1915-02-22

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that the Clerk of the House had received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the return of Gideon Rochon, Esquire, as member for the electoral district of Terrebonne.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN moved:: That the name of the I ton. Charles Murphv be substituted for that of the Hon. Rodolphe Remieux on the committee appointed to inquire into all matters appertaining to boots supplied to the Department of Militia.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER:: In reply to a question put to me on Friday last, I stated that
committees have power to swear witnesses without the House authorizing them. I quote from the Revised Statutes, 1906, cap. 10, sec. 25, " an Act respecting the Senate and House of Commons:"
Any committee of the Senate or of the House of Commons may administer the oath to any witness examined before said committee.
I have noticed that motions have been made in the House to confer power on committees to examine witnesses under oath, and I have already stated that I thought this unnecessary. I quote this section of the Act now in confirmation of that view.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be a question as to whether the statute has appli-
 .
cation only to a committee that was so authorized by the House, and that may be the reason why motions have been made in the House to confer that power.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is quite evident that committees of the House are fully authorized and empowered to administer the oath to a witness because under another clause, sec. 24, the Senate or House of Commons may at any time order a witness to be examined under oath before a committee, provided .the committee had neglected to do so.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 47, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1908-Mr. Broder-introduced and read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM: I notice in a despatch which has beerr given prominence in the leading newspapers, including* the Ottawa Journal of Saturday last, a statement that wagons, harness, Ross rifles, etc., have been discarded in great quantities and left behind at Salisbury Plains. Has the Government any information on that point?
Robert Laird Borden: I do not think we have any such information as that. I shall be able to give my bon. friend full information later. I believe the Princess Patricia regiment did take British rifles, because it was brigaded with a British division, but so far as the Canadian Overseas force is concerned, I have no information whatever that the Ross rifle has been discarded. The long Ross rifle, I understand from the Minister of Militia, is not i j'garded as very suitable for cavalry, not because of the rifle itself, but because of the difficulty of handling a long rifle on horseback. So far as the motor transport is concerned, my recollection is that it was subjected to very severe usage during the four or five months which have elapsed since the force has been in Salisbury Plains, arid it would be desirable, I have no doubt, that new motor transports should be sent to the front as quickly as possible; but I do not know at the moment how much of the motor transport which was so used has been taken to the front and what proportion has been left behind to be usesd during training by any further expeditionary force that may go forward.


Mr. GRAHAM:: The despatch also -refers to wagons and harness having been left behind.


Robert Laird Borden: So far as
wagons and harness are concerned, I am not in a position to speak; but I will get the information later on.



GASPE-CAMPBELLTON STEAMSHIP SERVICE.

Hon. CHARLES MARCIL:: With your
permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir George Poster) regarding the memorial that has been sent to him by the Campbellton Board of Trade, a copy of which has been sent to me by the secretary of the board, regarding the steamship service between Gaspe and Campbellton. As the House is aware from our last discussion on the matter, the minister was under some difficulty in establishing that service last year, and the best that he could do was to establish a long-distance service between Montreal, Quebec and Campbellton. But this does not meet the requirements between Campbellton and Gaspe and of the Bonaventure shore, and so they are asking that the local service between Gasp6 and Campbellton be reestablished. I have no objection to the long-distance service if it can be maintained, but the signers of the memorial are in favour of re-establishing the old semi-weekly service. Would it be possible for the minister, in view of the near opening of navigation, to call for tenders for such service? Has any action been taken in the matter?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: It is as the hon. member for Bonaventure has intimated, about the beginning of last year's service the proprietor of the line, a contractor in this ease, died. His estate was not able to carry on the service. We were in the midst of the season before this was decided, and so the best that could be done $t that time was to make an arrangement for weekly service instead of semi-weekly with a line which carried as far as Montreal. ' The document referred to by my hon. friend has been received, and is now being considered by the officers of the department. In a little while I shall be able to come to a conclusion as to what is best to be done, or what is possible under the circumstances.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 41, respecting The Athabasca Northern Railway Company.-Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 42, respecting The Canada Preferred Insurance Company.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 43, respecting The Huron and Erie Loan and Savings Company, and to change its name to The Huron and Erie Mortgage Corporation.-Mr. Marshall.
Bill No. 44, respecting certain patents of The Lohmann Company.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 45, respecting The Vancouver Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Stevens.
Bill No. 46, respecting The Western Dominion Railway Company.-Mr. R. B. Bennett.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	Has the postmaster of the parish of St. Gilbert de Portneuf been dismissed from office?
2.	If so, who requested his dismissal?
3.	Who is his successor? and by whom was he recommended?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	The Postmaster General directed a change in the site of the post office.
2.	Mr. Honore Grenier.
3.	Mr. Bertrand Giraud, who was recommended by Mr. H. Grenier and approved by the Postmaster General.


WAR SUPPLIES-CLINIC THERMOMETERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WM. CHISHOLM:
1.	Did the Government purchase for the first Canadian contingent any clinic thermometers from any one in Ottawa?
2.	If so, from whom were these clinic thermometers purchased, and what was the price paid?
3.	Did the Government have any offers from private individuals for clinic thermometers? If so, what were the prices quoted?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	Yes.
2.	T. A. Brownlee. $1 was paid at first, but subsequently Mr. Brownlee discovered an error in his charge, and refunded half of this, making the net price 50c.
3.	Not before the order was given- August 11.

Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	How many razors have been bought by or on behalf of the Government since the war began ?
2.	What price was paid per lozen, gross or thousand?


Mr. CODERRE:: Department of Militia and Defence.
1.	62,363.

2.	Prices varied from $4.85 to $9 per - dozen.
Department of Naval Service.
1.	500 razors were purchased November 14 for delivery at H.M.C. dockyard, Halifax, N.S.
2.	$5.84 per dozen.


UNEMPLOYMENT IN CITIES.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the Department of Labour ascertained how many unemployed there were on the 1st of January, 1915, in the cities of Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg:, Vancouver, Halifax and St. John, N.B.?
2.	If so, what is the number in each ease?


Mr. CROTHERS:: 1.	No information has been received showing the precise nufnber of unemployed on January 1, 1915, in the cities named. Information is gathered from time to time showing generally the extent of unemployment in various parts of Canada, including the cities named.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


VALCARTIER CAMP-DISPOSAL OF STORES.
Mr. CARROLL:: 1.	Has, the Government or any official of the Government recently received written or verbal information in regard to the disposal of the military stores at the close of the Valcartier
camp?
2.	If so, has the Government taken any steps to investigate the charge and recover the property?
Major-General HUGHES: No information on the matter.


WAR SUPPLIES-DRUGS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES, ETC.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	What wholesale firms doing business in pharmaceutical supplies have furnished the first expeditionary force with drugs, medical supplies, surgical instruments, etc.?
2.	What are the names of such firms, and what is the amount in each case?
3.	Were tenders called for in every case?
Major-General HUGHES:
1 and 2. Ingram & Bell, Ltd., Toronto, $3,054.99; Hartz Co., Ltd., J. F., Toronto, $704.52; Wood, W. Lloyd, Toronto, $3,125; Burroughs Wellcome & Co., Montreal, $614,62; Chapman, J. H., Montreal, $14,741; Gilmour Bros. & Co. (agents Johnston & Johnston), Montreal, $1,180.60; Lymans, Ltd., Montreal, $702.83; National Drug & Chemical Co., Montreal (agents Seabury & Johnston), $3,081.13; Stott & Jury, Bowman-ville, $246; H. K. Mulford Co., Philadelphia, $4,950; Chandler & Fisher, Ltd.,

Winnipeg, $1,838.47; Eimer & Amend,_ New York, $953.48; Kny-Scheerer Co., New York, $3,618.73; Whitall Tatum Co., New York, $500.55; E. Powell, Ottawa, $18,163.
3.	No. In many eases the supplies were of a special character and were obtained from the manufacturers, either direct or through their representatives.
BUILDINGS RENTED BY GOVERNMENT. _


Mr. TURRIFF:: .
1.	How many buildings or portions of buildings under lease by the Government In the City of Ottawa on the 1st of October, 1911, have been vacated or leases cancelled?
2.	Who are the owners of said buildings?
3.	Where are said buildings situated?
4.	What rent per annum was paid for each?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	Nine.
2,	3 and 4. W. J. Baskerville; tenement east side Sussex street, Nos. 537 and 539; $800. Victoria Dube; offices corner Sussex and Clarence streets; $600. Great North Western Telegraph Company; 2 rooms corner Sparks and Metcalfe streets; $420. E. D. Kerr, Vancouver; portion of ground floor 136 Lyon street; $900. Molsons Bank; Basement and 1st and 2nd flats No. 14 westerly side Metcalfe street, Molsons Bank Chambers; $2,340. J. A. Seybold; Premises corner Sparks and O'Connor streets; $6,500. Slater and Sherwood, Rooms 9, 16, 14, 49 and 17 Sparks Chambers, 193 Sparks street; $1,020. Editn Taylor; 4th, 5th and 6th flats and part of basement, Corry building; $10,200. Thistle Estate; Ground floor, 2nd and 3rd flats, Thistle Building, 26 Wellington street; $1,100.
Leases had expired in all cases, excepting that of J. A. Seybold's property, where lease was cancelled by mutual agreement
Mr. LOUIS PEART.


Mr. MACNUTT:: Is Mr. Louis Peart, who was until lately a school teacher at the Indian Industrial school, Lebret, district of Saltcoats, Sask., now in Ahe employment of the Government? If so, In what capacity, what are his duties and what is his salary ?


Louis Coderre: Not now in the employ of the Government.


CARIBOO ISLAND BREAKWATER.
Mr. MACDONALD:: Why was the amount voted for breakwater at Cariboo Island, in the session of 1914, not expended during the past season?


Mr. ROGERS:: Owing to the Engineer's
branch being occupied with works of

greater importance, this work was not put under way.


ANTICOSTI LIGHTSHIP.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	What are the names of the officers and engineers of the Anticosti Lightship?
2.	Are said officers and engineers in possession of certificates of competency as such? If not, what are the names of those who are not duly qualified?	.


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Captain, Joseph Boulanger (on leave); Captain, Peter LeBlanc (acting); 1st mate, Arthur Marvin (acting); 2nd mate, C. J. Morin (acting); 2nd mate, N. Mathurin (on leave); Note:-On return of 2nd mate Mathurin to duty acting 2nd mate Morin will take position of 1st mate.) Chief Engineer, C. F. Duffy; 2nd Engineer, J. Murphy.
2.	Yes.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-CEMENT POSTS.
Mr. BOULAY:: Has B. B. Stewart, contractor, Newcastle, N.B., obtained contracts from the Government of Canada for the construction of cement posts for the use of the Intercolonial railway? If so, for what amounts, and at what localities in the province of Quebec?


Mr. COCHRANE:: No.


CANADIAN ORE REPINED IN UNITED STATES.
Mr. BOULAY:: 1.	What quantity of ore production from the mines of North Ontario has been shipped to the United States to be refined and finished off, during the years 1910, 1911, 1912 and 1913?
2.	What is the value of such ore products when refined and finished off?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Export entries in Department of Customs do not indicate in what part of Ontario iron ore shipped from Canada to United States originates.
2.	The value will depend on the extent of refining and finishing.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.-CONTRACTS FOR TIES.
Mr. BELLEMARE:: 1.	How many railway ties were sold to the Government of Canada for the Intercolonial railway, by a Mr. Fraser of Quebec, during the year 1914?
2.	What was the price paid, and the number of each kind?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	W. J. B. Fraser, of Quebec, supplied 35,547 ties.
2.	11,770 No. 1 cedar ties, 52c. each; 17,620 No. 2 cedar ties, 44c. each; 2,688 No. 3 cedar ties, 30c. each; 2,408 No. 1 black spruce, 50c. each; 1,061 No. 2 black spruce, 42c. each.


Mr. BELLEMARE:: 1.	Did a Mr. Flemming of Ottawa obtain a contract from the Government or the Intercolonial railway for the supply of railway ties in the year 1914?
2.	If so, what was the number and the price paid, respectively for No. l and No. 2 of such, railway ties?


Mr. COCHRANE:: 1.	Yes. C. E. Flemming, of the Harris Tie and Timber Co., was given such a contract.
2.	46,694 No. 1 cedar ties at 50 cents each; 31,926 No. 2 cedar ties at 44 cents each; 7,639 No. 3 cedar ties at 30 cents each. Total, 86,259.
Mr. F. P. GUTELIUS.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: 1.	Since when has Mr. F. P. Gutelius of the Intercolonial become a British subject?
2.	To whom, and in what locality was the application to become a British subject presented?
3.	By whom was the naturalization certificate given the said F. P. Gutelius, and what date does such certificate bear?


Mr. CODERRE:: 
SEED LOBSTERS.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	How many seed lobsters have been placed in the lobster pond at Long Beach, St. Mary's, . Digby county, N.S. ?
2.	What was the cost of said seed lobsters for each year?
3.	What amount has the Department of Marine and Fisheries expended on said pond since its purchase?
4.	How many lobsters have been liberated, and when?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	436.
2.	In 1913 the cost was $48.50; in 1914 the cost was $60.50.
3.	$11,746.17, including construction, maintenance and cost of lobsters.
4.	169 in 1913; 119 in 1914.
The pond is also being used by the Biological Board in conducting experiments into the rearing of lobsters.


GOVERNMENT PURCHASES OF CATTLE.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	How many and what breeds of service horses and cattle have been purchased by the

Department of Agriculture in the county of Yarmouth for farm or breeding purposes during the year 1914?
2.	What is the name and address of each seller?
3.	What is the name and1 address of each agent or representative through whom the purchase was made?
4.	Were any of the animals so purchased found not to be satisfactory? If so, were they returned to the seller, and what is the name of the party from whom purchased?
5.	What was the cost of purchasing above animals and to whom was same paid?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	Four Jersey bulls and one Devon bull were purchased by the Live Stock Branch of the Department of Agriculture in the county of Yarmouth for breeding purposes during the year 1914. No stallions were purchased in this county.
2 Messrs. H. and A. Cann, Chegoggm, N.S., "Fox's Gay Boy", 4195, Jersey.
John C. Corning, Chegoggin, N.S., " Prospect of Hebron 4970, Jersey.
Robt. J. Melvin, Yarmouth, N.S., " Clair-mont 3rd ", 3198, Jersey.
John C. Corning, Chegoggin, N.S., " Victor of Hillcrest ", Jersey.
W. A. Pintney, Melbourne, N.S., " King Philip 2nd ", 8905, Devon.
3.	Each of the above bulls was purchased by Mr. C. A. Archibald, Clifton, N.S., a duly authorized representative of the Live Stock Branch of the Department of Agriculture.
4.	Three of the animals have not proved entirely satisfactory at service. They were not returned to the sellers, who were: Messrs. H. and A. Cann, Chegoggin, N.8.; Robt. J. Melvin, Yarmouth, N.S.; W. A. Pintney, Melbourne, N.S.
5.	"Fox's Gay Boy," 4195; $125-Messrs. C. and H. Cann.
" Clairmont 3rd," 3198; $125. Robt. J. Melvin.
. " King Philip 2nd," 8905; $100-W. A. Pintney.
" Prospect of Hebron," 4970; $125-John C. Corning.
" Victor of Hillcrest " (yearling), $50- John C. Corning.


STEF ANSON ARCTIC EXPEDITION.
Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	What is the latest information in the hands of the Government as to the present whereabouts of the several member's of the Stefan-son Arctic Expedition who were on board the Karluk when she was crushed in the ice?
2.	What steps were taken by the Government to rescue the members of the expedition, who are reported as not having been heard from since they left the neighbourhood of the vessel?

3.	What information has the uovernment as to the present whereabouts of Mr. Stefan-son?
4.	What are the names of the men in company with Mr. Stefanson?
5.	Does the Government intend -to take any steps to find Mr. Stefanson and his party and to aid them if they need aid?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1 and 2. After the steamer Karluk was crushed in January, 1914, the surviving members of {he expedition landed on Wran-gel Island, where they wintered. Captain Robert Bartlett made his way over the ice and across Siberia to Emmer harbour and then across Behring Strait to St. Michaels, where he advised the Canadian Government of the fate of the Karluk. Arrangements were made to attempt the relief of the expedition, and the following ships sailed for Wrangel Island during the summer of 1914, with this object in view: the Russian ice breakers Vaigach and Taimyr, United States patrol steamer Bear, whaling steamer King and Wing, and whaling steamer Corwin. The steamer King and Wing penetrated to Wrangel Island and took off the survivors. Three members that died on the island, and two parties who left the main camp shortly after the wreck of the Karluk have not been heard of. During the winter search parties had been organized to look for these men. Wrangel Island had been explored and search parties had travelled over the ice without finding any trace of the missing parties, and the opinion of the returning members is that these parties have perished.
3,	4 and 5. The second section of the Arctic expedition is at present engaged in scientific work on the Arctic shores of Canada. They have with them, three ships commanded by navigators experienced in northern waters.
4.	Mr. Stefanson left the Alaskan coast in March, 1914, for an exploring trip north over the ice, with two men, Storker Storker-son and Ole Anderson. Before leaving he gave instructions as to measures to be taken in case he did not return the same winter. The vessel was to proceed in the summer of 1914 to the coast of Banksland and lay caches, and erect beacons for the men of the Stefanson party when they reached land in the winter of 1914-15. When the latest news of the expedition, dated August, 1914, reached the department, these instructions were being carried out. The expedition being supplied ivith three vessels does not seem, from latest advice, in need of any further aid at the present time.


ROYAL, NORTHWEST MOUNTED POLICE-PREMISES AT REGINA.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	What rental is being" paid for premises i.'r the Royal Northwest Mounted Police in the oity of Regina in connection with what is called the town station of the police?
2.	To whom is such rent paid?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	$100 per month.
2.	Hugh Armour & Co. Ltd.



ABERDEEN ASSOCIATION-FRANKING PRIVILEGE

Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: Has the Government decided to take away the franking privilege from the Aberdeen Association, a society which has for its object the sending of good literature to settlers In lonely parts of Canada? If so, why?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: The matter is under the consideration of the department.



LAST MOUNTAIN LAKE DREDGING.

Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Government to continue dredging operations at the foot of Last Mountain Lake, province of Saskatchewan?
2.	What amount of money has been spent by the Government in carrying on such dredging in each of the years 1912, 1913 and 1914?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The requirements of navigation having been sufficiently attended to, the matter of further dredging will be considered when the need for such is shown to exist.
2.	1912, $6,973 52; 1913, $7,114 43; 1914, to Dec. 31, $6,272 00.



MOOSEJAW-REGINA WATER SUPPLY.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Were any steps taken by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or his department, during 1914, in the direction of prohibiting that mode of deep sea fishing known as steam trawling? If so, what were the steps taken?


John Douglas Hazen: The Fisheries Protection Cruisers were as active as conditions would permit to prevent steam trawling in territorial waters. There lias also been correspondence with the United States Bureau of Fisheries to ascertain when the report it was having prepared following its investigations into the effects of such trawling would be completed, as that country desired to complete such investigations before considering the question of an international arrangement with regard' to such trawling.
INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY ICE SUPPLY. Mr. SINCLAIR:
1.	What are the names of all parties who tendered for supplying ice to the Intercolonial railway at Mulgrave for the current year?
2.	What are the dates of such tenders?
3.	What is the amount of each tender?
4.	If tenders were called for more than once, what are the names, amounts and dates on each occasion on which tenders were called for?
5.	Who was the successful tenderer?


Francis Cochrane: I,	2 and 3. S. W. Hagerty,Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, Jan. 4, 1915, 52 cents per net ton, delivered on cars at Pt. Tupper; 88 cents per net ton, delivered and packed in ice house.
G. H. McIntyre, McIntyre's Lake, Nova Scotia, Jan. 4, 1915, 46 cents per net ton, delivered on cars at McIntyre's Lake; 25 cents per net ton extra for storing in ice house.
E. L. Hadley, Mulgrave, Nova Scotia, Jan. 2, 1915, $1 per net ton, delivered and packed in ice house.
J.	J. Duff, McIntyre's Lake, Nova Scotia, Jan. 4, 1915, $2.50 per net ton, delivered and packed in ice house.
James Dunlap, Leitches Creek, Nova Scotia, Jan. 4, 1915, 65 cents per net ton, delivered on ears Dunlap's Siding, at Leitches Creek.
4.	Tenders were called for, only once; by poster dated Dec. 24, 1914.

5.	S. W. Hagerty, at 88 cents per ton, delivered and packed in iee house, his tender being the lowest.


EXPORTS OP COPPER TO UNITED STATES.
John Howard Sinclair: 1- What is the quantity and value of copper ore and copper of all kinds exported to the United States between August 4, 1913, and February 15, 1914?
2. What is the quantity and value of copper ore and copper of all kinds exported to the United States between August 4, 1914, and February 15, 1915?


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	During the six months ended January . 31, 1914; copper, fine, contained in ore,
matte, regulus, etc.: domestic, 37,636,785 lbs., $4,399,974. Copper, black or coarse, cement copper and copper in pigs: nil. Copper, old and scrap: domestic, 11,157 cwt., $148,212; foreign, 674 cwt., $8,833.
2.	During the six months ended January,
1915: copper, fine, contained in ore, matte, regulus, etc.:	domestic, 20,279,733 lbs.,
$2,059,447. Copper, black or coarse, cement copper and copper in pigs:	domestic,
6,020,576 lbs., $811,877. Copper, old and scrap: 10,245 cwt., $108,315.


CIVIL SERVANTS IN HOME MILITIA.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	Are there any Dominion Civil Service employees and Provincial Civil Service employees serving in the home militia as guards on canals and other public works or otherwise? If so, how many?	'
2.	What are the names of such civil service employees serving as officers and non-commissioned officers, the salaries they receive from the different Governments, and the remuneration allowed them by the Department of Militia?
Major-General HUGHES: No means immediately available of ascertaining these names.


D.G.S. EARL GREY.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	Was the D.G.S. Earl Grey sold?
2.	If so, to whom, and for what price?
3.	What did she cost when completed ana ready for sea?
4.	If said steamer was not sold, what disposition was made of her?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Russian Government, $493,000.00.
3.	$516,690.97.
4.	Answered by No. 1.


FOREIGN STEAM TRAWLERS.
John Howard Sinclair: Have foreign steam trawlers been permitted to purchase coal and supplies at the Port of

North Sydney, N.S., since the passing of Chapter 14 of the Acts of 1913?


Mr. J. D. REID:: Yes. The present collector at North Sydney says French steam trawlers have been permitted to purchase coal and supplies at the port of North Sydney, N.S., since he has been in office.


NATIONAL DRUG COMPANY.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the Militia Department given any contract to the National Drug Company?
2.	If so, for what amount, and what is the nature of the purchase made?
Major-General HUGHES: No.


THE PROPOSED STAMP TAX.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: Has the Minister of Finance received protests from the manufacturers of patent medicines against the proposed stamp tax? If so, from whom?


Mr. W. T. WHITE:: A number of communications have been received from manufacturers and dealers in patent medicines respecting the stamp tax referred to. It is not the practice to make known the names of those from whom such communications are received.


VALCARTIER CAMP-PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Was an advance of money made by the Government, or by any department thereof, to enable paymasters or other officers or officials to pay in cash, bills and accounts incurred in connection with the transportation and training of troops at Valcartier camp?
2.	If so, what amount was advanced, and to whom ?
3.	Out of the amount so advanced, how much was paid to the Canadian Northern Railway Company?
4.	Are there any receipts or vouchers for such cash payments?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	Yes. Militia Department.
2.	Aggregating $2,245,000 up to January 31, 1915; Major G. N. Sbanly, Camp Paymaster, Valcartier, until departure of troops, and Capt. J. A. Gilbert, C.A.P.C., his successor.
3.	Nothing.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


LEONARDSVILLE DREDGING.
Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Who were the tenderers for the work of dredging at Leonardsville, N.B., for which tenders closed on the 10th August, 1914?
2.	What were the amounts of the various
tenders received?	.
3.	Who was the lowest tenderer?
4.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	The Maritime Dredging and Construction Co., Ltd., J. S. Gregory.
2.	Tender "A," 361 cents per cubic yard, class B; tender "B," 50 cents per cubic yard, class B.
3.	The Maritime Dredging and Construction Co., Ltd.
4.	No contract was awarded, as it was decided not to proceed with the work at present.


YARMOUTH COUNTY FISHERY GUARDIANS.
Mr. LAW:: What are the names and post office addresses, with amount paid to each, of the fishery guardians in the county of Yarmouth, during the year 1914?


John Douglas Hazen: Jacob Foote, Sanford, N.S., $22.50; C. J. B. Tooker, Yarmouth, N.S., $354; J. E. Golden, Chebogue Point, N.S., $37.50; G. E. Churchill, Short Beach, N.S., $15; David Stanwood, Yarmouth Bar, $30; Nathan Sweeney, Pleasant Lake, $30; Frank Frost, Carleton, N.S., $56.25; Samuel V. Miuse, Quinan, $22.50; 0. Reeves,. Kempt-ville, $56.25; Forman Harlbert, Canaan, N.S., $30; J. V. N. Hatfield, Gavelton, N.S., $150; Wade Reynard, Tusket Falls, N.S., $150; S. J. Hood, jr., Yarmouth, N.S., $37.50; Albert A. Pothier, Wedgeport, N.S., $37.50; David Le Ferve, Belleville, N.S., $18.75; Albert Elwell, Argyle, N.S., $18.75; Loran Smith, East Pubnico, N.S., $15; Dennis J. Amiro, West Pubnico, N.S., $37.50; Freeman De Viller, Comeau Hill, $121.50.


YARMOUTH COUNTY MAIL, ROUTES.
Mr. LAW:: 1.	How many rural mail routes have been established in Yarmouth county, what are the names of such routes, and the dates established?
2.	How many post offices have been closed in said county, and what are the names of the same, since January 1, 1912?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Six rural mail routes: Carleton No. 1 (in part), Sept. 1, 1913; South Ohio No. 1, Aug. 1, 1909; South Ohio No. 2, April 1, 1910; Tusket No. 1, June 17, 1914; Yarmouth No. 1, May 1, 1909; Yarmouth No. 2, Oct. 1, 1911.
2.	Eight post offices: Brenton, Deerfield, Gavelton, Pleasant Valley Corner, Reynard's Bridge, South Deerfield, Tusket Falls.


WINNIPEG VOLUNTEERS.
Mr. MOLLOY:: .
1.	How many volunteers for overseas service are now in barracks in Winnipeg?
2.	What are the names or numbers of the several regiments, battalions, or squadrons?
3.	At what price per nian is food supplied?
4.	Who are the contractors for supplying food to the volunteers?
Major-General HUGHES:
1 and 2. Inadvisable to answer, as question is one of military preparation.
3.	Cost per ration, 27-74c.
4.	John Enright, Winnipeg, meat; Speirs-Parnell Baking Co., Winnipeg, bread; Hardy & Buchanan, Winnipeg, groceries; Laing Bros., Winnipeg, flour.


GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY FISHERY GUARDIANS.
John Howard Sinclair: What are the names and post office addresses, with amount paid to each, of the fishery guardians in Guysborough county, during the year 1914?


John Douglas Hazen: Albert Pride, Sonora, N.S., $20; John Faulkner, Sherbrooke, N.S., $20; Earl Archibald, Stillwater, N.S., $35; David Kirk, Aspen, N.S., $20; Archibald Smith, Smithsfield, N.S., $20; George J. Wilson, Caledonia, N.S., $20; William Findla, Caledonia, N.S., $20; John D. Hattie, Camerons Settlement, N.S., $20; Geo. A. Hudson, Country Harbour Mines, N.S., $16; Wm. R. Mason, Country Harbour Cross Road, $20; Moses Mason, Country Harbour Cross Road, $20; Joseph Rudolph, Liseomb, N.S., $15; John Cross, Indian River, N.S.,	$20;
Stephen Myers, Isaacs Harbour, N.S., $20; Ira Sangster, New Harbour, N.S., $10; Otto N. Munro, Cole Harbour, N.S., $30; Norman McDonald, Cooks Cove, N.S., $15; Jeremiah Jones, Cooks Cove, N.S., $15; Harvey Spanks, Rockdale, N.S.,	$20; Patrick
McDonald, Erinville, N.S.,	$20; John
Kenny, Erinville, N.S., $13; James M. Cunningham, Havendale, N.S., $5.20; Duncan Chisholm, St. Francis Harbour, N.S., $20; Jeremiah Borden, Upper Big Tracadie, $15; Walter Nicolle, Mulgrave, N.S., $20.


PHILLIPSBURG-ST. ARMAND MAIL CARRIER.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	Who was the mail carrier between Phillips-burg and St. Armand station during the summer of 1914?
2.	Was he dismissed? If so, when and how much notice was he given to discontinue his services?
3.	Who asked for his dismissal?
4.	Why was he dismissed?
5.	Who recommended the appointment of his successor?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	N. Lariviere.
2,	3, 4 and 5. On the expiration of the last regular contract on the 30th September, 1913, and pending certain proposed rearrangements in connection with the estab-

lishment of rural routes, a temporary arrangement, terminable at the pleasure of the Postmaster-General, was entered into with Mr. Lariviere. This temporary arrangement was continued until the 22nd November, 1914, when a new temporary arrangement was made and the service put up for public tenders.


BONDED LIQUORS AND TOBACCO.
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 
Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	Spirits, 617,461.85 p. gals.
2.	Cigars, 13,008,570; cigarettes, 2,209,250; tobacco, 469,224 pounds.


WAR SUPPLIES, FIFTH MOUNTED RIFLES.
Mr. McCREA:: 1.	From whom is food for men and horses and all other supplies and equipment for the Fifth Mounted Rifles, now in camp at Sherbrooke, bought from and how?
2.	If by tender, what date were tenders called for?
3.	When were tenders opened and contracts awarded?
4.	What are the names and Post Office addresses of all parties who submitted tenders?
5.	Who are the successful tenderers, and the price of each?
Major-General HUGHES:
1. Harris Abattoir Co., Ltd., beef, 11 cents per pound; mutton, 11 cents per pound.
Walter Allatt, bread, 4 cents per pound.
Harris Abattoir Co., Ltd., groceries: Bacon, breakfast, 18c per pound; bacon, green, 15 cents per pound; potatoes, 9-10 cents per pound; beans, 6J cents per pound; jam, 13 cents per pound; butter, creamery, 31 cents per pound; butter, dairy, 22 cents per pound; cheese, 17 cents per pound; split pease, 6 cents per pound; sugar, white, 74 cents per pound; salt, 2 cents per pound; pepper, 25 cents per pound; fresh vegetables, 2i cents per pound; lard, 12 cents per pound. At these prices the grocery ration costs less than at those of any other tenderer, viz., 11-76 cents per man per day.
Hyndman Grain Co., straw, $11 per ton; oats, 70 cents per bushel; afterwards increased to 74 cents per bushel.
C. C. Lusk, hay, $20 per ton.
La Cie. Coderre and Fils, coal, hard, furnace, stove, and egg sizes, $7.50 per ton.
S.	and W. Fortier, Ltd., wood, hard, 4-foot lengths, $6 per cord; wood, hard,

2-foot lengths, $3,25 per cord; wood, soft, 4-foot lengths, $5 per cord; 2-foot lengths, $2.75 per cord.
The above prices were obtained by public tender, contracts having been made with the lowest tenderer in each case.
2.	January 27; time afterwards extended to February 5.
The advertisement calling for tenders did not specify the period for which contracts were to be made. Prospective tenderers complained that they were unable to fix the amount of security deposit and could not quote prices without knowing the time for j which they were to hold good. On this account, therefore, after tenders had been opened on January 28, the time for receiving tenders was extended to February 5, the contract period was fixed to expire March 31, 1915, and notice to this effect was at once sent all previous tenderers who were allowed to withdraw their tenders and submit new ones, if this additional information had affected prices in their opinion. As a result of this extension of time, five tenders were received from firms not previously tendering; but in every case but one, the contracts were given to firms who had tendered in the first place and who were the bona fide lowest tenderers. The one exception was- the contract for wood. Only one tender was received for this supply.
3.	Tenders were opened on January 28 and February 5. Contracts awarded: Hay, January 30; contracts for balance of items were made on February 9.
4.	Walter Allatt, Sherbrooke; Bouchard and Blais, Sherbrooke; Thos. J. Pavey, Sherbrooke; Henry Grant, Lennoxville; Eusebe Fontaine, Sherbrooke; Harris Abattoir Co., Quebec; Alex. Ames and Sons, Ltd., Sherbrooke; George F. Moore, Sherbrooke, M. McKechnie, Sherbrooke; Dean and Lacey. Sherbrooke; May and Houlajhan, Sherbrooke; Hebert and Fortier, Sherbrooke; L. H. Oliver, Sherbrooke; C. C. Lusk, Cookshire; James Scott and Co., Montreal; Hyndman Grain Co., Sherbrooke; La Cie. C. O. Genest and Fils, Sherbrooke; Ewing Cross, Sherbrooke; La Cie. Coderre and Fils, Sherbrooke; S. and W. Fortier, Ltd., Sherbrooke.
5.	Answered by No. 1.


WAR SUPPLIES-HORSES.
*Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	How many horses were bought for the first contingent?
2.	What was the average price paid per horse?

3.	Were some of the horses so bought, afterwards sold at public auction? If so, how many?
4.	Where was the auction held, and who authorized the sale?
5.	What was the net amount realized by the auction sale?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	8,150.
2.	$172.45.
3.	Yes: 481 horses which had received injuries, or which had deteriorated owing to exposure and other causes, were sold by public auction.
4.	Auction sale was held at Quebec, P.Q., and authorized by the Department.
5.	The net amount realized was $25,855.


Mr. MARCILE:: Were any horses, discovered to be unsuitable for service, sold by order of the Militia Department or of any other department of the Government, about the time of departure of the first expeditionary force? If so, how many were sold at the cities of Quebec and Montreal, respectively, and what was the average price obtained for such horses?
Major-General HUGHES :	Quebec-481
horses which had received injuries, or which had deteriorated owing to exposure and other causes, were sold by auction. The average price obtained was $53.74. Montreal, none.


Joseph Edmond Marcile: How many horses were purchased for cavalry purposes, and for the ordinary camp service of Valoartier, respectively, in connection with the requirements of the first expeditionary force, and what was the average price paid for the same?
Major-General HUGHES: 1,436 horses purchased for cavalry. No horses were specially purchased for camp service. The average price paid was $172.45.


WAR SUPPLIES-OVERSHOES.
Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	How many overshoes were purchased by the Government for the Canadian contingents?
2.	From whom were such purchases made, and at what price?
3.	How many overshoes were supplied the first contingent, and at what date?
4.	Were the overshoes sent the first contingent used by the troops or returned to Canada?
5.	If returned without being used, what reason was given for such return?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	Since August 1, 1914, 120,000 pairs have been bought.
2.	From Canadian Consolidated Rubber Company at $1.96 and $1.85 per pair; from Gutta Percha and Rubber, Ltd., at $1.70 and $1.85 per pair; from Kauffman Rubber
Co., Columbus Rubber Co., and Independent Rubber Co., at $1.85 per pair.
3.	48,000 pairs were shipped to England during the month of October for the use of First Contingent and for upkeep.
4.	Used by troops.
5.	None have been returned to Canada.


WAR SUPPLIES-SHOES.
Mr. GERMAN:: Did Mr. Robert Wilson, boot and shoe merchant, of the city of Hamilton, have a contract with the Government for the sale of army shoes to be used by the first Canadian contingent? If so, for how many pairs, and at what price per pair?
Major-General HUGHES: No.


WAR SUPPLIES-DRUGS.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has any sale of drugs or pharmaceutical products of any kind been made to the Department of Militia by Mrs. George Plamondon, St. Joseph street, Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the total amount of the purchase made from said Mrs. Plamondon, and what is the nature of the purchase?
Major-General HUGHES:
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) $23,495.54, from July 1, 1914, to
January 31, 1915.	(b) Drugs, etc., for Permanent Corps and troops mobilizing at Valcartier.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gauvreau: For a return showing the names and post office addresses of all persons in the county of Temiscouata, who have received the bounty which is granted to the Fenian raid veterans under the provisions of the Fenian Raid Volunteer Bounty Act. Also, the names and post office addresses of all persons in the county of Temiscouata, whose requests have been rejected, and the names and post office addresses of such persons whose claims have not yet been taken into consideration.
Mr. Gauvreau: For a copy of all papers, petitions, declarations, affidavits, sworn statements, requests, certificates and all other documents in connection with the naturalization of F. P. Gutelius, general manager of the Intercolonial railway.
Mr. Cruise: For a copy of the report of investigation held about June 1, 1914, by R T. Ferguson, as special commissioner, into the allotment of homesteads on the area cut of the Riding Mountain Forest Reserve in the year 1908 or about that time.
Mr. Law: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, reports, recommendations, orders in council and all other documents and papers in connection with rewards to the officers and crews of steamers John L. Cann and Westport III, for their heroic efforts in saving the passergi and crews of S.S. Cobequid, wrecked on Trinity Ledge, January 13, 1914.
Mr. Sinclair: For a copy of all petitions, correspondence, complaints, reports and other
[Stage Direction]
documents relating to the dismissal of Alfred H. Bonnyman, postmaster of Mattatall lake, in the county of Colchester, N.S.
Mr. Sinclair: For a copy of all correspondence, recommendations, petitions, contracts, tenders and other papers and documents in anyway connected with the letting of the contract for carrying the mails between Guysborough and Erinville, N.S.
Mr. Sinclair: For a copy of all petitions, letters or other papers or documents in the possession of the Department of Public Works relating to the expenditure of money for the construction of new public works in Guysborough county since October 10, 1911.
Mr. Sinclair: For a copy of all petitions, correspondence, reports of engineers Or other persons in the possession of the Department of Railways and Canals relating to the construction of a railway in the county of Guysborough, N.S.
Mr. Sinclair: For a copy of all correspondence, recommendations, tenders and other papers on file in the office of the Department of Railways and Canals relating to supplying ice for the Intercolonial railway at Mulgrave for the year 1915.
Mr. Sinclair: For a copy of all correspondence, petitions, recommendations, and other papers on tile in the office of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, relating to the automatic gas buoy placed at the entrance of Country Harbour, in the county of Guysborough, known as The Isaac's harbour Buoy.
Mr. Sinclair: For a copy of all orders in council, memoranda, correspondence or other documents in the possession of the Government, or any department thereof, relating to the trade in dried fish and wines between Portugal and Canada.
Mr. Sinclair:	For a return showing the
names, tonnage, port of registry and destination of all foreign vessels engaged in fishing, both sail and steam, that entered and cleared from the port of North Sydney, N.S., from December 31, 1913, to date.	-
- Mr. Boyer: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and papers generally concerning the proposed construction of a bridge between the island of Montreal and the mainland at Vau-dreuil.
Mr. Boyer: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and papers generally concerning the proposed construction of a bridge to connect Isle Perrot with the mainland at Vaudreuil.
Mr. W. M. Martin: For a return showing what properties have been acquired by the Government in the city of Regina since September 21, 1911. The descriptions of such properties by metes and bounds. For what purposes such properties were acquired. From whom such properties were purchased. The total price and the price per foot paid for each property. If any such property was acquired by expropriation, what tribunal determined the price to be paid for any property so expropriated. The dates on which any such properties were acquired.
Mr. Remieux: For a return showing the total number of employees, both permanent and temporary, at the following post offices: Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Halifax, Quebec, St. John, N.B., and Vancouver. The total number of salaries paid in each case. The total number of employees, and the amount of salaries paid in the above offices on the first of October, 1911.

Mr. Achim: For a return showing the total amount of the travelling expenses of the mem- bers of the late Government in the last ten years of their administration. Trips to other countries, Europe included, they have made. The names of the ministers who have travelled at the expense of the public treasury. The total amount so expended by each of the ministers who have so travelled. The objects of these visits, and how long did they last.
Mr. Loggie : For a return showing the inward tonnage freight, and also the outward tonnage freight respectively, at Loggieville station on the Intercolonial railway for each month of 1914, and also for the month of January, 1915. The inward tonnage freight, and the outward tonnage freight at Chatham station, on the Intercolonial railway for each month of 1914, and also for the month of January, 1915. The inward tonnage freight, and the outward tonnage freight at Newcastle station on the Intercolonial railway for each month of 1914, and also_for the month of January, 1915. The local and through passenger traffic to and through each of the above stations respectively, during each of the months above mentioned. It is requested that coal and other railway supplies be shown separately.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm: For a return showing the names and addresses of all Fenian raid veterans in the county of Inverness who have been paid the Fenian raid bounty, the names and addresses of those who have not yet been paid, and the names and addresses of those whose applications have been refused.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm: For a return showing the amounts expended by the Public Works Department in the county of Inverness each year from 1896 down to 1915.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm: For a copy of all letters, telgerams, petitions and documents of all kinds in possession of the Post Office Department, referring in any way to the conduct of the postmaster at Grand Etang since his appointment until the present date.
Mr. A. W. Chisholm: For.a copy of all telegrams, letters, reports petitions and all other documents in any way referring to the proposed line of railway from Orangedale to Cheticamp.

Mr. J. J. HUGHES (Kings, P.E.I.) moved:: That a humble address be presented to His Majesty praying that he may be graciously pleased to give his consent to submitting a measure to the Parliament of the United Kingdom to amend certain provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, in order that the province of Prince Edward Island will always be entitled to at least six members in the House of Commons of Canada, that being the number of members assigned to the said province when it entered confederation.
He said: During the last regular session of Parliament the question of the membership of this House, and of the other House as well, occupied a good deal of time and attention. The fact that there was a continued and steady reduction in the number of members of this House coming from the

group of provinces known as the Maritime Provinces claimed considerable attention, and the Committee on Redistribution suggested that a change be made in the British North America Act so that no province would have fewer representatives in this House than it had in the Senate. That suggestion appeared to have commended itself to the House, and some action was taken in regard to it. However, Parliament prorogued without anything definite having been done in that regard. Hence I am bringing this resolution to the notice of the House to-day. The members from the larger provinces may perhaps wonder why we from the smaller provinces, particularly from Prince Edward Island, attach so much importance to this question. My answer to that natural inquiry would be, that in all countries having representative institutions to which delegates are sent, the small communities are always very sensitive, perhaps even jealous, with regard to the number of their representatives. While the larger provinces and the strong places can take care of themselves, the smaller provinces or communities are not so satisfied that they can under all circumstances look	after	their	own interests,	and	they	have	in consequence a sensitiveness on the question of representation. I should like the members from the larger provinces to look at this question for a few moments from our viewpoint. I think I can establish that there was in the minds of those who drew up the terms of Confederation the idea that whatever the number of members a province started with that number should not be reduced, particularly in regard to the smaller provinces. A provision was put in the Constitution to safeguard that principle. I think I can prove that when Prince Edward Island finally came into the Confederation after her stipulation for six members had been conceded, the delegates from that province were firmly convinced they were to have at least six members for all time; and I believe that the members of the sub-committee of the Privy Council with whom they negotiated the terms of the Union had the same opinion. In support of my argument, I shall quote from Sir Joseph Pope's Confederation documents, which I believe is as good a record of the negotiations as is extant. As of course the members of this House know, the first conference on Confederation was held at Charlottetown, in the province of Prince Edward Island, and was called to consider the question of a Maritime union. The public men of Canada-Quebec and Ontario at that time-had a larger idea, and suggested at the Charlottetown conference that the meeting be adjourned to meet later on at Quebec, and that representatives of the lower provinces be invited to attend to consider the question of the Confederation of the Dominion. That suggestion was carried out and the second conference met at Quebec in 1864. The province of Prince Edward Island sent certain representatives, and on looking up the records I find that those delegates were, willing to discuss any question in connection with Confederation except the question of representation. The other questions were very important of course but on the question of representation the delegates from Prince Edward Island would make no concessions. They pointed out that unless they could get six representatives that, so far as they were concerned, Confederation could not be considered. The delegates from the other provinces did not see their way clear to grant this concession, and the consequence was that when Confederation was accomplished some three years later, Prince Edward Island did not come in. I have already stated that in the minds of those who were laying down the principles of Confederation there was the idea that whatever number of members a province started with, that number should not be reduced; and the conference unanimously passed a resolution to that effect, resolution No. 21, which reads as follows:
No reduction shall be made in the number of members returned by any section, unless its population shall have decreased relatively to the population of the whole Union, to the extent of live per centum.
That provision was later on embodied in the British North America Act in subsection 4 of section 51. It was put in with the object of preserving the original representation. Under certain conditions that provision would have very far-reaching consequences. For instance, if the population of any province compared with the population of the whole Dominion was reduced in the first decade by only 4 per cent, or one twenty-fifth, no reduction in representation would take place. A basis of calculation would then be established, and if in the next decade the reduction of population in the province compared with the population of the whole Dominion was only one twenty-fifth, again no reduction in representation would take place although the population had been rereduced by ejght per cent. Supposing the same thing took place in the third decade,

that the population of the province as compared with the whole Dominion was again reduced by 4 per cent; no reduction would occur in the representation, although in those three decades a reduction of 12 per cent would have taken place in the population of the province. And so on. If, in say 50 years, a reduction of 20 per cent took place in the population of any one province no reduction would take place in the representation. But that provision did not safeguard the Maritime Provinces from reduction in their representation, although in my judgment it was thought at that time a sufficient safeguard, and if it had not been deemed a sufficient safeguard, a provision would have been inserted that would have adequately safeguarded the original representation.
The discussion of the Quebec Conference went on from day to day, and an effort was made to meet the views of the delegates from Prince Edward Island. Mr. Galt, who was very anxious to meet the views of the delegates and to have Prince Edward Island included in the Confederation, proposed that the representation of the other provinces be increased.	Mr. Brown, one of the delegates from Ontario, was, of course, very strong on the principle of representation by population.	Mr. Brown had moved a resolution which gave Quebec sixty-five and all the other provinces a number in proportion but which gave Prince Edward Island only five members. Mr. Galt made this statement in reference to Mr. Brown's motion, he proposing two hundred and twenty-five members instead of two hundred:
If we divide two hundred and twenty-five, according to population. I calculated it would give Upper Canada ninety-nine, Lower Canada seventy-four, Nova Scotia twenty-one, New Brunswick seventeen, Newfoundland eight, and Prince Edward Island six. We should commence with the census of 1861, and readjust after each subsequent census. We have supposed that the population of Lower Canada, being tolerably equable in its character, would afford the best basis. But, having respect to the rapid increase of Upper Canada, we think the Lower Provinces should not be reduced if they do not increase in the same ratio. Therefore, the Lower Provinces would have the same as they have now-
I presume that is at the time of coming into Confederation-
-unless in the very improbable case of any one falling off by five per cent or more-that is a decrease relatively to the whole federation.
That, I think, carries out the point I have been trying to substantiate, namely, that in the minds of the men laviwr the founda-
]Mr. J. J. Hughes. [
tions of Confederation the idea was present that this saving clause would be sufficient to safeguard the provinces against any reduction in their representation, and that whatever representation it started off with must not be reduced in number. The suggestion of Mr. Galt, however did not carry. Mr. Brown moved that Upper Canada have eighty-two members, Lower Canada sixty-five, Nova Scotia nineteen, New Brunswick fifteen, Newfoundland seven, and Prince Edward Island five. That carried, Prince Edward Island voting nay. Mr. Brown, in speaking to that motion, said:
The practical result will be that while Lower Canada certainly will not be less and the Lower Provinces may increase in population, they cannot decrease in the number of representatives. It keeps the House within a reasonable limit.
I think I have already stated that Mr. Brown's motion carried, Prince Edward Island voting nay. Mr. Haviland, one of the delegates from Prince Edward Island who was strongly in favour of Confederation, said:
Prince Edward Island would rather be out of the confederation than consent to this motion. AVe should have no status. Only five members but of one hundred and ninety-four would give the Island no position.
If five members out of a representation of one hundred and ninety-five at that time would give the Island no status, if we are now down to three and if the representation of the other provinces is much larger, of course our position relatively becomes much worse. There were speeches by other delegates from Prince Edward Island but all. in the same direction.
Mr. Galt was, as I have already said, very anxious to meet the views of the delegates from Prince Edward Island. And he made this statement:
It would be a matter for the greatest regreu that any difficulty should arise over this matter. We request the Prince Edward Island delegates to reconsider their decision. It would be a matter of reproach to us if the smallest colony should leave us.
In accordance with this suggestion the delegates from Prince Edward Island left the conference chamber to re-
4 p.m. consider the matter and to give their answer the next day, but before leaving Mr. Whelan, one of the delegates who was also very favourably impressed with the idea of Confederation, made this statement:
I should feel it my duty to-night to vote against the resolution, but we had better reconsider the matter. Mr. Haviland and I came

here perfectly untrammeled and without any instructions from the Government of Prince Edward Island. We understand that all proceedings were to he ' de novo ' and apart from anything which had taken place at Charlottetown. I thought that Prince Edward Island had not been fairly treated as to representation in the Legislative Council, hut I gave way on that occasion. I do not think, however, I could say I was satisfied with the representation of five m the Federal House of Commons. We are in an isolated position. Our resources are large, and our people would not he content to give up their present benefits for the representation of five members. It may be said that the confederation will go on without Prince Edward Island, and that we shall eventually be forced in. Better, however, that, than that we should willingly go into the confederation with that representation. But if the Government who formed the delegation will take the responsibility on them, I may support them.
I have already stated that the delegation from Prince Edward Island withdrew from that meeting and returned next morning to give their answer to the conference. Col. Gray spoke for the others. He said:
I am instructed by my co-delegates to _say that the provision of five members is unsatisfactory. Prince Edward Island is divided longitudinally into three counties, each returning ten members.
That is for the local legislature.
But they are always opposed to a change of representation. We cannot divide the three counties into the five members.
Mr. Brown answered:
Every province must revise its own electoral divisions to suit the number of its representatives.
Mr. Pope, one of the delegates who was afterwards Minister of Marine and Fisheries in die Government here, made this statement:
I agree in all that lias been said by Colonel Gray and Mr. Coles. But the circumstances of Prince Edward Island are such that I hope the conference will agree to give us such a number as we can divide amongst our three constituencies. Nature, as well as the original settlement of the island, has made three counties, and it would give rise to much difficulty if we had to adjust five members to the three counties. I cannot ask it as a matter of right, hut one of expediency, as one without which it is impossible for us to oarry the measure in Prince Edward Island. I, therefore, ask for six members.
Mr. Haviland said:
I fully agree with Mr. Pope. It would be an insuperable difficulty to us if we had not six members.
I do not think it is necessary to read further from these documents to show that the delegation from Prince Edward Island at that time were fully convinced that
Confederation could not be carried in that province unless they got six members to start with and six in perpetuity. I draw from these statements the conclusion that in the minds of the delegates from Prince Edward Island, and in the mind of every man at the conference, the idea was established that whatever number of members the province received that number would not be decreased. Otherwise, why lay stress upon the particular number to start with? If Prince Edward Island were to have six members for a few years only I presume the delegates from the other provinces would not have considered it such an important matter and would have yielded the point. Then, if it were only to be for a few years the delegates from Prince Edward Island would not have laid such stress upon it and would not have considered it a matter which would justify them in remaining outside of Confederation. Therefore, I come to the conclusion, and no other conclusion in my judgment is feasible, that at that period the delegates from Prince Edward Island and the delegates from the other provinces were fully impressed with the idea that the original number would not be reduced.
When the delegates returned to Prince Edward Island they were sustained by the legislature, the people, and the press. The people were willing to discuss any other feature of Confederation, but on the question of representation there was no compromise, and three years later, when Confederation took place, Prince Edward Island remained out. It appeared, however, to be the wish of the Home Government and the wish of the Government of Canada that Confederation should be rounded out by the inclusion of Prince Edward Island, and from time to time negotiations were carried on looking to that end. In 1869 Lord Granville, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, wrote to the Governor General of Canada, suggesting that the Federal Government should give liberal concessions to Prince Edward Island, and what is known as the better terms of 1869 were offered; but still we could not get the six members in the House of Commons, and Prince Edward Island would not come in. Negotiations continued, and in 1873 Earl Kimberley, then Colonial Secretary, wrote to the Governor General of Canada along the same lines as the correspondence that had taken place between the Governor General and Lord Granville, and the Governor General of Canada wrote to Lieutenant Governor Robinson of Prince Edward Island, stating that if his Government would send a delegation to Ottawa, a sub-com-

mittee of the Privy Council would meet them to negotiate on terms of Confederation. Accordingly the Government of Prince Edward Island sent a delegation here, consisting of Messrs. Laird and Haythorne, and the Government of Canada appointed a subcommittee of the Privy Council consisting of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Charles Tup-per, Sir Leonard Tilley, Sir Hector Lange-vin, and Mr. Howe. Negotiations between these gentlemen continued for several days. The delegates knew well the feeling of the people of Prince Edward Island on the question of representation, and this was the one point which they appeared to be determined to obtain, and did obtain, although their population entitled them at that time to only five members. So important was this point considered that it was the subject of several communications between the delegates at Ottawa and the Lieutenant Governor of Prince Edward Island, while the other conditions appear to have been left to the delegates, to make the best terms they could, although of course the financial and other terms were very important. On the 26th of February, 1873, Mr. Haythorne, one of the delegates, sent this message to Lieutenant Governor Robinson:
Probably yield six representatives.
On the 6th of March, this telegram was sent by Mr. Haythorne:
Highly probable get six representatives.
The negotiations continued and apparently the delegates from Prince Edward Island had impressed their views upon the sub-committee of the Privy Council, and on the same day, the 6th of March, the Lieutenant-Governor of Prince Edward Island telegraphed to Mr. Haythorne:
We hope six representatives will be conceded.
A conclusion seemed to have been reached on that date, because later in the day Mr. Haythorne wired to Mr. Edward Palmer, his colleague in the Government of Prince Edward Island:
Six representatives conceded.
The point upon which I have laid so much stress, and the point as to which we remained out of Confederation for six years and upon which we finally entered Confederation, was the concession of six representatives in this House. I leave it to the judgment of hon. gentlemen if they think that in the circumstances this representation was to be for a few years only. On a point which the delegates from Prince ]Mr. J. J. Hughes. [
Edward Island emphasized so much and to which they attached so much importance, is it to be thought that the sub-committee of the Privy Council with which they were negotiating the terms, would have hesitated to yield the point if that representation of six members were to continue for only a few years. I do not think so, and I do not think that any fair-minded man would come to that conclusion. There is no other intelligent conclusion to be arrived at than that the delega tes from Prince Edward Island had at all events convinced themselves that they were obtaining a minimum representation which would be permanent. The men who sat around that council board must have known what was in the minds of the Prince Edward Island delegates, and it would be an injustice to the memory and character of these men to say that they deceived the delegates, or even that they allowed these delegates to deceive themselves on that point. I, therefore, am justified in coming to the conclusion that it was in the minds of all these men who were carrying on the negotiations that Prince Edward Island was getting a concession which was to be hers in perpetuity. Unfortunately, the terms of the union were not worded so that that provision was put beyond doubt, or otherwise we would not be here to-dav looking for our rights. I can understand how easy it is for a mistake to occur even in important documents. It is known to us all that important measures have passed this Parliament, statutes drawn by the most expert lawyers, and that defects have afterwards been discovered in them which rendered remedial legislation necessary. Only a few days ago the Minister of Marine gave an illustration of how mistakes may occur in connection with the purchase of the submarines on the Pacific coast. A telegram from Sir Richard McBride stated that the price of these submarines was to be $1,150,000, but the Order- in-Council was passed for $1,050,000, and that'was a mistake which one would think could be easily seen.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries told us that he did not know how the mistake occurred. It might have occurred in transmitting a message by telephone from the Prime Minister's office to the office of Naval Affairs; it might have occurred-probably it did occur-in the course of the work of the officer in the Naval Affairs Department who prepared the memorandum for Council. It escaped the notice of that officer, of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, of the

Deputy Minister of Naval Affairs, of the Privy Council-and was only discovered a number of days afterwards. So we see how easy it is for mistakes to occur; and in all human probability a mistake occurred in the terms of union, which mistake escaped the notice of the delegates from Prince Edward Island, of the Legislature of Prince Edward Island, and of the Government of Canada.
During the last regular session of this Parliament, as I have stated, a resolution was passed in this House to the effect that no province should have fewer members in this House than it had in the Senate. That was an effort to correct this error. Some hon. member of the House-I have forgotten who it was-told the Prime Minister that he was departing from the principle of representation by population. The Prime Minister's answer was that the departure was not very serious. And 1 say the same now. If this House should agree to give the original representation to Prince Edward Island, the departure from the principle of representation by population would not be very serious. I do not think it would endanger the Constitution. On the other hand, it would be a settlement of the question; it would lead the people of Prince Edward Island to believe that they had been fairly and generously used in this matter, a matter that to them at least is important. And any other settlement will not lead to that conclusion. We may obtain four members. That, of course, would be better than to be reduced to three or to two; but will not, so far as we are concerned, be regarded as a full or generous settlement of this question. And I say that the Parliament of Canada is big enough and broad-minded enough, and I think the men of the other provinces are broad-minded enough, to give to the smallest province of the Dominion this concession, which cannot possibly injure anybody, and which is regarded by the people of Prince Edward Island as being of great importance.
Years ago, I think it was in 1892, when the question of redistribution was under consideration, and British Columbia was obtaining a larger representation in this House than she would have been entitled to on the basis of population, Sir John Thompson spoke very strongly in favour of British Columbia's views. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, then leader of the Opposition, spoke in the same way, and said-I am not quoting his words, but I think I give with precision the effect of what he said-he would be sorry that any province of the Dominion should have fewer representatives in Parlia-21
ment than that province thought itself entitled to. That is all I am asking for. And if the right hon. leader of the Government and the right hon. leader <jf the Opposition think these views correct, if they would regret that any province in the Dominion should have a smaller representation in this House than it has always thought it was entitled to, there would be no difficulty about the passing of this resolution.
I think this matter should be dealt with this session. We may, or may not, have an election before another session, and we may, or may not, be reduced to three members. And some time or other this question must be taken up; and it would be just as well, in my judgment, to take it up and dispose of it now.
As I have already said, we of Prince Edward Island feel proud that Charlottetown, the capital of our province, saw the first conference to take into consideration the idea of Confederation. We think that since Confederation we have contributed our share towards the prosperity of this Dominion. Large numbers from the province of Prince Edward Island, as from the other Maritime Provinces, have gone into the Northwest. As a rule, I believe, they have done well there. They have cooperated with the people of the other provinces towards the progress of the West. And it is hard for us that this very contribution we are making towards the advancement of the country should become the very means of reducing our representation in this House and weakening our voice at the council board.
This, you may tell us is a matter of sentiment. To a certain extent, so it is. But it is a not ignoble sentiment. It is the sentiment that prevailed in our province before we entered Confederation. It is a sentiment, I think, that this House would be justified in considering; yes, a sentiment that this House would be justified in meeting and satisfying for all time. I place this matter before ihon. members with full confidence that they will do what they believe to be just and generous, that they will dispose of the matter in the way pointed out by my right hon. leader (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in 1892, when he said that he would regret that any province should have a smaller representation in this House than it always thought it was entitled to.
Mr.D.D.McKENZIE (North Cape Breton): The case for Prince Edward Island has been put before the House so clearly and ably by the' hon. member for Kings, P.E.l. (Mr. REVISED EDITION

Hughes), that it will not be necessary for me to review the same history at any length. It would appear to me, from the case the hon. gentleman has made out, that it was the intention of the representatives of Prince Edward Island at the time that province entered Confederation, that it was to have six members. The question is possibly not so difficult to the mind of the hon. gentleman as it might be to myself. He is a layman, and, taking the layman's view, the difficulty would perhaps not be so striking as it is, or ought to be to me who have had, to some extent, ihe training of a lawyer. I know that the right hon. leader of the Government, and possibly the leader of the"Opposition, will say: What is the use of talking this way?-the adjustment of the terms of Confederation in relation to the representation of ihe provinces is a settled question. There was a time when this question was regarded as an open one, but a judicial interpretation of the Act was made. The matter was argued before the Supreme Court of Canada by the ablest legal minds in this country. It was carried from the Supreme Court of Canada to the Privy Council, and there received the last and, I suppose, the best, interpretation that can be given to it. That interpretation is, in effect, that the way in which the Act has been interpreted and carried out in Canada is the right way; that the representation of the maritime provinces must be reduced as the population decreases; that the reduction which we.have suffered is the proper and legitimate outcome of the Act of Confederation in which we concurred in 1867. But I wish to present to the legal mind of the right hon. leader of the Government the fact that because an Act of Parliament is interpreted by the courts in such a way as not to carry out its original intention, it does not follow that Parliament must sit back and do nothing at all. In hundreds of cases where courts have given certain interpretations of provincial or Dominion Acts, Parliament has come hack and legislated in such a way as to carry out the original intention of the legislation, regardless of what the interpretation of the courts may have been. Let me bring to the attention of the Prime Minister a particular case in point: that of the Manitoba School question. In that case the Lords of the Privy Council said that there was no doubt as to what the intention of the Manitoba Act was, but that the language used by those who drafted the Act was not of such a 
character as to ensure that the intention of the legislation would be carried out. The Government of the day thereupon introduced in this House what was known as the Remedial Bill, the object of which was not to accept the decision of the Privy Council, but to legislate in such a way as to carry out the real intention of the Act. I submit that a proper interpretation of the intention of the British North America Act as. drafted and enacted in 1867 is that the representation of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island should not be reduced. I submit that if Canada had continued to consist of the four provinces- live with Prince Edward Island-that originally entered Confederation, and if the representation of these provinces had been adjusted under the terms of the Act according to each decennial census, we should not have lost any representation in the maritime provinces.
Let me call the attention of the Prime Minister to certain conditions in the province of Nova Scotia which, I think, will appeal to him just as strongly as the representations of my hon. friend who has just moved this resolution should appeal to the Prince Edward Islanders. At the time of Confederation every county in the province of Nova Scotia was to have a member, and the county of Halifax was to have two. We had then in the province the same number of counties as we have now, all bearing the same names. If the county of Shelburne, for instance, which was one of the first counties to suffer from this interpretation of the Act, had been told at the time of Confederation that after some years they would have no representation at all; that possibly they would be joined to some other county and secure their interest in a representative in that way; would they for a moment have supported the proposal to enter into Confederation? If the counties of Queens, Cape Breton, Victoria, Pietou, Annapolis, Yarmouth, Digby, the representation of all of which has since suffered by reason of this interpretation of the Act by the Lords of the Privy Council, had been told that only for a few years would they have their original representation in the House and that after that it would be a matter of doubt whether they would have any representation at all, would the strong-minded and intelligent people of those counties have supported the proposal- to enter into Confederation? I submit that they would not.
I submit that the understanding from the beginning was that there should be no reduction of the representation originally

granted in 1867. It will be readily understood that we expected to grow; we expected that Nova Scotia and the other Maritime Provinces would keep pace with the growth and development of Quebec and Ontario, the only provinces with which they had to keep pace. The idea was that we should grow and that we should Subsequently have not a smaller, but a larger representation.
Under section 8 of the Act under which British Columbia entered Confederation, it was provided that British Columbia should be entitled to be represented by three senators in the Senate and by six members in the House of Commons, the representation to be increased under the provisions of the British North America Act of 1867. The idea of the people of British Columbia when they entered Confederation was that their representation should increase, if the conditions were such as to come under the terms of the Act, but that in any case it should not decrease. The idea of what terms of Confederation should be applied to the different provinces was then fresh in the minds of the great men who took part in framing the constitution, and I believe that they did not intend to give British Columbia any better terms than those granted to the other provinces. If the terms under which British Columbia entered Confederation were fair and right and proper, there is no reason why similar conditions should not be extended to the other provinces.
As I said a little while ago, the interpretation of sections 3 and 5 of the British North America Act stands as texture so far as the courts are concerned, but it is open to this Parliament to amend or readjust these sections. What was in the minds of the Fathers of Confederation when they drafted section 2 of the Act is, I think, clear:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council, to declare by proclamation that on and after a Day therein appointed, not being more than six months after the passing of this Act, the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick shall form and be One Dominion under the name of Canada; and on and after that Day those Three Provinces shall form and he One Dominion under that Name accordingly.
Section 5 of the Act says:
Canada shall be divided into four provinces, named-Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
Were I at liberty to do so, I would dispute the decision of the Lords of the Privy Council on this point. It is too clear for argument that Canada must mean, and 214
meant at that time, those provinces-Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-and that in every adjustment of representation, and on all -other occasions when it was necessary for the Legislature to bear in mind what Canada meant, it simply meant those four provinces. But the Lords of the Privy Council have held against -that view, and there is no use arguing that phase of it now. Our duty now is to press forward and legislate in such a. way as to give the smaller provinces the rights they were supposed to have obtained under the provisions of this Act.
With further reference to what was argued by the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., I think the terms of the Act of Union of Prince Edward Island itself could very well be cited. One section reads:
That, in accordance with the terms of the said address relating to the electoral district and laws and regulations under which the first election of members to serve in the House of Commons of Canada for such electoral district shall be held, it is hereby further ordered and declared.
That Prince county shall constitute one district to be designated Prince county district and return two members.
That Queens county shall constitute one district to be designated Queens county district and return two members.
That Kings county shall constitute one district to be designated Kings county and return two members.
That seems to be straight and emphatic legislation, leaving no loophole or provision for repealing. That was what was meant to be the condition upon which Prince Edward Island came into Confederation, and I submit that it is in itself a strong argument in support of the contention taken by the hon. member for Kings that there should be some remedy by which.the operation of the Act as now understood should not result in the reduction of the representation of Prince Edward Island below the six members given to it at Confederation.
Although it is not in the resolution, and although my purpose in rising was to support the resolution of my hon. friend from Prince Edward Island, I would say that while the trouble which they have in the Island is perhaps not quite as acute in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, the whole question of the representation of the maritime provinces should be settled. We had at one time twenty-one members from Nova Scotia. After the next general election we may have only sixteen, and it is only a question of time until we shall be wiped out altogether. We still have eighteen members; after the next election we shall have

only sixteen; and while we have a Nova Scotia Premier guiding the ship of State would be a fair time to put a stop to this downhill run and restore to us the representation we had when we entered Confederation. I have much pleasure in seconding the motion made by my. hon. friend.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN (Queens, Prince Edward Island):: I do not suppose that
any of the facts connected with the Confederation conferences are so well known to the people of Prince Edward Island, and particularly to the members of this House as the speeches delivered at the two conferences at Charlottetown and Quebec referred to by the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes). Our object in this contention, wnich has been made for many years, is to impress upon this House and upon the people of Canada the fact that when we negotiated to come into Confederation, part of the contract was that we. should, for all time to come, have a representation in this House of six members. The speech which the hon. member for Kings read goes to show that that contention was made. That is a historical fact. But I contend that the contract, evidence of which is to be found on the minutes of the proceedings of this House and of the proceedings of the local House in Prince Edward Island, proves conclusively that a representation of six members was conceded to Prince Edward Island by the telegram which was sent to Mr. Hay-thorne, the leader of the Government of Prince Edward Island, by Mr. Palmer, on the 8th of March, 1872.
I have been in this House on several occasions when this question has come up. In 1907, and I think in 1908, last session, and I think the year before, this matter of the representation was brought before the House. We have never yet had a division on the question. When the Liberal partv were in power, I do not think that the r;ght hon. leader of the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who was then leader of the Government, was very sympathetic with us in our contention that the contract we made in 1373 entitled us to a representation ot six members. At any rate, he did not concede us anything. No member of the Liberal party would back us up in that contention, although we claimed in Prince Edward Island that it was clear that we were entitled to six members and that the records of the negotiations showed that. Last ssesion we brought the matter before the committee which was authorized to look into the redistribution of the seats in

Canada. We had the privilege of being heard before that committee. The leader and one of the members of the Provincial Government came here and argued that there was no doubt, under the contract of 1873, that we were entitled to a representation of six members in this House. Members from the province also spoke on the same lines. When the resolution was brought down, the right hon. leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) did not concede that we were entitled to a representation of six members, but he inserted a clause which provided:
That notwithstanding anything in this Act, a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators representing such province.
When this resolution came up in this House, I must say that, although the members to whom I spoke were very sympathetic, there was no member who rose in his seat to back the representations of Mr. Nicholson and myself, the only Island members present, in our contention that we were entitled to six members.
On the 11th June, 1914, I moved the following amendment to the resolution:
(b) Prince Edward Island shall be entitled to be represented in the House of Commons by six members. The representation to be increased under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867. Prince county shall constitute one district to be designated 'Prince county district' and return two members; Queens county shall constitute one district and be designated 'Queens county district' and return two members; and Kings county shall constitute one district, to be designated 'Kings county district' and return two members.
I stated at the time that, while I appreciated the right hon. gentleman's concession of four members, as contained in the resolution which I have just read, and which referred not only to our province but to other provinces similarly situated. I thought that under the original bargain we were entitled to six members. The Government deserved credit, I said, for conceding us even four members, because previous governments would not recognize our right at all whenever the matter had been brought up.
So far as the representation is concerned, as proposed in the Government's resolution of last year, I realize that the Government was doing something, that we were entitled to more than was conceded to us in the British North America Act resolutions passed by the Government of this country and accepted by the British Government. I was very grateful for the small concession the resolution granted. But when the resolution went up to the Senate it was

turned 'down. The hon. member for Kings (Mr. J. J. Hughes) was not in Ottawa at that time, although he must have known that this very important matter was coming up. He went home to Prince Edward Island and neglected the opportunity, which he should have taken advantage of, for he had many friends in the Senate, and perhaps he might have been able to persuade those gentlemen to see the matter as he sees it to-day and as we saw it then. But, instead of doing that, he went to his home, and left the matter to the other Liberal members of this House. The Senate returned the resolution with this amendment:
That this Act shall not take effect until the termination of the now existing Canadian Parliament.
What did that mean? It meant that at the next general election Prince Edward Island would have only three members: one for Kings County, one for Queens County, and one for Prince County. Why did these gentlemen in the upper house do this; what reason was there for it? I can see no reason why they should have turned down the resolution. Some of the members in their speeches made distinctions between the East and the West. Some said that the right of Prince Edward Island should be recognized, that, under * the terms of Confederation, she was entitled to the representation these resolutions conceded. But, when it came to a vote, they turned the whole thing down by their amendment. The right hon. leader of the Government announced that this House could not accept the amendment made by the Senate. The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has spoken very well indeed on this question, and mentioned the province of Nova Scotia. Although I was present in 1914 when this matter was before the House, I do not think he had much sympathy for Prince Edward Island on that occasion. How is it these gentlemen come here now with trumpets blowing and ask for six members, when in 1914, when we had a chance to get some increase, although not what we asked for, these very same men were dumb?
I do not know what the intention of the Government is with regard to this matter, but I would respectfully ask that the Government take it into their consideration; and if they find that the Senate will not pass the whole resolution as submitted to them last session, the Government might eliminate from the resolutions that part which is obnoxious to the members of the Upper House. Personally I do not know any reason why the whole resolution should not be passed. But if that is impossible,
I repeat that it is of very great importance to the people of Prince Edward Island that their representation in this House should not be reduced; and that although they consider themselves entitled to more than this resolution concedes they are willing to accept this concession for the present and leave the matter open for future negotiation by this or some other Government. I would ask the right hon. leader of the Government to take the matter into consideration, and to introduce this session a resolution similar to the one introduced last session, providing that no province shall be represented in this House by a less number of members than that to which it is entitled to be represented in the Senate.


Mr. G. W. KYTE:: While I recognize that any discussion of the question of representation in the maritime provinces, so far as relates to [DOT] the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, must he in the nature of a post mortem, I am glad there is still life in the carcass so far as the province of Prince Edward Island is concerned. I have on more than one occasion expressed my views on this question of representation of the maritime provinces, and I can only register my regret that I was not more successful in impressing upon the powers that be the validity of the arguments and the views which I advanced to this House.
I rise more particularly for the purpose of correcting a statement which the hon. member for Queens (Mr. A. A. McLean) has quite inadvertently I believe put before the House with respect to the attitude of another chamber of this Parliament on the question of representation of the province of Prince Edward Island. It is well remembered by hon. members of this House that in the early hours of the morning when the Redistribution Bill was going through its final stage at the last regular session of Parliament, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) rose in his place and proposed an amendment to the Redistribution Bill which provided that in the province of Prince Edward Island the number of representatives should in no case be diminished below the number of senators for that province. That amendment was accepted by both sides of this House, and it was understood at the time that it would be annexed to the Redistribution Bill to be considered by the other body of this Parliament with that Bill. For reasons which are not patent to myself at all events, the resolution of the hon. member for Pictou was not attached to the Redistribution Bill, but to another resolution having reference to an incretase in

the number of senators to be appointed from the western provinces. That resolution was held up by the Senate, or at all events so .amended that it would not take effect until after the next general election. It is most unfortunate for the contention of my hon. .friend from Prince Edward Island that the resolution proposed by the hon. member for Picto'u was not attached to the Redistribution Bill, where it properly belonged. If it had been so attached, the Redistribution Bill having passed, the amendment of the hon. member for Pietou would have passed with it and at this moment it would be the law that under no circumstances should the representation of the province of Prince Edward Island be diminished beyond the number of senators. However, that course was not adopted, and while I am not here to criticise or defend the other body in this legislature in regard to their action on the resolution respecting the increase in the number of senators in the West, I am bound to say that in my judgment the amendment of the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) had no place.


Angus Alexander McLean: I think the hon. gentleman is astray. If he will look at page 5364 of "Hansard," he will find that the amendment which was suggested by the hon. member for Pietou was incorporated in the Act and that the amendment was moved here, or suggested to the right hon, leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden) while the resolution was up in the Senate and before the resolution was passed. Hansard states clearly what the suggestion of the hon. member for Pietou was, and it was accepted by the leader of the Government.


George William Kyte: What was the suggestion of the hon. member for Pietou?


Angus Alexander McLean: It reads as follows:
Provided, that if the British North America Act, 1867, should be amended by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in accordance with the address of both Houses of Parliament of Canada in that behalf, passed at the present session, immediately upon the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom amending the said British North America Act, 1867, in accordance with such address coming into force, there shall be in the province of the Prince Edward Island three electoral districts defined as follows:
1.	The county af Kings shall form and constitute the electoral district of Kings and shall return one member,
2.	The county of Prince shall form and constitute the electoral district of Prince and shall return one member.

3.	The county of Queens shall from and con-titute the electoral district of Queens and shall return two members.
That is what was suggested to the leader of the Government by the hon. member for Pietou on the day before the 11th of June, and the leader of the Government told the hon. member for Pietou on that occasion that the matter had been suggested by myself to him, but that it had been overlooked and that he intended to place it before the Deputy Minister of Justice in order that he might draw up a clause. Although the hon. member for Pietou handed this form to the leader of the Government and asked him to incorporate it in the Act, the time had. not arrived when it should be incorporated, and the leader of the Government told the hon. member for Pietou that the matter would receive his consideration.


George William Kyte: I do not desire to rob the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLean) of any credit that he may be entitled to for his in camera suggestions to the Prime Minister in respect to what he thought should be done on this question of representation. his statement, however, does not alter my recollection of the fact as I have endeavoured to give it to the
5 p.m. House. This amendment was proposed by the hon. member for Pietou at a very early hour in the morning, when the Redistribution Bill was receiving its final consideration. The amendment was accepted by the Prime Minister with the understanding that it would be attached to the Redistribution Bui. If it had been it would now be law. Why it was not attached I do not know.


Angus Alexander McLean: It is attached to the Redistribution Bill and if the hon. member will turn up the Act he will find that it is part of the Redistribution Bill.


George William Kyte: Then it is law?


Angus Alexander McLean: No, it is not law because it has not come into effect. At the time it, was passed in this House the other resolution was in the Senate and it was turned down by the Senate and never became law.


George William Kyte: That has reference to the
representation in the Senate of the western provinces.


Angus Alexander McLean: No.


George William Kyte: If it is not law it is not because it did not receive the support of this House, and it does not change the position that I took in the first instance that the

whole question was settled as far as this House was concerned by the resolution of the hon. member for Pictou.


Right Hon.   S@: The subject which my hon. friend from Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) has brought to the attention of the House is one which has been debated on many occasions in the House, and all that has "been put forward to-day, I think, has been brought to the attention of the House on the occasions to which I have alluded. Last year I took the responsibility of leaving the number of members for the province of Prince Edward Island blank in the Bill which was introduced, and I did that for the purpose of giving to those representing Prince Edward Island an opportunity of making their case fully before the committee and probably at greater length and with greater cogency than it might be made in a debate in this Parliament. The reasons why I thought that a desirable course to pursue were set forth in the observations which I made to the House at that time. The Bill was accordingly referred to the committee in that way. It was not, however, referred without some objection from my right hon. friend who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who said, as reported at page 847 of Hansard .
My right hon. friend, in this Bill, has refrained from making one provision, the absence of which seems to me a weakness in the Bill and I cannot but think, also a weakness on his part. He refused to determine whether or not the Island of Prince Edward is to lose a member. He left that blank and referred it to the committee for determination. I have to represent to my right hon. friend that that is a matter upon which the committee cannot have any jurisdiction; it is a matter on which this House has no jurisdiction. Parliament in this matter is not a free agent; the whole question is simply a question of arithmetic.
Then my right hon. friend went on to adduce reasons why in his opinion it was not only a weak but an improper course to take. He said, for example, this:
But when my right hon. friend leaves it to the committee to' determine whether or not Prince Edward Island shall lose one member, what will he say to my hon. friend from Pictou or any other hon. member from Nova Scotia should he suggest that it be left to the committee to determine whether or not Nova Scotia shall lose two members?
Then he illustrated in the same way in regard to New Brunswick and Ontario. Finally he said:
Therefore I regret that my right hon. friend has introduced in his Bill a principle-no, 1 cannot call it a principle, but rather a vicious feature-which might land him in very serious
difficulties were its necessary implications followed to their logical conclusion.
However, the Bill went to the committee, and the committee gave a very careful hearing, as I understand, to members of this House representing Prince Edward Island, and also to members of the Provincial Government of Prince Edward Island, all of whom put their case before the committee with the greatest cogency at their command, and the committee eventually made a report to this House. In that report the committee recommended that an address should be passed asking that the British North America Act should be so amended that no province in Canada should have a smaller representation in the House of Commons than in the Senate. If the British North America Act were so amended the amendment would take no present effect in any province excepting Prince Edward Island, the representation of which in the House of Commons it would increase from three to four members. As my hon. friend has observed, there was some discussion on the Address which I subsequently moved in this House for the purpose of carrying out that proposal and certain other proposals which are not germane to my hon. friend's motion at the moment. When that address was moved my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. McLean), who has just addressed the House, was not satisfied with it, and he moved, as reported at page 5809 of "Hansard," a resolution of entirely the same effect as that which my hon. friend has now proposed. He moved in amendment:
Prince Edward Island shall be entitled to be represented in the House of Commons by six members, the representation to be increased under the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867.
Prince county shall constitute one district to be designated Prince county district, and return two members.
Queens county shall constitute one district to be designated Queens county district, and return two members.
Kings county, shall constitute one district to be designated Kings county district, and return two members.
The hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLean) then used these words:
While I appreciate the concession of four representatives for Prince Edward Island, as provided in the last clause of the resolution. I submit that the original terms should be recognized and carried into effect. The Government deserves great credit for this concession, which is of very great importance, but I do not think it too much for me to ask that the original representation of six members should be restored.
The amendment was lost on division and the resolution as originally proposed by me

passed the House. The proposal which was reported to the House by the committee was accepted by the House, as I felt that it would not be possible for us to disregard the carefully considered report of that committee composed of five members from this side and four from the other side of the House, who had devoted a great deal of attention to the subject.
While I appreciate the spirit in which my hon. friend (Mr. J. J. Hughes) has brought this subject to the attention of the House, and while I appreciate the arguments he has put forward, I would remind him that he has argued sometimes the other way. In 1903 he took strong grounds against a motion which was proposed by Mr. Hackett, then a member of the House. My hon. friend at that time was of the opinion-I think I have his words under my hand- that it was not a question of a mistake at the time Prince Edward Island entered Confederation, but that the particular form of expression that was used at the time was the result of oversight or neglect. I do not desire to misquote my hon. friend, and therefore I give his exact words:-
I regret as much as any man can regret that the delegates at the time the province of Prince Edward Island joined the Union overlooked this important point, and did not provide against the contingency that has since arisen.
My hon. friend did not put it upon the ground of a mistake at that time; he put it on the ground of oversight, and he also took very strongly the ground (as will be found by reference to page 10909 of "Hansard" of 1903) that the long acquiescence on the part of Prince Edward Island would make it difficult to provide any remedy. Twelve years have, of course, elapsed since my hon. friend made that remark. The hon. gentleman also explained in that speech that the reason why the original representation was not reduced in 1882 was not because of reasons which had been advanced in this House, and which at one time impressed me, but was due to the fact that the census of 1881 was the first Dominion census taken after the Island had entered Confederation, and consequently that, so far as Prince Edward Island was concerned, there was no previous census with which to compare it. Therefore he argued that inasmuch as. there was no previous census with which to compare the population of Prince Edward Island in 1881, the Government of the dav found itself unable to determine whether or not the saving clause, to which he has alluded,

could take effect, and so he said there was little to be deduced in favour of the claim of Prince Edward Island from the fact that its representation was not reduced in 1882.
Under all these circumstances, it does not seem to me that the House would be justified at the present time in coming to a perfectly opposite conclusion to that at which the House arrived less than a year ago, when the motion of my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. McLean) was put to the House, which was then considering in committee, the resolution which I had the honour to propose. Further, I believe that we should be guided, as has always been the practice in this House, by the report of the committee to whom was confided the particular duty of hearing the claims of Prince Edward Island, and of hearing everything that could be said in favour of the motion which my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. McLean) proposed a year ago, and which my hon. friend from Kings (Mr. Hughes) is proposing. That report should command the support of the House unless very grave and cogent reasons can he adduced for leading the House to an opposite conclusion.
The resolution proposed by me last year went to the Senate by the unanimous consent of the House, and the Senate sent it back with a certain amendment, which by the unanimous consent of this House we refused to accept. My hon. friend from Queens has proposed that one or other of the courses he suggested should be adopted this session, and I will give to his proposal in that regard my best consideration and inform him and the House later of the conclusion at which we have arrived.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: The members of the House know that we heard of this question for the first time, I think, in 1883, after the census of 1881, by which Prince Edward Island, for the first time, lost some of its representation irf this House. There is no doubt that the grievance as put forward to-day by my hon. friend from Kings (Mr. Hughes), and re-echoed by my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. McLean) was just as much felt at that time as it is now. But no one thought then that it would be possible to interfere with the terms of the Constitution, which provided that the regulation of representation should follow the movement of population; the representation of a province increasing or decreasing according to the result of the census.
Ten years later, in 1902, not simply Prince Edward Island but all three maritime prov-

inces, had to submit to a further reduction of representation. The grievance then became more acute, and we have heard of it from time to time ever since. All governments and all parties have had to deal with that question. All have dealt with it in the same way, concluding that, without an amendment of the Constitution, it would not be possible to grant the prayer of the people of Prince Edward Island. Last year, when the right hon. leader of the Government introduced the Redistribution Bill, he left in blank the representation of Prince Edward Island. I pointed out at the time that he had just said that it was a useless step, because this Parliament had no power in the matter, and the authority that could deal with it was the British Parliament. If there was any doubt on the subject at that time, we all agree that at present there is no doubt at all: this Parliament has no jurisdiction over^fche matter, and, even if it had, it could not grant the remedy sought by my hon. friends from Prince Edward Island, on both sides, btit would have to seek legislation to that effect from the Imperial Parliament.
Last year it was determined to seek that legislation, and it was done in a way that commends itself to my judgment, and I think commends itself to the judgment of hon. members generally. The committee to which was submitted the question of redistribution came back with a report that this House had no power to give to Prince Edward Island the representation it wanted; on the contrary, the committee had agreed to reduce the representation of Prince Edward Island from four to three, because they could not do anything else. A member of the committee, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald), made a suggestion. There was at that moment a petition pending before this House to increase the representation of the western provinces in the Senate. The hon. member for Pictou suggested that if this petition were granted by the two Houses of this Parliament, and if, in consequence, the Imperial Parliament were to be asked to pass the necessary legislation, advantage might be taken of the occasion to have an amendment of the Constitution made, providing, not for granting all that was asked for by Prince Edward Island, but that the prayer should be granted to this extent, that the representation of any province in the House of Commons should not be less than its representation in the Senate.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought that was the report of the committee?


Wilfrid Laurier: No, that was the suggestion of the hon. member for Pictou.


Robert Laird Borden: I think it was
in the Teport.


Wilfrid Laurier: My memory
may be at fault in the matter; but, if so, the fact gives greater emphasis to the view I hold. My hon. friend from Kings (Mr. Hughes) has referred to some words of mine to the effect that I should be sorry that any province should feel that it had a grievance on account of its representation. I should be sorry that in matters of representation or any other matters a province should feel that it was .aggrieved in any way by anything done or left undone by this Parliament. It is of the very essence of our Constitution that we should endeavour to have all provinces fairly represented, and the views of .all provinces accepted in this' Parliament in so far as we can attain that end. It may be that the condition I have referred to was in the report as stated by the Prime Minister; but I am certain that the hon. member for Pictou suggested that the amendment to the British North America Act referred to should be sought; and this was include in the Bill as it went from this House to the Senate. The Bill as reported was in these words:
There shall be In the province of Prince Edward Island three electoral districts, defined as follows :	,
1.	The county of Kings shall form and constitute the electoral district of Kings, and shall return one member;
2 The county of Prince shall form and constitute the electoral district of Prince, and shall return one member;
3. The county of Queens shall form and constitute the electoral district of Queens, and shall return one member.
My impression still is that this was the provision of the Bill as reported by the committee, and that the following amendment was added on the suggestion of the
hon. member for Pictou:
Provided that if the British North America Act 1867, should be amended by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in accordance with the address of both Houses of the Parliament of Canada in that behalf, passed at the present session, immediately upon the Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom amending the said British North America Act, 1867, in accordance with such address, coming into force there shall be in the province of Prince Tainnd three electoral districts defined
as follows:
1.	The county of Kings shall form and constitute the electoral district of Kings and shall return one member;
2.	The county of Prince shall form and constitute the electoral district of Prince and shall return one member;
.3-30


Angus Alexander McLean: Not at the next
election.


Wilfrid Laurier: At dissolution. I have not the amendment of the Senate before me, but I am quite positive that it provided that this section should come into force not after the general election, but at dissolution. When Parliament dissolved, therefore, the Act would come into force, and the province of Prince Edward Island would be entitled to four members. The amendment was not accepted, however, and the Act remains on the Statute book without it.
It is not worth while arguing as to what was done or what was not done by the Senate; I have only to say this to the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLean) and to the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes).
I am well aware that the province of Prince Edward Island has felt for many years that it has been unfairly dealt with, because its representation has decreased with each succeeding census. But if the representation of the province of Prince Edward 
Island has been moving down, that decrease has been in accordance with the Act of Confederation; the province has obtained the representation to which it is entitled under the terms of that Act. My hon. friend says that Prince Edward Island would not have come into Confederation unless it had been assured of at least-six members. When it entered Confederation, Prince Edward Island, according to its population, was entitled to only five members. The province did not want to come into Confederation unless it had a representation of six members, and the men of that day, very properly I think, nit being inclined to quarrel upon such a trifling point, granted them six. No provision was made at that time that the permanent representation of the province should be six members. This want of foresight applied not only to Prince Edward Island, but to Nova Scotia arid New Brunswick as well; no one of the fathers of Confederation-neither Sir John Macdonald, Sir Charles Tupper, nor anybody else-anticipated the great development which has taken place in the West, and which has reduced the population of the eastern provinces. This grievance is not peculiar to Prince Edward Island; it applies to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick as well. With census after census the three maritime provinces have seen their populations decrease. But representation by population is a fair and just principle. If the population of a province increases, the province is entitled to additional representation, whereas if its population decreases, its representation decreases also. So absolutely fair is this principle that the men responsible for government, either on the one side or the other, have hesitated to deviate or depart from it. It was proposed last year, by the committee that reported upon the Bill then under consideration, that the matter should be settled in this way: henceforth no province shall have less representation in the House of Commons than it has in the Senate. That was a departure from the principle, but it was, after all, what seemed to me to be a fair compromise. The larger western provinces-Quebec, Ontario and the young giants in the West-are too strong to have reason to begrudge the slight increase in representation which this would give to the eastern provinces. We accepted that compromise-for my part I was glad to support the committee in that respect- and it seems to me that our friends in the maritime provinces ought to be satisfied that in so doing we endeavoured to dispose

of this irritating question in a fair and just manner.


James Joseph Hughes: I was very careful, Mr. Speaker, in the few remarks which I made upon this subject, to avoid saying anything at all that would have a party colour, because I think this is a question which can be and ought to he settled without resorting to party politics. I regret, however, that the senior member for Queens, Prince Edward Island (Mr. McLean), did not feel disposed to pursue a similar course. I regret to a still greater extent that the right hon. Prime Minister did not pursue a similar course. If I understood the hon. member for Queen's correctly, in speaking on this subject a few moments ago, he made a statement that is not borne out by the facts. He sought to leave the impression that on account of the action of the Senate, the Government was prevented from passing legislation which would give the province of Prince Edward Island four members at the next election. That matter has been pretty well cleared up since the hon. member sat down, and I am sure that he now feels that he made a mistake. He must realize that no action taken by the Senate when this matter was before them, operates to prevent this Government from passing an Act or from completing legislation, which would come into force upon the dissolution of this Parliament, to give the province of Prince Edward Island four members at the next election. My hon. friend, therefore, was mistaken in that respect, as he generally is.
The hon. gentleman went out of his way a little, I think, to mention the fact that I was absent from the House when this matter was finally considered during the closing days of the regular session of 1914. It is true that I was absent, just for a few days. I was informed by a member of the Redistribution Committee a few days before Parliament closed that the chairman of the committee had told him that the question of redistribution would not come up for consideration at that session therefore I left for home a few days before Parliament prorogued. The Redistribution Committee or the Government changed its mind, however; Hhe matter was brought up, anu I could not possibly find time to get back. But I wish to say to the senior member for Queens that if he were as attentive to his duties as I have been, whether on the Government side or in Opposition, he would not be in the position that he is in to-day. He would be certain of nomination when he goes back to his constituents, and would not have to
importune the Government to give him a position to save him from his friends. The hon. member knows that he will not be nominated.


Angus Alexander McLean: The hon. member
makes a statement which he cannot prove and which has no foundation in fact.


James Joseph Hughes: If the hon. gentleman will tell me he is not importuning the Government daily for some position in the gift of the Government I shall be satisfied.


Angus Alexander McLean: I have denied it and it is an absolute falsehood.


James Joseph Hughes: All right, I will accept
the hon. gentleman's explanation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member is
going, I think, a little too far in saying that a statement of an hon. member is an absolute falsehood; he could properly say it is untrue.


James Joseph Hughes: We shall know in a few months. The truth of this matter will be all explained to the hon. gentleman's constituents in a few months from the present time.
Now, with regard to the right hon. the Prime Minister, I regret that a man of the ability of the right hon. gentleman should think it necessary to go somewhat out of his way to represent to the people of Prince Edward Island that I was not thoroughly orthodox on the question of representation. The right hon. gentleman brought up this matter in 1914 and referred to a speech which I made in 1903, in answer to Mr. Hackett, then a member of this House. This speech did not happen to be indexed, and the right hon. gentleman must have waded through "Hansard" for eleven years to find some statement of mine that he could twist or construe into an (argument against the representation of Prince Edward Island, while at the same time pretending to be a friend of Prince Edward Island on this subject. I had spoken two or three times as strongly and as favourably as I could for the views of Prince Edward Island on this matter, and these speeches had been indexed; but the right hon. gentleman did not quote from any of these, all the time pretending to be a friend of Prince Edward Island and wading through "Hansard" year after year to find some statement made by me that could be twisted into an argument against Prince' Edward Island on this point.
The right hon. gentleman went farther than that. He said I had made the statement that it was too late to raise the question. The right hon. gentleman is a

shrewd enough man to know that my statement was that it was too late in the day for Mr. Hackett to raise that question in order to make political capital of it. I think perhaps I had -better read my remarks. This is the conclusion:
Therefore I think it is altogether too late for my honourable friend and his political associates from Prince Edward Island to try to make political capital out of it at this time.
I referred to the fact that when the first reduction took place the Conservatives were in power and the hon. gentleman then speaking had raised no objection. That was an innocent remark to make, and I do not think it would bear the interpretation the right	hon.	gentleman put	upon it.
The	right hon. gentleman said in
effect that he might have got over that unfortunate speech of mine if I had not used the word " overlooked " or " oversight," but he said that was a terrible word to use and was equivalent to negligence or incompetence. I find in the International Dictionary the definition of the word is " an error committed through inadvertence." That was just what I meant, an error committed by the delegates through inadvertence, and I am sure if my right hon. friend wished to do something for Prince Edward Island that word would not have prevented him. I am soTry if anything I said prevented the right hon. gentlemen from doing what he would wish to do for Prince Edward Island. He said that the delegates wlho came here to argue this question before the Redistribution Committee and before the Government-the Premier of the. Island and Mr. Stewart-had presented clear, cogent and strong arguments. I find that they used the word " unforeseen." I do not think there is a great deal of difference in the meaning of the two words, and if in their statement, which was written, by the way, so that they would have time to choose their words, they said that unforeseen contingencies had arisen. If that was a suitable word, the word "oversight" would not be so unfortunate. The right hon. gentleman in his course in this matter, reminds me of the characters in the Old Curiosity Shop, where Codlin told Little Nell not to pay any attention to Short, that Codlin was her friend, not Short. Codlin wanted to be the friend of Prince Edward Island, not Short; if they would have nothing to do with Short and cultivate Codlin, he would see them through. My friend Codlin has the opportunity; I would be pleased if he would see the matter ]Mr. J. J. Hughes.[
through and give to Prince Edward Island that which he has always contended he would be inclined to give, provided he had an opportunity and power to do so. I hope it will not be a case of Codlin and Short.
Motion negatived on division.


THE FORT ERIE SHOOTING CASE.
Wilfrid Laurier: For a copy of all complaints to the Government of the killing of one American citizen and the shooting of another by militiamen, in the-waters of Lake Erie, and of all correspondence with regard to the same with the British Embassy and American authorities.
He said: The community some weeks ago was shocked when it heard that two American citizens in the waters of Lake Erie had been shot by three Canadian Militiamen, one being killed and the other wounded. What .1 saw in the newspapers led me to believe that these men were trespassers-that they were in our waters and were poaching and were at that moment violating the laws of Canada. The boys who shot them, three young militiamen, are now in durance. They are to be subjected to trial, and I would say nothing to prejudice them. On the contrary, I believe that they acted according to what they thought was their duty, and, for my part, I give them credit for having no wrong intentions. Perhaps they were too hasty in using the rifle, but that is the only thing with which we might reproach them.
I understand that the Government have since that time made what amends they could by agreeing to pay $10,000 to the relatives of the one who was killed and $5,000 to the one who was wounded. In this the Government have followed the right course, and I commend them. They have done what in their power lay to alleviate whatever bad feeling may have been caused. They have preserved the peace between ourselves and our neighbours, and that is an essential element in the case. For my part I would approve of anything done by the Government with a view to repairing as much as possible the injury done, even though the men who were shot were trespassing and breaking the law.
My object in making this motion is to call to the attention of my right hon. friend a very similar case, about which my right hon. friend was questioned some time ago in this House. I refer to the case of Nottar, a French reservist, who had gone to Montreal to book his passage to France, where he was going to take up arms with

the rest of his fellow-countrymen. Nottar was shot by a sentry under circumstances very similar to those to which I have just alluded. There was this difference only, that, while the victims in the Fort Erie shooting case were trespassers, Nottar was not a trespasser. He was endeavouring to discharge his duty to his mother country. He was challenged by the sentry. He did not answer as soon as he should have done, perhaps because of a difference in language, the sentry having challenged him in English and he understanding only French. He passed on, and the sentry shot him. It is to be regretted-and if the Minister of Militia were here I should have less hesitation in saying what I have to say now- that the Minister of Militia seems to have given the order that sentries were to shoot to kill. At all events, in the early days of the war our sentries were too prone to make use of their rifles. But there has been no such action since. I rise to say that the relatives of Nottar are just as much entitled to compensation as the relatives of those American citizens who lost, one his life, and the other his limb; but Nottar has an even stronger case, I think, and I commend it to my right hon. friend that his family are just as much entitled to compensation. My right hon. friend stated the other day that he had received no application from Nottar's family, but was informed that they were bringing an action against the sentry who committed the act. That is equivalent to an application to the Government; for, if the courts determine that the sentry went beyond his duty, the Government would very properly assume the condemnation and seek to indemnify Nottar's family. It is for these reasons that I have brought this matter to the attention of my right hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: After some
*question had been asked in the House about Nottar's case, I asked my colleague the Secretary of State to ascertain as precisely as he could the circumstances of the case and the position of the litigation, which I understand is pending. He informs me that the solicitor representing Nottar's family has promised to send us full information on the subject within a week. When that information arrives we shall take the case into consideration. I admit that there is a good deal to be said in favour of what my right hon. friend has put forward to-day as to the propriety of granting compensation to this man's family.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has alluded to sentries having been somewhat too prone to shoot in the early days . of the war. We must always bear in mind that at that time we were facing very unusual conditions and that there was a great deal of excitement as to the possibliity of an attempt to destroy buildings in which munitions of war were kept, and other buildings in which preparations for war could be carried on on an extensive scale. I am not aware that my hon. friend the Minister of Militia has ever used the language that has been attributed to him in his instructions to sentries. On the contrary, I have found him disposed to have them fully cognizant of the responsibility placed upon them. But at the same time one can realize that a sentry placed in an important position and under the conditions to which I have alluded, might find himself in danger of reprimand if he did not enforce pretty strictly the instructions given to him by his superior officers.
So far as the Fort Erie shooting case is concerned, there is no objection to bringing down such papers as are not of a confidential character; nor should I have the slightest objection to my right hon. friend perusing the entire file, which is pretty voluminous. Immediately after the unfortunate incident had occurred, we took steps to ascertain the facts as far as we could. Having ascertained-tliese facts to a certain extent, through the Attorney General of the province of Ontario and by inquiry of the military authorities, we sent an expression of regret to the Government of the United States at a very early date. Afterwards, when the proceedings at the inquest were available, further communication took place over the telephone with the Attorney General of Ontario, and we ascertained his view after perusal of that evidence, whereupon, on the sixth day of January, a despatch was sent to His Majesty's Ambassador at Washington, which perhaps I might read for the information of the House:
Referring to my telegram January 4th. Shooting at Fort Erie. From information received from Attorney General of Ontario as to nature of evidence given at Coroner's inquest, it appears that object of shooting was deterrent, as deceased and his companions were unlawfully engaged in shooting out of season and that injury which resulted in death of deceased was entirely unintentional. Nevertheless Government of Canada are of opinion that person guilty of shooting ought to be placed on his trial and steps will be taken for that purpose. In view of circumstances which so unfortunately resulted in death of deceased, Government of Canada consider that as an act of grace, suitable compensation should be made to family of deceased and to person injured by shooting.

Communication was had afterwards through the ambassador at Washington, and by direct negotiation through the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs, Sir Joseph Pope. Eventually an arrangement was arrived at by which, as my right hon. friend has stated, we agreed to pay, and have since paid, $10,000 to the family of the unfortunate man who was killed and $5,000 to the man who was wounded somewhat severely and was in hospital for some time. There was also an arrangement made by which certain expenses of solicitors and others who were engaged by the representatives of the deceased man, and by the person who was wounded, but survived, should also be defrayed by the Government.
The accident was unfortunate in many respects. It would be unfortunate, of course, that this shooting should have taken place under any circumstances. It was particularly unfortunate that the persons, one of whom was killed and the other severely wounded, should have been citizens of the . great and friendly nation to the south. We thought that under the circumstances it was our duty to express, and we did express, immediate regret, and we also thought-and I am glad to know that my right hon. friend agrees in that view-that under the circumstances, and as an act of grace, it was proper for this country to make compensation. I am glad to be able to assure the House that the course which the Government have adopted in that regard is entirely satisfactory to the Government of the United States and also satisfactory to the persons who were acting for the family of the deceased and for the unfortunate man who was wounded.
1 do not desire to lay before the House any of the circumstances which were detailed to us through the military inquiry which took place, nor do I think it a desirable thing to dwell upon the evidence which was given at the inquest. The whole circumstances will be under judicial consideration early in March, when these men will be placed on their trial, and it would neither be desirable nor proper that we should make, in advance of the trial, any observations. This, however, may be said, that the men, as I understand, were asked to go to the assistance of an officer of the province of Ontario who had observed the two men trespassing on the Canadian side, and he was of the opinion that they were violating the game laws of the province of Ontario in what they were doing. He has stated, I believe,

and it has been stated by the men also, that there was no intention to wound or kill either of the persons so engaged, but merely to deter them from. proceeding in that which they had undertaken and, if possible, perhaps to induce them to come to the Canadian side and submit to the jurisdiction of the country upon whose territory they were in fact at the time the shooting took place. I shall be glad to bring the papers down at the earliest date. If my right hon. friend should desire to peruse the confidential correspondence, I shall be glad to place it at his disposal for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.

Mr. A. E. FRIPP (Ottawa) moved:: It has seemed to me proper that this Parliament should at the very earliest possible moment assure our volunteers that if the war is prolonged until an election should take place, they would be permitted to vote. I am quite satisfied that the majority, if not all the members of the House, agree with the principle of my motion, although I am quite prepared to hear that some may question the practicability of carrying out such a scheme, so as to secure a proper representation of the vote of the men absent on service. I find, that the principle for which I contend has been recognized by legislation in Australia and in New Zealand. In Australia, the Commonwealth Electorate Act of 1902 provides for ordinary absentee voters registering their votes, and some of the provisions of that Act might be incorporated in a Bill to attain the object I have in view. Under the Commonwealth Electoral Act, absentee voters are entitled to vote by mail, and the procedure is briefly'this: they apply to the returning officer for a 'ballot, and certain persons, including justices of the peace and postmasters are authorized to take the ballot of the absentee, and as authorized witnesses must certify that he knows the voter who has exercised his franchise and that he has voted upon the ballot supplied to him. That has general application to absentee voters, but an Act passed last year by the Legislature of New Zealand deals specifically with the Overseas force. It is called the Expeditionary Force Voting Act, 1914, and under its provisions every member of that force who was sent from New Zealand to serve in the war for His Majesty, is entitled to vote.
I take it from this that the right to vote is not confined to those whose names appear upon the voters' lists. Under the Canadian Enlistment Act, a young man of 18 years is eligible to become a volunteer, whereas he would not be eligible to vote, and it would be a matter for consideration whether we should give all our volunteers, regardless of age, the right to vote, or whether we should confine that right to those whose names appear upon the voters' lists in Canada, and who would have voted had they been in their constituencies when an election occurred. Another provision hi the New Zealand law is worthy of attention, and that is the recognition that it would be almost impossible for an absentee voter to vote for any particular candidate, and the provision therefore is that he shall have an opportunity of voting either for the Government candidate or for the Opposition candidate,
and of course the Labour party being a very strong party in that country, he also has an opportunity to vote for a supporter of it. The voter therefore votes for his party and the vote is assigned by the Prime Minister for the Government and by the leader of the Opposition for the Opposition, and by two members of the Labour party if he votes for that party. Technically speaking, there is no government when Parliament is dissolved -and the Act has a 'special clause which says, that "Government" and "Opposition" means the government and opposition in office at the -time of the passing of the Act.


Mr. CAEEOLL:: Does the hon. gentleman know how that Act worked out in practice last election?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I cannot say what the result was in the last election. In view of the fact that the principle of such legislation has been recognized in Australia and New Zealand, it does seem to me that a law could be framed by this Parliament which would give effect to the object my motion has in view.
It is a question whether a ballot should be supplied, or whether the volunteer should not be allowed to write on any piece of paper his choice at an election, and that paper, safeguarded, let us say, by the commissioned officer of his company writing his name on the back and stating that this is the ballot of so-and-so of such-and-such a company and such-and-such a corps and forwarded to the returning officer. Then, provision might be made that every returning officer should notify some officer in charge of the force of the dissolution of Parliament, that officer to notify the commissioned officers of the opportunity which the volunteers would have of exercising their franchise in this way. Copies of the Act, when passed, could be distributed by the Canadian High Commissioner, for example, for those who are now at the front, and by the Militia Department sending to the volunters a copy of the Act when they proceed to the front. Certain penalties are provided in the New Zealand Act which could be provided in ours also. On the whole, it seems quite feasible for us to frame an Act which would give to our volunteers an opportunity to exercise their franchise should an occasion arise. I understand that there is at present a committee of this House dealing with the electoral law, and I think this matter might well be referred to that committee for action, * should the House be of opinion that we should make such an amendment as I propose.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Has the hon.
gentleman in mind any machinery by which it would be possible to have the absent elector seized of the issues presenting themselves at a general election?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I think the volunteers are
at present seized, and perhaps more strongly than we are, of certain features of what may be in issue in the campaign. They are, and must be, in almost daily communication with their parents or relatives in this country. For example, I have in my possession a very interesting letter from one of the volunteers at the front-I presume he is at the front; this is dated from Salisbury-in which he deals with the question of boots for the soldiers which is agitating the country at the present time. He expresses a clear opinion on that subject, and if the House is interested I should like very much to read the letter. It would show hon. members that our soldiers are familiar with what is going on at home. It seems to me that no difficulty would arise under the head suggested by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark). The volunteers would be seized of-one of the issues at all events, and that is, what this Government has done to take care of them.


George Perry Graham: That is not a party issue.
Mr. J. H. BURNHAM (West Peterborough). As the seconder of this resolution, I would say with all due deference to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Michael Clark) that there is nothing in the Election Act requiring a man, as qualification for voting, to know one thing of what is going on in the country. The hon. member's objection would be valid if the right to vote were conditional on such knowledge; but it is not. In order to vote, a man must be a British subject, not less than twenty-one years of age, a resident of the electoral division, and-


Mr. GAUVREAU:: And go it blind.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Others go it blind besides the men at the front. I cannot see, on general principles, what justification there can be for withholding from the men who are defending this country at the front with their bayonets, the right to do the same with their ballots.


Mr. PROULX:: This might be feasible if clear-cut issues were presented to the people. But we must remember that the candidates are nominated only eight days before polling, and in some counties both candidates are
[Mr. Fripn-l
on the same side of politics. It would be pretty hard, at such a distance, for the soldiers to decide between the candidates. Many candidates would not even be known to these electors. I think it would be hard to devise any machinery to enable the soldiers to cast their votes intelligently.


Robert Rogers: The resolution of my hon. friend from Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) is undoubtedly a very important one. It is a resolution that requires, in my humble judgment, very calm, reasonable and fair consideration at the hands of hon. members of this House. I am sure I express the earnest hope and wish of every hon. gentleman within the four walls of this Chamber, when I say that it is to be hoped that it may not be necessary to have a general election in the Dominion of Canada before the termination of this terrible war. But there is none the less great importance to be attached to the suggestion of the hon. member. We are living in a time of rapid change and have to be prepared to deal with new conditions. The hon. member for Ottawa has referred to the legislation of the Commonwealth of Australia under which a system has been devised for the exercise of the franchise on the part of their soldiers who have gone to the front in defence of their country and their flag. But I am a little afraid that the Bill of the Commonwealth of Australia would not apply in so far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned. Should necessity arise for a general election, I am sure there is no man in this House or out of it who would like to deny the right of the franchise to the good, loyal citizen who has gone to the front in defence of the flag, and to fight our battle for the greatest possession of the people of Canada, our British citizenship, and for the maintenance of our membership in the great British Empire. However, I have not had time to discuss this matter with my right hon. friend the leader of the Government, who has just taken his seat, and I have no doubt that he will suggest wnat is the best course to be adopted with regard to the subject matter of the resolution now before the House.
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM: I am not sure that the attitude of my hon. friend the hon. Minister of Public Works in this instance will not go down as one of the famous retreats under proper cover. I, like the Minister of Public Works, hope that there will be no necessity for a general election in Canada until this war is over. In fact, 1 would go farther, perhaps, than some of my

[DOT]937
associates in clearing the way so that there
need not be any election, so far as constitutional law is concerned. I understand that the New Zealand Act has not yet been made operative; consequently we cannot tell how it would work if an election were brought on during the war. I agree with all that has been said as to the wisdom of allowing our volunteers to exercise their franchise. They are defending, in a more practical way, perhaps, than we in this Parliament are- that citizenship which gives us the right of free franchise. They are doing their utmost to protect our rights as citizens of the country whicn we think is the freest in the world, and I would not think of doing anything to deprive them of the privilege of exercising their rights if some practical scheme could be worked out under which they could do so in a proper way. For some years the introduction of a system has been advocated in Canada to enable commercial travellers to cast their ballots without being obliged to return to their constituency and lose perhaps a week or more of valuable time. Up to the present no practical result has been attained along this line, for reasons which presented themselves to those in power heretofore and which are, no doubt, apparent to those in power at the present time. If our volunteers were all in Canada, the difficulty of working out a scheme of tliis kind would not be so great, because Canadian laws and regulations would be applicable no matter in what part of Canada the volunteers were at the time of the election. But the large majority of them are in a foreign land, many thousands of miles away, and they cannot have full information with regard to the candidates or as to the various conditions which prevail, a knowledge of which is quite necessary. Besides, there is no way, so far as I can see, of enforcing a Canadian Election Act in a foreign country. Certainly the difficulties are very great. Secrecy would be another extremely difficult thing to enforce in an army, the men composing which are scattered about, some in the trenches and some in other sections of the fighting line, working under conditions which we can scarcelv comnrehend. Then, again, I can hardly imagine that the soldiers fighting shoulder to shoulder in the trenches for the rights of the British people and the continuance of the liberties which we all enjoy would have any time to differ with each other on matters which to them would seem at the moment comparatively trivial. I think it would not be prudent to do anything which might sow the seed of discord among our soldiers who are neither 22
Grits nor Tories, French nor English, Irish nor Scotch, but British citizens fighting without any division for what they believe to be right. It strikes me that their time will be fully taken up with the great work in which they are engaged. In saying that, J do not combat the principle at all, but it strikes me that a Bill should have been placed before the House so that we might have been enabled to see if there is any practical way of working the thing out. But were we to commit ourselves immediately to this principle without being sure that it is practicable, we would not be treating the question as seriously as its importance deserves. The adoption of some scheme might prove beneficial, or, again, it might cieate discord among the men-and unquestionably there should be no discord among them. I do not wish to be too emphatic in the matter, but I see almost unsurmountable difficulties in the way of our trying to apply this principle to our volunteers, particularly to those outside our own country. As to those who are in Canada, I think the modus operandi might be worked out if it were thought desirable.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not aware that the motion of my hon. friend was coming up this evening, nor have I had an opportunity of giving much consideration to the subject, which is not without importance, that he has brought to the attention of the House. It would seem to me, in line with what my ihon. friend the member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) has said, that a great many difficulties would be encountered in working out legislation based on this proposal. To carry on an election in this country under the present statutory provisions, which are the result of a great many years' thought and frequent careful revision, is not unattended with difficulty; so that the proposal that men who are fighting for the Dominion and for the Empire should participate in an election by casting their votes thereat while abroad, is	a	subject that
certainly demands	the most careful
consideration. I am not aware of the provisions of the New Zealand Act. I have never seen it, nor do I know of the existence of such a legislative provision in New Zealand except by references which I have seen from time to time in the press. It has been stated in the press that that Act was invoked in respect of New Zealand's expeditionary force. I am not at all sure that the statement is correct, but I remem-


S38 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
ber that it was reported that some elections depended upon the returns of the voting of the expeditionary force. It is possible that my hon. friend the hon. member for South Renfrew is correct in what he has said in that regard. It would be undesirable for us to refuse consideration to the proposal which the hon. member for Ottawa hap brought to the attention of the House; on the other hand, it would be even more undesirable that we should embark upon any such proposal without giving it very careful consideration. So I would suggest to my hon. friend from Ottawa that the best course would be to refer his proposal to the committee which has already been appointed for the purpose of taking into consideration certain amendments to the Act respecting Controverted Elections, and I therefore move that all the worus after the word " that " in the proposed motion be left out and the following substituted therefor:
The select committee composed of Messrs. Northrup, Maclean (Halifax), Murphy, Carvell, Robidoux, Bennett (Calgary) and Doherty, be authorized to inquire, consider and report to this House whether legislation should be passed at this session providing that electors of Canada who have enlisted for Imperial service or are engaged in active service be enabled to exercise their franchise at any election that may occur during their absence <>n such service, and whether any other legislative provision ought to be made with respect to the matter.
Amendment agreed to, and motion as amended agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHAS. MARCIL-for Mr. Lemieux- moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, legislation should be enacted during the present session of Parliament providing that all mail matter addressed to Canadian soldiers on active service shall be sent free of postage.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that the
hon. member is moving this resolution at the request of the hon. member in whose name it stands, but who, owing to indisposition, is unable to be present. I presume that would be satisfactory to the House. I am afraid that this resolution cannot very well be moved by a private member, because it affects postage and therefore really involves a contribution of public money.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member for
Rouville is unfortunately indisposed, and I understand that, acting under the advice of his physician, it will be a couple of weeks at least before he can again take his seat in the House. This afternoon he asked
ISir Robert Borden. 1
me, through a fellow member, if I would move the resolution in his absence. The late Postmaster General I presume, at the time was familiar with the rules of the House. The adoption of such a resolution may or may not compel the Government. Decisions have been rendered pro and con. During the time I occupied tne Chair the point was raised several times. Some Speakers have decided that such a resolution is binding on the Government, but others have decided in a contrary way. It is at the request of the hon. member for Rouville that I am moving the resolution. We have heard something about the volunteers to-day. This is not a party question, but merely a friendly move towards the boys, giving an opportunity to their friends in Canada to send letters or newspapers free of postage. It is a thing that will appeal to the House. Of course, I am prepared to leave the matter in the hands of the Prime Minister.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If carried in the affirmative, the resolution will practically commit the House to an expenditure of money, and therefore it should be moved only by a member of the Government.


George Perry Graham: It might be considered either advisory or compulsory; I believe there are opinions both ways. Under the circumstances, could we let the motion stand for the present as if it had not been moved?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes.
Motion stands.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Sevigny in the Chair.
Department of Marine and Fisheries-Maintenance and repairs to Dominion steamers and ice-breakers, $1,125,000.
['We will get the information for my hon. friend.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Hon. Robert Rogers the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.\nTuesday, February 23, 1915.']
George Perry Graham: What is the explanation of this increase?


John Douglas Hazen: The reason for the increase in this appropriation is that the department intends to pay out of it the maintenance and repairs of the following steamers, in addition to those whose expenses have been formerly charged to it: Aranmore, construction, N.S., Quebec and Hudson Bay, Halifax; Bellechasse, river St. Lawrence ship channel, inspection and staff boat, Quebec; Grenville, lighthouse and buoy service, Upper St. Lawrence and lake Ontario, Prescott, Ont.; Lambton, construction, Great Lakes, Parry Sound, Ont.; Rouville, construction, Gulf of St. Lawrence, Quebec.

These expenses were formerly charged to the boats, but we thought it more correct to bulk them into this one item. That accounts for the increase.


Mr. CARROLL:: Have any new icebreakers been put in commission during the last six months?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Charles Marcil: Requests have frequently been made to me that an ice-breaker be sent into Gaspe bay early in the spring. Was any action taken in that regard last year?


John Douglas Hazen: No. The difficulty is that we can not comply with all the requests we receive for the services of ice-breakers. We are worse off now than last year, because we have sold the Earl Grey to the Russian Government to keep the White Sea open during the winter. We regretted having to part with her, but, under the circumstances, felt we ought to comply with the Russian Government's request. We have an ice-breaker in course of construction by the Canadian Vickers at their shipyards at Montreal, but for reasons hon. gentlemen will understand the date of its delivery has had to be postponed considerably.


Charles Marcil: The condition of Gaspe bay has become almost famous since the departure from that place of the Canadian expeditionary force. In the inner bay there is a lot of floating ice, which takes two or three weeks and sometimes more to break up, and delays navigation accordingly. It is just the same between Dalhousie and Campbellton. The route is blocked at both extremities. If ever the minister has an opportunity of sending an ice-breaker down there, I am sure it would be appreciated.


George William Kyte: How much was received from the Russian Government for the Earl Grey?


John Douglas Hazen: One hundred thousand pounds in round figures. The exact figures were given to the House to-day in reply to a question. It was $495,000.00.


George Perry Graham: I should like a little explanation of an item I have seen in the press. I think it was on Wednesday last that I saw in the Montreal Star an item to the effect that an official of the Marine Department had made an examination in connection with the collision between the Storstad and the Empress of Ireland; and that on being asked by the Canadian Pacific Railway solicitors for some information concerning the investigation he had made, he declined to give it, saying that he had been 22*
engaged by the Storstad Company, and considered that he should give the information to them only. I do not know anything about the circumstances, but it struck me as peculiar that a Government official should be engaged by the Norwegian Company to get technical information which could not be made available to our own Canadian Company.


John Douglas Hazen: That would concern the Department of Naval Service, not the Marine and Fisheries Department. I presume it would be some official connected with the Hydrographic Survey. I do not know what the facts are, nor does the deputy of the Marine and Fisheries Department who is with me to-night. I will get the information, however, and give it to my hon. friend at a later date.


George Perry Graham: It was in the other department?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, the Department of
the Naval Service. [DOT]


George Perry Graham: It is assumed that this official said he had been instructed by the deputy of the department to do this work for the Storstad people. If the item is not absolutely accurate it ought to be straightened out.


John Douglas Hazen: I will ascertain what the facts are and when the items for the Naval Department are under consideration I will give the information to the hon. gentleman.


Charles Marcil: For many years icebreaking work has been carried on in the St. Lawrence. Will the Minister tell us if any material advantage has been gained by the work of ice-breakers during the spring, particularly at Cap Rouge and in the vicinity of Quebec?


John Douglas Hazen: Several advantages have
resulted from the work of the ice-breaker. In the first place it has prevented the flooding in the spring of the low lands below Montreal, and in the second place, it has caused the opening of navigation to Montreal at an early date. I think it was last year I submitted a report to the House showing that it was believed that the navigation up the St. Lawrence to Montreal, in consequence of the work of the ice-breakers, was 'being advanced perhaps ten days or two weeks and in some cases more, depending on the season.


Charles Marcil: What is the minister's programme for this season in connection with the St. Lawrence channel?


John Douglas Hazen: I will be very happy, when we get to the vote on the St. Lawrence ship channel, to give the hon. gentleman all the information about that.


James Joseph Hughes: I did not note the ' name of the Minto in the list of ice-breakers to be repaired under this vote that the minister read.


John Douglas Hazen: I did not give the list of all the vessels that are to be repaired but the list of the vessels that previously were charged to the item for construction. In the list of those that are to be repaired the Minto and the Stanley are included.


James Joseph Hughes: They will need repairs during the coming summer?


John Douglas Hazen: These boats nearly all have to be repaired, especially the ice-breakers.
Examiners of masters and mates, ?16,500.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Is it advisable to permit teachers who have had charge of instructing men who are up for examination as masters and mates to conduct the examination of these men and pass upon their qualifications? It is regarded as convenient if it is permissible.


John Douglas Hazen: It has never been permissible.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not see why it would not be permissible. A man who has attended college, has his degree, and has become a professor or a teacher ought to be more than usually competent. He does not get anything for the work of conducting an examination of this kind and I fancy it would be a great convenience. It is hard to understand why, if he is a capable man to teach these candidates, he should not be equally capable to conduct their examinations and pass judgment upon their qualifications unless there was. some special advantage to himself in passing them. We have a school in the town where I live presided over by a very capable man and when some of the pupils attending that school wanted to go up for examination I understand that a man was sent from Halifax to examine them, whereas, if a local man could examine them, it would be less expensive and more convenient. When a man was ready to go up for 9 p.m. examination he could be examined without having to wait. As it is now, I understand that if they want to go up for examination, unless there are five or six of them ready to be examined, the examination cannot be conducted and the result is that men who are ready to pass their examination are kept back.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman is raising a question about which there is considerable difference of opinion in connection with ordinary educational work. There are some people who contend with a good deal of force too, that the instructor is better qualified to conduct the examination of his pupils than any one else. There are other people who hold that the instructor should not conduct examinations, but that a fairer and more intelligent examination can be obtained by having examiners who have not been connected with the instruction of the pupil. There are some universities in this country that I know of in which degrees are awarded on examinations conducted by educationalists who are not instructors in the institutions. They feel that a teacher might have some prejudice against, or leaning towards, a certain pupil and that if they get an outsider who simply takes the pupil, having no personal knowledge of him, they may get a fairer examination in that way. The practice which has always prevailed in the department in connection with the examination of masters and mates is that examiners are appointed by the department. There is a regular examiner at Halifax, Captain Malcolm, and if any one in my hon. friend's neighbourhood wants to try the examination Captain Malcolm will be sent there to conduct it. It is not necessary to wait until there are four, five or six, or any number of students to be examined although the attempt is made to get as many together at the same time as possible. If there is only one man who is prepared to undergo examination he does not have to wait until there are several candidates, but the examiner will be sent down for that purpose. Naturally, we try to have a number of applicants together in order to save expense. This system is open to discussion. There is a good deal, I frankly admit, to be said on both sides of the question of whether the examiner should conduct the examination or whether the instructor should do it. Perhaps it is as well to have an examiner who is appointed by the department for that purpose and in whose knowledge, skill and experience the department have confidence.' Perhaps that would cause greater confidence to be reposed in the results of the examinations and certificates given by the department than might be the case under the system which my hon. friend has spoken of. This is the system which has always prevailed and I think it would hardly be wise to change it unless the arguments presented were very strong the other way.


Mr. PARDEE:: Regarding examinations
for masters and mates, I take it that the system applies to salt water or would the minister send an examiner to any part to examine candidates for masters or mates?


John Douglas Hazen: Quite right.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Why should that system not be extended to fresh water?


John Douglas Hazen: It is.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: When there are two or
three candidates to be examined for certificates as fresh-water masters and mates, do you compel them to attend any particular centre for examination?


John Douglas Hazen: For the past two years,
wherever there are candidates to be examined, we send an examiner there.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Who are the examiners in Ontario ?


John Douglas Hazen: Captain King at Toronto,
Captain Coles at Collingwood, Captain Phillips at Kenora.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I am glad to hear that an examiner is sent to wherever the candidates reside, it is an improvement on the former system.


Charles Marcil: Who are the examiners
in Quebec?


John Douglas Hazen: Captain Lachance for Montreal and Quebec.


Charles Marcil: Who are the examiners
for New Brunswick?


John Douglas Hazen: The examiners for the eastern division are: Captain Malcolm, Halifax, Captain Lachance, Quebec, Captain Alexander Cameron, Charlottetown, Captain Murphy, Yarmouth, Captain Sutherland, North Sydney, Captain Bennett, St. John, N.B.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I understand that whenever there is .a candidate for a certificate as master or mate an examiner is sent to that point?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Formerly the centres were Windsor, St. Catherines, Toronto and Collingwood.


John Douglas Hazen: My desire is that the students shall have every opportunity to pass-the examination. Of course, if there are-three or four students to be examined, residing at different points not widely separated, we would ask them to meet at a central point in the vicinity, but we would not withhold the examination from any person who wants to be examined, simply because he is the only candidate presenting himself. We will send an examiner to him if necessary.


Charles Marcil: Some years ago there was difficulty in Quebec arising out of the language question, and I assume that now the examiners in Quebec are familiar with both languages. In northern New Brunswick, where there is a very large French population, what would be the procedure in the case of a candidate who was not familiar with the English language?


John Douglas Hazen: The very idea my hon. friend suggests has occurred to us, but as such a case has never arisen we do not think it necessary to duplicate the examiners. If in northern New Brunswick a candidate who wants to be examined in the French language presents himself, we would get Captain Lachance to go down from Quebec.


Charles Marcil: If there is any one on the Lower St. Lawrence who wishes to be examined in the French language, he will have an opportunity of being so examined?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Charles Marcil: There are a large number of Acadian navigators who would desire, I presume, to be examined in the French language.


John Douglas Hazen: When that question arises we will provide for it.


Bowman Brown Law: Has the Minister a list of the masters and mates who passed in Nova Scotia last year?


John Douglas Hazen: I have not the names, but the following table shows the particulars of the examinations held during the ten months ended 31st January last:

Name of Examiner.	Port.	Seagoing Master-Mate.	Coasting Master-Mate.	Inland Master-Mate.10 3 2 9 7 1 2 7 2	12 11 5 8 6 9 2 25 21 10 6 1 1	25 5 12 1 1 37 35 11 6 2 8 8 3Montreal and Quebec..	
Capt. Bennett	-					
Capt. Eddie					
Capt. Maopherson 					
Capt. Cameron	 					
Capt. King		Toronto and Ottawa...			
Capt. Coles				1	
Capt. Thordarson		West Selkirk				
Capt. Phillips	Kenora	Capt. Sutherland	
....	L	4 2	Lieut. Hallett 	Nelson


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: How long has Captain King been an examiner? Is he not a very old employee?


John Douglas Hazen: He was appointed not quite two years ago.


Charles Marcil: The Quebec district comprises all the country below Quebec?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Where does the examination take place for the Quebec district?


John Douglas Hazen: At the city of Quebec, I presume.


Charles Marcil: A man living in Gaspe would have to travel three or four hundred miles to Quebec?


John Douglas Hazen: He would send an examiner down there, but as a matter of fact a great many do come to the centre to be examined.


Charles Marcil: Has the candidate to pay his own expenses going and coming?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Charles Marcil: If he fails in the examination that is lost?


John Douglas Hazen: There is no allowance made for travelling expenses.


Charles Marcil: Not even a reduced rate on the Government railway?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think so.


Charles Marcil: Why should he not have a reduced rate on the Intercolonial railway?


John Douglas Hazen: I will discuss that with the Minister of Railways.


George Perry Graham: And I doubt very much if the Minister of Railways will be willing to consent.


Charles Marcil: The civil servants get reduced rates on the Government railways.
Investigation into wrecks, $18,400.


George Perry Graham: Who is the Wreck Commissioner?


John Douglas Hazen: Mr. L. A. Demers, who is a very old official. Mr. Demers retired from the position at one time and became Harbour Master at Montreal and Captain Lindsay was appointed Wreck Commissioner. About a year ago Captain Lindsay was appointed to the commission in connection with the pilotage service, and Captain Demers was appointed to his old position in the department. The Wreck Commission is a court consisting of the Wreck Commissioner, who is chairman and two nautical assessors. The practice is for the Wreck Commissioner, in holding an inquiry at Quebec, St. John, Halifax,* or elsewhere, to select two seamen of experience to act with him as assessors. The authority for the assessors is signed by myself, or whoever may be minister. He makes inquiry and gets the two most experienced sea captains, old sailors, he can find, and they act with him as assessors. The finding of the court has to be signed by the Wreck Commissioner and at least one assessor. The item this year is $10,000 less than last year. That is accounted for by the fact that last year inquiry had to be made into the loss of the Empress of India. For that purpose a special court was appointed. We estimated the expenses of that court at $10,000. This year no such special court is provided for.


George Perry Graham: The signing of the warrant in blank is almost like a cheque to buy militia horses. The report of the Wreck Commissioner on the Empress of Ireland

disaster, I suppose, cannot be taken as evidence in the civil suit now pending?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know what the
laws of evidence are in the province of Quebec-whether evidence taken before a properly constituted court be accepted in another court. By agreement it could.


George Perry Graham: How many wrecks are investigated in a year? How many were investigated last year?


John Douglas Hazen: In the fiscal year the number of wrecks investigated was thirtv-four, exclusive of the Empress of Ireland, which was invesigated by a special court.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any report of
the court in the Empress of Ireland disaster?


John Douglas Hazen: A very full report has been published. I suppose it would be right that that should be laid on the table. That had not occurred to me, but I see no objection to bringing it down.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It would hardly be
useful unless it is printed.


John Douglas Hazen: It is printed. If the hon. gentleman is interested, I shall be glad to send him a copy.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I shall be thankful for it. Perhaps other members also would like to have copies, unless it is too expensive.


John Douglas Hazen: If I find we have enough
copies, I will act on the hon. member's suggestion and send one to each member of the House.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The hon. gentleman said that Captain Demers, with two sea-captains-


John Douglas Hazen: That is the word I used,
but they need not be sea-captains in the literal sense. They ought to be marine men, but both not necessarily sailors. In certain cases one might be an engineer, for instance.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The point was as to
appointing men to examine into wrecks on the Great Lakes. I had occasion to speak to the minister last year upon this matter. The conditions on the Great Lakes are entirely different from those on the ocean. Without going into details, I may say that, so far as Captain Lindsay is concerned, he was a wreck commissioner to investigate the wrecks that occurred in the storm of the 9th November, 1913, perhaps the greatest that ever visited the Great
Lakes. Some findings were made in the case of the Arcadia by the wreck commissioner, Captain Lindsay, who is wholly a deep-sea man that, in my opinion and in the opinion of many masters-I believe, in the opinion pf ninety-nine per cent of those masters-were wholly erroneous. Had Captain Lindsay understood the Great Lakes as well as he understood deep-sea sailing, he never would have made such findings. I am not going into a dissertation on the evidence, which I have before me, nor into the findings themselves. But, from my knowledge of the Great Lakes, having lived upon them all my life and having some knowledge of marine matters, I think that in justice to the masters and mariners upon those lakes, and in justice to the department itself, no wreck commissioner should be appointed to investigate wrecks upon the Great Lakes except one who has had experience in sailing on the Great Lakes and knows absolutely the conditions of that navigation. I think the minister must agree that sailing on the Great Lakes is vastly different from deep-sea sailing. On the lakes they have	not	the room that	they	haveat	sea	and	cannot	go	abouttheir	course in the	same way. In	manyother ways also the navigation differs. I am not pretending to find fault with the department	except in the	case of the
Arcadia, in which the finding was erroneous. I throw out these suggestions in order that in future wreck investigations men may be appointed upon these occasions who are familiar with the navigation conditions of the Great Lakes.


John Douglas Hazen: My hon. friend from West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) called my attention to this fact during last session. A delegation waited upon me composed of gentlemen interested in the navigation of the Great Lakes, introduced, I think, by my hon. friend from North Grey (Mr. Middle-bro). I was very much impressed with their sincerity, and it was perfectly clear that they believed the course that 'had been pursued was not fair to the navigation of the lakes. They asked that a Wreck Commissioner should be appointed for the Great Lakes besides those for the Atlantic and Pacific. But in view of the small number of wrecks on the lakes within the last few years I thought it not wise to appoint a Wreck Commissioner; but I did give positive instructions that when there was investigation of a wreck on the Great Lakes or inland waters, the Wreck Com-

missioner should see to it that the two assessors he selected to advise him should be navigators familiar with the navigation of the lakes. I hope that will meet the case. Certainly, we have had no complaints since. The hon. member refers to the case of the Arcadia. He will remember that I told these gentlemen there is a provision in one Act for an appeal, that appeal being to the Minister. It has to be taken within a certain time. But my recollection' is I told these gentlemen that I would waive the time limit, if they wished to appeal to me and would hear the appeal. I think the power of the Minister in such a case is to order another inquiry before the same commissioner or before some other. However, the matter did not proceed further. They said it would not be convenient to get it up then, but I said I would hear it later in the season. But I believe they thought it better to leave the matter as it was. It is still open to them, however, to bring in an appeal if they desire to do so, and if they take that course I shall give my best attention to the matter.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I think the decision of the minister along the lines mentioned will be quite satisfactory.


Charles Marcil: Following this inquiry
into the disaster to the Empress of Ireland, have any changes been ordered by the department with regard to the dropping of pilots by steamers at Father Point?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, we are carrying out the recommendations made in that respect. It may be necessary for us to obtain permission to build another boat some time in the future in order to have it done thoroughly. My hon. friend will understand that I have endeavoured to cut out of my estimates this year as much capital expenditure as possible; consequently they have been very considerably reduced. We are acting entirely in accord witli the recommendations made by the commission especially constituted by this Parliament, of which Lord Mersey was chairman, and this year arrangements will be made which will obviate any danger previously arising from the source referred to.


Charles Marcil: Will the minister state
briefly what was the result of the inquiry into the stranding of the steamer Canada at Ste. Anne des Monts?


John Douglas Hazen: I have here two lists of investigations. The first list is one of investigations into wrecks during the fiscal

years 1913 and 1914. In this list I find: " Canada, stranding; no one to blame." The other list is one of investigations into wrecks during the period from April 1, 1914, to February 4, 1915, in which I find, under the heading " Canada, stranding," the following: f' Master reprimanded, and mate suspended for three months."


Charles Marcil: Are any particulars given as to how the accident happened?


John Douglas Hazen: No.


Charles Marcil: Has the Canada been in dry-dock this year?	-


John Douglas Hazen: The Canada is not a
government boat; I do not know whether she has been in dry-dock or not.


Charles Marcil: The Canada in wtiieh I
am interested is a boat subsidized by the Government, which is about to begin a new service. There has been a good deal of talk about this wreck, and I am anxious to know what position the matter is in at the present time.


John Douglas Hazen: This boat receives a subsidy from the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Charles Marcil: Before a subsidized boat
begins a season of navigation under contract with the Dominion Government, is it inspected by any officer of the department?


John Douglas Hazen: All boats are inspected by an inspector of hulls and an inspector of boilers and must obtain certificates from these inspectors before they are allowed to go on route.


Charles Marcil: Are the results of these examinations made public in any way? Are they accessible?


John Douglas Hazen: They are available in the
department to any one who wishes to see them.


Charles Marcil: The Canada is a very
old boat. She used to be known as the Copatriot, and belonged to a French company navigating between Baie des Chaleurs ports and St. Pierre Miquelon. Her name was changed and she engaged in service in Chaleurs Bay. She has met with several accidents, and the people want to know whether the boat is seaworthy or not. I was told that last year and the year before she should have gone into dry-dock.


John Douglas Hazen: The boat cannot go on route unless a certificate is obtained from the inspectors of hulls and boilers.


Charles Marcil: The certificate of the suspended mate is in force this year, then?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, after the lapse of the three months.


Herménégilde Boulay: Who is holding wreck investigations at Quebec; Captain Lindsay?
Mr. HAZEN; Captain Lindsay does not hold any wreck investigations. These would be held by Captain Demers.


Herménégilde Boulay: I understand that during the summer an investigation was held as a result of which a certain person was held to blame. Subsequently another investigation was held, and the same person was exonerated because of the fact that the gentleman who conducted the first investigation was unable to understand the parties who were called to testify. Would the minister give me some particulars in regard to this matter?


John Douglas Hazen: I think that was in respect of the inquiry into the case of the Montfort. Senator Choquette appeared as counsel for the officers of the ship, and after the inquiry was over he complained that neither the wreck commissioner, who at that time was Captain Lindsay, nor the assessors were able to understand the French language well enough to enable the man whose conduct was being examined to make a proper defence. As a result of this a re-hearing was granted, of which Captain Lindsay was chairman and Captain Demers was one of the assessors. In that way the difficulty was overcome.


Mr. JAMESON:: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to a statement made to me by a person whom I believe to be entirely trustworthy, to the effect that some of the steamers which are navigating our maritime waters at the present time are unseaworthy. I would like the minister to give definite instructions to the inspector of hulls with a view to securing a proper test of the seaworthiness of these boats. In order to ensure that the boats are actually seaworthy they should be subjected to a practical test involving the placing in the boat of a weight equal to that ordinarily borne by it in the carrying of passengers and crew. I have every reason to believe that the statement made to me is correct, and I believe there should be no difficulty whatever in seeing that proper and sufficient tests in that respect are made in the future.


John Douglas Hazen: If the inspectors of hulls- so far as I know they are competent mencarry out their duties and the instructions given to them, no vessel will go to sea that is not in a seaworthy condition. The same applies to the inspector of boilers, whose duty it is to examine the machinery and to see that it is in proper condition before the vessel is allowed to go to sea. Before appointment these gentlemen have to pass an examination to the satisfaction of the officers of the Marine Department, and the instructions given to them are of a very explicit character. I shall, however, examine those instructions more thoroughly and see if they are sufficient.


Charles Marcil: We hear certain strange
stories from pilots, engineers, captains, etc., about the unseaworthy condition of such and such a boat. Is the minister certain that the inspections are properly and thoroughly made? I heard many stories in connection with the Canada that I do not care to repeat. Is the department in a position to know that the work of inspection is very thorough and full?


John Douglas Hazen: They make reports to us of their personal inspections of every single boat and these reports are in the department. Their instructions are to make most careful examinations, but in view of what has been said I think we shall send out a special circular letter to the inspectors calling their attention to the instructions received and pointing out that there is some alarm in the public mind that the inspection is not sufficiently thorough and telling them to see that the examination is as thorough as possible.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not expect the
hon. members who have spoken to inform the House who are the owners of these steamers that are said to be unseaworthy, but it is extremely dangerous that steamers should be plying along the coast of Nova Scotia or anywhere that are dangerous, and I think it would be well for the hon. members to convey privately to the minister the names of the steamers referred to in order that there may be a thorough investigation.


John Douglas Hazen: If my hon. friends have
any particular steamers in mind, if they will come to the Marine Department we shall show them the reports on those steamers.


Bowman Brown Law: The only complaint I have
heard in reference to the inspectors in our part of Nova Scotia is that they are too strict. I doubt very much whether there are any owners of steamboats who would dare

to send boats to sea in an unseaworthy condition and without the certificates of the inspectors of hulls and boilers. As I understand, there is a heavy penalty for operating boats which are not regularly inspected.


Clarence Jameson: There seems to be some misunderstanding as to my meaning. I did not mean that the steamers themselves were in an unseaworthy condition, but that the boats they carried had been lying on the decks for a long time and had become dry, and my informant did not think that .they would support the number of passengers they are supposed to carry in an emergency. His idea was that the inspector should put the life boats in the water when making an inspection, and put in them a weight equal to that of the number of passengers they are supposed to carry. I shall be glad to give to the minister a list of the boats that have been mentioned to me.


Bowman Brown Law: It is part of the duty of the inspector to inspect the life boats just as he does the life preservers, etc.
Expenses of schools of navigation, $8,000.


Bowman Brown Law: What is the explanation of
this item?
- Mr. HAZEN:	This item is intended to
cover the expenditure in connection with the department's free navigation schools already established and to provide any extension of the service that may be undertaken in the fiscal year 1915-16. Free navigation schools are now in operation during the whole year at Quebec, Halifax and St. John, and during the winter free navigation schools are operated at North Sydney, Collingwood, Vancouver and Carleton. The hon. member from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) brought the necessity of that part of the country to my attention last year, and we established a school at Carleton, in Bonaventure county.


Charles Marcil: Who is the instructor?


John Douglas Hazen: Captain Landry.


Charles Marcil: Has the result been encouraging?


John Douglas Hazen: According to the report, the new school opened at Carleton, Bonaventure, on the 1st of December last, under Captain Landry has had an 'average attendance of six pupils and these will be ready for examination for certificates about the middle of February. There has been an average attendance of six pupils, and it cannot be said that the school is a failure.


Charles Marcil: For the first year that is very encouraging. Will the school be con-
tinuied at Carleton or moved along the coast to other parishes, .say Bonaventure?


John Douglas Hazen: Does the hon. member think there is a site 'better adapted for the school than Carleton?


Charles Marcil: Bonaventure has some
three thousand people. It is farther east than Carleton.


John Douglas Hazen: I .shall consider the desirability of changing the location.


Bowman Brown Law: Does the minister say that
there is a free school at Yarmouth?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Bowman Brown Law: Conducted by whom?


John Douglas Hazen: Conducted by Captain John E. Murphy.


Bowman Brown Law: That is news to me. I knew that Mr. Murphy delivered lectures there during the winter, but I never heard that, he was running a free navigation school.


John Douglas Hazen: It would perhaps be more correct to say that lectures on navigation are delivered during the winter at the places I have mentioned.


Charles Marcil: Is the course completed
in one year?


John Douglas Hazen: Not necessarily. As a rule the pupils who go to the school are young men who have had experience on the sea, and have studied more or less. Then they attend these lectures for a certain time and a good deal depends on their aptitude and cleverness as to the length of time that the course will take.


Charles Marcil: The minister will understand that my only object is to give the various districts an opportunity of benefiting by the schools to as great an extent as possible.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The school in the town of North Sydney is doing excellent work. The attendance is getting larger every year, but we should like to see it larger still.
I notice from the newspapers that the technical college at Halifax has added navigation to the subjects taught there. I understand there is some co-operation between the college at Halifax and the department at Ottawa. Perhaps the minister could give us some explanation of that arrangement, if any, and what assistance the department is giving in paying teachers.


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, we entered into an arrangement with the technical college at Halifax. They provide the accommodation,

fuel and that sort of thing, and we provide the instructors and equipment. We pay the instructor, Capt. John Simmons, $80 a month. I will just quote from Mr. Burnett's report of the school:
The Halifax school is making good progress. It was opened 1st April, 1914, and has been in operation continuously since. Captain Simmons, the instructor, has been in constant attendance every day and evening except Sundays. The attendance since the summer months has been good. For November and December the average daily attendance was seven pupils. Several of those attending the school have already passed examination and received certificates as masters or mates. Others after attending the school for a while, go to sea to return at a later date and finish the course. Others will be ready for examination in the spring. Thirty-one candidates have already passed at Halifax for certificates since April last.


James Joseph Hughes: Have any applications been made to the minister for a school of this kind in Charlottetown?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not know of any.


James Joseph Hughes: We are a sea-faring people down there, and have turned out a good many captains who have sailed all over the world.


John Douglas Hazen: Is there a private navigation school at Charlottetown?


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, but the pupils have to pay a fee. If men in other parts of the maritime provinces can get tuition free or partly free, the department is discriminating. I am sure the teacher in that college would be glad to work under the Government and relieve the pupils to that extent. It is desirable that our young men should be encouraged to qualify themselves as masters or mates, and as the Government are helping in other parts of the country, I now make application and press it as strongly as I can for similar assistance to be given to the school at Charlottetown.


John Douglas Hazen: In places where a well-conducted school seems to be meeting the needs of the case, the department has always been very careful not to interfere with the gentleman conducting such a school. There have been no applications from Charlottetown for assistance of that kind since I have been minister; so evidently the people there are pretty well satisfied with the present state of affairs. However, I will look into the facts of the case.


James Joseph Hughes: I am not suggesting that the minister establish a rival school, but I think he should take advantage of the school that already exists there. The Government might supplement the instruction,
or make it less expensive to the many young men who wish to get an education, but find the fees of a private school too high. The very fact that a private school is being successfully conducted there, would indicate that a competent instructor could be easily got.
Removal of obstructions in navigable waters, $20,000
Mr. A. AY. CHISHOLM: What comes under that?


John Douglas Hazen: Perhaps I can best explain by giving what we paid out in 1914-15 for removing these wrecks. The steamer Charles Crawford, Lake St. Clair, Ont., $1,450; steamer City of London, Lake Erie, Ont., $4,900; sunken moorings, Grand Manan, N.B., $75; steamer Electra, Mar-garee Harbour, N.S., $150; old hulk, Guys-borough, N.S., $70.45; schooner Annie R. Lewis, Barrington, N.S., $454.50; steamer Elfin, Charlottetown, P.E.I.. $500. Up to the present we have spent $7,599.95. This money is for removing obstructions in navigable waters. Where the owners of a sunken barge or ship cannot be got to remove it quickly enough, the department removes it in the interests of navigation and charges the cost up against the vessel owners, and collects if possible. Sometimes we succeed in collecting, and sometimes not.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Are you collecting the cost of removing the wreck at Mar-garee Harbour?


John Douglas Hazen: Captain LeBlanc removed
that at a cost of $150, which we are trying to collect.


Alexander William Chisholm: How does the minister select these persons for removing obstructions?


John Douglas Hazen: We advertise for tenders.


Alexander William Chisholm: How are these tenders advertised?


John Douglas Hazen: By public posters in the
district.


Alexander William Chisholm: I am afraid the minister is ill-informed in respect to that. Mv information is that instructions were sent down to the Patronage Committee and that they selected Captain LeBlaric. If the notices were sent down there, they were never posted up. Nobody knew about the work except the man who got the contract, and he got it through the Patronage Committee. I have no doubt the minister has acted in good faith, but to say that public

tenders were asked for the removal of that wreck is not correct. Notices were not posted up. That is my home, and I know all about the circumstances, what it cost to remove the wreck, who did the work, and how the choice was made. I wish to impress upon the minister that this man was selected by-the Patronage Committee.


John Douglas Hazen: I never heard of the matter before. The deputy minister tells me that the usual practice was followed. These posters are printed, sent down and posted up in different parts of the district. Tenders are asked for the removal.


Alexander William Chisholm: These posters were
not put up; nobody knew anything about them until this man came along and removed the wreck.
Winter mail service, $11,000.


George Perry Graham: From where to where?


John Douglas Hazen: This is from Cape Traverse to Cape Tormentine.


Charles Marcil: The service is in operation now?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: Is that for the
small boats?


John Douglas Hazen: The amount spent during
the last fiscal year was $7,566. The amount spent during the present fiscal year, up to 31st December, was $2,218. Something, of course, depends upon the severity of the winter. The vote is used for the ice-boat service.


James Joseph Hughes: How many boats are employed?


John Douglas Hazen: The number of men employed is 74 and there are twelve boats altogether.


James Joseph Hughes: This vote is for the winter of 1916?


John Douglas Hazen: It is for next year.


James Joseph Hughes: Is it not supposed that
the car ferry will be in operation then?


John Douglas Hazen: Then we will not have.to spend any of this vote. The car ferry would have been completed by now but for the war. When the war broke out the British Admiralty took charge of the shipyard in which the car ferry was being built and put this work to one side as other work for the navy had to be undertaken. This has caused delay. I do not know whether the ear ferry will be ready next year or not, but if it is this vote will not be wanted.


James Joseph Hughes: The war could not very
well have caused the delay in completing the car ferry because the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Cochrane) told me during the regular session that the car ferry would be in operation by the 1st of August and the war did not break out until the 4th of August. I do not see how the war could have prevented the construction of a ship that was to have been completed, on this side of the water and in operation by the 1st of August.


John Douglas Hazen: There was a great deal of work done for the navy before the war broke out.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, in anticipation of
the war.


George Perry Graham: The Minister of Railways will have to explain that.


John Douglas Hazen: You will have to wait
until he comes.


James Joseph Hughes: This vote has proved
that the Government are a little doubtful as to whether the car ferry will be a success. Of course, I am glad to see that they are making provision to have the mails carried in any event. The fact that the Earl Grey has been taken away and sold to the Russian Government is unfortunate for that service. Perhaps it could not have been helped, perhaps there was a reason for it and we hope she is doing good service where she is, but if this had not been a very mild winter there would have been a very poor service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. The Minto and Stanley were put into that service and notwithstanding the mildness of the winter they were caught in the ice and were unable to perform the service. If that condition continues and next winter should happen to be severe the people of Prince Edward Island will suffer a great deal because of the war. Their communication will be cut out and I sincerely trust that every effort will be made to try and have the car ferry in operation before next winter. We have been waiting for it for a long time, we have been promised 10 p.m. it and something always happened to prevent it being put in operation. This vote gives an indication that in the mind of the Government we will have to wait a while yet.
Inspection of live stock shipment, $5,000.


George Perry Graham: What is that for?


John Douglas Hazen: It is our business to see that live stock shipped through Canadian

ports is shipped in such a manner that it does not suffer during the voyage, that the stalls and places where the animals are confined are suitable for the purpose. We spent $2,400 last year. There are two inspectors at Montreal and we used to have an inspector at St. John. I did not see any reason for the continuation for the office at St. John and the work is now discharged by the agent of the department there.
Mr. MARCH,:	Has the minister the
number of cattle shipped from Montreal, Halifax and St. John?


John Douglas Hazen: The inspectors of live stock shipments at Montreal report that 134 horses, 512 cattle, 97 mules and 296 sheep were shipped to Great Britain from the 1st May to the 20th November, 1913. This year's report has not been received.
Mr. MARCH,: That is a great falling off from the previous years?


John Douglas Hazen: There has been a great falling off in the shipment of live stock from Canada of late years.
To continue subsidy for wrecking plants

Quebec. Maritime Provinces and British Colum-bie, $45,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What wrecking plants are there in Nova Scotia?


John Douglas Hazen: The wrecking plant in Nova Scotia is provided by the Dominion Coal Company. They maintain a wrecking plant which is divided between Halifax and Sydney and which will be placed at the disposal of shipowners and others requiring this service whenever required. Steamers and tugs are located at Sydney and Louis-burg and also at Halifax.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What steamers are
located at Louisburg?


John Douglas Hazen: The tugs Duglas Thomas and C. M. Winch are located at Sydney in summer and Louisburg in winter. The steamers located at Louisburg in summer are the Cabot, the Cacouna, the Cape Breton and the Louisburg; of course they are not there all the time.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any report
from the Dominion Coal Company on the services they rendered last year as a wrecking concern?


John Douglas Hazen: There is such a report.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Complaints have been made that the Dominion Coal Company, as a wrecking concern, is not a success. Unfortunately, and what is a very unusual
thing, three foreign vessels went ashore in a dense fog, on the island of Scatari, last summer. The consul of the nation to which one of these ships belonged complained that they could not obtain any assistance from the Dominion Coal Company.


John Douglas Hazen: Do you know the names of these ships?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not; but one of them was a Norwegian vessel1. I do nut make any complaint, but I think it is only fair to say that these vessels are not what might be called stationed at Louisburg in the summer, nor would that be contended for by the company. These vessels are carrying coal between Sydney and Montreal in summer and it is quite possible they may be for a little while at Louisburg, but they do not load coal there unless they are going to Boston or some New England port. I bring- this matter to the attention of the minister so that he may make inquiry into what service the country is getting for the money paid to the Coai Company as a wrecking concern.


John Douglas Hazen: I will make inquiry. 1
understand my hon. friend to say that a complaint has reached his ear from the Norwegian consul or from some other consul. I can understand that persons may not wish to make a public complaint but if my hon. friend will send me the facts privately, I shall be much obliged to him. We want a proper service for money we pay and if we are not getting it we should know the reason why. If my hon. friend can give me privately more information than he would like to give in the House, 1 will have the matter very thoroughly inquired into, without involving names.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I shall be happy to get particulars from the person I have in mind, and I will hand the information to the minister. I can assure the minister that I hav- nothing at all but the most friendly relations personally with the Dominion Coal Company, but if they are getting money out of the treasury of this country they should certainly render a suitable service for it.


Bowman Brown Law: Did the minister say there is a wrecking plant at St. John?


John Douglas Hazen: I said that during the winter the tug Springhill of the Dominion Coal Company was located at St. John. In addition to that, this winter, in consequence of representations we received, and there being a large amount of shipping in St. John, we made arrangements with the company that supplies the wrecking plant at Quebec, and

they stationed the large tug Strathcona with pumps and wrecking appliance, at St. John for service in the Bay of Fundy. The arrangement I made with that wrecking company was that we would guarantee them five thousand dollars. If they earned five thousand dollars we would have to pay nothing, but we had to ensure that they would receive five thousand dollars in any event. I think the arrangement was a very good one. Of course, if there was a wreck of any importance, they would easily earn an amount larger than we guaranteed.


Bowman Brown Law: Did any of these boats come to the wreck of the Navarre, bound from St. John to the old country, which occurred near Yarmouth, about the beginning of this year?


John Douglas Hazen: I know that our own boats went down there, but I am not certain as to the Lord Strathcona. However, I have no doubt she was available if her services were wanted by the owners of the ship.


Bowman Brown Law: I am very sorry the minister did not carry out the recommendation which I made to him last year, and I shall now repeat it. A great many wrecks occur at the mouth of the Bay of Fundy south of Yarmouth.


John Douglas Hazen: Not so very many.


Bowman Brown Law: Quite a number; almost every winter there are one or two steamers wrecked on the Gaunet Rock ledges or some of the Tusket islands. Last year I recommended that the minister should enter into an arrangement with Messrs. Hugh Cann and Son, Limited, of Yarmouth, who have a large number of boats, to look after wrecks that occur in that vicinity. If the minister had taken my advice, he would have a more satisfactory arrangement than that which exists at present. If a wreck occurs in the vicinity of Yarmouth, a considerable time must elapse before a boat can reach the wreck from St. John, and if an arrangement were made with this Yarmouth firm I believe it would result in the saving of lives and property. I hope that before long the minister will see his way to make such an arrangement as I have suggested.


Charles Marcil: What are the arrangements with the wrecking company on the lower St. Lawrence


John Douglas Hazen: The Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company maintains the Lord Strathcona and such other craft as may be 
required to the satisfaction of the department, from the 1st of May to the 1st of November each year, on payment of a subsidy subject to certain conditions.


Charles Marcil: That applies to below
Quebec as well as to above Quebec?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes.


Charles Marcil: Outside of the wreck of the Empress of Ireland, were the wrecks more numerous this year than last year?


John Douglas Hazen: The Empress of Ireland
was the only wreck this year that was of any importance; the others were minor wrecks and little damage occurred.


Charles Marcil: Some of these wrecks were owing to defects in aids to navigation.


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think there was any such finding by the commissioner.


Charles Marcil: Was there any increase
in insurance rates up to the 1st of August last? .


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think there way any appreciable increase up to the 1st of August.
Ocean and river service-Unforeseen expenses, $5,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I desire to call the
attention of the minister to a service rendered last year to the fishermen in the harbour of Ingonish. I do not know whether any claim has been put in for it with the department. In the early part of the year 1914, the fishing was very poor, but what they call the fall fishing was particularly good. It was made possible for the fishermen because a steam tug called the Nelson was fishing in the harbour and its owner broke the ice, making a track around the harbour which the gasoline and other boats could use and so get out to sea. In this way scores of boats were enabled to enjoy good fishing. The fishermen were talking of making a claim on the department for some slight recognition of the services rendered by the owner of this vessel. I should like to have thg Government bear the matter in mind if an application is made.'- The expense would be small.


Charles Marcil: Is there no application for life-saving stations?


John Douglas Hazen: That has been transferred to the Department of the Naval Service.


Charles Marcil: The minister will remember that at the last regular session I called his attention to the fact that there was not a single life-saving station on the whole

Gulf of St. Lawrence. I do not know if anything has been done since then. The minister will recognize the importance of having several such stations in the gulf.


John Douglas Hazen: We have been considering the matter, and hope to meet the hon. gentleman's wish.


James Joseph Hughes: I desire, when the life-saving appropriation is under discussion to get some information. The boathouse of the life-saving service at Souris was moved, but I think that the present location is not as good as the former one. Also the building was somewhat injured in the removal. I wish to know how much it cost to remove this 'building, who recommended the removal, whether the new site has been purchased, and, if so, what it cost.


John Douglas Hazen: We will get the information for my hon. friend.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Robert Rogers the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.
Tuesday, February 23, 1915.