1914-02-13

UNITED STATES POTATO EMBARGO.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. MICHAUD:: Will the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Burrell) please say if he has received information with regard to the embargo placed upon the importation of potatoes to the United States from Canada?


Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I cannot give my hon. friend much information on that subject. The embargo-it is practically an embargo, as the regulations under it amount to almost total exclusion-has not been modified in any important respect so far as it affects Canada. We have been in correspondence, and as soon as there is anything definite, I shall be glad to let my hon. friend know.



COMMUTATION OF THE DEATH SENTENCE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Hon. C. J. DOHERTY (Minister of Justice) :: If in order at this time, I desire to make a statement with reference to some observations made yesterday by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) with regard to commutation in certain cases in which persons in the western provinces, have been sentenced to death.
These observations of my right hon. friend were based upon statements in the report of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. As I had occasion to point out last year- when a motion was made for the production of papers in a case of application for clemency, the rule, in England, as I understand it, is, not to give the reasons which influenced the advice as to clemency. I am not unaware that there have been cases in this country, I understand, which have been treated as exceptions, and in which papers have been brought down. I have no desire, in making any statement at the present moment, to so make it as to preclude, if it should be desired, debate upon the question whether this is a proper matter for discussion upon the circumstances of the cases themselves. If such debate is not desired, and if the rules of the House, will permit, I should like to make my statement at the present moment.


Mr. SPEAKER:: According to the rules
of the House, a debate could hardly take place with no question before the Chair. If the minister wishes to make an explanation and the House is willing to grant leave, I have no objection.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I fear that
such a statement of fact as the minister indicates is likely to be controversial. It would be better to make it on motion to go into Committee of Supply.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand that it
could not be taken up now, except by consent, and for that reason I suggested I would be ready to bring the matter forward at some other stage when my statement, which might be the subject of debate, could be considered.



PROVINCIAL ELECTIONS AND DOMINION OFFICIALS.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. OLIVER:: I desire to repeat an inquiry I made yesterday when the Minister of Public Works was not present. I would like to be furnished with the authority for an alleged interview with myself which he read to the House the other day.


Mr. ROGERS:: The hon. member for Edmonton seems determined, if he possibly can, to stir up a certain amount of trouble, and of course, if my hon. friend stirs up that trouble, then he will have only himself to blame.


Frank Oliver: I rise to a point of order.
I protest against the hon. gentleman suggesting that I want to stir up trouble, f

asked a civil question, and I am entitled to a civil answer.


Robert Rogers: I shall certainly be
pleased to give my hon. friend a very civil answer indeed, and it is this:	I .certainly
would not at any time, in this House or elsewhere, undertake to make any assertion were I not conscious that it was absolutely correct and in accordance with the facts. When asked the other day, when I was making this statement, for the authority upon which I based it, I did not then have in mind its exact source, and I was unable to give it to my hon. friend. But on looking the matter up I find that I was simply repeating words which have already been placed upon ' Hansard.' As far back as the year 1906, when this matter was discussed in the House by the right hon. the Prime Minister of to-day, then leader of the Opposition, the question arose, of' the interference of the staff under the Administration of my hon. friend, then Minister of the Interior, in elections in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta. The Prime Minister of to-day, in dealing with that matter, first of all, quoted the unanimous resolution that was agreed to by the House in respect of the action of officials in connection with elections. After quoting this, resolution he went on to say:
That resolution, accepted by both political parties, accepted by the Prime Minister, was passed by this House-much to the regret as I observed at the time, of the Minister of the Interior. This is what the Minister of the Interior said:	* They have the power of speech, and
therefore they are entitled to express their political opinions. They are entitled to express them to homesteaders; they are entitled to express them to men under their control; they are entitled to go upon public platforms and express them; they are entitled to express them as presidents and officers of Liberal organizations.'
That is the idea of the Minister of the Interior as to the way in which a solemn resolution of this House, unanimously passed, should be observed by himself and by his officers in the West, and these officers felt very much encouraged. We do not know how many feats of daring they performed; we do not know to what extent their efforts along certain lines have prevailed in the West. But we know that the curtain has been lifted just a little in one or two places, and we have a slight idea of the wonderful things which the officers of the Interior have accomplished in bringing about that endorsement.


Frank Oliver: Who was the speaker on
that occasion?


Robert Rogers: 
Frank Oliver: I wish to interrupt my
hon. friend to say that he has incorrectly stated the position.


Robert Rogers: I would like to know in what respect I am incorrect?


Frank Oliver: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and the permission of the House, I shall be glad to tell my hon. friend.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This question has been propounded more than once by the hon. member for Edmonton; the answer has now been given, and the matter brought to end there. A debate upon it should not be allowed.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend, standing
in his place, himself misstated the position as he read it. I merely call the attention of the House to that fact.



MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21, to amend the law relating to merchant shipping, with a view to enabling certain conventions to be carried into effect. He said:	Mr. (Speaker, in
moving the second reading of this Bill, I think it would be well that I should fully state to the House its purpose and object, and the events which have led to its being introduced at the present time.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: My attention has been drawn to this Bill. I thought that as it is a Bill relating to trade and commerce it should properly be introduced by a resolution. However, I took the trouble to have that gone into, and I hold in my hand a list of Bills regarding shipping which have been introduced in this House, and the great bulk of them have been introduced simply on motion. Therefore, while my opinion was that a Bill in relation to shipping ought to be introduced by resolution, in view of this practice having been carried on to the extent it has, I did not feel that it was desirable for me to object to this Bill being introduced without a resolution.


Mr. HAZEN:: The purpose of the present Bill is to amend the law in respect to collisions and salvage at sea so as to enable the Government of Canada to give effect to their adherence to the International Maritime Conventions on these -subjects, which were signed at Brussels on the 23rd September, 1910. Before giving an explanation of the Bill, it would, perhaps, be well to give a brief statement concerning these conventions.
The first great step taken in the way of a universal maritime code was in 1864, when, as the result of an international eonfer-.ence, the regulations foT preventing collisions at sea, commonly known as the Rules of the Road, came into force. They were amended in 1884, and modified and revised in 1897.
There has been for a number of years an international maritime committee for the consideration of all such matters. It includes amongst its members prominent men engaged in shipping, or interested in it, as well as eminent jurists of every civilized nation. The efforts of this voluntary body have been strongly supported by the Belgian Government, and -the international conferences which have been held from time to time have convened in that country. The method of inquiry adopted by the International Committee is to issue to the different national -associations a se ries of questions relating to the subjects to be dealt with -at the -next -conference. The [DOT] replies are -subsequently considered, and the principles agreed upon are then embodied in a series of resolutions. These resolutions form, in turn, the basis of the labours of a subcommittee nominated by the Central Bureau and containing, as far as may be, representatives of all the different systems of law. This subcommittee prepares a draft code for discussion at the diplomatic conference where it is critically examined by the accredited representatives of the powers before being reported to the different Governments. It will thus be seen that the proposals are not hurriedly submitted for consideration, but represent patient thought, discussion and revision by persons in the several maritime countries who are best able to deal with the matters in question.
There is a British Maritime Committee for studying such questions as the one now under discussion. It has amongst its members -some of the most influential shipowners and Admiralty judges in the United Kingdom.
With a view to the unification of certain rules of law respecting collisions and as-

to the fault of one ship, to inscrutable fault and to inevitable accident, and substantially reproduces the British law.
The first great change in the law is in the apportionment of damages. The new rule does away with the British Admiralty rule with regard to the division of loss where two ships are to blame. Heretofore where both ships were to blame the amount of the damage to both ships was added together and each ship paid half. This rough and ready method of apportioning the damages was probably practical justice in a general way. But it would not always be so. For instance one of the ships in collision has committed some merely technical violation of the Eules of the Eoad which may have contributed to the accident; the other ship has been navigated utterly wrong from first to last. The vessel which is technically to blame is slightly damaged; the vessel really to blame has been sunk.
The add arid divide principle in such a case would be a travesty on justice. The British rule rests on no recognized principle of law; it is not even an old established rule and it is not in conformity with the ordinary rule of the common law as to contributary negligence, under which neither party would be entitled to recover anything. It is better therefore to abolish it, and to place the court in a position to do substantial justice to both parties Foreign nations will not assent to the introduction of the British common law rule. The proportional rule exists as part of the law of nearly all the maritime nations except Great Britain. The rule that neither can recover if both are to blame appears in the laws of Holland, Italy and Spain. Germany abandoned it in 1900, and adopted the proportional rule.
In regard to cargo claims, the matter is very clearly put in one of the special articles on the unification of the Maritime Law which appeared in the London Times, in January, 1909, and I have obtained much of the information now given. These very interesting articles were evidently written by one who is deeply versed in the whole question. He says:
It will be observed that It is proposed that the same rule should apply in cases where the plaintiff is the cargo owner, and that the damage should be divided between the ships in proportion to the gravity of their faults, and without the plaintiff having an action jointly against the owners of both ships for the whole of his loss.
By English law where both ships are to blame the cargo owner can recover half his
damages, no more and no less, against each ship unless he has by contract relieved the owners of the carrying ship from liability for negligence, in which case he can only proceed against the other ship, and no matter how great may be his fault, he, who is entirely blameless, can only recover one-half of the loss. Before the passage of this convention under the French law, a British ship, although only technically at fault, would be liable in a French port to a suit for full damages to cargo if the other ship in default could not be proceeded against by reason of the terms of her bill of lading.
As to error of pilotage, under the provisions of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, the owner or master of a ship is not answerable to any person whatever for any loss or damage occasioned by the fault or incapacity of any qualified pilot acting in charge of that ship within any district where the employment of a qualified pilot is compulsory by law. The only other countries having such a law are Italy and Germany. Both have agreed to the present convention. In Canada no owner of a vessel is free by reason of his employing a licensed pilot. It must be borne in mind that in Canada the employment of a pilot is not compulsory. The payment of the pilotage fee or half fee, as the case may be, is compulsory. But no vessel is obliged to take a licensed pilot on board. The provisions of the convention do not affect the law as it is in Canada to-day.
As to rendering assistance, the convention abolishes presumption of fault for a collision in cases where a vessel fails to stand by after collision. She is bound to stand by, but it is not prima facie evidence of fault for the casualty if she does not do so. The provisions of the Canadian Shipping Act in this respect are amended by repealing such part of section 920 as is necessary to give effect to the requirements of the convention.
As to salvage, there is the duty of every ship to render assistance to another ship in distress, even an enemy. Then the time within which an action to recover salvage is limited to two years. This latter provision was necessary owing to the various and complicated laws as regards the time limit in force in other countries. There were also differences in the laws of the other maritime powers as to the rate of remuneration of the salvors which led to endless trouble. All these differences have been abolished. The remuneration is fixed according to the success obtained, the meritoriousness of the services, the danger incurred by the vessel salved and her cargo, and by the salving

vessel and the salvors, the expenses and damage incurred and the value of the salved property and the assisting vessel, thus substantially reproducing British law.
Having given as briefly as possible the principal points of the two conventions, there remains only to be made a statement .of the position of affairs at present. A copy of the two conventions, printed in English and French, [DOT] has been furnished to each member of the House, so that the provisions of the conventions may be familiar to them when this Bill is under consideration. The conventions were, it may be stated, signed in the French language only.
The Government deemed it advisable to give their adherence to these conventions and so notified His Majesty's Government at the same time, giving an assurance that legislation would be introduced at the last session of Parliament to amend the law in Canada so as to conform to the provisions of the conventions.
His Majesty's Government deposited the King's ratifications for the United Kingdom on the 1st September, 1912, and similar ratifications for India and certain colonies and possessions-the self-governing Dominions were not included-on the 5th December, 1912.
The United States Senate ratified the conventions on January 18, 1912, and an Act to give it effect was approved on August 1.
There is just one point that might be again referred to, and that is the advisability of applying the provisions of the conventions to the inland boundary waters between Canada and the United States. It would certainly be an advantage to have a uniform law, but until that question has been considered by the Governments of the two countries nothing can be done to extend the application of the conventions. That is why the Bill now before the House is drafted so as hot to apply to the inland waters of Canada, above Montreal.
It will be noticed that there is a suspending clause at the end of the Bill. This is inserted so that the Act when passed may be submitted to His Majesty's Government for His'Majesty's approval, under the provisions of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. By adopting that course no question can subsequently arise as to the validity of this piece 'of legislation. Copies of the two conventions are on the table of the House.
It will be seen, therefore, that the object of this Bill is to give legislative effect to the convention entered into at Belgium, for the uniformity of laws regarding sal-

vage, collisions and matters of that sort, so that there may be uniform regulations among the different maritime countries of the world, thereby saving a great deal of the trouble and inconvenience that results at the present time. The convention has already been ratified by the United Kingdom and the United States. The Government of Canada undertook to approve of this convention before the present Administration came into power, and the present Administration approved of their action in so doing. It was my intention to have introduced the Bill at the last session of Parliament, but for reasons that perhaps it is not necessary to enter into now, the matter was deferred until the present session.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will my hon. friend explain why the Bill has not been made applicable to the Great Lakes and inland waters generally ?


John Douglas Hazen: At these conventions, the question of inland waters was not dealt with. As the only nations, practically, that trade upon the inland waters of Canada and the United States, are these two countries themselves, and as the trade of the two countries on these waters is very closely interwoven, it was thought that it would be better for a conference to be held between Canada and the United States before the adoption of these rules. It might be that rules which are applicable to deep sea navigation would not be applicable to inland navigation; and I might say to my hon. friend from Guysborough that at the conference recently held in London with regard to The Safety of Ships at Sea-[DOT] that was the title of the conference-the convention entered into, applies to the sea only and not to the lakes. On Monday next, I hope to lay that convention on the table of the House, with a summary which I am now preparing of the results of the convention. While that convention does not apply to the Great Lakes, it was thought by those who were at London representing the United States and Canada, that the recommendations and agreements come to at that convention might serve as a basis for future legislation introduced in the United States and Canada, with regard to the safety of ships on the Great Lakes.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand the law in regard to collisions on inland and coastal waters to be the same now in Canada and the United States, and that this Bill will vary it and introduce new provisions as far as the coastal waters are concerned be-

low the port of Montreal but will not change the law in regard to collisions on the Great Lakes?


John Douglas Hazen: That is absolutely correct.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Is the United
States a party to this convention?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, the United States was not only a party to it but the United States has passed the necessary legislation in order to make the convention effective in so far as that country is concerned. It did that in 1912.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It would be well to have a uniform law.


John Douglas Hazen: I think that probably it
would be, but my hon. friend will see this distinction, that practically the only shipping there is on the Great Lakes is the shipping of Canada and the United States.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And you intend to take that up later?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes/. This convention applies practically to all the maritime nations of the world which were represented at that conference, and one can readily sea how much more necessary it is to have uniform regulations regarding all these different nations whose vessels sail upon the high seas than it would be between two countries like Canada and the United States situated so close to each other and whose laws at the present time closely approximate one to another. The basis of the Admiralty laws in the United States is practicaly the same as the basis of the Admiralty laws in Canada. The United States and Canada practically derive their laws from a common source, and it will be found in regard to this question of collision and salvage upon the lakes that there will be very little difference between the United States and Canada. This question will be made a matter of further consideration between these two countries alone.


John Howard Sinclair: Was this Bill drawn by the Justice Department?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, this Bill has been
drawn after full consultation with the Justice Department and it is one giving effect to the convention. Before being submitted to the House the Bill was considered by shipping authorities in Great Britain. There is a suspending clause added to the Bill and it is proposed to insert in the Bill that when the Act is passed
it shall be submitted to His Majesty's Government for approval under a provision of the Maritime Shipping Aqt, 1894. By adopting this course, and having the approval of His Majesty's Government, no question will arise in future in regard to its validity.


John Howard Sinclair: I would not venture any criticism at all of the Bill and I have no objection to it. I think this Bill is a good one, but there are one or two questions in regard to it and I think this would be a proper time to bring them to the minister's attention. For example, take clause 8 of the Bill. In this clause provision is made that the appointment of salvage will be made by the law of the country to which the vessel belongs. The clause ' is as follows:
Where any dispute arises as to the apportionment-
In the Bill it is ' appointment ' but I understand that it is intended to be ' apportionment ' and that this is a clerical error.
Where any dispute arises as to the apportionment of any amount of salvage, among the owners, master, pilot, crew, and other persons in the service of any foreign vessel, the amount shall he apportioned by the court or person making the apportionment in accordance with the law of the country to which the vessel belongs.
We have a regulation in regard to that question in section 919 of the Canadian Shipping Act, which I think conflicts with that clause. Section 919 reads as follows:
Whenever foreign ships are within Canadian waters the regulations for preventing collisions in force for the time being under the provisions of this Part, and all provisions of this Part relating to such rules, or otherwise relating to collisions, shall apply to such foreign ships; and, in any case arising in any court of justice in Canada concerning matters happening within Canadian waters foreign ships shall, so far as regards such regulations and provisions, be treated as if they were British or Canadian ships.
I would like the minister to look into these two clauses and see if they do not conflict one with the other. We provide in that clause that the apportionment of the salvage shall be made by the court of the country to which the vessel belongs. I understand that the vessel is paying salvage-


John Douglas Hazen: No, the vessel is receiving salvage.


John Howard Sinclair: Well, say that the vessel receiving salvage is a Norwegian vessel and it comes into collision with a Can-

adian vessel at Montreal; under section 919 it strikes me that the proper court in which that adjustment ought to be made would be the Canadian court, but under the section we are enacting, the law provides that the court must be the court of the country to which the vessel belongs. That is one question that I wish to direct to the attention of the minister. Then, in regard to the fact that the Act shall not apply to the Great Lakes, I would like the minister to look at section 916.


John Douglas Hazen: Of the Canadian Shipping Act or the Maritime Shipping Act?


John Howard Sinclair: Section 916 of the Canadian Shipping Act is repealed, I understand, in regard to collisions on the Great Lakes. 'But there is a section which provides for all collisions in Canadian waters. -Section 913-which is not repealed. This section 913 is a section of very great importance because it provides that the regulations respecting lights, fog signals, steering -and sailing shall apply to all the rivers, lakes and other navigable waters within Canada or within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, until annulled or qualified by Imperial regulation. That is to say that a captain, when sailing his vessel, must observe the rules of the road in order to avoid collision, and if he farils to do so he is liable. That section remains in force as far as I can see in the coasting waters and in the waters below Montreal, but section 913 that is at present in the Canadian Shipping Act continues to be in force. Other provisions are made in the Bill which we are enacting which do not make any reference to the fact that the captain of the ship must observe the rules of the road. I think these two sections will have to be very carefully examined to see that they do not conflict one with the other. I have no further observations to make, but the question will, of course, be dealt with in Committee of the Whole later on and I would like the minister to have his law officer look carefully into these matters.


John Douglas Hazen: I want to understand my hon. friend's criticism. Section 8 is very clear indeed:
Where any dispute arises as to the appointment of any amount of salvage, among the owners, master, pilot, crew, and other persons in the service of any foreign vessel, the amount shall be apportioned by the court or person making the apportionment in accordance with the law of the country to which the vessel belongs.
That of course is self-explanatory and is only right. I should think it was only

reasonable that, where a vessel is awarded salvage, the apportionment of that salvage among the owners, masters, pilot, crew, and other persons interested should be according to the law of the country to which the vessel belongs. Do I understand my hon. friend to say that that may conflict with section 919 of the Canada Shipping Act?


John Howard Sinclair: It brings the apportionment under Canadian jurisdiction. I gave an example of a Norwegian vessel coming into collision in the St. Lawrence river, in which case it was claimed that the apportionment should be made in Norway, where the vessel was registered.


John Douglas Hazen: Not made in Norway, but according to the laws of Norway.


John Howard Sinclair: Yes.


John Douglas Hazen: The Judge of the Admiralty Court would make the apportionment according to the law of the country to which the vessel belonged. The vessel or the people would not have to be sent to Norway in order to have the apportionment made, but the judge would look up the Norwegian law and apply it to that case.
There seems to be a conflict between sections 916 and 913. I will see my hon. friend's remarks in ' Hansard.' I would be very glad if this Bill were advanced to another stage. I would be much obliged to my hon. friend if he would study the Act very carefully, because in drafting legislation of this nature something of importance may he overlooked.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not understand why section 916 is repealed. Of course there may be something in connection with the convention that I have not yet seen or studied. The confusion in my mind arises out of the repeal of section 916.


John Douglas Hazen: Can my hon. friend tell me the section of the Act which repeals section 916?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Section 5.


John Douglas Hazen: Section 916 of The Canada Shipping Act reads as follows:
If, in any case of collision, it appears to the court before which the case is tried, that such collision was occasioned by the non-observance of any of such regulations, the vessel or raft by which such regulations have been violated shall be deemed to be in fault, unless it can be shown to the satisfaction of the court that the circumstances of the case rendered a departure from the said regulations necessary.


John Howard Sinclair: Is not that a good section?


John Douglas Hazen: The convention repeals
that. I will give the reasons.


John Howard Sinclair: This is not a good section for the Great Lakes.


John Douglas Hazen: Here are the reasons:
If it is proved that damage has resulted by reason of the non-observance of the rules, then the provisions of article 13 of the convention apply.
For instance, a vessel runs aground by being forced out of her course by the improper navigation of another vessel. The article reads as follows:
This convention extends to the making good of damages which a vessel has caused to another vessel, of the goods or persons on board either vessel, either by the execution or nonexecution of the manoeuvres or by the nonobservance of the regulations, even if no collision has actually taken place.
Therefore my hon. friend will see that that article covers section 916 of the Canada Shipping Act, and is somewhat more explicit. If section 916 is repealed, is it my hon. friend's contention that there is no law so far as the Great Lakes are concerned?


John Howard Sinclair: Yes, there is no law so far as the Great Lakes are concerned, and no provision has been made for them. My hon. friend has repealed the law which requires captains on the Great Lakes to observe the rules of the road, and he makes no provision in its place, so that in future a captain who has a collision on the Great Lakes is not bound by the law which has always existed in this country requiring captains to observe the rules of the road.


John Douglas Hazen: I. understand my hon. friend's contention, and will look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
John Douglas Hazen: Considering the importance of this Bill, it might be better not to proceed further at present. I think we should report progress, so that hon. members may have further time to study the Bill.
Progress reported.



GRAND TRUNK PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Cochrane,
4 p.m. Bill No. 30, respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, was read the second time, and the House
Went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-prairie section:
Wilfrid Laurier: This is a repetition of the Bill of last year.


Mr. COCHRANE:: Yes, extending the time on the prairie section.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 31, respecting the National Transcontinental Railway-Mr. Cochrane-was read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time, and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply. *
Ocean and River Service-Schools of navigation, $8,000.
['No, it has nothing whatever to do with it. The Bill has been introduced at the suggestion of the Minister of Education for Ontario because he does not wish to sit on the board of an educational institution of this kind.\nBill reported, read the third time, and passed.']
Wilfrid Laurier: We have the Naval College. What, then, is this vote?


John Douglas Hazen: This is for schools of navigation such as have been carried on for many years. These schools are for the instruction of men who wish to pursue navigation, to get certificates as mates and captains. The schools give instruction in the use of nautical instruments, and so on. These schools are established at ports throughout the country.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is nothing new in this vote?


John Douglas Hazen: No; such schools have
been carried on for many years.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does the Government pay anything to the Technical College in Nova Scotia for carrying on classes in navigation?


John Douglas Hazen: The Government is arranging to establish a school of navigation at Halifax in connection with the Technical College.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will a sum be
voted this year for that purpose?


John Douglas Hazen: It will be paid for out of this vote. Correspondence is going on now between the authorities of the college and the department on the subject.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I would strongly
commend the idea of the Government assisting the Technical College at Halifax to

establish a school of navigation. I think that this work of education could be carried on by the college more effectively than by any other means. At present, it is the practice of the Government to make small allowances to persons at various ports who will conduct navigation schools for limited periods during each year for the instruction of persons desiring to go up for examination. I think experience has shown that this is not very satisfactory. In a comparatively small province, such as Nova Scotia, suitable educational facilities in navigation at Halifax, I should think, would meet all the requirements of the province generally. A well-equipped school at Halifax would probably attract a greater attendance than schools distributed throughout the province. I trust arrangements will be definitely concluded between the department and the college.


John Howard Sinclair: I have drawn the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on more than one occasion, to the necessity of a branch school at Canso. Five or six years ago a school was started at that point in the winter season, and the attendance was quite large, running as high as forty, I believe. But recently the grant to this school has been withdrawn. I am not accusing my hon. friend of doing that for any improper purpose.


John Douglas Hazen: That grant was withdrawn before I became minister.


John Howard Sinclair: That i3 not the point I am making. The proposition to establish a school of navigation at Halifax in connection with the Technical College should embrace also branches at places along the coast such as Canso. A sailor cannot afford to go to Halifax and epend two or three months in getting his education, and we ought to bring education to him. Along the coast we have a large number of young men, hundreds of them, engaged in the fishing industry. These men are partly idle during February and March, and this would be a suitable time for them to get instruction. I cannot help thinking that the proper system would be not only to have a central school at Halifax, but to have branches along the coast in various places where sailors could have an opportunity of getting this instruction; they could go up for examination at Halifax. We have two or three of these schools already, but they have never been supported by the Government to any considerable extent. The

small pittance that the teacher gets does not make it worth his while bothering with it at all, and the institution hardly deserves the name of a school. A small amount given to some retired sea captain who chooses to gather around him a few sailors, is about ail that is done. If we are going to give education of this kind, we ought to follow out some definite system that would be worthy of the people of Canada. I am not specially accusing the present Administration; we have never had an Administration in this country that has taken an interest in this matter. We have been pretending' to be doing something for the education of our seamen ever since Confederation, and all we have done is to appoint gentlemen in various places along the coast to instruct, in the great art of navigation, such sailors as choose to come to them. I would like to see the department doing something bigger than that. If the technical school is the right place-and I think it is

let the head school be placed there, but let us have, not only Nova Scotia but in the other Maritime provinces, branches at various points along the coast where the young men can get an education to fit them to pass the examinations and obtain licenses. It would not involve a very great expenditure, and I submit it would be a good departure for my hon. friend the minister to make.


Mr. MARCIL:: I concur very heartily in the suggestions made by the hon. member for Guysborough, and would suggest that the minister apply them to the Baie des Chaleurs, around which there are five constituencies, Northumberland, Gloucester, Restigouche, Bonaventure, and Gaspe. In these constituencies no facilities are afforded to the young people to enable them to receive an education of this kind. In Gaspe and Bonaventure we are hundreds of miles from Quebec, St. John and Halifax. There are no facilities of any kind so far as instruction in agriculture is concerned, and perhaps the Department of Marine and Fisheries might set a good example by making a start in navigation instruction. We have a population consisting largely of seafaring men, and some educational facilities should be afforded them. During the long winter months in the Gaspe peninsula, aside from the lumbering operations, there is very little for the young people to do, and I am sorry to say that at present hundreds of them wander into the state of New York, the Ottawa River district, and elsewhere, to

engage in lumbering. Those who do not go to the Ottawa River district go to the United States, and, in many cases, are lost to Canada. I submit that an opportunity is here afforded for the taking of steps by which these young persons may be kept at home and their time properly occupied during the winter months. A start might be made in one of the constituencies- say at Bonaventure River, in the constituency of Bonaventure, where we have a population of 2,500-by giving a course lasting, say a month. The same might apply to Grand River, in the county of Gaspe, to Bathurst and to other points on the south shore of Baie des Chaleurs. These points on the south shore are within easy access of St. John and Halifax, but such is not the case with points on the north shore. In winter the county of Gaspe is sometimes deprived of railway communication, and only very difficult communication is afforded even with the county of Bonaventure. If the minister came forward with a new departure in this respect it should meet with support from both sides of the House. I concur in what the hon. member for Guysborough has said, and I hope the minister will apply his good intentions to the Baie des Chaleurs, and especially the north shore.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: So far as I am concerned, I have no objection whatever to the most generous financial assistance on the part of the department so far as the starting of navigation schools is concerned. Of course, as there would be a limit to the number of schools, there would be a limit to the amount required, but I doubt very much if the idea which my hon. friend the hon. member for Bonaventure has in mind will meet the situation, or that the establishment of schools by constituencies is a feasible or practical idea. The difficulty in establishing successful navigation schools lies in obtaining pupils. The hon. member for Guysborough and the hon. member for Bonaventure will agree that if you cannot get pupils to attend the school, the same is a failure.


Charles Marcil: The thing has never been tried in the peninsula. Because it is so remote and difficult of access, the conditions in the peninsula of Gaspe are quite different from those of the northern constituencies of Nova Scotia.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I doubt if the inference my hon. friend desires can be d^awn from the conditions existing there. Schools have been established at many points in
Nova Scotia, and difficulty has been found in securing pupils to attend them. The hon. member for Guysborough says that they have no difficulty in that regard in his constituency-this I am glad to hear-and that the attendance is very good. But that was not the experience in other places in Nova Scotia. However, I think it would be wise indeed to assist navigation schools in almost any district in any province where there is a demand for such a school, but I think the idea of a strong central school is advantageous. I know that in Nova Scotia more masters and mates obtained certificates when there was a very good marine school in Halifax conducted by a private individual, whether aided by the Government or not I do not know. This was some twenty or twenty-five years ago. The advantage. of association of students or applicants for certificates was very beneficial; it caused the students to take a greater interest in their work, and this advantage is absent in a small place where there is an attendance of only half a dozen or a dozen. I think, too, that there would be a very considerable advantage in having a strong navigation school in some central part of each province, with such a provision for schools in the other outside districts as has been suggested by the hon. member for Guysborough.


John Howard Sinclair: How many men qualified last year?


John Douglas Hazen: This year there are schools at Vancouver, Collingwood, Quebec city, North Sydney, Halifax, Yarmouth, and St! John. Of these seven schools three are in Nova Scotia, one in the eastern part of Nova Scotia, at North Sydney, One at Yarmouth, and the other at Halifax, in connection with the technical college. The appliances and instruments required have been purchased and are now at Halifax, and as soon as a suitable building is obtained the school will start. I am in sympathy with the idea advanced by the hon. member for Bonaventure that perhaps we would reach those who want an education in this respect better by a number of small schools than by a central school, because if you have these schools in cities, as a rule the young men who may want to take up navigation as a profession are not men of large means, and it would be easier for them to attend a school in a smaller center than in a large city. They could not afford to go to the-large cities.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: On the contrary, they are usually well off; that is, they are young seamen with ambition enough to want to secure certificates.


John Douglas Hazen: But these are usually
young men who have only been before the mast and most of them are men of rather limited means. Last year we had no school at either Halifax or St. John, although those are the two largest shipping ports in the Maritime provinces. There was no school at Halifax owing to the illness and subsequent death of Captain Lugar. At page 29 of the report of the deputy minister the following information about the schools will be found:
The following tabulated statement shows where the schools were held, the total number of lectures delivered and the total attendance at each:
	Total Lectures.	Total Attendance.
		
Collingwood. Ont. .	32	361
Halifax, N.S		5	
Quebec, P.Q	43	753North Sydney. N.S.	30	242Vancouver, B.C. . .	15	178Yarmouth, N.S. . .	30	161155	1,695
There was one lecture and thirty-eight in total attendance less than during the previous year which is accounted for by the illness of Captain Lugar, of Halifax, which disorganized that school. A noticeable increase in attendance occurred in the eastern schools, while the total daily attendance at Vancouver fell from 707 last year to 161 in 1912.
The hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) asked the number who obtained certificates. The numbers are as follows: in the eastern division, 70 masters and 38 mates; in the inland division, 85 masters and 37 mates; and in the western division, 43 masters and 48 mates.


Mr. LAW:: How many passed as masters and, mates at Yarmouth?


John Douglas Hazen: I shall ask the deputy
minister to obtain that information for the hon. gentleman and send it to him.


Bowman Brown Law: I was surprised at the large number who passed at Yarmouth, and I think it would be a great pity if it was intended to have a large central school at Halifax and to do away with the smaller schools.
Mr.' HAZEN:	We have no intention of
doing away with the schools at Yarmouth and North Sydney .


Mr. KYTE:: What proportion of the grant is to be paid to each of the navigation schools?


John Douglas Hazen: We did not use the full amount of our grant last year. I think the sums run from about $300 to $600.


Mr. PARDEE:: I understand that Colling-wood is the only school in Ontario. Is it necessary for a candidate to go to Colling-wood to pass his examinations or secure a certificate?


John Douglas Hazen: Collingwood is the only school in Ontario, hut no change has been made in reference to passing examinations or securing certificates. This may be done at a number of places as heretofore.


Mr. TURGEON:: I would endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) in reference to having schools in each of the constituencies of the north shore of New Brunswick and the Bay de Chaleurs. On the north shore there are many young men who wish to pass the examinations but cannot afford to go to St. John, Halifax or Charlottetown. Many times young men come out oi superior schools with an aptitude for navigation but they are not able to attend these navigation schools. Only two years ago two young men coming from the school of Mr. Boudreau, from which many good seamen have come, wished to pass their examinations but they were not able to afford to go to one of the cities referred to for that purpose and they went into some other occupation. Until the minister can establish more schools he should have his examiners visit many more localities in order that young men desiring to pass their examinations may do so.


John Douglas Hazen: I may say to my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Turgeon) that our policy now is to send the examiners to definite points when any young men wish to be examined. I know what my hon. friend refers to: there was no examination of masters and mates last year in the province of New Brunswick, but we sent an examiner from Charlottetown to Chatham.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The young men had to go to Charlottetown to pass the examinations.


John Douglas Hazen: No, I was just explaining to fhy hon. friend that our policy now is to send the examiner to the point that would be most convenient, and that last year in

order to enable a number of young men on the Miramichi to take their examination, we sent the examiner of masters and mates to Chatham where the examination was conducted. We intend to follow that policy in future. I agree with my hon. friend that it would be very unfair if young men from places like Bathurst and Dalhousie had to go to Prince Edward Island or to St. John to pass the examinations.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I wish to emphasize
what has been so well said by my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and by my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr.. Turgeon). I formerly represented one of the counties on the Baie des Chaleurs. The idea of my hon. friend to decentralize as much as possible the schools of navigation, is an excellent one. I remember, when I was member for the county of Gaspe, I used to receive every year a number of requests for passes over the Intercolonial railway or on steamship companies running down to Quebec and some points on the coast of Gaspe, from sailors. These young men have to earn their daily bread and are not generally well off and when they have to travel quite a distance in order to try their examinations, they quit. And what is the result? From letters I have received this year from different priests in the county of Gaspe, I learn that this winter the parishes have been completely depleted of the young men. Their trail can be followed to the United States navy, or to the shanties in the state of Michigan, or the Upper Ottawa district, and many young men who go as sailors in the United States or to the lumbering camps, do not return. I have noticed that there is quite a colony of my old Gaspe electors in the city of Ottawa. I daresay there are almost 500 or 600 people here from the counties of Gaspe and Bonaventure. They have been lured by the city and they will not return to the deep sea fisheries.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are they all in the public service?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The same thing might be said with regard to the city of Montreal and possibly the city of Quebec. In Montreal, in Gaspe street, Hochelga ward, there are at least from 1,000 to 1,200 natives of Gaspe, and we can trace the preponderance of Gaspe electors in that ward to the fact that no facilities were provided at home to enable them to learn seafaring. They have been lured by the cities and have stayed in the cities. In the 48
counties of Gaspe, Gloucester and Bonaventure, there is a large population of French-Canadians, Acadians and Jersey fishermen. The old fishing establishments of Robin and Colas, and Le Boutkillier and Cie, have for over a century sent their ships to Italy and Spain, where the Canadian fish trade used to flourish. Some thirty years ago the trade began to go in another direction, and they sent their fish to the West Indies and to South America. At that time we had on the Labrador coast, and in Gloucester county and in Gaspe, deep-sea captains who had travelled all over the world, but to-day it is only by accident we meet one. The reason for this is that the young men who are horn sailors have not been encouraged, and no facilities have been provided for them to learn their trade. I would urge upon my hon. friend the necessity for decentralizing the schools of navigation, so that our young men in the Maritime districts should be given a chance to become deep-sea captains as their forefathers were.


John Douglas Hazen: I will be very happy to give instructions next year for one of the examiners to proceed along the coast of Gaspe or Bonaventure, as may be most convenient, for the purpose of conducting examinations.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would suggest that
my hon. friend confer with that very excellent officer of his, Commander Wakeham, who knows the coast by heart and practically every family there. I am sure he would give him excellent advice as to the places where the examinations should be held. I think myself that they could very well be held at Pointe aux Esquimaux, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence, at Gasp6 basin, Mount Louis, Perce and Grand river on the south shore. I am sure that the department would find that the young men on the coast, having such facilities to pass their examinations, would become what they were born to be, excellent sailors.


Charles Marcil: Do I understand that the minister is merely going to send down an examiner? I suppose some course of instruction would have to be given. There are hundreds of young men down there who, when they arrive at a certain age, do not know what calling to enter. They are born seamen, they have breathed the salt air from the day of their birth, and'if some course of instruction is not provided for them they may go to the United States and



disappear from the Baie des Chaleurs district altogether. My idea is that some preliminary school of instruction should be established and a course of lectures extending over two or three months in the winter time, given. I think in that way you would have excellent subjects for the examination next season. I do not suppose it is the intention of the minister to send an examiner down there, and no one to instruct the young men.


John Douglas Hazen: A great many of those who come up for examination have never attended the schools provided by the Government. In many parts of Canada there are private schools, kept by gentlemen who have been sailors or navigators and, where these private schools are in existence, it is not the policy of the Government to interfere with them by establishing a school. But from the remarks of my hon. friend the conditions along the Gaspe coast must be different. My hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) has convinced me that it would be only proper and right that we should during next season establish some school along that coast for young men who desire to study navigation. I will see that that is done.
Mr. MARCH.: I can assure the minister that the attendance at Bonaventure will be satisfactory from the start.
Ocean and River Service-Registration of shipping. $3,000.


John Howard Sinclair: In connection with the item relating to the registry of ships, it would be interesting to know how many ships have been withdrawn from Canadian registry during the year and what tonnage has been added. It is commonly supposed that the laws relating to shipping are a little too stringent in Canada, and the result is that a good many ships owned by Canadians are taken off the Canadian registry and registered in other colonies like Newfoundland.


John Douglas Hazen: And Barbados.


John Howard Sinclair: Barbados. It has been
a common occurrence in my province for some years past. One of the chief reasons for this is that coasting captains are restricted in the latitude in which they may sail. There i? no reason for this restriction, which did not exist until some years ago, and which was made more istringent than was necessary. At the present time a coasting captain has a right to clear from a Canadian port and to sail to any point north of Central America. There are a number of points farther south of that

latitude to which coasting captains would often like to sail. My hon. friend can take the newspapers in the city of St. John, or city of Halifax, any day, and I will venture to say that he will find clearances for ports on the coast of South America, ports like Rio and Bahia, and other points on the River Plate. A coasting captain cannot legally clear for these ports under the present law. He must be a deep sea captain to do that. The coasting captain goes to the custom house and, when he says that he is clearing for a port south of t'he latitude allowed by law, the customs house officer refuses him a clearance. In certain ports in the province of Nova Scotia I have known it to happen that some old man who had obtained a license a good many years ago, would be sent to the customs house to get the clearance, and when the vessel got down to a point some distance from the port of sailing the old man would be sent home and a young man who had a coasting license only would get on board and take the vessel to a point beyond the latitude stated in the law and no question would be asked. That is a device that used to be resorted to-I do not know if it is still resorted to-in order to get rid of this difficulty. There is no reason why a coasting captain should not be allowed to go down the coast of South America. Let him go to South America and let him go around the Horn if he wants to. I would like the minister to facilitate a Bill which I have introduced in order to give coasting captains their right to go farther south than they can go at the present time. I do not know anything about the circumstances or conditions on the Pacific coast, but I looked up the law and I found that a coasting captain on the Pacific coast can only go -as far as the harbour -of Portland. That? is not very far from Canadian territory. I see no reason why that limit should not be extended.


John Douglas Hazen: I think a coasting certificate in British Columbia enables a man now to go as far as San Francisco.


John Howard Sinclair: I did not know that.


John Douglas Hazen: I think there was some amendment a few years ago.


John Howard Sinclair: 
John Douglas Hazen: The matter to which my
hon. friend refers is one of great interest to shipping men in the Maritime provinces and also to those on the Pacific coast who are engaged in the shipping trade. On the Pacific coast I understand that captains can go as far south as San Francisco, and I think their desire is that a coasting certificate shall enable them to go even farther south. There is no doubt that what my hon. friend says is correct, that a great many coasting vessels are being registered in Newfoundland, Barbados and at other points where no certificated captain is needed at all. In addition to that there are vessels owned by St. John companies which are registered in the state of Maine, notwithstanding the fact that they are managed by St. John people. I have had rsoiesentations made to me by the owners of coasting vessels both in Halifax and St. John, and I have had conferences with some of these gentlemen in St. John. One gentleman came to see me just before New Year's. It was in connection with the new Canada Shipping Act which I propose to introduce to Parliament this year. The introduction of that Bill will afford an opportunity for a full discussion of this entire question. The owners of coasting vessels want to have the right to receive a coasting certificate which will enable them to proceed right down to South America all along the coast, and they argue, and argue with a good deal of force, that a man who is able to take a vessel from a Maritime province port down along the coast of North America as far as Cape Hatteras is quite capable of taking a vessel down the coast of South America. They say that it is difficult to get certificated captains and almost impossible to get certificated mates. They ask, first, that the certificate shall entitle a captain to take his vessel farther along the coast than he is now permitted to do, and that the certificate, in so far as the mate is concerned shall be abolished altogether. Some also have told me that there are cases where they get men who have a certificate, but whose age precludes 48}
them from being of any use, to simply take the vessel from port and the voyage is continued under that certificate. There is a diversity of opinion about the matter, but I think it is a question well worthy of consideration, and I intend in the next week, or the week after that, to introduce a Bill which will be a consolidation and revision of the Canada Shipping Act. I doubt very much if an Act of this importance, and containing so many sections, ean be passed through the House this year, but I shall suggest, on the second reading of the Bill, that it be referred to the Marine and Fisheries Committee of the House, before which there will be every opportunity of discussing all these questions which are so important to the shipping interests of Canada. I am only offering my personal opinion now, but I think it would be in the interests of Canadian shipping if some modifications were made, and, while if) would be in the interests of Canadian shipping, I do not think it would in any way imperil the lives of those who go to sea or tjie property which is entrusted to the men who handle these vessels.
Mr. MARCH,: I might inform the hon. minister that circulars have been received by members of the House lately protesting against the coastwise business being done by Norwegian vessels. Is there any new feature of the question, or does the same arrangement continue to subsist as that which has been in existence for some time by which Norwegian vessels are allowed to engage in the coasting business?


John Douglas Hazen: There is nothing new in
that matter; it is exactly the same arrangement as that which has existed for many years.


Charles Marcil: To be continued until
1913 under a treaty?


John Douglas Hazen: No, I do not think there
is any treaty about it.


Charles Marcil: I thought it was in view of a treaty between Norway and England which allowed Norwegian vessels to come into British colonies.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so.


Charles Marcil: The people of Nova Scotia protest very strongly against this.


John Douglas Hazen: The vessels bring coal from Nova Scotia up the St. Lawrence. That privilege was given some years ago; I believe there was very little objection to it,

and it was extended for a period of one year when it expired a couple of months ago.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is not there a general protest by the shipping interests of the Maritime provinces against that privilege ? I see that the gentleman who signed the circular is very severe.


John Douglas Hazen: I have not seen the circular.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will send my hon. friend a copy of it.
Ocean and River Service-Removal of obstructions in navigable waters, $20,000.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: How is this $20,000 to be expended?


John Douglas Hazen: In 1912-13 we spent only $1,533 of the vote.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There were no obstructions last year.


John Douglas Hazen: No. In 1913-14, we spent $1,179. The officers of the department are of the opinion that it is impossible to estimate with any accuracy the amount that will be required. If hon. gentlemen will look at page 5 of the departmental report of this year, they will see that the following obstructions were removed during the year:
Florida, sunk in Montreal harbour. Scow Newel Hubbard, sunk at Hocket Beach. An old barge sunk, entrance of Chateauguay river, P.Q. A derelict in Vancouver harbour, B.C., S.S. Joliet, sunk in St. Clair, Ont.; and logs from Victoria harbour, B.C.
There have been years when the whole amount is required. In other years only a small portion is required.


Bowman Brown Law: This item is only for the removal of wrecks and obstructions in navigable waters, and not for the removal of obstructions in rivers ?


John Douglas Hazen: This item is not for the removal of snags and other obstructions from rivers. That work is attended to by the Department of Public Works. In some of the rivers where lumbering operations are carried on, and there is a good deal of navigation, the practice of the Department of Public Works is to give a charter to some tug-boat owner to go to those waters and to remove obstructions. Sometimes a log will be found standing straight up in the water, and a steamer running into it might suffer great injury. This item is for the removal of derelicts in navigable waters.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does not the department make a claim when the obstruction is taken away ?	.


John Douglas Hazen: We do. The owner of the vessel is responsible for removing it, and we at once notify him. If he does not remove it, we do so and proceed against the vessel owner and make him pay.


Bowman Brown Law: What is the necessity of the vote if the money is collected from the owner of the vessel ?


John Douglas Hazen: The vote is necessary because we need some fund from which we can pay for the -work before we collect from the owners of the vessels.
5	p.m. There are always cases in which the vessel owners cannot be collected from.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the cases mentioned by my hon. friend, has the Government been recouped ? .


John Douglas Hazen: In the case of the Joliet which was sunk in St. Clair, we were recouped. The owner refused to pay; we proceeded against him and forced him to pay.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the case of the barge sunk in the Chateauguay river, were you recouped ?


John Douglas Hazen: No, it was an old barge, and we apparently could not find anybody whom we could compel to pay.


Charles Marcil: I have been able to find the circular to which I referred, and I shall read some extracts for the benefit of the minister:
Are Norwegians still to monopolize Canadian coastwise trade? Or is it to be Canada for Canadians in our coastwise trade, which means the transport of our products from one Canadian port to another Canadian port? Build up Canadian coastwise shipping. Trade follows the flag.
A few years ago Nova Scotia's tonnage was 558,000. In 1910 it had declined to about 160,000 tons, mostly fishing schooners. The province of Nova Scotia at one time owned more shipping tonnage per head of population than any other country in the world. Canada has been reduced from the fourth shipping maritime power in the world to eleventh place.
Then there is a letter which appeared in the New York Tribune under date of September 28, 1913, from Alexander T. Baillie, a resident of Port Hastings, Cape Breton, Canada. Then there are Orders in Council and memoranda from the Department of Customs regarding the coast trade of Canada. One of these, dated December 8, 1911, reads as follows:

Steamships of not less than two thousand tons gross tonnage each, of the following countries, namely:	Norway Sweden, Austro-
Hungary and Japan shall be admitted to the coasting trade of Canada in the carrying of goods and passengers coastwise between any port in the province of Nova Scotia and any port in the province of Quebec, and vice versa, on the same terms and conditions as are applicable to Canadian vessels, until the 31st day of December, 1915.
John McDougald,
Commissioner.
It concludes by a pathetic appeal headed:
Heroic Nova Scotia seamen who risked their lives to rescue those on board the ill-fated Cobequid.
Then other criticisms follow. The conclusions are these:
A few years ago Nova Scotia tonnage was 658,000 tons; If her coastwise trade and seamen had been protected as some other important industries in our province, such as coal, she would have to day over one million tons of shipping instead of about 160,000 tons mostly fishing schooners.


John Douglas Hazen: Of course my hon. friend will understand that that matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Marine and Fisheries; it is a matter of the Department of Customs. I understand that Mr. Baillie has been protesting for some fifteen years against it, but the governments during that time, after considering the matter, have seen fit to extend it. Without this extension it would be very difficult for coal men to get their coal to Montreal. They could not get it there on terms that would enable them to sell it at a profit to the consumer if they could not take advantage of these Norwegian bottoms.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it the policy of this Government to stop the granting of these licenses at the end of the year?


John Douglas Hazen: I cannot tell my hon; friend what the policy will be. There is no decision on the matter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: From 1907 or 1908 to 1911, it was just as much the policy of the party which is now in power to prevent the matter to which the bon. member from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) has been referring as it was to give this country adequate protection, purity in elections, the Highways Bill and other things. I think the minister should give us some reason for not carrying out this programme. In some constituencies in Nova Scotia, particularly a county like Lunenburg, the electors there were promised by Conservative candidates that if they came into power, Norwegian vessels would not be permitted to engage
in Nova Scotia trade. In fact, pretty nearly every Conservative candidate in the election of 1908 was unequivocally pledged to prevent the continuance of this. Does the minister ever receive communications from his political friends in Nova Scotia asking that Norwegian vessels be prevented from engaging in this coasting trade?


John Douglas Hazen: This matter falls within
the control, not of my department but of the Department of Customs. I have never received any such lttters as the hon. gentleman refers to; but such letters, if written would, in the ordinary course, be addressed to the Minister of Customs.
Ocean and River Service-Winter mail service, $11,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister please explain this item?


John Douglas Hazen: This vote is given every
year to provide for the ice-boat service between Cape Tormentine and Cape Traverse, when the regular steamer service is cut off. In some years this whole vote is used and in others very little of it. In the season of 1912-13, the amount spent was $7,129.30, and for the present season up to January 1, only $91.23. Of course, the great expenditure may come in February and March.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I will ask my hon.
friend (Mr. Hazen) to do this year what he was kind enough to do last year-and that is, when the season is favourable, to allow one of the Government steamers to go from Prince Edward Island or Pictou to the Magdalen Islands. As the hon. minister knows the Magdalen Islanders are deprived of all communication for several months in the year. The last letter I received was from the Rev. Mr. Turbide, of House Harbour. He says: ' I am writing you, because fortunately, a steamer has come this morning, and from appearances navigation will be possible during six or eight weeks more. Some years ago the officers of the Marine Department found difficulty in inducing the cap-tajns to take the risk of this trip. But the experience of the last two years has proven that it is quite possible in an ordinary season for a steamer to cross to the Magdalen Islands.' The same remark applies to Seven Islands. The Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) knows that winter navigation between Quebec, or the mouth of the Saguenay river, and Seven Islands is quite possible. For several years the department has sent the Montcalm once during the winter months, and the people of that distant shore have had the privilege of receiving the mails. I would like to know

what is the intention of the minister this year with regard to that? Will he continue this service and familiarize the people of this country, and other countries with the idea that winter navigation is quite possible below Quebec? There are no insuperable obstacles to winter navigation between Cape Tormentine on the mainland and Souris, P.E.I. It has been demonstrated also that navigation is possible between Quebec, St. Catherines Bay, and Seven Islands. My hon. friend knows what a boon it is for those isolated people to receive mail during the long winter.


John Douglas Hazen: The Stanley has made one trip to Magdalen Islands this year, and we hope she will make other trips. The Montcalm returned last week from Seven Islands and is now engaged in ice breaking on the St. Lawrence. Mr. Forneret, superintendent of the ice-breaking service, said it was necessary to continue this work until next week, when we shall send the vessel to Murray bay. The hon. gentleman will see that we are doing the best we can to maintain communication below Quebec.	.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the Champlain
be soon ready for service?


John Douglas Hazen: She has been undergoing
repairs, and I am informed that she is ready. They are building a new wharf to afford her safe wharfage accommodation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the
landing at Murray bay is quite difficult. But the Postmaster General will tell my hon. friend that there are other wharfs on that shore, viz.-Cap a l'Aigle, St. Irenee, Les Eboulements, Bale St. Paul. I am not sufficiently versed in navigation to .say whether a boat could easily land at those places, but an effort should be made, because the distance the people of the county of Charlevoix have to travel in order to reach the terminus of the Quebec railway is long, and mails from the city of Quebec are not delivered within a week. I would urge the hon. gentleman to do his best to afford the people of Charlevoix better facilities of communication.


John Douglas Hazen: The Champlain is that,
being an ice-breaker, she is of deep-draught and would have trouble in reaching some of the wharfs to which the hon. gentleman refers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In the summer the same boat will touch two of these wharfs-Cap a 1'Aigle and St. Irenee.


James Joseph Hughes: Will the steamers for the Magdalen Islands start from Halifax?


John Douglas Hazen: They generally start from North Sydney.


James Joseph Hughes: The Stanley made the last trip?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes; she is now at North Sydney.


James Joseph Hughes: I have had communications from the Magdalen Islands about this matter. Can the minister tell when the next trip will be made?


John Douglas Hazen: No decision has been
reached about that. The Stanley at this moment is engaged in ice breaking.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When a trip by the
Stanley to the Magdalen Islands is contemplated, I presume notice is given to merchants?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, that is done by the agent at Quebec.


Charles Marcil: In a Quebec newspaper
yesterday I observed that owing to the ice, the Montcalm has returned from an ineffectual attempt to enter Ellis bay, Anticosti, and that she intends to return there next Tuesday. Conditions at Ellis bay are very much affected by the wind; it might be filled with ice one day and be free the next. I hope the attempt to enter the bay will be kept up.
Ocean and river service-Cattle inspection, $5,000.


John Douglas Hazen: This item is incorrectly worded; it should read 'inspection of livestock shipments.' This vote is placed at the disposal of the department for the purpose of paying inspectors whose duty it is to see that the cattle and horses shipped from Canadian ports are properly provided for on the vessels. A few years ago quite a large amount was needed for this purpose, but the shipments of cattle from Canada are not as formerly. There are two inspectors at Montreal, Mr. H. Delorme and Mr. J. O'Grady, one getting $1,200 and the other $1,000 a year. There was an inspector at St. John, but the shipment of cattle from that port has practically come to a standstill, and as there is no necessity for the continuation of the office, it has been abolished. The few small shipments which do go out are looked after by the agent of the Marine Department.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there no hope that the cattle embargo will ever be abolished?


John Douglas Hazen: I really do not know.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have no doubt that the system of inspection of livestock at Canadian ports is excellent, but when our cattle reach the other side of the water, they are prevented from going farther than Liverpool or other ports of entry, although we are an .exceedingly loyal people, and we have a superlatively loyal Government; at least the Government is self-assertive in that respect. Lasf year the Government gave evidence of its great loyalty by asking this Parliament to make a gift of $35,000,000 to the mother country, while in various other departments of the Government the greatest facilities are offered to our friends in Great Britain. I remember, when I was Postmaster General, I gave the British newspapers special facilities and special rates in order to foster a splendid British feeling in this country. Some years ago it was rumoured that pleuro-pneumonia had taken hold of our Canadian cattle, which as we know was nothing more or less than a libel. Sir Charles Tupper, writing I think about ten years ago, said that early in the eighties he took up that matter with the British authorities and proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the assertion that Canadian cattle were subject to this disease was nothing more than a libel upon Canadian livestock. The reason or pretext given for the continuation of the embargo is the desire to afford a measure of protection to the north of Ireland grazing interests. As I have said, we have given to the mother country many evidences of our loyalty and goodwill. Is it not time that the Government should insist upon the removal of this embargo? What steps have this Government taken to redeem the excellent reputation enjoyed by Canadian cattle in former years?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend will have to ask the Minister of Agriculture.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend was in Europe two years ago, and he delivered loyal speeches before many clubs, including the Colonial Institute. He was the honoured guest of many associations, and he spoke of the good feeling existing between the two countries. I stand for the mother country, but I like to stand for my native land. As a good Canadian, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries delivered many eloquent speeches when he was in England; he even lectured that loyal Welsh lawyer, the Rt. Hon. David Lloyd George.


John Douglas Hazen: That is news to me.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did not my hon. friend make a speech in England in which he said that the statesmen of Great Britain ought to do more for the navy, and not spend all the money of the people on so-called social reforms?


John Douglas Hazen: I made no such speech.


Rodolphe Lemieux: At all events my hon. friend gave advice to the Government of Great Britain as to their internal policy. Has he not been able to find time and words to ask the British Government to remove that embargo, and to give our Canadian cattle the standing they had a few years ago?


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Did I understand the minister to say that he is not spending very much now on the inspection of shipments of cattle to Great Britain?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, there is really very little spent.


Michael Clark: As a matter of fact, are there any cattle going to Britain at all?


John Douglas Hazen: Last year the shipments were:	from Montreal, 178 sheep, 6,469
cattle and 175 horses.


Michael Clark: That was in 1912-13. Of
course there was a very important event in 1914 which has altered the business altogether. In 1912, in the whole year, we sent- about 7,800 head of cattle to Great Britain; but in the month of November last, I read somewhere the other day, not one split hoof of cattle went to Great Britain, in the month of November. But 75,000 head, including calves, very unpatriotic cattle, went south.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Under which flag?


John Howard Sinclair: It might be drawn to
the attention of the Imperial authority that we are better treated in the United States than we are in Great Britain in regard to this matter. I understand that our cattle are shipped from various points and are admitted to the United (States without any question, whereas shipments to Great Britain have to be slaughtered as soon as they arrive. I think my hon. friend, who is familiar with these matters, ought to press the fact on the attention of the Iml

perial authorities that the people of Canada, in regard to this matter, are treated better by the United States thaij by the home 'authorities.
Mr. MICHAEL	CLARK:	On the
question of the embargo, I cannot quite endorse what ipy hon. friend from Guysborough and my hon. friend from Rouville* say in regard to that being originally a protective measure. I think the regulation was enacted in perfectly good faith by the old country Government. They believed there was disease amongst Canadian cattle, and it should be remembered that the herds kept in Great Britain by great agriculturists, from the occupant of the Throne downwards, are very expensive cattle and very valuable. I might admit that in Great Britain, as elsewhere, anything that has a protective tendency is much more easy to get on than it is to get off, and, with the very strong connection there has been between the Irish party and the Liberal party, which has been in power for a number of recent years, of course the weight of Irish opinion may have influenced the Government. I quite admit that, but I think that, in the early history of the embargo, it is scarcely right for my hon. friend to prefer a charge or even to hint that a charge of bad faith against the British authorities might be laid. I think the embargo was put on in good faith as a preventive of disease amongst the very valuable herds that are kept over there. But with the small number of cattle going now to Great Britain I cannot think that the embargo in Great Britain is a subject of very practical importance. The removal of the embargo elsewhere, which is after all the worst of all embargoes, the embargo of a protective tariff, has produced results which make the disease embargo fade into absolute insignificance.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend misunderstood my remarks. I did not intend to cast any reflection on the good faith of the Imperial authorities, but I merely drew attention to the fact that we are better treated in the Unied States. It appears that when we want anything big done in this country we have to go to the United States for it. Nobody expects our own Government to do anything of importance in that line. We .know that the greatest thing done for Canada in 1913 was done at Washington. I want to emphasize the fact that we are very well treated across the line, and it would be worth while to im-

press on the Imperial authorities that they should give us the same treatment in Great Britain.


James Joseph Hughes: There is no doubt that the trade in live cattle between Canada and the United States is a very-important trade, and we do not want to have anything done or left undone that might endanger it. If this embargo on our cattle going to Great Britain is continued on the plea that our cattle are diseased, is there not a possibility and even a probability that the interests in the United States that are opposed to our trade in cattle with that country may bring that up and may use it as an argument against the importation of cattle from this country? It appears to me that this is well worth consideration.


John Douglas Hazen: I fancy that the United
States knew of the embargo long before they admitted our cattle free to that country.


James Joseph Hughes: This is not a contentious matter; it is important looking to our export trade that if our cattle are not diseased everything should be done to remove the embargo between this country and Great Britain.
Mr. LEMlEUX:	In the matter to which
I referred a moment ago, I do not wish to quote the whole speech I delivered, but to refresh my hon. friend's memory. I said last year:
I was surprised to read the other day a speech reported to have been delivered in England by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries before the Imperial Maritime League. He said ' A mere gift of money will have no useful effect at all. The giving of money for the navy by the Dominion of Canada will merely have the effect of saving the pocket of the Liberal Government for other schemes of so-called social reform which, being interpreted, means further sops to the United Kingdom electorate and will be of no advantage whatever to the navy.' ,


John Douglas Hazen: From what does the hon. gentleman quote?
Mr. LEMlEUX: I forget now. I got the speech from the papers.


John Douglas Hazen: This is the first time 1
have heard it. I never made such a speech as that. I do not think that any sane man going from Canada in a representative capacity would give utterances to such thoughts couched in such language. 1 would like to know the source of the report because it does not convey any idea of vhat I said on any occasion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am very glad to hear my hon. friend say so.


John Douglas Hazen: I saw something in a
Montreal paper which I corrected.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who are the inspectors
in Montreal?


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. H. Delorme and Mr. O'Grady.


Bowman Brown Law: Does this inspection of cattle apply only to cattle for export across the sea? I would fear that there might he some conflict of authority with the Agricultural Department if there is an inspection for disease.


John Douglas Hazen: This is not an inspection
for disease. It is an old vote to provide for the inspection of the accommodation provided for cattle on steamers, to see that they are put in proper pens and that proper provision is made for their treatment during ocean shipment. It applies only to cattle for shipment across the Atlantic.


Bowman Brown Law: I am glad that no obstacles
are put in the way of the trade in cattle between Nova Scotia and the United States, because our farmers are reaping quite a harvest now and we are looking forward to quite a large trade in cattle and other articles.
Wrecking plant, $45,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like to ask whether the Government still has the Davie establishment at Quebec.


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. Davie threw up the
contract a year and a half or two years ago. He was not able to make it pay. For several years there had been very few wrecks on the St. Lawrence and he made no money. He submitted his figures to the department and gave his reasons for giving up the contract.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is there a wrecking
plant at Gaspe basin?


George William Kyte: Where is this plant located?


John Douglas Hazen: The plant of the Quebec Salvage Company at Quebec, in the St. Lawrence. The Quebec Salvage Company is to maintain the steamer Lord Strath-cona and such other plant as may he required to the satisfaction of the department, from the first of May to the first of December, of each year while the agreement lasts. This boat does certain comber work within fixed zones and being equipped with wireless it can get quickly to the scene of a wreck.


George William Kyte: Does all this grant go to that company?


John Douglas Hazen: 
George William Kyte: What amount of money does the Dominion Coal Company receive?


John Douglas Hazen: $10 and $25 goes to the Quebec Salvage Company under the conditions I have described.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the subsidy to the Dominion Coal Company subject to any conditions?


John Douglas Hazen: No. ,


John Howard Sinclair: And the British Columbia Salvage Company?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Does the minister propose to have a plant at Port Nelson?


John Douglas Hazen: No request has been made as yet.

Ocean and River Service-Unforeseen expenses, $5,000


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is this?


John Douglas Hazen: These are odds and ends which sometimes occur in the department. If my hon. friend would look at the Auditor General's Report, page N-44, he would see what items come under that head. The expenses for 1912-13 was S663.85.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that money used in connection with investigations?


John Douglas Hazen: There might be investigations, not covered by other votes, which it would be used for.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Did Mr. Duchemin get any of that?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so.


John Howard Sinclair: There would not be enough there to pay Duchemin.


George William Kyte: I have a file here brought down by the Department of Marine and Fisheries which contains an account, J. A. Gillies, for the Department of Marine and Fisheries, to W. Forgeson, dated 6th, 1912, It reads:
To railway expenses to Pictou, $1.95 ; steamboat, $1; to Mulgrave stage, $1, $3.95; May 8, 1912, to return from Pictou to Port Royal, railway expenses, stage and boat, $5.25 ; hotel and travelling expenses, $3.75; loss of time 3 days at $3, $9; telegrams to J. A. Gillies, &e., $1.45; telegrams to Marine Department, 50 cents', total $23.90.
(Sgd) Wm, Forgeson.
This struck me as rather an unusual account, inasmuch as it stands in the name of J. A. Gillies for the Department of Marine and Fisheries indebted to Wm. Forgeson, Port Royal. I would like to get some information as to why this account is here in the form in which it happens to be.


John Douglas Hazen: What page is that on?


George William Kyte: Page 77 of a return to an order of the House dated April 7, 1913, showing a copy of all accounts, vouchers and charges incurred by and relating to the lobster hatchery at Arichat during the season of 1912, with the names of the officers and crews of the patrol boat Davies and the wages paid to each.


John Douglas Hazen: That. applies to the Fisheries branch, and I may say to my hon. friend that when we reach that branch I will have the information here for him. I never heard of it before.


Bowman Brown Law: I would like to ask if the minister has treated any other officials in

the way he beheaded Mr. Trefry, who occupied the position of shipping master at Yarmouth. The minister dismissed one of the best officials who ever occupied that position, and he was in such a hurry to dismiss him that he appointed a gentleman -I have nothing against him whatever- who was an American citizen. The minister was so eager to appoint Trefry's successor that the port of Yarmouth was without a shipping master until the new appointee could get his papers making him a British subject. Mr. Trefry had been dismissed, and we had to do without a shipping master until the new man could get his papers. I only wish to state these facts to the Committee to show the way in which the Marine Department have acted in connection with dismissals.


John Douglas Hazen: I will give the House the facts in connection with Mr. Trefry:
In April, 1895, the shipping master at the above port was Mr. J. R. Rogers, who was dismissed in October, 1896, by Order in Council, owing to charges of political .partisanship. Captain John A. Tilley was then appointed shipping master in the room of Mr. Rogers. On the 11th November, 1896, an Order in Council issued dismissing jCaptain John A. Tilley and appointing Norman L. Trefry. On the 11th March, 1912, a letter was received at the department signed by Knowles E. Crosby, and several others, preferring charges of political . partisanship against Mr. Trefry. It was stated that Trefry had used every effort to defeat the Conservative candidate and to elect Mr. B. B. Law, the Liberal candidate. An affidavit was received from Dr. A. M. Perrin of Yarmouth, testifying that in the election of 1908 he solicited votes and drove a team to carry voters to the polls; that he attended a political meeting held by the Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier at Digby, N.S., absenting himself from his office and duties; that he assisted to bring Mr. Law forward as the Liberal candidate at a caucus of the Liberals in September, 1911, at which time at the grand entrance of the S.S. Prince George of the D.A.R. SS. Company, he grasped the hand of Captain McKinnon bf the Prince George and stopping him on the stairway exclaimed :	* Ha, ha, we had a hard task to
induce Mr. Law to offer himself for a candidate, but he has at last consented after a deal of ' petitioning; ' that he took part in a political meeting held in the opera house at Yarmouth; when he was on the platform with Mr. Law.' In view of the representations in Dr. Perrin's affidavit, an Order in Council issued under date of the 10th April, 1912, dismissing Norman L. Trefry and appointing Captain Samuel Messenger, shipping master in his stead. .


Mr. MACDONALD:: What about his successor, an American citizen?


John Douglas Hazen: His successor is now a
British subject.


William John Macdonald: It is only natural
to find another case of this kind. The people this Government appoint to office are American citizens. When they wanted somebody to investigate the so-called Transcontinental railway expenditure they were not satisfied to take a British subject, but they appointed Mr. Gutelius. He was not a British subject when he was appointed, and they proceeded to naturalize him in order that he might be a fit and proper person to investigate this matter. So, when we come to Yarmouth, if they cannot find in that county a good Canadian or British subject to be shipping master, and if they have to appoint an American citizen, it is a pretty curious state of affairs.


Bowman Brown Law: In reply to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I beg to say that Mr. Trefry absolutely declares that the whole statement is a falsehood. As far as I am personally concerned, I am prepared to state that Mr. Trefry never sat on a platform at any meeting that I held in the -county of Yarmouth in 1911. Further than that, Mr. Trefry did not attend the meeting held by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in Dighy. He was not out of the town at that time, but he was in Yarmouth attending to his business. Knowing Mr. Trefry as I do, I am prepared to state that his dismissal was one of the most inhuman of all the inhuman things that this Government has done. Mr. Trefry was a first-class official. He never attended any political meeting; he never was on a platform at any meeting held by me, he never attended a meeting at Digby, and I am surprised that, under the circumstances, he being a British subject, he was not considered entitled to have an investigation. "My opinion is that the minister was afraid to have an investigation because he knew that he would not be able to prove the charges against Mr. Trefry. I cannot understand for the life of me why this gentleman should not have been given the investigation to which he was entitled. The other day I asked the minister if he knew that there was a patronage committee in Yarmouth. He assured me that he did not know of any such thing. Let me tell him that Knowles E. Crosby is a member of that patronage ocmmittee, and why should Mr. Crosby's statement be taken when the minister did not know that he was a member of the patronage committee?


John Douglas Hazen: I informed my hon. friend that this statement was supported by the affidavit of Captain Perrin of Yarmouth.


Bowman Brown Law: Mr. Trefry tells me that the statement that he acted in a partisan manner is absolutely untrue. I only bring this matter up in order to put Mr. Trefry right before the House and the public.


George William Kyte: The circumstances surrounding the dismissal of Mr. Trefry appear to call for the censure of this committee, but I think I can bring to the attention of the minister even a more indefensible case and one that calls for even more severe censure than that which we have just heard. At the opening of the session of Parliament in 1912, I put this question to the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries:
Has the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, received the evidence taken by H. P. Duchemin, commissioner at river Bourgeois, in the month of October last, on the charge of political partisanship alleged against Marin Bourque, keeper of the lighthouse of river Bourgeois, who was dismissed in the month of April last?
2.	Has any report been received from Mr. Duchemin bearing on the investigation?
3.	Is it the intention of the minister to reinstate Mr. Bourque as keeper of the lighthouse?
This question remained on the Order Paper from the beginning of the session until some time towards the 15th of January. This man Bourque was dismissed in the spring of 1912 without any investigation upon the ex parte statement of the Conservative candidate in the county that he was a partisan. The charge of partisanship made against Bourque was so outrageous that I felt that an investigation would show that it was without any foundation whatever, and that he should he reinstated in his office. An investigation was granted by the minister, and the commissioner went to River Bourgeois in the month of September. I was present when Mr. Duchemin called as the first witness Mr. William Levesconte, a leading Conservative there, and after he had been questioned by Mr. Duchemin no evidence was disclosed against Mr. Bourque. Mr. Duchemin was so insistent that Mr. Levesconte should ransack his memory to find some act of partisanship against Mr. Bourque, and he persisted to such an extent in the question as to whether he knew if this man had been guilty of partisanship, that the witness replied: 'How in blankety-blank do I know whether he had or not?-'blankety-blank' in this case indicating a place which is ' usually regarded as being the very antipodes of the abode of the blest. Knowing that evidence had been taken in an effort to prove a charge of

partisanship against Bourque, I put this question to the minister in the early part of the session of 1912. The question was allowed to remain on the Order Paper week -after week. His Honour the Speaker called it time after time, but the minister always asked that th-e question be allowed to stand. Some weeks after that Mr. Du-chemin sent a second report of the investigation which he had held into the same charges against this man Bourque. The first investigation disclosed no evidence against Mr. Bourque, and here is the answer given by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to my question:
1. The investigation referred to was arranged by Mr. Duchemin to be held on the 27th September, 1912. On that date no evidence was taken. A further inquiry was held on the 12th December, 1912.
If the minister was informed no evidence was taken on the 27th day of September, he was falsely informed. If he meant to say that no evidence to prove the charge of partisanship against Bourque was taken, then the statement is absolutely true. As a matter of fact, the evidence which was given by	the	witness	who	was summoned by Mr. Duchemin to give testimony against Bourque discloses no proof of partisanship against him. While the question remained unanswered upon the Order Paper, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries lest this man Bourque should escape the dismissal which had been ordered to take pl-ace	in	respect	to -him, ordereda second investigation	to be	held. Mr. Duchemin	the	second	time	co-mes to
Kiver Bourgeois to hold an inquiry; and as to the circumstances under which that inquiry was held, I will read a statutory declaration of Bourque's wife. Bourque was an invalid; his health was not very good at the time he was dismissed, and the effect of his dismissal and the prospect of being deprived of the $100 a year, which he was receiving by virtue of his being a lightkeeper, so diminished his ability to support his family that it resulted in aggravating his illness, and when Mr. Duchemin arrived the second time to hold an investigation, Bourque was upon a sick bed and was unable to attend the inquiry. His wife took to Mr. Duchemin the summons which her husband had received, and in this declaration I have a report of the circumstances which I shall read to the House after the committee resumes.

At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 17, respecting the Ottawa Northern and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Friop.
Frank Oliver: Might we have some explanation of this Bill, either from the mover or from the Chairman of the Railway Committee?


Mr. LANCASTER:: The Bill passed
exactly as it was sent to the committee. It is a renewal, and there was a renewal last year. The three standard clauses that we were so careful about were inserted last year. No objection was raised to the Bill as drawn.


Frank Oliver: What ground does the
charter cover, and what is the term of the extension?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This Bill is to amend chapter 84 of the Statutes of 1899 and chapter 72 of the Statutes of 1900. I have not these Acts before me, and cannot give exactly the geography of this line. It is to be commenced within two years and completed within five. That is the usual time.


Frank Oliver: There was no objection to it in the committee?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


BURRARD INLET TUNNEL AND BRIDGE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill, No. 11, respecting the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company.-Mr. Stevens.
Frank Oliver: The hon. member in
whose name this Bill stands will perhaps give us some information.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The amendments to
clause 1 of this Bill do not change the effect of it in any way, but merely improve-as we thought-the language. We have made it read 'the bridge, tunnel and lines of railway' instead of 'its bridge and tunnel and of the lines of railway.' And there is a'repetition of the words: 'which is authorized to construct,' which we struck out. We added a third section to enact our present standard clause as to the water-

powers, to provide that, so far as they have these rights, they must conform to other cases, bringing their water-power rights down-or up, if the expression is preferred, -to our standards section.
Mr. OLIVER. Perhaps the hon. member in whose name this Bill stands would say where this bridge and tunnel are to be.


Mr. STEVENS:: This is just a renewal of a charter. The bridge is to be at a point known as the Second Narrows, about the easterly boundary of the city of Vancouver, crossing the inlet to the north shore. Tenders have been called for the construction of the bridge, and they are to be in by the 1st of April. Everything is in good shape for the commencement of construction. So far as the tunnel is concerned, that is in the title of the Bill, and there has been a project to put a tunnel under the First Narrows, but it has not been seriously considered by the people of Vancouver and surrounding municipalities up to the present time. It may be considered in the future, for two reasons, first for traffic and second for water to provide for the mains.


Frank Oliver: Is it considered desirable that one company should have control of the two methods and places of crossing ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The company is simply a combination of the city of Vancouver, the city of North Vancouver, the municipality of North Vancouver, and the municipality of West Vancouver. These joint municipalities are affected by the works projected.


Frank Oliver: Is this a railroad bridge ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a railway, tram, vehicular and pedestrian traffic bridge.


Frank Oliver: Is it for the use by this particular railway or is it what might be called a railway highway ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is absolutely open
to all.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


CALGARY AND EDMONTON RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 12, respecting the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas.
Frank Oliver: What is the purport of this Bill ?


Mr. DOUGLAS:: To authorize the building of branch lines in southern Alberta,
where they are urgently needed. The matter was gone into very carefully by the committee and it is satisfactory. But the promoters have objection to an amendment put in by the committee, and if nothing is done in connection with that amendment I would ask that the Bill be allowed to stand.


Robert Rogers: What was the amendment ?


James McCrie Douglas: It was in connection with the time when the work should be started and completed, and provided that it should be started within a year and completed within three years.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The majority of the committee thought that this was a case in which the company should be hurried up, and it changed the proposed time of commencing' from two years to one, and of completion from five years to three. The vote stood 22 to 10 in favour of the amendment. These matters, of course, are within the discretion of this committee, and I am not suggesting that it cannot reverse the decision of the Railway Committee. But I will draw attention to the fact that it is not usual for the House to reverse the Railway Committee's decision in a matter which was referred to it and which it has taken the trouble to carefully consider. It is a matter of discretion in every such case as to what time shall be allowed.
I do not agree with those who say that we create a precedent by our action on one such Bill, for in the very nature of things each case must stand upon its own merits.
I do not object to the Bill standing over, but I hope it will not come up on Monday, as I fear it will be impossible for me to be here on that day. [DOT]


Mr. CURRIE:: Why not refer it back to the the committee according to the usual custom.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I do not think that
would be fair to the committee.


Frank Oliver: I understood the mover
to say that the promoters objected to the change. Perhaps it was made for good reasons, and I am sure the committee would be glad to hear them.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It was thought that
the company was trifling, as it were, with certain townsites and entrances, and that that should be stopped by making the com' pany hurry up and complete the line if they intend to do so. I do not pretend to be a judge of the matter, but the discussion in

the committee was carried on by gentlemen from the locality, and others. I myself did not vote, but after a full discussion of the matter, the amendment was carried by a vote of 22 to 10. I think it would be a reflection upon the committee to refer the Bill back unless some good reason be shown that the committee has made a mistake.


James McCrie Douglas: The principal reason
why the amendment was adopted was that settlers in western Canada, particularly in Alberta, have claimed that charters were given to certain companies to build railways and that no steps were taken to complete their construction, and believing that the railway was to be completed settlers took up land along the line. The minister, who has received a great many letters in connection with the matter, was willing that an amendment should be put in limiting the time within when the work must be started to one year and providing for the completion within three years. However, the main reason for the amendment is the demand of the settlers that when a railway charter is granted the construction of the line should be rushed tO' completion within a reasonable time. If they are held down to one year within which to start the promoters absolutely refuse to go on with the line.


John Allister Currie: It would be well for the committee to understand a few of the facts in connection with the work that has been carried on in Alberta during the past year. Tim proposed branch line of the Canadian Pacific railway runs into the new oil region south of Calgary. This is a very important territory, into which many people are desirous of going, and there is a tremendous rush of all kinds of freight into that section of the country. Apparently the committee got the impression that the company was not doing its duty in the province of Alberta during the past year. In order to show the committtee that the railway company is alive to all these things, I wish to quote a few statistics to show what has *been done during the past year in the province of Alberta. Last year 235 miles of grading was done by this road, 115'9 miles of track laid, and 113-4 miles ballasted. A railway company that has built 250 miles of solid track within a year cannot be accused of not having attended to its work. There are no less than six different branches from the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway under construction there now. In the beginning of the session the Railway Committee generally gets up in the air a little about railway

lines not being carried out as rapidly as they should be-as the United States phraseology has it, they get a little bull-moosed-but when the committee gets down to business, it fixes the time for starting at two years. I do not think any interest is injured by making the time two years, but if it remains one year -and the Bill is withdrawn, the people dm that section of the country will suffer, because the Canadian Pacific railway have the money to build the road and it will take them a year and a half to build it. They cannot do it in a year. I would urge strongly upon the committee that the change be-made.


Frank Oliver: In view of the fact that the committee gave this matter consideration and carried the Bill by a large majority, perhaps it would be better to let the Bill stand for the present. If this committee has to decide the matter, let it be decided when there is a larger attendance than there is to-night.


Robert Rogers: There is probably a good deal to be said on both sides of the matter. As I understand the facts, other similar Bills have been treated differently. At the same time, I am one of those who think one year is quite enough time for any railway company to be allowed the advantages and privileges given them by this Parliament. I do not think it would be well, perhaps, to single out one particular line [DOT]and provide different treatment for it from that which you provide for others. I agree with my hon. friend that we should let the Bill stand until we have more members present, which perhaps will be when next time Private Bills are called.


Mr. BUCHANAN:: I can bear out what the hon. member for North Simcoe has said with regard to the work of the Canadian Pacific railway in Alberta this year. In my constituency they have been constructing three very important branch lines.
I do not think this amendment was aimed particularly at the Canadian Pacific railway; its object was to induce railways to complete the lines which they have had charters for for some time. Because of the frequency with which some of these companies come back to the House and ask for renewals of charters, the people are becoming discouraged and discontented in view of the possibility that the lines are not to be built for a good many years.
I can give you an instance in my own [DOT]constituency. A railway company got a charter for the construction of a branch

line, and as there was a large homestead tract of country there, the people at once flocked in. The charter has been renewed several times, the people have been there for several years, some of them being 70 miles away from a railroad. The idea of those who supported this amendment in the committee was, if possible, to limit the time [DOT] of starting and completing these lines, and letting the railways know that this Parliament is serious in its efforts to expedite railroad construction. I cannot say whether or not this will expedite construction, but, if we can show those railway companies who are coming to Parliament time after time for extensions that we are in earnest and that we want them to take active 'Steps in connection with the construction of lines for which charters have been renewed, four, five or six times, I think we should do so. The Canadian Pacific railway is the only railroad, in my part of the country, and they have been doing a lot to serve that portion of western Canada. Other railroad companies, the Canadian Northern railway and the Grand Trunk Pacific, who have charters for the construction of lines in different parts of that country, are not building their lines. 'Once a railroad obtains a charter for the construction of a line in a certain district, it is difficult to get another railroad to go into the same district. The Canadian Pacific railway was asked to build a branch line in one district and they answered that the Canadian Northern railway had a line under charter there, and it would not be worth their while to go in. I offer these observations to give some idea of the reason why this amendment was put in at the suggestion of certain members from western Canada. The particular question is a live one in my section of Alberta. The Boards of Trade are all behind the movement to secure some legislation by which this Parliament will not continually give renewals to railroads without some guarantee that they will immediately commence construction and try and rush the lines to completion as soon as possible.
Progress reported.


GRAND TRUNK RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 15, respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Currie.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: We made no amendment to this Bill except to change the language of section 10. As drafted it provided that the Bill should only come into
effect after it has been approved by the shareholders of the company. We made that read that certain sections should not apply until they had been ratified by the shareholders. It seemed more dignified for this Parliament to have it worded in that way. Generally speaking, the Bill is to enable the Grand Trunk Railway Company to pay half yearly dividends without being required to have half yearly meetings to sanction these dividends. The effect is that they can raise the money more easily. They need the money to better their road, and they are asking us for this provision.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


LACHINE, JACQUES CARTIER AND MAI-SONNEUVE RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 16, respecting the Lachine, Jacques Cartier and Maisonneuve Railway	Company.-Mr. Biekerdike.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: In this Bill there is a change in the time for completion. The committee, after full discussion, concluded to leave in the Bill the time for commencing the extension, two years, but limited the time of completion to three years. The committee were almost unanimous in making this arrangement. These exceptions are sometimes made by the Railway Committee for local reasons which I must approve of, that is, they are unique cases, and if there is something in the local geography the exception is quite justified.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CENTRAL WESTERN CANADA RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 13, to incorporate the Central Canada Railway Company.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is an ordinary
act of incorporation. We recommend that in order not to conflict with another railway the House change the name to the Central Western Canada Railway Company. In section 3 the capital stock has been made $7,000,000 instead of $5,000,000. In section 12 we use the expression ' approval ' instead of ' order' of the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Frank Oliver: What is the geographical location of the charter, approximately?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: From Winnipeg in a northwesterly direction by way of York-

ton, Saskatoon, and Battleford to the city of Edmonton.


Frank Oliver: That route would closely parallel throughout the present connection between Winnipeg and Edmonton, via the Canadian Pacific railway and, at no great distance, the lines of the Canadian Northern railway and the Grand Trunk. Was that considered in the committee?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It was mentioned by somebody, but the committee takes the view that you cannot refuse to let a dozen lines parallel each other if they want to. We cannot force a railway to build in some place where it does not want to build, and we do not consider that we would do any harm in granting wholesale charters between points.


Frank Oliver: I was given to understand that the Minister ;of Railways .made a statement in connection with this charter, and as the minister is not here I would be very glad if we could have the statement repeated so as to have on record the policy of the Government in regard to lines paralleling each other.


Robert Rogers: Does my hon. friend object to the Bill going on?


Frank Oliver: Not at all, I am merely asking for as much information as possible while the Bill is before the committee. I may say that the recent occurrences at Quebec will, I think, satisfy every member of the House that it is not desirable to let private legislation go through without letting the members know what it is.


John Allister Currie: It has been the policy,
openly expressed in the Railway Committee for six years at least, that there shall be free trade in railway charters. That is, if a man wants a charter in any district he can get it, and if another man wants a charter over the very same ground he can get it. That has always been the policy of the committee since I have been a member of it, so there is no use in talking of detectaphones, or the deaf and dumb alphabet, or any dodges of that kind.


Mr. NEELY:: Like my hon. friend (Mr. Currie), I am a member of the Railway Committee, and while the general policy of free trade in railway charters has undoubtedly been agreed upon by the members of the committee, free trade in charters where lines of railway have already been built, has never been agreed upon to my knowledge. That is a new doctrine to me,

Where railroads have not been built in a district for which a railway company has a charter, there is no objection raised in the Railway Committee to somebody else getting a charter for the same territory; but if the line has already been built there surely should be some announcement of policy by the minister as to whether somebody else can come along and parallel that line for hundreds and hundreds of miles, perhaps within half a mile or a mile. That policy, I say, has never been agreed to by the Railway Committee. As I understand the request of the member for Edmonton he is asking for some statement by the Minister of Railways, or in his absence by some member of the Government, as to the policy of the Government in regard to parallel lines: whether or not the Government proposes to let this company-if the charter goes through, as no doubt it will-[DOT] parallel the present lines already covering this territory, in such close proximity that the people will not be better served, and the only result of which will be competition that would be destructive to the line already built, and of no particular benefit to the public.


John Allister Currie: Is the hon. gentleman opposed to competition among railways?


David Bradley Neely: Not at all, but I am opposed to the idea of letting the railway companies spend money in building unnecessary lines, when there is such an enormous demand throughout the West, and East too, for lines that are absolutely needed to serve the public. So far as competition among the railroads is concerned, of course we want competition; but we do not want the kind of competition that will not be of any benefit to the people, and that will only be destructive of the welfare of lines already built.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Might I ask the hon. gentleman a question for my information and guidance? Would he say that when a railway asks to parallel another, that we should refuse a charter? We have either to grant it or refuse it, but we cannot grant it, and say: You must go where you have no intention of going. Will the hon. gentleman say that the committee should refuse that charter be-cause it seeks to parallel another line?


David Bradley Neely: The Chairman of the Railway Committee compliments me by asking for my advice on this point- I am looking

to the chairman myself for light and information.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Don't I need it, also ?


David Bradley Neely: I have no objection whatever to the granting of this charter. I should think that the Chairman of the Railway Committee ought to be sufficiently in the confidence of the Minister of Railways-they sit side by side in the committee-to tell us what the policy of the minister will be when, having granted this charter, as I have no doubt this committee intends to do, the railway proposes to parallel the line already constructed.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I may tell my hon.
friend that I am not in any such confidence, nor do I think I should be. I am simply Chairman of the Railway Committee. I cannot tell any better than the hon. gentle-* man himself what the particular policy of the Minister of Railways is in this regard, nor do I think I ought to assume that I am sufficiently in the confidence of the Minister of Railways, to have the right to ask him. I do not pretend to be anything but Chairman of the Committee representing the Parliament in that committee-not the Government, not the Opposition, not the supporters of the Government, but the whole of this House of Parliament, and the committee has to take the responsibility. And with all deference to my hon. friend, I do not think it is a matter that the Government should have a policy upon. I think it is a matter for this parliamentary committee to settle. In some parts of Ontario we would like to see the railways paralleled. In my own district there is a railway that cannot begin to do the work and we need a parallel line badly. We need competition and extra facilities. I could name many instances where it is absolutely necessary in the public interest to get more than one railway between the same cities, practically paralleling each other. But what I want to ask my hon. friend is whether he individually thinks that we ought to go to the length of saying to a railway company : be-beeause you are paralleling another line we shall not give you a charter. I do not know that we have the right to ask for the confidence of any minister to guide us in the committee, so long as we act pursuant to the Railway Act.


David Bradley Neely: I accept the position taken by my hon. friend, 'that he is Chairman of the Railway Committee for this whole House. But at the same time I say that 49
when this Bill leaves the Railway Committee and comes before this House we are entitled to a pronouncement by the Minister of Railways as to what his policy is, when it comes to a question of giving or withholding his consent when the final plans of the promoters of a Bill are brought before him for his consideration.


Robert Rogers: If there is any objection to the Bill we will be very glad to let it stand until some future time.


Frank Oliver: Perhaps ft would be just as well. There are other Bills on the list that would not be contentious, but this is a yery important Bill, and to my mind raises a very important question.
Progress reported.


WEST ONTARIO PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 19, respecting the West Ontario Pacific Railway Company-Mr. Nesbitt.
On section 1:
Mr. NESBITT:: The amendment to insert the standard clauses, which have been put in all Bills with respect to crossing highways.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 26 recpecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. W. H. Sharpe.
On section 2-new lines authorized:
Frank Oliver: I understand this Bill was amended in committee. Perhaps the chairman of the committee will explain what the amendment is.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The amendments
were to add two clauses to bring these lines within our policy as to the protection of municipalities in regard to light and power on highways and as to construction. The Canadian Pacific last year got a Bill in which we enacted section 9, to this effect:
Nothing in this Act or in the Telegraph Act shall authorize the company to construct or operate any telegraph or telephone lines, or any lines for the purpose of distributing electricity for lighting, heating or motor purposes!, or disposing of surplus power generated by the company's works and not required for the undertaking of the company upon, along or across any highway or public place, without first obtaining the consent expressed by by-law of the municipality having jurisdiction over such liigh-



way or public place, and upon terms to be agreed on with such municipality, or to sell, dispose of or distribute power or energy within or for use within the limits of any municipality, without the consent, expressed by bylaw, of such municipality.
This is the standard clause, There was also clause 10 enacted last year providing that there should be no construction upon highways without the consent of the municipality. We bring that into this Act by saying, in an additional section, that the provisions of sections 9 and 10 of chapter 96 of the statutes 3 and 4, George V, shall apply to the lines of railway mentioned in this Act.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill No. 43, respecting Queen's University at Kingston.- Mr. Nickle.
Pius Michaud: Was this Bill before the House last session?
Mr. SAM. SHARPE:	This is a noncontentious Bill, all parties being agreed upon it. The Bill provides for the striking out of the words ' and the Minister of Education for the province of Ontario.' The Bill of 1912 made the Minister of Education for Ontario one of the governors of Queen's University as well as an appointee of his, called an assessor. The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Nickle), representing all parties, appeared before the Private Bills Committee and had the Bill passed by consent.


Pius Michaud: I want to know whether this is the same Bill that was presented to this House last session.


Mr. SHARPE:: No, it has nothing whatever to do with it. The Bill has been introduced at the suggestion of the Minister of Education for Ontario because he does not wish to sit on the board of an educational institution of this kind.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CONSIDERATION IN COMMITTEE.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 18 respecting the Tillsonburg, Lake Erie and Pacific Railway Company.- Mr. Currie.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 56, respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. Michael' Clark.
Bill No. 57, respecting British Trust Company.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 58, to incorporate the Sudbury, Kepawa and Bell River Railway Company. -Mr. G. V. White.
Bill No. 59, respecting the Toronto, Niagara and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 60, to incorporate the United Empire Loyalists' Association of Canada.-Mr. Macdonell.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
["Dr. John A. Macdonald,\n.junior, port physician of the harbour of St. Peter's, who was, in the month of December last, elected to the position of secretary of the Conservative Association for that county.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.\nMonday, Feburary 16, 1914."]
George William Kyte: When the committee rose at six o'clock, I stated that the lightkeeper, Mr. Marin Bourque, was so ill at the date fixed for the second investigation to be held on the charge of partisanship preferred against him that he was unable to appear before Mr. Duchemin. I have here a statutory declaration signed by his wife verifying the facts. It reads:
In the matter of dismissal of Marin Bourque, keeper of the lighthouse at River Bourgeois, Richmond county, N.S.
I,	Catherine Bourque of River Bourgeois in the county of Richmond do solemnly declare that I am the wife of Marin Bourque ate keeper of the lighthouse at River Bourgeois. That my husband received a notice from H. P. Duchemin, commissioner, on the evening of December 11, 1912, to appear before him in the office of William Dorscoute at River Bourgeois for the investigation of charges of political partisanship against him on December 12, 1912.
That at the time my husband received this notice he was confined to his bed by illness and was unable to attend the investigation.
That I went to see Mr. Duchemin at the office of Mr. Dorscoute on December 12, and told him that my husband could not leave his bed and was therefore unable to appear before him.
That Mr. Duchemin. then told me he wanted my husband to make a statement to him in regard to the charge of political partisanship preferred against him. He said that at the previous investigation my husband was prevented from making a statement by Mr. Kyte, M.P., and Dr. Bissett, M.P.P.
I then told him that my husband had already made a statement under oath which had been sent to Ottawa. Mr. Duchemin said he wanted a statement made to him as he was appointed for that purpose. Mr. Duchemin did not tell me that there were any witnesses to be examined against my husband but he said he came for the purpose of getting a statement from my husband. And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.

him. Mr. Duchemin has cost the country enough money without sending him to cover the same ground twice, merely to enable him to ferret out, if possible, testimony to support the charges made against an official by those who are anxious to get his position for their friend. On the occasion of the second inquiry, which was ordered by the minister to take place at Eiver Bourgeois on December 12, Mr. Bourque was too ill to appear before the commissioner. His wife was there, however, and Mr. Duchemin told her that he came there for the purpose of getting a statement from her husband. . As her husband was too ill to attend, he could get no statement from him. After Mrs. Bourque left the office of Mr. Levisconte, Mr. Duchemin did hold an inquiry and did examine witnesses into the allegations of partisanship made against Mr. Bourque. If Mr. Duchemin was desirous of acting in good faith, he would at least have told Mr. Bourque's wife that he would examine any witnesses who might be brought before him, and that such evidence as he was able to procure would be forwarded to Ottawa. But he made no such assertion, rather intimating to her that he came merely for the purpose of taking a statement from Mr. Bourque himself. I have here a copy of the report of the second investigation made by Mr. Duchemin, which is as follows:
Sydney, N.S., Dec. 16, 1912. Hon. J. D. Hazen, M.P.,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir:
. On the 12th instant, I took evidence at River Bourgeois, in the matter of Marin Bourque,
formerly lightkeeper at that place.
Mr. Bourque was duly notified of the time and place of the hearing, hut was not present. His wife, however, came before the beginning Of the inquiry, and stated that her husband was not feeling well enough to be present, but that, in any case, he wished to tell me he did not intend to appear, as he had nothing further to say in addition to the statement already sent forward. I advised her that any statement he had previously sent forward to the department would be of no avail at this investigation, and it would be necessary for him to come personally before me if he wished to have any statements sent forward to the department. I further advised her that he might appear either during the inquiry, or at any time before X left River Bourgeois, that I would submit to him the evidence taken, and would be pleased to transmit to the department any statement he might wish to make. She again assured me, however, that he would not appear, and as a matter of fact Mr. Bourque did not appear before me either during the inquiry or thereafter.
The reason why he did not appear, as is

set forth in Mrs. Bourque's declaration, was because he was too ill to attend. Mr. Duchemin proceeds:
Testimony was given by Wm. J. Levisconte, merchant, of River Bourgeois, and Wm. Boudreau, master mariner, of the same place.
Mr. Levisconte testified that he had been doing business at River Bourgeois for about twenty-one years, and that he knew everybody living in the district. He added that he had always taken an active interest in political matters on the Conservative side, and was well acquainted with the political workers on both sides of politics; that he had known Mr. Bourque for years, and declared that he had for years been a most objectionable Liberal partisan. Mr. Levisconte said : ' In the Dominion election of 1908, when the campaign was in progress, Marin Bourque used most objectionable language towards the Conservatives. He spoke of them as " that dirty party." '
A few moments ago I read the evidence given by Levisconte in the inquiry of September 25, and these are the exact words that he used. But, when pressed by Mr. Duchemin to say when Bourque used that language attributed to him, he was unable to do so, and became very angry because Mr. Duchemin insisted that he should tell at what election that language was used. However, at the second inquiry, if Mr. Duchemin's report be true, Mr. Levisconte had refreshed his memory and was able to say that the language was used in the election of 1908.
He said: T would never vote for that 'dirty party'. He said this to me here in River Bourgeois.' Mr. Levisconte added that while Marin Bourque was not a man who exercised much influence in the district, he had neverthless always been offensive and objectionable as a Liberal partisan.
Wm. Boudreau testified that Mr. Bourque had been in the habit of talking politics openly In a nasty and insulting way. Witness said: 'In the 1908 elections I was working In the interests of Mr. Ferguson, the Conservative candidate. A few days before the election Mr. Bourque said I was a fool to he working for that party (the Conservative party) because they were going to be licked anyway. Mr. Boudreau corroborated the statement of Mr. Levisconte-that while Marin Bourque was never in a position to do much for his party, that he had always been openly offensive when elections were taking place.
I therefore find that Marin Bourque has been an offensive partisan, and that on this ground the department was warranted in dispensing with his services.
In the investigation held in the month of September, at which I was present for the purpose of taking a record of the proceedings, Mr. Levisconte was not in a position to furnish any evidence that could be considered sufficient to support the charge made against Mr. Bourque. In my presence Mr. Duchemin said that there was no

evidence upon which the dismissal of Mr. Bourque could be justified. In the second inquiry that took place in December, the same witness was examined and the evidence given was exactly the same, except in so far as the witness is alleged to have said that the language referred to was used in the election of 1908. Wm. Boudreau, the other witness, did not pretend to say in what particular Mr. Bourque was an offensive partisan, or in what instances he had canvassed or worked for the Liberal party; he merely said, in a general way, that Mr. Bourque was an offensive partisan. The point I desire to make is that, Levisconte, having failed to furnish evidence against Mr. Bourque in the inquiry which took place in September, and no other evidence having been subsequently adduced to justify the minister in dismissing this man, he should have been reinstated without an instant's delay. There was no justification for the department going to the expense of holding a second inquiry, particularly in view of the fact that the important witness was the same person who gave evidence in September. I need scarcely remind the committee that where a witness is called to give testimony in a certain case, and on [DOT] another occasion goes upon the witness stand in the same case and tells the court another story, his evidence is always regarded with a good deal of suspicion. As I stated, Bourque was in ill health when he was dismissed from the lighthouse. He continued to be in ill health, and, if it is any satisfaction to the minister to know it, Bourque is not in a position, nor never will be in a position in the flesh, to rise up and condemn him for his conduct; he died a few months ago. His case is an extremely sad one. His death was no doubt accelerated by the treatment he received at the hands of Mr. Duchemin and at the hands of the Minister of Marine. This man Bourque was not a partisan in any sense of the word. He was a man without language to express his ideas in any matter outside of his own particular duty. He took so little interest in politics that he voted but once, I believe, since he was appointed to the lighthouse. He never attended a political meeting, notwithstanding the statement of Mr. Gillies, the defeated Conservative- candidate, that he was an open, violent partisan, went to public meetings, canvassed openly, took voters to the poll, and did everything that constituted offensive partisanship. It is very strange that, when an inquiry took place,
his neighbour, Mr. Wm. J. Levisconte, who knew him for twenty-one years, was called, but could not testify that Bourque had ever canvassed anybody or attended public meetings or hauled a voter to the poll. All he could say was that this man told him once that he would not vote for his dirty party. He would not undertake to say at what election he made, that statement, but, if he made the statement, it was fair to assume that it was before he was appointed to the office of light-keeper, because we have the declaration of Bourque that ever since he bad been appointed lighthouse keeper he had never attended a public meeting or taken any part in politics, and bad never committed any offence which would justify dismissal. I would like to know if there is to be finality to these investigations. Ordinarily, when a charge is made, the accused is put on trial, the evidence is all put in, and the charge dismissed or sustained and the case closed for all time. As regards the poor official, he never knows when he is going to be at rest. An investigation may be called this month, and if no evidence is produced against him, there may be another one next month or a month after. But once Nemesis, in the shape of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, is on the trail of an official in his department, there is to be no rest or contentment for that man; he must go sooner or later, whether the facts and circumstances justify his dismissal or not.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. member for Richmond has discussed this matter at very considerable length, and has read the different papers and reports that are in possession of the Marine and Fisheries Department bearing on this subject. As the hon. gentleman's object was no doubt to get these papers and reports embalmed on the records of ' Hansard,' his purpose is accomplished. What are the facts as they present themselves to the department and as they present themselves from a careful perusal of the reports and documents received ? The facts are, that Joseph A. Gillies, a former member of this House of Commons, a gentleman very highly respected in the community in which he lives, and a candidate in the last election at Richmond, reported to the department that this man Bourque had, to his own personal knowledge, been guilty of active partisanship, reciting the details of the partisanship and asking for his dismissal. I cannot

bring myself to believe for one single minute, knowing Mr. Gillies as I do, that Mr. Gillies would take the responsibility of making an accusation saying he did it from personal knowledge of the facts, if he did not have personal knowledge of the facts and was not sure of his ground. On Mr. Gillies' recommendation, it was decided to dismiss Bourque from his position as lightkeeper; but, yielding to the request of the hon. member for Richmond, I ordered an investigation to be held, and the matter was placed in the hands of Mr. Duchemin, who was conducting investigations into matters of offensive partisanship in the eastern part of Nova Scotia. Mr. Duchemin reported to the department that he had decided to hold an investigation on the 27th of September, that notice had been sent to Mr. Bourque and to the complainant, that Bourque had appeared, but no witnesses had appeared to give testimony against him. Bourque declined to be sworn or to make any statement under oath to be transmitted to the department. There is the report received from Mr. Duchemin, that no witnesses appeared to testify and Bourque declined to be sworn or to make any statement that could be sent to the department. Now, the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) says that is not a true statement of what took place. It is a statement given in the solemn report of the commissioner to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and the only statement regarding the matter that I have before me; and not one single statement to the contrary effect was ever made to me until I heard it here to-day by the hon. member for Richmond. It was represented to me that there was a mistake, that witnesses were prepared to attend and give evidence that Bourque was a notorious partisan and an active worker in the Liberal interests; and in consequence of that Mr. Duchemin was instructed to take up the matter, to notify Bourque and the complainant and get the evidence on both sides. Mr. Duchemin, having received those instructions, reported to the department that Bourque was duly notified of the time and place of hearing; but was not present; that his wife came before the beginning of the inquiry and stated her husband was not feeling well enough to be present, but that in any case he did not intend to appear as he had nothing further to say in addition to the statement already sent forward.
I wrote to the hon. member for Richmond and told him that if Bourque would state
IMr. Hazen.]
that he had not taken part in elections I would order an investigation to be held. Therefore we have the statement of Mr. Duchemin to the effect that Bourque's wife appeared before him and said he did not intend to appear before him and in any circumstance he had made a statement that had been sent to the department. Mr. Duchemin says:
I advised her that any statement he had previously sent forward to the department would he of no avail with this investigation, and it would be necessary for him to come personally before me if he wished to have any statement sent forward to the department. X further advised her that he might appear either during the inquiry or at any time before I left River Bourgeois and that I would be pleased to transmit to the department any statements he might wish to make.
According to that report of Mr. Duchemin, every opportunity was given to Bourque to reply to the evidence that was to be given at that investigation. He made no attempt to do so and had he represented to Mr. Duchemin that he would give on a later date a reply to the evidence given at that investigation, I have not the slightest doubt that every opportunity would have been afforded him to do so. But on the contrary he did not do so, and we have the statement of the commission that his wife told him he did not intend to appear anyway because he relied upon the statement he had previously made and which had been filed with the department. The commissioner went on to take the evidence and made his report. Three witnesses were examined and this is the report:
Mr. Levisconte whom I understand is a native of River Bourgeois testified that he had being doing business at River Bourgeois for about twenty-one years and that he knew everybody living in the district. He added that he had always taken an active interest in political matters on the Conservative side and was well acquainted with the political workers on both sides of politics; that he had known Bourque for years and declared he had been for years a most objectionable partisan.
Mr. Levisconte said: 'In the Dominion election of 1908, when the campaign was in progress, Marin Bourque used most objectionable language toward the Conservative. He spoke of them as 'that dirty party.' He said: 'I would never vote for that dirty party'. He said this to me here in River Bourgeois. Mr. Levisconte added that while Marin Bourque was not a man who exercised much influence in the district, he had nevertheless always been offensive and objectionable as a Liberal partisan.
Aaiother witness appeared and gave evidence. Mr. Boudreau testified:
That Mr. Bourque had been in the habit of 'talking politics openly in a nasty and insulting way.' Witness said: 'In the 1908 election, I was

working in the interests of Mr. Ferguson, the Conservative candidate. A few days before the election, Mr. Bourque said, *1 was a fool to he working for that party (the Conservative party) because they were going to get licked anyway/
If that is not canvassing and trying to influence voters in an election I would like to know what is.
Mr. Boudreau corroborated the statement of Mr. Bevisconte that while Marin Bourque was never in a position to do much for his party, that he had always been openly offensive when elections were taking place.
Mr. Bourque had an opportunity of appearing at the investigation, or at any time later on when the commissioner was in River Bourgeois, to give evidence and deny the truth of the statements made against him but he did not choose to do so, and I say it is no wonder therefore that the commissioner concludes his report by saying:
I therefore find that Marin Bourque has been an offensive partisan and that on this ground the department was warranted in dispensing with his services.
These are the facts as they appear on the files of t'he department. The hon. member for Richmond asked me to accept his statement to the effect that Duchemin has acted in a most dishonest and outrageous manner: that he has made statements that are not true, to the department; that he has deceived the department and that the statements contained in his report are false and untrue. I fail to understand what purpose Mr. Duohemin could have in doing anything of that sort. He was acting under a commission from the Government under the Enquiries Act, and what purpose he could have had in making a report to the department that was not true, is something which I entirely fail to understand, and 1 will not accept that as being true in regard to Mr. Duchemin, unless absolute evidence is given of that fact. Mr. Duchemin has been accused by my hon. friend from Richmond. He is not here to defend himself, and I want to say to my hon. friend from Richmond that I will accept that report of Mr. Duchemin until the contrary is shown to be true, for I cannot believe that any responsible man, as I believe Mr. Duchemin to be, would take the course of making false statements regarding evidence given before him, when the making of those false statements would injure a man, who in the opinion of my hon. friend from Richmond, was innocent of the charges made against him. The facts are all there and quite clear. If the facts contained in that report of Mr. Duchemin are true, there is no doubt whatever that this man was a partisan, and a most objectionable partisan, and under the rule laid down by this House some years ago, he had no reason to find fault because of his dismissal from office.


George William Kyte: If this was the first time
we had heard of Mr. DucheminJs conduct in the province of Nova Scotia, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries might more successfully put on an air of seeming offence at the challenge offered as to the character of his commissioner. Does the hon. minister forget that in the last session of Parliament a case was brought by me to his attention where he summoned Michael O'Brien, keeper of the light of Bear Island, to appear" before him at Port Malcolm to answer certain charges. Mr. Duchemin held the court at Port Hawkesbury, nine miles away, so that it was impossible for O'Brien to attend to answer the charges. It may become the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to have a defective memory to-night, because it is not convenient to remember all the facts and circumstances brought to his attention with regard to his blessed commissioner down in Cape Breton. Does the hon. minister not know that it was brought to the attention of the House, that notwithstanding Mr. Duchemin was directed to allow counsel to appear for the accused, he absolutely refused to hear counsel and took the conduct of the case entirely in his own hands. Mr. Duchemin in his second report to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries does not state that he told Mrs. Bourque that it was his intention to summon other witnesses to give testimony against her husband. He simply said:	I come here
for the purpose of getting a statement from your husband, inasmuch as no statement has been made by him that I can forward to Ottawa. Had Mr. Duchemin told Mrs. Bourque: ' there are two witnesses who are prepared to give evidence against you,' and if in face of the knowledge of that fact Bourque had shown indifference to his interest and refused to attend the inquiry, then the Minister of Marine might have some semblance of excuse for the conduct of Duchemin in this respect. Mr. Bourque knew that at the investigation held in the month of September no evidence was given against him, and that no evidence could be given against him in that regard. He knew he was not obliged to give evidence in reply to a charge that had not been proved against

him, and inasmuch as his statement made on oath was in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, did he not do what any sane man would have done under the circumstances when he said: As there is no evidence against me, there is nothing for me to answer and my statement stands in the office of the Department of Marine at the present time. There is the whole case. The Minister of Marine says that Bourque had an opportunity of appearing before Duchemin. Opportunity to appear for what purpose? He appeared before him in the month of September. Mr. Levisconte, the star witness, was called and his evidence was so ridiculous, so defective, and fell so far short of. proving the charge against Bourque, that even Duchemin, in view of my presence and the presence of others there, would not undertake to report that evidence was given against him sufficient to justify his dismissal. But I state that Duchemin sent a deceptive report to the Minister of Marine, for which, of course, I do not hold the minister responsible, because I aver again that Levisconte was called -and was examined by Duchemin, and having failed to give evidence to implicate the accused as regards the charges made against him, Mr. Duchemin was obliged to drop the case. After I made the inquiry as to whether or not the lightkeeper was to be reinstated, 1 found that a second inquiry was ordered by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. When I heard that I addressed a letter to the minister expressing my astonishment.
, The letter is dated December 16, 1912, and reads as follows:
Hon. J. D. Hazen,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir,-With reference to the dismissal of Marin Bourque, lightkeeper at River Bourgeois, who was dismissed in the month of April last; You are aware that an investigation was held into the charges of partisanship made 'against him, before Mr. Duchemin on the 26th day of September, last.
I am very much surprised to learn that Mr. Bourque was again summoned to appear before Duchemin for investigation on the 12th of December instant, to answer to the same charges. I cannot believe that Mr. Duchemin had authority from you to institute the second inquiry, and I would be obliged if you will inform me whether or not he was so instructed.
To which letter I received the following reply:
Office of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries of Canada,
Ottawa, December 18, 1912.
Dear Sir,-I am in receipt of yours of the 16 th instant expressing surprise that further

investigation was held into charges preferred against Mr. Marin Bourque, keeper of the light at River Bourgeois.
In reply I have to inform you that subsequent to the receipt of a report from Mr. Duchemin, barrister, Sydney, N.S., who was instructed to examine into the charges of partisanship preferred against Mr. Bourque, verbal representations were made to me to the effect that testimony was available to prove the allegations made against Mr. Bourque, and that further opportunity should be offered for its production.
After carefully considering the matter, 1 decided to re-open it and instructed Mr. Duchemin to arrange for a rehearing at River Bourgeois at his early convenience, serving all interested parties with notice of the time and place of inquiry. I am awaiting Mr. Duche-min's report.
Yours faithfully,
J. D. Hazen.
I am curious to know from what source the minister received this verbal information. Perhaps he would not mind stating to me now who was the person who gave the information to him.


John Douglas Hazen: One of them was Mr. Gillies, and I think there were others.


George William Kyte: Mr. Gillies is the gentleman who made the statement in the beginning that this man Bourque was a partisan, a man against whom not a single tittle of evidence could be produced by men who had known him for twenty years. Mr. Gillies lives in the city of Sydney, almost 100 miles from where Mr. Bourque resided. He does not visit the county of Richmond except when an election campaign is on and how could Mr. Gillies be in possession of certain facts of an intimate character that his friend, Mr. Levisconte, did not know about although he had lived for twenty years within gunshot of Mr. Bourque himself?
The name of Mr. Gillies is not heard in
this House to-night for the first time. I will refrain from making a reply to the compliment that the minister paid him this evening for the reason that Mr. Gillies is not present and is therefore not able to defend himself. But it is within the recollection of the members of this committee that certain facts and circumstances were brought before the attention of this House last year which do not reflect very much to the credit of Mr. Gillies and do not contribute very much to the credit of the minister himself who acted upon the recommendations which Mr. Gillies made to him. One of the most serious allegations brought against any member of this Government was made during the last session of Parliament by myself in respect to the release

from jail of a man who had been tried and committed for forgery, in order that he might enjoy the emoluments of public office conferred upon him by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries on a recommendation that was made by Mr. Gillies. In view of the fact that the minister is able to stand up to-day without a blush upon his countenance and speak of the high character of Mr. Gillies, and justify himself in accepting his recommendation, I have very little hope that the minister will alter the fatuous course he has pursued with regard to taking Mr. Gillies to his political and personal bosom as he has done heretofore.


John Howard Sinclair: The discussion in regard to our old friend, Mr. Duchemin, makes it necessary for me to make a correction in a statement of the hon Minister of Marine and Fisheries appearing in ' Hansard ' a few days ago in regard to the money that is being paid to this executioner in the province of Nova Scotia for cutting off the heads of decent people. I made inquiries last year in regard to the large sums that were paid to this gentleman for the very unfair and disreputable work that he has been hired to do in that province, and the Government were kind enough to give me a pretty full return. The other day I wanted to pursue this inquiry a little further and obtain additional particulars as to the amount of money paid to Mr. Duchemin since the time at which the previous report was placed on the table, the 21st May, 1913. I accordingly framed a new series of questions for that purpose. My first question is:
1. What was the gross amount paid by all departments of the Government to H. P. Duchemin, commissioner, from the date of his appointment to December 31, 1913, for his services in connection with investigations of partisanship, including travelling and living expenses?
The minister undertakes to answer that question, and this is his answer as it appears in ' Hansard ':
Mr. Hazen:	1. $1,664.85.
I submit that this answer is incorrect, and I assume that the mistake arises from the minister referring only to his own department and not to all the departments of Government.


John Douglas Hazen: That answer, of course,
should have gone to the Secretary of State.


John Howard Sinclair: It was produced in the House by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The answer was handed to the clerk and it appears in ' Hansard ' as the answer from all the departments of the Government. The answer I got last year from the various departments of the Government who made answer was-


John Douglas Hazen: Will the hon. gentleman
tell me what page of ' Hansard ' that is on?


John Howard Sinclair: I think it was yesterday or the day before. It was quite recently. I was pointing out that last year, on the 21st May, when I made this inquiry in regard to the money paid to this gentleman, by all the departments of the Government I got the following reply:
Post Office Department, $1,053.78; Railways and Canals, $1,850.15 ; Marine and Fisheries, $1,691.10.
You will note, Mr. Chairman, that the sum paid by the Department of Marine and Fisheries last year was larger than the sum that the hon. minister tells me now was paid by all the departments of Government since the appointment of Mr. Duchemin.
Department of Public Works, $389.48; Department of Customs, $1,190.66; Department of Agriculture, $124.66.
Making a total paid to Mr. Duchemin of $6,299.77 up to the 21st day of May, 1913. In addition to that certain sundries were charged up by this gentleman and paid by the various departments amounting to the sum of $697.21. It is clear, therefore, that there must be some error in the return that has been given to me by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


John Douglas Hazen: It is perfectly clear what that error was. These answers are all prepared in the departments and sent to the Department of the Secretary of State which is the collecting department. The Secretary of State has to answer general questions of this sort addressed to the Government, the answers to which have to come from the several departments. This answer should have been handed to the Secretary of State, but evidently, through some mistake, it has been sent to me here in the House by an official of the department, and I have handed it in as the answer to the question. Instead of that, it should have gone to the Secretary of State and he should have collected the answers from the different departments and totalled the amounts up altogether.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister see
that this is corrected and that a full and accurate report is given to the House?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. I think that ought to be struck out of ' Hansard ' because it gives an entirely incorrect impression. The question ought to be answered by the Secretary of State giving the full information after having collected it from the different departments which have used the services of Mr. Duchemin as a commissioner. I do not know whether it can be struck out of ' Hansard ' now or not, but I will consult with Mr. Speaker and see what can be done.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister
explain to me how it was that on the 21st May, 1913, his department reported to the House that $1,691.10 had been paid for expenses to Mr. Duchemin. It also appears by the answers I have just referred to that Mr. Duchemin did additional work during the current year since the date of the answers. The amount which is now stated is less, namely $1,664.85. Can the minister explain that?


John Douglas Hazen: I cannot explain it at the moment. I will have to find out at the department. I do not prepare these answers. They are prepared by the accountant of the department. Will the hon. gentleman let me get the facts? The question was:
What was the gross amount paid by all departments of the Government to H. P. Duchemin, commissioner, from the date of his appointment to December 31, 1913, for his services in connection with investigations of partisanship, including travelling and living expenses?
And the answer given is:

You say that the answer given last year conflicts with this?


John Howard Sinclair: The amount on the 21st of May, 1913, was stated as $1,961.10.


John Douglas Hazen: What question is that in answer to?


John Howard Sinclair: I have not the question, but you will find it in ' Hansard ' of the 21st of May, 1913. There will also be an error in the number of investigations or the number of parties whose dismissal Mr. Duchemin recommended. The question is, ' How many dismissals of officials did the said Mr. Duchemin recommend in all the departments?' The answer is ' sixty-seven,' which of course is incorrect, as well as the amount of money.


John Douglas Hazen: That refers to the Department of Marine and Fisheries only.


John Howard Sinclair: I thought that last year, after all the information that we had laid before the minister in regard to this gentleman, Mr. Duchemin, that my hon. friend would have made some investigation in regard to Mr. Duchemin's character, and that he would not come before the House at this date and say that he would give him the benefit of the doubt in regard to the conduct of investigations. Mr. Duchemin violated the law in many particulars, which were pointed out to my hon. friend and the other members of the Government at the last session of Parliament. Everybody knows that under the Investigation Act, every official has the right to be represented by counsel. It is the common right of every British subject. I do not care what the charge against a man is, it may be murder, treason, or any capital charge, but it has always been recognized in every British court that a man charged with any kind of crime has the right to be represented by counsel. This was so apparent to everybody that the Prime Minister insisted on placing it in the Investigation Act, and some of his friends had headlines placed in the newspapers showing what a magnanimous gentleman the Prime Minister was that he would give those poor Grit officials who were being charged with partisanship the right to be represented by counsel. This must have been known to Mr. Duchemin, because he is a lawyer; and if he had not read the Investigation Act, certainly he was not fit for the position in which my hon. friend had placed him. I am not charging Mr. Duchemin with anything that I cannot prove. If my hon. friend requires any proof, 1 can give it to him from the mouth of Mr. Duchemin himself. If my hon. friend will refer to a return that was placed before the House last year, in regard to the dismissal of Mr. R. Conroy, postmaster at Country Harbour, N.S., he will find the following language from Mr. Duchemin's report. Mr. Duchemin says:
Mr. Floyd, who is, I understand, a solicitor in the town,-
that is, the town of Guysborough

-asked if he might represent one of the accused at the hearing. I declined to allow him to act, herein following the precedent laid down by Mr. J. T. Ross, the commissioner appointed in 1896-7, to do similar work. I had months before declined to hear counsel on the ground that it would unduly prolong these hearings and would involve very great delay in reaching the many cases that had to be taken up.
There were so many people who had to have their heads cut off that Mr. Duchemin could not be bothered going into the de-

tails to see whether a man was guilty or not. What he considered to be his duty was to go along as fast as possible and to do this work without finding out whether there was a defence or not. He goes on to say:
My attitude in this regard was subsequently confirmed by the department for which I was carrying on the inquiry.
I do not know whether that is true or not. On several occasions I have tried to find out what department that was. I have a question on the Order Paper now, and I trust my hon. friend will be able to give me that information.


John Douglas Hazen: The question on the Order Paper is not addressed to me.


John Howard Sinclair: Mr. Duchemin, whom
my hon. friend represents here to-night as being a fit official to conduct investigations, makes the statement that some department of this Government instructed him not to allow counsel to be present at these hearings. He further states that his attitude in this regard was subsequently confirmed by the department for which he was carrying on the inquiry.


John Douglas Hazen: He made that answer in
a letter written to me, and I instructed him to retain counsel. Therefore, it does not refer to me.


John Howard Sinclair: This refers to the Post Office Department, but I would like to have some department answer that question. I am addressing my speech now to the Secretary of State who represents all these departments. If a commissioner, who is appointed by an Order in Council, has been instructed by any department of the Government not to allow counsel to be employed in these investigations, I think it is our right to know which department of the Government has violated the law in that respect. I have endeavoured several times to find out which department it was, but so far I have not got any answer.
That is one instance, and Mr. Duchemin admits that for months he was travelling around the country dismissing officials, refusing them the right to be represented by counsel and practically not taking enough time over these investigations to discover whether the men were guilty or not. This is the man to whom we have paid the large sum of between $6,000 or $7,000 for doing work which it would have been far better not to have done at all. If there is anything at all worth while having in this
country, it is fair play and justice. If we could get that, we would not mind paying for it, but we do not want to be compelled to pay good money for the kind of justice that we have been getting from Mr. Duchemin. It is an imposition, and it would be much more to the credit of my hon. friend if he would dismiss these officials at once, take the heads off all these lightkeepers who were Liberals without any investigation or without anything more than simply a letter or a telegram as was done in some instances in my constituency, than that hasty investigations should be carried on and men who were innocent should be found guilty without a proper trial. There was a case of very great hardship in my constituency. It was a very small affair, but it just shows how small a great political party can be on some occasions. A man by the name of George Jollotta was employed as fishery guardian on the St. Mary's river. He had held the position for a number of years, and was a good officer. He was unfortunate in having a very severe illness which ended in the amputation of both his legs above the knee. He was therefore very much crippled, and it was only because he was a man of great pluck and perseverance that he was able to make a living at all. Everybody was pleased at the fact that Jollotta under such circumstances still kept on the struggle to make a living and did not appeal to the county to assist him. He had a very small position of fishery guardian on the St. Mary's river at a salary 'of $20 a year. He had filled the position for four or five years, and he had filled it'very well. The principal duty of an officer on that river is to watch the salmon nets and to see that the nets are not placed too far across the channel of the stream. Jollotta furnished himself with a motor boat, and was able to get up and down the river, watch the nets and do his work very well. Last year when I referred incidentally to this matter, hon. members asked me why we employed a man of that description as a fishery guardian. I want to explain to the House that he was able to do the work very well indeed. He was a faithful officer, and owing to the fact that he could get among the nets with his motor boat he could do just as well as a man who was able to use both his legs. Without an investigation Mr. Jollotta was dismissed and his position given to one of the friends of the Minister, of Marine and Fisheries. This is perhaps one of the worst cases that happened in the county I have the honour to represent. I know what the

minister's answer will be. He will say that fishery guardians are appointed not by Order in Council, but at the will of the Government, and are supposed to he appointed every year. That is true, but the minister will find, if he looks over the records, that in my constituency' at all events, the same fishery guardians have held office for many years. A man becomes accustomed to the work, and if he proves a good officer we never think of changing him. It would be a very poor excuse for taking away a little twenty-dollar job from a man like this-that the reason you took the job from him was that you had the power to do so. The story of this man is very well told in a statement which appeared in the Morning Chronicle at the time it happened:
The said- George Jollotta a few years ago was the victim of tubercular disease of the . knees, and his life was saved by having his legs amputated at the hips. By industry, frugality, and the help of friends, he was enabled to have himself fitted with a pair of artificial legs. Mr. Jollotta's family consists of his widowed mother, about 80 years old, and two children about five 'and six years old.
Nothwithstanding these infirmities, by industry and perseverance, he was able to make a living for himself and family. The $20 he received for duties as river warden was a great help to him in his struggles. He built himself a little boat in which he had a three horse-power gasoline engine installed. In this boat he performed his duties of river warden and followed his occupation, fishing.
People were glad to see this young man's energy and admired his pluck and enterprise. Any help that could be rendered him without hurting his sense of independence was always gladly given by well disposed people. Many a person in like circumstances would have given up the fight and have become a charge on the public. Not so with George Jollotta. Despite his disabilities he struggled on and made a living for himself and helpless dependents.
On September 21, 1911, a change took place. The * party of gentlemen ' came into power and they immediately cast envious eyes on the $20 job of this worthy citizen, and one of the first public acts of the great ' Imperialist,' Mr. Borden, the guarlian of the public service, was to deprive poor crippled George Jollotta of this little $20 job and give it to one of the hungry Tory office seekers-to a man in the prime of health and strength, and who rumour says had no time to attend to any of the duties of river warden, without it is, to draw the $20 salary.
So much for an example of the acts of the great ' Imperial party of gentlemen ' in this county.
I know that the minister himself is a very high-minded and honourable gentleman, which makes it all the more amazing that he should permit his supporters, for the sake of a shabby twenty dollars, to take a position away from a man who had lost both his legs. I thought, therefore, that

the case should be placed on ' Hansard ' to show how far these gentlemen will go in these matters.
My hon. friend, in his speech the other evening on the transportation of fish, boasted about what his party had done in the fish hatcheries throughout the country. I took the , trouble to look the matter -up to see if any new departure had been taken in this important matter, 'and to my amazement I found that nothing had been done except to dismiss sixteen skilled officers from the fish hatcheries and replace them with sixteen untrained men. Everybody knows that fish hatcheries must be run by skilled mein, for it takes years to learn the business. The late Government would not appoint a .man in charge of a fish hatchery, unless he had had a training in some other hatchery and understood the work. There are some branches of the public service that ought to be clearly above politics. These fish hatchery positions are small at the best. But the importance of the service should be considered. I told the minister last year and I repeat now, that the life saving service on the coast should not be regarded as political and that even if a man in charge of a life-saving station should be indiscreet enough to say a word in favour of the other side in politics, that is no reason why he should be dismissed if he is a good man. The position is so important that if the man is the right man for the position, the Government might well take the position that the lifesaving service-and -the same applies to the hatchery service-should be outside of politics. Otherwise, see what the result will be. If the Government should change next year, as we expect it will, there will be a demand for the dismissal of these sixteen men from the hatcheries and the reinstatement of the sixteen men who had been dismissed before. The same with the life saving service. And I must say, looking at it from this distance from the event, that that is the right thing to do, for I have no doubt that in many cases these dismissed officers had more experience and were better, practical men than those who succeeded them. But under this principle you could not build up good service in this or any department. These are matters which, because of their importance, I lay before the committee and call to the special attention of the minister.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman referred to a case in liis county of George Jollotta. I think he is hard up for material

when he brings that case before the committee. He knows that the position which Mr. Jollotta occupied is a mere temporary position and that the practice which prevails now prevailed when hon. gentlemen opposite were in office-the member for the constituency supporting the Government was asked to name parties to fill these positions. The hon. gentleman said that the same men continued to hold these offices in Guysborough year after year. So they did, probably, some of them, for about fifteen years, but that was because the same party was in power during the whole of that time. But in 1896, when the Government he supported came into office, practically every fishery guardian in Canada was dismissed and new men put in their places-or rather not dismissed, but simply not reappointed, for these are temporary employees. The hon. gentleman sheds tears over this case,-1 never heard the man's name before-yet he supported a government that treated in the same way practically every fishery overseer in Canada.


John Howard Sinclair: We never dismissed a man who had no legs.


John Douglas Hazen: I quite fail to understand how ia man who had no legs could be an efficient fishery guardian, although we would not, of course, expect a man to do very much for $20 a year. With regard to the fish hatcheries, it is the opinion of the officers of the department who have charge of that work that the fish hatcheries in Canada were never in as efficient a condition as they are at the present time. This year they are filled with eggs practically to capacity, and we expect next season to have the best results that have been obtained since we first had fish hatcheries in Canada.


William John Macdonald: I regret that I was not here the whole evening, but I have heard enough of the debate to enable me to say a word or two to my hon. friend the minister in regard to the methods in which dismissals are made in Nova Scotia through the agency of Mr. Duchemin. When my hon. friend started out to make dismissals, I am surprised that this Government did not find some better instrument for that work than this bold and ruthless gentleman, Mr. Duchemin, who is simply .a cheap partisan, possessing no qualifications whatever to carry out any judicial duties or to conduct examinations. True, he was a member of the bar, but
that is about all that can be said of him. So far as his judicial aptitude is concerned, I know of no member of the bar in the province of Nova Scotia who is less fitted than this man to perform judicial duties. Let us -consider his method of administering oaths. Does my hon. friend the minister know whether he administered oaths in -any of the inquiries which he conducted, and, if so, what kind of oaths did he administer ? Of course the minister accepted as a matter of course anything that this gentleman said. But let me tell him a little -story concerning the manner in which this exemplary judicial official administered oaths. A charge was made against -a gentleman in another department of the Government in the province of Nova Scotia, and at the inquiry a witness by the name of Currie was called to give evidence. This gentleman gave testimony which would go to indicate that the accused person should he dismissed. Immediately after the investigation was held the gentleman accused denied upon oath the assertions made by Mr. Currie, and proceeded to have him arrested for perjury. When the case came up for trial at the Supreme Court, what defence do you think Mr. Currie made? He said: 'I was not sworn at all; no legal oath was administered to me.' He asserted that Mr. Ducheimin did not administer to him the oath the law contemplates, asking him to pledge the truth of his statements. And whom did Mr. Currie call as a witness on his own behalf but Mr. Duchemin himself, who proceeded to swear that he had not handed a copy of the Holy Gospels to Mr. Currie when the oath was administered; he simply asked him to hold up -his hand.


Mr. STANFIELD:: They are a bad crowd of lawyers in Nov-a Scotia.


William John Macdonald: Not a bad crowd of lawyers, but a bad investigator, and, in this particular case, a bad witness. This Mr. Duchemin, this splendid judicial officer whom the Government picked out to try this case with such beautiful impartiality, in order to save his good Tory friend, Mr. Currie, from the necessity of serving a term in the penitentiary, swears that he did not administer to him an oath in the manner in which it is administered in the Nova Scotia courts. The jury, however, under the direction of the judge, who instructed them that this was an oath pro forma, proceeded to find Mr. Currie, this good Tory, guilty of perjury. He was sent to the

penitentiary, and he is there now. But the Conservative organization immediately proceeded to have the case taken on a reserved question before the full Court of Nova Scotia. Here it was argued long and seriously that the evidence given by Mr. Currie was no evidence at all, because it had not been given under oath administered upon the Holy Gospels. It appeared that Mr. Duchemin at no time in any of his investigations had ever asked a witness to swear upon the Holy Gospels. What occurred? Two of the learned judges of the province of Nova Scotia, one of them in a judgment which is remarkable so far as judicial investigation upon oaths is concerned, decided that Mr. Currie had not been properly sworn by Mr. Duchemin. By a majority of one, the court decided that the oath having been an oath pro forma and having been taken by Mr. Currie with the intention of pledging himself to the truth, the charge of perjury would lie. But the Conservative organization of Nova Scotia, which had promoted the prosecutions in the counties of Guys-borough, Yarmouth-indeed, in all the counties of Nova Scotia, including that of Richmond-put up the funds necessary to, raise the issue that the methods adopted by Mr. Duchemin in swearing witnesses examined by him were wholly and totally illegal. The Conservative organization put up further funds; they carried the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, applied for a writ of habeas corpus, and asked that court to review the decision of the Nova Scotia court. The higher court held, as did the majority of the judges of the Nova Scotia court, that, an oath pro forma having been administered to this witness, and the witness having pledged himself to the truth, there was perjury in law. This gentleman, Mr. Currie, unless my hon. friends have let him out within the last day or two, as they did in the case of Landry from Richmond, is now in the penitentiary serving a term for having sworn falsely before this great inquisitor. It appeared in the course of the investigation in regard to Mr. Currie's case that Mr. Duchemin had at no time asked the witness to pledge himself to the truth by kissing the Book. So that, if my hon. friends want to be fair in regard to this matter, they ought to issue a second commission to go out and investigate Mr. Duchemin, and ascertain how many people have committed perjury in giving evidence before him.


John Stanfield: When you spoke of
the Conservative organization of Nova

Scotia, did you mean the provincial or the local organization?


William John Macdonald: If my hon. friend
will tell me which one it was that put up the money, I will tell him which I meant.


John Stanfield: I am a member of the executive of the provincial organization in Nova Scotia, and not one dollar was put up by that organization.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend did
not attend all the meetings, I hope. Or is there a secret service executive of the association?


John Stanfield: I have made my statement. I know what I am talking about.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend has
told us he knows all about it.


John Stanfield: I do not. I simply make one statement.


William John Macdonald: Will he tell whether there is an executive committee of the provincial association of Nova Scotia?


John Stanfield: I am a member of it.


William John Macdonald: Have you been present at all the meetings?


John Stanfield: I have not, but I know all that is going on.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend has a system of mesmeric knowledge in regard to these things. He knows what is going on when he is not there. I presume they did not take him into their confidence when they raised this issue that the men who had purported to have sworn before Duchemin had never sworn. This particular combination of the executive knew that my hon. friend would be up here in the House and they said:	We will settle this thing without consulting John Stanfield, so he will know nothing about it. The consequence was my hon. friend Was not present when that was done. But everyone in Nova Scotia who looks at the counsel who argued the case knows that they had not done the work for nothing. They also know that Curry has no money to put up to employ counsel and also that the argument was made to save Curry from remaining in the penitentiary where he had gone. Who put up the money to make the argument before the Supreme Court? This is the kind of splendid judicial inquiries we have been having under this Government. I admire the assurance of the Minister of Marine. I would accept his word in regard to matters connected with his own province, but I want

to tell him that he should not labour under any delusion as to the status of the gentleman who conducted these inquiries in Nova Scotia. The character of these investigations is evidenced in the prosecution and detention in the penitentiary at this moment of one of the gang who went out in that province to swear away the livelihood of honest men who had been faithfully performing their duty. He had better beware of his advisers from Nova Scotia and of the character of the investigations held there under his department. The hon. member for Yarmouth called attention to a case in which my hon. friend did not find it necessary to send anyone to take an oath. I would rather see him cut off the head of anybody on the evidence of a reputable man, if he was a member of this House, than to proceed in the method in which they did in the province in connection with Mr. Duche-min's investigations. One of the first duties that every administrator of a Government has to the people who put him there is to preserve unstained the respect for the administration of justice in every form. Over and above any mere question of party political expediency or advantage to be gained for the moment through the dismissal of men to find places for party friends, stands the preservation, clear and without taint, of the administration of justice in every province. But the minister proceeded by appointing a oommis-sioner like Mr. Duchemin, who has dragged in the mire the administration of justice in Nova Scotia. The disclosures in the Curry case show that oaths were considered to be of no consequence whatever, and that statements were obtained from men under the pretence that the making of oaths in a tribunal was a mere figure of speech, which had no effect as a matter of law or of right. The Government will do better, when they want to make a dismissal, to take the word of men in this House, whose word I would accept because they are prepared to defend it; but when they go outside and take suggestions from indiscriminate quarters or appoint men to carry on the administration of justice after the manner of this tribunal, with the results I have indicated in the prosecution and detention of this man Curry and this argument before the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, they do more wrong to the whole body politic of this country in obstructing the administration of justice than they could possibly inflict in any other way.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister intend to investigate the conduct of Mr. Duchemin?


John Douglas Hazen: I have no such intention.


John Howard Sinclair: It is a matter of great importance, I understand, from the answer received the other day, that Mr. Duchemin is still in the employ of his department, and that if any more trials are to take place in eastern Nova Scotia, Duchemin is the man to conduct them.


John Douglas Hazen: We hope we will have no more trials.


John Howard Sinclair: I have pointed out to my hon. friend that Mr. Duchemin has disregarded the law in regard to persons being represented by counsel, that he did that over and over again at the various trials in my constituency and in other constituencies in eastern Nova Scotia. 1 pointed out last year to my hon. friend that in the trial of Phillip H. Ryan, which afterwards came before the Supreme Court at Guysborough, he wilfully suppressed important evidence that he ought to have disclosed to the department at the time. My hon. friend from Pictou has pointed out his disgraceful conduct in regard to the case of Currie, who is now in the penitentiary. If the Minister of Marine will not say at this stage, after all these charges have been so specifically laid against Duchemin, that he will make an investigation into his manner of holding inquiries and also of charging fees, it will be a great disappointment to this House. The hon. member for North Cape Breton last year drew attention to a case where he tried some four people in one afternoon in some place in Cape Breton, all charged with partisanship. The whole proceeding only occupied two or three hours. He was entitled to $15 a day for his work. He split up the different trials that he held on that afternoon into four days as I understood the hon. member for North Cape Breton, and charged $60 for work for which he ought to have charged only $15. There are specific charges made against this man, over and over again, in this House and if the minister will not take any action he must be held responsible for the conduct of Duchemin.


Onésiphore Turgeon: The minister will remember that directly on coming to office he dismissed nearly all the officers in his department in the county which I represent; the fishery officers especially were



dismissed at the request of the defeated candidate, for partisanship.
When I saw my hon. friend taking that action, I took it for granted that it was based on the lofty principle of reform of the Civil Service, and that it meant that the new men appointed to the vacancies would certainly he very reticent and would attend to their duty without any interference in politics. However, knowing, as I happen to know, the men appointed, their political tendencies and their activity in elections, I hesitate to believe that their appointment will bring about reform in the Civil Service in the county of Gloucester. I may say to my hon. friend that many of these men-I can give the names if he wishes it- have been very active and even after their appointment have remained members of the organization committees in their respective homes in the county of Gloucester. They have even signed petitions for the decapitation of other officials who have been dismissed from office at their request. I put a question a few days ago to the Minister of Customs in regard to two of his officers, sub-collectors at Lameque and Tracadie, and he told me they would have to quit the political organizations. He even offered to write them immediately, advising them to retire from those organizations. I have no doubt that has been done. And would my hon. friend the Minister of Marine be not only as courteous to me, but as faithful to his principles already enunciated, to similarly notify those officials whose names I will give him if he tells me he will write them. They are men who have been very active until a few days ago. I might tell him that on the 14th of January last, just before I left home to come to this Parliament, the Conservative Association of the county of Gloucester had a meeting in Bathurst at which four or five of these officials attended.


John Douglas Hazen: Are they temporary or permanent officials?


Onésiphore Turgeon: They have replaced permanent officials. These men left their official positions to attend the meeting of the association for purposes of organization, and I might say that so far as my information goes, if the officials had not been there the meeting wrould have been a very small one. I do not raise any objection against the dismissals my hon. friend has made, but they must have been made upon a principle-offensive partisanship, and I *want to tell my hon. friend that ail

these officials for a long time past have	been offensive partisans	and
offensive both in nature and manners and I would like to give their names to the hon. minister:	James J. Doucet of Petit
Eocher, Edmund Arseneau of Inkerman, and Joseph O. Cbiasson of Lower Caraquet. The hon. minister should certainly appoint other men in place of these officials, and that will show that the dismissals of the past have not been made merely to punish men for being Liberals. I do not find fault with my hon. friend for appointing one of his own friends when there is a vacancy.
I myself have appointed Liberals from among my own friends. I only ask that the Government, if it really means to reform the outside civil service, should insist upon the officials sticking to their duty and if they wish to show any political activity remove them from office.


Mr. F. B. CAEVELL:: I do not want to take part in this phase of the debate to-night except to say that I am very glad indeed that my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries did not find an executioner in New Brunswick like the one in Nova Scotia.
I think you will pardon me if I congratulate him along that line. I must congratulate him upon the general standing of the gentleman who occupied that position in the province of New Brunswick. While this may not be the proper time, I, want to give my friend a little information and see whether he can give me a little information. He will remember that on the St. John river, some years ago there was an arrangement made by which people were allowed to fish for salmon.


John Douglas Hazen: That is a fisheries item..
We are dealing with the Marine items now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am just giving my
friend an outline so that he can look it up and let me know later. An arrangement was made I think by which they could fish for two weeks in the season. The close of the fishing season is, I think, August 14, or 15. It is a well-known fact that last year when the water was very low, the St. John had nets practically all the way across it, up in the county of Carleton, much later than the 14th of August. They were kept there right to the end of the month and even into September, and when objections were raised the reply was that they had authority to do it. I do not believe that is a fact but I wish the minister would look it up.


John Douglas Hazen: That would be impossible of course, but I will look into the matter.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think myself
that they had authority but I wish to point out to the minister that he has two officials in the county of Carleton who are simply a disgrace.


John Douglas Hazen: Who are they?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: One man's name is
Parker. I have not seen them fishing myself, but I am told by responsible people that they fished in season and out of season.


John Douglas Hazen: Will you give me the name of the other man?
Mr-. CARVELL:	I will get it for you.
These men I am told-and I would not make a statement like this publicly if I did not have some grounds for saying so- fish in season and out of season. They are well known poachers and succeeded in getting appointed for the simple purpose of poaching and allowing their friends and relatives to poach; and I wish my hon. friend would see if any such instructions or authority were given. While I do not believe they were, I want to be sure when this matter comes before the committee.


John Douglas Hazen: I will certainly get the
information for my hon. friend as the charge which he has made is, of course, a very serious one against men appointed to protect the fisheries. No time will be lost by my department in investigating the matter and finding out if there is any truth in it; and if such is the case, those men will not be allowed to continue in the department for a single minute.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have lots of evidence.


George William Kyte: What is the attitude of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to be towards persons appointed to office by him and who are found to be notorious partisans. Will he insist that these persons shall refrain from taking part in political work during their incumbency of office?


John Douglas Hazen: I have no doubt my hon. friend, when he gets into office, will turn them out very speedily.


George William Kyte: I am glad to know that the minister understands my character so well. That is what I would insist upon doing. If a man wants to interfere in politics he must take the responsibility of giving up his official position. That is the stand I have always taken, and, should I continue to be in public life and should my party come back to power, I shall adhere to that stand. But I would like to set- an answer 50i
from the minister on that subject. We had an answer from the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier) last year. He was frank enough to say that he would not permit any partisanship on the part of any official appointed to office by him. I would like to know if the minister agrees with the position taken by the Postmaster General.


John Douglas Hazen: I certainly agree with him.


George William Kyte: Then, I would inform the minister that an official of his department, appointed by him, in St. Peter's, was recently elected secretary of the Conservative Association for the county of Richmond. I would like the minister to take note of that matter and to give this official the choice between his official and political offices.


John Douglas Hazen: Certainly, if the hon. gentleman will give me the name. -


George William Kyte: Dr. John A. Macdonald,
.junior, port physician of the harbour of St. Peter's, who was, in the month of December last, elected to the position of secretary of the Conservative Association for that county.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, Feburary 16, 1914.