom? I think if the custom was maintained and if published in the press, all this misunderstanding will be cleared.
Mr. OLIVER; What has been the custom in the past in regard to the carrying of arms at church services? When the 65th paraded last Corpus Christi day did they carry arms?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, they have always carried arms.
Militia and Defence-Clothing, $800,000. ,


George Perry Graham: Who has the contract for the clothing?


James Joseph Hughes: The contractors are in
various places. They are the same old contractors. When my predecessor took office he was imbued with the idea of changing the contractors and he did so with great loss to the country, and finally had to go back to the old contractors. When we took office we became virtuous and tried to change the contractors, but we met with loss and delay and all sorts of trouble on the part of contractors and failure on the part of men who, in the course of years would, probably have become as expert as the employees of the old contractors. The old men have beep doing this kind of work for years and can do it much more satisfactorily and therefore we are still giving them the contracts.
Militia and Defence-Contingencies, $44,000.


George Perry Graham: What does that cover?


James Joseph Hughes: This is for expenses not provided for in other votes, such as telegraphing and telephoning, advertising, allowances to officiating clergymen at the permanent force stations, legal expenses, guards of honour, etc. This vote is a little less than last year.


George Perry Graham: I suppose that covers
the duty on the uniforms?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, we have to pay duty on everything that is imported just the same as any other person.


George Perry Graham: It is just taking money
out^of one pocket of the Government and putting it into another.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes. I tried to persuade the Minister of Customs to allow this cloth to come in free but he would .not come around to my view.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I saw an item in the
paper the other day that temperance beer had been smuggled into Petawawa camp. I understand that my hon. friend is going to prevent temperance beer from entering the camp in future.


James Joseph Hughes: I was not aware that we were going to stop temperance beer from coming in. The intention is to stop nontemperance beer.


George Perry Graham: I understand that the
beer was put out because it was temperance beer.


John Howard Sinclair: About this clothing. I see the minister intends to buy 10,000 pairs boots, 50,000 shirts, 30,000 pairs of trousers and 20,000 pairs of pants. I do not understand the difference between trousers and pants, myself. How does my hon. friend buy these articles? Does a tailor who is not supporting the present Administration get a chance to make any of these articles?
M. HUGHES: I was just telling the exMinister of Railways that unfortunately or otherwise, most of the work is done by the old contractors with the late Government. A new boot man, however, underbid the others by 15 or 20 cents and has been given the contract.
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM: In the Kingston Penitentiary report I think the suggestion was made that a lot of these boots, shoes, harness, clothing, etc., for the militia could be made by the prisoners, to the advantage of the prisoners and the country as well, because the prisoners could do it more cheaply. Does the minister intend to act on the suggestion of the commission?


James Joseph Hughes: The matter has not been brought to my attention before, but I will be glad to confer with the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and my other colleagues about it. The ordinary industries of the country object very strongly to the penitentiaries coming into active competition with industrial concerns, and I can quite understand that. I can see very

good reasons for employing prisoners in making roads and things of that kind, but undoubtedly there would be great opposition from the workingmen of the country if the penitentiaries entered , into competition with industrial concerns manufacturing clothing, boots and things of that kind.
iMr. GRAHAM: I appreciate the difficulty, but if the manufactures of these penitentiaries were all made for Government consumption, they would not be coming in competition with outside trade. The Government would be simply manufacturing for its own consumption. It is a difficult thing to deal with, and many ways have been tried of meeting the difficulty. <One thing is sure: the prisoners have to be provided with work of some kind, and, in my opinion, breaking stone is not proper work for prisoners except for a very peculiar class.


Frank Oliver: In regard to this clothing, I am credibly informed that in the case of the scarlet uniforms in a particular locality I have in mind, the dye is so poor that one shower of rain is sufficient to make it run and destroy the whole appearance of the uniform, and consequently its usefulness. I had always understood that the scarlet uniform was of the very best quality, both as to material and colour, and it is rather a shock to my ideas to find [DOT] such an accusation existing. If the Grit contractors have control of that output at the present time, I would respectfully suggest that the minister make a change.


James Joseph Hughes: Hitherto the tunics and trousers have been supplied by three or four contractors, who are permitted to buy their own scarlet cloth. The result has been that the uniforms varied as to texture, colour and .strength of dye. To meet the difficulty we are now buying our own cloth and selling it to these contractors.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to pose as an authority on military matters, but I would like to know if the different kinds of uniforms in use in the militia are for ornament or for use.	.


James Joseph Hughes: I think that my hon. friend shows that he has a good military head, and would make a second Clive or Nicholson. Of course, all the volunteers like to have as nice a uniform as possible on show days in the towns and cities, and that is a very proper spirit. About a year ago we decided to issue a khaki uniform as well. The ornamental dress is now
reserved for review days. Whereas formerly the ornamental uniform would last only about two years, by being reserved in this way it will last four or five. We are making a two years' issue of uniforms; in other words, we are making money for the Government by supplying uniforms for two years because we are making the fine uniforms last twice as long as they formerly did. Let any one take a nice uniform to camp and lie around for a week or two and it is gone. We preserve these fine uniforms for show purposes in cities and towns, or for home entertainment, or for review day and provide the khaki uniform for camp.


George Perry Graham: Will the honorary
colonels be subject to the same limits as the other officers?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, and if the 41st of Broekville, or the 42nd of Renfrew, recommends my hon. friend as an honorary colonel we will put him on the list.


George Perry Graham: Shall I have to buy the uniform myself?


James Joseph Hughes: Here is something that is not generally realized by the public; the cost of the gold lace -and all that sort of thing has to be borne by the officers themselves, which I think is entirely wrong.


William Pugsley: Are these honorary
colonels for ornament or for use?


James Joseph Hughes: My predecessor appointed about 144 and I have appointed less than half of that number. I am sorry to say that my hon. friend is not on the list.


William Pugsley: There are still a few
who have not been appointed.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, some remain; but while the lamp holds out to burn


William Pugsley: I am not anxious for it.


James Joseph Hughes: Our files contain a great many letters from gentlemen who say: Could you not appoint so and so an honorary colonel?


William Pugsley: I hope that they have
not mentioned me.


James Joseph Hughes: I venture to say that my hon. friend would be at the tailor's next day after he was appointed to get a nice uniform made.
Mr. GRAHAM. He would have to go the banker's first.


James Joseph Hughes: In England all these officers are recommended because of some special qualification they possess, such as the man at the head of a railway company, to be of use to the service. Heads of railways, for instance, take a personal interest in the transport of troops to camp. Why should not a railway man who is skilled in his work be a colonel as well as some dub who is entrusted with some other part of the service ?


Mr. HUGH CLARK:: All officers, not only honorary colonels, but others, have to buy their own uniforms and pay duty on them. In the case of the men their uniforms are bought by the Government, and when the Customs duties are paid it is a matter of taking money out of one pocket and putting it into another, as the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has said. It seems like imposing an unnecessary expense on officers to require that they should pay duty on their uniforms. I would like to ask the minister if he has ever tried to exert any influence on the Minister of Customs to get him to strike out the duty on officers' uniforms.


James Joseph Hughes: We tried the first two years, but my hon. friend the Minister of Customs was absolutely stony-hearted, and this year we have placed a sum in the Estimates for that purpose. An item was first voted to pay the duty on all our material, and we tried to bring uniforms in under this item last year, but we could not do so because the vote was for the specific purpose of paying the duty on the material used by the department. This year we are putting an item' in the Estimates to meet the objection of my hon. friend, and I may say that we are doing so in consequence of the public urgings of himself and others. We propose to pay the duty on certain things that have to be imported and that cannot be made in Canada.


William Chisholm: Why should not these men pay duty on the articles they wear just as well as the farmers, labourers, miners and people generally ? If they have the honour and glory of wearing a goodlooking suit, why should they object to paying duty more than any other man ?


James Joseph Hughes: I know there is a feeling abroad that the officer is there for show, but any one who has been through the service knows how frequently he has to go down in his pocket to pay expenses. For instance, he has to go to the expense of his uniform.


William Chisholm: Pay him right.


James Joseph Hughes: He has to pay for it, but he wears it in the service of the country, and the least the Government should do is to let him have it free of duty.


George Perry Graham: There is something in
what the minister says, particularly in regard to the expense. I have had some experience, once removed, of the expense of an officer in a regiment. While my son was living at home, I know that what he got for his service in the regiment did not pay one-twenty-fifth of what it cost me for his company. It costs officers a good deal of money that the public do not know *anything about.
, Mr. LEMIEUX: Would that apply to the .minister's Windsor uniforms?
i Mr. HUGHES: I must say that it made [DOT]me squirm a little when I had to pay the duty on mine.
, Mr. OLIVER: I had the honour to put .before the House, when the Militia Estimates were up last year, a certain view in regard to this matter of officers' uniforms. In my humble judgment, as one *who has every regard for the idea of a volunteer militia and desires to see it a success, as one who has never been in the militia force and does not ever intend to be, not even as an honorary colonel, looking v at the matter solely as an outsider, there should be a complete revision of the relationship between the volunteer force and the department generally .before we will get *a satisfactory service. This idea that [DOT]somebody has to keep up the company is not in accordance with Canadian conditions 'or the democratic ideals that prevail in this country. If the service is worth anything, it is worth its cost to the country. The men who are in it, whether they are privates or officers, are doing their duty in giving their time, energy and talent, and if the country is not able or willing to put up the cost which is necessary to keep the service going, provide uniforms and equipment and other facilities for doing its work, then -the country is not right. We have not that spirit that we ought to have, and I would like to have the matter brought to a show-down and tried out with the people as to whether or not they are willing to pay for the services that they get at the hands of our volunteer organizations.
If .they are not willing to pay then there is nothing more to be said; let them do without the service. If the matter were

put on this basis I believe the people are willing to pay, and I believe we would get a more enthusiastic and consequently a more efficient service than we have now. The existing conditions of the volunteer service are not in accordance with Canadian conditions or with the democratic ideals that prevail in this country, and the sooner they are brought into proper perspective the better for everybody.


James Joseph Hughes: The ideas expressed by
the hon. member are certainly along the right lines, and I should imagine that to carry them out to their ultimate end would mean the old system of compulsory training that they used to have in Nova Scotia. We have a purely voluntary system, and that means approaching the men and getting them to go out. I venture to say that there is hardly an officer of the militia service of the Dominion who is not to-day looking after the boys and endeavouring to get them to go to camp. The officer is not going to be mean about it and he probably in many instances takes them to his home and gives them a little supper, and that is what I meant by the expense coming in. In the voluntary system the officers have to approach the men; it cannot be avoided. Taking the compulsory system as an alternative, I am absolutely in favour of the voluntary system. By a little energy and direction on the part of those specially interested, the voluntary system can Ibe made just as effective as any other system. In South Africa they have a voluntary system but there is this tag on it, that any man who has not done his annual training for a certain number of days has to contribute to the state. In Switzerland, they have compulsory service, and the man who for any reason does not do service has to pay a sum into the State treasury. I am delighted to see the stand that my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) takes. Owing to the remarks the hon. gentleman made last year, we are making preparations to carry out a plan, and we are getting ready to do it as soon as possible, to give each officer a drill uniform whenever he qualifies.


John Howard Sinclair: Do I understand the
Minister of Militia to accept the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) to have a show-down, and to say he will run the next election on this issue?


James Joseph Hughes: Oh, no; my hon. friend
(Mr. Oliver) is merely making a suggestion.


William Pugsley: The next election is too far away.


Frank Oliver: I do not want the Minister of Militia to put me in the position of advocating compulsory service.


James Joseph Hughes: No, no.


Frank Oliver: I do not understand that
will be the consequence of the suggestion I made. I would like to have either a free service or no service at all.


James Joseph Hughes: We have a free service
now.
Militia and Defence

Dominion arsenal, $300,000.


William Chisholm: Was there not some scandal about the Quebec arsenal? I think I saw it in the newspapers.


James Joseph Hughes: There was no scandal. I want to be fair to the late superintendent of the arsenal, and to say that whatever faults were there, were not of his creation. He is a very good officer, but the machinery got out of tune. However, it is all in good shape now.


William Chisholm: I do not know anything about it, except what was stated in the newspapers.


James Joseph Hughes: There was a little loss in ammunition, but there was no fault on the part of the superintendent.


William Chisholm: The minister says that everything is all right now?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes. I might mention
that the late *superintendent of the arsenal selected for us a piece of land for which I think $25,000 was paid, and we could get $500,000 for that land to-day. If he had been a trickster he could have made a fortune, but he is a fine, square fellow.
Militia and Defence-Construction of armouries generally, $250,000.


George Perry Graham: This vote is for the .small armouries.


James Joseph Hughes: We have different sizes of armouries, the first costing from six to ten thousand dollars, then a second size, and a third size, and >a fourth size, such as we have in Renfrew.


John Howard Sinclair: Where will these armouries he erected?


James Joseph Hughes: The whole list will be
made out by next month, tout from memory I think there is one in Inverness and one in Camptoellford.


William Chisholm: What will be the size of xhe armoury at Antigonish?


James Joseph Hughes: What is the population?


William Chisholm: About two thousand.


James Joseph Hughes: The population of the
place and the corps determines the size of the armoury.


William Chisholm: Will the Antigonish
armoury be built nexx summer?


James Joseph Hughes: I cannot say; we have over a thousand applications now.


George Perry Graham: This is a general vote
for the small armouries and the large armouries are built by the Department of Public Works?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes.


George Perry Graham: How is the armoury at
Renfrew getting along?


James Joseph Hughes: We might as well be
frank about it; I intended Renfrew to have a public works armoury but that could not be built for two or three years. As my hon. friend (Mr. Graham) knows he and I put in a very pleasant night together in Renfrew.


William Pugsley: Each trying to get ahead of the other with the electors.


James Joseph Hughes: It was not a political
meeting at all; it was a lovely social function and I think we both enjoyed it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Was it a church parade?


James Joseph Hughes: No, it was a school function and an agricultural society entertainment; it would be altogether foreign to the tastes of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux). The wants of Renfrew for a drill hall were such that one was asked for and practically promised provided we could get funds. The funds were not available and with the consent of my colleagues and the Minister of Public Works-I give the Minister of Public Works credit because he came to me and said he wanted to do something for my hon. friend (Mr. Graham)-we gave a big drill hall to Renfrew out of the small drill hall vote, and that was what depleted my vote for drill halls. That was done just to oblige the hon. member for South Renfrew.


Frank Oliver: What does the Minister of Militia know about the proposed armoury at Edmonton? The Minister of Public Works has given us some information, but

perhaps the Minister of Militia will give us more.


James Joseph Hughes: As the hon. member
knows, Edmonton met us splendidly; gave us an entire square, which, I am told, is worth from $150,000 to $250,000-for a drill hall site. I have urged the Minister of Public Works as speedily as possibly to provide drill halls for Edmonton, Calgary and Regina. These will be practically of the same kind and will be as good drill halls as are to be found in the Dominion. These three cities are entitled to that. I understand that the contract for the Edmonton drill hall has been let and the work is being proceeded with.


Frank Oliver: The Minister of Public
Works informed us the contract had been let last fall. Nothing could be done in the winter, but what I want to know is whether it is being proceeded with this spring?


James Joseph Hughes: I have absolute faith in the Minister of Public Works.


John Howard Sinclair: Is there any intention to build an armoury at New Glasgow?


James Joseph Hughes: The people of New Glasgow promised a site some time ago. They picked out a place but had to get legislation from the provincial Legislature to secure a title or something of that kind. They were to forward the title to us. By some oversight they did not do so, and we heard nothing further of the matter until two weeks ago.


John Howard Sinclair: Is provision made for
building?	.


James Joseph Hughes: I had a sum in the Estimates until I found we could not get a title, and then it was taken out. I do not know whether we could get the money out of the general vote or not.
Militia and Defence-Engineer services and works, $916,500.


George Perry Graham: There are a lot of items in this.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman will observe we have reduced that item by $288,600


George Perry Graham: How man rifle ranges
have we?


James Joseph Hughes: In that vote we have
$100,000 for rifle ranges. We bought one at Peterborough recently. We are getting a few each year, acquiring them as rapidly as we can.


Frank Oliver: What is the situation in
regard to the rifle range at Edmonton that has been used for the past two years? Is the ownership of that property in the Dominion Government?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, in the department.


Frank Oliver: Is that range still in use?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, but it is getting
dangerous. As the hon. member knows better than I do, settlement, thick settlement, is going on at the rear of that range. While the hills are high we do not feel it is any too safe. Every precaution is taken, and we have been trying to get a new range, as the hon. gentleman knows, for I have spoken to him about it and asked him to take it up with others. We could sell the present range, and with one-tenth of the money we could buy a range out in the country. I have picked out two, but the difficulty is one cannot get to them without walking two or three miles. If the hon. gentleman will consult his friends and the military boys there in Edmonton and pick out a range, we will sell the old range and buy that.


Frank Oliver: What area is required?


James Joseph Hughes: We should have 2,500 yards in rear of the target to provide for the range of the new long-range rifle, and fully 1,000 yards in front-practically two and a quarter miles is needed in order to be safe. In fact, sometimes the bullets will fly beyond that. If the country is of a character to enable us to get a big bank behind the target, we can do with ground of less length.


Frank Oliver: What width is required?


James Joseph Hughes: That depends on the number of targets. For a range such as would be required at Edmonton, I should think from a third to a half-mile. You would want several targets for a large city like Edmonton.


Frank Oliver: The survey there is in mile-square sections, cut into quarters. So it would be practically necessary to buy by quarter-sections. I take it that a quarter-section in width would do?


James Joseph Hughes: That is about right.


Frank Oliver: And five quarter-sections in length?


James Joseph Hughes: We could do with four in length by putting up a high stop butt.


Frank Oliver: As to the character of the country, does it make any difference whether it is level or not for the two miles in length required?


James Joseph Hughes: As to the back part, the rougher the better, but for the front we like it level.


Frank Oliver: Does it make much difference if it is not level?


James Joseph Hughes: No, we can get along, if we can get the firing point.


William Chisholm: In this item is $100,000 for Connaught rifle range. I suppose that is the one in South March. What is the explanation of this item?


James Joseph Hughes: We are asking a vote in the supplementaries to complete it. The old rifle range is estimated to be worth about a million and a quarter of dollars or more. We do not want to sell that until we have got the other. These items should not be charged against, the militia vote, because this is a transference of account. We are building a range with 538 targets, as against 67 on the old range. The old range is entirely inadequate. If members will go down on Saturday afternoon, they will find that every target is occupied with volunteers from Toronto. This is a Dominion range, not one for the locality only. It is for the use of the schools of musketry that are carried on here and other similar purposes.


William Chisholm: I understand this
range is to be one of the finest in America.


James Joseph Hughes: In the world.


William Chisholm: I suppose the cost will be proportionate?


James Joseph Hughes: The total cost will be upwards of $600,000. It will be finished this year.


Mr. LOGGIE:: I desire to call attention to the rifle range, between Chatham Lots and Nappan Lots. It was surveyed a year ago; when is it to be completed?


James Joseph Hughes: Provision is made for that. A survey is being carried out and the plans are going through the department.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I desire to ask about the range at Stratford, in my county. Negotiations were on for the establishment of a range.


James Joseph Hughes: I think there was some hitch, about the purchase of a property.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: About the road?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, the road across it. There had to be some county legislation to fix it up. My engineers are looking after that.


Mr. W. H. WHITE:: There are two companies of mounted infantry-one at Vegreville and one at Lloydminster. Where do they hold their rifle practice?


James Joseph Hughes: I could not say.


William Henry White: I am informed by members of the company that they never have any practice at all. It seems to me that if there is any reason for equipping the companies and training them, they should at least have some rifle practice.


James Joseph Hughes: The rule is to carry on that practice in annual camp.


William Henry White: That would be at Calgary?


James Joseph Hughes: I presume so.


William Henry White: Would the minister consider a rifle range 17 miles from Edmonton to be too far distant from the city?


James Joseph Hughes: Is there access by rail?


William Henry White: The minister knows that a few years ago a site along the river was offered to the Militia Department by Major Griesbach. There is a cut bank of 85 feet in height between the river level and the table land above. It was thought at the time that the department was going to make some arrangements in the matter, but nothing has been done. I know that that range is available at the ordinary price of land, $25 or $30 an acre. The late minister made an examination of this property when he visited the West, and he admitted that it was the best site he had seen. If this range were established the three companies would have a place to practice. I may say that the mounted police have not been able to have any practice on account of lack of a rifle range.


James Joseph Hughes: I will look into the matter.


William Stewart Loggie: Did I understand the minister to say that an amount is provided in the Estimates to build the rifle range to which I referred?


James Joseph Hughes: Not specifically; it is in the general vote and the work is going on.


George Henry Bradbury: What arrangements
have been made in connection with the school of instruction at Winnipeg?


James Joseph Hughes: The plan is to build on the old government ground out there; nothing is settled as yet.


George Perry Graham: A year ago I had a conversation with the minister about the grants to the bands.


James Joseph Hughes: I carried out my promise to the hon. gentleman and increased the grant by fifty per cent.


George Perry Graham: I am glad to know the
minister has done so, because these bands are universally good and useful.


John Howard Sinclair: The explanation given by the minister as to the use made of the Royal Canadian Regiment Band in Halifax a few weeks ago was not very satisfactory to members on th-is side of the House. I suppose he has received additional information with regard to the matter since that time.


James Joseph Hughes: I did not know anything about it then.


John Howard Sinclair: Our complaint was that on the occasion of the commitment to jail of a person who wrote an insulting letter in regard to the Legislature of Nova Scotia, some parties in Halifax hired the Royal military land, and that this band, the members of it attired in military uniforms and carrying military instruments, performed in connection with this incident. Objection was taken to this procedure in the province of Nova Scotia. I was very much surprised to find that irregularities of this kind are permitted by the Militia Department. It is certainly an improper thing to do. On former occasions serious objection was taken in this House to a military band parading in a religious procession. I see no objection to a band parading in a religious procession, but I do see very serious objections to a military band taking part in a procedure which constitutes an encouragement of lawlessness. The militia should stand behind the laws of Canada; that is what we pay them for. If the minister cannot enforce the will of Parliament he calls out the militia to do so, and it is certainly objectionable that they should be engaged in encouraging breaches of the law. I should like some better explanation from my hon. friend than he has already given.


James Joseph Hughes: The only explanation I
have to give is this: I had a good deal of trouble about these bands being permitted to turn out on some occasions and not on others. They were permitted to turn out on some religious, a good Orange demonstration for instance, or on the occasion of a political meeting, and in another case the services of the band were refused. It was decided, then, subject to the approval of the officer commanding the district, that the band might turn out for any legitimate purpose, providing they were paid for it.


John Howard Sinclair: Legitimate?


James Joseph Hughes: The question of legitimacy is determined not by us, but by the officer on the spot. The commanding officer at Halifax would decide the matter in this particular case. I made inquiries, and I found that there had been some trouble down there. A young man had been committed to jail and I understand that on the occasion in question they thought that he was coming out, but he did not come. The band, therefore, had to serenade him, I presume, and afterwards go home. My bon. friend's friends may want to use the band some time.


John Howard Sinclair: Not for such a purpose as that.


James Joseph Hughes: It might be; one can
never tell.


John Howard Sinclair: If it is open to any person to hire a military band to do anything at all, then it would be all right for the same people to hire the militia force of Halifax to pull down the jail and let Mr. McCurdy out. This man was committed to jail by order of the local legislature of the province of Nova Scotia and he should have been allowed to serve his sentence in peace without any military interference. If the minister thinks it is in order for a military band to take part in such matters, then it must also be in order for the militia itself to engage in them. I do not know where the minister will land himself if he announces a doctrine of that kind. If his commanding officer is responsible, I think he ought to be asked for an explanation. Has the minister received any such explanation?


James Joseph Hughes: Oh, yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Will he give it to the
committee?


James Joseph Hughes: It was given to the House some time ago. This band was hired by
the mayor of the city, if my memory serves me right, for the purposes of a procession. The officer commanding, because of the fact that a very reputable gentleman had approached him in the matter, thought that there was no harm in it.


John Howard Sinclair: That makes it all the
worse, if the mayor of the city had anything to do with it.


Mr. McKENZIE:: We had a case before this Parliament last year where a man named Miller was committed for contempt of this House. This Parliament, being a representative body of the King's authority, is just the same as the Parliament of the province, which is also representative of the King's authority. A man who is in contempt of this Parliament is in contempt of the King's authority; a man who is in contempt of the legislature of any province is in contempt of the King's authority as represented by the Lieutenant Governor. This man McCurdy was, in the judgment of that Legislature, representing the King and the Governor General, in contempt of the provincial parliament. We thought it proper last year to keep a man in jail during the whole of the session. This House thought that something like six weeks was a proper term of imprisonment. The Legislature of Nova Scotia dealt with this man very lightly and put him in jail for forty-eight hours only, the shortest sentence that could be thought commensurate with the offence. None of us would think it proper for one of the bands of the military authorities in Ottawa to be open to engagement by the people of Ottawa who might be admirers of Miller to go down to the jail of the county of Carleton and serenade Miller while he was in jail because he was in contempt of this House. The situation is exactly the same except that the King is represented by this Parliament is one King and the King as represented by the Legislature of Nova Scotia is apparently another. The Minister of Militia, representing the King and representing the King's authority, thought it proper to hire out the King's uniforms, the King's officers and the King's horses to go and serenade a man who was in jail because he was in contempt of the King's authority. Is that supposed to be consonant with what we should regard as proper decorum in matters of this kind? I am not talking politics but talking of the respect which we should hold for authority. The Minister of Militia must take it for granted that the judgment of the Legislature of Nova Scotia was right, that this

man was in contempt and was properly-imprisoned. Does he think it will advance the dignity of the institutions of this country to know that the King in one capacity is prepared to help put contempt on the King in another? The minister may take it lightly but we do not think the authority of the Crown should be held so lightly and contemptuously by a minister of the Crown as to hire the band or soldiers of any regiment, carrying the flag of our country, to go down in front of a jail and serenade and do honour to a man in jail because he is in contempt of one of the Legislatures of the province.


James Joseph Hughes: We knew nothing about the case until some days after it occurred. We have not yet received the final report of the officer in command of that district on the matter. As I understand this man was committed for a certain crime for forty-eight hours, but there was no warrant. That was found out, the jailer refused to retain him longer and the man could have walked out.
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM: Not at all, that is absurd.


John Howard Sinclair: He was confined regularly under the authority of the House.


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know, but I am told the sheriff told him he could go out and the man refused to go out because he thought that whatever omission there was in the papers would soon be inserted.


John Howard Sinclair: What had the band to do with that?


James Joseph Hughes: They were then going to give him this reception and he refused to take it.


John Howard Sinclair: That is not the case at all. The minister answered a question in the House sometime ago that this band was employed by a man named Bligh, who happens to be the mayor of Halifax. The band was employed to serenade or celebrate the release of this man who was imprisoned by the local legislature and the point made by the hon. member for Richmond when the matter was brought up was that that was not a proper use of the band. The minister said then that militia officers or men, including the band, were on duty when they were in uniform according to the regulations; these soldiers and bandsmen were in that sense on duty and they should not have taken part in this unlawful celebration. Has the $45 been paid that was promised for the use of the band on that occasion?


James Joseph Hughes: We have no record of
that, but we can inquire from the officer commanding at Halifax. It all rests with him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Who is that officer who is responsible for this judgment?


James Joseph Hughes: The divisional officer
commanding, Colonel Rutherford.
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM: The minister has not answered whether he approves of the band showing contempt of the Legislature-


James Joseph Hughes: I could not express an
opinion until I know more about the ease.


William Chisholm: Supposing that the
band went down and serenaded this man who was in gross contempt.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member will
.see that I would not care to turn around and censure Colonel Rutherford without knowing all the facts.


William Chisholm: I am asking as a
matter of principle. Assuming the man was properly confined in jail for contempt. The facts were these: The man was committed to jail by order of the House. The Speaker directed the officer to take him to jail. The formal warrant was put in the jailer's hands some time afterwards. The procedure was similar to that followed in the magistrates' courts every day. The Order of the House was quite sufficient authority to detain him until the warrant was put into the proper officer's hands, so this man was in proper custody all that. time. If he had not been in proper custody proceedings would certainly have been taken to get him out under habeas corpus. Does the minister approve of any officer, speaking in the abstract, or would he attempt to justify any officer going to serenade, under the circumstances under which that band went in Halifax, a man in the position of McCurdy?


James Joseph Hughes: I am not inclined to express -any personal opinion at all.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am sorry that my
friends from Nova Scotia do not know that there are two Kings in the country. There is the King whom we all, loyal citizens of Canada, revere and, by the speech which the hon. member for Perth delivered, I find that there is also King Carson. If the band went against the authority of King Carson then it would be very bad indeed.


John Howard Sinclair: The information we had was that not only did the band take part in this demonstration but soldiers in uniform marched at the head of the band carrying

the Union Jack along the streets of Halifax and that the band followed. I am surprised that the .minister cannot make up his mind about that question, that he hesitates to express any view about it.


James Joseph Hughes: The band could not parade without the flag.


John Howard Sinclair: That makes it all the more serious. The flag belongs to the regiment, and in this case was put to a most dishonourable use.


George Perry Graham: It has been used baaiy before.


John Howard Sinclair: It has quite frequently
been dragged in the mud by the Conservative party; but this is the worst case we have heard of for a long time. These soldiers, who are in the service of Canada, marched behind the Union Jack to the Halifax jail to serenade a man who had been incarcerated by the local legislature for making abusive statements reflecting upon that assembly. Surely the minister should not hesitate to say whether he approves of that kind of conduct or not. It will shock our faith in him as head of the military forces of Canada if he countenances anything like that. Assuming that this report is correct, that the soldiers at the request of some person joined with the mob and marched to Halifax jail behind the Union Jack, to show that the militia sympathised with the mob that was sympathising with this man who had been committed to jail for a serious offence, I think the minister should state whether or not he approves of that conduct on the part of his soldiers.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member has presented a hypothetical case.


John Howard Sinclair: No, it really happened.


James Joseph Hughes: I most certainly shall not condemn any of my officers until I know the details.
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM: It is quite apparent that the Minister of Militia is too patriotic a man to approve for one instant, of any such disrespect to the King as was shown on this occasion. He feels that in his heart of hearts, but, of course, there are certain reasons why he does not want to give expression to his opinion. Perhaps he feels that the boys down there were carried away by their political enthusiasm and stern devotion to the cause of Toryism, which, sometimes, is synonymous with rowdyism and ruffianism. I know the 316
Minister of Public Works approved of lawlessness of this kind on one occasion. A man who was being taken to jail at Moosejaw for crooked work at an election was rescued by a mob, and the Minister of Public Works spoke of these men as great patriots, men with blue blood in their veins, although they were guilty of a gross act of lawlessness. I know the Minister of Militia would not sympathize with any act of lawlessness of that kind, but at the same time he is a strong party man, and although he feels that this conduct on the part of his Conservative friends was most reprehensible, he does not like to condemn them. So I think under the circumstances we should excuse him from answering the question.
Militia and Defence-Ordnance, arms, lands and equipment, $1,900,000.


George Perry Graham: This is a big item, and I think we should have a little explanation.


James Joseph Hughes: We have reduced that vote by over $80,000.
Mr, GRAHAM: What is it for?


James Joseph Hughes: It is to pay for guns, rifles, equipment, bayonets, batteries, clothing for corps, general stores for new corps, and artillery stores.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many guns are we buying this year?


James Joseph Hughes: The guns that were
ordered by my predecessor are only being delivered this year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many are you paying for this year?


James Joseph Hughes: We are paying out nearly a million dollars.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do these guns come from the old country?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: From Government
armouries?


James Joseph Hughes: They were all ordered through the War Office in 1910-11, by my predecessor. The first delivery took place in the month of May this year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many will arrive this year?


James Joseph Hughes: About twenty-four, I
think.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How are they distributed?


James Joseph Hughes: Speaking from memory, I think there is a battery at Rimouski, one at Riviere du Loup, another at Hamilton, and another at Montreal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose they are there to raise a false alarm?


James Joseph Hughes: I saw one battery fire
a very beautiful salute for the hon. member for Rouville when he was present with the leader of the Opposition on one occasion.


George Perry Graham: What does the Ross rifle cost, including rifle, bayonet and aperture sight?


James Joseph Hughes: The rifle costs $26.90, the bayonet $5, and the sight $1.10.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much do you pay for a cannon?


James Joseph Hughes: It all depends upon
whether it is an eighteenrpounder or a thirteen-poundeT.	An eighteen-pounder
complete with guns, harness and so on costs iaJbout $45,000, that is, a battery of four guns.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many such batteries are there at present?


James Joseph Hughes: About thirty-five.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you ordered any
Ross rifles lately?


James Joseph Hughes: I should have given an order last October. The contract called for 10,000 rifles a year. We did not give the order until last week as some change was then being made in the rifle.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are you using the Ross rifle at Bisley this year?


James Joseph Hughes: Well, rather.


John Howard Sinclair: I notice in the explanations given by the minister that the Ordnance Corps consists of fifty officers and 221 men, or a total of 271. That is given on page 12 of the memorandum, and
10 p.m. I notice that on page 11 the clothing for the new corps is to cost the country $200,000. There are only 221 men, and $200,000 seems a large amount for that very small force. It looks ias if the clothing of these men would cost $1,000 apiece. Surely that is paying more than is required for buttons and braid.


James Joseph Hughes: This is clothing for the new corps, not the Ordnance CoTps. This
[Mr. Lemieux. j
vote is for militia regiments*, batteries of artillery and regiments of cavalry and infantry. We have formed corps numbering ' some 7,000 men extra this year.


John Howard Sinclair: Under the head of ordnance?


James Joseph Hughes: We classify them in that way.


John Howard Sinclair: Why have you clothing in two places?


James Joseph Hughes: One item is lor the regular upkeep of the service and the other for new corps over and above the previous year.
Militia and Defence-Permanent force, $2,300,000.


George Perry Graham: What is the difference
between that and the other force?


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister any
proposition to reduce the number of officers?


James Joseph Hughes: We have been increasing the instructional staff very materially in connection with the force. The force numbers 3,110 and it cost about $1,000 for each man in the service counting his pay, clothing, food and all that.


George Perry Graham: How many are there?


James Joseph Hughes: 3,110. We are employing these instructors in connection with the cadet work.


George Perry Graham: A good many of these
officers are from the old country, are they not?


James Joseph Hughes: No, we are training, and giving positions to, as many of our home officers as we can.


George Perry Graham: Are men brought down from the old country to train them first?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, they are brought
out.


George Perry Graham: But the majority of the officers are Canadians?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, thiee to one.


John Howard Sinclair: What does the Ordnance Corps do?


James Joseph Hughes: We use the word 'ordnance ' in reference to artillery, etc., but the term ' Ordnance Corps ' applies to a corps that handles guns, stores and clothing. They have to look after clothing, amu-nition, rifles and that sort of thing and they are called the Ordnance Corps.


John Howard Sinclair: Why do we find so many officers looking after clothing and rifles? A few clever clerks Could do that kind of work. We have fifty officers and 221 men, or an officer for every four men. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Borden), in his manifesto said that the militia force was top-heavy a few years ago, but the top has become a great deal heavier since my hon. friend took charge. He has increased the official staff enormously within the last two years.


James Joseph Hughes: No.


John Howard Sinclair: I have a return showing about fifty officers appointed to the corps within a year or two. There are fifty officers in the ordnance corps and 221 men, and if the duties of this corps are to hand out guns, ammunition and clothing, it looks to me as altogether indefensible that we should have one officer controlling four men doing that kind of work.


James Joseph Hughes: We found out that the
return that the hon. member speaks of included in the staff as well as the other officers in the force. There are a number of these officers who are instructors. It is very technical work.


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, but ordnance officers do not give instructions.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes they do. If my
hon. friend would go down and see these men the 'quartermaster general would show him what they do in half an hour.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the hon. gentleman say it is necessary to have one officer to every four men?


James Joseph Hughes: This is a corps that requires very few men, but it requires instructors of the highest class, and we have to have many of these men trained at Woolwich.
Royal Military college, $147,000.


William F. Carroll: What are the conditions attached to the Royal Military College?


James Joseph Hughes: A candidate for entrance has to pass an examination. These examinations are written in various parts of Canada. Wherever there are cadets who want to write we furnish an officer to conduct the examination. The minimum age is 16 or 17 and the maximum 21.


William F. Carroll: Where do the examinations take place?
316*


James Joseph Hughes: Wherever there are two or three candidates.


William F. Carroll: Have they to pay their own expenses while they are at college? There are some young men who go there who are what are called non-commissioned officers in the militia; are they not given a term of a couple of months free?


James Joseph Hughes: We have a course there for officers only. Non-commissioned officers would go possibly to the Kingston battery or artillery but officers not connected with the Royal Military College can go there and get a special course of instruction from the professors on the higher aspects of military work for two months or longer.


William F. Carroll: Is that free?


James Joseph Hughes: As far as the tuition is concerned.


George Perry Graham: Who is at the head of the Royal Military College?


James Joseph Hughes: Col. Carleton.


George Perry Graham: Where does he come
from?


James Joseph Hughes: He is a distinguished British officer of the Essex regiment.
.Militia and Defence-Salaries and wages,


George Perry Graham: For what?


James Joseph Hughes: This is for caretakers,
watchmen and firemen at drill halls and rifle ranges pay for messengers, clerks, labourers, etc. The pay is at the usual rate. *


George Perry Graham: Would the clerks have to pass the Civil Service examination.


James Joseph Hughes: No, they pass a military examination.
Militia and Defence-Schools of instruction $100,000.


George Perry Graham: Where are the classes of instruction?


James Joseph Hughes: We have classes of instruction wherever the corps are located- Kingston, Quebec, Halifax, etc., but in addition we furnish instructors at various centres wherever there are a number of officers, as for instance at Brockville. We send instructors to regimental and company headquarters. We send an instructor to any village or town where there are a dozen officers and non-commissioned officers who wish to take the course and an officer goes there to examine them.

Militia and Defence-Stores, $580,000.


George Perry Graham: Does that mean a reduction in the quantity of clothing and that kind of thing?


James Joseph Hughes: It means a reduction of the artillery outfit this year. We are cutting out something this year in order to keep the expenses down. At the time of the South African war the stores were practically depleted and my predecessor never caught up and we have never caught up with what we should have on hand.


George Perry Graham: What is included in the stores?


James Joseph Hughes: Saddlery, harness, tents, blankets, camp equipment, tools, bedding, artillery harness and all that sort of thing.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister told us
that all these goods were obtained by tender and contract; does he mean that tenders are publicly advertised for in the press? In a former discussion I received the same answer from the Minister of Public Works and from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries not very long ago, but I picked out at random some items in the Auditor General's Report, and I asked in what newspapers the tenders for them were advertised, and I was answered that they were not published in newspapers at all,' but that invitations were sent out to certain parties to tender. Apparently there are lists of favoured contractors in these departments who are asked to tender, and I suppose they are all of the one political stripe. Does the Minister of Militia purchase his supplies in the same way as these two other departments?


James Joseph Hughes: The same system is followed by me as was followed by my predecessor. These invitations are not sent all to Conservatives by any means. We have supplying us with goods, Mackenzie and Company, a good Liberal firm I believe, J. W. Woods and Company, and Workman of Montreal; they are still on the patronage list.


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, but do you call for tenders publicly?


James Joseph Hughes: We send circulars to
every firm the name of which is submitted to us as competent to do the work.


John Howard Sinclair: That is just what I
feared. I suppose those competent to do the work are always the political friends of the Government?


James Joseph Hughes: No.


John Howard Sinclair: Are tenders publicly
called for for the supply of boots?


James Joseph Hughes: No. We send circulars
to every boot manufacturer in the country.


John Howard Sinclair: Why do you not advertise publicly in the press?


James Joseph Hughes: If you did that you would have every newspaper from the Atlantic to the Pacific looking for the advertisement, and in the end it would cost more than the boots.


John Howard Sinclair: We never spent so much on newspaper advertising as now ?


James Joseph Hughes: Not in my department.


George Perry Graham: You will get ruled out of the Press Association.
Militia and Defence-Transport of freight, $200,000.


George Perry Graham: Does the Militia Department now send its troops over the Intercolonial railway or does it give its business to a competing company? I never could get the Militia Department to be fair to the Intercolonial railway; they seemed to want to send the troops over the Canadian Pacific railway or some other line, while the Intercolonial railway was struggling for existence. Has the minister got his officers converted to using the Intercolonial railway ?


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) fixed that himself. He took advantage of the officers and behind the scenes one day put through an Order in Council saying that the troops whenever possible should go by the Intercolonial railway, and the officers have no recourse.


George Perry Graham: I tied them up as tight as I could, but I wanted to know if they were now getting away ?


James Joseph Hughes: No, other things being equal, they go by the Intercolonial railway.


George Perry Graham: In a case of that kind the Government road ought to be patronized by another Government department, if anybody is going to patronize it.


James Joseph Hughes: We follow the Order in Council passed by hon. gentlemen.


William F. Carroll: Are the active militia, after their return from the annual drill, allowed to use their rifles at the ranges ?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes.


William F. Carroll: Are there rifles for
distribution among citizens for these ranges?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes.


William F. Carroll: Suppose, for example, I wanted to get rifles for those who wished to practise at the ranges, to whom should I apply?


James Joseph Hughes: Jf the hon. gentleman makes application on behalf of a company, the Quartermaster General will be sent down to inquire into it.
Militia and Defence-Training areas, $200,000.


William Pugsley: Is Nabadogan one of these training areas?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes.	.


Mr. FOWLER:: What is the policy of the minister in regard to these training areas, on which, I understand, a large amount of money is to be expended? What, for example, is the policy with reference to Nabadogan?


James Joseph Hughes: We know it by the name of McGivney Junction. There was an item last year by which an area was set apart there.


George William Fowler: That is of some importance. What does the minister intend to use this training area for at McGivney Junction; does he intend to use it for the militia instead of the training areas in New Brunswick that were formerly used?


James Joseph Hughes: We had no training areas in the Maritime provinces; we had two small camp grounds, one at Kentville and one at Sussex; we are selecting these areas for the same purpose for which Petawawa is used, so that the troops will have an opportunity to manoeuvre. These other grounds are for smaller bodies of troops and rifle ranges, but they were quite inadequate for large movements.


George William Fowler: That is very meagre information. What effect will this have on the present areas?


James Joseph Hughes: The cadet corps are
increasing, and the cadets now form a larger body than the militia formerly did. The cadets can go to the smaller areas and the militia to the larger areae.


William Pugsley: It is practically wilderness land?


James Joseph Hughes: At the present time.


William Pugsley: On whose recommendation was the place selected?


James Joseph Hughes: The New Brunswick
authorities were spoken to, and other parties.


William Pugsley: What does the hon. gentleman mean by 'provincial authorities'?


James Joseph Hughes: Members of the provincial government.


William Pugsley: They had the land for sale?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes. Four different areas were looked at.


George William Fowler: Is it the intention to abandon the present camp grounds for New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and take the volunteer militia out to this wilderness and use that as a camp ground instead of Sussex and Kentville?


James Joseph Hughes: It is intended to use it for the purpose for which it was established. The other grounds are unsuited for the manoeuvring of troops.


George William Fowler: I am afraid I shall have to disagree with the policy of the minister in this matter. I do this not alone because the present camp ground happens to be in my constituency, but because I think the whole thing is manifestly absurd from a militia point of view. As has been pointed out, there is difficulty now in getting men to go to camp; but if we are going to take men from all parts of the province and take them back to the woods where they will find nothing to fight but mosquitoes and black flies, and deprive them of communication with the civilized part of the country, you will find that your regiments will be reduced to mere skeletons -and in such a camp as is proposed your men will be reduced to mere skeletons anyhow. Is it the intention to move the camps at Niagara and other places in Ontario to the so-called training area at Petawawa? Or are New Brunswick and Nova Scotia to be singled out for special treatment in this matter? Now, take this camp at McGivney's Junction-


William Pugsley: Excuse me-Nabadogan.


George William Fowler: ' A rose by any other
name would smell as sweet.'


William Pugsley: It is not McGivney Junction.


James Joseph Hughes: East.


George William Fowler: Settle your geography
some other time.


George Perry Graham: You know what the place is like?


George William Fowler: I have a general idea. It is a tract of burnt woods and swamp. It is to be purchased, I understand, at $2 an acre. I do not blame the New Brunswick Government. They are wise to unload at a good price if they can on the somewhat credulous-along this line-Minister of Militia. They are getting $2 an acre or $200,000. It will cost at least $15 an acre to clear the land or $1,500,000. To erect the necessary buildings and carry on other works necessary to fit the place for the breeding of horses for cavalry will cost at least $300,000 or $400,000 more. So, this training area at McGivney Junction or Nabadogan will cost this country between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000.


William Pugsley: The provincial Government has recommended it.


George William Fowler: I do not want to disagree with what my hon. friend has said, but I think perhaps that is a misunderstanding-. The provincial Government would not have known anything about it had they not been approached by the Minister of Militia. Naturally they want to get rid of this land which is absolutely no use. It is Crown lands now but unfortunately it was visited by fire that rendered it useless for raising timber which was all it ever was good for.


William Pugsley: The provincial Government are prudent in dealing with Crown lands anyway.


George William Fowler: They have been since my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) left the Government.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George William Fowler: That was a rather unfortunate remark from my hon. friend, in view of the history of Crown lands administration under his regime.


William Pugsley: In this case they showed wisdom.


George William Fowler: Yes. They sold land at $2 an acre that would not bring in the market twenty-five cents. So, I say, this is a wild, reckless and a foolish piece of extravagance, and I am opposed to it absolutely. I am opposed to it not on the sectional ground because it is proposed to take away the camp on one of the finest sites in Canada, Sussex-even historic

Niagara is no finer-but on general grounds. I regret that the minister still adheres to this policy: I had hoped that the arguments I have put forward would cause him to change his mind. Apparently he is determined as ever. This vote of $200,000-


James Joseph Hughes: It is not in this vote.


George William Fowler: Then it was last year's vote, and that is dead.


James Joseph Hughes: It is last year's money, but still available.


George William Fowler: How?


James Joseph Hughes: By Order in Council.


George William Fowler: And not revoted? Is the purchase being made?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes.


George William Fowler: Has the Order in Council been passed?


James Joseph Hughes: No.


George William Fowler: Then, there is still a
chance.


James Joseph Hughes: 
George William Fowler: It is amusing to any one who knows the difficulty of clearing land to hear my hon. friend the minister say that if you let a fire run through a forest, the land is perfectly clear. The very smallest part of the trouble and expense of clearing land is involved in touching a match to the timber and letting the fire run through it. The work to be done after the fire has covered the district is heavy and laborious, and if my hon. friend thinks that he is going to get troops, at fifty cents a day. to spend their time clearing black land, he reckons entirely without his host. It is difficult to get men at the highest wage to perform that service, because it is dirty, disagreeable work. To compare Sewell in the province of Manitoba, where there are prairie lands, with the forest backwoods of New Brunswick is a strange comparison for my hon. friend the minister to make. When he says that this land is worth $13 an acre and that the local Government are selling it at a sacrifice, $2 an acre, he talks very differently from the manner in which the Premier of New Brunswick talked when he returned from having a conference with my. hon. friend. He boasted and published reports in the newspapers about the splendid bargain he bad made for this worthless land at McGivney's Junction; that the Government were giving $200,000 for land which would not bring thirty cents an acre on the market.
With regard to the manoeuvring of troops, the man from behind the plough or behind the counter is given nine days in which to drill, because the days occupied in going and returning, as well as one Sunday are counted in. The hon. minister in these nine days proposes to have these
volunteers so taught that they shall be able to perform manoeuvres equal, I suppose, to the German or continental manoeuvres which he witnessed last year. I think that that is idle talk; at least, that is the way it seems to me. The plan hitherto adopted of drilling the troops and of teaching them the discipline of an army, of teaching them how to march and how to carry themselves, can be done in very much more restricted districts than 100,000 acres. I think that in many respects the hon. Minister of Militia is pursuing the right course in connection with his department, but I think that in this regard he is sadly astray and I trust that his colleagues who are here to-night will take note of what I say when the matter comes before Council, and that they will promptly turn down the proposal of the Minister of Militia to buy this tract which the generous and kind-hearted Government of New Brimewirk is so charitable as to offer him at the small sum of seven times more than it would bring in the market from any private person or firm.


James Joseph Hughes: At the present time we have to transport all the artillery from the Maritime provinces to Petawawa, and in this respect we will save in three years the entire cost of this maneuvring aTea and in five years the cost of clearing it.


William Stewart Loggie: I understand that the land in that district is very low and swampy. If the land selected is not dry, surely it would be unwise to use it. I understood the minister to say that the location is east of McGivney's junction; if it is, then my remarks do not apply. The portion of New Brunswick to which I have reference is west of McGivney's Junction.


James Joseph Hughes: We avoided that district; the range lies south of the National Transcontinental and east of the Canada Eastern.


William Pugsley: The	Transcontinental
runs north and south.


James Joseph Hughes: The	Transcontinental
runs northwest and southeast. The area is east of the Canada Eastern.


William Pugsley: The	Canada Eastern
runs east and west.


James Joseph Hughes: It is southeast of the Canada Eastern and southwest of the National Transcontinental.


William Pugsley: I have seen a number of articles in the press of New Brunswick which state that this area is in the vicinity of Nabadogan junction, which is a divisional

point on the Transcontinental, twenty or thirty miles north of McGivney's Junction.


James Joseph Hughes: It touches the Nashwaak river and runs east.


William Pugsley: Has the minister been on the tract himself ?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes.


William Pugsley: Then the minister ought to know where it is. I understand him to say that it is west of the Transcontinental and south of the Canada Eastern.


James Joseph Hughes: The Transcontinental does not run north and south; it runs northwest and southeast.


William Pugsley: The Transcontinental runs pretty well north and south. The tracks, then, would be south of the Canada Eastern and southwest of the Transcontinental.


James Joseph Hughes: It is between the Transcontinental and the river St. John, and between the Nashwaak river and the town of Sussex.


William Pugsley: That is very definite; it is also east of Winnipeg. 'It is also somewhat west of Charlottetown, and it is north of the city of St. John and also west of Halifax. That location is about as accurate as I think the hon. gentleman is able to give us to-night. It does strike me as rather an extraordinary thing that the minister should have selected this site on the recommendation of the provincial Government, none of whom are military men except Cfolonel McLeod who was then a member. I would have supposed the minister, before deciding to abandon the splendidly located camp grounds at Sussex, would have had some recommendation from the officers of his department, by the commanding officer of New Brunswick, or of the Maritime provinces, recommending the minister to obtain a large area in this vicinity; but that he should have been induced to make the purchase upon the recommendation of the owners of the property is rather extraordinary. It is not usual to take that course, and it would rather look as if they were desirous of securing a good purchaser for the property.


George William Fowler: In other words,, an easy mark.


William Pugsley: They approached the minister and the minister acted on their recommendation. That is the statement we

have from the minister, that the recommendation was by the provincial authorities. The minister has also told us that by the provincial authorities he means the members of the provincial government who were the owners of the land. I have been at McGivney and at Nabadogan as well. It is certainly a most uninviting locality for a military ground. I am told it is true that the land is very low and requires a good deal of drainage. The members of the militia forces would be required to drain the land, and that would keep them pretty *well occupied for a long time before they could get it in such condition that it would be safe for horses to travel over. There is no doubt about that. In view of the very severe and, I think, just criticism which has been made against the proposed purchase by the hon. member who represents Kings and Albert (Mr. Fowler), who, I believe, is himself a military man -I think he is an honorary colonel at all events-it seems to me that the minister, no matter how reckless he may be in other respects, no matter how much in harmony he may be with a reckless Government, in this matter, having been warned by his supporter, who has always been a zealous supporter of the Government, usually whether they are right or wrong, but whose conscience will not permit him to support this very great and unwarranted extravagance, should pause and prevent this transaction going through before it is too late. This is not a time when the Government can afford to waste $200,000. These are hard times for the Government and the people of this country. While $200,000 may not seem to be a large sum for hon. gentlemen in the Government, yet I am sure it will strike the members of this House and the people of this country generally that it is too large an amount to be wasted upon a tract of land which is not required for the purpose for which it is being bought, and which-and in this I quite agree with the hon. member for Kings and Albert-it would take a good many thousands of dollars, perhaps running up into the hundreds of thousands, to clear and drain and make suitable for the purpose of a camping ground.


John Howard Sinclair: I wish also to add my voice to the protest against any change of this kind in the Maritime provinces without very serious consideration. We have in Nova Scotia a very suitable plate for military manoeuvres at Aldershot. That is in the Annapolis valley, one of the most attrac-

tive parts of Nova Scotia; and I have no doubt it adds very much to the interest of the picnic the boys have when they go out to train, and that they are much more likely to go on a trip of that kind through the beautiful Annapolis valley than to go to a swamp in New Brunswick.


Mr. MICHAUD:: I object to the expression, ' a swamp in New Brunswick.'


John Howard Sinclair: I understand the proposal is to make this a camp for the Maritime provinces and to abandon the other camps in those provinces.


James Joseph Hughes: We do not intend to
abandon either Aldershot or Sussex.


John Howard Sinclair: Is this an additional
camp?


James Joseph Hughes: This is a manoeuvring
camp for New Brunswick and also an artillery range.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it intended that the other Maritime provinces shall have any share in the venture at all?


James Joseph Hughes: Prince Edward Island
will have a little area for their troops and Nova Scotia will have a suitable area.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it necessary to have 100,000 acres for military purposes?


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know where the hon. gentleman gets the idea of 100,000 acres. The area is 68,000 acres. I would ask the exMinister of Railways if he remembers what he paid for this land. He paid $13 an acre.


John Howard Sinclair: It is extraordinary that both one of the leading supporters of the Government from New Brunswick and leading gentlemen in the Opposition from the province condemn this proposal. If the minister has nothing more to say in justification than he has given so far I think it ought to be postponed.


Mr. DE WITT FOSTER:: Does the minister intend to take away from Aldershot camp in Kings county, .Nova Scotia, the training of the militia that has always has gone on there and to train them in New Brunswick?


James Joseph Hughes: There is no intention of taking the Nova Scotians to New Brunswick.


George William Fowler: I understood it was for the Maritime provinces. Now it seems that Sussex is the only district to be affected; mine is the only one to be affected.


James Joseph Hughes: You are not affected.


George William Fowler: You are reducing it from being a camp ground where the militia are trained to being a place for cadets to assemble two or three days a year. That does' not affect the general statement. I affirm that before this land can be made suitable for the manoeuvres my hon. friend speaks of, it will need to be drained as well as to be cleared and the draining and clearing will not be done by the volunteers. I have had a long experience in the militia of this country and from my experience I can say and affirm that volunteers going into camp will not do the work such as clearing and ditching while they are at camp. That work will have to be done and paid for, and even supposing the land is only 69,000 acres it will cost about $2,000,000 to get it ready for the purposes for which the minister claims it is to be used; but I think it is nearer 100,000 acres. That being the case, I think this expenditure is very unwise, unwarranted, and unnecessary, and that the scheme will not conduce to the benefit of the militia of New Brunswick.


James Joseph Hughes: As I happen to be the
only one in the House who happens to know anything about the land, I may say that it is neither flat nor wet; it i= sandy and rolling. A great deal has been cleared, and it Could be put in shape for the manoeuvres this season if necessary.


George William Fowler: My hon. friend claims to have great knowledge of this land, but he was only there for two or three hours one day and I venture to say he did not see 500 acres of it. I was also invited to go with General Ian. Hamilton on that occasion, but as the place was very remote and the railway facilities very inadequate it was impossible for me to go.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman does not know anything whatever about it. This matter has been discussed on former occasions.


William Pugsley: Has the minister accurate information as to where the land is? From what I have been told by the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Loggie), and from what I have seen in the Government press I think this land is north and not south of the Canada Eastern.


James Joseph Hughes: If my hon. friend cares to come over I will show it to him on the map.
Militia and Defence-Contingencies-Amount required for medals, $6,000.


George Perry Graham: How many medals are to be given out?


James Joseph Hughes: These are in connection with the Fenian Raid. About $6,000 is required to purchase the medals.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps you had better not tell us what they cost each, or the veterans might not prize them so highly.
If we have disposed of the Main
11 p.m. Estimates, and the Supplement-aries for last year, I think we had better adjourn. We have done a pretty good night's business.


James Joseph Hughes: I want to get away to
Niagara camp if I can.


George Perry Graham: Is my hon. friend sure
where it is?


James Joseph Hughes: It is a little picnic ground at Niagara.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend did not know the location of the camp in New Brunswick, and I thought he might have lost his bearings in Ontario.


James Joseph Hughes: I may say the New
Brunswick representative is not sure of it.
Militia and Defence-Amount required to reimburse militia corps amounts paid out by them for duty on uniforms imported, $25,000.


George Perry Graham: You are going to repay those who have paid duty?


James Joseph Hughes: That is the point.


George Perry Graham: Will you include my hon. friend from North Bruce (Mr. Clark) in this?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes.


George Perry Graham: My hon. friend raised
the point that officers' Uniforms should be admitted free of duty.


James Joseph Hughes: The Highland uniforms and the officers' uniforms are not made in Canada.


George Perry Graham: This is to reimburse
those who have already paid the duty?


James Joseph Hughes: No, to pay duty on the importation. I do not see how it can go beyond this year.


George Perry Graham: You had better make a limit or you will have to pay the duty for all past years.


James Joseph Hughes: No, it is for this year.
Militia and Defence-To complete Connaught Rifle Range-Further amount required $218 -
000.


George Perry Graham: This is going to be a
terrible affair before we get through with it.


James Joseph Hughes: No, $600,000, as I said at the outset, will nearly complete it.
Royal Military College-Further amount required, $7,600.


George Perry Graham: Why do you require an extra amount for that?


James Joseph Hughes: This is for the furnishing of the new dormitory.
Militia and Defence-Schools of instruction- Further amount required, $40,000.


William Pugsley: I think the minister
ought to explain a number of these items in the Supplementaries.


James Joseph Hughes: This is for the instructional staff. We send officers to regimental and company headquarters all over the country to conduct classes. In many localities officers cannot leave home and take the course at the schools and so we send the instructors to the officers.


William Pugsley: Did not the minister
have these instructors when the Main Estimates were made up? What I complain of is that the minister has been following the example of his colleagues; he has been trying to make the House and the country believe that great economy has been exercised in the Main Estimates because they have been a little less than they were last year, but that is more than made up in the Supplementary Estimates, and the result is that we have Estimates, main and supplementary, reaching the un-precedental amount of $17,000,000. The minister knew all these things when the Main Estimates were made up.


James Joseph Hughes: The number who are
making application for this course is much greater than we anticipated.
Militia and Defence-Petawawa-Amount required to pay claim Pembroke Dumber Company, $122,582.


George Perry Graham: Who is the Pembroke Lumber Company? This is a claim that has been up for a good many years, and I am told that the amount proposed to be paid is out of all reason and out of all proportion to the value.


James Joseph Hughes: I fought this off as long as I could. I have had a valuation made, the valuators being Mr. Rochester, of Ottawa; Mr. Campbell, a well known lumberman of the Ottawa valley, and a gentleman named Henderson, from my own county. Mr. Henderson's scale of measuring timber was different from the Ottawa valley scale, and he made the quantity less,
fMr. Graham..

while these two gentlemen made the figure a good deal more than he did.


George Perry Graham: Who are the Pembroke Lumber Company?


James Joseph Hughes: I think Mr. Dunlop i3 the president of it.


George Perry Graham: Yes, that is the milk in the cocoanut.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. gentleman will certainly admit that my predecessor always recognized their claim, and kept a record every year of the timber that was cut?


George Perry Graham: Not for this amount.


James Joseph Hughes: I could not settle it in any other way.


William Pugsley: What is the claim for?


James Joseph Hughes: For timber on this limit. This was a limit held by this company and at the time it was taken over the claim was not extinguished and the matter has been hanging fire ever since. They were offered $90,000 by my predecessor.


William Pugsley: How many acres are
there?


James Joseph Hughes: It is fifteen miles square.


William Pugsley: They had no freehold;
they only held a license from the Ontario Government.


James Joseph Hughes: No freehold.


George Perry Graham: Are they not getting an amount from the Ontario Government as well?


James Joseph Hughes: I am informed that they have to pay an amount to the Ontario Government for this license.


George Perry Graham: I have had a good deal of correspondence and information in regard to this matter and a lumberman possessing knowledge equal to that of any of these men whom the minister has named told me within the last three days that this was simply an outrage and that this property is an old second, third or fourth hand limit that was worked out years ago and has a little timber here and there and that they would have taken less than that amount of money from any person else and been mighty glad to get it. But one of the reasons why this amount is being paid is that Mr. Dunlop, the local member for North Renfrew, took charge of a certain campaign in South Renfrew and spent weeks at it at the instigation of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals. As
a consequence he had to get a mighty big price as a compensation for the labour performed, although that labour was useless. There is a good deal of talk among the lumbermen about how this company are imposing on the Dominion Government with reference to this particular piece of property. In the corridors of this building, within the last few days, one of the most prominent lumbermen in the country told me that it was an outrage. He believed that he could buy that property, if this thing had not come up, and that they would have been glad to have sold it, at the outside for one-third of what they are getting from the Government. That tallies with what the hon. member from Kings-Albert (Mr. Fowler) has said about the purchase of these other large areas of property. My information is, and I think it is correct, that this is simply-not a scandal, I do not want to put it that way because the minister has resorted to valuation-but it is simply an outrage that men can hold up the the Government, and it is very suspicious that the men who can do it are the men who have been so prominent in political work for several years.


James Joseph Hughes: When I heard of the claim for this I was astounded. I had only seen the northeastern part of the limit along the railway track, and I went up and traversed the entire limit, and I was more or less impressed with the fact that there is a good deal of good timber on it, but it is largely at the western side. I did not think it would be anything like this amount, and in order to get the thing down I got Mr. Rochester, who I understand is a leading Liberal in the city of Ottawa, and I deliberately picked him because he is a Liberal-


George Perry Graham: He is a Liberal all right.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, he is a Liberal and jl picked him deliberately and he was recommended by a colleague in the Cabinet who wanted to have this thing done as squarely as it could possibly be done. I want to say that Mr. Perley went into the matter and said that Rochester should have an opportunity to see that there was not a dollar too much spent. Then there was Mr. Campbell, who I think is a Conservative, he is a member of the Quebec Legislature and one of the best-known lumbermen in the Ottawa Valley. I took a man from my own county, and I told him: I want you to watch with both eyes and keep this price down to the lowest possible limit, and his limit, as he admitted himself, was very low.


George Perry Graham: Was it not much lower than this ?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, lower than this a good deal. When we consider that a few years ago my predecessor offered $90,000, and, as my hon. friend knows, every year's growth counts, and there are six or seven years since the $90,000 was offered-


George Perry Graham: But the Government has had the property.


James Joseph Hughes: That does not count; those lumbermen explained to me that the growth of timber counts.


George Perry Graham: Is it not our growth if we own the property ?


James Joseph Hughes: I must say that I thought the amount was very large, but I counted on Rochester holding it right down.


William Pugsley: I understand it was not an arbitration ?


James Joseph Hughes: No.


William Pugsley: These gentlemen were appointed arbitrators by the Government?


James Joseph Hughes: That is right.


William Pugsley: That would be in order to justify it to the public if ever a complaint was made ?


James Joseph Hughes: It was to get at the value.


William Pugsley: That is often done for the purpose I have mentioned.


George William Fowler: That is an old trick of yours.


William Pugsley: I usually instructed my engineers to value property. Did the minister have his own engineers value this property ?


James Joseph Hughes: I brought in a lumberman in my county who is one of the most prominent in the Dominion, and he valued it at from $60,000 to $70,000. We found afterwards that the maps furnished us did not include the whole area and that the most- valuable part of the. whole area was in a separate limit. When he valued that and put it all together it brought it up to considerably more but.it did not bring it up to this amount.


William Pugsley: Did these gentlemen
take evidence?


James Joseph Hughes: My own man went over the limit and examined it tree after tree as far as he could, and then he averaged by the acre. These gentlemen spent weeks

measuring trees, and there are some amusing incidents as to the proper height to take a tree above the ground.


William Pugsley: Did they make any report to the minister of the evidence of experts as to the quantity of lumber?,


James Joseph Hughes: They were all experts.


William Pugsley: I presume the evidence would be in the department. In view of what the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has stated, I think the item ought to stand until we get that evidence?


George Perry Graham: They did not take evidence; they wrere supposed to be experts.


William Pugsley: The minister says they
took evidence.


James Joseph Hughes: The evidence they took was that they measured tree after tree themselves, thousands of them.


William Pugsley: Was there any statement showing the area and quantity of timber?


James Joseph Hughes: We have all the figures; my deputy will send them to the hon. gentlemen on Monday; I will not be here.


William Pugsley: I will be glad to get it.


James Joseph Hughes: The claim they put in first was for $160,000, if I remember aright.


George Perry Graham: As I was from the eastern part of the province, I was waited on time and again as to the valuation of this timber at the Petawawa camp, before my hon. friend became Minister of Militia. If $90,000 wae offered it was offered as the extremest amount, and it was only offered then in order to get the thing settled up. I always made up my mind that they were asking two prices for the property, so far as I could make out.


James Joseph Hughes: I think about ten per cent more than it is worth.


George Perry Graham: A good deal more than that I think. I was watching for this settlement, and I feel confident that the Government has been done up to the extent of a great many thousands of dollars in connection with this property.


James Joseph Hughes: If my predecessor offered $90,000, and it is only $120,000 now after six years, we cannot be done up an awful lot.


George Perry Graham: It is thirty-three and one-third per cent more than the offer made

formerly, and that offer was the outside limit, and we all thought it was more than it was worth, but we wanted to get it settled.


Mr. ARTHURS:: The hon. gentleman
from South Renfrew was in the Ontario Government, and he knows well that licenses sold by the Ontario Government to-day are sold for three or four times more than they were sold for eight or nine years ago. These licenses are foT all time, and are not terminable as long as the holders pay the ground rent. The Ontario Government is buying back an area of the same limit from the same company for the Algonquin Park, and they are paying more proportionately for it than the Minister of Militia is paying for this property.


George Perry Graham: And if I were in the Ontario Legislature now I would have something to say about that. This gentleman, a good friend of mine personally, is a member of the Ontario Legislature, and he is getting a wonderful reward for his political work. He is getting an extraordinary price for this timber, and then a portion of it is to be bought back by the Ontario Government to go into the Algonquin Park at a higher figure, I think, than this Government has paid. If I were in the Ontario Legislature I would say the same thing as I am saying here, and perhaps with greater force.


James Arthurs: Is not the hon. member mistaken in saying that the member for North Renfrew is the president of this company?


George Perry Graham: I do not know.


James Arthurs: I think it is his brother.


George Perry Graham: It is a family affair; he is in it all right. If he were not in it this would not have been done either by the Ottawa Government or by the Ontario Government.


James Joseph Hughes: I know we all have our feeling in politics.


George Perry Graham: Not at all. The lumbermen are talking about it all over the district.


James Joseph Hughes: If my predecessor was
offered $90,000 a number of years ago, when the limits were not so costly or valuable as to-day, and considering the growth of timber since then, I do not think there is much fault to be found with this price. I am free to say I think it a little high, but I am not a judge. I counted on Mr. Rochester; I
never knew him before; but I said to Mr. Perley: 'I want a man that nothing can get round, a man that every one can swear by'. And he told me: 'Mr. Rochester is your man.' I understand Mr. Rochester is a leading Liberal; but he is a fair fellow. Then, Mr. Campbell is a man of absolute honour, a man who stands very high.


William Pugsley: How many years is ,it since $90,000 was offered?


James Joseph Hughes: Six or seven years.


William Pugsley: The minister took into consideration the fact that this Government must pay the Ontario Government for the freehold.


George William Fowler: They took the property under the British North America Act, which gives authority to do so.


William Pugsley: But the value of the
property must be paid to the Ontario Government.


George William Fowler: We did not pay anything.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend must be wrong. The Pembroke Lumber Company, have no vested right in this timber, but were simply licenses from year to year, and that fact would be taken into consideration in paying for the freehold. While it is customary for the Ontario Government to renew licenses, they were not bound to do so. The minister took that into consideration.


James Joseph Hughes: There was a case in my own county, where I thought I could get rid of a licensee, but I found that he had vested rights practically as in a freehold.


William Pugsley: It depends upon the will of the Ontario Government. They could sell the land to settlers. But it is customary to renew the license, though not obligatory. I should think that this Government would have to pay the Ontario Government, if they have not done so, as owners of the fee, the value of the land and the timber as well.


James Joseph Hughes: That would not alter the case so far as this transaction is concerned from what it was when my predecessor offered $90,000. I am informed that interest was charged, although I did not know that before. But the Ontario Government would no more have to be settled with by us than by my predecessor.


George William Fowler: I know the late Government refused to pay the Ontario Govern-

ment anything. They simply took the land, claiming the right to do so under a section of the British North America Act.


George Perry Graham: A section which allows them to take it for military purposes?


George William Fowler: Yes, they took it and refused to pay for it.


Mr. DOHERTY:: With regard to the claim of the Ontario Government, when this settlement was made that Government agreed to limit any claim it might make to the dues it would have got under the lease had it been continued. This timber was worth to the Pembroke Lumber Company its value as it stood when we took over the land, but to get the timber they would have to pay dues to the Ontario Government. So they pay us the value of the timber, subject to a deduction for the dues they would have had to pay to get it, and the Ontario Government agree that as regards their timber claim they would limit it to the amount representing the value of the dues.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.30 p.m.
Monday, June 8, 1914.