1914-02-27

PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 86, to incorporate The Canadian Alberta Railway Company.-Mr. Warnock.
Bill No. 87, to incorporate The Erie and Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Lalor.
Bill No. 88, respecting The London and Lake Erie Railway and Transportation Company.-Mr. Marshall.
Bill No. 89, respecting The University of Saskatchewan, and to change its name to ' The University of Emmanuel College.'- Mr. McKay.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Penitentiaries of Canada for the year ended March 31, 1913.-Hon. C. J. Doherty.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 90, to amend an Act relating to the establishment and expenses of the International Joint Commission under the Waterways Treaty of January 11, 1909.
He said:	This Bill is to make some
very minor changes in the Act. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is substituted for the Minister of Public Works, and some slight change is made in the clause relating to the expenses of the commission, 'but not in such a way as to increase the amounts already appropriated. The reason for the change is that proceedings before the International Joint Com-
[Stage Direction]
mission concern various departments from time to time, and occasionally more than one department, and it has been found not only convenient but necessary to detach a special officer for the purpose of watching these proceedings and safeguarding the interests of the country. For that reason Mr. Stewart, chief of the Hydrographic Survey was selected. He was appointed by Order in Council, as a temporary measure, to devote his whole time to the consideration of these cases, and he has been very fully occupied. In the United States they have a better system for that purpose than we have. All these matters are dealt with by a board of military engineers; they go to the War Department as a matter of course. We have not any corresponding organization which is so readily available; but we hope to find some more effective means of seeing that the interests of the country are properly safeguarded in these proceedings, some of which are of great importance in many respects. Some have so affected the interests of the provinces that they have been represented by counsel before the commissioners.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: Do I understand that the principal object of the Bill is to place the work under the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?


Mr. BORDEN:: To have the Department of External Affairs take charge, as it were, of all these applications, so that it can communicate with the various departments and see that they are attending to the matter. Sometimes, when more than one department is concerned, that seems to be absolutely necessary; otherwise there is a lack of co-ordination of effort.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: When is the Pecuniary Claims Commission to sit in Washington?


Robert Laird Borden: My colleague the Postmaster General tells me that it will sit almost at once-that the British Commissioner is leaving to-morrow for Washington.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
.CIVIL SERVICE APPOINTMENTS.
Hon. L. P. PELLETIER:: I desire to call the attention of the House to an answer given to a question placed on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Russell (Mt. Mur.phy), asking how many persons have
[Mr. Borden. 1
been appointed to the outside Civil Service since October, 1911, without having passed competitive examinations. This question was answered by the Secretary of State, who stated that 69 persons were appointed to the Post Office Department. I want to say that this answer has not come from the Post Office Department, but was prepared by the Civil Service Commissioners. To prevent any misunderstanding, I want to say that the number of persons who were' appointed as technical officers should have been stated as four. Sixty-nine persons were appointed to lower grade positions, such as messengers, porters and packers, under section 22, for which a competitive examination was not required.



CONSOLIDATION OF FISHERIES ACTS.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. D. J. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 71, to consolidate and amend the Acts respecting Fisheries and Fishing. He said: I explained this Bill pretty much in detail on the first reading. I am now moving the second reading with a view to having the Bill referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Marine and Fisheries.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Salaries and allowances to lig-htkeepers, $450,000.
['This is a Bill to allow the company further bonding powers. They found they could not finish their road on $30,000 per mile bonding power, and asked us to substitute $45,000. They also asked us, by section 2, to be allowed further borrowing powers. We have not changed the Bill as printed, but we have added a section protecting municipalities who had agreed, after submitting by-laws, to advance money to further assist the railway, because of the limited boundary powers ahead of their advances. They protested, and the committee gave effect to that protest, that they should not be now compelled to advance the money if we permitted the first mortgage, as it were, to be increased over them. Section 3, with the consent of the promoters, was added, and that protects the municipalities. So all parties are now satisfied. That section provides that they shall not use the extended powers now granted to them without releasing the municipalities from the agreements they made, with the former limited bonding ahead of them.\nBill reported, read the third time and passed.']
Mr. KYTE:: Does the department contemplate increasing the salaries of the light-keepers in the near future?


Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: A great many representations have been made to the department during the last year urging that there should be an increase in the salaries of the lightkeepers, but I understand that a general increase in the salaries of the lightkeepers took place within the last few years. While the department will give consideration to these representations, I would inform my hon. friend that the item under consideration does not provide for any general increase. The salaries are fixed on a certain scale, the lightkeepers

of a certain class are all paid the same and those of other classes receive the same salary.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: How many lightkeepers participated in that increase?


John Douglas Hazen: It was a general increase; every lighthouse keeper in the service participated in it.


George William Kyte: 
John Douglas Hazen: There has been n; change in that respect within the years that I have been in the department.


George William Kyte: I understand that lighthouse keepers are obliged to provide their own coal at the lighthouses?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


George William Kyte: There are some places where it is very difficult to get coal. Vessels charge a very high rate of freight to land coal at islands and places where there aTe no landing wharfs. Are lighthouse keepers obliged to pay these excessive freight rates?


John Douglas Hazen: There are places where
there are difficulties in getting coal and in those cases the department furnishes the coal to the lighthouse keeper and charges him the actual cost.


George William Kyte: That is actual cost of the
coal?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. There are some
cases where it is impossible to get anyone to deliver the coal and then it is done by one of the Government vessels at actual cost.


George William Kyte: There are no freight charges?


John Douglas Hazen: The lightkeeper is charged the actual cost of the coal without adding the cost of transporting the coal in a Government vessel to the lighthouse.


John Howard Sinclair: Is any distinction drawn between lightkeepers who are able to obtain wood for fuel and those who are living on islands or in places where there is no wood? I frequently have complaints that certain lighthouse keepers are in a position to supply themselves with fuel at
very little cost while others have to pay a very large amount for coal delivered by Government steamer or in some other way. Has the minister looked into that question?


John Douglas Hazen: I am told there is no difference made in the salaries of the lighthouse keepers in consequence of the conditions that are suggested by my hon. friend.


John Howard Sinclair: I would suggest .that the minister look into that and ask his inspector to report on cases of that kind.


John Douglas Hazen: Of course, my hon. friend knows that the classification of the different stations depends to some extent upon whether they are situated a short distance from civilization or the base of supplies. That is all taken into account in fixing the salaries of the different classes and by that means the department believe that th y equalize things pretty well.


Mr. LAW:: I would like to a,sk the minister if he has given instructions to the keeper of the Yarmouth light not to act as a pilot for vessels coming to the port of Yarmouth. It has been the custom for the lightkeeper at that station to do the piloting; in fact, about all the pilotage for vessels coming into the port has been d me by the lightkeeper. I understand the department have given notice to Mr. Doane, the lightkeeper, that in future he must notact as pilot. Is that the case?


John Douglas Hazen: The matter was brought up in the department in regard to the lighthouse keeper at the station to wh ch my hon. friend (Mr. Law) referred acting as pilot, it was discussed by the offic'als and their opinion was that a man must not absent himself from his light and that if a gentleman was acting as pilot he would have to be away from his light for a c n-siderable period of time. I am not prepared to say whether actual instructions were issued to him or not that he must not under any circumstances act as pilot, but I have no doubt that his attention was called to the fact that his duties as lighthouse - keeper required his constant attendance at his light and that it would he improper to engage in any other pursuits which would take him away from his light for any length of time.


Bowman Brown Law: There is a lightkeeper and an assistant and the light has never been left without somebody in charge of it. I know that the present lightkeeper has been acting as pilot in Yarmouth for a great

many years, or ever since he has been the lightkeeper, and that he is one of the best pilots at that port. I would like to ask the minister where the complaints came from.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not recollect at present.


Bowman Brown Law: If the minister knows that
these complaints came in I should think he would know w'here they came from.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not remember.


Bowman Brown Law: Who is acting as pilot now in Yarmouth harbour?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know.


Bowman Brown Law: It is somewhat singular that the minister would give instructions to the lightkeeper not to act as pilot and not know whether there are any other pilots there or not.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think the hon.
gentleman would expect me to remember the names of all the pilots in all the different ports,


Bowman Brown Law: The hon. gentleman remembers a great many things that he would not be expected to know while there are other things in reference to his department that he appears not to remember. If the port of Yarmouth is left without a pilot it is a very serious matter, and Mr. Doane being one of the best pilots there, it seems a hardship that he is debarred from exercising a privilege which he has enjoyed for a great many years.


John Douglas Hazen: 
Mr. CARVELL:: I would like to know if the minister has any information to give -to the committee regarding the statement made in the papers a month or six weeks [DOT]ago, at the time of the unfortunate wreck of the Cobequid, that the lights were out of order and that the entrance to the bay of Fundy was not properly lighted. I am aware that an investigation was held and a report made, but possibly the minister
[Mr. Law.J
might give some concrete information on this important question.


John Douglas Hazen: The Cobequid ran ashore on what is known as Trinity ledge. Before running ashore on Trinity ledge the ship passed close to the Nova Scotia coast and to the eastward of the Lurcher Shoal lightship. The statement was made that the Lurcher Shoal lightship was out of order and that the light was not burning. Such was not the case. The light was burning. It is a most modern light. The fog alarm was in perfect order and also the submarine bell, but in the fierce storm which was prevailing at the time the submarine bell was probably of not very much value. Although the light was burning, and although the fog alarm was in perfect condition, the steamer was not attracted by these signals and ran on Trinity ledge. It was far out of its course. The finding of the wreck commissioner about the matter was that the captain, after he had seen the light from the Nova Scotia coast farther down, should have stayed out to the westward in the open sea, because, if he had done so, the accident would not have happened. The gas buoy that marks the* Trinity ledge was not burning. These buoys go out from tune to time, and when they do the fact is reported to the agent of the department in the district, and the practice followed is that notices are published in the newspapers in the different ports, and notices are also sent to the Canadian Shipping Federation. The object of publishing these notices is so that vessels in port may be made aware of the fact that a particular light is out of commission, and, in addition to that, the agents of the steamers will be able tp send wireless messages to their steamers, which they know are on their way to the port. This buoy was reported out of commission to the agent of the Marine Department in St. John six or seven days before the wreck of the Cobequid, and the agent immediately published the notices, and notified the Shipping Federation of Canada. The usual steps were taken, and when the wreck occurred the Landsdowne had a buoy on board taking it to replaee this buoy. The opinion expressed by the wreck commissioners, which no doubt is correct, is that the fact that the light was not burning on the buoy in no way contributed to the accident.


John Howard Sinclair: If the buoy had been
there, would it not have been an advantage to the captain to have seen it?


John Douglas Hazen: I understand that he
could not have seen it. The captain swore on the inquiry that in the storm that was raging it was impossible to see anything beyond the bow of the 'boat. Captain Lindsay, the wreck commissioner, told me-and I asked him most particularly on the subject, because I was naturally anxious about it and interested in it-that if the light had been burning it *could not possibly have prevented the accident, considering the nature of the storm which was raging at the time. In :any ordinary weather, the captain would have seen the light on Lurcher, or he would have been warned by the fog whistle, but the men in my department who have been sailors, or who have been in the navy, tell me that conditions arise now and then when aids to navigation will fail. Such were the conditions prevailing outside the bay of Fundy when the Cobequid went on the Trinity ledges.


John Howard Sinclair: I understood the minister to say that the submarine bell was in *operation at the time of the wreck, and I am curious to know if .the ship was [DOT]equipped with submarine apparatus?


John Douglas Hazen: The submarine bell was in [DOT]operation and in perfect order on board the lightship, but whether the Cobequid was [DOT]equipped with submarine apparatus or not, I do not know. I asked that question -of Captain Lindsay, but apparently that information was not given. Captain Lindsay, however, expressed the opinion to me that even if the Cobequid had been [DOT]equipped with the apparatus to enable her under ordinary conditions to get the sound of the submarine bell, it is doubtful, considering the storm, that it would have been effective on that occasion.


John Howard Sinclair: When these submarine bells were introduced a great deal was expected of them and considerable expenditure was entailed by their installation. It would be interesting to sea-going people to know what results we are getting from them. I hope the minister will ascertain whether the Cobequid was equipped with this apparatus or not, and if not it would be well, perhaps, that these subsidized vessels should be so equipped. I understood that the captain missed his way to some extent, due to the fact that the lightship had been out of commission some short time before, and that he did not know it had been re-lit when he was entering the bay of Fundy. It is said that had he
known the lightship was in operation and lit, he would have had a better chance of getting safely into the bay. The only criticism I have to make, is, that it is curious that the Lurcher should have been out of commission very shortly before that, and that then when the Lurcher got into commission, the buoy should have been out of commission.


John Douglas Hazen: The utility and efficiency
of these submarine bells is evidently recognized by marine authorities, because at the recent convention in London, for the safety of ships at sea, one of the clauses of the convention agreed to by the thirteen nations represented by men of experience was that all lightships and important light stations should be equipped with these submarine bells. A good many \veek3 before the Cobequid came up the bay, the Lurcher lightship had been undergoing repairs. Once a year these lightships have to be taken from their stations to be overhauled and put in thorough order. Several weeks before the Cobequid sailed from the West Indies for St. John, the agent of the steamship line had been notified, through public notice, that the lightship was again in commission, and there could hs no excuse whatever for the captain assuming that the lightship was out of commission. The agent of the vessel had ample notice and time to communicate the fact to the captain of the Cobequid before he sailed from the West Indies.


Bowman Brown Law: The minister is quite
right in stating that the captain of the Cobequid made a mistake in not running for the Lurcher, but as he supposed the lightship was not there he did not make for her. On the other hand, the department is somewhat to blame for not having the buoy in order on Trinity ledges. I understood the minister to say that on this night it was so thick and stormy that the light would be no good, but I always supposed that these buoys were to be useful on just such occasions, for, on a moonlight night, when the captain can see all around him, there would be no necessity for them. I understood the minister to say that this light had been out for only six or seven days, but I would like to inform the hon. gentleman that after I put the question on the Order Paper early in January I had this letter from a captain:
Port Maitland, N.S., January 24, 1914. Mr. Law:
Dear Sir,-In reference to your question con-

cerning the light on buoy on Trinity ledge being out of commission, at the time the steamer Cobequid wreck occurred, 1 would say: Yes, it was; it has been out since the first heavy gale in December.
The Cobequid did not go ashore until January 13.


John Douglas Hazen: I remember the facts now. The light was reported out to the agent at St. John on the 7th January, and on the. 13th, six days afterwards, the Cobequid went ashore. '


Bowman Brown Law: But there is reason to believe that the light may have been out since the 1st December.


John Douglas Hazen: It may have been out, but the agent of the department at St. John was not aware of it; it was not reported to him until the 7th. I can readily understand, of course, a state of things under which a light might be out for a number of days without the fact being reported to tfhe department, for it might be that no vessel would pass during that time. But as soon as the report of the light being out was made to the' agent, he advertised the fact and took all the precautions usually taken in similar cases.
Mr. LAW..: It seems to me very strange that this light may have been out for nearly a month. What system has the department for getting reports on these buoys? This is a very important light, for it marks one of the most dangerous reefs on the coast, and my information is, though I am not a seafaring man, that had the light been in proper position the night the Cobequid was lost, she might have picked up the light and so not have gone ashore. I am glad that the minister, in reply to a question of mine, stated that it was his intention to duplicate the Lurcher light. It is certainly dangerous that that boat should be on the station eleven months of the year and then taken off a. month, and I am glad that a relief boat is to be sent. I think this case demonstrates the correctness of what I stated the other day. If the hon. gentleman kept one of his steamers, now at St. John or Halifax, in the port of Yarmouth, the buoys on these different ledges off that coast and at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy could be looked after and attended to much more promptly than at present. I can quite understand that a light on one of these ledges might be out some little time. It seems from what this gentleman writes me that this light must have been out for nearly a month. I think the minister should take the matter up and devise some
[Mr. Xjaw. i
means by which when these lights are out the matter shall be reported. This gentleman is a fisherman of Port Maitland, and they are fishing off that coast nearly every day. He goes on to say:
The buoy on the ledge had also drifted very close to the rocks and held there. If you need me to prove this tatement, I am ready any time.
If that was the case, I think tire department is subject to some censure. While I am on this subject I would again bring to the attention of the minister the matter of rewarding the captains who saved the crew of the Cobequid. It is going on two months since that matter was taken up. Has it received the proper attention of the minister?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend speaks'of the system under which the department learns when these lights are out of commission. That system is the same as has always prevailed, and I do not see how there could be any other. The agents of every steamship line are requested to notify their captains to immediately report if they find any buoy out of position or any aid to navigation not properly discharging the work it is intended to do. In addition, all fishermen, as a rule, know that they are wanted to report these matters. As a rule such reports come either from steamship captains or from fishermen. I think that every man who traverses the sea recognizes the great value of these aids to navigation, and realizes the duty resting on him to report at once to the department if he finds any aids to navigation out Of order. And wben such a report comes to the department it is at once investigated. I understand the Ihon. gentleman to say that he has a letter from a gentleman who is a seafaring man. I do not know whether this gentleman speaks with .personal knowledge or not. If he does, and if he knew that the light was not burning, it seems to me he was not doing his duty to the public when he failed to notify the department. I can imagine a case where a light might be out of commission for a number of days without the department being notified. Aill we can do is, as soon as the department is notified, to take prompt steps to have the difficulty .rectified. I cannot believe that that light was out of commission for a month and nobody report the fact, for I should tnink that any seafaring man would report it at once. The Government has no vessel to scour the waters to see that the lights are. in commission. And, as I say.

the system in use seems to be the only possible one. It is one which has been followed with fairly satisfactory results for many years. The hon. gentleman asks with regard to rewards for the captains of the John L. Gann, and the Westport, the officers of which acted in a gallant manner in rescuing the people from the Cobequid.
I told the hon. gentleman that forms would be sent to him to fill up, and gave instructions to the officers of the department that that should be done.


Bowman Brown Law: I have not received any forms.


John Douglas Hazen: I think I stated in the House that that should be done, and asked the officials of the department then present to make a note of it.


George William Kyte: I think the hon. minister refers to a form which I asked for, and which I received.


John Douglas Hazen: I have asked the deputy minister to make a note of this matter, and I will let the hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Law) know to-morrow in what position it stands.


Bowman Brown Law: I am sorry to say the captain of the Westport was quite seriously injured while he was engaged in rescuing the passengers and crew of the Cobequid. He was thrown across a berth, and two of his ribs were damaged and other injuries inflicted, and he has been obliged to give up the command of the steamer. I really hope the minister will take the matter up as- soon as he possibly can. I see that the business men of St. John have recognized the bravery of these masters and their crews by getting up a purse and presenting it to them. The board of trade of Yarmouth has done the same thing; I forwarded to the minister a copy of the resolution passed by that board. It seems to me the Government, the largest body of all, should recognize in some very substantial manner the heroism displayed by these gentlemen.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope the minister will understand that I had no object in view in bringing up this discussion except to get his statement of the facts of the case. Not being a seafaring man, and not knowing very much about these matters, I yet venture to say that I am somewhat surprised that the Department of Marine and Fisheries itself has no way of keeping track of these light buoys. I had supposed that there was a regular inspection of them. I know that these buoys are supposed to run for weeks or perhaps foxmonths, but it would seem to me that, if they are of the importance one would suppose them to be, some system of regular inspection by the officers of the department would be adopted.


John Douglas Hazen: As a matter of fact, the
buoys are inspected regularly. The lights are supposed to burn for a certain number of months, and within that period the steamers of the department visit and examine them, and charge them with the illuminating element. Between times, however, these lights often go out as a result of a heavy storm or the machinery getting out of order. We have the record of one light burning fourteen months, but the ordinary time they are supposed to burn is much less than that. However, the light may go out at a time when the steamer is not available. Between the border of the state of Maine and the Gaspe coast we have 5,000 miles of coast line to attend to, and the hon. gentleman will readily see that .while regular visits of inspection are made, the trouble may often occur between the regular trips. As a matter of fact, considering the great number of buoys, the trouble in that regard is comparatively rare.	,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Any one who has had
experience with acetylene gas lamps knows that accidents will happen to them, and I am not finding fault. I realize that these lamps are supplied with sufficient power to enable them to last a certain number of hours. I realize, too, that the Government steamers cannot be sent around the coast every week, but would it not be possible, without any very serious expense, to have a report upon each of these gas buoys at least once a week? I know I am speaking entirely as a layman, but it does seem, even to a landlubber, that if these buoys are to serve the purpose for which they are intended there ought to be some systematic method of inspecting them.


John Howard Sinclair: I understood there was a duplicate buoy at St. John at the time the news reached the department that the light on the buoy at the shoal was out; am I correct?


John Douglas Hazen: Quite correct.


John Howard Sinclair: And that the Lansdowne was at St. John at that time, that the news was received on January 7, and that the accident took place on January 13?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: The buoy at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy is within a few hours' sail of St. John, and any accident to an important buoy like that ought to be looked after at once. I do not think we should exonerate the officer in charge from any blame for not having taken prompt action, because, if he had the buoy ready and a ship at hand to take it out, he had ample time to attend to the matter before the accident took place on the 13th.


John Douglas Hazen: I am not at all surprised that that should occur to my hon. friend; the same thing occurred to me. When I learned that the facts had been reported on the 7th and that the buoy had not been attended to by the 13th, the inquiry I naturally directed to the officers of the department was why the buoy had not been placed there sooner. The reply I got was that these buoys are very large and very heavy, weighing about 16 tons, I think, and if the weather is 4 p.m. rough it is impossible to take the buoy off the boat which carries it out and place it in position without incurring the danger of smashing the ship and causing loss of life. At this particular time the weather was stormy and the water very rough, and the officials, rightly or wrongly-though, I think, rightly -decided that they could not take that 16-ton buoy out and place it in position till better weather prevailed.


Bowman Brown Law: I have no doubt that seafaring men and fishermen report accidents to the buoys in a great many cases, as they are probably more interested in the matter than anybody else. At the same time, however,
I daresay many of these fishermen do not know to whom to report that a light is out or a buoy out of place. For instance, if a fisherman saw a buoy out of place and the light out, would he be justified in telegraphing collect to the agent of the Marine and Fisheries Department at St. John?


John Douglas Hazen: Certainly. We should be only too glad to have him telegraph collect, giving full particulars. My deputy tells me that the department pays the fishermen and others for time they may have lost in going to a place where there is a telegraph office in order to communicate the facts to the agent. Sometimes the buoys actually break away and are picked up and brought into port, and of course the department has to pay salvage. One of our buoys which broke away from its anchorage in a storm was picked up yesterday, I understand, in 
the vicinity of Boston harbour. It might be interesting to know that some years ago a buoy in the gulf of St. Lawrence broke away and nothing was heard of it until about two years afterwards, when it was-picked up on the coast of Australia.


George William Kyte: I should like to repeat the question I asked the minister on February 5, as to whether a lightkeeper has been appointed at St. Esprit Island, county of Richmond?


John Douglas Hazen: That is the light of which Mr. Finlayson, who resigned, was formerly in charge. I cannot say that the appointment has actually been made, but a report has been .made to Council and a man is in charge of the light. I will ask my deputy to get the information for my non. friend.


George William Kyte: Can the minister tell me
whether the man who is in charge is to be appointed?


John Douglas Hazen: The inspector of lights
tells me that his- name is Ferguson, and that he is now in charge of the light.


George William Kyte: Upon the resignation of Mr. Finlayson, I suppose that in the ordinary course of events the department was communicated with and a nomination requested by the person having the control of the patronage in the county. It was found difficult to make a choice between two rival applicants, and the matter was referred to a sort of election. They had all the excitement and paraphernalia of an election contest in the district; each can-'" didate was asked to get up a petition and the applicant who received the greater-number of signatures was to get the light. They were both Conservatives, and I think after the election was over the man having the minority of votes protested the election upon the ground that the Grits of the district had taken part. However, the retiring lightkeeper cut the knot by selecting one of the applicants and putting him in his place as acting lightkeeper. Very considerable interest is rife in the community as to the outcome of this election, and that is why I am anxious that the minister should be good enough to tell me what is to be the result of the polling in that district.


John Douglas Hazen: We will have to send for
the returning officer, or the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Any box missing?


George William Kyte: I am afraid that the vote
would not stand the test usually- applied to elections.


Mr. MARCIL:: Could the minister tell
us how many Liberals have been dismissed among the lightkeepers?


John Douglas Hazen: I could not say that offhand.


Charles Marcil: Could he tell the number of lightkeepers who will be paid out of this item?
* Mr. HAZEN:	The number of lights in
Canada in 1911-12 was 1,372, and the number of fog signals 289. Adding these together would not give exactly the number because in some lighthouses there are more than one keeper, and in some cases the work of a lighthouse and fog alarm are combined.


Charles Marcil: Has the minister at hand the number of appointments in two years?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Charles Marcil: In making new appointments has the minister sent any notice or warning to lighthouse keepers not to take an offensive part in elections?


John Douglas Hazen: The instructions to lightkeepers are exactly the same as they were before the change of Government.


Charles Marcil: In my constituency, with
two or three exceptions, all lighthouse keepers have been dismissed. Those who have been appointed were our most active opponents in the constituency, and they were in every case appointed because of services rendered to the party now in power. They continue to be as strong partisans of the party in power as they were. That is undesirable, because it creates an unfortunate impression on the public mind, especially among those who do not take an active part in polities; it provokes a sense of injustice because it is felt that one man is dismissed because he is a strong Liberal and another is appointed because he is a strong Conservative, one is dismissed for the same reason that another is appointed. It would be well for the department, in making new appointments, to let it be known that there is a custom in force in the department that offensive partisanship will entail dismissal. In my constituency this would have a salutary effect.


John Douglas Hazen: The instructions are exactly the same as they were.


Mr. CARROLL:: Who is the agent on
Scatari island? The reason I ask is that I am instructed that of the agents in charge of the Scatari lighthouses for fourteen or fifteen years, Captain Martel was asked to resign and Captain Pope was dismissed. Captain Pope went through a sort of mock investigation and was dismissed but Captain Martel was asked to resign or otherwise he would be dismissed for partisanship. I understand that the department-had a man there named McDougall who, I am informed, was an absolutely incapable man. The department, with all the knowledge possessed by its technical officials, could not instil into him sufficient knowledge to enable him to look after the engineering work on the island. Then I understand that they have tried another man, a man from Gardiner Mines but he also was incapable of receiving instruction and so they appointed a gentleman from outside the county of Cape Breton. I think it is unfair for any department of Government to dismiss trained officials who have spent fourteen or fifteen years on this l'onely island and then to appoint untrained men only to find in the end that they were not able to receive sufficient instruction to take charge of the engineering. This is unfair to the person dismissed, unfair to the department and unfair to the public. If McDougall was not capable of looking after the engineering he should not have been appointed. I do not say that any serious mishaps resulted but one might have been caused. I have not the information to-day as to who the present incumbent is.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend is mistaken in saying that Mr. Martel was dismissed by the department.


William F. Carroll: I did not say that; 1
said that Captain Pope was dismissed and Captain Martel asked to resign or he would be dismissed.


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. Martel was not asked to resign by the department.


William F. Carroll: I can give the minister, inside of twenty minutes the letter to Captain Martel asking him to resign or otherwise he would be dismissed.


John Douglas Hazen: Not at all; I am informed by my officials that charges were made against Mr. Martel, but before these charges were investigated and without any action on the part of the department to dismiss him, Martel resigned. He was not dismissed; he forwarded his resignation. In

many lighthouses the work is of an important character, as my bon. friend has stated. It is very frequently the case that when there is a vacancy a trained man cannot be obtained and the department refuse to appoint certain men recommended until they have had an opportunity of judging of their qualifications; and therefore it has occurred on many occasions that a man who has not the necessary certificates as engineer or the necessary qualifications 'by experience is sent to a lighthouse and an official is sent with him who has that experience, in order to ascertain if the man is qualified for the position, and if, after an experience of a few months, he will he able to fill the position. This course is frequently taken because of the impossibility of getting men on some occasions to go to these out of the way places who possess the necessary qualifications to look after the somewhat complicated machinery to be found in many of these modern lighthouses. In this case Mr. McDougall applied for the position and was sent there, but it was found that he had not the qualifications for the position, and therefore could not be retained. The light in no way suffered, because a competent man was there as well at that time and it was through this man that the department learned that McDougall could not qualify for the work. There are many cases of lighthouse keepers being appointed from outside the district or county whim there happens to be nobody in the district able to fill the position.


William F. Carroll: How much did they pay to McDougall for his services while they were training him ?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know. In many cases these lighthouses are situated a long distance from other places and the lighthouse keeper has very little social intercourse with his fellowmen. The positions are not very inuch sought after. I think a Mr. Nearing is occupying the position at the present time. He has also to keep an engineeer for the purpose of running the station. In many of these lighthouses the man in charge has to engage an assistant or an engineer, selected by himself and approved of by the department. He pays him out of his own salary.


William F. Carroll: Who is engineer at Scatari island at the present time and where is he from ?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know his name.


William F. Carroll: With reference to the dismissal of Martel, he probably took an

active part in politics-he admitted that- but never an offensive part. If he attended to his duties, and he always did, he would have no time to be an offensive partisan. But what I want to bring home to the minister is this, that the light at Scatari island, which was formerly looked after by Captain Martel, has been without a resident engineer for almost two years now.


John Douglas Hazen: The information given me here by both the inspector of lights and the deputy minister, is that there has always been an engineer at the station.


William F. Carroll: That may be perfectly correct. Engineers have been sent there from time to time by the department, but that position has not been filled for two years. Mr. McDougall was sent there, personally a good man, I suppose; I have nothing against him, but a man utterly incapable of looking after that light. And let me tell the minister that after Mr. McDougall had been found incompetent to fill that position he was still allowed to have charge of the machinery for a certain time. Afterwards, Mr. McDonald, I think it was, came down from Halifax to instruct Mr. McDougall.


John Douglas Hazen: There is some misunderstanding. The inspector of lights tells me that McDougall was never there alone. A competent engineer was always there to look after the machinery.


William F. Carroll: With all due deference to the source of my hon. friend's information, I can tell him that McDougall was in charge of the station when there was no competent engineer there. Mr. Nearing does not pretend to be an engineer. I want to point out to the (minister that this is the result of dismissing or asking to resign men who have given the Marine Department the very best service that is in them. When a government, I do not care whether it is a Liberal or Conservative government, begins to interfere with lighthouse keepers simply because they take somewhat active part in politics, I think they are making a great mistake; and if the department follows the recommendations sent in by the patronage committee, they are bound to get men in charge of those lighthouses who are not qualified. I can readily understand that almost any man can run an ordinary country post office, and fill most of the little Government positions that we have in our country, but when it comes down to lighthouses and a matter of safeguarding the lives of people

who of necessity must go upon the sea, then this department, or any other department that does it, is making a very serious mistake. I agree that the Government is justified in dismissing an offensive partisan, hut Captain Pope was not an offensive partisan. As a matter of fact, I think the recommendation of Mr. Duchemin in the case of Captain Pope was absolutely wrong. He was an old man of perhaps 60 or more, who had spent his life . on the island working for a very small salary. An investigation was held, but I think the minister himself should be the judge as to whether a charge of offensive partisanship has been proven. I know exactly what was proven in the case of Martel. He was a partisan, and had always voted Liberal -so far as I know. Captain Pope was also dismissed on the grounds of offensive partisanship when there was no evidence warranting his dismissal. The minister in my opinion should be the judge, especially in cases where the facts are not very strong one way or the other. I still maintain that considerable bungling has taken place in connection with the light that Martel had charge of, and I do not think the minister was fair to the people around the coast whose safety depended on this light, when he did not leave Martel in that position. We have hundreds of engineers in the county of Cape Breton who are qualified to take charge of this light, and who were well qualified to take charge of it from the beginning. The department must know that under our Nova Scotia laws it is an offence to put in charge of an engine of over ten or twelve horse-power any person who has not a certificate. The department must have known well enough that McDou-ga'ld did not hold a certificate when he went there, and I think it was a waste of money attempting to train a man for this position when we had lots of men in the county already holding a license to run engines.


John Douglas Hazen: The engineer who is there now has a certificate from the province of Nova Scotia. I do not for one moment question the sincerity of my hon. friend (Mr. Carroll) in regard to this or any other matter that he brings before the House; in fact, I have had reason, on more than one occasion, to think the contrary. My hon. friend has referred to the question of Captain Pope. A charge of partisanship was made against Captain Pope by Mr. Maddin, the former member, and who was a candidate at the last election. The mat-75
ter was investigated and this is the report upon which action was taken:
Mr. Duchemin was requested to investigate the charges, who reported on July 2 that he had held an inquiry, and that Michael Burke gave evidence to the effect Captain Pope had spent a considerable portion of the day about the same poll as he (Burke) was acting agent for the Conseravtive candidate. Captain Pope interviewed voters prior to their going in to vote. During the afternoon, witness went outside the poll and Mr. Pope there met him and said, 'Why not vote for reciprocity?' Witness replied that he would not vote in that way. Mr. Pope then said he was ' ready to bet money that the Liberal Government would be sustained, that if the Tories got in, all we would get to eat was corn meal and rye flour as when the Tories were- in before; that the Tories were
no d

good.' Mr. Pope also canvassed witness
at West Point Scatari during the last local election, asking him to vote for Kendall and Carroll, the Liberal candidates. Witness replied that he would not vote for them. William H. Campbell testified that he was a delegate to the Liberal convention, which nominated Mr. Alex. Johnston in 1908. Witness testified that Mr. Pope came in from Catalone to Sydney on the train with the delegates to the Liberal convention. Witness was unable to say whether Mr. Pope was a delegate at the convention hut admitted that Mr. Pope was present in the Lyceum in Sydney during the proceedings of the convention which nominated the Liberal candidate. For Mr. Pope to attend this convention he would take practically all day as he would have to drive five and a half miles from his home in Main-h-Dieu to Catalone, and thence go up by train 28 or 30 miles to Sydney. Mr. Duchemin accordingly found that Mr. Pope had violated the regulation of the department, in participating in election work. Captain Pope declined to give evidence himself.
If these witnesses were telling the truth and if, as stated, Captain Pope was actually canvassing at the poll-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: How many voters were
there at Scatari?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know. If that is the T:ase I do not think there is any hon. gentleman in this House but will say that he could have no expectation of being retained in office.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The minister does not
know how many votes there were to canvass?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know, but there
must have been enough to constitute a poll. I do not care if there were many or few; if Captain Pope canvassed for votes I do not think any one will seriously argue that he was not guilty of partisanship in the way contemplated by the Act which was passed in this House a few years ago and to which all members of the House gave their assent. It was about some such action

as that that an hon. gentleman, then sitting on this side of the House, said that if officials wanted to be politicians fche Government proposed to give them every oppor tunity to be politicians. That is practically the case with regard to Captain Pope unless my hon. friend from Cape Breton disputes the truth of it.


William F. Carroll: Yes, I do.


John Douglas Hazen: I understood the hon.
gentleman to say that Captain Pope was not an offensive partisan but an active partisan. I do not quite draw the distinction. If a man canvasses for any political party he is thereby taking his official life in his hand. I do not think any man will dispute that in such a case the Government is justified in removing that man from office. It may be that he may not do it offensively by shaking his fist under the nose of a man and telling him that he would or would not do a certain thing, but probably he is a great deal worse partisan than the man who does that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What does the minister say about the two men in Truro who were enjoying a bottle of Scotch, drinking to the health of Macdonald, and somebody lying in wait under the window? Does he call that offensive or active partisanship?


John Douglas Hazen: I would like to read the
evidence before venturing an opinion upon a mere statement of fact, if it is a fact. Those are the facts with reference to Captain Pope. Now I come to the case of Mr. Martel. Mr. Martel was not dismissed. A charge was made against him and he resigned.


William F. Carroll: I suppose the minister
would say that he would have been dismissed?


John Douglas Hazen: I would not say whether he would or would not have been dismissed on the report of the commission. But he resigned himself and, having tendered his resignation, we endeavoured to fill his position. I am not suggesting that my hon. friend is not absolutely sincere in what he has stated but the officials think he is mistaken in what he has stated about there not being a qualified engineer there. They state that there never has been a time when there was not a qualified engineer there.


William F. Carroll: I am not complaining very much about Capt. Pope's dismissal or about Capt. Martel's dismissal, but what

I do complain about is the way in which his place was filled. Capt. Pope came to me after he had got that summons notifying him that he was going to be investigated and he asked me to appear before Mr. Duchemin. I told Capt. Pope that it would be of absolutely no avail that I should appear before Mr. Duchemin, that my presence would not help his case, but that, as a matter of fact, it would injure it. He offered to pay me for going there but I said 'no.' I said to Capt. Pope: There was a young solicitor, a Conservative-not an offensive Conservative an I very many of them are not-who was practising his profession-Mr. Chipman. I said to Capt. Pope: Go and give your retainer to Mr. Chipman and I think that Mr. Duchemin will give him every consideration. I have no fault to find with Mr. Campbell's evidence given on that occasion although Captain Pope says that he never attended any convention to nominate a Liberal candidate in Cape Breton. He happened to be in Sydney on business of a private nature on nomination day with Mr. Campbell and Mr. Campbell probably thought he was there for the purpose of attending the nominating convention. I repeat that I have no fault to find with Mr. Campbell's evidence but I would like to point out to the minister that Burke wa3 an insane man at the time he gave his evidence.


John Douglas Hazen: But Capt. Pope did not
contradict his evidence.


William F. Carroll: I will tell the minister
why he did not contradict it. Mr. Chip-man undertook to cross-examine this man, Burke, was at the time of the investigation an insane man.
When Mr. Chipman undertook to crossexamine Burke, he Mr. Chipman, was peremptorily told by Mr. Duchemin that if he would not hold his mouth he would pitch him through the window, or words to that effect. That took place in the early days of the investigation in the eastern part of Nova Scotia and as a result, Mr. Chipman, who is an absolutely reliable man-no friend of mine politically or otherwise except that we are good business friends-[DOT]


John Douglas Hazen: Who said that he would
pitch him through the window?


William F. Carroll: Mr. Duchemin told him that he was there absolutely on sufferance and that he would not allow him to crossexamine Burke. Then Mr. Chipman told

Captain Pope that it was no use for either of them to remain there and they both left the court together. This happened in the early days of these investigations. I am free to admit that Duchemin did allow counsel to cross-examine the witnesses after that during his investigations. These are the facts as told me by Mr. Chipman in regard to that investigation and I have no doubt they are absolutely true.


John Howard Sinclair: As long as we continue to run the Aids to Navigation of the coast along political lines we will have these difficulties and it is very unfortunate that trained men have to be dismissed for trifling reasons and untrained men put in their places. Something of the same nature happened in connection with Cranberry Island light. The lightkeeper on Cranberry Island felt uncomfortable after the change of Government. He was not dismissed but he resigned and it became necessary to put a man in his place. A man was recommended by the Conservative committee but he turned out to be incompetent. He could not pass muster before the inspectors, and his place had to be filled by some one from the outside.
Mr. Henry Hanlon, of Canso, a very competent man, who had several years experience, applied for the position. He had not much connection with politics, but his family happened to be Liberal. There was a petition in his favour, signed by those interested in the Cranberry Island light, and if the minister will look at that petition he will find that it is signed by scores of Conservatives. Mr. Hanlon was an excellent man and could have done the work most capably, but he could not get the appointment because the minister is running the lights on the coast on party lines. I do not refer to this to make complaint, but to ascertain who is in charge of the light station and engine on Cranberry Island.


John Douglas Hazen: A gentleman named De Young.


John Howard Sinclair: Is he in charge of the light station and the signal station?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Who is the engineer?


John Douglas Hazen: He is the engineer; he has an assistant, whom he pays.


John Howard Sinclair: Has Mr. De Young been appointed permanently?


John Douglas Hazen: No; he has only been there a short time.


John Howard Sinclair: This is a very important station; has the minister made any arrangement to appoint a permanent official there?


John Douglas Hazen: It is a very important station, and that is why we have a very qualified man. No man would be put there who is not thoroughly qualified and competent.


John Howard Sinclair: I have had reports that I do not care to trouble the minister with just now, stating that part of the time since the late keeper retired the station has not been properly looked after. I have no information I am able to give him on that score, excepting, I would like very much to know that the minister is paying attention to it, and that he is looking for a capable man to put in charge.


John Douglas Hazen: The inspector of lights tells me it has never been an hour without a capable man in charge, and nobody will be put there in permanent charge who is not thoroughly capable.


Charles Marcil: I would like to know if the minister is sincere in his contention that he will take the lighthouse service out of politics. I wonder if he imagines that one out of fifty lighthouse keepers in remote parts of the country, have ever had an opportunity of reading the Lake resolution adopted by this House, with reference to officials taking part in politics.* Does the hon. gentleman intend to bring this resolution to the attention of the employees of his department, and put an end to this system which is demoralizing the whole service? I am speaking in the interests of the service, because I know it is useless to speak in the interests of those who have been dismissed; they will speak for themselves next election. Really, a change in the present system should be made by the minister. His officers should be notified that the moment they are appointed to office they should keep out of politics. In my constituency, the most rabid part'sans on the coast are now officials of the Marine Department, and they have been appointed regardless of age or qualification. I think the minister would revoke some of these appointments, if he really knew the truth about them. The gentleman who now recommends appointments in the county of Bonaventure, being a stranger to the county, my opponent having died last year, appointments of the most reckless character are being made, and they arc made not in

the public interest or in the interest of the department.


John Douglas Hazen: If I remember the resolution referred to by my hon. friend, it laid down the principle which justified the Government in acting in the event of officials taking part in politics, and it was not ;-the form of laying down instructions to officials. For my own part I do not think it is edifying to see public officials, occupying places in the Civil Service, tak ng an active part in politics on one side or the other. If they do so they know full well that they are, under the resolution of the House, taking their positions in their hands, and they will have no reason to find fault should they be dismissed, when a change of government takes place. Of course, the first essential which any government should look to, in appointing men to office, is their qualification, but there is no doubt that governments have taken into consideration in times past-and probably they will in years to come until you can get everything decided by some ideal system of competitive examination-the political claims of applicants for positions. Hon. gentlemen opposite did so when they were in power, and this Government is doing the same thing. But the fact that a man has been an active political worker before he assumed office, is no evidence that when he is in office he will continue to be an active political worker. In my own experience, on both sides of politics, I have known many eases in which men who had been extremely active in polit'cs have laid their politics to one side after being appointed to office; and have endeavoured fairly and properly to discharge their duties. When I became Premier of New Brunswick, I was pressed on -all -sides to make dismissals, but in most cases I refused be-caus-e I did not think it a sufficient reason that the gentlemen who were occupying official positions had been active opponents of mine before they were appointed. In nearly every case I found these gentlemen anxious to be loyal to me, as Premier of the province, as they would have been loyal to any one who occupied that position. I may say to my hon. friends opposite, who .are discussing this matter- fairly, that in my experience, as a rule, I found, with a few notable exceptions, that men who occupy official positions upon which they are depending for their livelihood, have abstained from taking an active part in politics. On the other hand, it is my experience that men occupying small

positions, such as keepers of lighthouses and small post offices, out of which they do not make a living but which are entirely subsidiary to the occupation which is their main source of support, are in many cases active politicians in the districts in which they live. In my own constituency, in the city of St. John, there are a large number of persons employed in the customs house, the post office, the inland revenue, the Department of Public Works, and other departments, but so far as I know they take no active part in politics on one side or the other. But when you get men in these small offices which do not give them a living, they apparently do not value them enough to keep quiet when there is a political contest on, and they are willing to take the chance of being dismissed. I understood my hon. friend (Mr. Marcil) to suggest that some instructions should be sent out.


Charles Marcil: I do not object to men being appointed for past political services, but I do say that when they are in office they should keep out of politics. .


John Douglas Hazen: That is my opinion.


Charles Marcil: Out of the twenty-five appointments in my county, I am sure that not twenty of these men ever heard of the resolution of the House about nonparticipation in politics.


John Douglas Hazen: These men probably know, as well as my hon. friend and myself, that if they take an active part in politics and there is a change of Government, they may expect to lose their positions.


Charles Marcil: They are under the impression that if they do not serve the Conservative party they will be turned out.


John Douglas Hazen: This is the same charge as has been made in the past about men who were Liberal partisans but who have sought to defend themselves by saying: We were afraid we should be turned out of office if we did not take part in politics. But I leave it to hon. members to judge to what an extent such an excuse was justified. I do not think it an edifying spectacle to see men drawing public salaries and obtaining their livelihood through public service taking part in, politics-, nor do I think it a desirable thing. But how does the hon. gentleman propose to remedy the state of affairs under which parties will naturally appoint to office men who, having equal qualifications with others, are active supporters of their party? That can only be changed when we

come down to saying that there shall be public competition for every office, a competitive examination by independent authorities, thus eliminating patronage from politics-and I think most politicians will be very glad to have it eliminated. Of course, to a very great extent, that has already been accomplished in the inside service. I know that in our department when we need officials we send to the Board of Civil Service Commissioners. They have a list of peoplo who have already passed examinations and from whom can be chosen the officers we need. Or, if the officers required are technical officers, those men are advertised for and applicants state their qualifications and a selection is made. Thus the question of patronage is largely eliminated from the inside service. But whether you can extend that to the fishery overseer or the postmaster whose salary is $50 a year is doubtful. Certainly, I doubt that the time has come when that can be done. I take the view expressed by the hon. gentleman, and I hope that when he was a Government supporter he expressed the opinion that he does now.


Charles Marcil: oome officials with salaries of $1,000 and thereabouts have been dismissed in Gaspe and elsewhere. The result has been to give a very bad impression of [DOT]the public service to many of the voters. I have about five thousand voters in my county, of whom about twenty-five are interested in these matters on one side or the other. A great part of the community look upon this dismissal of officials as demoralizing, and I think the minister should make some attempt to put an end to it 'by giving due warning that if a man wishes to hold office he must keep out of politics, and by assuring the official that he will not be disturbed if he observes the condition. I could name officials in Bonaventure who have been most active politicians since they have been appointed in their places. They are being rewarded by the Government for the assistance which they gave and the system which is so demoralizing is being encouraged. While I am on my feet, I should like to ask the minister if there is an age limit to the appointment of lightkeepers?


John Douglas Hazen: None.


Charles Marcil: I thought there was such a limit established. Was there not an age limit in the old days?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Charles Marcil: This Government has appointed one man of seventy-two years of age. Does the minister think it in the public interest that there should be no age limit, no condition as to whether a man is blind, or lame-


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think it desirable to appoint such people.


Charles Marcil: I made a recommendation, and the man was turned down because he was sixty years of age.


John Douglas Hazen: He may have had other disqualifications.


Charles Marcil: No, he was a most respectable man and well qualified. Does not the minister think it desirable that there should, be an age limit in the appointment, of lightkeepers?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think it desirable to appoint old men.


Wilfrid Laurier: Does the
minister say that there never was an age limit for the appointment of lightkeepers?


John Douglas Hazen: That is my information from the deputy minister under the former Government.


Charles Marcil: In the form sent to me to fill out in such cases an age limit was fixed, and it was also made conditional that a man must be strong, healthy, able to row a boat, and so on.


Mr. MACDONALD:: I am in a position to [DOT]say that the Conservative Government, before 1896, did have a regulation fixing an age limit in these cases. I have a distinct recollection of correspondence, which the minister will find in his department, between the Minister of Marine of that time and Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper before he became Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper tried to secure the appointment of a man sixty-five years of age to the position of lightkeeper. The minister of that day stated that there was a regulation that a man could not be appointed permanently as lighthouse keeper after he was forty years of age. The correspondence went on, and the minister declined to accept the recommendation of his then colleague and appoint the man to office. And all through the period when our friends were in power, as my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) says, those of us who were consulted in regard

to recommendations know that the respective ministers in all cases insisted that a recommendation for permanent employment as a lighthouse keeper should apply to men under forty years old, and declined to appoint men who were over that age. If there is no regulation now, that means that there is no regulation since the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hazen) took office. Here we have another of the pledges contained in the Halifax Platform absolutely thrown to the winds. One by one these ethical and idealistic propositions which the leader of the present Government put before the people when he sought their confidence are being disregarded now that he and his friends have the responsibility of office. On Tuesday ,my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan) exposed the fact that the Prime Minister, who had pledged his word to return to the provinces of the West their public lands on fair terms, and had gone, through the western country promising that these lands 'should he returned, in addition to the subsidies that these provinces had received, to-day does not propose to do anything of the kind. He recedes from his position.


John Howard Sinclair: I desire to correct my hon. friend (Mr. Macdonald): the Prime Minister's promise was distinct and absolute, and there was no such expression in it as 'on fair terms.' I could quote the words of the hon. gentleman: his statement was without qualification-that he would restore to these provinces their natural resources.


William John Macdonald: I had not the advantage of hearing the whole debate. But the hon. gentleman only accentuates the point and shows how far the Government is from attempting to fulfil its promises. Now, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries makes a frank acknowledgment on this question of appointments to office. The right hon. Prime Minister, with many an appeal to the high heavens to show his sincerity in regard to the matter, said that if the Conservative party were elected to office appointments to the Civil Service and to Government positions throughout the. country would not be made upon the grounds of party service, but solely upon the fitness of the applicants for the positions. And now, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries comes along this afternoon and says that is not what he is doing. Of course everybody knows that is not what this Government is doing;

everybody knows that the condit'ons to which the hon. member for Bonaventure referred as existing in his constitu ncy exist almost everywhere else. In this connection the fact to be definitely remembered is that the discussion this afternoon discloses the positive declination of this Government to carry out another one of its pledges set out in the Halifax platform upon which the Conservative party went to the country previous to the last election.


George William Kyte: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) might have elaborated this idea and brought to the attention of the committee another declaration of principle which the right hon. Prime Minister has thrown to the winds, and that is the principle which guiided him in determining whether or not officials had departed from the fair and legitimate ground they should occupy in respect to political matters. The right hon. Prime Minister said in this House that, in his judgment, no man should be dismissed from office simply because he took part in politics. He said that officials ought to be permitted, as citizens of this country, to discuss political matters, and so long as they did not go out of their way to become offensive to their ministers or superiors in office, or to he uncivil towards the general public, they ought not for that reason to he dismissed from office. That is a principle upon which the right hon. Prime Minister was very emphatic a few years ago. .What is the spectacle that is presented to us at the present time? The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries devoted almost half an hour this afternoon to defending the position which the Government has taken with regard to the dismissal of men who have been adjudged guilty of partisanship. For my part I never did and never will take the ground that a man who has been proved guilty of political partisanship ought not to pay the penalty of his transgression, so long as interference in elections is regarded as a transgression on the part of government officials. But what shall we say of the ease of a man who has been dismissed upon the alleged ground of political partisanship, when not a single tittle of evidence is produced to support the allegation made? In the name of justice and fair play, I protest against the Minister of Marine and Fisheries dismissing from public office not men who have been adjudged guilty of partisanship, but men whose offices have been claimed by greedy office-seekers.

In order that a vacancy might be created, *false charges of partisanship have been made against these officials, and these false *charges have been bolstered up by a commissioner appointed for that purpose. Does the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries forget that a year ago I called to his attention the case of Michael O'Brien, who was summoned by Mr. Duchemin to appear before him for investigation at a place called Port Malcolm, in the county of Richmond? Mr. Duchemin, in order to make it impossible for this man O'Brien to appear before him to answer to the charges made, held court eight miles away. The evidence adduced in that investigation, so far as I recol-5 p.m. lect, had reference to a conversation that O'Brien is alleged to have had on the road with a woman. O'Brien is alleged to have said that the *Government would be returned to power and that Kyte would be elected. Mr. Duchemin said in his report that inasmuch as that evidence had not been denied by O'Brien, he must have been guilty of making the assertion, and that he was, therefore, justified in recommending his dismissal. I called the attention of the hon. member to the fact that it was impossible for O'Brien to be present on that day to answer to the charge or to deny the evidence given against him, because he was sent on a false errand eight miles away from the place where Mr. Duchemin held his court. But the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries has done nothing to right that wrong; he has done absolutely nothing to reinstate Mr. O'Brien to the office from which he was dismissed. Therefore I say that the hon. minister is not doing himself justice when he gets up and undertakes to defend the conduct of the Government as regards the dismissal of officials who have been guilty of partisanship. What shall be said of the dismissal of officials who have been dismissed upon false charges, in respect of which no evidence whatever was submitted to justify their being removed from office? Take the case of Marin Bourque, which I discussed in the House a few days ago. He was summoned on September 28, 1912, to appear before Mr. Duchemin on a charge of partisanship. I was present at that investigation. A witness was called who could give no evidence of partisanship against this man Bourque, and I thought that that would be the last of the charge made against him and that he would be reinstated to office. But what happened?
Duchemin reported to the minister that when he went to River Bourgeois to hear evidence in the case, no witnesses were called; no one was prepared to give evidence with regard to the charge, and the matter was left open until a later date. Some weeks afterwards Mr. Duchemin returned to River Bourgeois. I was not present on the second occasion. There was no person present but Mr. Duchemin, the witness who sought to have Bourque dismissed, and another witness who was called in at that time. Bourque himself was ill, and unable to be present. His wife was told by Duchemin that he, Mr. Duchemin, came there for the purpose of taking a statement from Bourque. No suggestion that any further evidence was to be taken was made, but behind Bourque's back, under circumstances that made it impossible for him to be present, the same witness who was examined on September 28 and failed to give evidence of partisanship against Bourque was recalled, and in the presence of Duchemin alone, and in the absence of any person to cross-examine the witness or to look after Bourque's interests, Duchemin took the evidence of this witness and sent a report to the hon. minister. The statement made by Mr. Duchemin in his report that Bourque was adjudged guilty of partisanship is laughed at by every man in the county of Richmond wlio knows Bourque. When I discussed this matter the other evening I isaid that Bourque was absolutely incapable of being a partisan; he is a man who had no language in which to discuss political matters, and who was so absolutely indifferent to the success of the party that he only voted once, I believe, since he was appointed to the position of lightkeeper. There is the case of Bartholomew Boudreau, a man having a large family to support, whose health was not good, and who was ill-prepared to go out into the world and earn a living. His office was demanded by a person who thought that he had rendered sufficient service to his party to justify his demanding that reward. A farcial investigation was held by Mr. Duciiemin and Boudreau's lighthouse was handed over to the Conservative who sought the position. I say that of all the departments of the Government there is not one that standi on a worse eminence than that of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in respect to this matter of dismissals.


Mr.   MARGIE@: Post Office.


George William Kyte: The Post Office Department is no worse, and when I make that statement I give hon. gentlemen some idea of how bad the record of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries really is.
Throughout the length and breadth of the province of Nova Scotia the conduct of the Department of Maxine and Fisheries smells in the nostrils of every right-thinking man. There have been more unjustifiable dismissals in the Department of Marine and Fisheries .than in any other department of the Government, except, possibly, the Department of the Postmaster General. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) referred to the dismissal of an engineer having to do with the light at Scatari island, and the appointment of a person in his place who is not licensed or competent or qualified to operate the engine connected with the light. That is no new step in the record of this Government. The dismissal of competent licensed officials and the appointment of unlicensed persons in their places is not uncommon. Last year I called the attention of the House to the case of the dismissal of a school teacher in charge of the Indian school at Salmon river, county of Richmond. A young girl, a qualified second-class teacher, having a Normal school diploma, was dismissed, for what reason? Because she was a partisan? No, they could not make any allegation of that kind; but they appear to have rummaged around the graveyard and learned from the to)nbr stone erected on the grave of her dead father some suggestions that he in his lifetime was a Liberal, and she was dismissed on account of the political leanings of her family. Did they appoint a licensed teacher in her place? No, they took a young man, the son of a Conservative, who, according to the report of the school inspector on file in the department of the Interior, had neither license, experience, nor qualifications. He was appointed to the school in place of this young girl. Therefore, I say that if you take one department of this Government after another you will find in the matter of dismissals and appointments to office more conduct absolutely unjustified and unjustifiable than can be found during the forty'years of the history of this country previous to the advent of the present party to office.
I rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the minister to the fact that in December, 1912, I moved for a return

of the number of dismissals made in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Up to this hour I have never seen that return. I think the hon. member for Laval (Mr. C. A. Wilson) the following January moved for a similar return and has never received it. I think the time is opportune to ask the minister if he will not, while these Estimates are before the committee, produce a return containing the dismissals from his department up to the present time.


Mr. SCHAFFNER:: I do not know
whether the word ' sickening ' is parliamentary or not. For about three years now we have had a repetition of the case of this school teacher and other cases in Nova Scotia and other parts of this country in reference to the dismissals that have taken place since this Government came into power. It is nothing new. Any man who has been actively connected with the politics of this country knows very well that when there is a change of government *-I do not say it is right, but it is the condition that exists in this Dominion to-day and has existed for a great many years- there is an inclination that its friends should receive the public offices. I am not so very sure, although we hear a great deal of talk, that it is a very wrong principle after all. I am going to refer to my own constituency. I have been intending to do it when I have heard the hon. gentlemen on the other side talking about high morality, but I have refrained from stating this case, for two reasons. One especially is that in my own town the post office is held by two young ladies who are giving splendid service, who always have given good service. Although they are the descendants and the close relations of very active partisans of the late Government, I want to tell you that these girls' heads are safer to-day than they ever were when their friends were in power, without any question. What are the conditions in the constituency of Souris s Some of you may know that I have the honour of representing the south half of the constituency that used to be represented by the Hon. Clifford Sifton. The sentiments of my hon. friends opposite must have changed very much, because I do not think that Clifford Sifton was any better or any worse than my friends who sit on the other side to-day. There are about 70 post offices in my constituency. The Hon. Clifford Sifton began at one end, at the town of Pearson, and went to Elva, to Melita, to Boissevain and all through

my constituency to about 25 towns, and, with the exception of about four, every man or woman who held the position of postmaster or postmistress in my constituency was dismissed. What has been the record since this Government came into power ? Just four postmasters or postmistresses have been changed in that constituency. One used his automobile all day to carry voters to the poll, and the other was a very active partisan-a delegate to the convention that nominated the Liberal candidate. I was going to say that my hon. friends cannot be sincere in this talk which has been repeated and repeated so many times, especially by my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte). In my own town, Boissevain, a town of about 1,000 people, the postmaster built, in the centre of the town, a splendid stone building simply for a post office. He was a man in whom everybody had confidence; the citizens felt safe in sending the smallest boy or girl who was able to walk to that post office to get the mail. Things went on until there was a change of government. This gentleman had been postmaster for a long time, but he was dismissed. My partner, who was a good Liberal, but none the worse for that, when I told him that they were talking about dismissing Alexander MeKnight, who was so far from being a partisan that you could not get him to vote at a meeting of trustees in the school district, who never voted for anything, he said;	' Oh,
no, they will not turn out MeKnight; our party do not do things that way.' Very well, MeKnight went. Who got the position? A man w'ho kept a hotel was appointed in his place. That was not the worst of it. Within about three months after he was appointed he had the posit office turned over to his daughters, and went to the next town, where he ran a saloon. What did our Liberal friends do? Something very similar to what I have heard talked about on the other side of the House. They were very much displeased; they were all going to vote against the Hon. Clifford Sifton the next time he came around. That settled him; they would not stand for that. They sent a very strong petition down to Ottawa, but nothing was heard of it. They went further than that; they had at my own house a meeting at which a splendid silver service was presented to Mr. MeKnight; they had a very nice time, and the Liberals were the principal speakers in condemning the Liberal Government for dismissing Air. MeKnight.
It seems to me that the Government has bad a tremendous lot of patience. I have a little grievance against this Government, and I think that the Hon, Mr. Pelletier is a sinner in some respects in this matter: he has not turned out the men in my constituency that he should.


Mr. BOYCE:: Hear, hear.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: When I tell you I have only asked for five out of seventy, it will be seen that I have not been very active in the matter. I do not know how these other members get their men turned out. I cannot be in with the Postmaster General as well as some others, if we are to believe what has been told on the floor of the House. If I want to have a postmaster dismissed the Postmaster General insists on an investigation by a so-called judge, and exceedingly strong ,evidence has to be adduced.


Charles Marcil: Has Mr. MeKnight been reinstated?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: No, sir, he has not. That post office is being run by those two girls to-day, and there is not a single Tory in the district who would raise a hand to have them dismissed. They will be there just as long as they wish to be. Not one postmaster dismissed by the Hon. Air. Sifton has been reinstated since this Government came into power. I think the Government has had a great deal of patience in listening to the hot-headed speeches that have been made on the other-side, but I would advise the Postmaster-General not to take them too much to heart, for there is not much in them.


Air. TURGEON:: The hon. minister will remember that a few days ago, with a view to bringing about those ideal conditions in the outside service which he has extolled, I gave him the names of three gentlemen who were active partisans in the last election-I do not object to that-and who were continuing their offensive partisanship by attending organization meetings of the Conservative party. The hon. minister promised that he would instruct these officials to stop meddling with politics. I would like to know if these men have been written to.


John Douglas Hazen: They have not been written to yet; we were taking that matter up this morning.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think the member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner) has a real grievance

against the Postmaster General. Sometimes I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Souris, but I heartily agree with him in this case. I want to tell him what the Postmaster General did in my constituency. He did not ask for an investigation; no. About one week after they were installed in office, the postmaster at Woodstock, a town of about 4,000 people, was simply told to get out and hand his papers over to his successor. That is the way they do it in Carleton county; and all over Canada there was not a postmaster whose job was required by a Tory but was told ' hand your papers over to John Jones, and there will be an officer down here to-morrow to take your place.' Sometimes the official got notice by wire, and at other times the Postmaster General took time enough to dismiss him by letter. If the Postmaster General requires evidence of partisanship in the constituency of my hon. friend from Souris, I want to tell my hon. friend'that he has been unjustly discriminated against. It may be that the Postmaster General thinks my hon. friend from Souris is going to get his reward anyway, if they get certain legislation through the House. The Postmaster General can afford to be a saint in the constituency of Souris and a sinner in every -other place. If any other gentlemen have grievances against the Postmaster General, I think this is a good time to bring it up, because we can give so much evidence as to the way the Postmaster General conducts things in other constituencies.
Mr. A. De WITT FOSTER: I have listened to the very vitriolic speeches that have been shot across the floor of the House by hon. members from eastern Nova Scotia, and at this particular time I do not intend to take issue with them because I really do not think it is worth while.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Make an attempt at it.


Mr. FOSTER:: The hon. member for Carleton is attempting to be facetious, but that does not worry me at all. I simply rise in accordance with the same right the hon. member for Carleton has, although I am pleased to say I do not do it so often and to so little purpose.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Thank God.


Arthur de Witt Foster: My last remark also applies to t'he gentleman who has just made that invocation. The more hon. gentlemen opposite pour out their vials of wrath upon 
the Postmaster General the stronger he is in the country. No man in the Cabinet has more of the confidence of the country to-day, in so far as I am able to judge from my own constituency, than the Post' master General, and I will add the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Since they have taken office they have done things in the way of administration of which the people of the country are very proud. It is true they have dismissed some officials who were in office when they came in, but the country will only hold them responsible in this regard: they have not dismissed half enough in many -counties, and to strengthen their position with the electors they should rid the service of many more who (have no business	in the public service. If
there is one thing the public life of this country needs, it is !to be rid of the class of officials that was working for the late Government in the various constituencies, particularly of Nova Scotia. That applies to the county of Carleton as well.


Mr. OLIVER:: The position that has been placed before the House by my -hon friend from Souris and by my hon. friend from Kings, N.S., is something that is entirely beyond the humorous. We have understood that the Government's responsibility was to give service to the Government through its officials. Our friends who have just spoken have -laid down the principle that the business of the Government is to find places for their political friends at the cost of the public treasury.


Arthur de Witt Foster: You laid that down yourself.


Frank Oliver: No, I did not lay it down either personally or by practice. I say that -such a principle laid down in this Parliament is something to cause the people of Canada to take notice. We do not object to the Government that has been recently installed in office making Changes to secure greater efficiency in the public service. There is something to -be said in favour of a condition whereby a new government, free from the associations under which officials then in office attained their positions, are able to exercise discretion in securing greater efficiency in the public service-a thing which the Government responsible for their appointment were scarcely in a position to do so well. That must be admitted and so f-ar as that is concerned, my friend from Souris and I are very much of a like mind. But when it comes to -a declaration that the Government of the day is weak-

ened in the country because it has not made public service a political reward pure and simple, then I say it is time for the Government to make a declaration on the subject and let the country know where they stand. And we will certainly have to ask the minister leading the House for a declaration of the Government's position on that point. If it is to be the position *laid down by his supporters so freely, the *country is entitled to know it, and if that is not the position of the Government, it is for the minister to say so. I was elected to Parliament in 1896-


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Who laid down that declaration? It was your party. '


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It was laid down in the Wagner case.


Frank Oliver: I was elected to Parliament in 1896 on the occasion of a change *of government. I had been offering for the support of the electors in the locality of Edmonton for some years as a candidate for the local legislature. I can say without hesitation that every employee of the then [DOT]Conservative Government of the Dominion had been an active political worker against myself both during my contests for the local House and during my contest for the Dominion House. I was elected to represent what is now practically the province of Alberta, and there was necessarily a very large number of appointees of the then Dominion Government rendering public service throughout that area which is now largely the province of Alberta. There was, as far as I am aware, throughout the province of Alberta, and certainly in the locality of Edmonton, no man dismissed because of his political opinions and, as far as I know, there was no man dismissed throughout the length and breadth of Alberta upon the accession of the Liberal Government to power unless there was some grave cause for their dismissal in the interests of the public service. While there may have been isolated cases of that kind, they were certainly isolated cases. I must take this opportunity of protesting against the sweeping assertion that has been made from time to time by our friends on the other side that they to-day are doing as their opponents formerly did.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I did just the opposite of what was done by my opponents.


Frank Oliver: I want to put myself on record as to the conditions prevailing in Alberta and as to the position taken by the
present Government. During the elections of 1911 there was not in the constituency of Edmonton any official of the then Government who took any part in the election-absolutely not. Officials were warned by me not to do so, and they did not do so, but immediately after the election the immigration agent at Edmonton was dismissed. Some time afterwards-quite recently-two other officials of the immigration hall were dismissed. Several of the homestead inspectors were dismissed.


Arthur de Witt Foster: Do you say that
they were instructed not to take part in politics?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Arthur de Witt Foster: Did	you instruct them
personally?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Arthur de Witt Foster: By	circular or written
notice ?


Frank Oliver: By written notice; every
official of the Interior and Indian Departments was notified, and I have reason to believe that a large majority acted in accordance with that instruction. But in the district of Edmonton, although the appointees of the Dominion Government did not take an active part in the elections, they were dismissed just the same. The immigration agent at Edmonton was summarily dismissed almost immediately after trie election without a charge at all and no charge could have been successfully made against him, either of political partisanship or inefficiency in the service. Who was appointed in his place?-The President of the Conservative Association in the city of Edmonton. Who was appointed in the place of one of the homestead inspectors?-a man pamed Brown. Perhaps it would be better to draw a veil over the results of some of these appointments, but shortly after this gentleman was appointed he was missing for some time and he finally turned ;up in the Red Deer Hospital suffering from an attack of D. T.'s and after some time further passed out of the service. The land agent at Grouard was dismissed, as far as I know, without any -charge against him at all. A man was appointed in his place by this Government whom 'they themselves had to dismiss a few months ago for improper conduct in the management of his office.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: They did not promote
him.


Frank Oliver: No, they fired him.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: But you did. You promoted a man for the same thing.


Frank Oliver: For what?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: For stealing from immigrants and trifles like that.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will have to take that back right off.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It is admitted by-


Frank Oliver: I ask the hon. gentleman to take that- back immediately.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: ,1 did not accuse my hon. friend from stealing from anybody.


Frank Oliver: No, no.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: But I say it has been
proven on the floor ,of this House and by the records of the House, and my hon. friend has not denied it, that Philip Wagner, a convicted thief, after his conviction and release Jtrom jail, took an active part in the elections, and was promoted by my hon. friend to a higher position in the Department of the Interior than he had held before his conviction.


Frank Oliver: I must ask the hon. gentleman absolutely to take his statement back. It is untrue and he must take it back.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Blondin):: It
seems to me that the words of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) have reference to a certain fact. I understand that if we attribute words to an hon. member of this House which are denied by him we must accept his denial. But here is a question of fact that I cannot judge of.


Frank Oliver: If I am not to have your protection, Mr. Chairman, and if it is necessary for members across the floor of this House to call each other liars, well then, we will have to do it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If such is the case, I understand that the hon. member (Mr. Boyce) is out of order. I understand the hon. member to state that a man outside of this House had some charges made against him, and that afterwards he was promoted.


Frank Oliver: The hon. gentleman has charged that I promoted this man, Wagner, after he had been convicted of a crime. I

say it is false, and I ask the Chairman to compel the hon. gentleman to withdraw the statement.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I am speaking of that which is not new at all. I am referring to something which took place, last session, and which was the basis of a resolution moved in this House. The facts are indisputable, and the hon. gentleman knows that they are true. I stated them because they are on the records of this House, and the statement I made was a fair statement, as the records of this House disclose.


Frank Oliver: Am I to have your protection or not?


Charles Marcil: The hon.
member (Mr. Boyce) has another opportunity of proving what he .says if he can; hut under the rule of the House he is bound to	accept	the
statement of my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver), who declares that he did not do such a thing. A member's statement must be accepted or there is an end to the proceedings of this House.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Since the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) denies absolutely having done such a thing, his word must be taken.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Take it back now.
Mr. .BOYCE: I will certainly accept the hon. gentleman's word if he feels that, having the record of - his previous statements in this House, which are in 'Hansard,' he can now state that the account I have given of his words and of all the facts is not a proper or a correct account. I am bound by the rules of the House to accept imy hon. friend's word now, notwithstanding that it is inconsistent with his previous statement and with all the facts as they are in the records of the House.


Frank Oliver: I must ask you, Mr. Chairman, to direct that the hon. gentleman must unqualifiedly withdraw the statement which he made, because it is untrue.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It seems to me that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) has explained his position and taken back the words as best he can.


Frank Oliver: No, he withdrew his statement with a qualification which I object to. I made an unqualified denial, and I

desire that my unqualified denial shall be unqualifiedly accepted according to the rules of the House.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I bowed to the ruling and submitted myself to- the Chair, but after I had done so f stated what my own impression was.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend will now have to withdraw the impression.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Is not that going a little too far ?


Charles Marcil: It remains for the Chairman, according to practice, to decide if the statement made is a withdrawal, or not.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that the hon. member withdrew what he said, and he stated afterwards that his remarks had been founded on certain things. I do not feel bound to rule that the hon. member has not made a proper apology.


Frank Oliver: I can only say that if we are not to have the protection of the rules of Parliament in our debates, the consequence must rest upon the presiding officers and upon the Government side. We have had a very clear statement of what the rule is, and all I ask is that it be complied with. If members of the Op-' position are not to have that protection, of course we will have to carry on business as best we may. However, as we have your ruling, Mr. Chairman, I may be permitted to proceed and to say, that the appointments that were made, to the position of immigration officer at Edmonton, to the land agency at Grouard, and to the homestead inspectorship in place of Mr. Gordon Macdonald, were appointments made because of political partisanship. Men were appointed because they were political partisans, so that they would continue to act, at the. expense of the country, as political partisans for the party now in power.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The same as you did.


Frank Oliver: Again I must ask my hon. friend to permit me to say, and I will ask him to accept niy statement, that I did not do any such thing.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I did not say you personally, but I say it was done by your party, and the hon. gentleman must know it. The officials there were active partisans, and very active partisans at that.


Frank Oliver: I am only speaking of what concerns my own constituency, and of what I know, and I can say that this Government-whose policy has been declared today by its supporters as being weak and inefficient, inasmuch as it has not absolutely turned the public service into a political organization for the benefit of the Conservative party at the country's expense-has done that in the instances I have mentioned in my own constituency. If they have not gone far enough to suit these hon. gentlemen, they at least have gone far enough to discredit themselves in any profession they may make as to Civil Service reform, which, hon. gentlemen opposite will be good enough to remember, was one of the leading planks in the platform of their present leader when he appealed to the country, and not only when he appealed to the country but long before he appealed to the country, when he declared for Civil Service reform from his seat in the Opposition. We are bound to believe that the country took him at his word. They gave him the opportunity to carry out the professions he had made, and to carry out the policy he had professed, with tire result that not only does he not intend to reform the Civil Service; not only does he not intend to disassociate it from political partisanship, but, on the evidence that has from time to time been placed before this House by members on this side, it has to be admitted that there has been a carnival of partisanship in the Civil Service of Canada since the accession of this Government to power, such as Canada never saw before under any previous government.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: That is a joke.


Frank Oliver: And not only that, but the followers of the party opposite state to-day that the Government is discredited because it has not gone further along that road.
Mr. SCHAFFNEil: I repeat that in some cases they have not.


Frank Oliver: I want to say that when the Liberal party were in office they gave the country efficient service, and they did provide a measure of Civil Service reform, so far as the Civil Service in Ottawa is concerned. The Liberal party gave no cause for the attitude that has been assumed by the Government and their followers towards the Civil Service of this country. I say that the conditions existing to-day must cause every Canadian to hang his head in shame.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh!


Frank Oliver: I am sorry if my hon. friends opposite are not ashamed, but when the leader of a great party, time after time in this House, makes a definite declaration of policy in regard to an important matter of the administration of this country's affairs, and then, on acceding to power, absolutely goes back on even the colour of the professions he made, and with the approval of those who attained to power on these professions, it is time for Canada and Canadians to hang their heads in shame.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Will the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him a question?


Frank Oliver: Yes.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I think he has made a very strong statement?


Frank Oliver: Yes,


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: If I understand the hon. gentleman aright, he referred especially to the inside service as being conducted by the late Government in this city in a non-partisan way. I say there are instances after instances where men have been promoted and put over the heads of other men, by the late Government, in the Civil Service of this city, because they were friends of the late Government. There is no doubt about that.


Frank Oliver: I do not say that the late Government administered the Civil Service without partisanship. What I said was, that they gave the country efficient service and that they did introduce a measure of Civil Service reform as applied to the service in Ottawa. But this Government does not seem to consider the question of efficient service. That is not the point with them at all. It is merely a question of finding places, at the cost of the public, for their friends, and that we have on the word of my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaff-ner) and my hon. friend from Kings (Mr. A. D. Foster).


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I never made such a remark.


Arthur de Witt Foster: Nor I.


Frank Oliver: I did not say my hon.
friends made such a remark.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: Then why accuse us?


Frank Oliver: I say it is the logical sequence of their arguments, and that it is the only logic there is in what they did

say, when they stated their dissatisfaction because the Government had not gone farther.


John Douglas Hazen: 
Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: This is carbide gas.


Frank Oliver: I quite accept the view taken by the minister; but as there are at least as many lighthouses in my constituency as there are in that of my hon. friend from Souris, and possibly as many as there are in the constituency of my hon. friend from Kings, and as they made a broad general statement as to the policy of the Government in regard to public officials, it seems to me that, it is entirely proper that I should give my view of the case, I do not wish to interfere with the course of the hon. minister s estimates, but I think that when such a broad and general statement of policy has been made, :t is quite in order that it should be absolutely nailed down, so that the country will know where the Government stands. I ask the minister for a declaration of policy of the Government on the principle laid down by his supporters the hon. members for Kings, N.S., and Souris.


George William Kyte: Will the hon. minister be
good enough to bring down at an early date a return of the dismissals to which I have referred?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Mr. McKENZIE:: There has been a great deal of talk


An hon. MEMBER:: In Victoria.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There has been some
talk in Victoria, and some false talk by colleagues of my hon. friend. If any hon. gentlemen are anxious to discuss Victoria county politics, I shall be glad to meet them on any occasion, provided I shall be given the benefit of the ordinary rules of discussion. I must congratulate the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Post-

master General upon the fact that there has been at least one excellent result from the remarks of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Foster) this afternoon. No doubt that hon. gentleman found that the positions of the Postmaster General and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries were weak, indefensible and tottering, and that he should therefore come forward with a certificate of character on their behalf. If I were going to pay a grocery bill down town, I should be given a very cold leer by any commercial man to whom I should produce one of the notes of the Farmers' Bank and hand it to him as currency. Such a certificate would be just as good, however, as the certificate handed down with such gusto by the hon. member for Kings this afternoon. There is an old saying which is well known, and which runs this way:
The river Rhine, as is well known,
Washes the city of Cologne;
But tell me, O ye powers divine,
What power on earth can wash the Rhine?
We have had a little whitewashing from the hon. member for Kings, but O ye gods, who will give him a certificate? It will be absolutely necessary to have something to back up his certificate of the Postmaster General and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; my hon. friend will back anything in the way of currency, even if it be little better than cowhide or tanbark. I had no intention, Mr. Chairman, of passing into general politics, only that my friends, who were behind this steamer Alert, which is a marine vessel, I understand-


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman is mistaken; it is not a marine vessel.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Well, she is leased by the Government. When the Estimates for the services of the Alert and her officials come up before the committee, I will want to know from hon. gentlemen why the officials of this Government and a vessel in the employ of this Government should be sent into Victoria county distributing canvassers and rum and money against the election laws of this country. That is some of the stuff that will be handed out to hon. gentlemen opposite in respect of Victoria county politics, which they are so anxious to inquire into. When the facts are brought down and this matter is discussed we shall be prepared to stand behind any action or attitude I or any of my friends take in Victoria county; we have nothing to be ashamed of. If once in twenty years a majority was given in a local election in Victoria county against the party I represent, is it such a surprising thing to hon. gentlemen opposite that they must go into hysterics because, forsooth, I stand in this House, as I have a right to stand and will stand as long as I am here, to protect the interests of my people and the county I represent? If such is the attitude and politics and manners of hon. gentlemen opposite, they will find in me a foeman worthy of their steel on every occasion. I was watching with a great deal of interest the mental gymastics of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries this afternoon, and I observed that in spite of all the inducements he was offered to give his attention to certain subjects, he came no further than the edge of them, and managed to keep well away from the real question at issue. The position is this: My hon. friend has dismissed hundreds of officials because of partisanship. If that principle is right at all, it is right on the ground that no man should receive public money for public services and at the same time give his services to one party or another, or contribute of his force or strength or time to one party or another while he is in the pay of the Government. Does my hon. friend stand by the position that while an official is in office and while the party whom he supports is also in office, that official has a free hand and full license to devote his time and attention to partisan political operations?
Or does the minister lay down the principle that whilst an officer of his department is in the pay of the Government he must devote his attention to the duties of his office, and not be a political partisan, and that if he transgresses that rule he shall be dealt with accordingly? I think we should know from the minister what is his attitude on that particular point, and, generally, if that is the attitude of the Government in such cases.


Arthur de Witt Foster: As the hon. member for North Cape Breton calls upon the gods to give me a certificate, let me remind the committee that the county of Kings at the last election gave me a majority close to 200, whilst at a previous election my opponent had a majority of 1,200, that is-all the certificate I want. I do not want such a certificate as the hon. member for Victoria got when he first entered this House.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: They won't renew~
your certificate.
lias


Arthur de Witt Foster: I will take a chance on that. The hon. member for North Cape Breton was sent to this House not by the will of the people, but by the courts, as he himself admitted in the Public Accounts Committee before hon. gentlemen of this House. -
At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 47, respecting the Lake Erie and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Fisher. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Mr. LANCASTER:: This is a Bill to allow the company further bonding powers. They found they could not finish their road on $30,000 per mile bonding power, and asked us to substitute $45,000. They also asked us, by section 2, to be allowed further borrowing powers. We have not changed the Bill as printed, but we have added a section protecting municipalities who had agreed, after submitting by-laws, to advance money to further assist the railway, because of the limited boundary powers ahead of their advances. They protested, and the committee gave effect to that protest, that they should not be now compelled to advance the money if we permitted the first mortgage, as it were, to be increased over them. Section 3, with the consent of the promoters, was added, and that protects the municipalities. So all parties are now satisfied. That section provides that they shall not use the extended powers now granted to them without releasing the municipalities from the agreements they made, with the former limited bonding ahead of them.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply.
Salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $450,000.	"
["Certainly, in discussing these items we have not tied ourselves down to the particular item under consideration. If there is any further information that the lion, gentleman wants about any item I shall be very glad to give it to him, no matter what the item is that is under consideration.\nProgress reported.\t.\nOn- motion of Mr. Hazen, the House adjourned' at 11.30 p.m.\nMonday, March 2, 1914."]
George William Kyte: Can the minister now give us the information with regard to dismissals?


John Douglas Hazen: I think the hon. member
asked for the number of dismissals in the Department of Marine and Fisheries since

the change of government in 1911. When I came into office, the total number of employees in the Marine and Fisheries Department was 7,000. There have been 510 dismissals, or 7 per cent. When the Liberal party came into power in 1896 the number of officials was 2,600, and the number of dismissals 420, or 16 per cent. In both oases the dismissals are on the same ground, that is, on the score of partisanship and incompetency. The dismissals since 1911 have been entirely in what is called the outside service. There have been no dismissals in the inside Service, that is, in the department here at Ottawa. As something was said this afternoon which would suggest that an entirely different practice prevailed under the previous Government, .1 would just call attention to one case because I know more about it personally. I find that an investigation was held in 1896 in the case of B. R. Palmer, the lightkeeper at Palmer's Point, N.B. Mr. McAlpine was the commissioner appointed to investigate this charge and reported to the Minister of Marine that the charge was not satisfactorily proved. There is on file a letter from Hon. A. G. Blair, the then Minister of Railways and Canals, to Sir Louis H. Davies, in which, amongst other things, Mr. Blair, states:
Mr. McAlpine tells me that he reported the charge ' not proved.' If this is a correct statement of the result I would thinlc it most inexpedient to take further action against Palmer. Of course he has not been a political friend of mine; but I would think his removal ought not to take place on the ground of his being an offensive partisan, when it appears he was not such.
An Order in Council was issued dismissing Mr. Palmer, such order stating that it had been established to the .satisfaction of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that the keeper referred to was an active political partisan on the occasion of the last Dominion election.
In the case of Mr. J. P. Dillon, light-keeper at Whitehead, N.S., an investigation took place. Mr. Dillon was unable to appear owing to ill-health, but forwarded affidavits contradicting the testimony given before the commission. Mr. Dillon sent in his resignation, and Commissioner Douglas recommended that his resignation be accepted. The department declined to accept the resignation, and an order was passed dismissing him from the service.
' My hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) referred to three cases of partisanship in Nova Scotia that were investigated,

the result of the investigations being that the commissioners reported the charges as sustained, and the .officials complained of being dismissed. My hon. friend has referred to all these cases before in the House.


John Howard Sinclair: Not nearly all. There
were eighty dismissals from my constituency, and I have not referred to half of them,


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend has referred to these three cases on previous occasions. He referred to one case last session and to the cases of O'Brien and Bourque this session. I do not think my hon. friend has given the House anything new with regard to them this afternoon, yet as they have been referred to I feel it only proper that there should go down on * Hansard ' the statements that have been made with regard to these cases from the departmental standpoint, and from the standpoint of the commissioner appointed to investigate them. I take first the case of Mr. Boudreau who was lightkeeper at Poulamon. This case was referred to Mr. Duchemin for investigation and he reported :
I find as follows:
1.	That Bartholomew Boudreau attended the
Liberal convention as a delegate in the summer of 1910.	.	.
2.	That he engaged in political discussions in a public manner among, the voters of Poula-mon that he attended the nomination meeting at Arichat in September, 1911, and subsequently engaged in an argument, and gave out very partisan accounts of the proceedings there.
3.	That while keeper of the light at Poulamon, he made public comment on the result of the last provincial election in the province of Quebec, endeavouring to establish that this result indicated that the Liberals would at an early date return to power in Dominion politics.
4.	That he indulged in very offensive remarks with regard to Mr. Gillis, the Liberal-Conservative candidate for Richmond county in the last Dominion election.
5.	That he has herein violated the regulations of the department prohibiting employees from taking part in elections.


George William Kyte: Has Duchemin submitted
the evidence?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not the evidence
here. I presume it is on file in the department. It is hardly necessary for me to refer to the case of Mr. Bourque. I only do so that the two cases may be side by side on ' Hansard.' Mr. Duchemin's report in this case was as follows:
Mr. Bourque was duly notified of the time and place of the hearing, but his wife appeared and stated that her husband was not well enough
to be present and that he did not intend to be present anyway. She was advised that her husband could either appear at the inquiry or see Mr. Duchemin during his stay in River Bourgeois, when he (Mr. Duchemin), -would be pleased to submit the evidence taken against him, and transmit to the department anything he might have to say. Mrs. Bourque, however, assured Mr. Duchemin that her husband did not intend to appear at all, and he did not.
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 known Marin Bourque for years and declared that he had always been a most objectionable Liberal partisan. He further testified that in the Dominion election of 1908, when the campaign was in progress that Marin Bourque used most objectionable language towards the Conservatives, calling them 'that dirty party' and saying that 'I would never vote for that dirty party'. Mr. Levisconte added that while Bourque was not a .man that exercised much influence in the district, he had nevertheless always been offensive and objectionable as a Liberal partisan.
Wm. Boudreau testified that Marin Bourque had always talked of politics openly in a 'nasty and insulting way'. In the 1908 election, he (Bourque) had come to him and told him that 'he was a fool to be working for that party' (meaning Conservative) because they were going to get licked anyway. Mr. Boudreau also stated that Bourque had always been openly offensive when elections were taking place.
Mr. Duchemin found that Marin Bourque had been an offen3ive partisan and on this ground his services were dispensed witn.
(Mt. KYTE:	Is there not a report from
Duchemin in respect to a former investigation?


John Douglas Hazen: We discussed that the
other night. The third case was that of Mr. Michael O'Brien, lightkeeper at Bear island, Nova Scotia. After briefly reading the finding of Mr. Duchemin, I will explain the point that was taken last year by my hon. friend, and to which he again referred this afternoon.
Mr. Duchemin's report was that:
1.	Michael O'Brien left Bear island and took away the only boat belonging to the lighthouse, arid went down to Arichat and attended nomination proceedings, being absent for a day and night from his lighthouse.
2.	On the day of the provincial election, held in June, 1911, Mr. O'Brien, although a perfectly literate voter, caled out in the polling booth the name of the candidate for whom he intended to vote, and insisted upon the presiding officer openly marking his ballot for him, stating that he was claiming to have this done, because he was a Government official.
3.	Mr. O'Brien used offensive partisan language on election day in the presence of Mr. Alex. Malcolm, a voter at Port Malcolm.
4 Mr. O'Brien has thus offended against the rule of the department prohibiting employees



from taking part in elections, and has also been guilty of offensive partisanship.
My recollection is that last year my hon. friend (Mr. Kyte) took the ground that Mr. O'Brien had never been notified and had been given no opportunity to appear and make 'his defence. After the discussion in the House I, that night, mailed a copy of ' Hansard ' containing what had been said in that respect to Mr. Duchemin. On May 31, I received this letter from Mr. Duehe-min:
Sydney, N.S., May 31, 1913.
Hon. J. D. Hazen,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Ottawa, Canada.
He Michael O'Brien, lightkeeper, Bear island, Richmond county, N.S.
Dear Sir:
I am to-day in receipt of copy of the unrevised edition of 'Hansard,' for Friday, May 23, 1913, and note that at page 11022 et seq., Mr. Kyte, of Richmond, has made certain criticisms of the investigation which I held into the conduct of Michael O.Brien, lightkeeper at Bear island, N.S.
I shall not to-day traverse the many misstatements which Mr. Kyte has made in connection with this matter. It is quite evident that he has been most grossly misled by his informants in this connection.
I wish, however, to deal with what I consider the one serious criticism made in this connection, namely:-That the accused lightkeeper did not receive adequate notice of the time and place of the investigation, and that he was consequently not able to present himself thereat. Mr. Kyte points out that Mr. O'Brien was notified to appear before me at Edward Malcolm's house at Port Malcolm, on February 20, and that the investigation was not held there at all but that it was held at the Farquhar house at Port Hawkesbury, some four or five miles distant, and that it took place-not on the 20th-but on the 22nd February. He also read a statement from the accused lightkeeper to the effect that my original notice to him was not received by him until the day of the investigation.
The facts are as follows:-On the 17th of February, X mailed Mr. O'Brien notice to appear before me at Port Malcolm, at the house of Edward Malcolm, on the 20th February, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. In due course of mail, this letter would have reached Mr. O'Brien on the 18th of February-two days before the inquiry. It so happened however, that the greatest snow storm of the season occurred at this time, stalling the trains, making the roads impassable and for a day or two preventing the mails from going to and fro regularly. When I found this out, and was satisfied that Mr. O'Brien could not have got the notice in time to attend the inquiry, I wrote him on the 19th or 20th of February, from Port Hawkesbury, and sent the notice to a Mr. Malcolm at Port Malcolm, for personal service on the lightkeeper, notifying him of the cancellation of the first notice which I had mailed to him, and requesting him to appear before me at the Farquhar House at Port Hawkesbury, on the afternoon of Saturday, February 22. In the same letter, which I sent to Mr. Malcolm, I enclosed subpoenas for 
witnesses. On the afternoon of the 22nd the witnesses appeared, but Mr. O'Brien did not. I made careful inquiries and satisfied myself that Mr. O'Brien had been served with the notice, and that he was purposely absenting himself, and then proceeded with the investigation.
The investigation, as you will note, took place on the 22nd of February. 1 did not make report to you in this matter till March 3-some nine or ten days later. There was certainly ample time for Mr. O'Brien to write me, explaining what prevented him from attending. He had received two notices in tne matter, and did not respond to either of them, either personally or by letter. Had he written me, and given any valid reason for his non-appearance, I should certainly have done, what I have always done in such cases-make arrangements for him to appear before me, see the records, showing the evidence of the various witnesses, who gave evidence against him, and make what statement he wished in his own defence. After waiting for a period of ten days, however, from date of investigation, and having been assured by those present, and who were certainly in a position to know, that Mr. O'Brien had been served as promptly as the witnesses themselves, I felt quite justified in sending forward my report to the department on March 3.
I can assure you that in all these cases I have taken every precaution when the accused has made default at the investigation, to satisfy myself that he had really decided not to present himself at the hearing, and I do not think there is the slightest question that in this case Mr. O'Brien deliberately absented himself from the investigation in question.
There are other misleading statements made by Mr. Kyte during the course of the discussion on May 23, relating to an investigation in another department, which I shall deal with at once, and shall state the facts correctly to the minister concerned.
Yours very truly,
(Sgd.) H. P. Duchemin,
Commissioner of Inquiry.
I thought it only right that I should submit to my hon. friend and the committee this statement in regard to the matter which I did not have when the question was under discussion before the House. These are the three cases that my hon. friend has referred to. They have been repeatedly discussed in this House on previous occasions as well as to-day and 1 thought it was only fair, in view of my hon. friend's return to the attack on the investigation that this statement should go on ' Hansard ' side by side with the remarks that my hon. friend has made.


George William Kyte: In regard to the report of Mr. Duchemin in the case of Mr. Bourque, Mr. Duchemin 'held an investigation on the 28th September. He summoned as a witness William Levisconte, who was unable to give any evidence to sustain the charge against Mr. Bourque. What did Mr. Duohemin report to the minister? He reported

that although the investigation was held no -witnesses were examined. That was an absolutely untruthful report, and that report having been sent in, the minister ordered a second investigation, and we have Mr. Duchemin's second report. I presume the minister would be justified in accepting without any qualification the report made by his commissioner were it not for the fact that his conduct has been impeached so frequently in this House and that proof has been presented of the unreliability of his reports in many instances. In regard to the case of Mr. O'Brien, I read a statutory declaration from the lightkeeper himself in which he denied having received the notice sent to him by Mr. Duchemin until the day after the investigation. Mr. Duohe-min, in his letter to the minister, states that Mr. Malcolm was called to give evidence in the investigation. This is the same Mr. Malcolm to whom Mr. Duchemin alludes as having sent a copy of the notice of the investigation to, and this is the same Mr. Malcolm who wrote to the Minister of Public Works alleging that Mr. O'Brien was a strong Grit, and that he was a strong Tory and that, therefore, he was entitled to Mr. O'Brien's lighthouse. At t'he investigation the only witnesses who were called were Mr. Malcolm, the applicant for the lighthouse and his wife. I asked the minister if he had the evidence on which Duchemin bases his report, and he said he had not. Of course, if he has not the evidence to give me it is impossible for me to verify it. My recollection, from reading the document last year, is that this man, Malcolm, who was an applicant for the lighthouse, a few days after the change of government asked for it on the ground that he was a strong Tory and that O'Brien was a Grit, was the sole witness exceipt Malcolm's wife, and Malcolm is the lightkeeper appointed in O'Brien's place. Duchemin says he sent a special notice to be served on O'Brien. So we have the spectacle in this country of a man being put on trial, and practically the only witness called against him is the msn who is himself seeking the office of the person whom he is seeking to have dismissed, and upon this unsupported testimony the Minister of Marine and Fisheries acts. It is unnecessary for me to say to the minister that no court in the land would accept, to support even the most trivial offense, the testimony that is offered in these investigations. And, when a charge of partisanship is made against an official, which if proven involves the sacrifice of 761
his means of livelihood, it is about as severe a penalty as can be imposed upon a man, particularly a man who has a large family to support. Therefore, I say that the evidence upon which these dismissals are made, is absolutely inadequate and such as would not be accepted in any court of law. With regard to the case of Boudrot, the minister did not have a copy of the evidence either, but my recollection is that the witness was the man who was subsequently appointed lightkeeper, and who had every incentive and every desire, of course, to make the case as strong as he possibly could, irrespective of what facts might be brought out in cross-examination. With respect to the case of Bourque, he did appear at the investigation on the 28th of September, but when the second investigation was held in December, he was in bed and unable to leave his house. It was absolutely impossible for him to meet his accusers, and furthermore, his wife was assured by Mr. Duchemin that no witnesses were to be examined, and that he came there solely for the purpose of getting a statement from Mr. Bourque-himself.
Referring to the statement as to dismissals which the minister gave to the committee, I wish to ask him if the number of dismissals given in that statement, as having been made by the late Government, covers the whole period of the fifteen years they were in power ?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not looked into it personally, but my information is that while perhaps not the whole of them, yet practically the whole of them were made within three years of the coming into power of the Liberal Government.


George William Kyte: Does it include all the dismissals made up to the time the Liberal Government ceased to hold office?


John Douglas Hazen: Practically.


George William Kyte: The number of dismissals alleged to have been made by the present Government covers that period?


John Douglas Hazen: I understand it covers everything up to at least the beginning of this session.


George William Kyte: Does it also include fishery officers who weTe displaced by the present Government?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Is it divided by provinces, or is it given in bulk?


John Douglas Hazen: It is not divided into pro^ vinces.


George William Kyte: Do I understand the minister to say that he is quite sure it includes the fishery guardians dismissed?


John Douglas Hazen: That is what my deputy minister informs me. There is an exception to that, about the fishery officers. ' There were in the province of Ontario about forty fishery officers who were dropped in consequence of the change under which the administration of the fisheries in Ontario was taken over by the government of that province. Therefore, we had no further reason for maintaining these fishery officers. They were dropped, and no others were appointed in their places. They would not be included.	.


George William Kyte: They would be included in the 7.000 employees the minister stated are now employed by the Government?


John Douglas Hazen: I think so:


George William Kyte: I understand the minister to say there were 2,500 employees in the department in 1896?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


George William Kyte: Do the 7,000 in office at the
present time include new appointments made by the present Government that is, additions to the departmental staffs?


John Douglas Hazen: They would include all who are in office.
Mr. KlTTE: How many have been added to the number since the 11th of October, 1911?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know, but only a fractional part. The service has been growing ever since 1896.


George William Kyte: Would the minister give us some idea as to how many were added since he came into office?


John Douglas Hazen: I cannot do that offhand. Mr. KYTE: Would there be 1,000?


John Douglas Hazen: Oh, no; nothing like it.


George William Kyte: Could the minister bring down the information?


John Douglas Hazen: I will get it when we come to the fishery items.


John Howard Sinclair: I suggest that the minister should tell us how many of the men dismissed were lighthouse-keepers and how many fishery officers, and so on.


John Douglas Hazen: I think that can be done.


John Howard Sinclair: That would be very important.


John Douglas Hazen: When we get to the item for the fisheries branch of the department, I shall have all the information in proper shape so as to give it to the House.


John Howard Sinclair: The whole point we have been trying to make on this side of the House, is, that the comparisons that have been made with the condition of affairs in 1896 do not exist to-day and did not exist in 1911. The Conservative party have to face this question from a different standpoint altogether from that which the Liberal party had to face in 1896. The Liberal party came in not pledged to reform the Civil Service; they came into office in 1896 under an old system that had grown up under the different changes of government which had taken place since Confederation. But the Conservative party, through its leader, had for a number of years prior to 1911 given clear and distinct pledges to the people of Canada that if they were returned to power they would effect reform in the Civil Service. It is not fair, therefore, to compare what happened in 1896 with what happened in 1911. In order that there may be no dispute in regard to the pledges given by the Conservative party let me read from the platform of 1908 and also from the platform of 1911 on the essential points that refer to this question of the Civil Service. I wish to place this on ' Hansard ' so that it may be available for hon. gentlemen opposite who wish to study the situation of their party on these matters. The platform of 1908 is, no doubt, familiar to hon. gentlemen on the other side. I have a copy of it here. It contains the picture of the leader on the front page.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Sinclair: It is a very good portrait. Let me draw attention to the fact also that it bears his signature, and he becomes responsible for everything within these covers. Now, look at the first clause in regard to the Civil Service:
The character of a government may be judged by its appointments to important and responsible public positions. An Administration which appoints dishonest or disreputable men to the public service, or retains and promotes officials who have been proved unworthy, cannot be credited with good intentions. '


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Sinclair: That is a good principle, and I would ask hon. gentlemen opposite to study it in the light of the appointment of Morine and Landry. Now, on another page of this document, I find this reference to the Civil Service:
Appointments by Merit:	Appointments of
public officials upon considerations of capacity and personal character and not of party services alone.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like my hon.
friends opposite to square that with some of the revelations made here this afternoon.
I myself drew attention to a case at Canso where a position was vacant for which it was practically impossible for the Conservative party to And a qualified man. They have practically admitted that, because for several months the position has been vacant and the minister stated to-day that it was not filled but was occupied by a temporary employee. The position is a responsible one, the keeping of Cranberry Island light at the southern entrance to the straits of Canso. The man recommended by the Conservative committee has been turned down by the officer of the minister as unfit for the position, yet the oflice has not been filled because they could not find a suitable man. A gentleman applied for the position with whom no fault could be found, one who had had seven years' experience in that particular light, and who knew all about managing the lighthouse and the engine. This man had the endorsation of over forty leading Conservatives in Canso, but because he could not get the three men who control the party as a committee to sign his recommendation the minister would not appoint him. There was no other reason that could be mentioned why Mr. Henry Hanlon could not occupy this position except that he was a Liberal. I want hon. gentlemen opposite to read this declaration in their platform that appointments to the public service are to be made on merit alone, and try to square it with such cases as this and the hundreds of others that- might be given. Then, in this Halifax platform there is the following clause:
Civil Service Reform.
4.	A thorough and complete reformation of the laws relating to the Civil Service so that future appointments shall be made by an independent commission acting on a report of examiners after a competitive examination.
I understand that the Commission for the inside Civil Service was appointed prior to the election of 1908, so that the leader of the Government, when he penned that
clause, must have had reference to the outside Civil Service. What has he done to carry out his pledge to put the outside Civil Service under a commission? There is another platform, a manifesto to the people of Halifax, dated Halifax, N.S., August 31, 1911. This manifesto says:
Three years ago you elected my colleague, Mr. A. B. Crosby, and myself, to be your representatives in the Parliament recently dissolved. Then, as now, the demands upon my time denied me the opportunity of holding any meetings in my constituency or of meeting the electors personally.
Upon the great issue which has precipitated dissolution, and upon other important issues now presented for the determination of the people, I have issued an address to the people of Canada which X submit for your consideration.
Notwithstanding the enormous expenditure upon the National Transcontinental railway, little has been done to solve the transportation problem for Halifax. This port should become the real terminus of one or more great railway systems reaching into the prairie provinces and thence to the shores of the Pacific.
Cheer now. This is from the leader of the party that has been degrading the National Transcontinental railway, changing the grades so that Halifax will never have any use of it. (Reading):
The position and natural advantages of Halifax entitle it to that status. It is not necessary to enlarge upon the benefits which would thus ensue to the constituency and to the province.
It will be my aim and policy to accomplish this result.
I pointed that the way he is redeeming that pledge is by destroying the National Transcontinental railway-by making it useless as a great transcontinental route from the prairie provinces to the sea. (Reading):
Railway extension through the eastern part of the county has for many years been urgent. For fifteen years the federal Government with abounding revenues has remained indifferent and inactive. During the past session, while both federal and provincial governments were trifling with the question, I took the ground in Parliament that the road should be built as a part of the Intercolonial railway and without delay. As a result of this the federal Government has apparently been awakened to a momentary sense of its duty and an item oi $1,000,000 has been inserted in this years Estimates for the commencement of the work.
In that clause he tries to lead the electors of Halifax to believe that he was the man Who started the Musquodoboit railway through the county of Halifax, when everybody knows that he had nothing whatever to do with it. (Reading) :
The highways through the country districts of this and other counties have been for many years and are now in a disgraceful condition.

The time has come when the federal Government should co-operate with and assist the provincial governments in the establishment of a system of permanent state highways.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Sinclair: This policy which is outlined in my general address will be of vast advantage to this county, which has suffered so long in this respect.
Now, I am going to give something which my hon. friends from Nova Scotia, no doubt, will cheer for:
The fishing industry, so important to our province, is carried on largely by boat fishermen. The conditions governing boat fishing have changed greatly of late years. Fishing is now frequently carried on many miles outside of our territorial waters and during the entire year. The boats employed are more expensive, better equipped and more costly to operate than those in general use some years ago. Thus, boat fishing has become largely a permanent employment, and those engaged in it are in reality seamen. This change is advantageous to the industry, because it ensures a regular supply throughout the year, which is essential in order to retain our hold on the markets. The Liberal-Conservative party has adopted and will carry out the policy of extending to the boat fishermen the same free medical aid and attendance afforded to those employed on Canadian vessels engaged in the deep sea fisheries.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Sinclair: The cheering on that is rather faint. (Reading):
Before the close of the campaign I hope to have the privilege of addressing you upon these and other important questions.
In conclusion, I desire to pay a well deserved tribute to the energy, the zeal, and the industry with which my colleague, Mr. Crosby, has faithfully discharged his duty as your representative. He has been prompt, active and earnest on all occasions to safeguard and maintain the interests of his constituents.
Faithfully yours,
R. L. Borden.
You will note, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Crosby, after receiving that 9 p.m. recommendation, could not get elected. In the election of 1911, the main manifesto was a large document dealing with the question of reciprocity chiefly, which I will not trouble the House 'with reading. It winds up with a certain number of pledges which I think ought to be placed on ' Hansard ':
The pledge given by the Liberal-Conservative party.
The Liberal-Consdrvative partly gives its pledge to carry out the following policy if returned to power:

1.	A thorough reorganization of the method by whicq the public expenditure is supervised.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) cheers that sentiment. He has been called upon on various occasions during the present session to stand up for his old principle of tender and contract, but he has been very quiet on that subject. It has been revealed to him that the same old policy in reference to the giving of some contracts without tenders is carried out, and not the slightest change has taken place following the pledge of his leader, on which he received the votes of the people. I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should cheer that sentiment after the record his party has made for the past two or three years.


Mr. BLAIN:: Give us one or two cases of contracts let without tender.


An hon. MEMBER:: The Transcontinental.


John Howard Sinclair: I am not aware of any important contract let without tender. On the contrary, every contract on the Transcontinental was let after most public advertisement inviting tenders from the whole world, and in every case to the lowest tenderer.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman misunderstood my question. He complained that on this side of the House I failed to stand up for the principle I advocated when on the other side. I am asking him to give us some contracts which were let by this Government without public competition.


John Howard Sinclair: We have done that already. Several ministers have admitted that they let contracts without tenders.


Richard Blain: Give us the name of one. The hon. gentleman says there are many, but one will do for the present; let him name one.


John Howard Sinclair: I could give you a hundred. (Reading):
2.	The granting of their natural resources to the prairie provinces.
You will note, Mr. Chairman, that there are no such words here as ' on terms ' or ' on fair terms.' The Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers) criticised the speeches made on this side of the House, saying that we were not stating the case fairly when we did not say that this handing over of the natural resources was to be made on fair terms. If hon. gentlemen will read this document-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I am afraid the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sinclair) is not confining himself strictly to the item under discussion.


John Howard Sinclair: In order to get at all the facts in regard to promises relating to the Civil Service, I wish to put all the:e pledges on record.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: As much as possible, I would like the hon. gentleman to confine himself to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


['As much as possible, I would like the hon. gentleman to confine himself to the Department of Marine and Fisheries.']
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think the minisleT
must have forgotten to answer the question I put before six o'clock.


John Douglas Hazen: What was the question?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What attitude does the minister propose to take in respect to his officials? Is he going to permit them to be
active, offensive partisans and not ccl 11 them to account? And what is going to be his attitude towards officials whom he has left in power and the officers appointed by himself? Is he going to give them a free hand, apart from these excesses, when they are in the pay of the Government, to go around the country looking after the revising of lists, acting as agents at elections and paid partisan officers in the conduct of elections? Is he going to permit them to take any part in election matters? Or is he going to keep them down to the business for which they are paid?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think my hon.
friend was in the House this afternoon when I told the House that I did not approve of officials taking an active part in politics. I think it is an act of impropriety on their part to do so and if my attention is called to officials of my department who are taking an active part in politics I will see what steps can be taken to check them. There are, of course, in the department temporary officials who, I suppose, do not think that their liberty of action ought to be curtailed because they are getting a few dollars from the department without permanent appointment. 1 am referring to those who may he regarded as permanent officials of the departm nt, and I think it is an impropriety that they should take an active part in elections, although, of course, they have a right to vote the same as anybody else.


John Howard Sinclair: How does the minister distinguish between permanent and temporary officers?


John Douglas Hazen: 
Mr CARVELL:: Does the minister say
that an official appointed by Order in Council who is a fairly permanent official in the department, does take an active part in elections in the future, he will have the matter investigated and if it is found that the official has transgressed at all he wdl remove him from office?


Mr HAZEN:: If my attention is called to any case of that sort I will communicate

with the official, inform him what I have heard and warn him not to take an active part in the future. No instructions have ever gone forth, as I understand, from any government to officials to that effect; but if, in view of such a statement and warning, any official continues to take an active part in politics and the charge is repeated against him, I will have the matter investigated and deal with him.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think the minister realizes the point I am making. It is all very well to say that if his attention- is called to the matter he will warn the official. We know that these acts take place during the elections, and you have no opportunity of asking the minister to warn the officials because you do not know until the act has been done. Will my hon. friend go so far as to warn this particular class of officials at the present time or before an election that they must not take any active part in -elections? In my constituency I have no fishery officials except a few of the class whom the minister has excluded.
I have a few fishery overseers appointed by the month, and I have no objection to the minister appointing his friends to that position. In New Brunswick my friend knows that at every provincial election-there has been no Dominion election since my hon. friend assumed office-every one of these officials is an out and out partisan. We had an illustration in Fredericton three weeks ago, when officials publicly went to the court house, took a part in the nomination proceedings and such things as that, and publicly canvassed at the polls. I would like the minister to declare some policy in order that we may know just where we stand. It is of no use to say 'You were guilty when in power.' If we were guilty we were punished. We want to know if he and his oolleagues will attempt to carry out the high ideals expressed by his leader, as the hon. member for Giuysborough has pointed out. These were high ideals and many people believed him. From the conduct of his party since we know that if he was sincere then he has had a change of heart since, or else he has been overpowered by the other sections of his Government. I give the Minister of Marine and Fisheries credit for wanting to be fair. Will he or will he not now lay down the principle and notify his officials, en bloc, that they must cease taking an active part in politics?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend has asked me a direct question, and I shall give him a direct answer. No government of Canada -has ever issued any instructions of that sort to officials. To do so would be to cast a certain suspicion about men who are appointed and are presumed to discharge the duties of their offices in good faith, and I am not prepared to issue any such instruction to my officials. Why did not my hon. friend impress that on his own friends when they were in office if he is so sincere to-day? My hon. friend must remember that in politics, as in other things, a good deal depends on whose ox happens to be gored. As I told my hon. friend in all sincerity, I do not think it is a proper or *edifying thing for officials of the Government to take an active part in political campaigns, and if officers of my department do that, and my attention is called to the matter, I shall try to apply a remedy to prevent it recurring. That is as far as I am prepared to state to my hon. friend to-night.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am sorry the minister has not seen fit to go a little further. It only bears out the impression we on this side of tihe House have had in the last two years that his leader was not able to impress on his colleagues that degree of sincerity for these great reforms for which we and the country gave him credit prior to the election of 1911. I thank my hon. friend for being as fair and upright in the matter as he .has been to-night. He has stated the policy which we believe to be the policy of the Conservative party, that is he locks the door after the horse is stolen.


Arthur de Witt Foster: Hear, hear.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend says,
' Hear, hear.' I know from some personal knowledge of the hon. gentleman that those are his sentiments. If there is any man in this House who will say hear, hear, to anything politically crooked, it is the hon. gentleman from Kings, N. S. We have seen that gentleman for two and a half sessions and I think if he stays another session he will then vanish from the political horizon, never I hope to re-appear.


Mr. BRADBURY:: Mr. Chairman,-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: If my friend the guardian of all the Indians in Canada will just possess himself in patience for a while, I may tell him I have a little Indian matter in my constituency which I shall bring up at a later date. I am just giving him notice

that Indians are being pilfered from down there and their property is being taken away. But I am talking now to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I am somewhat surprised that my friend did not go a little further, because the net result of his statement here to-night is nothing. He simply says that if he is returned after the next general election and you call to his attention the fact that certain officials are dabbling in politics he will take it into consideration. He asked me what we did. The moment we touch one of our friends opposite they come back with ' what did you do.' I will tell him what we did not do. We were not hypocrites who claimed a policy we did not carry out. Before the elections of 1896, 1900, 1904 and 1908, we did not preach to the country that we were going to reform the Civil Service cr that we were going to revolutionize the body politic of Canada, as did my hon. friends opposite. My hon. friend says he thinks it is a degrading, or at all events not an elevating spectacle, to see public' officials taking part in political contests. I agree with him, but the difference between us is that when a man takes the smallest possible part in a political contest my hon. friend ruthlessly cuts off his head. I think my hon. friend has degenerated since he came to Ottawa. It is to his credit that when he was made Premier	of New Brunswick in 1908 he did not carry on the carnival of	decapitation of
public officials as he has done since he became a member of this Government. He took what I think was the proper course down there. Very many officials were dismissed but hundreds were not dismissed by my hon. friend, and when he came to Ottawa we certainly had better opinions of him than his course has led us to entertain at the present time. I think he has fallen under the baneful influence of the hon. gentleman who sits to his left, and also of the gentleman who sits' to his right. I am afraid it is a case of evil communications, because my hon friend certainly was not possessed of that bloodthirsty spirit prior to 1911, which his friends have compelled him to exhibit since he became a member of the Government.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I found that in the
Post Office Department.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You cut off every head. You left no living tree that you could get your axe into, and when you could not get evidence to dismiss a man, you dismissed him *without evidence. You d'smissed the fatherless, the widows and the dead. From the standpoint of Opposition members, I do not know that you are hurting us very much.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Why do you complain so much?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Every official that, you
turned out of office, will be a splendid election campaigner at the next election. I do not believe in this principle, and as proof of my sincerity I may say that I had the patronage of the county of Carleton in my hands from 1897 to 1911, and so far as I can recollect only two men in the county were ever dismissed from office for political partisanship. One was a collector of customs who took an active part in politics; he had been chairman of Conservative political meetings, had made political speeches and been as active a partisan as any man could be. The other case was that of a postmaster who did not remain in his office, practised his profession and had other people to do the work of his office. I do not say the office was not properly conducted, I think it was, but the other members of his profession fell that it was not a fair thing that he should enjoy a salary of $3,200 or $3,500 a year and employ others to do the work for which he was appointed. So he was removed from office. Those are the only, two instance, so far as I can recollect, where men were removed in my constituency for political partisanship during those 14 years. I do not say that I was not importuned by party followers right down to 1911, to have charges laid against certain Conservative politicians and have them dismissed from office, but I did not do it, and some of those men are alive to-day and still retain their offices. Election after election they had been active canvassers for the Conservative party, but I did not ask to have them dismissed from office, and I do not regret it, because as a rule they were persons occupying unim-. portant offices. Take a man in charge of a post office getting $33 or $40 a year. Do you mean to tell me that that man has not a right to exercise his franchise in this country ? I think it is carrying politics to a contemptibly low level to say that a man occupying such a position has not the right to exercise his citizenship and manhood in this country, or that if he does exercise those rights, it is at the risk of losing his office.


Charles Marcil: They only got $10 before 1896.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They get 835 now. I could cite instances of postmasters getting 8500 or $600 a year who continued active partisans down to 1911. I remember seeing one of them dancing like a wild man around a bonfire on election night, but we did not dismiss him, and I think we have the respect of the people of the country for that. I think if my hon. friend would take the course we took, he would feel better to-night, because I know the Minister of Marine is not carrying out his own ideas and views of what is right as between man and man in carrying on this carnival of decapitation of office holders.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: These are not my estimates; I suppose my turn will come later, but this is the second time the hon. member for Carleton has taken upon himself to state in this House that I have dismissed every postmaster in his county. At the tail end of the first session of Parliament he assured the House that I had dismissed every postmaster in his county.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is not true; you will find it on ' Hansard,' but I did not
say it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I was in my seat here and I heard the hon. member make the statement. I was sure that it was not correct, but my hon. friend was very, very angry, and I thought I would wait until the next day when he would be in a better humour to give him a chance to rectify the statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I think it was two nights before prorogation.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Yes, at the tail end of the session, when I had no chance of correcting it. My hon. friend said I had beheaded every postmaster in his county, and he says now that he did not say it. I heard it with my own ears, and it is on ' Hansard,' so we are two to one. He has repeated it to-night. He says I have cut the head off every postmaster in his county.
I suppose he will be surprised when he reads that statement on ' Hansard ' tomorrow. These statements are misleading. I suppose I am using a parliamentary word when I say that ?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend the Postmaster General has dismissed every postmaster in my constituency who is a Liberal and who had an office yielding-


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: So he did in mine.
Mr. CARVELL-$50 to $75 and over, and in nearly every instance without an investi-

gati-on of any kind. I cannot, at the present moment, recall -more than one instance where he even attempted to give these people a chance to defend themselves. In one instance a gentleman named Armstrong, the postmaster at Greenfield, had a chance to defend himself, but as far as I re-collect, these postmasters were simply told, with two days' notice, to get out and hand over their books and papers to their successors. If that is my hon. friend's sense of justice and fair play, I am quite willing that he should have it.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: My 'hon. friend -should not make those statements.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I understand what I am talking about, and my hon. friend will have a -chance to reply.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: It will all be in ' Hansard ' to-morrow.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know it will be in
' Hansard ' and if it is any comfort to my hon. friend to hear it, i may say that it was only the little fellows who were getting $32 a year who were not dismissed; I am willing to give -him that little bit of comfort. He did not dismiss those postmasters because lie -could not get any Tories in the constituency to take their places. It was 'because no Tory office-seeker sought the position that he did not disturb the occupants. In every case where they wanted the head of an official the Postmaster General granted it, and he- granted it, if necessary, without an investigation or without giving the official a chance to defend 'him/self. If there is a sinner in the whole crowd of them it is the Postmaster General. If there is a man in the- whole Government who has no right to stand up and defend himself it is the Postmaster General. If there is a member of this Government who has violated every principle of what is fair and just between the Government -and the office-holders it is the Postmaster General. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries at least tried to cover his tracks, because I do not think we have any evidence of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries maliciously firing men from office without at least giving them a farcical investigation. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries .is a good lawyer, he 'has an idea of what looks right to the public, and while I think many of these investigations were a mere farce, still the minister i-s able to stand up and read from his records and say that Mr. D uchemin "gave these officials an investigation. Of -course, that is tantamount in many cases to no investigation at

all. But the Postmaster General 'has no such documents as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh, yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, he has not.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Oh, yes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, he has only a letter from the defeated candidate, or the memorandum, or the patronage committee, saying that they want the head of John Jones; the Postmaster General immediately complies and off comes the head of John Jones.


William F. Carroll: He did not even send
them an affidavit.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is what occurred in at least half a dozen cases in my constituency and he did not even send them an affidavit to swear to. He did not even give them a chance to answer his letters, he did not give them a chance to say whether they were guilty or innocent, he simply sent telegrams saying: turn over your books and papers, and in forty-eight hours they were dismissed from office.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I did not do that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not think the Minister of Marine and Fisheries wants the Postmaster General to butt in and defend him. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is quite capable of looking after himself. He is not at all in the same class as the Postmaster General. He has some justification for his conduct and the Postmaster General will do his friend a good service if he refrains from dragging in the Post Office Department at the present time. We will have something to say to the Postmaster General later on.


George Henry Bradbury: It is really amusing
to hear the remarks which have fallen from the lips of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat in view of the record of the Liberal party. Everybody who knows anything of that party knows that when they came into power in 1896 they cut off the heads of, not hundreds, but thousands of Conservatives. In the province of Manitoba and throughout the West men were removed from office on the receipt of letter from the defeated candidate, or the elected member, without any justification. Men were removed from highly-paid offices as well as from the minor offices. The postmasters in the riding of Selkirk, as well as in the adjacent counties, were changed without any cause except that they were Conservatives. My hon. friend would like to get the
ministers to commit themselves to a policy which would not allow one of these officials to take any part in politics and in the next breath he advises the Government that the postmasters, who are poorly paid, should be allowed to express their opinion. How consistent the hon. gentleman is ! The hypocrisy of hon. gentlemen opposite is so apparent that it must make the public laugh.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Oh, go on.


George Henry Bradbury: My hon. friend over in the corner (Mr. Lafortune) must be suffering; he says that some postmasters were dismissed from his county. I can only say that if the postmasters who were dismissed in the hon. gentleman's constituency were as deserving of dismissal as a great many in the western constituencies the Government have not dismissed half as many as they should have dismissed. The complaint made by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House against the hon. gentlemen sitting on the Treasury benches to-day is that they have not dismissed men who ought to have been removed from office for active partisanship, and not that they have removed too many. There is not one case in the West where men have been removed from office who were not active partisans. In my own county I had several cases where men were active partisans and I have no hesitation in saying that I recommended the minister to remove these men. Some of them were removed and I take the full responsibility for their removal. But it amuses me to hear the statements of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. He came into this House in 1907 with a very respectable majority, but his majority fell away until last time he saved himself by about seven votes and if he continues to exhibit the bad temper which he has displayed here tonight his majority will be diminished altogether the next time he appeals to the electors. I did not intend to say one word; I asked the hon. gentleman a courteous question and I received the answer I might expect to receive from a man that I would hardly consider worthy of a seat in this House, not from a gentleman who is sent here by his constituents to treat hon. members of the House with that courtesy which one gentleman would expect from another. The exhibition we have had to-night from the hon. member for Carleton, N. B., illustrates what has been said at different times on this side of the House of the rank hypocrisy of

hon. gentlemen who have been preaching ever since we came into office about the hardship that it entails to dismiss these men who have been active partisans and who, when they were in office, dismissed men right and left without any reason. I remember that in my own province there were one hundred officials dismissed inside of ten days after the change of government took place in 1896-I will not say without any justification, because I presume these men were party men-but if such treatment was good for these men, then surely hon. gentlemen, opposite should not complain about it now. I would not agree to the Government committing itself to a policy that would say that a Government official must not take any part in politics, and if he did that he should be removed from office. This was not the policy pursued by the late Government, and ought not to be adopted by this Government.
The hon. gentleman tried to induce the minister to notify the officials, that those who were in future guilty of partisanship would be removed from office. Does not the non. gentleman know that the late Government distributed a circular amongst its officials, warning them not to take part in elections, and that that circular was simply, to my mind, a warning to these men to get ready for the campaign, because, in my own county, the men who received these circulars, were the most active campaigners I had against me. And, not one of these men was dismissed. The late Minister of the Interior can bear me out tnat a circular was issued.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say anything about that.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. member
stated that the late Government had not warned the officials.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I made no reference
whatever to any such matter.


George Henry Bradbury: I understood the hon. gentleman to have endeavoured to induce the Minister of Marine to issue instructions.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is rignt.


George Henry Bradbury: And I understood the hon. gentleman to say that no Government had ever done so.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I never said that.


George Henry Bradbury: The late Government did send out circulars, but, as I say, it seemed to be a warning to the officials

that they were expected to take an active part in the campaign. Personally, I do not approve of highly-paid officials becoming active partisans, but I agree that men who are occupying small offices should not. be debarred from taking part in politics. These men ought have a perfect right to express their opinions and to vote, if they want to. I say further, that when men become active canvassers and offensive partisans, no hon. gentleman on the opposite side can object to such men being removed from office. I do not believe any officials have been removed from office under the present regime, except those who have been guilty of partisanship.


Mr. NEELY:: I am .sure the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) is well qualified to lecture hon. gentlemen on this side of the House as to what the Liberal Administration should or should not have done with reference to partisan officials. The hon. gentleman is probably the only member of this House who is quite as well qualified as himself to take a high stand on the question of fair dealing with political opponents, because he furnishes the only instance on record in this House of a man having taken such a high position that he has even appointed Grits to office instead of Tories. I referred, a week or so ago, to the fact that my hon. friend had gone so far as to appoint the Grit returning officer in the last election to the important post of Indian agent in his constituency. I am sure the House must appreciate what a magnanimous and generous thing the hon. gentleman did in that.


William F. Carroll: Was there any reason
for it?


David Bradley Neely: Evidently, the returning
officer at the last election in Selkirk must have counted the votes quite to my hon. friend's satisfaction, and, having done so well the last time, I should not be at all surprised if the hon. gentleman were to ask that official to step down from his official position when the next election comes around and again count the votes.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What was his majority-how much did the returning officer give him?


George Henry Bradbury: Eighty more than
you got; my majority was 87 and yours was seven.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: You are wrong there;
my majority was more than seven.


David Bradley Neely: The majority of the hon.
gentleman (Mr. Bradbury) was not so great that he has any particular reason to boast over the hon. member for Carleton. I do not think the hon. member (Mr. Carvell) felt so grateful to his returning officer, even though he was a Grit and the hon. member was a Grit, that he would attempt to do [DOT] any great service for that gentleman after the election was over. That is something my hon. friend from Selkirk can very well boast about. He can certainly stand on his high ideals and lecture hon. gentlemen on this side of the House after such a generous deed.* We, on this side, will be very much surprised if this gentleman is not further rewarded by my hon. friend, by being put back on the job he had last election for the time it is necessary to count the votes, and probably after that the hon. gentleman will have something still better in store for his returning officer. The hon. gentleman said that the Liberal Administration did send circulars to officials in Western Canada, and I can tell the hon. member-and my hon. friend from Edmonton can bear me out in this-that when the late Administration left office at least fifty per cent of the Dominion land agents in western Canada were Conservatives. Further, some of these Conservatives were appointed 'by the late Administration, and yet the hon. member tells us about the heinous treatment that was handed out to Tory officials in the West under the Liberal Government. The^e were men who were left in office for fifteen years, men who were known to be Conservatives in politics and partisans. One official in my constituency was appointed Dominion lands agent, although he was a son of Mr. Norquay, ex-Conservative Premier of Manitoba. The Minister of Marine said that no previous Administration had issued circulars or directions :to officials that they should not take an active part in politics, but the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) has contradicted him in that. I do not know whether the minister was referring to his own department or to all departments of Government, but I do know that the hon. member for Edmonton, when Minister of the Interior, issued circulars instructing his officials throughout western Canada not to take an active part in elections. I. have no doubt whatever, that some of these officials transgressed these instructions, but I will say that I consider that these instructions had a very great influence *on the conduct of officials, and that a great many were restrained from taking an active part in the elections, when possibly their
natural inclinations would have led them to do so. More than that, I say that the hon. member for Selkirk is going absolutely beyond the facts, and beyond any inference he has a right to draw, when he says that these instructions were apparently issued for the express purpose of being disregarded, and of apprising the officials to get ready for the elections. I do not think the hon. gentleman can take the list of the officials in the West, and say that they were not influenced to be non-partisans by these Instructions.
My own opinion was that they were less partisan than they would have been without these instructions. So, when the minister takes the position that he would be treading on new ground if he were to carry out the suggestion of the hon. memb;r for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), he is quite astray. He may be correct with regard to his own department in the past, but he is not correct with regard to every department of the Government. Whatever department of the late Administration might be open to criticism and attack for its treatment of officials of contrary political persuasion, certainly the Department of the Interior under that Administration is not open to such criticism as has been offered by the hon. member for Selkirk.


Richard Blain: A stranger listening to this discussion and not knowing hon. gentlemen opposite would come to the conclusion that the Government of the day had been pretty busy since it came into office in 1911 dismissing officials in different parts of Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is no dream.


Richard Blain: 
David Arthur Lafortune: They are all Tories.


Richard Blain: No, they are nearly all of the same political persuasion as my hon. friend-not all; I do not say that. But when you bring out the fact that hon. gentlemen opposite were in office for fifteen years and realize how many changes ike

place in official life in that time, it is easy to see that a large number of these officials must have belonged, and do belong, to the party of hon. gentlemen opposite.


William F. Carroll: Does not the hon. gentleman think these ten representatives are to be congratulated?


Richard Blain: I am calling attention to the fact. But to hear hon. gentlemen opposite talk of wholesale dismissals, accusing the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. ,'Hazen) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier), who is so bitterly condemned by the hon. member for Carle-ton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), one would think that almost every postmaster in Canada had been dismissed. [DOT]


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I can tell the hon.
member that nearly every postmaster in my constituency who was supposed to be a Liberal was dismissed. I am not trying to make out a case; I am telling the facts.


Richard Blain: The Postmaster General
took issue with the statement of my hon. friend. According to ' Hansard,' which the hon. gentleman now denies, the hon. gentleman made the wholesale statement, in the closing days of last session, that every postmaster in the county of Carleton had been dismissed. I am not going to discuss the matter further. Hon. gentlemen opposite do not wish us to enter too far into these discussions; they want us to wait, and I am on the waiting list.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What are you waiting
for?


Richard Blain: For an opportunity. Hon. gentlemen, so far this Session, have been discussing small matters in which the public at large are not very much interested, and so hon. gentlemen on this side have not had much opportunity to take part in the discussions. We are going to give these hon. gentlemen plenty of opportunity-plenty of rope, if I may use the expression. I only wish to impress upon this House and the people that this Government has been very careful with respect to the dismissal of officials. I have given the figures with regard to ten counties. And were I to go over the whole province of Ontario, I believe the same proportion would hold good.


Charles Marcil: But I suppose the hon. gentleman will not be surprised to know that that state of affairs does not obtain in Quebec. There have been more dis-

missals in my own constituency than the hon. gentleman has spoken of.


Richard Blain: And should none of these
officials have been dismissed?


Charles Marcil: That is not the point. I brought the matter up this afternoon to try to induce the minister to put an end to this system of dismissal-to warn those now in office to remain out of politics, so that they might remain in office when the Administration changes. But we have had no satisfaction from the minister on the subject. Of course, if these men display offensive partisanship, they will have to be dismissed, when the Administration changes. I do not know how it is in Ontario, but the system of dismissing officials prevails in Quebec and apparently in the Maritime provinces.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman's leader made the statement in this House that each case must stand on its own merits.


Charles Marcil: I did not want to interrupt my hon. friend; we are old friends, and have sat here together for fifteen years. But I would point out that each successive government should be an improvement upon its predecessor. Now, the late Government introduced an important reform in placing the inside Civil Service under a commission, and we are looking to this Government to bring about improvements in relation to the outside service. -


Richard Blain: I think if the hon. gentleman would ask tire Canadian people, they would say that this Government was altogether an improvement on the late Government. This Government is commencing a great reform, and they must be sure the foundation is good before they commence. When the foundation is absolutely secure-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: When the Grits are all removed?	i


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman knows where the deadwood is. I apologize for having spoken so long, but I thought it only fair that some statement should be made during this discussion that would leave a fair and reasonable impression upon the public mind, showing that there were no undue dismissals, and that in many counties in Ontario not one official has been dismissed since this Government came into power.


George William Kyte: That may prove only that the ministers were so busy dismissing

officials in the Maritime provinces that they have had no time to do anything in Ontario. We have had returns to show that dismissals in the department of the Postmaster General numbered about 1,100, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has told us that he dismissed about 510. We have other returns relating to other departments which I think would bring the number up to a good many thousands. The hon. gentleman speaks of the six dismissals in ten counties, but in my own county eighty dismissals took place. And during sixteen years of Liberal Administration only two dismissals were made.


Bowman Brown Law: Are supplies purchased by tender and contract?


John Douglas Hazen: I have a memorandum
containing the information my hon. friend desires to obtain, and I will read it to him. It is as follows:
Lighthouse supplies, ships' stores which are carried in stock at the different agencies, are purchased in the following manner: The agents prepare a list of their requirements for the coming year which are forwarded to the Commissioner of Lights and the undersigned, and are carefully checked with a view to ascertaining whether the articles asked for are actually required. When the list has been approved, it is returned to the agent with instructions to advertise publicly in the press, calling for tenders for the supplies in question, where it is considered advisable, or to distribute a list of the department's requirements to the leading Arms in their respective lines, in order that they may have an opportunity of quoting. Tenders are received and a tabulated list prepared and forwarded to the purchasing and contract agent at Ottawa with the recommendation of the agent. .Tenders are carefully gone over and the contract awarded in accordance with the prices submitted, that is to say, that the lowest tender is always accepted, quality being equal. As regards purchases made by local agents from time to time to meet the daily requirements of the service, quotations are obtained locally from the respective merchants and the order placed with the firm quoting the lowest price. The agent issues an order known as an emergency order, giving full particulars, prices to be paid, etc., and in order to protect the department against any overcharge, the following is printed across the face of the order:	'This	order is given
and accepted with the distinct understanding that the prices charged are subject to the approval of the purchasing and contract agent of the Department of Marine and Fisheries at Ottawa. This fully protects" the department, even in the event of an agent placing an order at prices which might be considered excessive.
As regards purchases made directly from Ottawa, it is the rule to forward the leading merchants and importers in their respective lines an inquiry with the request to quote and the order is placed with the party quoting the i most advantageous price. This
method is always followed in making purchases.
As regards the repairs to vessels, before any work is placed in hand, the department ship's husband and chief inspector of boilers and machinery make a thorough inspection, prepare specification in detail of the repairs required, which specification is submitted to the leading repair firms in the locality where the repairs are to be effected, with the request that they submit sealed tenders in writing. A careful estimate of the cost- of the repairs is prepared at the same time as the specification. This estimate is forwarded to Ottawa immediately. The tenders are opened by the agent in the presence of another officer, and the result of the tenders forwarded to Ottawa by telegram, and in all cases the lowest tender is accepted, provided that it agrees within reasonable limits of the estimate prepared by the inspector.
The acceptance of the tenders is authorized from Ottawa by wire and is followed by official warrant authorizing the repairs in question, stating the name of the successful tenderer and the amount of his tender, and no work is placed on hand, of any kind whatsoever, until authority is obtained from Ottawa. This system works very satisfactorily. Little or no time is lost, and the department's interests are absolutely safeguarded. In the event of the lowest tender being considerably in excess of the estimate, new tenders, are called for. The tender accepted invariably agrees very closely with the estimated cost prepared by the inspectors, who have a thorough knowledge of the cost of making repairs in the different localities. Speaking generally, at least 90 per cent of the repairs to the vessels are effected at the estimated cost. All supplies are purchased and all repairs to vessels made on a competitive basis whenever and wherever it is possible to do so.


Bowman Brown Law: Did the Burrell-Johnson
Company submit tenders for the repairs to the lightship Lurcher?


John Douglas Hazen: Probably so; there is scarcely a piece of work we have in that part of the country in Tespect of which we do not receive tenders from the Burrell-Johnson Company.


Bowman Brown Law: Who has the purchasing of the small supplies?


John Douglas Hazen: The emergency supplies
are bought by the agents of the department at the port where they are required.


Bowman Brown Law: Who is the agent at Yarmouth?


John Douglas Hazen: Yarmouth is under the
Halifax agency, which is under the control of Mr. Harvey; the lightship Lurcher is under the control of the agent at St. John. Most of the supplies are got from headquarters, but I presume that if anything were wanted it would be bought by the captain, who would pay for it and send the bill to the agent for approval.


Bowman Brown Law: To whom does the captain
at Yarmouth go to for his supplies?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not understand what extra supplies the Lurcher has to purchase. There is a contract with the steward to supply food to the officers and men.


Bowman Brown Law: Hundreds of dollars' worth
of supplies are bought there for which tenders are not asked. Here is one item on page N-83 of the Auditor General's Report; E. K. Spinney, $798.46. To whom does the captain apply when he is instructed by the agent at St. John to purchase these goods?


John Douglas Hazen: All goods bought for the
Lurcher lightship, which is connected with the agency at St. John, are bought through that agency, and are purchased on a competitive basis from those firms in Yarmouth which are adjacent to the Lurcher lightship. The prices are subject to the approval of the purchasing and contract agent in Ottawa; I have read to the hon. gentleman the provision in that regard. There is practically nothing, as I understand it, bought by the captain of the Lurcher himself.


Mr HAZEN:: It is bought through the agent at the headquarters of that vessel. The headquarters of the Lurcher is St. John.


Bowman Brown Law: They are purchased in that way, but through some Conservative in Yarmouth.


John Douglas Hazen: No, they are not; they are purchased through the agent at St. John.


Bowman Brown Law: To whom does the captain of the lightship Lurcher or any other Government boat coming into Yarmouth, wanting supplies, go ?


John Douglas Hazen: As I understand, the captains do not make purchases. The supplies are purchased by the agents. The captain would make requisitions and let the agent know what was required, but the purchases are made by the agent, who alone is responsible, although they come to the contracting agent at Ottawa, who examines them to satisfy himself that the prices are proper prices. No one outside of the properly appointed officials of the department has any authority to purchase supplies in Yarmouth.


Bowman Brown Law: To whom does the agent at St. John apply at Yarmouth to purchase these goods ? How does he know whom to ask for prices ?


John Douglas Hazen: I presume that the agent himself or some one under him goes to the respective dealers and gets their prices before purchasing. He certainly has no instructions from us to go to any particular persons. His instructions are to purchase goods at fair, proper and reasonable prices.


Bowman Brown Law: I do not think that the agent at St. John deals directly with the firms in Yarmouth. I think the purchases are made through some member of the patronage committee in Yarmouth. The minister knows there is a patronage committee there.


John Douglas Hazen: I fancy that the only large supplies which are purchased there are in connection with the repairs to ships. In such a case, Mr. MeConlcey, the ship's husband at Ottawa, goes down and arranges for the repairs required at the best possible prices. The agent of the department, purchasing small supplies required at Yarmouth, goes to the different merchants in the town and gets their prices. Of course, he would have a reasonable idea of the value of goods and would know what was a proper price to pay; but even then, his judgment is subject to the approval of the department here, and the goods are sold knowing that the prices charged may not be paid if Mr. Doutre says the prices are too high, but there are no instructions to go to any particular persons.


Bowman Brown Law: Then the purchases are not made through any patronage committee in the town of Yarmouth ?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Bowman Brown Law: In running over a comparison of the prices, I see that in one* or two instances the prices in Yarmouth are lower than in other places. For instance, Gillette's lye, which is used in large quantities, is $3.65 a ease in Yarmouth. In St. John, the constituency represented by the minister, it is $3.85; but at Quebec the department pays $4. If the minister wants to purchase his goods cheaply he ought to go to Yarmouth to purchase. At page N-89 I notice a purchase of 300 bushels of oats, middlings and bran, by the department in Halifax.


John Douglas Hazen: That is purchased to take down to Sable island.


John Howard Sinclair: I would refer the hon.
member for Peel (Mr. Blain) to N-19, of the Auditor General's Report, where he will find $1,125 spent in repairs to the Lans-downe, which 1 understood was admitted to have been done without any tender or con-

tract. At page N-24 he will find an item paid to Geo. T. Davie & Sons, repairs to the Montcalm, of $4,068.64, without tender or contract. The minister admitted that these repairs were without contract.
Mr. HAZEN. The hon. member will remember that I explained that Davie is the only one below Montreal having a dock in which repairs could be made to the bottom of a vessel. If the repairs were not made there the vessel would have to be taken to the dry dock at Halifax and there would not be much competition there. It might happen that a vessel would be in such a condition that she could not, be taken to Halifax. It does not follow, however, that too much is paid as the work is gone over by Mr. MeConkey, the ship's [DOT]husband, and by the officials of the department and they agree on a price, which in their opinion is fair and reasonable. The case that was referred to in Charlottetown was one in which the firm of Bruce Stewart was the only firm able to handle that class of work.


John Howard Sinclair: That is hardly a good
excuse. You might say that if a vessel in Pictou harbour happened to require repairs there "was only one firm in Pictou who could [DOT]make the repairs. But Charlottetown is only 'across the strait and a very short voyage. If the minister is going to act on grounds of that kind he will not resort to tender and contract at all. If repairs amounting to $3,000 or $4,000 are thought not worth offering to tender I am afraid that the principle, is not very well carried out by the present Administration.


Richard Blain: The hon. member for Guys-borough is altogether away from the question that was up for discussion between my hon. friend and myself. My hon. friend twitted me for not standing by the same principles that I advocated on the other side of the House. Will my hon. friend tell me when I ever suggested during the time I was on the other side of the House that small repairs should be let by public tender? Everybody knows that it would not be possible for any Government to ask for tenders for repairs to vessels or docks, as specifications could not be written for them, and without a specification you could not receive tenders; or the tenders would be of no value. What I said on the other side of the House was that contracts to supply goods in large quantities should be let by public competition. I answer my hon. friend by saying that the Government- of which I am now a supporter has been doing that ever since they came into office in 1911. When my hon. friend tries to sidetrack the issue by pointing out from the Auditor General's Report that this Government allowed repairs to be made to vessels without competition, he is not meeting the case at all.


William F. Carroll: Does the hon. gentleman say that this Government has given out no new work for the building of wharfs without tender and contract?


Richard Blain: I speak subject to correction, but I do not think this Government has given out contracts where the amount is more than $5,000 as provided by statute without first asking for tenders. Can my bon. friend give me a case?


William F. Carroll: I have three in my county.


Richard Blain: How much do they amount to?


William F. Carroll: I am not talking about the amount.


Richard Blain: It makes all the difference.


William F. Carroll: My hon. friend from
Guysborough was saying that the hon. member for Peel is not taking the same stand as he did in previous years. I can name three wharfs constructed on the Mira river last year without tender and contract.


Richard Blain: All new wharfs?


William F. Carroll: Yes.


Richard Blain: Amounting to how much in each case?


William F. Carroll: I am not in'a position
to say.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The principle is the same.


Richard Blain: The principle is not the
same.


William F. Carroll: I could give my hon. friend another case where breastworks were built on the Lingan Bar without tenders and contract. I take the ground that everything, even to the amount of $500 should be given out by tender and contract, and if the late Government did not do that with new wharfs, they were making a serious mistake.


Richard Blain: Would my hon. friend limit it to $500?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would not limit it at all.	.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend is laying down a new policy for his party; because the hon. gentlemen around him listened to the ministers of their party, declaring time and time again from their places in this House when in office that where a tender did not exceed $5,000, as provided by statute, it was understood and agreed between the two parties-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, no.


Richard Blain: I could turn up ' Hansard,' and show where my hon. friend from Carle-ton defended his Government in doing that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Turn it up.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: You will deny it as you did with the Postmaster General.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will deal with my hon. friend from Lincoln later, but I tell my hon. friend from Peel that he cannot find anything like that on ' Hansard.' I might have said the Government have the right in an emergency-


Richard Blain: No, not in an emergency.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, to let a contract
not exceeding $5,000 without tender, but if the hon. member can find that I ever voiced the sentiment that it was a proper thing for this Government to let contracts for $5,000 without tender, I will apologize. It is a question of policy, not of what the law allows. If the Government were allowed to carry out the policy the hon. member has enunciated here to-day it would practically eliminate the question of tender and contract in matters amounting to millions of dollars, because every year millioas are expended under $5,000. My hon. friend can see the difference. The law gives the Government the right to enter into contract without tender if the amount does not exceed $5,000.


John Howard Sinclair: My understanding is-I speak subject to correction from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries-that this regulation about the $5,000 applies only to the Department of Public Works.


John Douglas Hazen: As my hon. friend has referred to me, my understanding is that it applies to all public works whether under the direction of the Public Works Department or any other department of Government. It was decided that printing was a public work under the statute.


John Howard Sinclair: I thought it referred to the Public Works Department only. I never heard it applied to ships in the Marine Department. My hon. friend from Peel is not so familiar with the question of repairs to ships as I am. It is a matter on which I can speak with some authority because I know how the business is done. If he goes to any of the large shipyards in England he will constantly find the parties who bring their ships into the dock for repairs, asking for tenders from all who do that class of work. The fact that it is repairs, does not preclude the asking for tenders in any sense. There is no difficulty at all in that. There might be difficulty where a boiler had to be taken out when its condition was unknown. It is easy to see what repairs are required and to ask for tenders. My hon. friend is mistaken when he says that repairs cannot be subject to tender and contract like any other work. I never heard my hon. friend take the stand that the amount must be over $5,000. It is the first time I ever heard him make that statement in the House.


Richard Blain: Did my hon. friend ever
hear his own Government make that statement?


John Howard Sinclair: We all recollect what
the hon. member stood for, and I am in the kindliest way requesting him to try and impress the views he held on this side of the House for ten years on the Government he now supports, and insist that they carry out those principles.


John Douglas Hazen: I would like to say to my hon. friend from Guysborough that tenders were asked for repair work amounting to $1,100, that Mr. Heims was the lowest tenderer and that the work was done by contract. Some repair work can be done by contract and some cannot. We have to be guided by the ship's husband as to whether it can or not.
Construction of lighthouses, including the regulation of traffic in the Detroit river and such other places as may be found necessary, $1,000,000.


Frank Oliver: As I understand, the Government has undertaken to establish [DOT] a harbour at Port Nelson. A beginning of expenditure in establishing a harbour at that port has been made. I am not aware which particular department is going to be responsible for these improvements. Ordinarily, I presume that it would be the Department of Public Works, but in the discussion of the Railway Estimates it appeared that the Railway Department was

12n7
taking up the question and had made the expenditure that had been made up to that time. But it was also made apparent that the Department of Marine and Fisheries had undertaken a certain responsibility in regard to this harbour with reference to surveys and safeguarding. I would like to know which department is going to be responsible for developing this port.


John Douglas Hazen: The work of providing the terminals, and other work that is necessary at Port Nelson, is being done by the Department of Railways and Canals as the terminal work is work of a character which is necessary in order to enable the Hudson Bay railway, that is being built by the Department of Railways and Canals, to ship freight through that port. With the work of providing wharfs, dredging the channel and providing the terminal facilities that are necessary my department has nothing to do. The Department of Marine and Fisheries will be charged with the responsibility of providing the necessary aids to navigation, such as buoys and lighthouses. The Naval Department, which is under the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and which has charge of the wireless telegraphy, will also have to, as a part of the aids to navigation, establish certain wireless telegraph stations along that route. The 'question is one that has been giving the members of the lighthouse board a great deal of concern. The lighthouses of this country are in a sense controlled by the lighthouse board which consists of the deputy minister, the inspector of lights, the chief engineer of the department, and a number of gentlemen who are not officials of the department, like the President of the Dominion Marine Association and of the Shipping Federation of Canada and, I think, some other gentle-Vnen from the Pacific coast. All questions about the establishment of new lights are submitted to the board. They recommend to the minister where new lights should be established, whether new lights should be improved, where new buoys should be placed and where submarine bells should be stationed. The question of aids to navigation has been carefully considered by the board and I might state what has been done up to the present time and what the board decided to do at a meeting held in the city of Ottawa within, the last few days. The record in the department indicates that in the early part of September, 1912, the department received a suggestion from Mr. Clergue of the Hudson Bay Steam-77J
boat Company that certain marks be placed at the mouth of the Nelson river. The deputy minister and the chief engineer and the commissioner of lights held a consultation on the matter and decided to forward that fall aboard the ' Beothic ' fifteen small buoys (unlighted) complete with moorings. When this decision was taken it was expected that the Beothic would come to Montreal and accordingly arrangements were made to furnish 15 buoys from that agency. Two or three days lateT uncertainty arose as to whether or not the Beothic would come to Montreal and arrangements were accordingly made to forward 15 buoys from Halifax via Sydney. The Beothic afterwards came to Quebec and as two sets of buoys had been prepared and as it was believed that the entire 30 would ultimately be needed in the neighbourhood of Nelson, they were forwarded aboard the Beothic.
It developed, however, that on the arrival of the Beothic at Nelson in the fall of 1912 there were no facilities for landing 15 of the heavier buoys and the 30 moorings. Two of the heavier buoys were left in position at the mouth of the Nelson river by the captain of the Beothic; 13 heavier buoys and the 30 moorings were fetched back to Halifax, while 15 of the lighter buoys with wire moorings but without anchors were landed at Churchill and placed in care of the Mounted Police. At the lighthouse board meeting, February 6, 1913, consideration was given to a report prepared by Mr. F. Anderson of the Hydrographic Survey having reference to the needs in the way of aids to navigation in northern waters. Decision was deferred and the matter was referred to the chief engineer and the commissioner of lights to be further considered in consultation with Mr. Anderson. On March 14, the chief engineer and the commissioner of lights discussed the matter with Mr. Anderson and with Mr. Hazen, resident engineer of the Department of Railways and Canals for Hudson bay, and decided to provide 16 steel buoys, 4 of them to carry top marks and also 12 spar buoys. It was hoped that arrangements could be made with the Department of Railways and Canals for placing the buoys m position and maintaining them. It was intended to for-, ward them to Hudson bay in the summer of 1913, but unfortunately occasion for so doing did not present itself. When in the latter part of June there seemed to be no opportunity to forward this material, the commissioner of lights discussed the matter with the chief hydrographer. It appeared that the Beothic was being chartered

by the Department of Naval Service and that should it be necessary for that department to fit her up as a survey steamer, there would be no available space for the accommodation of buoys and moorings, also that the Minto, should she proceed to Hudson bay, might not probably be ready to sail before the 1st August, 1913. It seemed to the commissioner of lights scarcely worth while sending the buoys aboard the Minto and placing them for the few weeks of navigation that might remain, but it was suggested that if the Minto sailed in that direction the buoys might be forwarded and stored at some convenient point ready for placing in the spring of 1914. Doubt was expressed as to whether any person outside of the Hydrographic Survey would have sufficient local knowledge to place the buoys. As it turned out the Minto did not go to Hudson bay during the season of 1913. Further consideration was given to the matter of aids to navigation by the lighthouse board on the 2nd July, 1913, and in view of the circumstances of the case including the difficulty of transportation or supplies, the board deferred action until next year, pending a further report from the Hydrographic Survey. This further report was received on the 6th instant and is listed for consideration at the next meeting of the lighthouse board. This matter was taken up later on by the board and they have decided on a certain course of action during the coming summer. They are organizing for it now. They have had as thorough reports as they could get about the straits and they have decided to place -twelve lighthouses in the straits commencing at the entrance and running up to Port Nelson. Further information will be obtained during the coming season; a boat will probably be sent up there with a party on board to make observations as to where these lighthouses should be placed. The lighthouse board will fix the location of these twelve lighthouses and others will also have to be placed. When the Naval Estimates come before the House there will be found in the vote for wireless telegraph an appropriation to establish a wireless station somewhere along the straits.
Those who have traversed these waters are of opinion that the wireless will be of the greatest possible aid to navigation, because the wireless operater in clear weather from the height of land along the shore, can with powerful glasses observe the movement of the ice in the Straits and convey the information by wireless to ships coming

through, so as to enable them to pursue the safest course. Of course, in those waters, which freeze over in winter, the buoys have to be removed before the ice forms and replaced after it disappears, and there will he difficulties encountered, but I have no doubt these difficulties will he overcome as we get further information on the subject. It is our intention to get in operation this year twelve lighthouses and the wireless station, and to acquire further information as to what may be necessary for the future.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Quebec Government is subsidizing a railway to be constructed in the direction of James bay, and it is of great interest to us that the possibility of a safe harbour in James bay should be ascertained. Has anything been done with regard to that? I understand the first expedition has been sent and soundings have been taken, and a programme laid out for the future. Will there be further exploration?	.
* Mr. HAZEN: The only thing my department is charged with in that regard is as to the furnishing of aids to navigation. We have nothing to do with selecting a harbour at James bay. I presume my hon. friend refers to the idea that a great deal of the grain that would come to Port Nelson might be brought to James bay and thence by rail to Quebec. That matter would be in the Railway Department. A steamer, under the command of Captain Anderson, has been in the Hudson bay for the last two years, doing hydrographic work, but I do not think anything has been done with reference to the location of a harbour in James bay.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The province of Quebec has great hope from this James Bay railway, and indeed it will be found to be not only a provincial, hut, eventually, a national enterprise. The minister knows the possibilities of that railway, if ever it is constructed, and I believe that every reasonable expenditure, to locate the most available harbour in James hay, would be Teadily sanctioned bjv this side of the House. I understand that Mr. Clergue has practically located his line. Speaking for those who come from Quebec, and who are more intimately in touch with the ' provincial authorities, and who expect a great deal from that enterprise, I can assure the minister that anything the department can do towards locating a terminus, and equipping it for the James Bay

railway, will be heartily endorsed by this side of the House.


Frank Oliver: What we are particularly concerned in knowing is what share of responsibility for the disasters, which occurred to the vessels sent up to Hudson bay, should the Marine Department assume. The record appears to have been very bad. Three of the vessels, which amounted to anything, did not get there, although the three smaller vessels did, and when the matter was under discussion before, the idea was given out by the Railway Department that the trouble occurred because of the fault of the Marine Department in not having provided aids to navigation. Damage has been done to the welfare of this country because of the disasters that overtook the steamers that went to the Hudson bay last summer, and whether the blame belongs to the Marine Department or to the Railway Department, we want to have it placed on the proper shoulders. What I am anxious about is, that the natural conditions shall not be blamed for failures which have occurred, because of some lack in the administration of one department or the other. The Railway Department has blamed the Marine Department, and now I want to know from the Marine Department exactly what was done, and if the department considers that what was done by it was sufficient to have protected the vessels which met with disaster.


John Douglas Hazen: Of course, we have no
organization in that district; we have no agencies, or employees, or anything of that sort We were given to understand by Mr. Clergue, who seems greatly interested, that if we furnish these buoys they would be placed, through the instrumentality of these gentlemen who were then there. It was with that understanding that the Marine Department sent these buoys up to Port Nelson.


Frank Oliver: In 1912?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, but they would be for the season of 1913. As I pointed out, difficulties occurred about getting the buoys placed and in landing of them. I understood that thirty buoys should have left there, but only fifteen were left and the others sent on later when they could be of no use in the season 1913. But we did what we were asked to do, that is to send the buoys, but as to whether the accidents that occurred were the fault of the Railways' Department or the Marine Department is
open to question. I did not understand the Minister of Railways (Mr. Cochrane) to attempt to throw blame on the Marine Department, but gathered from his discussion of the matter that he thought the blame was due to defective orders on the part of the captains of these boats. But, as I have said, the Department was asked to send these buoys, and the buoys were sent with the understanding that they were to be placed by others. We had no boats going uip, nor any available to go. With the work mapped out by the Lighthouse Board, we hope that great improvement will take place in the navigation of the Straits. Nelson harbour, as hon. gentlemen know, will require a great deal of dredging, as the water is shallow, and very extensive harbour work. Until the dredging and harbour works are completed there will be more or less difficulty with vessels going there getting safe landing or safe anchorage. B: t when the works are finished, as I understand from the reports of engineers who have been there, there will be a very good harbour, one where vessels will be safe.


Frank Oliver: Did not the Marine
Department have a vessel there last summer?


John Douglas Hazen: No the only vessel on Hudson bay that we had anything to do with was the hydrographic survey vessel which has been there for two seasons under command of Captain Anderson, an old official of the Department who is taking soundings and carrying on the other work of the hydrographic survey.


Frank Oliver: What is her name? I
understood it was the Acadia.


John Douglas Hazen: I thought it was a different vessel, but the Deputy Minister tells me it was the Acadia.


Frank Oliver: In the discussion in the
House, it was assumed that the Acadia was there. But that is not the point. It seems to me that a very remarkable condition has been disclosed. I do not know whether one department of the Government operates without regard to the other; but it must have been known by the departments of the Government generally that there was to be a serious undertaking by the Railway Department during last summer looking to the 'beginning of the development of this port. My hon. friend has said that there are natural difficulties there. That being so, it was to be expected that the Marine Department would provide aids to naviga-

tion to enable the Department of Railways to properly carry on its work. I think it is a somewhat remarkable method of handling business that my hon. friend has shown. A number of buoys or guides to navigation were sent up, but with no arrangement for placing them so that they might really be of assistance to navigation.


John Douglas Hazen: Rut the difficulty was that nobody had knowledge as to where to place them, and until we could get a report from the Hydrographic Survey last year that knowledge could not be had. No survey had been made before with a view to ascertaining that.


Frank Oliver: I am not questioning that. But when the Railway Estimates were up it was pointed out that there must have been lack of foresight, for it appeared that shipments were made there without due preparation for their proper landing and for the safety of the ships. It matters not whether the Department of Marine had arrangements made beforehand or not. The point is that the Government undertook to do some things they were not prepared to do, and they suffered disaster because of [DOT] unpreparedness. That is a very important consideration,- and one that I think the country should be thoroughly aware of- that the Government undertook certain work at Port Nelson without having made proper preparations for it.


John Douglas Hazen: But ships have been going through the straits to Port Nelson for years.


Frank Oliver: But these ships of the Government sent during 1913 did hot get to Port Nelson, land their cargoes and return in safety. With the whole of the resources of this country at the disposal of this Government, with a Hydrographic Survey in operation, with a Department of Marine in operation-a department that shipped out an ample number of guides to navigation to a port such as this, but without any arrangement for placing those guides-I think this a most deplorable exposure of lack of proper attention to the work in hand, or lack of appreciation of the importance of the work and the importance of its being done without mishap in order that an unfortunate impression might not be created as to the success of the route when established.


John Douglas Hazen: We had no lack of appreciation of the difficulty when we sent the buoys up there, and we had every

reason to believe from the conversations we had with the engineer in charge and with Mr. Clergue that these buoys would be properly placed.


Frank Oliver: By whom?


John Douglas Hazen: By the gentlemen who were there. But, as I told the committee, the difficulty was to get the buoys landed when they got there. 1 Mr. Clergue came to me about it and was deeply interested. I took it from what he told me that these buoys would be placed; all he asked was to let him have them. But it is a long distance away, and such difficulties arose as occur in every work of that sort, and so the buoys did not get placed. But I feel that the officers of the Department of Marine were not to blame for that. It was simply one of those things which occur that are not foreseen. I fail to see what more could be done. We had no organization there, and we sent the buoys under the belief-and having reason for that belief-that they would be properly placed. I do not think there is anything to show that the fact that they are not properly placed was not because of accident.


Frank Oliver: There is no question that the accidents occurred, and no question, that the intention in sending the buoys was to prevent accident. There is no question that the buoys were not properly placed, and from what I can learn from the minister he had no reason to believe that the buoys would be property placed.


John Douglas Hazen: I have told the hon. gentleman that I had very reasonable grounds which were based upon the conversations I and my departmental officers had with Mr. Clergue and with officials who were up there, as was stated in the memorandum I read to my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: What is the responsibility of Mr. Clergue in the matter; is he a private citizen or a Government official?


John Douglas Hazen: 
Frank Oliver: It is quite evident that
for one reason or other the work of the development of Port Nelson will be very much minimized during the coming summer, if not prevented altogether, by reason of the disasters of last summer.


John Douglas Hazen: I do .not think that is a
logical deduction.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend sends up to Port Nelson a vessel of 1,790 tons, which is wrecked and the cargo lost, and another vessel of 2,020 tons, which brings its cargo back. He sends another vessel of 1,937 tons, which does not land its cargo. Three vessels of 500 tons or less are the only ones of the whole expedition that land their cargoes; two of them, however, made a second trip. Roughly speaking, there were 2,500 tons landed at Nelson and something like 4,000 or 5,000 tons that were not landed.


John Douglas Hazen: That has nothing to do
with aids to navigation. The failure to land those cargoes was not due to the absence of lighthouses or things of that
sort; it was because of the lack of terminal facilities at the port.


Frank Oliver: Let it be the fault of one department or of the other, the result is that out of a total requirement, according to the Government's own estimate, of some
7,000	tons of material, only 2,500 tons were landed, and because of that the development of the port during the coming summer must necessarily be practically at a standstill. That is a deplorable condition, and whether it is the fault of the Railway department or of the Marine department, it is certainly the fault of the Government, and the Government will have to shoulder the blame.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think it is the
fault of either department; it is because of natural conditions which could not be overcome in that time. Of course the Opposition's business is to assume that the Government is to blame.


Frank Oliver: When a government undertaking such a great work as the development of Port Nelson starts in this way, it is a very poor indication of the success that is going to be achieved, and that is the way it will be looked at by the public at large. The route as a transportation proposition is discredited by reason or the failure of the Government during the past summer.
I think my hon. friend and his colleagues do not appreciate the position in its full importance, and I am trying to impress it upon them very strongly. The suggestion that the hon. minister has taken proper means to take care of the channel at Port Nelson as it exists to-day by landing buoys at Churchill or bringing them back to Halifax is something that is supremely ridiculous.


John Douglas Hazen: The captains of the vessels said it could not be helped.


Frank Oliver: I am willing to accept the position as my hon. friend has stated it; I think he has placed his department and the Government in the worst light he possibly could. The question I want to ask the minister is this: has the Government through the medium of his or any other department, arrived at a conclusion as to what amount of work will be necessary at Port Nelson to make it a practicable port, what will be the cost of that work, and how long it will take to complete it?


John Douglas Hazen: All my department has to do with is aids to navigation. The survey, which is practically completed, is of

far more importance than anything else so far as safety of navigation is concerned. With -that survey made, and the information now available for the first time, we are in a position to go ahead with intelligence and place these aids to navigation, and we are making arrangements to do it as soon as possible. So far as the cost of the development of the port is concerned, meaning, I presume, the providing of port facilities in the way of docks, elevators, dredging and other harbour *works, I am unable to give my hon. friend an answer, as. this does not fall within my department. I think he will have to repeat that question to the Minister of Railways when his Estimates are before the House, or on some other occasion.


Frank Oliver: Can the minister say if the Government has arrived at any knowledge as to what the extent of the dredging operations required will be? That surely must be arrived at as a result of the investigations conducted by my hon. friend's department.


John Douglas Hazen: That is not under my department at all; my department has nothing to do with dredging, as I have explained. Any investigation into the quantity of dredging that will be required or into the cost of these harbour works would be a matter for the Department of Railways and Canals.


Frank Oliver: I pressed the question because I understood the Hydrographic Survey was acting at Port Nelson and, in my innocence, assumed that the purpose of the survey was to give the Government accurate information as to what the requirements would be. I am not aware that the Railway Department are pursuing any investigations of that nature and so I am bound to assume that the Government have decided to create a new port without knowledge as to what the expense will be or what work will be required or how long it will take.
I think it is a most deplorable condition.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend has no right to assume from anything that has occurred to-night that what he says is the case. I think he will find that the Railway Department, which has had its engineers up there for some time, will have full reports Showing exactly what is required.


Frank Oliver: I shall be glad to take the matter up with the Minister of Railways, but it is an important question and I have no apology to offer for pressing the point.


John Douglas Hazen: I would be the last man to suggest that the hon. member should offer an apology. He has done nothing outside the bounds of fair parliamentary criticism.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I would remind the
minister of an order of the House in response to a motion which I placed on the first. Order Paper of the session, asking for tenders and contracts for work at Grande Anse. The papers have not yet been brought down.


John Douglas Hazen: I shall see that the return is brought down at once. The amount of the contract was $1,100, and it was awarded to Geo. Eddy of Bathurst.


John Howard Sinclair: Could the minister give any information about a new signal station at White Point?


John Douglas Hazen: I am informed that that
work has been completed, I think it is at Whitehead island. It is a fog alarm building. The' contract price was $6,850, and the work is completed and should be in operation by this time.
Telephones in connection with aids to navigation, $5,000.


Onésiphore Turgeon: How will this $5,000 be distributed?


John Douglas Hazen: A small amount is being
expended each year in bringing some of the more important outlying stations into telephonic communication with the nearest settlements. This is useful for sending meteorological reports and in case of accident or shipwreck. Last year we spent only $738.15 of this amount. That was to connect Leonard Island, B.C., with Tofino telegraph office.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I see nothing in this for Gloucester county?


John Douglas Hazen: That service is in connection with the life-saving station, and is provided for in connection with the service to which it belongs.
Pensions to retired pilots, $5,700.


John Douglas Hazen: It has always been customary to add the names of pilots to whom these pensions are paid, and I would like the item to be amended, giving the names of the pilots.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I see there is a decrease of $600? Does that mean that two pilots have died?


John Douglas Hazen: It means two pilots less; they get $300 each.
To replace Scout, $9,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Where is the Scout?


John Douglas Hazen: The Scout has gone up.
We have a new vessel being built by the Poison Iron Works, Limited, Toronto, contract price $173,399.
To replace Maisonneuve, $40,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Was a contract let for this work?


John Douglas Hazen: No, we are going to build it at the Government shipyard at Sorel.
Allowance to Harbour Master, Amherstburg, $400.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What is that?


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend will find
that in almost every year. At Amherst-burg we have to do a lot of supervision of lights and buoys in the Detroit river and lake Erie. We have no agency there so we pay the Harbour Master $400 for doing the work, which is most economical for the department.
Meteorological Service, $213,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Were the instruments
purchased in the United States?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so.


Frank Oliver: What is the large increase for?


John Douglas Hazen: The increase asked for is
to cover additional expenses in connection with the printing of two and possibly three annual meteorological reports; there is an increase in the appropriation for instruments, a residence is provided for the director and a well deserved increase in the salaries of the officers of the staff. They were very low before.
Marine hospitals, $75,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does that mean an increase in the number of hospitals or an increase in the cost of operating those now in existence?


John Douglas Hazen: An increase in the cost of operating those now in existence. My hon. friend knows that practically all the marine hospitals have been abolished. For instance in the city of St. John there used to be a very fine marine hospital which is now used as a home for incurables. There was another one at Pictou, but some years ago the policy was adopted of closing up these hospitals in towns where there were
public hospitals and arrangements were made with the trustees of the public hospitals at a per diem allowance, which costs the department less and the sailors get much better treatment.


John Howard Sinclair: I think we should have a marine hospital at Canso, as a great many fishermen call there and a great deal of hardship is endured for want of a marine hospital. I brought this matter to the minister's attention the last two sessions, and I would like to know if he has arrived at a conclusion in the matter ?


John Douglas Hazen: Is there no public hospital in Canso ?


John Howard Sinclair: No, nor anywhere near Canso, Louisburg is the nearest, and that is a long distance away. As Canso is a place of call for a great many vessels not only belonging to the port but also from Lunenburg and other parts of Nova Scotia, this is a question of very great importance.


John Douglas Hazen: I may tell my hon. friend that to establish new marine hospitals is entirely contrary to the policy the department has been pursuing for the last 15 years. The policy of abolishing these hospitals commenced when Sir Hibbert Tupper was Minister of Marine, and has been followed by all his successors in that department. How large a town is Canso ?


John Howard Sinclair: About 1,700 people by the census.


John Douglas Hazen: In the small towns in my province, such as Bathurst, Chatham, Moncton, St. John, Fredericton and St. Stephen, the hospitals are aided by a provincial grant and also by the town; then there are private benefactions. Perhaps in Canso there will be a hospital of that sort established soon. I should think the cost would be very considerable, and I doubt if the circumstances of the case-I speak subject to correction-would justify the outlay. I would suggest that perhaps it would be a good thing for my hon. friend to get some of the public-spirited citizens of the town to take the matter up and if they once established the hospital I am sure they would never be without it again.


John Howard Sinclair: I thought I could appeal to my hon. friend, as Canso is the headquarters of the fishing industry of eastern Nova Scotia and a shelter for the fleet operating on the Grand Banks. I have seen the harbour crowded with these fishing vessels and something like 300 sailors in the town at one time. As my hon. friend

[DOT]does not seem to be making any progress in the question of free medicine, I thought he might regard this as an opportunity for doing something material for the fishermen of Nova Scotia.


Frank Oliver: I would like to ask the minister if he will permit any reconsideration or discussion of any of these items?


John Douglas Hazen: Certainly, in discussing these items we have not tied ourselves down to the particular item under consideration. If there is any further information that the hon. gentleman wants about any item I shall be very glad to give it to him, no matter what the item is that is under consideration.
Progress reported.	.
On- motion of Mr. Hazen, the House adjourned' at 11.30 p.m.
Monday, March 2, 1914.