1916-03-13

PRIVILEGE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. A. E. KEMP:: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of discussing for a moment or two a personal matter. In his remarks to this House a few days ago, the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) referred to me as being connected with a concern known as the Sheet Metal Products Company of Canada, Limited. I am connected with that concern. I desire first to read to the House a letter I received from that company:	t
Toronto, March 10, 1916.
Hon. A. E. Kemp, M.P., P.C.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Mr. Kemp :
We are in receipt of a, marked copy of Hansard of the 7th instant, in which we find certain references made by Mr. Carvell to this company.
The facts in relation to our transactions with the Shell Committee, briefly, are as follows:
All of the business offered has been through regular channels. No one, except a regular official of this company, has either directly or indirectly, had any negotiations whatever in connection therewith.
Shortly after the war broke out we were asked to make certain articles which were particularly in our line of business, and which we understood were component parts intended for use in making shells for the British Government. We congratulated ourselves on being able to be of some service in this connection, and as opportunity offered we rendered what assistance we could by giving information to other manufacturers, whose experience in a similar class of work was not as broad as ours, resulting, we believe, in increased production on their part, which was most desirable.

We eo-operated with the Inspection Branch of the Shell Committee in affording facilities for training inspectors, whereby they familiarized themselves with their work, thus enabling them to inspect similar work which was being done in many other places, and this service was publicly acknowledged. It was also stated that this plant had been of immeinse value in overcoming difficulties in connection with the manufacture of articles referred to.
The total amount of business received from the Shell Committee, to which reference is made by Mr. Carvel!, is considered small from two standpoints. First, in respect to the total amount of the class of articles required by the Shell Committee, which were distributed through many factories in different parts of the country, and second, it is also unimportant from the standpoint of the volume of our regular business, being approximately but three per cent in the years for which delivery was expected.
We do not know that any useful purpose can be served by making reference to that part of the speech which assumed to deal with the technical side of the question, as those who have not an intimate knowledge In respect to manufacturing processes would scarcely appreciate this phase of the subject. Suffice it to say that what are commonly called " tin cups " are made from twenty-two gauge steel tinned. The articles called " clips " arts made from either brass or steel, in respect to both of which the combined operations, before completion are not less than thirty, all of which require to be of the most precise and exact character, and which fact, as those who know will understand, is common to the manufacture of all classes of ammunition.
The foregoing has reference to two articles. The third article, to which reference has been made, is what are known as " sockets ". We accepted this business for the reason that the information which came to us was that the production of shells was being considerably retarded for lack of this particular part.
The execution of the Shell Committee orders necessitated special concentration and attention of our chief mechanical experts and factory executives, and, to a large extent, impeded operations in connection with our regular business, which under other than war conditions we should have viewed from a different standpoint, being always convinced that breaking into the manufacture of new and intricate articles tends to a condition of affairs which gives unfavourable results.
We remain.
Yours very truly,
The Sheet Metal Products Co.
of Canada, Limited.
*	F. S. Corrigan,
General Manager.
So much for that. So far as the personal remarks of my hon. friend are concerned, I wish to quote from Hansard. On March 7, Hansard, page 1606, my hon. friend from Carleton, referring to me, made this statement :
I And that the Shell Committee purchased from a member of this Government $300,000 worth of goods.
And on Hansard, page 1607, he made the following statement:
I think the Shell Committee wlm were appointed by this Government, for this Government, and acting under the instructions of this Government, surely ought to exhaust every means of purchasing supplies before resorting to the members of the Government themselves.
Then, on page 1634, my hon. friend, still debating the same subject, on his responsibility as a member of this House made the statement that I was the manager of, or managed, this company. In the first place,
I desire to say that i have never at any time in my life received any favours from this Government or from any other Government of Canada. Secondly, for many years before becoming a member of this Government, I had taken no active part whatever in the management of this company. If all the time that I have given to the consideration of the affairs of this company since the war broke out was added together,
I am quite sure it would not amount to as much as half a day. I have not even been in the works of this company since the war broke out. The first specific information I had in regard to these shell contracts, so-called, was when I read the remarks of my hon. friend from Carleton in Hansard. I do not want anything that I am saying, or shall say, to be considered in any sense as an apology because this company accepted this business. If they had refused to accept this business because I was a member of this Government, such action on their part would have received my condemnation. I want to say further, that if I had been the means of having this company refuse to assist in making, munitions for the British Government, I would consider myself an object of contempt in this country,, and I would not, I believe, be considered a decent Canadian or a decent British subject.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Private Bills, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Bill No. 23, to incorporate the Ontario Niagara Connecting Bridge C°mPany-Mr. German-in Committee.
Mr. REID:: Section No. 11 was struck out by the Railway Committee, and I would like to have it reconsidered. The section reads:
The said bridge shall be constructed and located under, and be subject to, such regulations for the security of navigation of the saifl river as the Governor in Council prescribes,

and to such end the company shall submit to the Governor in Council, for examination and approval, a design and drawing of the bridge, and a map of the location, giving the soundings, accurately showing thebed of the stream and the location of other bridges, and shall furnish such other information as is required for a full and satisfactory understanding of the subject; and until the said plans and location are approved by the Governor in Council the bridge shall not be built or commenced, and if any change 'is made in the plans of the said bridge during its construction, such change shall be subject to the approval of the 'Governor in Council, and shall not be made or commenced until it is approved.
This is the standard section which is to be found in the Railway Act. I believe it was the late Mr. Blair who first had it inserted, and I do not know why it has been struck out of this Bill, because the committee will understand that, with this section in the Bill, before the company can build their bridge, they must submit their plans to the Governor in Council and have them approved. As I understand, they intend to build a bridge across the Niagara river, and there is a possibility of their wishing to go through a beautiful park owned by the Ontario Government. I therefore give notice that I shall move to have section 11 reinserted.


Mr. NESBITT:: The section which the
minister has read is not the same as section 11 in my copy of the Bill. The section, as I understand it, makes the company refer the matter to the Railway Board, whereas the section which the. minister has read makes them refer it to the Governor in Council.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Section 11 in my copy
refers to the amalgamation or agreement with a United States Company. Section 9 begins as follows:
The company shall not commence the said bridge or any work thereunto appertaining-[DOT]


John Dowsley Reid: My hon. friend has a copy
of the original Bill, but the copy which I have is the reprinted Bill as it came from the Railway Committee, and section 11 in this Bill is the section that has been struck out.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It has been the custom
for the last two or three years to refer these matters to the Board of Railway Commissioners.


John Dowsley Reid: No, to the Governor in Council. The section which' I have read compels the company to submit their plans for approval to the Governor in Council before

they can commence work. That is the point I wish to cover.
Mr, GRAHAM: Perhaps the Chairman of the. Railway Committee can tell us why the changes were made.


Mr. BLAIN:: Section 11 of the Bill as it left the Railway Committee was struck out because an official of the department said that the section was covered by the Railway Act and therefore unnecessary. I think that is correct. I do not, however, wish to interfere with the minister if he desires the Bill to go back to the Railway Committee for reconsideration. The Bill was very generally discussed in the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: I have given notice that I
shall move to have section 11 re-inserted.
Progress reported.
Bill No. 28, respecting the Kettle Valley Railway Company, and Vancouver, Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company-Mr. Green-in Committee.
On section No. 1-extension of time for construction :	'


The CHAIRMAN:: Section 1 has been
amended at length, and I read the amendment to the committee at the last sitting. Is it the wish of the committee that I shall read it again to-day?


Mr. ROGERS:: I think it would be well to have the amendment printed and distributed.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: It'is printed. '


Robert Rogers: It is not in the copies of the Bill that we have.
Progress reported.
Bill No. 26, respecting the Corporation of the City of Brantford-Mr. Cockshutt- in Committee.


George Perry Graham: Was this Bill explained?


Richard Blain: The sections were all carried, except section 3. On consideration, this Bill has been found to be correct. The law clerk of the committee went into the matter thoroughly, and finds the Bill to be in correct form. In my opinion it should pass.


George Perry Graham: This seems .a rather
peculiar Bill. It seems to take the authority in a municipal matter into the hands of this Parliament. What is the real reason for having the Act passed in this form?


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, the Grand Valley Railway Company was chartered by Act of this Parliament. The city of Brantford is taking over and operating this railway, which is the road Tunning around the city of Brantford. The city is appointing a commission to operate the road. The authority of this Parliament is necessary for the transfer of the road from the Grand Valley Railway Company to this commission. The commission, of course, must operate the road upon the same conditions as those which governed the company. For instance, the company was obliged, under the Act, to pay municipal taxes to the several municipalities through which the Toad passes. When the Bill was before- the committee these municipalities were protected by inserting a clause to oblige the commission to carry out these conditions. The bon. member will see that the only way in which the commission can get its title is by an Act of this Parliament.


George Perry Graham: I understand that the company having been chartered by this Parliament, it would be necessary for this Parliament to give it power to perform acts not authorized by its charter. But whether this Parliament can give, or should assume to give, the city of Brantford power to do certain things is another matter. The corporation of the city of Brantford obtains its powers from the Ontario Legislature, and if those powers are to be altered one would think that the Ontario Legislature would be the proper authority to make the alteration.


John Dowsley Reid: As I understand it, legislation has been passed by the Ontario Legislature under which the municipality may take over this railway. But, if no provision were made by this Parliament, it would be free from the obligation to pay taxes to the other municipalities through which the road passes. It seems clear that this Parliament is the only authority that can empower the Grand Valley Railway Company to transfer its road to the commission appointed by the city of Brantford.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understood from the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Cockshutt) that they had applied to the Provincial Legislature for the powers required from that authority. I do not think we have anything to do here with the by-laws of the city of Brantford.


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: I think the Bill was submitted to the Department of Justice, and the department gave the opinion that it was within the jurisdiction 104	'
of this Parliament. It may be necessary to apply to the Legislature of Ontario also. As it is a railway subject to the jurisdiction of this Parliament, it would seem that the authority to own and operate it must come from this Parliament. In the case of a municipal corporation, it might be necessary also to obtain authority from the Provincial Legislature before legislation of this kind would be absolutely effective.


George Perry Graham: I think an Act has been passed by the Ontario Legislature, giving the city of Brantford the necessary powers in this case. My contention was that as the city of Brantford gets its powers from the Ontario Legislature, we scarcely have the right to give it any authority. If this Bill means that the federal authority will accept the city of Brantford as owner and operator of a federal road, in place of the company incorporated by this Parliament, that would be reasonable enough. But if it proposes to confer powers upon the city of Brantford, that seems to be a matter for the Legislature of Ontario. In section 1 I find these words:
The Corporation of the city , of Brantford, hereinafter called "the Corporation", may own, equip, operate, alter, maintain and manage the railway of the Grand Valley Railway Company.
I think this wording is a little awkward. If it means that Parliapient merely substitutes the words " city of Brantford " for " the Grand Valley Railway Company," I suppose the Bill is all right; but we have no right to give the city of Brantford any authority or to take any authority away from them.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Bill No. 25, to incorporate the Western Ganada Telephone Company-Mr. Green 

in Committee.
On section 2-declaratory:
George Perry Graham: Where is this telephone
line?


John Dowsley Reid: The whole of the line of this company is in British Columbia.


Robert Rogers: An amendment has been introduced providing that the company may not operate in any other provinces without the consent of those provinces.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: When these amendments are reprinted, I suggest that they be distributed so that we may consider them in an intelligent way. This Bill was reprinted.
. REVISED EDITION

as were several others, but the original Bills are still on our files.


George Perry Graham: Some of the western provinces have their own telephone companies. Was any question raised by the province of British Columbia as to its right to grant this charter?


Robert Rogers: That matter was taken
up, and an amending section put in.


George Perry Graham: I am afraid we do not know much about it.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: I think we are all at sea, and wasting much time by not having these Bills printed.


George Perry Graham: If a Bill of this kind were introduced with reference to Ontario, a protest would come from Ontario members that these franchises ought to be granted by the provincial authorities.


John Dowsley Reid: This is the new section:
15a. Notwithstanding anything contained in this act, the Company shall not construct, operate, or maintain lines of telephones other than long distance lines in the city of Prince Rupert without having first obtained the consent of the municipality of the said city, or in the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba without first having obtained the consent of the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the provinces in which it is proposed to construct, operate and maintain a line of telephone as aforesaid; but this restriction shall not apply to the construction, operation or maintainance of long distance lines of the Company into or through the said city of Prince Rupert, or into or through any or all of the said provinces.


George Perry Graham: That hardly meets the point I had in mind. What I ask is: has it been suggested on behalf of the province that this charter. should be granted not by the Federal authorities, hut by the pro

incial authorities? If it were definitely stated that it was the intention to run lines through other provinces, I should recognize the necessity of a federal charter; but in view of the fact that the operations of the company are evidently to be confined to the Province of British Columbia, I am surprised that some member from that province has not suggested that the charter should be dealt with by the provincial authorities.


John Dowsley Reid: This is not a new company; it is an old, established company that has been doing business in British Columbia for some years. I think the company controls practically the whole telephone service in that province. It is getting a Fed-

eral charter because the company wishes to connect with the United States, and with the long distance services in Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Mr. OLIVER:: I notice that the amendment provides for an extension of long distance lines through any of the prairie provinces. There may he no objection to that, but, having regard to the fact that the telephone lines in the three prairie provinces. are practically under local government control, I think that the Bill should he reprinted with the amendment as agreed to in the Railway Committee, so that the Governments of these provinces may have an opportunity of seeing what the Bill says, and, what it does not say.


John Dowsley Reid: There is no objection to that.


Richard Blain: The Bill was reprinted and distributed among members of the House; subsequently these amendments were presented to and finally passed by the committee. It was suggested that the Bill be further re-printed, but the committee decided otherwise because it had been once re-printed for the consideration of the members. There is no objection to its being reprinted.


Frank Oliver: I would urge very strongly that the Bill be re-printed and that it be held in committee until the Governments of those three provinces have at least had an opportunity of expressing an opinion as to whether it would in any 'way interfere with the management of their provincial telephone systems.


John Dowsley Reid: As the Bill now stands it does not in any way interfere with the provincial systems. It is not likely that any of the three prairie provinces would object to the construction of these lines right through their province without the company doing any businss in the province, in order to connect, say, with an Ontario line, or one in the United States. Perhaps the hon. member would wire to the Government of his province and ascertain whether there would he 'any objection. Every precaution is taken to protect the Provincial Governments' telephone systems.
Progress reported.



SECOND READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 56 respecting certain patents of Stone, Limited.-Mr. Oookshutt.

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

Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	How many post office employees were actually on the pay-list, both permanent and temporary, on the 1st October, 1911, at the following offices: Montreal, Toronto, Quebec, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Victoria, Three Rivers, Sherbrooke, St. Johns, N.B., and Halifax?
2.	How many new appointments, both permanent and temporary, have been made since 1st October, 1911, in each of the above named offices?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Montreal, 737; Toronto, 657; Quebec, 119; Winnipeg, 273; Vancouver, 191; Victoria, 60; Three Rivers, 8; Sherbrooke, 20; St. John, 72; Halifax, 71.
2.	Montreal, 1,865; Toronto, 2,427; Quebec, 252; Winnipeg, 473; Vancouver, 346; Victoria, 232; Three Rivers, 32; Sherbrooke, 55; St. John, 144; Halifax, 123; total, 5,949.
The 5,949 new appointments are accounted for as follows:
Men employed temporarily at Christmas
season	2,948
Men employed for periods of less than two mqnths to replace regular employee^ absent owing to	illness	 231
Men employed in place of employees who dropped out of the Service by death, resignation or superannuation between
October, 1911, and January,	1916	 693
Number dismissed	 142
Number who retired after completion of time of temporary service allowed by the Civil Service Act	 245


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Substitutes for men absent on military
duty	 268
Additional permanent employees. .1,353 } 1422 Temporary employees	 69 ^	*


POST OFFICE SALARIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEMIiEUX:
1.	What was the total sum paid as salaries to the post office employees, both permanent and temporary, on the 1st October, 1911, at the following offices: Montreal, Toronto, Quebec, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Victoria, Three Rivers, Sherbrooke, St. John, N. B., and Halifax?
2. What was the total paid as salaries to the Post Office employees, both permanent and temporary, at the above named offices on the 1st February, 1916?
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Montreal . .	.
Toronto. .	. .
Quebec. . . . Winnipeg. . . Vancouver. . . Victoria. . . . Trois-Rivi6res. Sherbrooke. . St. John. . . . Halifax . . . .
Amount of yearly
salaries as on 1st October 1911.
. $542,918 28 .	506,311	56.	91,186	20.	237,470	88. 161,818 20 .	55,618	32.	5,537	00.	16,485	72.	63,881	64.	64,453	08
Amount of yearly
salaries as on 1st February 1916.


$1,118,964 00 963,415 68 236,244 48 402,006 96 310,213 08 116,507 88 12,105 00 25,226 84 99,866 40 79,904 28 POST OFFICE REVENUES.
[Stage Direction]
#Mr. LEMIEUX:
1.	What was the total revenue of the following Post Offices Respectively, for the fiscal year 1910-11: Montreal, Toronto, Quebec, Winnipeg, Vancouver, Victoria, Three Rivers, Sherbrooke, St. Johns, N.B., and Halifax?
2.	What is the total yearly revenue, respectively, of the above named offices for the fiscal year 1914-15?
	1910-11		1914-15		1915-16	
					(11 months).	
Montreal	27	$1,590,395	44	$2,151,346	05Toronto	28	2,905,391	54	3,458,937	46Quebec	
160,968	62	213,563	15	268,020	57Winnipeg	
. . .	15	1,376,433	65	1,751,956	66Vancouver	88	455,338	56	519,567	26Victoria	
108,344	85	158,715	22	182,708	39Three Rivers	49	20,150	75	28,370	78,Sherbrooke	
35,214	58	44,639	58	62,496	34St. John	43	148,316	51	195,624	04Halifax	78	154,499	29	213,710	95

Mr. THOMSON:: 1.	When was the military camp established at Moosejaw, Sask.?
2.	Who are the physicians in charge of the said camp since its establishment?
3.	How many men are in said camp?
4.	Plow many enlisted soliders have died in said camp?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	No military camp hias been established at Moosejaw, Sask.
2.	The following medical officers have been connected with the troops quartered and billeted in Moosejaw, Sask.: Capt. T. M. Leask, who transferred to 10th Field

Ambulance on February 1. Major R. Gibson, medical officer 128th overseas battalion. Capt. G. A. Gray, medical officer 128th overseas battalion. Lieut. W. Brown, has been examiner of recruits and medical boards. Lieut. O. F. Knight, has been examiner of recruits and medical boards. G. F. Seaburn, has been examiner of recruits and medical boards.
3.	1,539 officers, n.c.o's. and men quartered and billetted in Moosejaw on March 1, 1916.
4.	Only one soldier has died in Moosejaw since mobilization.


REGINA ARMY SERVICE CORPS.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: 1.	Prom whom has the Government rented premises in the city of Regina, since the commencement of the war, for the accommodation of the Army Service Corps?
2.	What monthly rental has ibeen paid for such premises?
3.	What do such premises consist of?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	The Western School Company, Regina.
2.	$100 per month, on recommendation of district officer commanding.
3.	One storey corrugated iron building, 45
feet by 100 feet.	-


KITSILANO INDIAN RESERVE.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1.	Has any arrangement been made between the Federal Government and the Government of British Columbia, by which the Federal Government is to pay the Provincial Government a greater amount than three hundred thousand dollars for the Kitsilano reserve, and to hand it over to the Harbour Board?
2.	If so, when was the arrangement made?
3.	What is the exact amount to be paid?


Mr. REID:: 1.	The Board of Harbour Commissioners of Vancouver applied for expropriation of the Kitsilano Indian reserve for harbour purposes, and the expropriation was allowed by the Royal Commission on Indian Affairs for the province of British 'Columbia. An arrangement has been made between the Dominion Government and the Government of British Columbia that the quantum of the reversionary interest of British Columbia, if any, in the amount received from the Board of Harbour Commissioners of Vancouver shall be paid to the province.
2.	The arrangement was made in July, 1915.
3.	The exact amount to be paid is not yet known; it will be decided by arbitrators.


LIBUT.-COL. TREMAIN, M.P.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	When was H. B. Tremain, M.P., made a Lt.-Colonel?
2.	What amount has he drawn for such services to date?
3.	What amount has he drawn for expenses?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	3rd November, 1915.
2.	Same rates as paid to all officers commanding overseas battalions, i.e., $922.25 from 3rd November, 1915, as officer commanding 112th battalion.
3.	$150.


FISH FOR CANADIAN TROOPS.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	What description of fish is being purchased in Canada by Major Green for the Canadian Army Service Corps?
2.	To what address can parties having fish to sell apply?
3.	Have any contracts been made with parties in the Maritime provinces? If so, with whom?
4.	Have the purchases, if any, been made on account of the Imperial or Canadian authorities?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	A limited quantity of fish was purchased with a view to ascertaining whether or not Canadian fresh fish could be delivered in good condition to our troops in England. From Maritime Provinces: Smoked haddie, smoked fillets, fresh codfish, fresh soles, tinned haddie. From British Columbia: Fresh salmon, halibut, lake herring. From Manitoba: Fresh whitefish. Fish was purchased by the Department of Militia and Defence through the War Purchasing Commission. Major Green made no purchases, but his services were utilized to give expert advice.
2.	No further supplies of fish are required at present. If the experimental shipment is a success, and it is decided to ship further quantities of Canadian fresh fish, those who desire to tender should apply either to the Department of Militia and Defence, or to the War Purchasing Commission.
3.	No. A contract was made with the Maritime Fish Company, Limited, of Montreal, representing Maritime Province industries.
4.	On account of the Canadian Government.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-RATES ON FOREST PRODUCTS.
Mr. MACDONALD:: 1. What are the forest products for local consumption, short haul, on which the mileage tariff rate on the line of the Intercolonial rati-

way east of L6vis, was raised, as stated in the answer to question by the Acting Minister of Railways, on page 1505 of Hansard?
2. What was the date of those increases?


Mr. REID:: 1.	Fence posts and rails, laths, logs and bolts, lumber (common), pulpwood, ties.
2.	November 15, 1915.


A. A. EVANS.
Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: What amount of money was paid by the Department of the Interior by way of expenses to A. A. Evans, of Outlook, Saskatchewan, for relief work performed in the month of October, 1914?


Mr. ROCHE:: $58.


T. M. RICHARDS.
Mr. MICHAUD:: 1.	Was T. M. Richards, of Edmundston, N.B., appointed a recruiting officer in the county of Madawaska during the year 1915?
2.	If so, how many days did he work?
3.	How much did he receive for his services?


Mr. KEMP:: 1.	Mr. T. M. Richards, of Edmundston, supervised recruiting in Madawaska county, N.B.
2.	He carried on this work for seventeen days, from August 20, 1915, to September 6, 1915.
3.	Mr. Richards carried on the work of recruiting without remuneration.


COMMERCIAL, AGENTS IN SOUTH AND CENTRAL AMERICA.
Mr. DELISLE:: 1.	How many commercial agents represent Canada in South and Central America?
2.	What are their names and addresses, and the name of the country for which each of them has respectively been appointed?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to increase the number of the South and Central America countries covered by its commercial agents?
4.	Is it the intention of the Government, in view of the new commercial situation created
by the war, of which several nations are 4 p.m. already preparing to take advantage, to appoint commercial agents for the following countries: Argentine, Brazil, Nicaragua, Peru, Chili and Venezuela?
5.	Are the Canadian commercial agents in South and Central America regularly reporting to the Government, and is it the intention of the Government to publish their reports for the information of the prospective Canadian importers and exporters?


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: 1. One Canadian trade commissioner. No commercial agents. Arrangements have been effected by which British commercial and consular officials act for Canada, receive and answer inquiries from Canadian business men, and report to the department on special subjects when so requested. The names and addresses of such consular and commercial officers are as follows:
Brazil: D. R. O'Sullivan-Beare, H.B.M. Consul General, Rio de Janeiro; Edward M. de Garston, H.B.M. Consul, Bahia.
Chile:	Allan Maclean, H.B.M. Consul
General, Valparaiso.
Colombia:	Percy C. Wyndham, H.B.M.
Consul General, Bogota.
Ecuador: Lucien J. Jerome, H.B.M., Consul General, Quito.
Panama: Percival Helyar, H.B.M. ViceConsul, Panama; Harry O. Chalkley, H.B. M. Consul, Colon.
Peru: Henry Francis Hammond, H.B.M. Vice-Consul, 'Lima.
Uruguay:	Harry C. Ricardo, H.B.M.
Vice-Consul, Monte Video.
Venezuela:	Thomas I. Rees, H.B.M.
Vice-Consul, Caracas.
2.	H. R. Poussette, Canadian Trade Commissioner, Recon quista No. 46, Buenos Aires, Argentine Rupublic.
3.	Yes, as circumstances and conditions render it advisable to do so.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	Yes. The reports have always been published in the Weekly Bulletin issued by the department.


POSTMASTERS AND MUNICIPAL
[Stage Direction]
ELECTIONS.	.	.
Mr. MARCIL:: Is there a rule in the Post Office Department forbidding- postmasters from taking pa t in municipal elections as candidates, and from sitting as councillors and mayors?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: An Order in Council was passed in 1893, prohibiting postmasters of incorporated towns from accepting appointment to representative positions as mayor, aldermen, or trustee of public or separate schools. It may be stated, however, that this Order in Council has only been strictly enforced as regards the larger cities. As regards the smaller incorporated towns and villages the department has not pressed the point, except where it was considered that the municipal duties might conflict or interfere with the duties of the postmaster.


NEW RICHMOND POST OFFICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Is the post office at New Richmond West, Quebec, said to have been lately closed, to remain so closed, or is it to he re-opened?
2.	Are rural mail boxes looked or do they remain open?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1. The post office of New Richmond West, Quebec, was lately closed, following the

inauguration of rural mail delivery in that locality. Bequests have been received that the closing of the post office be reconsidered, and the same are now under investigation.
2. Not locked, as it might impede the efficiency of the service, especially in winter. However, to insure the safety of mail matter deposited therein, a penalty is provided by law for depredations on rural mail boxes or their contents, and the department undertakes to protect the boxes as much as possible and to inquire minutely in all cases of such depredation reported to them.


JVIURCHIES CHANNEL, PIERS.
Mr. MABCIL:: 1.	Has a pet'tion been received from the smelt fishermen of Pcinte a. la Garde, Quebec, asking for the erection of piers in Murchies channel, of the Restlgouche river, for the safety of the fishermen and the protection of property?
2.	If so, was anything done in the matter, and what was done?


Mr. ROGEBS:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The district engineer reports that it would require six piers, costing $3,000, to hold the ice, but as the work is not in the interests of navigation, no action has been taken.


ST. ALPHONSE DE CAPLAN MAIL SERVICE.
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the Postmaster Gen ral rece v cl any request to improve the mail service at. St. Alphonse de Caplan, Quebec?
2.	If so, has any action been taken, and what is it? If not, why not?


Mr. CASGEAIN:: 1.	Application was made to change the base of supply from Caplan Biver to St. Charles de Caplan.
2.	The post office inspector having reported that the change would make no difference in the efficiency of the service, and would, moreover, involve a considerable increase in the cost, it was not possible for the department to grant the request of the applicant.


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOB PAPERS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. McKenzie.-For a return showing the names, dates of appointment, post office addresses at time of appointment, and former occupations of the censors employed by the Militia Department at Louisburg and North Sydney, Nova Scotia; the names of all the said censors who are also decoders, and the names and addresses of all who are employed in the censorship service at the above points ; the amount paid to each censor or decoder since the 4th of August, 1914, up to the 1st February, 1916, or to any party or person in connection with the censorship or decoding services at the above places.
{Mr. Casgrain.]
Mr. Macdonald.-For a return showing a list of all Canadian officers employed in England, not attached to any particular unit, the amounts paid monthly to each, the nature of duties performed by each, and a copy of all correspondence in relation to their employment.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, memorials and other documents relating to the subsidizing by the Government of the construction of ships in British Columbia, or of ships when built; or as to the laying down or constructing or assisting in the construction in British Columbia of twenty-five ships by the Government, or as to assisting by subsidies or otherwise in the construction of ships in the Dominion.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all petitions, letters, papers, telegrams and other documents relating to the establishment of the Rural Mail Route No. 2, Scotsburn, county of Pictou, and as to the closing of post offices along said route.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of the affidavit of David W. McLean, Windsor, N.S., to whom Warrant No. 25737 was issued for Fenian Raid Bounty, and also a copy of all correspondence and other documents relating to the payment of the same.
Mr. McKenzie.-For a copy of all the evidence taken by the commission appointed to inquire into claims for damages made against the Militia Department in the town of Sydney Mines, Nova Scotia and of the report made upon each claim or case, said claims being for damages to lands and other property.
Mr. Sinclair.-For a copy of all letters, petitions, recommendations and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department relating to the appointment of the postmaster of West Roachdale, Guysboro county, Nova Scotia, to take the place of J. H. McGuire, deceased.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a copy of all instructions, letters, telegrams, and of other documents relating to any action taken, or to be taken, against the firm of Jas. W. Cumming by the Department of Railways on account of the disclosures made in regard to irregularities in the weighing of freight, as appears in Return No. 25, dated February 29, 1916.
Mr. Nesbitt.-For a return showing the names of all the medical examiners of recruits appointed since the war started to date.
Mr. Bureau.-For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, reports, telegrams, recommendations, orders, etc., between the Department of Railways and Canals and the officers of the Ste. Maurice Fire Protective Association with reference to fire protection on the Transcontinental railway line between Hervey Junction and the Western Boundary of the province of Quebec.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou) moved for:
A copy of the pension list in force in Canada for disabled soldiers and of all petitions, letters or other documents relating to the amendment readjustment of the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am moving this motion for the purpose of urging upon the Government the desirability of making some changes in the pension list which was brought down at the last session of Parlia-

ment. Hon. gentlemen will recall tjiat the pension list at present in force for disabled soldiers was fixed by the terms of an Order in Council which was laid on the table of the House some two or three weeks before prorogation last year. These provisions went into effect without the subject having been referred to a committee of this House, or without it having come before the House for consideration in any formal way.
There are certain anomalies in connection with this pension list which have attracted attention throughout the country. I suppose that hon. gentlemen, ineluding members of the Government, have received a copy of a pamphlet which a committee of the Toronto Board of Trade has prepared dealing with this subject and which points out anomalies and makes recommendations which have been adopted and approved by the Toronto Board of Trade. I think hon. gentlemen will agree that one of our essential duties in connection with the war is the establishment of a fair pension list. A careful examination of the present .arrangement reveals a number of anomalies which require remedying. In the first place, I think that the four distinctions or degrees contained in the present pension list are anomalous. The first degree is applicable to those who are rendered totally incapable of earning a livelihood by reason of wounds contracted in action, or in the presence of the enemy. The second degree is applicable to those who are totally incapable of earning a livelihood on account of injuries received on active service, in thrill, or training, or who are rendered materially incapable as a result of wounds or injuries received, or illness contracted, in action, or in the presence of the enemy. I do not think there is any real reason why we should distinguish between these men who have ' been so unfortunate as to be rendered totally incapable. If a man volunteers in good faith to serve his country, and receives wounds which render him absolutely incapable, it does not matter to him in after life whether he received those wounds in the presence of the enemy or in training at home, and it ought not to make any difference in his pension. Only the other day there was a case in Toronto of an officer being rendered totally incapable for life as the result of an .accident while teaching his men how to throw bombs. That man is entitled to just as much consideration as if he had received his wounds in the presence of the enemy, and I submit that we
should make no distinction at all between men who are rendered totally incapable on active service and those who are rendered totally incapable by reason of injuries sustained on service in Canada.
It is also pointed out in this pamphlet that the present pension allowed to the men of the rank and file is too low, and a little later on I shall draw attention to the distinction that is made between the rank and file and the officers. The difference is in my opinion entirely too great. The pamphlet points out that while there is a difference in the pension allowed to privates and officers in Australia, the difference is not nearly so great as it is in Canada. We all know that in the Canadian expeditionary forces there are men in the rank and file of just as good social position, and just as intelligent, as are the officers. While I concede that we must make some distinction between a private and an officer, I submit that the difference in pension allowed under the present arrangement is entirely too great, and that the pensions to these two classes ought to be brought closer together, as in Australia.
Robert Laird Borden: They have been brought closer together in Australia by a reduction in the higher ranks, have they not?


Mr. MACDONALD:: I am unable to say at present, but I know the difference is not nearly so great as in Canada. Not only is there a great difference between the pension allowed to the private and the pension allowed to the officer in Canada, but I submit that the pension allowed the private is entirely too small. A man who loses both legs, or both arms, or the sight of both eyes, or is paralysed-a man who is rendered incapable from any of those causes is allowed a pension of only $22 a month, subject, however, to the condition that the authorities have the right to grant him an additional $7.33 a month to provide for a constant attendant. A man in that class would receive, then, a pension of only $29.33 a month or $351.96 a year. That is the pension paid to the first degree pensioner who receives his accident in active service and in the face of the enemy. The second degree pensioner, who may have received just as extensive injuries, receives only $21.33 a month, plus an allowance of $5.33 for a constant attendant, which it is assumed he would have on account of his inability to do anything for himself. Again, the distinction made between single and married men is one that


Robert Laird Borden: Are these homes established by or in connection with the associations in the several provinces acting with the Military Hospitals and Convalescent Homes Commission?
- Mr. MACDONALD: I am not referring to convalescent homes. I understand that convalescent homes have been established by philanthropic people at different points, simply for the purpose of looking after the soldier, in the period of his convalescence, *hnd before his future course is finally determined. But I am advised that in Winnipeg, for instance, an organization has been perfected, and a charter obtained from the Provincial Government, to incorporate a number of very worthy gentlemen as a body corporate under the title of the Manitoba Soldiers' Homes, for the purpose of acquiring and aperating .homes for soldiers throughout Manitoba, with a view to providing residence for returned and disabled soldiers, either members of the British army or members of the Allied armies, and this body has received powers which would, naturally be given to such a corporation for the purpose of operating soldiers' homes such as exist in many parts of the United States., where men who have engaged in war and are totally disabled are cared for in old age. This, of course, is a phase of the whole question of what we are to do with the soldiers who return.

Another suggestion has bqen brought to my .attention., the working out of which, perhaps, may be difficult so far as company railways are .concerned, but which might be applied to the Government railways. The suggestion is that men enlisted for overseas service be granted, when leave is given them to visit their homes, a rate of one cent a mile on the Government railways. Of course, it would be a . matter of certificates on the part of the officer granting the leave. It is suggested, also, that where .soldiers are travelling on the Government railway, going to or from their homes for recruiting purposes, or to visit their families before going overseas, they should be given concessions upon the dining-cars of the Government railways. It certainly seems anomalous that we should coax -and plead with the young fellow in the country town to go and fight for his country, and then when he consents, take him to a camp a 'hundred or two hundred miles away from his home; and, that when he wishes [DOT] to return to his home to visit his mother or his relatives under leave of his commanding officer, the Government railway should demand from him the last cent by way of fare. The Minister of Railways announced a very handsome surplus the other night. Here is a matter which would mean a great deal to the boys who have enlisted, and who wish to return to their homes. Some consideration should be shown them by the Government railways. This, of course, is aside from the main subject I desire to deal with in the resolution.
I bring these suggestions in Tegard to the pension law to the attention of the Govern*5 ment, feeling that the desire of us all would be to deal in an absolutely fair and equitable way with the unfortunate soldiers who return wounded. I trust the suggestions I have made will meet with favourable consideration by the Government, and that the anomalies which I think exist will be removed, and the whole pension system be placed upon a permanent basis by the establishment of a non-partisan pension board.


Frank Oliver: I will not go over the ground so well traversed by my hon. friend from iPictou (Mr. Macdonald). As to the general question of the scale of pensions, it will be generally agreed, I think, after reading the careful memorandum prepared by the Committee of Citizens in Toronto, that the scale pro-

vided last summer needs revision. No doubt it will receive it. A general revision upward, as well as a general equalization according to the suggestions made by the committee, will, I feel assured, receive adequate support in the House.
The matter of dealing with the pensions through a pensions board should, I think, receive the immediate attention of the Government. This question of pensions is one of such tremendous importance to the individual affected, and to the country at large, that it cannot be placed upon a permanent foundation, and cannot be put into fully [DOT] accredited and non-partisan hands too soon to meet the needs of the case or the views of the people. If I were to offer any criticism, it would be that we have hardly appreciated how deeply we are engaged in this war and how terrible are the effects of it that have already been felt. I read that our losses up to the present time have been
20,000	men in killed, wounded and missing. That means the provisions of the pension law -are in urgent demand at the moment, not only for the well-being of those who have suffered, but for the purpose of assuring those whom we are calling upon to offer themselves in our service, 'and their relatives and friends as well, that the country is absolutely behind them and will see that, whatever happens to them, they will be cared for, so far as the country can care for them, along certain well recognized and approved lines, and by means that will leave no room for question. It seems to me that we have been slow in appreciating how urgent this matter is, how far-reaching it is, and how tremendous the interests are that .depend upon it being adequately and .promptly handled.
I wish to allude in particular to two features of the care of returned soldiers. Some time ago I asked for certain Orders in Council which were brought down, and which I have before me. One is dated December 25, 1915, and makes provision for a gratuity of $100 in case of the discharge of a soldier only slightly disabled.
I can quite appreciate that there are conditions under which such a payment would be proper and adequate. But I wish to point out that, having regard to the memorandum attached to the Order in 'Council, this provision gives to a board which is not endowed with the fullest responsibility, and which, perhaps, has not the fullest knowledge of the facts, an opportunity to do less than justice to the discharged soldier. I do not like the wording of the

memorandum of information upon \yhich ithe Order in Council is ibased. The suggestion, as it appears to me, is that this provision offers a ready means of getting rid of a troublesome man and a troublesome question. I may be wrong in putting that interpretation upon this memorandum.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the
language?	,


Frank Oliver: The memorandum is very 'long, and it would be necessary to read the whole of it in order to get the idea. I may be giving an improper interpretation of it;
I hope I am. At any rate, I want to emphasize the point that to give the discharged soldier a gratuity of $100, unless it is with a thorough appreciation of the case, is not properly to discharge the country's obligation to him. If he were permanently disabled, he would be entitled to permanent consideration; the payment of a simple gratuity would not be a fair and proper consideration to give 'him.


George Eulas Foster: That gratuity
does not settle his case permanently.


Frank Oliver: Unfortunately, as I understand the memorandum, it doee. The President of Pensions and Claims Board, in recommending this matter to the Government, uses these words:
Wo feel, however, that it this man once gets his name on the pension list, it will be very difficult to cease paying him a p-rsion of a small amount, and therefore we feel that if we had the power to grant a man a gratuity in lieu of the pension, and if the T.easury Board would waive its rights in the case of the gratuity only, to say whether it would confirm our recommendation, we would be in a position to close the matter up without delay, whereas, under the present regulation, if we had the power to grant a gratuity, the whole matter has to be left open until a reply comes back from Oltawa.
The intention evidently is to close the man out with $100 for the convenience of the present Pensions Board. If I have misinterpreted the memorandum I will he glad, hut that is the impression it conveys to my mind, and I take the liberty of drawing the attention of the Government to it, and of voicing my views that that is not a proper attitude of mind in which to approach this question.
The next point that I wish to draw attention to is an Order in Council, dated December 16, 1915, making provision for men who have become insane in active service. I had occasion to mention this matter once before in the House, and I take the liberty of referring to it again, because it seems to me that the intent of this Order in Council
jars upon the sensibilities of the people at large. In this war, carried on with weapons such as are now used, it frequently occurs that men come out of the fight with their minds shattered, although physically they have not suffered injury. These men were physically perfect before they went in, and presumably they were mentally perfect as well. They have suffered such shock to their nervous system as has unbalanced their mind,s. It is a reasonable probability that such men, given favourable conditions, would make complete recovery of their reason and again become useful citizens, each one an asset to the state, and a benefit to himself and to his relatives. It was with a feeling which jarred upon my mind that I read in the newspapers that men in such cases were being committed to the ordinary asylums for treatment and consideration. I find that provision is made, under an Order in Council of December 16, for committment of such men to lunatic asylums. I wish to urge upon the Government as strongly as I can that this is not proper treatment to give to men in such circumstances. Their condition demands certain treatments and the best that the country can find for them, in the hope of recovering their intellects for the benefit of the country and the advantage of their relatives. I hope that special provision will be made, that institutions will he organized immediately, if they have not been organized already, for the special care of such cases as these. These men, in the perfection of physical health, have had their intellects unbalanced by reason of physical shock, and it is not unreasonable to hope that with proper care and treatment they may recover their intellects. I assure the Government that the public look, may I say, with horror, upon the fact that a young man who has volunteered as a soldier and who has suffered in this way is committed to an ordinary insane asylum where the surroundings naturally tend to militate against his ultimate recovery. In any case there is a certain, amount of sentiment in these things, as there ought to he, and we can surely better afford to spend a reasonable sum of money in making special provision for this new class of cases that has arisen in this war, than to be considered guilty of an insufficient regard for the sacrifices these men have made or the possibility of their recovering from the result of these sacrifices.


Robert Laird Borden: The subject of pensions has been under the consideration of the Government for

some time past, and probably it would have been taken up at an earlier date had it not been that I thought it desirable,-as this motion has been standing for some time upon the Order Paper,-that we should hear the views of hon. gentlemen before the Government took any definite or final action on the whole subject. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has brought the subject up in a very considerate and reasonable way. It is perfectly true that before the Order in Council which establishes the present scale of pensions was passed, we placed a draft of it upon the table of the House last session, and I requested an expression of the views of hon. members, in order that the Government might take it into consideration before the subject was dealt with by passing the Order in Council. Not a great of attention was given to it during the session, and perhaps it might have been better if the draft Order in 'Council had been printed and. circulated among the members, in order that the subject would thus more fully engage their attention. I shall have these papers brought down at once; I have been gathering them together. Then if opportunity for further debating .the matter is desired, the Government will be very glad to afford that opportunity, because the papers as brought down will embrace some suggestions and reports which have not yet been made -public. Among these there is a report, in the form of a letter to the Minister of Militia, from the chair*- man of the Pensions and Claims Board, Canadian Expeditionary Force, of which 6i.r Montague Allan is the chairman.
It is perfectly true that the scale which was submitted to the House last session, and which was authorized ' by Order in Council, does not proceed precisely upon the lines of the Australian pension list, but it follows that list very closely, except in one respect, to which I shall allude later. For totally disabled soldiers who have become incapacitated in active service, the scale for an unmarried soldier in Canada is $264; in Australia, $253; and in Great Britain, $316. The scale in Canada is slightly higher than that of Australia, and is about $50 lower than that of Great Britain. For a married soldier and wife, without children, the scale in Canada is $396; in Australia, $380; and in Great Britain, $316. The British scale makes no allowance for the fact that a man has a wife dependent upon him. For a soldier with a wife and one child, the scale in Canada is $456; in

Australia, $443; and in Great Britain, $348. There is an allowance made in Great Britain of $32 for the support of a child, but no allowance is made for the support of the wife. For a soldier totally incapacitated who has a wife and two children dependent upon him, the scale in Canada is $516; in Australia, $506; and in Great Britain, $380. That is to say, the scale in Canada is $10 more than in Australia, and $136 more than in Great Britain.
For a soldier, totally incapacitated, with a wife and three children dependent upon him, the scale in Canada is $576; in Australia $569, and in Great Britain $412. The Canadian scale, in this respect, is slightly higher than that in Australia, and $164 a year higher than that provided in Great Britain. For a soldier with a wife and four children dependent upon him, the scale in Canada is $637; in Australia $633, and in Great Britain $444; the Canadian scale being slightly higher than that of Australia, and nearly $200 greater than that of Great Britain. So it runs all through, except that, in Great Britain, and Australia, there is a difference in scale for the higher ranks.
My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) has alluded to the fact that there is less difference in Australia than there is in Canada between the rates fixed for . privates and officers. That is true, but it does not arise by reason of the rates for the private soldier being lower in Canada, but by reason of the rates for oflicers in Canada being higher than in Australia. On the other hand, the pension rates for officers in Great Britain are on a considerably higher scale than they are in Canada, and on a very much higher scale than they are in Australia. For example, an unmarried lieutenant colonel in Canada, who has become totally incapacitated receives $1,200 as a pension; in Australia he receives $638, and in Great Britain $3,000. A major, totally incapacitated, receives in Canada, if he is an unmarried man, $960; in Australia $565, and in Great Britain $2,000. A captain who' is unmarried, and becomes totally incapacitated on active service, receives in Canada a pension of $720; in Australia $492, and in Great Britain $1,000. For a lieutenant, totally incapacitated, and unmarried, Canada provides $482; Australia $443, and Great Britain $700. A warrant officer, unmarried, and totally incapacitated receives in Canada $480; in Australia $377, and in Great Britain $506. For a sergeant totally incapacitated, and having no wife, Canada provides $336; Australia $340, and Great Britain $366.

My hon. friend from Pictou also adverted to the very considerable disparity between the provision made for single men and that for married men in this country, and he pointed out, I think with some force, that a married man who has a wife and three children, and who has become totally incapacitated, would, upon the death of his wife, receive a smaller pension than when his wife was living, although it might be very much more difficult in that case for him to take care of his
5 p.m. children and to support the family than it was before. I think that that ought to be taken into consideration. Of course, .unless the wife undertakes some work for the purpose of assisting in the support of her family, it is necessary to make provision for her maintenance. The wife, as well as the children, must be provided for in some way, and in fixing the pension scale, as we have established it in Canada, we proceeded very much along the lines which have been followed in Australia. We adhered much more closely to what has been done in Australia, than to what has been done in Great Britain, because it seemed to us that the conditions of this country were in that respect more similar to those of Australia than to those of Great Britain. Therefore, we thought we would be safer to follow the Australian than the British precedent.
It is said, I believe, in the report of the committee, of which Mr. Darling is chairman, that the Canadian rates for totally incapacitated single men are lower than elsewhere. That is not strictly accurate, when baldly stated in that way. I have already read the rates fixed in this country, in Australia, and in Great Britain. The rates in Canada for married men are larger than they are in Australia, and considerably larger than they are in Great Britain. It is true that for unmarried men, totally incapacitated, the rate in Canada is lower than in Great Britain, but it is not lower than the rate in Australia.
My hon. friend alluded to the necessity of a pensions board. It might be just as well that I should explain to the House how the Pensions Board was established, and who composes it. The present Pensions and Claims Board was authorized by a Militia Order, as were the several similar boards which preceded it, and it is now acting in virtue of Militia Order No. 366 of 2nd August, 1915, which reads:
The Pensions and Claims Board is reconstituted as follows: President-Col. J. S. Dunbar, Assistant Adjutant-General, Militia Headquarters ; members,-Lt. Col. C. W. Belton Permanent Army Medical Corps, and Honorary Lt. Col. C. L. Panet, secretary of the Department of Militia and Defence.
Lt.-Col. Belton is a medical officer who is attached to the board in that capacity, and he has been for a number of years in the permanent corps. After being passed upon by the board, the pension claims come in the form of a recommendation to the Governor in Council, and are taken into consideration by the Treasury Board in the first instance. The Governor in Council, under the provisions of the Order in Council which was passed last year, has the power to consider individual cases, but these individual cases are only considered upon a report first made by the Pensions Board. The section of the Order in Council to which I allude is:
597. Individual cases, for which the regulations do not provide or sufficiently provide, may be specially considered by the .Governor in' Council.
The procedure is, to have all such claims* submitted, in the first instance, to the Pensions Board, and to have the report of the Pensions Board thereon come before the Treasury Board. The Treasury Board may ask for such further information as it may desire, and may refer the case back for further consideration to the Pensions Board. In the end the recommendation of the Pensions Board, as adopted by the Treasury Board, comes to the Governor in Council and is passed in that way. The very fact that the Treasury Board had several cases of that kind early last autumn, seemed to impose upon it duties of so onerous a character, and to consume so large a portion of its time, that the question was mooted as to the establishment of a permanent 'Pensions Board, which would receive a report from the Departmental Pensions Board, and upon whose report the Governor in Council would be authorized to act. Some inquiry into the desirability of that method of procedure was made, and a document which will be brought down amongst the other papers was submitted to the Government; but as the session came on shortly afterwards, and as it was not only desirable but apparent that the subject would be debated in this House, no action has been taken up to the present time.	'
As to securing a method by which political influence of any kind, or pressure of an undesirable character might have no scope or effect, I am entirely at one with my hon. friend from Pictou, and I think that it is eminently important. I do not

think that anything of the kind has taken place under the board at present constituted. No minister of the Crown or member of Parliament, so far as I am aware, has interferred in these matters in any way whatever. If anything of the kind has taken place it has not come to my knowledge. I am informed that Lieut.-Colonel Dunbar, who has been for a very considerable time in the permanent service, is a gentleman with legal training in the first instance, and that he is capable of discharging, and does- discharge, the duties of Chairman of that Board very efficiently and very impartially. One of the other two members is a medical officer who has been for some time in the permanent service, and the other is Honorary Lieut.-Colonel Panet, who has also been a considerable time in the permanent service.
I endeavoured to get information as to the precise methods by which pensions are dealt with in the United Kingdom, but it was apparent to me that the various bodies which there deal with this subject had not been thoroughly co-ordinated up to that time, and that perhaps we could not derive benefit from any example which they could give us. A desirable thing, if we could accomplish it, would probably be to have a pensions board to deal not only with military pensions, but with naval pensions,' and to have it established under the conditions outlined by my hon. friend from Pictou.
With respect to soldiers' homes, I really have not had that matter brought very much to my personal attention. My knowledge of what is being done In this country, and indeed on the other side of the ocean, is almost wholly confined to the so-called convalescent homes. I do know, however, that the Military Hospitals and Convalescent Homes Commission have been making a pretty thorough study of conditions in Canada and in the United Kingdom, and I was informed a few days ago that Mr. W. M. Dobell, of Quebec, who [DOT]has been making a study of this suhject in the United Kingdom and also in France, had embodied certain views in a report that he had submitted to his colleagues of the Military Hospital and Convalescent Homes Commission, and that these views were now under consideration by that commission. On the whole, I gathered the impression that Mr. Dobell was of the opinion that too much had been done in the way of convalescent homes along cer-
CSir Robert Borden.]
tain lines; that perhaps some improvement might be made not only here but elsewhere, and that the view he expressed in the report was entirely in consonance with the view taken by the military authorities of Great Britain and of France. However, it is rather premature to speak of that.
My hon. friend from Pictou also spoke about the desirability of making special rates for soldiers who are enlisted in the overseas forces, and who might from time to time desire to visit their families. I should be very glad to commend that suggestion to the Minister of Railways and to see whether it cannot be carried out.
My hon. friend, from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) spoke of an Order in Council, which had not come to my attention until recently. I think it was passed when I was unwell. I am not aware of its exact phraseology, but it hardly seems to me that it would bear the construction which he puts upon it. I observe that the concluding paragraph of the report on which that Order in Council is based is expressed in these words:
We have a very good precedent before us, as the Imperial Service grants such gratuities.
It is, I think, the practice of the Pensions Board here to recommend a gratuity in addition to the pensions, in occasional cases of destitution or urgent need. In any case, if I understand the military regulations-I am always a little apprehensive about expressing an opinion with regard to them-the acceptance by any man of a gratuity would not debar him of the right to have a board called subsequently to consider his case, if it was apparent that his injury or disablement was greater than had been thought at first. I believe it is competent to any man to have a board called at any time for that purpose, and I think that a board can also be called at any time to have it established that a man to whom a pension has been granted has recovered his health, and that the pension to which he was entitled during the period of ihis disablement -should no longer be continued.
With regard to the whole question, I entirely agree with the view that we must give reasonable and even generous consideration to the claims of those who have gone to fight the battles of the Empire in this war, and who have shown their willingness to make the supreme sacrifice; reasonable and generous consideration to the dependents of those who have gone to the front and made that sacrifice, in


IS, 1910
[Stage Direction]
order	that this	Empire, the ideals
which it represents, and the institutions we enjoy,	may be preserved
for us and for future generations.
The report from the Pensions and 'Claims Board in Great Britain suggests a more elaborate scheme of analysis of the degrees of disablement. I think they divided them into six degrees by percentages: a man totally disabled would be classed 100 per cent; then they endeavoured to estimate those who have been disabled to the extent of 80 per cent, 60 per cent, 40 per cent, 20 per cent, and under 20 per cent. Then they lay down this principle:
All pensions to members of the .Canadian Militia disabled on active service should be awarded in direct proportion to the impairment of. capacity for earning a livelihood in the general market for untrained labour.
The note which they attach to that is this:
Men enlisting for active service in the Canadian militia as privates bring to the service of the country a healthy body. The previous - occupation of the recruit is not recognized as having any reference to the service which the soldier could give the State, unless it secures for him a higher rank than that of private, in which case the return made to him by the State in pay and pension is proportionately increased. The private soldier then is looked upon as offering merely a healthy mind and body to the public service. For practical purposes the market for healthy bodies is said to be the " general market for untrained labour."
It is to be noted that the amount of pension depends upon the impairment of capacity for earning a livelihood without reference to the former occupation and income of the soldier. That view will form part of the return to be brought down for the consideration of hon.gentlemenopposite.
There would be the case of men who, while incapacitated for performing the duties which they had hitherto performed in the community in which they live, might become capable, through vocational training, of performing other duties so that they could, at least in part, earn their livelihood. One of the duties which the Government ought to undertake in connection with any pension scheme is to make it possible, so far as we reasonably can, for men who have been disabled from taking part in any occupation in which they had been previously engaged, to take up some other occupation by which they may assist in earning their own livelihood. It is not in the interest of any citizen, who has served in the overseas forces and who is still capable of filling an active and useful part in the national life, to be placed in such a situation as to have no incentive whatever to do that work for which he may be fitted either through his own efforts alone or with assistance from the state. I have been impressed all along with the importance, in connection with this whole question, of doing the utmost that we can, by investigating methods on the other side ot the ocean and by thinking out methods for ourselves, to evolve a system by which all those who are not absolutely incapacitated but who are incapacitated to such an extent as to make it impossible for them to earn their livelihood in the way in which they formerly earned it, should be afforded the opportunity I have indicated. I believe that a certain committee of the Military Hospitals and Convalescent Homes Commission is studying that question very carefully, and that committee will probably be able, in the early future, to make some recommendations to the Government. I entirely agree that any appropriation that might be necessary for the carrying out of a scheme of that kind in a reasonable and effective way, would be money well spent by this country, first, in making the men to whom such an opportunity would be afforded, better citizens than they otherwise would be, and secondly, in the contribution which it would make to the general welfare and development of the country by increasing that much the earning capacity of the whole nation.
I shall be glad, as I have said before, after these papers are brought down, as they will be without a moment's delay, to move at once that they be printed for the information of hon. gentlemen, and after that is done, if my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) or any other gentleman should desire to have further debate, we would welcome it. Indeed, if a debate were not started otherwise, I think we should initiate it ourselves in order that the views of hon. gentlemen, which certainly must be of some assistance to the Government, might be elicited, and the Government be thus placed in a better position to deal with the whole subject.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: (North Oxford) I am very glad to hear the Premier say that he believes ini vocational training, and I am sorry he was not here the other day when that question was under discussion. It was argued that these men 'be assisted by the Government educating them in such trades or callings as they might be fitted for, so that they would do something at least towards earning their own livelihood. I am also pleased that the

Premier will afford an opportunity for further discussion of this subject. I do not think I am giving away any secret of the Hospitals Commission when I say that Mr. Dobell told me that, in France, 80 per cent of these classed as totally 'disabled were', through vocational schools, being taught at least partly to earn their living. His statement only corroborates what I thought myself and what I had read in regard to those schools in France. I have been studying the question very carefully, and I am glad that the Premier endorses my views and that the Government will do everything possible to assist ill the establishment of schools of that character.
In reference to the pension scheme, I think the pension for the unmarried man who is totally disabled is slightly too low, and I would suggest raising it to a dollar a day, or $30 a month, and allotting the other pensions in proportion. I think the differences in the pension list are fairly well arranged. After the Premier has the information which he says he will bring down, it would be a good thing to appoint a small committee of members from both sides to study the question carefully and to report to the House, because the question is very important and means the expenditure of a great deal of money. I am sure the Government appreciates the fact that the question is of great importance and one that should not enter into politics at all.
I would also like to make a recommendation to the Government as to the personnel of the Pension Board. I do not say that the gentlemen now acting are not absolutely non-political; I do not know anything about them. But, no matter who the Pension Board, may be, in my judgment the matter must be taken out of politics, for there is no telling how far the evil might extend otherwise. I am not speaking from a partisan standpoint; I am not suggesting anything against this Government or any government. I can quite believe that both parties, perhaps, would be equally guilty of using the pension vote, if it were in any way associated with politics. Therefore it is that I say pensions should be taken out of politics absolutely. The Pension Commission should be appointed in such a way as to make them as independent as the members of the Railway Commission. And my suggestion is that, after the Prime Minister has given us all the information in his possession, a small committee, representing both sides, might sit down, thresh out the matter, anc( make a recommendation to the House.


Mr. ALFRED THOMPSON (Yukon):: I am glad to hear from the Prime Minister that the Government intend to deal with this question in a comprehensive way, because, though the war will end sooner or later, it will be a long time before the problems relating to the pensioning of our soldiers will end. I was interested particularly in the remarks of my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) with regard to the treatment of insane soldiers. I gathered that he thought it would be better if these unfortunates were treated in some separate institution. The treatment of the. insane is becoming more and more specialized as scientific knowledge accumulates and the results of different methods of treatment are studied. In all civilized countries the treatment of the insane is engaging the attention of some of the ablest members of the profession to [DOT] which I have the honour to belong. In Canada the insane are treated in asylums or hospitals established and administered by the several provinces. In these hospitals you will find specialists who are studying the vagaries of the insane mind, and applying treatment that brings about wonderful curative results. The question of environment for the insane has been discovered to be very important-perhaps the most important element in their treatment. The insane are given cheery, sunny, comfortable surroundings and congenial company. Specialists are employed to keep the patient's mind occupied and to direct the current of his thoughts in wholesome channels. Another important item is food, and the nursing of these patients is a specialty in itself. Therefore in the majority of cases, you will find our hospitals for the insane in salubrious locations with most favourable surroundings and, those in charge are trained specialists in the care of the insane. There would be great advantages, for the present at any rate, in sending our insane soldiers to *hese hospitals, because of the special cars that they can receive there. As my hon. friend from Edmonton has said, we have had more insanes in this war than in any previous war, because we have had more nerve-racking battles and more nerve-racking experiences in connection with this war than have been known in previous wars. I gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton, that he believes that there is an idea throughout the country that a certain stigma attaches to the individual who has been confined in an insane asylum. Perhaps he is right.

There should be no such stigma, but possibly there is. I understand him to say that for this reason it would be better to have some speeial hospital for the treatment of our insane soldiers. That is a very worthy suggestion. This would mean that we would have a Federal hospital for the insane; a military hospital for the insane, if you will. I assume that at the present time-though I am not sure, for I have not investigated the matter-the insane soldiers are being cared for in the existing asylums of the several provinces. It may be that they have been segregated in these hospitals, possibly in each hospital a military ward has been established, but that, I take it, would not meet the suggestion of my hon. friend from Edmonton. It would ensure for our boys who have come back from the front the attention of highly-trained medical specialists and nurses, but it would not meet the views of the hon. member for Edmonton which is that we should have a separate hospital for our soldiers. That is a suggestion, I think, which is worthy the consideration of the Government. If this war continues, as we have every reason to fear it will, if these awful bombardments go on, as we have every reason to fear they will, there will be an increasing number of insane soldiers returning from the front. I rose merely to support the argument made by the hon. member for Edmonton.
Mr. FRANK S. GLASS (Middlesex East): Like my hon. friend from the Yukon (Mr. Thompson), I noted the remark of the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) that there might be a stigma attaching to the soldier sent for treatment to one of the existing provincial institutions for the care of the insane. It would be presumption for me to attempt to discuss scientifically, from a medical standpoint the benefit of these institutions in my own province, but I do eay that if the institutions of that kind in the district from which the hon. member for Edmonton comes are anything like those that we have in Ontario, there could be no objection to sending patients to them. In Ontario the word asylum has been almost entirely dropped so far as these institutions are concerned; they are called hospitals (for the insane. If they are all of the character of the one very close to the district in which I live, they might well be called sanitaria for the ihsane. The institution in London, which is supported by the Provincial Government, is one of very long standing. The treatment of patients 105
there is now entirely different from that which prevailed some years ago; medical science, electricity, bath treatments, and so on, have contributed materially to improving the efficiency of the treatment accorded the patients. The percentage of recoveries in these institutions has during the 'last few years been very much larger than ever before. Similar institutions in all parts of the world have adopted improved methods of treatment. I cannot agree, therefore, with my hon. friend when he says that the congregation in one institution of a large number of persons whose mental condition has been disturbed by the war would be as desirable ae their going to the different hospitals of that character that we have throughout the country. These institutions have no longer the character of a prison. The whole surroundings have the character of a sanatorium, of an institution to which one might well go for the recovery of health. Provision is made whereby the patients may indulge in various kinds of sports and amusements; those who may be allowed their liberty have considerable freedom, and, in a sense, may roam about at will. Having regard to the commodious nature of the grounds, the provision for sports and amusements, and the general improvement in methods of treatment at these different institutions, it is reasonable to suppose that more recoveries would be effected by sending the patients to different institutions than by gathering them all into a single hospital. As to the cost of maintaining and treating these patients, I have not the slightest doubt that it would be a privilege and a pleasure to the provinces to take care of our brave boys who have been or may be so afflicted. A great deal can be done for the comfort and happiness of soldiers who have been wounded or incapacitated in various ways, by a system of technical training that will enable them to be useful in some vocation. The man who may have lost an arm may be trained to do something by which he can use his other arm and the rest of his powers in earning a living. I believe that the man who feels that he is, in a measure, contributing to his pwn support is far happier than the man who feels that he is dependent upon the state. Again, if we should deem it necessary to establish a separate institution for those persons whose minds may have been afflicted while at the front, would not the same principle apply to those whose eyesight has been destroyed? I think it is generally agreed that the very best



thing that can be done for those who suffer loss of eyesight is to send them to institutions where for years the care and education of such persons has, under the surveillance of the Government, been carried out according to the ibest methods that science and skill can provide. Much can be done to contribute to a man's happiness in life, even though his sight be gone, and I think that the proper place to take care of such men is in the institution provided especially for that purpose. While I do not know what the needs of the future will be-they may vary according to the number of men who may be so afflicted- it seems to me that for the time being those institutions which for years have specialized in the treatment of subjects of this kind are best fitted to take care of those of our sons who may be so unfortunate as to be afflicted by loss of reason during the course of the war.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I am very glad
indeed to have the assurance of the right hon. Prime Minister that the papers in this matter will be brought down and printed for the information of members of the House, and that the matter will be further taken up in some other form. The. subject is one which is well worthy of careful study. I have endeavoured in a small way to devote attention to the matter, and I am surprised to find that I have arrived at a conclusion different from that of the right hon. gentleman in regard to the comparison between the Canadian and the Australian and English pension lists. There is, of course, difficulty in getting authoritative statements from - England and Australia as to the amounts paid to the different ranks under the different degrees of disablement, in order that comparison can be readily made. Where different degrees are set forth, the matter becomes somewhat complicated.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there was any difference in our views.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: There was practically no difference in our views, but my conclusions in regard to the difference between our position and that of Australia were different from those of my right hon. friend. Of course, the right hon. gentleman speaks from authoritative documents which I did not have at hand; I have no doubt that he is correct.
The right hon. gentleman spoke - of the great difference between the amount paid to the English private and that paid to the English colonel, and of the difference existing in that respect between Australia and

Canada. In England this condition is, of course, evidence of the recognition of classes and masses, which we do not have in this country and which do not exist in Australia. We cannot help being struck by the fact that every day Canadian men are going into the ranks who are just as good, socially, intellectually and every other way, as the men who hold command. In fixing the pensions this fact should be recognized, and the wide distinction that exists in England should be totally disregarded here in apportioning pensions to the respective ranks. It is the duty of the Militia Department to see to it that the men who are accepted for service are carefully scrutinized medically before they are allowed to go overseas. It is beyond question that there has been laxity in that respect and that unfit persons have been allowed to go. If you visit any convalescent home to-day you will find some men who should never have gone to the front. The burdens of this country, which we will all assume with the greatest possible feeling of fulfilling our duty, will be sufficiently great in looking after those who were fully competent and fit to go, without having any additional burden imposed upon us by the accepting of men who are not physically fit for service. If there has been any laxity in the past, it is to be hoped that greater care will be taken in the future in the examination of recruits. Then, too, care should be exercised in regard to the age of those who are accepted. You will find men bubbling over with enthusiasm and military ardour who have long passed the age when they can give that vigour and Teal, practical work which is required in this war, because a man may be enthusiastic, but may have a lack of physical vigour which will render him susceptible to conditions which will make him a pensioner more quickly than others. There is no reason for that man going or any man who is not physically fit and strong. The privations in this war are greater than they have been in any other war, and it is better for us to exercise care now than to have to deal with this problem later on.
I have no reason to find any fault with the gentlemen now fulfilling the duties of the Pensions Board; but their duties hitherto have been comparatively light, and have not been at all commensurate with the burdens which will be placed on such a board before the close of the year 1916. I do hope that, both in regard to the board and to the question of the pensions to be paid, before

the close of this session the matter will be put on such a clear, definite, and certain basis that the man going out will know what his rights are,, and that he will feel beyond all question that when he comes home those rights will be recognized, if unfortunately he should fall within the class of people entitled to receive pensions. We will await the bringing down of the papers. I feel assured that the Government, as their views have been stated by the right hon. gentleman, will join with those upon this side of the House in endeavouring to put the question of pensions to be paid to our returning soldiers on the very best possible basis.


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

[Stage Direction]
- Mr. E. M. MACDONALD (Pictou) moved:
For a return showing a list of vessels, belonging to the Canadian Government which are on service under the provision of the Canadian Naval Act, and of all vessels not now In service and their present condit'on and suitability for service, and also for a copy of all letters, petitions or communications had by or with the Government in regard to the establishment of a Canadian Naval Brigade.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we are now in the twentieth month of the war, and I am sure that it must have struck every hon. gentleman who ig at all reflective, in relation to our own position, and our position in the Empire, that, while we have heard a great deal about what Canada is doing upon the land, we have heard absolutely nothing about what Canada is doing on the sea, or about what she ought to do on the sea. Whether it is that the hon. gentleman who fills the position of Minister of Militia has, a greater faculty for playing, in the centre of the stage than the hon. gentleman who is Minister of the Naval Service, or whether the lack of aggressiveness of the one accounts for his total abstinence from remark as regards our service on the sea, is a matter upon which I do not purpose to comment particularly. The fact remains that up to date no one has heard of Canada doing anything or attempting to do anything on the sea. This motion which I have submitted to-night is for the purpose of drawing the attention of the House and of the country to the fact that the time has arrived when something ought to be done.
The evening papers contain the announcement that the German fleet is proposing to
come out at last to give battle to the British Navy. It is an object of interest as to what our position in Canada might he if half a dozen or so of German ships succeeded in escaping from the conflict around the north of Scotland, and in making their way across the ocean to our Atlantic seaports. It is an object of interest to inquire what, in that event, our position would be. The situation is that, for the last three months the North Atlantic squadron of the British Navy has been engaged in cruising around in what might be called the South Atlantic, with its headquarters at Jamaica, and has been continually on watch for the purpose of intercepting any vessels which might be engaged in carrying munitions or othefl aid to the Germans and their associates. Like a bolt from the blue there came the announcement about a month ago that two or three German raiders had succeeded in capturing quite a number of British merchant vessels, and that the Appam had succeeded in passing the cordon which is supposed to surround the south Atlantic coast, and found her way into Hampton Roads. Hence it is that the Appam had succeeded in passing the cordon which is supposed to surround the south Atlantic coast, and found her the United States and the ports of Central America. Where is Canada to-day in means for her defence? We might look to Australia. Australia has not only her own defence provided for, hut she is able to send the Sydney and the Melbourne on service, both of these warships having, during the past six or seven months, formed part of the British squadron which is at present in the southern Atlantic. Canada is in this humiliating position, that apparently we have no vessels of any kind, and that, if any German ships made their escape from a conflict in the North Sea, and came across the Atlantic, we would be absolutely defenceless.
It may be said that the information which I ask for should not be brought down because it would indicate our absolutely defenceless position, but with that theory I do not for one moment agree. Where you have a situation which, in the interests of the whole country, requires to he remedied, there is only one way of dealing with it, and that is to face it squarely. No hesitation has been shown in the Imperial Parliament in criticising to the full and in the 'most severe manner the actions both on sea and on land, and the administration in regard to the movement of the forces, and the direction of ships.
[Stage Direction]
Why, only a week ago Winston Churchill left his command in France for the purpose of coming to London to discuss fully and frankly the naval situation, and to point out the imperative necessity of recalling Lord Fisher to the Admiralty. So I have no compunction whatever in bringing up this subject. I say that in the month of January-only two months ago-there was on the Atlantic coast only one vessel belonging to the Department of Naval Service that was fit to go to sea, and that was the very email ship, the Canada, which has only two small guns. There were other vessels attached to the naval service: the Grilse for instance, which is attached to the North Atlantic squadron and in January she was at Bermuda, and is now between Bermuda and Jamaica. Then there was the Stadacona, which was purchased last summer and which has cost this country $104,585 to put in shape. Any one who visited the Halifax dockyard last January could see that she was not in condition to go to sea; in fact, it was freely stated in Halifax that her captain had said she was in euch a condition that he would not venture to put her out to sea. She is only a small vessel, purchased in the United States, and she was never built and never intended for that service. Then there was the Hochelaga, which has cost Canada $92,642; she arrived at Montreal on August 21, and remained there until September 11. She was on duty off the coast from September 11 to December 22, and on February 19-the last date on which I have information regarding her-she was lying in the dockyard. She was therefore not available for any purpose whatsoever from December 22 up to the 19th of February.	Then there was the
Florence, which Sir John Eaton presented to the Naval Service Department. She is a very pretty steam yacht, but any one who faae seen her would realize that she was not intended for our stormy Atlantic coast. She, was not available for winter service at all. Then there was the Tuna, which was being repaired, and is still undergoing repairs. Then there was the Starling, a tug boat; and the Margaret, a small boat; I don't know where she was, but any one who has seen her would realize that she was not fit for Atlantic service. With the exception of the Niobe, these were the only vessels that the Canadian Naval Service had at Halifax in January, 1916. The Niobe was tied up at the wharf, with her guns dismantled, and 
she was being stripped. A house had been built over her for winter, and there was a large number of men going up and down her decks, apparently doing nothing. 1 think about seven hundred men were on board, and apparently they were there without any purpose whatever. So the only vessel we had on the Atlantic coast in January, 1916, was this small vessel the Canada. Is that a proper position for a self-respecting country like Canada to be in? What has Australia done? She adopted a naval policy such as we on this side of the House believe in, she built the Australia, the Sydney, the Melbourne, and other vessels; and she was able not only to protect her own shores, but to send these boats into the Atlantic ocean. The only available boat we had was being dismantled; for what purpose I do not know, and I would like the Minister of the Naval Service to fell us. Going around the coast of Nova Scotia as I did in different vessels and steamers last summer, I met many officers of the British Naval Service, and each and every one of them bore testimony to the value of the Niobe as a first-class vessel in every way. They told the story of how a month after the war began she had her crew on board and was on duty off the coasts of Canada and the United States performing her work just the same as every other vessel that came out from England. But this vessel which was bigger than any of the five vessels that came out and formed the North Atlantic squadron, and which had a heavier armament, was dismantled. That was the situation then, and, as far as I am informed, that is the situation to-day. When any of our transports cross the ocean, certain vessels are detached from the Atlantic squadron, and escort them part way across. Last summer our transports which went from Quebec did not even depend upon these vessels for escort, but were escorted down the gulf of the St. Lawrence to Newfoundland by the Canada and the Grilse. For the last three months, then, and at this moment, with the exception of the British squadron, whose particular duty is off cape Hatteras and along the West India Islands, the only protection Canada has had on the Atlantic coast was the Canada; except for a stray British ship that would come in for coal or supplies. One of the anomalies in this connection is that the ships of the British squadron cannot, or do not, burn coal that is produced on this side of the Atlantic. Day after day you will see in

Halifax harbour half a dozen steam vessels laden with coal, which have been sent out from England with coal supplies for the ships of the squadron. When these warships are not taking in supplies and coal at Halifax, they are off New York or cape Hatteras, or along the West India Islands. It is well that the House should understand the exact situation. If the Minister of Naval Service can inform me that we have any greater protection than I have stated, or can assure the House that our coasts are adequately protected, I shall be very glad to hear from him.
The other portion of my motion calls for:
A copy of all letters, petitions or communications had by or with the Government in regard to the establishment of a Canadian Naval Brigade.
In the Naval Service Act of 1910, there is a provision under which this Government can form a naval reserve, or naval reserves. Provision is also made in the Act for placing men who enlist in these reserves at the service of the Admiralty. In British Columbia a reserve was formed by some enthusiasts who were interested in the protection of Canada from attack by sea, and service in this organization was purely voluntary. I have under my hand the Naval Service reports from 1912 to date, and I cannot find in them anything about the existence of anything like a naval reserve of any kind whatsoever, until I come to the report for 1915, which has been laid on the table of the House during the present session.
I am informed that no official recognition of that purely volunteer naval reserve was given until just before or just after the war broke out. I am informed also that in 1914 Sir Richard McBride communicated with the Premier' of Great Britain, with the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, who was then Secretary of the Admiralty, and with Lord Fisher as to this naval brigade, and as to furnishing recruits from Canada for the British Navy. He received favourable replies from all those sources; but as this Government was not as favourably disposed as was the English Government, no encouragement whatever was given to recruiting, and it was not until after this organization had been in existence for some time that anything was done in the way of recognition. What took place then? It has often been said in this country that you cannot get sailors to serve in the navy. While I speak with some trepidation in regard to the resources of Canada in the presence of gentlemen who come from the central provinces where there are such magnificent resources,
I will not defer in my opinion to those gentlemen in regard to matters affecting ships and those who go down to the sea in ships, because those of us who come from the sea-coast see the conditions there, and know something about fhem. The men who have spoken in this House in days gone by of the impossibility of recruiting men in Canada to serve in the navy have utterly misapprehended the conditions, as is proven by the fact that from this voluntary naval reserve in British iColumbia 200 men are already serving in the British Navy.
Let us see what the public records say as to what can be done in Canada. It will be interesting to hear the explanation of the Minister of Naval Service (Mr. Hazen) as to why he has not attempted to recruit men in Canada for the navy. The necessity of getting men for the navy is quite as great if not greater than getting men for the army. Speaking upon this question in the debate on the Address I read from official sources as to the necessity of recruiting men for the navy. When the English Parliament a few months ago passed the compulsory measure which provided for all men serving under the British flag, they attached an amendment by which the navy on account of its necesities was to have the first right to select from those who were conscripted, and if one studies the English newspapers, one will see that the attempt to get men for the navy is pushed with the greatest possible keenness and energy all through that country. They go to the public schools and get the young men who have never seen an ironclad to serve in the navy, and they recruit in the cities. The necessity at Gallipoli was so great and the conditions in that peninsula so terrible that the older men, who had been reservists and who had retired from the sea, were found manning the great vessels of the Mother Country there. Yet the Minister of Naval Service has never asked the people who lived down by the sea in the Maritime Provinces to rally around the old standard and to proffer their services in fighting England's naval battles. Why has he not done so? I find in the first report which my hon. friend,laid before the House the following statement as to what might be done:
On the arrival of the ships-
The Niobe and the Rainbow.
-at Halifax and Esquimalt respectivly, recruiting was started. By arrangement with the Post Office Department, postmasters were appointed recruiting officers in seventy-five cities and towns in the Dominion; posters were exhibited throughout the Dominion and a recruit-
[Stage Direction]
ing- pamphlet was widely distributed. As a result recruiting has been satisfactory, and the complement of the Niobe is practically complete whilst there are still a few vacancies in the Rainbow. As the advantages of the service become'more widely known, it is anticipated that there will be no difficulty in obtaining recruits.
That was in the year 1912. Then we come to 1913 when my hon. friend laid another report on the table explaining why men were not asked to serve at sea. In that report my hon. friend made himself responsible for this statement:
Owing to the uncertainty of the future naval policy, and the limited accommodation available, no special efforts are being made to obtain redruits for the navy; eligible candidates presenting themselves to the various postmasters detailed as recruiting officers, were sent to the Niobe and the Kaihbow for training, the total number of recruits entered during the year being 126.
Then my hon. friend, in another part of the report, stated:
Up to the present the fishing population has not been exploited and it is anticipated that recruits can be obtained therefrom who are inured to a sea life and who would find themselves in congenial surroundings in a man of war.
Why was it that the men who lived by the sea were not exploited? Why did the Government not ask the men in the fishing counties of Eastern Canada to serve -in the navy? Beginning with the county of Yarmouth from which our late lamented friend Mr. Law came, and going to the -counties of Queens, Guysborough, Richmond, and Cape Breton, there are thousands of men whose sole occupation from one end of the year to the other is life upon the sea. They have not, with the -same enthusiasm that men from other portions of our country have, offered their services to the Empire on land because the sea is their home, and they have never been asked to serve in the navy. My hon. friend said in 1913:
The fishing population has not been exploited.
Why has it not been exploited if the nation needs men for the navy? Again 1 take my hon. friend's report of 1914:
No recruits have been entered in the ships since October last.
Sometimes we hear about the wonderful pressure in certain departments on account of the war, yet this report indicates that there was no pressure in the Naval Service Department because no recruits have been entered since October last. The report goes on:
H. M. C. S. Niobe Is now in an efficient seagoing condition, her repairs having been completed in December, but on account of deficient

complement, however, the ship is not able to undertake prolonged cruises.
In other words, this first-class cruiser sent out by the British Government and which was declared by this report to be in firstnclass condition in April, 1914, was! according to the report of my hon. friend's own officials, unable to go to -sea because they had not enough men to man her and because they were not endeavouring to get the men. My hon. -friend, in this report of March 31, 1914, further says:
The Government having decided not to continue H.M.C. ships "Niobe" and "Rainbow" in full commission, no recruiting was carried on during the year, and the programme of exercises and training- laid down for these ships was not continued. During the year free discharge was given to those Canadians who entered the service as boys and wished to avail themselves of the offer; in addition, many of the ranks and ratings lent from the Imperial service have completed their engagement under the Canadian Government, and returned to England, without being replaced.
This is the official report of the Department of the Naval Service for the year ending March 31, 1914, and it shows -clearly, as I have already stated, not only that they are not keeping men enough on these vessels to enable them to go to sea, but that no attempt is -being made to get the men.
I have searched these reports carefully, and I can find no reference to the organization of a naval -brigade or reserve. It was not until the latest report was laid on the table of the House this year that the first mention was made of a naval reserve in Vancouver. The reference is as follows: *
The R. N. C. Y. R. chiefly recruited at Esquimau have been actively and usefully employed both ashore and afloat and have shown, both officers and men, commendable zeal in the performance of their duties.
I am aware, however, that from this purely voluntary brigade, which was not recognized until the war began, there have been drafted men now stationed on vessels in the North Atlantic squadron and elsewhere. I am aware of a notice which appeared in a Vancouver newspaper about ten days ago which read:
A recruiting officer will be at room 25 Canada Life building, 640 Hastings street west, Vancouver at 10 a.m. on Monday and Tuesday next, 6th and 7th March, to secure recruits for the Royal Naval (Canadian) Volunteer Reserve stationed at Espnlmalt, B.C., to replace the men of this force discharged recently for "active service" on the Atlantic.
This force, (which was called out on "active service" at the outbreak of war) has now over 250 men serving in ships of the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy on the Atlantic and

Pacific ocean, besides supplying the guards for H. M. C. dockyards at Halifax, N.S., and Esquimau, B.C., and patrols at these and other points.
Then follows a statement of what is required of recruits.
Now, why is it that the Minister of the Naval Service has not made any attempt on the Atlantic coast to provide for a naval reserve, or a naval brigade, or even to get recruits of some kind? Since the German vessels were driven off the Southern Pacific, there is nothing to menace our western coast. In March, for the first time, the hon. minister asks for recruits, hut in doing so he keeps away from the Atlantic coast. At no time has there been any request for recruits on that coast. Yet, that is where the necessity arises. I do not comment on this with undue severity; I simply call the attention of the House to the fact that we have no protection whatever on the Atlantic coast;-the Niobe is dismantled at the wdiarf, the Canada is the only vessel of any consequence that we have, and she is of very little consequence, and no attempt is made to recruit men for the navy. Yet there is no reason why they should not be recruited. The minister's own reports negative all the arguments put forth elsewhere against recruiting. I would like to know from the Minister of the Naval Service why Canada has no determined to do her part with men on the sea, as she has done with the men on the land.
Hon. J. D. HAZEN (Minister of the Naval Service):: The resolution of the hon. member for Pictou really relates to two different subjects. The first part is:
For a return showing a list of vessels belonging to the Canadian Government which are on service under the provisions of the Canadian Naval Act, and of all vessels not now in service, and their present condition and suitability for service;
The other part is as follows:
.-and also for a copy of all letters, petitions or communications had by or with the Government in regard to the establishment of a Canadian Naval Brigade.
With regard to this portion, there can be no objection to bringing down all the correspondence. As to the first part about which I have already spoken to my hon. friend, I do -not think it would be in the public interest to give to the world a statement of the Canadian vessels, their present condition and suitability for service, and a general statement of what they are doing. However, the hon. gentleman and I will agree about the matter, and I am confident we shall be able to afford him
all the information he wants. For, listening to my hon. friend, I cannot but think that his resolution is moved, not so much for the purpose of gaining information that would be of value to the country, -as for _ the purpose of making a partisan attack on the Government of the day. This is not the first occasion this session when my hon. friend has referred to this subject. Speaking in the debate on the Address, on the 4th of January last, my hon. friend told of a visit he had made to the navy yard in Halifax on the 2nd of January of this year; and, while he complained that there did not seem to be a great deal of work going on in the navy yard at that time, the principal subject of his complaint was of the way the navy yard was guarded. He said:
Again, here in this dockyard, built by the money of the Imperial Government, which the Imperial vessels use but very rarely and to a very slight extent, anybody who looks honest to the Dominion policeman who stands at the gate of the dockyard can walk in and go anywhere he pleases. I say the Minister of the Naval Service should have that dockyard under the control of men who are there attached to the Niobe.
Later, he said:
There was nobody guarding the dockyard gate except a Dominion policeman. If this Naval Service is not the most awful farce that any Government ever intended to carry through in any country, do you not think that they would have some of their men detailed to guard the gates of this dockyard at the city of Halifax, which is supposed to be the great centre of the Atlantic squadron on this side of the ocean? Yet that was the situation. It seems to me surprising, I am bound to say I was astounded.
He also said:
I bring this matter to the attention of Parliament not from any desire to be partisan in placing the matter before the House ; but I believe that these conditions are such that Parliament should know of them, the Government should be informed of them, and the matter should be dealt with accordingly.
According to the hon. gentleman's .statement, it was the 2nd of January when he visited the dock-yard and was surprised at the lack of activity there. But he did not tell the House that the second day of January was a Sabbath day, nor did he remind the House that it was the day after New Year's Day.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: It was not the
Sabbath.


John Douglas Hazen: The hon. gentleman may have given the wrong date, but the 2nd of January was certainly a Sunday, and the rule of the navy yard is that there shall be no Sunday labour if it can be avoided. The hon. gentleman naturally finds the dock-

yard a quiet spot on Sunday, especially on a Sunday succeeding a holiday so generally observed as New Year's Day. It is hardly fair for the hon. gentleman to represent the condition he found on Sunday as being the ordinary conditions prevailing in this dock-yard. As a-matter of fact, since the war broke out, the dock-yard has been an extremely busy place.
A large number of warships have been based upon Halifax, and the work of repairing these ships and keeping up their supplies, filling vacancies in their crews, providing for their sick and finding accommodation for the crews sent out to recommission them has proved quite a tax on the small staff maintained at the yard. The staff of the Naval Service Department at Halifax has also been obliged to undertake many services in connection- with the war, and to do its share in the defence measures which have been adopted on the Canadian coasts. It is not possible, it is not politic or wise, to describe these measures in d,etail, but the Halifax yard staff has certainly not been idle; it has, not only in our opinion, but in the opinion of the Lords of the Admiralty as well, been doing extremely good work.
That the hon. gentleman was extremely anxious to find, ground for criticism was shown in the remarks that he made about the way in which the dockyard was guarded. The hon. gentleman comes before this House posing as a man who has made a study of naval matters. Will he be surprised when I tell to-im that the measures taken for the protection of the Halifax dockyard are in line with the measures taken for the protection of the dockyards of the Imperial Government? The dockyard was guarded by Dominion policemen. My hon. friend says that is all wrong; that the dockyard ought to be guarded by men taken off the ships, who should be used a^ a patrol in the yard. But, as I say, the systems in force at Halifax and Esquimalt are exactly the same as the systems in force in the yards of the Imperial Government. In those yards it has been found advantageous to have the policing in the hands of a force entirely distinct from the -naval organization, and we have been following that policy in connection with our dockyards on the Atlantic and the Pacific. The outside discipline of the yards is maintained by members of the police force; these men are in a more independent position than men belonging to the ships, who might have a tender feeling with regard to their comrades on shipboard.

It has been found by the Imperial authorities that an independent land force of policemen exercise stricter supervision, and that better results are obtained in this way. The Canadian navy yards have followed the example of the British authorities, and the employment of Dominion policemen as guards in these establishments is giving the most satisfactory results, as is shown from the fact that there has not been the slightest trouble in the yards in Esquimalt or Halifax, from outside interference since the war began. I do not think my hon. friend should complain because the policeman at the gate allowed him to pass. My hon. friend is well known in the province of Nova Scotia; few met are better known. The policemen at the gate knew him; knew that he was a member of Parliament; knew that he was a man who had a right to visit the dockyard if he saw fit; therefore he allowed him access to the yard without challenging his right to enter. Complaints are continually being made by persons who are refused admission to the dockyard-who are stopped by the policeman when they attempt to enter. They claim that the policeman ought to have known who they were and should have allowed them to enter without having a pass from the proper authorities. This is an indication of the fact that in moving for those papers my hon. friend is desirous of making political capital, of making a little picayune criticism. His chief criticism in this connection is that the naval authorities of Canada are pursuing exactly the -same course so far ais guarding the dockyards is concerned as is followed in the Imperial dockyards of the United Kingdom.
My hon. friend has sought to attack the Government by saying that Canada has no defence upon the Atlantic or upon the Pacific coasts. If Canada has no defence; if we are not contributing as much as we should to the splendid defence that is .given to us by the British Navy to-day, I ask this House and this country, whose fault is it? In view of the way my hon. friend and the members of his party in 1913, by every method known to parliamentarians, obstructed the passage through this House of a Bill designed for the purpose of giving assistance to the Navy in the Mother Country; in view of the emergency that was then threatening us; in view of the cloud that was then hanging over our heads; in view of the fact that my hon. friend's party induced their partisan majority in the Senate t6 throw out the Bill providing for

the building of three of the largest ships of war that science could devise and that money could buy-in view of these facts, I ask my hon. friend if it is not a matter of courage on his part to attack this Administration because Canada is not in a better position to defend her coast to-day, and because she has to rely, as she has in the past, upon the protection of the British Navy? Previous to the elections of 1911 the hon. gentleman's party made a certain pretence of naval defence in this country. They asked for tenders for certain cruisers and torpedo boat destroyers. Tenders were received, but they were put in a pigeon-hole, kept there for about six months, and did not see the light of day again until after the present administration came into power. If hon. gentlemen opposite were honest in their desire at that time to strengthen our naval defences, how was it that the contracts for the construction of Ihese ships were not awarded? Was it, as appears to be the case, that they wanted to play politics with these ships at the coming election, and to make the people of Montreal, St. John, Halifax and Cape Breton believe that it was the intention of the then Government to construct a Canadian navy, and that the ships would be built at each of these places? The hon. member for St. John time and again has suggested that if the contracts had been awarded by the late Government, these ships would have been built at St. John; yet the right hon. leader of the Opposition told this House in most emphatic language that had the contracts been entered into, these ships would, at the time that he was speaking, be under constru'ction at the city of Montreal. Everybody who knows anything about the election of 1911 knows that these statements were allowed to play a considerable part in the attempt of hon. gentlemen opposite to obtain support for the party then in power in the constituency of Halifax and the constituencies of Gape Breton. Did the hon. gentlemen neglect to award the contract for these ships, the tenders for which they had had in their possession months before the general election, simply because they were playing the game of politics with the whole nival question? When we came into power, and when these tenders were taken out of the musty pigeon holes in which they had been allowed, to remain for months, indicating the absolute lack, of sincerity on the part of my hon. friend and the party opposite in regard to this matter, we found awaiting us reports from Commander Roper and Admiral Kings-mill stating that to proceed with the construction of these vessels would be a mistake; that when completed they would have passed their time and would have to be included with those vessels that were obsolete or in a state of obsolescence. These are the facts with regard to the action of my hon. friend opposite.
What was the action of the Consgrvative party in regard to the matter? The present Prime Minister, then leader of the Opposition, told this House and told this country that if he were returned to power he would consult with the Admiralty as to what was the best thing to be done with a view to assisting the navy of the Empire in the event of war being declared. After the right hon. gentleman came into power, in the year 1912, he, with certain of his colleagues, went to Great Britain, and there had consultation with the Prime Minister, Mr. Asquith, with the Lords of the Admiralty and with other naval authorities, as to what was the best thing that Canada could do to assist the British navy in the event of war taking place. After my hon. friend came back to Canada, at the next session of the House in 1913, he laid upon ithe table , of the House a state document received from the Lords of the Admiralty, which, after reviewing the situation-showing to any man who could read between the lines -that an emergency was apprehended, that war was to be feared-concluded in these words:
The Prime Minister of the Dominion having: inquired in what form any immediate aid that Canada might give would be most effective, we have no hesitation in answering, after a prolonged consideration of all the circumstances, that it is desirable that such aid should include the provision of a certain number of the largest and strongest ships of war which science can build or which money can supply.
And, acting upon the advice of the Admiralty, my right hon. friend, with the concurrence of the Government of which he was leader and of the party which supported him in this House, introduced a Bill to provide for the construction of three capital vessels in accordance with the recommendations of the Admiralty. We believed then and we believe now that the Admiralty were the best judges of what was required for Empire defence under the circumstances that then existed. When my right hon. friend placed his proposals before Parliament, they were met with every possible ridicule, they were met with every possible method of obstruction that parliamentary skill in obstruction could devise. We were

told that there was no emergency. The idea of war then or in the near future was ridiculed, laughed to scorn, by the hon. members on the opposite side of the House. They, not content with ridiculing the idea that there was danger of war, that there was any war cloud hanging over the Empire, that there was any emergency that would have to*be met; they were not content with making these utterances in the House, but when the resolution had been carried in this House they followed it into the other House and got their partisan majority in the Senate to throw out that measure designed for the protection of the British Empire. So, if my hon. friend wants to know why Canada was not better prepared for the [DOT]defence of the -seas, why -she was not contributing .more to the British Empire, I advise him to go and consult his friends in the Senate who, at the suggestion <md dictation of the members of his party in this House, threw out the Bill designed and intended for that purpose. But my hon. friends were not content with the attacks which they had made in Parliament upon this proposal; they followed ' it up in the literature which they issued to the people of this country. No emergency, they said; they laughed at the idea of an emergency. The idea of war with Germany was the most impossible thing, and the right hon. gentleman who leads the party on the opposite side took the occasion in one of his speeches to point out what a -splendid man the German Emperor was and how -he might be relied upon to maintain peace under all circumstances. Hon. gentlemen then, as to-day, flooded this country with pamphlets for partisan purposes. I hold in my hand a pamphlet issued by the Central Information Office of the Canadian Liberal party in Ottawa in 1913, known as publication number 6. It is entitled "Is there an emergency, conflict otf opinions examined in the light of the facte." And this pamphlet of 24 pages is devoted to - 9 P-m. argument to the effect that there was no more arrant nonsense in the world than for any body of men to contend that there was any danger of wa; be tween Great Britain and Gerrnany, and that the idea of an emergency was simply the purest sort of nonsense, the result of the imagination of people who were anxious to stir up strife in the country, and that there was not the slightest foundation in fact for it. And yet, scarcely 12 months after this publication was written, the world was at war, the Empire was engaged 
in a fight for its very existence, which has been continuing ever since and which may, unfortunately, continue for many months to come. Let me quote a few passages from this pamphlet. I find on page 5:
Here then is the difference between -Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Borden. Sir Wilfrid Laurier denies that there is an emergency. Mr. Borden will not say that there is an emergency, but to avoid bringing down a permanent policy, either the same as or different from that to which Parliament unanimously agreed, has thought it necessary to make it appear that an emergency exists and that Canada should present to Great Britain the three largest ships of war in the world at a cost of $35,000,000, and then work out a permanent policy. Who is right?
Is there a man in Canada to-day who will not say that the right hon the leader of the Government was right and foresaw what was going to happen in hie policy of desiring to have three capital ships of war, even if they had cost $35,000,000 or more, so that when war came those ships, flying the flag of Canada, might be found on the -seas, -protecting not only Canadian commerce, but the commerce of other parts of the Empire as well, was right, and that the right hon. gentleman was taking a proper course and one which every patriotic man in this country now regrets was not followed, so that Canada might have taken a more active part in the .defence not only of this country but of the Empire -than it is able to take to-day, owing to the unfortunate and unpatriotic attitude taken by hjn. gentlemen opposite on that occasion. -But, Sir, this pamphlet goes on for page after page to support this contention. I find this paragraph on page 8:
The relative strength of British and German fleets is evidence of no emergency, since the supposed emergency is in referenec to Germany. What is the rel-ative strength of the German and British fleets? Here is the statement of the Right Hon. Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, given in the House of Commons at Westminster, on Monday, July 22, 1912, in the course of an explanation of the scope and character of the new German navy law and its effect.
Then, th-ey quote Mr. Churchill's words, concluding as follows :
I hope it will be sufficient for me to say that the -arrangements proposed will, in the opinion of the Admiralty, be adequate for the needs of 1S-14 and 1915.
Then, the editor of his pamphlet, issued from the bureau of the Canadian Liberal Party at Ottawa, goes on to say:
In the face of such a statement as this, how can Mr. Borden and his followers, with any pretense of justification, contend that there is

an emergency at the present time, or even a likelihood of one in the immediate future? Elsewhere in the same speech Mr. Churchill refers to what could be done " at any time when the Admiralty consider that there is an emergency,'' clearly indicating that the Admiralty has no belief in any emergency at the present time.
Not only did they argue that there was no emergency, but they argued that Mr. Winston Churchill and the Lords of the Admiralty had no belief in the existence of any emergency at that time. They go on and quote declarations by -responsible ministers to prove the non-existence of an emergency in face of the fact that those same responsible ministers or Lords of the Admiralty informed this House and this country that it was desirable that any aid Canada should give and the- aid that would be most effective would include the provision of a -certain number of the largest and strongest ships of war which science could build or money could supply. But they were not content with issuing one pamphlet on the subject to -show that there was no emergency; they issued a -second pamphlet from which I wish to read a few quotations. It was published in 1913, and was also issued from the central information office of the Canadian Liberal Party at Ottawa, on the memorandum prepared by the Board of Admiralty on the general naval situation. In it they proceeded to criticise the statement prepared by the Admiralty and said:
There is therefore nothing in the memorandum with respect to the German situation which has not already been given to the British public and the world, and which was not -before the British Parliament at the time the Naval estimates were under discussion and Mr. Borden and his colleagues were in England. With these facts before them the British Government saw no existence of an emergency.
Why, therefore, should the Canadian Government draw inference of any such existing? The statement of British ministers in the debates when those facts were laid before the British Parliament are significant, and should be read in Canada when considering the inference to be drawn from the memorandum.
Again it stated:
Could any policy be given under these circumstances than that suggested by Sir Wilfrid Laurier in his reply to Mr. Borden? Referring to the Admiralty Memorandum Sir Wilfrid said:
This document shows that there is no emergency, that England is in no danger whether Imminent or prospective. But the document discloses a condition of things, of which, indeed, we knew, but upon which has now been placed the sanction of official correspondence.
Therefore I say that my hon. friend from Pictou, and hon. gentlemen of the party to
which he belongs, have not read that memorandum from the Admiralty. Having had the assurance given to this House by the Prime Minister, after consultation with the Lords of the Admiralty and with the naval authorities and the Government of Great Britain, that, from the information imparted to the House and from other information which he could not impart, the condition of affairs was such that there was need for strengthening the (British navy in view of the emergency which, it was believed, was coming; with these facts before the House, hon. gentlemen opposite declined to believe that there was any emergency, declined to believe that there was any danger of a war in Europe, declined to believe that the institutions of the British Empire and of Canada were at stake, or were in danger in the prospective future, to quote the language of the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) opposite; they refused to accept any of these statements, obstructed the Bill in its passage through this House, and then got their partisan majority in the Senate to reject it when it went to Upper Chamber. Therefore, I say to my hon. friend from Pictou that when he asks why this country is not doing her duty in the matter of defence upon the seas, I say: ask your leader and your party, and ask the Liberal majority in the Senate. That is the answer I give.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend had better ask Mr. Bourassa.
Mr. HAZE'N:	My hon. friend from Pictou need not get cross; he need not display temper in regard to this matter, and talk about asking Mr. Bourassa. My hon. friend asked a question, and I am giving him the answer, which is the answer that nine-tenths of the people of this country would give. The people of this country, who are not blinded by partisan considerations will, I venture to say, declare that it is the correct answer to the question asked in this House to-night by the hon. member.
My hon. friend from Pictou has gone further. He has said:	why has not the
Government of Canada enlisted men to form a naval brigade, to go over to assist the navy on the other side of the ocean. While-I have a very great regard for the learning and ability of my hon. friend, I am disposed to think that he does not understand what the purposes and duties of the naval brigade have been in the present war, or what part they have served. Perhaps my hon. friend will be astonished to learn that the naval brigade on the other

side is formed of the surplus of men available after the ships 'of the navy have been manned. When war broke out, they were formed into regiments, and fought in the trenches, at Antwerp and in other parts, just as the men enlisted for military service fought. In not enlisting men to form a naval brigade we acted not on our own judgment, but on the jugment of the British authorities. I would ask my hon. friend whether, if these men were going to serve in the trenches, at Antwerp, and other places, as the soldiers have served, there was any reason for having two different bodies organized for the same service, one under the Militia Department and Jthe other under the Naval Department.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend say that Great Britain did not require any recruits for her navy?


John Douglas Hazen: I say that at the time when war broke out, Great Britain not only did not require any recruits for her navy, but she had about 20,000 men enlisted for naval purposes who were not required to serve in the navy, and who were formed into naval brigades to fight just as the soldiers fight at the front. When war broke out, or soon afterwards, a statement was issued by Mr. Graham Green, the permanent Secretary of the Admiralty, relating to the formation of a Koyal Naval Division. Our attention was called to this, and on September 22, the department called for information as to the formation of a Naval Brigade. On September 25 the information was forwarded to us, with a statement that the list of candidates for commissions was closed, and that no further officers were required. It said nothing whatever about the necessity of enlisting men for the ranks.
The Press Bureau published a statement which was signed by Mr. Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, and part of which I will read to the House to show the correctness of the statement I have made. On September 6 the Press Bureau published the following statement:
The Press Bureau has received the following communication from the Secretary of the Admiralty :
After providing for all present and foreseeable future needs of the fleets at sea, there remained available a large number of men belonging to the Royal Marines, Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve, Royal Fleet Reserve, and Royal Naval Reserve. A portion of these have been organized into one marine and two naval brigades, the whole comprising the infantry of one division, to be called the Royal Naval Division. The marine brigade, for the organization of which all preparation had been made before the war, has been for some time in being at a strength of 3,000, and has already been employed at
I .Mr. Hazen.l
active service at Ostend. The two naval bri-gades have been organized in the first instance at a strength of 3,750 each, and have been in camp since August 19. The cadres of their eight battalions have been formed from the Royal Naval Reserve men forming on these as they were despatched from the ports. The three brigades were fully constituted by the 24th August and entered at once upon a period of field training to fit them for service ab:oad if required in the New Year.
Just as the military are trained in the camps for service abroad, not for service on the sea.
In the meanwhile they will be organized and trained under the Admiralty and will remain available for service afloat should any unexpected needs arise.
There follows a statement as to how they would be made up, into different regiments and brigades. Then it says:.
The Royal, Naval Division will be completely equipped in all respects by the Admiralty with field hospitals, transport, ammunition column, signal companies, cyclists, motor cars, and machine guns. An aeroplane squadron from the Naval Wing, complete with transport, etc., will be available when required. If at any time the naval situation becomes sufficiently favourable to enable this force to be definitely released by the Admiralty for military duty, it will be handed over intact to the Army for general service. The training, discipline, experience and quality which the personnel already possess should, after five or six months' special instruction in field duties, enable units of high quality to be produced.
And so on, showing distinctly that the surplus of men that they had after manning the ships and providing for the Naval Service, was being formed into a naval brigade to be trained in the field for field service, and to perform, as they have performed since'the war broke out, exactly the same services which the military have performed in the trenches, at Antwerp, and [DOT]other places on the Continent.
I now wish to submit to the House a memorandum on the subject, showing in *plainer language exactly what that means:
At the beginning of the war the Admiralty called out the Royal Naval reservists, composed of men engaged in Mercantile marine but trained to a certain extent in the Royal Navy.
When these men responded to the call the Admiralty found themselves with a large body of trained seamen, from which they manned the ships ready to put to sea and still had a considerable number of men over. To utilize the services of these keen eager men, a Naval Brigade was organized, and at the same time the inrush of Naval Reserve men was checked, and instructions were received in Canada that only men specially needed by the Admiralty should be sent forward. The Naval Brigade thus organized, while formed of reserved seamen, was partly officered by Naval Officers and partly by Army Officers. The men were trained as a military unit, given the uniform of the land force, were armed and equipped in exactly the same day as the infantry regiments, and

took their places in the trenches alongside of the latter. The exploits of this Naval Brigade have heen noted at Antwerp and elsewhere; they have served as infantry regiments throughout the war. The only hold retained on them by the Admiralty was that these men having received preliminary training as seamen, should he available for service on Shipboard when required.
The organization of this Naval Brigade is, therefore, exactly similar to that of the land regiments, and there would be absolutely no reason for Canada organizing two different systems of forces. There does not exist in this country a sufficient number of naval officers to undertake the training of naval regiments, and it seemed far wiser to enlist all the willing men under the army organization, instead of duplicating that organization and administering part of it under the Militia Department, and part under the Department of the Naval Service. This would mean added expenditure without any increase in efficiency. The Canadian Government therefore, decided that no possible object would be gained by dividing their organization, and advised the few men who wished to enlist in Naval Brigades to enlist in Overseas Forces.
At the beginning of the war a number of Boyal Naval reservists residing in Canada left for England to join the forces at their various headquarters, but this movement was stopped by the Admiralty as they felt they had a sufficient number of men on hand. The men who went from Newfoundland were men belonging to the Royal Naval Reserve who had been already trained in the Royal Navy, which maintains a training station at St. Johns. I
I therefore ask .my hon. friend what object would have been served in organizing a naval brigade, and giving it exactly the same training as wae given to the men organized in the militia regiments, and then sending them across the seas to do exactly the same work and stand side by side in the trenches with the overseas military forces? Would it have l|een prudent to divide our forces? Would it have been economiea'l? Would it have made for greater efficiency? No, Sir, it was far better to have all the men organized under one department. That was the course we decided upon after conference and consultation with the British army and naval .authorities.
On August 2, having received a notice that the Admiralty had called out the Royal Naval Reserves we gave notice from the Naval Department to that effect to all the collectors of customs in Canada, and asked them to arrange wide publication ashore and afloat. I have here a copy of the telegram sent to the collector of customs at Sydney, N.S., on August 2:
Admiralty have called out Royal Naval Reserve. Please arrange wide publication ashore and afloat.
Naval.
On the 7th of August we wired to Admiral Kingsmill, who was in Toronto:
Public advertisement is being inserted in papers that R.N.R. men desiring information as to transportation .should apply direct to Naval Service Department, Ottawa. They are then being informed to apply to station agent at their respective towns, presenting their papers and telegrams. Arrangements are being made with the Canadian Pacific railway, Canadian Northern railway, Grand Trunk railway, and Intercolonial railway passenger officers to authorize the ncessary transportation on adoption of this procedure.
Naval.
On the 18th of August we received this despatch from the Admiralty:
London, August 18, 1914.
Naval, Ottawa.
R. N. R. officers, seamen, stokers, not to be called out unless services required locally.
(Signed) Admiralty.
Which showed that the British Admiralty had more men than they required for the manning of their ships. Shortly after the outbreak of war, members of the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve offered to proceed to England to join the Royal Naval Brigade which had been formed there. The number available was 120 men and 9 officers.
In view of the length of training which the Naval Brigade in England had already had (over two months), and the necessity for the services of the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve men in British Columbia; in view also of the absence of all officers on active naval service, who were qualified to train the applicants sufficiently, and finally on account of the inadvisability of sending totally untrained men to England for service in the Naval Brigade, it was decided not to grant the request of the members of the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve. As the Naval Brigade is recruited for service ashore, and as applicants for entry in Canada could perform equally good service with the overseas forces recruited under the Militia Department, applicants were advised to enlist with the Canadian Overseas forces.
An offer under date of November 8, 1915, was received to recruit a " Special Pioneer and Water Transportation Corps " to consist of 200 men comprising four units, from Mr. P. E. Scharschmidt. This was submitted to the Department of Militia, and thence to this department by Hon. Sir Richard McBride, Premier of British Columbia. This corps was not considered by the Department to he of a naval character.
A further submission from Mr. R. H. Swenerton for the formation of a battalion

among naval volunteers for overseas military service to be given naval training, but later to be attached to the Expeditionary Forces, was given consideration. It was considered that time and expenditure would be saved if these men were to enlist with the battalions being recruited for active service.
Suggestions for the formation of a naval brigade in Nova Scotia were forwarded from Mr. Charles Archibald to the Prime Minister, and thence to this department. Mr. Archibald's suggestions were considered, but the same objections which the department met in other cases obtained. The Admiralty were, however, on a later date, requested to inform this department if they required recruits from Canada for service in the navy, to be trained in the Imperial Navy. No reply has been received from the Admiralty, and the question is therefore being held in abeyance.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What date is that?	[DOT]


John Douglas Hazen: Some time in the last few months. Had the British Admiralty evinced the slightest desire that we should send men from this country for the purpose of serving in the British Navy, or had they, in response to our inquiry, intimated that they would like us to send men forward to assist them in their naval warfare, we would have been desirous to organize, to the best of our ability, forces for that purpose. Not only was no such information given, not only was no such request .made, but, on the contrary, the documents which I have read to the House show that the British authorities had more men for the naval service than they actually required, and the despatch sent us in August, 1914, showed that they did not want us to call out the naval reserve men in this country to act as stokers, etc., in view of the large number of men in the Old Country available for the naval service. I think I may leave that question as it is at the present moment, and I think my hon. friend, when he charged us with not doing our duty in this matter, really did not understand the functions and duties of a naval brigade. Had the hon. gentleman understood that the naval brigade in Great Britain was the surplus of men organized after the navy had 'been fully manned, after all the ships ready for sea had been called out; had he understood that those men were formed into battalions, that they were drilled as the militia are
TMr. Hazen/I
drilled and that they fought side by side with the militia regiments-the only difference being that they were available to be called upon should their services be required for the navy-had my hon. friend comprehended all that, I do not think he would have made this attack on the Naval' Department.
My hon. friend has referred to the vessels that we have at present in the naval service of the Dominion. In a few minutes I will give the House a very full statement, without going into details which should not be made public, of the work that the Naval Department has done since the outbreak of the war, and I think the hon. gentleman will see that his attack is neither well justified nor well founded. The hon. gentleman says that we to-day have no means of defence. To-day not a single troopship has, while crossing from Canada to the Mother Land, met with disaster although troopships have been going and ships have been coming ever since the thirty ships with over 30,000 men from Valcartier, the greatest armada that ever crossed the water, sailed from Quebec. Ever since our troops have been going until at the present date over
100,000	Canadian troops have been sent across the water, and there has not been a single disaster, nor a single casualty. During the same period the trade routes across the sea have been maintained in safety and not a single Canadian vessel carrying munitions of war, or goods for the British Government or for any of the Allied Governments, has up to the present met with misfortune, because we have had the protection of that navy which alone stands between us and disaster, a navy to which we have never contributed a single dollar and which the hon. gentlemen opposite prevented us from contributing to most substantially in 1913.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does my hon. friend think that, if we had sent that money over, Canada would have been in a better position than Australia is?


John Douglas Hazen: If we had equipped those
three capital ships of war, we would have been doing what the British Admiralty, the best authority on the question, said was the most effective way of assisting in the naval service of the Empire. My hon. friend has gone out of his way to attack what we have done. While we have not been able to do very much in the way of actual defensive operations-


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Hear, hear.
' Mr. HAZEN:-we could have done a great deal in the way of defensive and offensive operations if we had had those three capital ships of war; and more than that, my hon. friends opposite, when they were in power, might have done something if they had not held up their tenders for six months in erder, in the elections of 1911, to get the votes of people in certain localities by making them believe that each of those localities would be the place where the ships would be built when the contracts were finally entered into. My hon. friend opposite says that we are doing nothing; that we have only had vessels for patrol work and mine sweeping purposes. All that work has been entered upon by the Naval Department after careful consultation with the authorities of the Admiralty, with their full approval and in some cases at their request.
My hon. friend has referred to the Niobe, and he says that we have laid her up in Halifax harbour, and that she is dismantled. I will give the House the facts with regard to the Niobe and I do not think any public interest at the present time will suffer by my doing so. The Niobe was completed in 1897, and is, therefore, some eighteen years old, which in these days is a very respectable age for a warship. She was purchased by Canada in 1910, and was used as a training ship on the Halifax station. It was found difficult to keep the crew of the Niobe up to full strength, and in 1913 it was decided to reduce the crew and most of the ratings lent by the Admiralty to the Canadian Government returned to England. In the spring of 1914, when the Rainbow was commissioned for service in Behring sea, most of the Canadian ratings still on the Niobe were utilized to make up the complement of the Rainbow, and, therefore, at the opening of the war only a very few men were on the ship. A crew was enlisted made up from the Imperial ratings from the Shearwater and the Algerine, which were laid up at
- Esquimalt, from .a few Canadian ratings, from a number of ex-naval ratings residing in Canada who were enlisted, as volunteers for the war, and from Royal Naval Reserve ratings from Newfoundland.
In the spring of 1915, the Niobe, having been at sea and in continuous service for some nine months, began to show signs of wear in her machinery. It was reported that the funnels would need renewing at an early date. On examination of the machinery it was found that the boilers would very soon be in need of very large repairs, ^.nd, as the vessel .had been due for a gem eral refit for some time, it was realized that it would be necessary to lay the vessel up for a long period of time, and spend a large sum of money on repairs and refit.
It would have been necessary to have this refit made in the Imperial dockyards, which, at this time, are filled with more important work. It was considered that it would not be advisable to spend this money or devote so much time to repairing a ship which would be of little value as a fighting unit. On the other hand, it was necessary to provide at Halifax a depot for the many Imperial ratings who are continually passing through this station, and it was a matter of convenience to have a ship in which the various auxiliary services centred at Halifax could be accommodated. It was, therefore, decided to lay the ship up with a nucleus crew sufficient to keep the ship in proper condition, and with a staff of men sufficient to provide for the transient ratings. This was done after consultation with the Admiralty and with its approval.
While the number of men and officers at present entered on the books of the Niobe is about 800, only 337 of these are attached to the service of the ship; the other men compose the crews- of various auxiliary ships or are engaged in the various auxiliary services at Halifax, St. John, Sydney, or elsewhere, and are borne on the books of the Niobe for purposes of discipline and of accounting. During the month of November some 450 Imperial ratings were accommodated on the Niobe. The vessel is, therefore, discharging her duties as a depot ship, and is being made useful within the limits of her present capacity. And that, at the present time, is about all she is fit for. It would not be wise policy, in view of the fact that the shipyards of Great Britain are crowded with important work, to send her across for repairs, to wait the months required to repair her, and spend the enormous sums of money necessary in order to put her in shape to enable her to go to sea again in connection with the purposes of active naval warfare.
The hon. member has referred to the Hochelaga and the Stadacona, bought last year by the Naval Department for patrol work in the gulf of St. Lawrence. These vessels have discharged most admirably the work for which they were intended. Certain repairs have had to be placed upon

them, as is the case with all vessels; but the experts of the Naval Department, on whose advice they were purchased and whose reports were submitted to me before I authorized the purchase, are thoroughly satisfied that they have done their work well, that they are good boats for the work for which they were purchased, and that they will do good work for another summer and probably to the end of the war. The statement that the captain of one of these vessels refused to go to sea in his vessel, is, as far as our department knows, an absolute misrepresentation. There is no foundation for it in fact, and not the slightest justification for any one making the statement made by my hon. friend from Pictou.
Since the war broke out the Naval Department has done a great deal of work in connection with other matters. Certain men were sent by us to England, and of these I will give a brief statement
All officers on the retired, resigned and emergency lists, with certain specified exceptions, were sent to Great Britain, their number being estimated at 50.
A considerable number of Royal Fleet Reserve, Royal Naval Reserve, and prisoner ratings, and ex-naval ratings, other than the above (i.e., men who had taken discharge at the end of the first period oi 12 years' service, who had bought their discharge, etc.). There is no means of ascertaining their number, even approximately, but it probably amounts to several hundreds and may possibly have exceeded 1,000.
Two hundred officers for the Royal Naval Air Service all entered in Canada. Up to the present time, 176 have been sent to Englhnd, and are engaged in the Air Service of Great Britain, bringing credit to Canada, and doing their work well, so far as we know.
As many engine-room artificers and electrical artificers as could be obtained after considerable press publicity were obtained, and only twenty of that class of men were willing to go.
We have been asked to have lists made of the men willing to serve in the Royal Naval Reserve Motor Boat Patrol. We. called for applications, and several hundred applications have been received up to the present time. We are informed by the Admiralty, who asked us to prepare a list of these men, that an officer is coming to Canada to look over the men who have applied, to examine them for their fitness and make selections from their number. In the

Naval Department, we have had a great deal to do in connection with the transportation of munitions and goods for the British Government and the Allied Governments. At the present time there are seventy-five transports on the Atlantic, which are sailing under instructions from us. Between July and November fifty ships, not including timber ships, sailed from Montreal, and were given sailing orders from us. Since November 30, up to March 13, thirty-six store ships have sailed from St. John and twenty-nine from Halifax. The sailings for the near future will be two or three a week from the port of Halifax, and four or five a week from the port of St. John.
In the store and contract branch, the department has been very busy, carrying on work, not only for ourselves but for the British Navy and the navies of the Allied nations. This work has been carried on at the dockyards at Halifax and Esqui-malt, and elsewhere as required. 'Contracts for naval stores entered into to date exceed $1,000,000 in value, and cover a very large	variety of	material,
including provisions, clothing, naval stores of all kinds, ordnance and torpedo stores, fuel, etc. Contracts have been made on both coasts to provide supplies of fresh provisions at a moment's notice for Canadian and Imperial ships. In addition to supplies for the Canadian services, large quantities of provisions, clothing, and naval stores have been supplied from stock at the dockyards and by direct purchase to Imperial ships, and also to His Majesty's dockyard in Bermuda. The value of stock held at the dockyards has averaged well over $600,000, and the total issues, not including fuel or fresh provisions, are about three-quarters of a million to date. Supplies, not including fuel, have been made to the Admiralty for various services, including His Majesty's ships and Bermuda dockyards, to the value of approximately $200,000; to the Japanese Government to the value of approximately $30,000, and smaller quantities to the French and Russian Governments and ships of the Royal Australian Navy. Very large quantities of coal have been handled both at Halifax and at Esquimalt, amounting in the case of- Halifax to approximately 150,000 tons, and in the case of Esquimalt to about 40,000 tons. Charters have been entered into with the owners of 18 vessels on the Atlantic coast for various services, including mine-sweeping, patrol and examination services and harbour defence services. In addition 14 large motor launches have been chartered

for patrol service in the gulf of St. Lawrence and on the Atlantic coast, and five for similar work on the Pacific coast. Supply depots have been arranged as necessary at convenient points on the coast for the use of patrol vessels. The arrangements entered into with the Admiralty and the acting Director Overseas Transport have been continued in force and considerably enlarged. There are now in the Canadian transport service about 75 fine modern ships carrying supplies. Up to the close of navigation at Montreal over 300,000 tons of freight had been handled by this service, and the monthly tonnage exported will reach, it is expected, 150,000 tons per month in the near future. In the month of February alone, at the ports of Halifax and St. John, 138,000 tons of freight was shipped. The Canadian Transport Service is maintained on the following basis:	The Admiralty supply the necessary tonnage and advise the department from time to time of contracts entered into for delivery at [DOT]Canadian ports by the Imperial Government.
This department is a medium of communication in all matters affecting the service. The acting Director of Overseas Transport has immediate charge of the organization of the loading of the ships, and the arrangements by which the material reaches the seaboard. He reports to the department the cargoes loading in each ship, which are in turn communicated to the Admiralty. These arrangements have worked smoothly and without friction. There has been little or no delay occasioned any of the ships. Contracts for coal have been maintained on favourable terms and up to December 31st, coal to the extent of over $400,000, had. been purchased on behalf of this service in Canada.
In addition to the export work of the Transport Service, this department has arranged for the shipment of over forty cargoes of timber, aggregating about 125,000,000 feet, from the ports of Quebec, Gaspe, Chatham, St. John, Halifax, and from British Columbia ports, to European ports on 'behalf of the Imperial Government. And whereas, at one time, it was feared that it would be impossible to obtain tonnage enough to carry across the sea the munitions of war and goods required-hay, oats, and other products of Canada-that idea has been absolutely dispersed. There have been plenty of transports during the winter for these purposes, and they have 106
been able to handle all the cargoes that the railways have been able to deliver for them at the different ports. I am sorry to have to inform the House that last night a vessel at St. John that was loaded with a cargo for Australia was burned. There were no munitions of war in the cargo and no goods for the Allies. The vessel was loaded with motor cars, carbide, paper, and other articles of commercial value. The fire which broke out some time early Sunday was supposed to have been absolutely extinguished, but early this morning an explosion occurred in the ves* sel, with the result that the captain was killed and the vessel sank to the bottom of the water at the face of the dock. I understand that the explosion was caused by the water that was poured into the vessel for the purpose of extinguishing the. flames coming into contact with the carbide. This generated gases and caused the explosion. While the loss of life and the loss of the vessel and its cargo are unfortunate, one of the most unfortunate results is that for the rest of the season the dock, which was sorely needed for the loading of vessels to go across the seas, will be practically useless. The dock is controlled, I believe, by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. The difficulty will be to remove the vessel before navigation opens on the St. Lawrence in order that vessels may lay at the dock and receive cargoes. The occurrence is one which is very much regretted, particularly at the present time. No injury was done to the dock or to the sheds upon it; all injury was confined to the vessel itself.


William Pugsley: Will the minister kindly state to the House the rates of freight for merchandise which is carried upon vessels under the control of the Admiralty? How do the rates compare with what they were before the war broke out?


John Douglas Hazen: As I understand the matter, the goods to be loaded on these transports are delivered at the dock; they are then carried across the ocean for the British Government. I do not think that the rate of freight is an important consideration, because it is paid by the British Government in respect of all munitions of war and other goods sent across the water. I am speaking of transports carrying munitions of war, of which there are seventy-five, and all goods required [DOT]foT the British Government and for the Allies for the purposes of the war.


William Pugsley: Do I understand that all these vessels which are under the control of the Naval Service, are owned by the British Government?


John Douglas Hazen: They are not owned by the British Government, but they have been requisitioned or commandeered by the British Government for this purpose. Vessels belonging to our own people in Canada have been requisitioned; vessels owned by companies in St. John and by the Dominion Coal Company have been requisitioned. Vessels owned all over the country, not only in Canada, but in other parts of the Empire, have been requisitioned for similar purposes.


William Pugsley: You have nothing to do with the rate of freight?


John Douglas Hazen: No. There are vessels, too, for carrying lumber requisitioned by the British Government. I understand that in New Brunswick there is a great deal of lumber on the wharves that has actually been paid for, but which has not yet gone overseas. In due course that will be sent for and taken away. Lumber will be sent from Chatham, and from other north shore ports. During the winter large quantities of lumber are sent from St. John and Halifax for the British Government. The lumber is sold to be delivered on this side of the water-payable on delivery at the wharf-and the freight is paid by the British Government.
I did intend to-night to make a statement of considerable length to the House,' in more exact terms than the statement that I have made, regarding the activities of the Naval Service Department in relation to the war since the war broke out. As the hon. member for Pictou has seen fit to attack the Naval Service and to say that it has done nothing in connection with the war; as he has seen fit to complain because we had policemen instead of naval men to guard the dockyard at Halifax, in which respect we followed the example of the Imperial dockyards; at the risk of being somewhat tiresome, perhaps I had better make this statement to the House. Perhaps no better opportunity of doing so will present itself than is presented on the present occasion. I presume that my hon. friend in making this motion was actuated not so much by a desire to have the correspondence brought down as by a desire to have the opportunity of expressing his views with regard to the sins of commission of the Naval Service since the war broke out.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I did not assume that my hon. friend was going to make the statement to which he refers; I had thought that he would do that when in Committee of Supply. I did not make this motion for any other purpose than that which I stated in the few remarks that I made when I presented the motion to the House. My object was to see all the correspondence that can be brought down between this Government and the Imperial Government in regard to the reason why we are not sending men to the navy, as Newfoundland, South Africa and Australia are doing; also to ascertain the exact position of Canada on the sea today.


John Douglas Hazen: I accept at once the statement of the hon. member for Pictou, but perhaps this would be as good an occasion as any to give the House a very frank and somewhat comprehensive statement of what the Department of the Naval Service has done in relation to the war since it broke out. I may say that preparations having previously-


William Pugsley: I should like to have
Your Honour's ruling upon the question of how a general statement of what the Naval Service has been doing has to do with the motion of the hon. member for Pictou, which is:
For a return showing a list of vessels, belonging to the Canadian Government which are on service under the provision of the Canadian Naval Act, and of all vessels not now in service and their present condition and suitability for service, and also for a copy of all letters, petitions or communications had by or With the Government in regard to the establishment of a Canadian naval brigade.
I am unable to see how the matters with which my hon. friend, purposes dealing are relevant to this motion. I think it would be' very much better if my hon. friend would not insist upon our exercising the courtesy which, perhaps, we should be glad to extend under ordinary circumstances, and make his statement when going into supply on the Naval Estimates, when the matter may be fully discussed. I am sure that if any private members were to proceed along the same line as that suggested by the hon. minister, you, Sir, would at once feel it your duty to call us to order; to rule that we were going too far afield in attempting to deal with the various matters that my hon. friend now purposes to deal with under this motion.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. member for Pictou went fully into the whole

scope of the Naval Service and its alleged deficiencies. I think the minister, under the circumstances, would be quite in order in making a statement as to what the Naval Service has done.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I said nothing about the commandeering of vessels, or about dockyards.


William Pugsley: When we were discussing some matters the other day several members spoke, and, my hon. friend the Minister of Labour departed from the motion before the House. I followed him, and all at once my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, not improperly at all, suggested that we had better confine ourselves to the subject before the committee. The Chairman, although two or three members had been allowed-as no objection had been made-to discuss irrevelant matters, deemed it his duty to round us up, so to speak, and bring us back to where we belonged.


Robert Rogers: The hon. gentleman is entirely in error in the statement that he has just made. I called the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that he was dealing with Estimates of the Labour Department as if we were in committee, while as a matter of fact the Speaker was actually in the Ohair. I simply suggested that the House be put in order; that the Speaker leave the Chair, and that we go into Committee of Supply, so that the hon. gentleman could make the five, six, seven, or eight speeches that he attempted to make and did, make on that occasion. .It was only to put the House in order that I made the suggestion.


William Pugsley: Perhaps I am wrong then in saying it was the Minister of Public Works, perhaps it was the chairman who did it. At all events I know I was brought to book, even although I was following alone the lines of the Minister of Labour; the chairman thought the discussion had gone far enough and he called me to order. I could not argue that the matter was relevant to the motion before the committee, and had to yield to the ruling of the chairman. I am sure that if any private member were_ to follow along the lines indicated by the Minister of Marine the Speaker would feel bound, very early in the discussion, to call him to order.


John Douglas Hazen: I have no desire to violate or even to trespass on the rules of the 1061
House. But in this House I have always observed that on an application made for papers relative to any particular subject it has been open to any one speaking to the motion, to deal generally with the subject to which the papers related, and the statement I purposed making to-night as to the activities of the Naval Service would have been no more than an answer to the attack of the hon. member for Pietou (Mr. Macdonald) upon the Naval Department for its alleged lack of activity. I would submit that I am quite in order, although at the same time, if there is any doubt about it, I shall at once take my seat without dealing with that branch of the subject, as I have no desire to infringe upon the rules of the House. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, (Mr. Blain), as you are occupying the Chair only temporarily, it would be better not to put you to the necessity of ruling on a point of this sort on which there might be some difference of opinion. I have never seen such a point taken in the House before. As a rule there has been a wish on the part of the House to allow members to deal fully with any subject before it, as long as they confined their remarks to matters pertinent or relating to the particular subjects involved in the resolution. In this resolution the subject involved is undoubtedly the activities of the Naval Service, and so I think I am strictly in order; but as the point has been taken, and as I have already occupied a greater time than I intended to I shall not press the matter at this stage. My reason for speaking at such length was the unfounded attack of the hon. member for Pietou upon the work of the Naval Department since the breaking out of the war. I will only say, on behalf of the Naval Department, that I am prepared now or at any other time to fully justify what it has done, and to demonstrate to the people of this country that that department has faithfully discharged the onerous duties imposed upon it, and that what it has done has been in the public interest, and has been done, in most cases, with the full co-operation of and after consultation with the Admiralty; and that the Department is prepared to continue to the end of the war to do all it can under existing circumstances to bring the war to a successful termination and to assist in maintaining the supremacy of the British navy upon the high seas.


William Pugsley: When I ventured tr
point out to the Minister of Marine that ] thought he was proposing to depart from

the resolution before the House,.
10 p.m. it was not, I can assure him, and I can assure you, with any idea of permanently preventing the minister from making the fullest statement he might desire to make to the House. But it occurred to me that .the proper time for such a statement would be when he comes to submit his Naval Estimates to the House, and then we would have a field day upon it. I would like to be able to talk for some little time upon that question, and I think it would not be very difficult to convince the people of this country, if we cannot convince the majority of the members of the House, that the Naval Department had absolutely fallen down so far as giving effective aid to the Empire or to Canada in connection with the war is concerned. In making his motion the hon. member for Pictou very properly called attention to the fact that when the war broke out the Niobe was out of commission. It is a fact which is known to the whole nation that at that time the tubes of the boilers had actually been filled with some sort of material to prevent them rusting, with the idea that the vessel would not be required at any time in the near future, and that all of this material had to be extracted after the war broke out, an operation which took weeks to accomplish. Thus, while, if the Niobe had been in commission, she might have performed most useful service in capturing valuable German prizes, she was absolutely of no value to the Empire. My hon. friend knows also that, in the year 1913, a report was brought down to this House having reference to the men who were on Board the Niobe, and making it public that they had been, by tacit consent, permitted to discharge themselves and to leave the vessel and go out of the service of His Majesty, and that no effort was made to retain them in the service. In the report of the Department of the Naval Service for the year ending 31st March, 1914, signed by the director of the Naval Service, Vice-Admiral Kingsmill, I find this extraordinary statement, which is not at all in harmony with the statement of the minister to-night:
The Government having decided not to continue His Majesty's ships Niobe and Rainbow in full commission, no recruiting was carried on during the year, and the programme of exercises and training laid down for these ships was not continued.
Is there there a suggestion that the Niobe was laid up because she had to go into dry dock or because she was not fit for service? There is no suggestion of that

kind by Vice-Admiral Kingsmill. Yet, in the face of that report, my hon. friend said to-night that this Government knew, and had known almost since they came into office, that danger was imminent.
In 1913, the naval discussion took place in this House, and. my right hon. friend the Prime Minister stated that in imagination he heard the distant booming of cannon, and the roaring of guns; that he almost felt that a great Empire war was at hand. Notwithstanding the fact that during the three years since he has pretended to this House-I do not use the word pretended in a harsh sense at all-that the Government had had foT a time reason to believe that danger was imminent, we find that in respect to those two ships, one upon the Atlantic, and the other upon the Pacific, the Director of the Naval Service says that the Government having decided not to continue them in special commission, no recruiting had been carried on during the year. The result was that when war broke out, the Niobe was unfit for service. Had she been fit for service, German vessels of great value might have been seized by her, and she might have done most effective work for Canada and the Empire. But she was not in condition to go to sea, and so it was with regard to the Rainbow. From this statement, she was not fully equipped, because recruiting had not been continued, and no effective efforts hud been made to keep her in full commission. Sir, had it not been for the presence in the Pacific Ocean of a Japanese cruiser which was prepared to guard the western coast of Canada, it is just possible that very serious damage might have been done to the cities upon the coast of British Columbia. Fortunately, it happened that the prediction of my right hen. friend, now the leader of the Opposition, made some years ago and when he was so strongly criticised because he attempted to icome to a friendly understanding with Japan, that the time might come when the ships of Britain and the ships of Japan vould be found side by side in the harbours of Victoria and Vancouver, was practically realized. It was, I believe, because a Japanese cruiser was there that v/e are in a position to-day to be thankful that the cities on the British Columbia coast were not attacked by German cruisers.
This report of Admiral Kingsmill proceeds-and you will see how it varies from the statement by the hon. minister tonight.

During the year, free discharge was given to those Canadians who entered the service as hoys and wished to avail themselves of the offer; In addition, many of the ranks and ratings lent from the Imperial Service have completed their engagement under the Canadian Government and returned to England, without being replaced, with the result that at present the ships are only manned by sufficient crew to keep them in good order and such state that, should they be required for sea service at any time, they could be placed in full commission without undue delay.
There is no suggestion there that the Niobe was not fit to be placed in commission; no suggestion that, if properly manned, she would not be able to do effective work. My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has, most unfairly, I think, and in the most partisan spirit that I have seen displayed, during this session of Parliament, accused the Liberal party of deliberately preventing Canada from doing her part in the defence of the Empire by providing ships of war. He has charged, most unfairly, that not only did the Liberal party do what it could to present the Government's naval measure from passing in the House of Commons, but that the leader of the Liberal party exercised his influence in the Senate to prevent the passing of the Naval Bill which the Government by means of the closure had forced through the House of Commons. I say that that statement is absolutely urn founded. I do not believe that eitheT my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition, or'any other member of the Liberal party ever exercised, or sought to exercise, the slightest influence upon any member of the Senate in respect to that Bill. I venture to say that my hon. friend the Minister of Naval Affairs has not a tittle of evidence upon which to found the extraordinary statement which he has mad,e tonight, and here, as a member of the Libera] party in this House, I challenge him to produce his authority for the statement he has made that the Liberal leader, or Liberal members of this House, went to the Senate and sought to induce the -members of that body to prevent the passage of the measure referred to. The statement, Sir, is unworthy of a gentleman occupying the high and, honourable position of minister of one of the most important departments of this Government. In the presence of the minister, who was not present when I made the statement a moment ago, I again challenge him to give to this House the authority upon which he made the extraordinary and unfounded statement that the Liberal leader, or any member of the Liberal party went to the Senate and used the slightest influence of any kind or description, directly or indirectly, upon members of the Senate in the action which they took upon that measure.
As my hon. friend has made a campaign speech to-night, in the most unfair way, and, as I have said, in the most partisan spirit, to influence the people of this country during this time of war and stress against the Liberal party by reason of its action with reference to the Naval Bill, let me remind him that what the Liberal party did was to propose and to support an amendment in this House which left the Government free to establish a naval unit, both upon the Atlantic and the Pacific, which would be available for the defence of Canada, and which would be at once placed at the service of the Empire in time of war. In 1913 the Bill, which this Government introduced, was defeated by the Senate, which simply adopted a resolution that before the country should make a contribution to the Imperial Government, contrary to what had been the understanding among public men on both sides in this country, the question should be submitted to the people. It would not have taken long. If hon. gentlemen upon the other side believed that the Empire was in danger, and that the granting of three dreadnoughts would be a means of saving the Empire, why did they not act upon the request of the Senate and submit the question to the people of this country? It would not have taken more than six weeks to decide the question; and yet they say that they thought it was of vast importance to the Empire that these dreadnoughts should be given. They did not dare to trust the question to the people of this country. There was something else that they did not dare to do. They did not dare to keep the promise which they had made to their Nationalist supporters in the province of Quebec. They had promised them that they would repeal the Naval Service Act. In the province of Quebec, from platform to platform, they went declaring that if the Conservative party were returned to power, almost the first step which would be taken would be the introduction of a measure to repeal the Naval Service Act. Sir, the Naval Service Act is upon the Statutes to-day, just as it left the hands of the Liberal party in 1910. As my hon. friend from Piotou (Mr. Macdonald) says: The department over which my hon. friend presides could not do anything to-day were it not for the Naval Ser-


Robert Rogers: Owing to the action of the Senate.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend knows
very well what took place with regard to the building of war vessels. I was surprised to hear him say that our Government had kept the tenders^ for the building of the ten war vessels dangling before the people of this country, making people of different constituencies believe that the vessels were to be built at different places in Canada, in order to secure their favour and sup- -port.


Robert Rogers: That is what you told us yourself.


William Pugsley: I did not.


Robert Rogers: It is a matter of public record .


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is entirely wrong. He does not know the meaning of language when he says that. What I said was that the Naval Department called for tenders for the building of ten war vessels on the Atlantic coast. The only condition attached to the tenders was that the vessels were to be built so that there would be no violation of the compact which exists between Canada and the United States. Tenders were called, and the tenderers were allowed to select their own port for building. Some tenderers were in favour of Halifax, some in favour of Sydney, some in favour of Montreal, some in favour of Quebec, and one at least was in favour of building at the port of St. John. I am referring to Oammell, Laird & Company. What I said the other night-and I am surprised that the Minister of Public Works did not take a correct view of the statement which I made-was that these tenders were necessarily under consideration for quite a period. I told him that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries took the tenders to England and consulted the Admiralty with regard to the whole question, including the reliability of the various tenderers. Almost immediately after he came back, Parliament was dissolved. We did not deal with the question, of course, during the general election, but after the election the question came up as to what action should be taken. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries, who

had the tenders under consideration and had gone over the whole matter very carefully decided that the tender of Cammell, Laird & Company was the lowest. Their tender was to build the vessels at St. John, and my hon. friend knows it well. The records prove absolutely the truth of what I say. When my hon. friend came into office he found in his department the tenders of the various companies. He found that the deposits of all the tenderers, with the exception of Cammell, Laird & Company, had been returned; their deposit being still on hand as security for the performance of the contract.


John Douglas Hazen: How does the hon. gentleman reconcile that with the statement made by his leader in Parliament; that if the Government of which my hon. friend was a member had continued in power, those vessels would have been under construction at the city of Montreal?


William Pugsley: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, the right hon. leader of the Opposition never made that statement.


John Douglas Hazen: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon, he did.


William Pugsley: I say he did not.


John Douglas Hazen: I say he did.


William Pugsley: I say he did not, and I can say it with a far greater appearance of truth than my hon. friend can.


John Douglas Hazen: I think those who know
my hon. friend will accept my statement as truthful quite as readily as his.


The SPEAKER:: Order.


William Pugsley: When my hon. friend so far forgets himself as to tell me or any hon. member of this House that he is not telling the truth, I think he ought to be asked to sit down until he gets in a calmer frame of mind.


John Douglas Hazen: I am in as calm a frame of mind as my hon. friend. I asked him how it came that his -right hon. leader made that statement and he said that his hon. leader did not make it.


William Pugsley: He did not.


John Douglas Hazen: I say he did. I have heard him make it, and it is on the record that he made it.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is entirely wrong. What the right hon. leader of the Opposition said was that if this Government had gone on with the Naval Service Act there would have been war
vessels built at the port, of Montreal. He was referring to this Government entirely. Let me say this, further, to my hon. friend: when the	minister	had decided that the	Cammell, Laird &
Company tender was the lowest, and that they were to build at the port of St. John, no leader of mine would have been sufficiently strong or have had sufficient influence to prevent my resenting such an injustice as passing over the lowest tenderer.
In that event, I would have had but one duty to perform, namely, to have gone back to my constituents and surrendered to them the trust which they had reposed in me, and said that I could no longer support a leader who could do such a rank injustice to any part of this country. Therefore, if I had been in my hon. friend's place, coming into office as Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the man who must initiate proposals to his colleagues, if I had submitted that proposal showing that Cammell, Laird & Company were the lowest tenderers proposing to establish a great shipyard and to build warships in my own constituency, if my leader then had said to me, as his leader must have said to my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries:	"Oh,
we cannot go on with the building of warships because we are pledged to the Nationalist party of Canada not to do it; Mr. Minister, you must return to Cammell, Laird & 'Company their .deposit What would have been my duty? It would have been to have left the Government, resigned my seat, and told the people of St. John that my constituency had been treated with rank injustice by my leader, and that I could no longer support him. Cammell, Laird & Company proposed to build at the port of St. John ten war vessels, four of them cruisers, three, I think, torpedo boat destroyers, and three of another class. My hon. friend knows that they were, because he has in his department all the papers, including the tender of Cammell, Laird & Company, from which he will see that every word I state is absolutely true. A considerable time before the war broke out, they would have-had, under the contract, at least two cruisers afloat prepared to do their part for the defence of Canada and of the Empire, because they were to have had two cruisers completed in three years and the whole contract completed in six years, Even although it would have been in the comparatively small city of St. John that the shipyard would have

been established, would it not have been a glorious thing for Canada that we would have had the vessels afloat; that we would have been in the same position as Australia is in to-day, that we would have been taking our part in the defence of our trade routes, protecting our transports and doing that work which Great Britain and Australia are to-ddy compelled to do for us? Would it not have been a glorious page that Canada would have written? And perhaps if we had had two of those cruisers afloat, they might have performed deeds just as magnificent as those which the Australian ship Sydney performed on the Pacific ocean.


George Perry Graham: What about the submarines?


William Pugsley: The Government would also have been saved the necessity of buying those submarines, in regard- to which my hon. friend made to the British Government a statement which must disturb his conscience whenever he thinks of it, and which Mr. Plaza, the naval expert of the Chilean Government, said had not a tittle of foundation. My hon. friend will find on record that he sent a cablegram to the British Admiralty stating that the Chilean Government found themselves unable to take over those ships. I do not say that he deliberately misled the British Admiralty, but he was misled by that astonishing statesman who, for so many years, ruled the destinies of British Columbia, and who left that fair and rich province which, a few years ago, was supposed to have boundless resources, on the very brink of poverty and bankruptcy. It was that statesman who sent my hon. friend-that telegram which caused him to mislead the British authorities. Had he not been so misled, he would have been saved the necessity of going through that experience of buying for $1,150,000 two submarines which were to be built for the Chilean Government at a contract price of only $818,000, which were obsolete and incapable of passing the examination, and which the Chilean experts had rejected.


John Douglas Hazen: I thought those cruisers were for use on the Atlantic.
Mr: PUGSLEY: Those cruisers would have been available at whatever part of the coast of Canada it was thought desirable to place them; they would have belonged equally to all parts of Canada and they could have been sent wherever the Canadian Government or the British Admiralty thought well to send them. What position would Canada have been in were it not for what the 
Liberal party had done when it was in power? I called attention the other day to the entire failure of this Government to do anything to encourage the building of mercantile ships in Canada. They have seen, week after week, and month after month, since this war began, the shipping of Canada declining and the rates of transportation upon our- wheat, cattle, and lumber going up by leaps and bounds, until to-day they are a thousand, per cent greater than when the war broke out. My hon. friend knows what opportunities there are for building ships upon both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts, and yet this Government are not taking a single step to encourage the building of ships. What have they done so far as war vessels are concerned? Were it not for the shiprepairing and shipbuilding, plants established at the port of Montreal by Vickers, Maxim & Company, under a contract which I made with that firm when I was Minister of Public Works, there would not be a single war vessel constructed in Canada since the war began. But dwing to what we did there, Vickers, (Maxim & Company have been able to repair war vessels as well as mercantile ships, and under a contract amounting to $10,000,000 given by the British Government to that much despised Fore River Shipbuilding Company, which my hon. friend three years ago said was in bankruptcy, that firm came ever, and, through Mr. Schwab, the millionaire, made an arrangement with Vickers-Maxim, under which a number of submarines were, within six months, constructed at the port of Montreal. I am proud that I, as Minister of Public Works in a Liberal Government, was the means of creating that magnificent establishment, which is an honour to the port of Montreal and a credit to the people of Canad.a, and which has been doing effective work for the Empire since the war began. We have a pretty good record in that respect, whereas the record of this Government could be shown upon one page, which, after you had written the whole record, would be absolutely blank. It is no pleasure to me to refer to these matters; but just before I take my seat I want to say that it is not a pleasing spectacle to have gentlemen on the other side, one after another, saying: "Oh, this is a time for party peace; this is a time when no one should criticise the Government, when no one should seek to create amongst the people of this country any want of confidence in this Government," and then to have my

hon. friend, one of the most influential members of the Government, make the most partisan speech which I have heard in this House for a number of sessions, raising the old issue of the naval question, charging us, as I have said, with improperly influencing the Senate and preventing that most extraordinary, and, shall I say, most iniquitous measure from becoming law. But let me tell the hon. gentleman that if he and his Government are determined to make these attacks upon us and upon our action in the past, which action we believe was influenced by patriotism and a sense of the duty we owe to this country and the Empire, we shall be prepared to meet them. He tells you, Mr. Speaker, that his Government could not have been wrong in 1913 because what they proposed to do had the full approval of the British Admiralty. And who was the spokesman for the British Admiralty at that time? Mr. Winston Churchill, the gentleman who is supposed to have brought disaster upon the British forces at the Dardanelles, the gentleman who, is held by many of the best-thinking people in England to be largely responsible for many of the disasters that have befallen the British Empire since this war began. He is the gentleman who actually thought that we could not build ships in this country because a firm foundation was required upon which to lay the keels-a statement that seemed to be approved by the Prime Minister, because he read Mr. Churchill's letter to the House, and apparently with approval. The right hon. gentleman (Sir Robert Borden) also read to this House, apparently with approval, the statement of Mr. Churchill that we could not build ships in this country because, forsooth, we required rivetters, and he did not know that [DOT] there were any rivetters to be got in Canada. Then too-ye gods ! think of it, Mr. Speaker -this gentleman, upon whose statement the Minister of the Naval Service relies, said that we could not build war vessels in Canada because cranes would be required lifting as much as a hundred and fifty tons. Why, even in the railway shops at Moncton you can find cranes that will lift the 90-ton locomotives as I would lift an envelope, and put it wherever it is required. Yet, the insuperable objection to building warships in Canada, according to Mr. Churchill, was that we had not heavy enough cranes. He is the gentleman who asked this Government to go back upon what Canada and Australia had agreed upon in 1909, and to reverse the naval
policy of the Empire. And this is the infallible statesman upon whose judgment they felt safe in' relying, and so placed the country in the humiliating position in which it stands to-day. I regret it, and I think all the best people in this country regret it also.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not purpose to follow the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) in his attack upon Mr. Churchill. That right hon. gentleman is eminently capable of speaking for himself, and his record qf accomplishment for the naval defence of the Empire will dwell in the memory of men, long after the futile and inconsiderable efforts of my hon., friend from St. John, shall have passed into deserved oblivion. I would like to correct him, however, in saying that the memorandum which was placed before this Parliament in the autumn of 1912 was from Mr. Churchill. It was not from Mr. Churchill but from the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, and the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty consist of the First Lord and at least four or five Sea Lords. They are technical men who are supposed to-know, and who I have no doubt do know, probably as well as my hon. friend, the needs of naval defence throughout the Empire, and the best course to be taken by any dominion of the Empire for giving the assistance which was then suggested. My hon. friend has endeavoured to pump up a little enthusiasm about the course he and his friends took in 1912 and 1913. He found it very difficult indeed to create any enthusiasm in his own mind, and still more difficult to create even the semblance of enthusiasm among the hon. gentlemen who sit behind him. But I think this may at least be said for the hon. gentleman that he is entitled, perhaps more than any other of them, to the glory, or whatever it may be, of preventing three Canadian dreadnoughts from flying the British flag to-day and assisting in the defence of the Empire. If he is still disposed to take pride in this-as apparently he does, for he said that the measure proposed by this Government for that purpose was one of the most iniquitous measures ever presented in this House, thus glorying in the defeat of ^ the attempt to enable Canada to participate in the naval defence of the Em-pbe he is entitled to all that glory if it is any satisfaction to him. It is a remark able spectacle for an hon. gentleman on that side to rise and ask why Canada was doing so little at th-e present -time in

the naval defence of the whole Empire. If the measure which my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) so deliberately and persistently obstructed, had passed the Senate, there would have been, a year ago, three ships, as powerful as any in the world, ready to assist the rest of the Empire's Navy in preserving the common rights and institutions and liberties of the whole .'Empire. That there is no such ship to-day is due to my hon. friend from St. John and to is friends, and to no one else. And -when he suggested there was an alternative proposition from the other side of the House in amendment to the Government measure, he conveniently forgets that the amendment proposed to postpone any action whatever until after a general election should be held in Canada.


William Pugsley: I do not think I proposed that, nor that any one else proposed it.


Robert Laird Borden: Does not the hon. member remember the terms of the amendment?	'


William Pugsley: I do not think that was in it.


Robert Laird Borden: He may not think so, but that does not alter the fact that it was in it. His memory is not so good on this as on some other points. I have a distinct recollection that the proposals offered by hon. gentlemen opposite involved the postponement of action until after the general election.


William Pugsley: Has the right hon. gentleman the record there?


Robert Laird Borden: No, but I will get it.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Did not the Prime Minister say that if his proposition was not accepted by the House, he would appeal to the country on it?


Robert Laird Borden: I had said before, in the autumn of 1910, that I would do precisely what I did, that is, invoke the advice of the Admiralty and bring their advice to Parliament as a temporary measure. I went to the Admiralty and obtained their advice; that advice was given to the Parliament of Canada by the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty in these words:
The Prime Minister of the Dominion having inquired in what form any immediate aid that Canada might give would be most effective, we have no hesitation in answering, after a prolonged consideration of all the circumstances, that it is desirable that such aid should include

the provision of a certain number of the largest and strongest ships of war which science can build or money supply.
I brought that proposal to the House not as a permanent measure, but as a temporary measure. I told the House at that time that before the Government of Canada brought down a permanent measure for the co-operation of Canada in the naval defence of the Empire, we would submit a proposal to Parliament and to the people of Canada in order that they might know what the proposal was, and in order that they might exercise the right which they undoubtedly had of passing upon that proposal. That was a very clear, definite and * plain proposal; one which we endeavoured to .carry out so far as we were enabled to do so in the face of the opposition of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House. Further than that, in 1914, immediately before the war broke out, we had made arrangements, in connection with the formulation of a permanent policy that Admiral Sir John Jellicoe, now commander in Chief of the British Fleet, should come to Canada for the purpose of consulting with us. Everything was arranged as to his visit here except the exact date, .but the breaking out of the war in August, 1914, prevented him from coming to Canada, as he had immediately to assume the responsible duties of Commander in Chief of the British Navy, which otherwise he would not have assumed until the following November or December.
Hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House may very property desire to recede somewhat from the attitude which they took in 1912 and 1913. The hon. member for St. John showed a disposition to do that to-night. Hon. gentlemen were very merry in 1912, 1913, and 1914 at the idea that any danger confronted this Empire. If- any hon, gentlemen on this side of the House, having, regard to the conditions, which were pretty well understood in Europe, and fairly understood, perhaps, on this side of the Atlantic as well, ventured to address a word of warning to the people of this country as to the necessity of Canada's doing something to aid in the common defence of the Empire, his remarks were the subject of merriment and of jest on the part of hon. gentlemen on t'he other side of the House, and by no one more than by the hon. member for St. John, who vigorously applauded his leader when only six and a half months before the outbreak of the war the policy

and the view of the Liberal party were expressed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition in these words:
X do not charge any Intention of deceit on the part of the Prime Minister in this regard, but I will charge deceit if, in the face of this evidence, we again hear of such a thing as an emergency.
That was six and a half months before the thunderbolt of war came upon this Dominion and this Empire. The right hon. gentleman continued in these words:
The German peril has disappeared, if, indeed, there ever was such a thing.
An absolute assurance to the people of [DOT]this country, given upon what evidence I do not know, that there was not the slightest danger of war between our Empire and Germany. Then he continued:
We know now how much the country and the Empire and the civilized world has been deceived upon that question of so-called emergency.
My hon. friends on the other side of the House are not prepared to cheer these words now as they did cheer them at the time that they were uttered. I well remember the thunderous applause which greeted every line that I have read when these words were uttered by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition. Then he continued as follows:
The Bill which was brought in last session, the Naval Aid Bill, was not even a, measure of emergency, although it was so-called. They introduced it upon the shallow pretence of emergency.
Tremendous cheers from hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House at that tiriie -but a depressing silence at present. Then the right hon. gentleman continued:
Emergency? Who speaks to-day of an emergency? Twelve months have passed since my right hon. friend the Prime Minister introduced his measure. Twelve months and more have passed since that time when he saw the German peril. He saw Germany almost ready to jump at the throat of Great Britain.
And when my right hon. friend the leader of the Opposition reached that point in his remarks, his speech was interrupted by deafening applause which prevented him from continuing for some moments. Then, referring to myself, he continued as follows:
He saw clouds on the horizon, rent by lightning, and heard the murmurs and rumbling of cannon. But my right hon. friend to-day may live in peace. The climate is moderate and the sky is clear.
And within six and a half months after these words were uttered and that vain assurance had been given by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, this
Empire was involved in the present struggle. The right hon. gentleman continued his remarks in the same strain. On many other occasions during that session >the leader of the Liberal party and almost every hon. gentleman on the other side of the House used similar language. They jested at the idea that there was any danger, that there was any emergency, that there was any need. More than that, they said that the navy of Great Britain did not need any assistance. But the hon. member for Pictou this afternoon was greatly distressed because, as he asserts, the navy of the British Empire, although it has been increased beyond measure since the war broke out, is unable to discharge adequately the task of maintaining control of the seas and of protecting our commerce and our shores.
Let me give another illustration of the views of the hon. member for St. Johrp as expressed at that time by his leader. On March 15, 1913, hen the debate upon the Naval Aid Bill of 1912 had proceeded for several months in the face of -unparalleled obstruction, this was the language of the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition:
When, some few months ago, in the earliest days of this session, members who support the Government were told that there was an emer-.gency in the affairs of Great Britain, and that Great Britain should receive the assistance of this country, they did not suspect, I am sure, that before the last vote would he taken they would have in their hands absolute evidence of the falsity of the assertion which was then made.
That is a fair statement of the attitude which hon. gentlemen took on the other side of the House. I observe that the hon. member for Rouville is in his seat. I wonder if I could find an extract from his Observations at that time. Perhaps they might be more productive of cheers and applause than those which I have read from the speeches of his leader. This is a very pregnant utterance of the hon. member for Rouville; I particularly invite attention to the closing sentence:
There seems to he at work, not only in England, hut in Great Britain, silent forces with the object of subduing, or reducing if possible, the greater freedom of the self-governing countries. Those silent forces have been at work very insidiously for the last fifteen or twenty years, never so actively as during the last five or ten years.	,
The present" policy of the Government is said to be the outcome of an emergency.
My hon. friend was endeavouring to bring up the ghost of autonomy, and this

was an attempt to prove that the building of three dreadnoughts by Canada to aid in the common defence of the Empire, the placing of those warships at the disposal of His Majesty the King for that purpose, subject to recall by the people of Canada whenever they chose to recall them, was in , some way a destruction or an impairment of our autonomy. The word autonomy was greatly in the mouths of the hon. gentleman opposite at that time-and I do not wonder that the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) smiles now at the folly of the words which he then uttered. He goes on to say:
That emergency was invented by those silent forces in order to obtain what they have been aiming at during the last twenty years.
You understand the suggestion. There was not any emergency, there was not any danger, there was not any peril. The assertion of danger and peril were due to the influence of those silent forces in Great Britain and in Canada which were aiming to destroy the autonomy of this Dominion. But the last sentence of all is really the gem of that particular utterance:
If you read the press to-day you can scent, so to speak, an alliance between Great Britain and Germany.
I	do not think that my hon. friend, with all the olfactory powers which he possesses, is able to scent very much of such an alliance to-day. Then, again, the hon. member for Rouville devoted himself to the question in one of the numerous debates which took place:
The so-called emergency has petered out.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Is it not a fact that at that time, or shortly before, Lord Haldane and Mr. Winston Churchill himself went to Berlin for the purpose of getting a closer alliance with Germany?


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, it may be so, and in connection with that visit to Berlin it ought also to be remembered that the British Admiralty, consisting of the First Lord and of those technical and naval advisers with him who knew what the conditions were, had, asked us to
II	p.m. provide three of the most
powerful battleships in the world for assistance in the common defence of this Empire. My hon. friend said:
The so-called emergency has petered out I am afraid that the right honourable gentleman is under the influence of the scare-mongers of Great Britain

Well, after all, there is no danger.	-

My hon. friend was perfectly ready, without money and without price, to give this assurance to the people of Canada.
We have the panic-mongers of to-day trying to agitate the dominions; but the papers of yesterday give us the information that, far from fearing a war with Germany, His Majesty the King of Great Britain is sending the Prince of Wales to spend the Easter holidays at Berlin. The emergency and the panic are good for the children, but they will not appeal to the true Britisher or the stout hearted Canadian. All this is being engineered by some interests who control a certain press.
And we have had some information since the outbreak of war as to the message which Lord Haldane brought back from Berlin and as to the view which impressed itself upon the statesmen of Great Britain as. the outcome of- that visit. My hon. friend has no doubt seen, some utterances of the Prime Minister of Great Britain on this subject, made in Wales more than a year ago. I have not the slightest doubt that the message which came to us from the British Government, through the Admiralty, was to some extent influenced by the very fact that the British Government knew more than they thought it discreet or prudent to reveal to the public of Great. Britain, but which they did partially reveal to us, not only in the document laid on the table of the House, but in a certain other document which was communicated to some other hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House and which said far more than the document which has been made public in this country. And it was with that knowledge that certain hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House took their stand upon this question with a view of preventing the people of Canada, the Parliament of Canada, the majority of the Commons of Canada, from carrying out a proposal which as I believed then, and believe now, was undoubtedly in the best interests of this Empire, and which constituted a duty that the people of Canada at that time owed to the whole Empire for the purpose of its common defence. Then my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux) on the 9th day of June, 1914, a little more than a year before the war broke out, said this:
Bast year he (Sir Robert Borden) brought forward his contribution policy to meet an emergency which did not exist, and which has burst like a bubble. That policy made Canada the laughing stock of Great Britain and of all the other Overseas Dominions.
Who thinks of his emergency to-day? I dare say that not one of his blatant jingoes of the city of Toronto believes in that emergency today. It was a scare-line policy to recoup the

jingo capitalists of Winnipeg, Toronto, and Montreal, who had financed the Tory party in 1911 against the farmers, the taxpayers of Canada.
No more mention is made of the $35,000,000 ; the Admiralty does not want our gold any more, the trick has heen played out.
These are samples of the manner in which hon. gentlemen opposite met a proposal which was made in absolute good faith by the present administration to the Parliament of Canada. We went to Great Britain asking fairly, definitely, carefully, for the best opinion of the experts of the Admiralty and of the British Government as to the course which Canada ought to take, having regard to the possible necessity of some immediate steps being necessary for the common defence of this Empire. We came back with that document exactly as they had handed it to us and placed it before Parliament, and based our measure on it. I could give a great many more extracts illustrating the position that hon. gentlemen opposite took with regard to it. Those I have given are, I think, enough. I venture to 'say that *in these circumstances it does hot lie in the mouths of hon. gentlemen opposite to reproach this Government at least with the fact that we have not been able upon the ocean to play the part that Canada, in common with Australia iand New Zealand, ought to have played in this great war. When war broke out, or very shortly after, in 1914, I communicated.with the British Government as to what they desired us to do in this respect. Sir John Jellicoe was not able to come to Canada by reason of the fact that it was necessary for him to assume at once the command of that great fleet which has kept its vigil in the North sea, and which has maintained so close a guard that, with very infrequent exceptions, the whole German navy has been shut up in the Baltic or in the Kiel- canal. As I say, Sir John Jellicoe was not able to come, but I did communicate with the British Government. I asked them this question:	We are proposing to give you
every assistance in our power for the purpose of bringing this war to an honourable and triumphant conclusion; is it your desire that we should endeavour to assist in naval affairs, or do you desire that we should confine our efforts to raising forces in order that we might assist you in that way. The answer which I received from the British Government was this: They preferred that the effort- of iCanada should be devoted to the raising of military forces, to dispatching them across the ocean, to sending them with the other forces of the Empire to meet
the enemy at the front. And for that reason, since the opening of the war, we have not embarked upon any proposal to acquire ships, or to do anything in a great way in the naval line. We have devoted our energies and our efforts to raising military forces according to the expressed desire of the British Government.
So, we have a very clear conscience as to our efforts in this war; a very clear conscience as to the effort which we made in 1912-13 to assist in the naval defence of the Empire by the provision of the three ships. That effort, unfortunately, was not successful, for the reasons which I have mentioned. But in the line along which our efforts in this war have been directed, 1 venture to think that, during the past 18 or 19 months, we have accomplished very much more than any one of us would have believed possible on the 4th day of August, 1914. We sent, in the first instance, within six weeks after the outbreak of the war, 30,000 men, and, within about two months ot the time when hostilities broke out, they were across the Atlantic. Since that time, the total enlistments in Caflada have run up to 275,000 men, and the troops have gone forward, fully armed and equipped and in most cases, organized in every branch of the service. More than that, when they have gone to the front, they have shown themselves worthy, both of the great cause for which they are fighting, and of this Dominion which sent them forth to do battle, not only for the liberties of Canada and of the Empire but for the liberties of the whole world.
J


Mr. W. F. CARROLL (-South Cape Breton):: It is perhaps rather unfortunate that at this stage of the session, this particular question should have aroused such partisanship in this Assembly. I am not going to say who may, or who may not have been in fault in promoting this partisanship. My hon. friend from Pictou has moved a resolution asking:
For a return showing a list of vessels, belonging to the Canadian Government which are on service under the provision of the Canadian Naval Act, and of all vessels not now in service and their present condition and suitability for service, and also for a copy of all letters, petitions or communications had by or with the Government in regard to the establishment of a Canadian naval brigade.
The most of us know fairly well what that list of vessels is, and the most of us also know that that list of vessels is too small for Canada at the present time. The

right hon. leader of the Government has made a very serious charge against the hon. member for St. John. He has charged that hon. member with having obstructed the promotion by the Government of its naval policy. He said further that had it not been for the hon. member for St. John, this country would, at the present time, be represented in the British Navy by three dreadnoughts, which would be of great assistance to the Motherland.
May I make a charge against the Government? May I charge the Government with being remiss in their duty in not having this country defended at the present time by seven fast cruisers, with the usual auxiliaries to cruisers? May I charge this Government with negligence . in this matter, because if they had followed the programme laid down in the Naval Act, and by the Liberal Government in 1911, we would have had our coasts guarded at this present moment by seven fast cruisers and the necessary auxiliaries? My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has spoken of emergencies, and from the hand-book which he held in his hand, and which, I have no doubt, was intended for the use of Conservative speakers during the campaign which it was thought would probably take place some time ago, he quoted from speeches of hon. members on this side of the House to the effect that there was no emergency. What did all this talk of emergency mean? Where did the emergency exist? In the naval debate in this House, and I watched it very carefully, the emergency was supposed to be in the North sea, and this Government proposed to meet that emergency by giving three dreadnoughts to the British navy. Has there been an emergency in the North sea since this war commenced? Is there an emergency in the North sea to-day? Are the dreadnoughts and cruisers of Great Britain not quite capable of handling any emergency that exists in the North sea to-day? At the present time, the battle ships of Germany are imprisoned in the Kiel canal, thanks to the efficiency and capability of the British Navy in the North sea. If there is an emergency at the present time in regard to the navy of the Empire, that emergency exists off the coasts of Canada;,; because it is a notorious fact that, since the war commenced, the coasts of Canada have not been defended.
My hon. friend spoke of the British Admiralty having prepared a memorandum

which had been brought down in this House. But that was not the first memorandum from the British Admiralty that had been brought down with regard to the Empire's defence on the seas, and to the defence, that would be contributed to the Empire by the overseas dominions. In 1910 or 1911, there was a conference in Great Britain, and a memorandum was drawn up. My hon. friend from Pictou-in the session of 1911, asked this question:
Has there been any change made in the terms of the memorandum of the Conference between the British Admiralty and the representatives of Canada and Australia as set out on page 461 of the Minutes of the preceding Imperial Conference of 1911?
And the answer is, " No." That -answer was given in this House on November 29,	1911. What was that conference?
I am not going into that question, but I want to say that the naval policy of the late Liberal Administration was recommended by the British Admiralty. For proof of that, I have to go no further than the words of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. In the session of 1911 I put certain questions on the Order Paper with regard to the Naval Service Act. Question 3 was: "Were the plans for these proposed vessels submitted to and approved by the British Admiralty?" And the answer was; " The plans were prepared by the British Admiralty." And, that was the policy of the Liberal Administration in this country. If there is an emergency in the British Navy to-day, the emergency is for young men to-take the place of those who have been in *the service for years, whose heads are hoary and bodies weak from length of service. The British Admiralty are calling for recruits to fill up vacancies in the British Navy. What is the Minister of Marine doing to fill that need? What did the Naval policy of this Government in 1912 do towards meeting that emergency? We are not giving men to Great Britain for the Navy, not a single one. The urgent need of Great Britain to-day is not ships in the North Sea, but men for her navy, and fast cruisers . to protect the coasts of Canada. This perhaps is not a very fitting time to enter upon a discussion which in years past has been of the most partisan character ever seen in this House, but the subject is up and it is just as well for us to have a heart-to-heart talk about it. If the Liberal policy had been carried out-and there was no change in it, there is no change in it to-day, except that the present Government refuses to build ships under the Naval Service Act-

it would not have been necessary lor this Government to buy two submarines which were refused by the Chilean Government, to protect the shores of British Columbia. This Government would not have been in the humiliating position of having to depend upon the cruisers of Japan for the protection of- our Pacific coast, or of harving to accept the services of private individuals in this country to fit out the only cruisers we have in this country which are capable of escorting Canadian troops overseas to fight the battles of the Empire. Canada's great need to-day is cruisers to convoy our troops across to England, and if the Liberal policy had been carried out by the present Government as it should have been carried out, at the present time we should have cruisers on both our Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and we should be able to escort our troops across ourselves. Nor should we have to depend upon the cruisers of Japan for the protection of our Pacific coast. But, apart altogether from these two different naval policies, I charge that' this Government has not done its duty since the war began. I charge it with not having undertaken to get from the ship-building firm in Montreal submarines which would have guarded our coast, instead of buying submarines which, in the opinion of men in this and other countries who are in a position to know, are no good. At the present time there is. in the city of Montreal a ship-building firm which is turning out submarines good enough {or Great Britain to buy. Does the Minister of Marine think that he is doing his duty as a responsible minister Of the Crown in this crisis, by sitting idly by and not getting that shipbuilding concern in the city of Montreal to build submarines for the defence of our coast? This firm is perfectly capable of building first-class submarines. The submarines they turn out are so good that they can travel from Canada to the Motherland under their own power.
The assistance which this Government proposed to give under their naval policy is not the assistance which the Mother Country requires to-day. We need no more dreadnoughts in the North Sea or on the coasts of France and England; but we do need fast cruisers on the coasts of Canada, to do for this country what the Sydney and the Melbourne are doing for Australia. It must have been a matter of pride to the Australians when, after a search of weeks and weeks by the cruisers of the British Admiralty, the Sydney-the fulfilment of the policy outlined and approved by the British
Admiralty in 1910; located and destroyed the Emden, the greatest scourge to British commerce in this war. Do not my hon. friends on the Government benches believe, in all seriousness, that it would have been better for Canada and the Empire if they had carried out the policy that was agreed upon at the Imperial. Conference in 1910? We should then be in the position *of Australia; our coasts would have some protection, which they have not at the present time.
I am not aware that this Government has asked our Canadian boys' to enlist in the British Naval Service. My hon. friend from Pictou put a question on the Order Paper some time ago asking what has been done in that regard, but I have not noticed that any answer has been given up to the present time. If this Government does not ask for recruits to fill up vacancies in the British Navy, I say they are not doing their duty in the present crisis. New Zealand has done it; Australia is doing it with regard to her own navy, and South Africa has- sent from 8^000 to 10,000 naval Teservists to the British Navy. But Canada has done nothing. It is true that Canada is doing a great deal in the way of raising military units, and that Canadians are doing well as regards recruiting. But I venture to assert that there are along the coast of the Pacific, and along the shores of the Maritime Provinces, thousands of people who do not care to enlist in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces, but who would jump at a chance of getting into the British Navy, and serving the Empire in that way. The British Navy needs them, and I say that the Minister of Marine and this Government will not be doing their duty until they help supply this need. I do not say that they do not want to do it. I do not say that they are disloyal, or that they the unaware of the fact that these men are needed; but to one who has followed the political history of this country for the last four or five years, it does seem passing strange that nothing has been done in that regard. Is it to fulfil an engagement that the Government, previous to 1914, had with the Nationalist party of this country that there would be no recruits from the province of Quebec or elsewhere to fill vacancies either in the Canadian navy or in the navy of Great Britain? I am not going to make the charge, but people, who have studied this question and who have watched events in connection with our naval policy, may well be suspicious that such is the case.
My Ron. friend from Annapolis (Mr. Davidson) said the other day that the

Niobe and the Rainbow were dismantled because they were of no use. But, I think we have it from the lips of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in an answer which he made last session to a question, that the Niobe was doing splendid work guarding the coast of Nova Scotia; that she was in splendid condition, thanks to himself and his department; and that she was one of the best cruisers on the Atlantic coast. ' It must strike Canadians, and certainly Nova Scotians, as passing strange to see this same Niobe, which the minister said last year was doing splendid work in patrolling our coasts, tied up to-day at a wharf in Halifax with some kind of a house built on her deck with sleeping rooms for landlubbers. If the Niobe was a good ship and performed splendid work a year ago, why is she thus relegated to the scrap heap at the present time? I did not have the pleasure this evening of listening to -the speech delivered by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and I do not know whether he has given any explanation; but if he has not done so, the people of Sydney, Halifax and of every other port in the province of Nova Scotia are demanding an explanation and will bring him to an accounting for having thus relegated the Niobe to the scrap heap in Halifax harbour. , There is one thing which my hon. friend the minister has excelled in. While he has allowed the nucleus of the Canadian navy to go to the dogs, he has not neglected those people along the shores who had motor boats fifteen or twenty feet long; he has sent those boats down to the coast of Newfoundland for what purpose I do not know, unless for the purpose of drawing salaries for the crews' and day's wages for the boats, because they could not be of any benefit in the world for defence_or offence, unless it be offensive to see them run around our shores, with their crews coming occasionally into the harbours and having a good time. It is current gossip-I do not know how true it is-that the owners of these motor boats are each receiving $75 a day. The people of Nova Scotia are looking at this matter with ridicule. What earthly good could a motor boat be in Newfoundland, of all places? If the minister had allowed those boats to run in and out of Sydney or Halifax or some of the other harbours, it would not have been so bad. Those 'boats were not able to cross to Newfoundland under their own steam, but were taken across on the little ship Margaret. Yet, the minister has those vessels on his
list for the defence of Canada! Mr. Speaker, you should have seen them and you would certainly rest secure in your home down in Cumberland county to know that there were being carried back and forth between the city of Sydney and St. John last summer on board the little cruiser Margaret, two motor boats, one about fifteen feet keel and the other about eighteen feet keel. What they did after they reached Newfoundland I know not, but it must have 'been a source of great relief to yourself and to other loyal Nova Scotians to know, that for at least two months those two boats were carried hack and forth on three occasions on the deck of a snug little cruiser called the Margaret. It must have been a great relidf to the British Government to know that this Government had made such wonderful strides in the defence of -our Canadian coasts and I have no doubt that the names of these boats, with the names of other valuable assets, which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries made to his naval brigade last summer, will appear on the list if this motion passes for the production of the names of those vessels.
The question as to who was right and who was wrong in 1911, whether or not the Government knew that there was going to be a war, and whether the Opposition did not know, there was going to be a war, is one that perhaps will never be decided during the lifetime of the present generation or, of the next,' but the fact is that we have in this country to-day to meet conditions which confront us. The fact is that our Canadian shores are undefended, and while the Premier has charged the Opposition with	being
responsible for the absence of three dreadnoughts from the Imperial navy, I want to charge this Government with having our coasts on the Pacific and on the Atlantic undefended, owing to the fact that they did not carry out even partially the policy of the late Administration. If the Government saw war clouds; if they knew that war was coming, they were making very little preparation for it. The Niobe, to which the minister a year ago gave a good character as being one of the best cruisers on the coast was then, as she is now, tied up to a wharf in the port of Halifax, and I understand that the Rainbow is in the same positiorr-on the Pacific. If they saw the war clouds; if they knew the war was coming, and that' there were German cruisers along our coasts, they were remiss in their duty if they did
r.Mr. Carroll.]

not at that time-without waiting until the war was on, t-o buy two submarines that were worthless-provide a shipbuilding firm to build and equip submarines which could be of use in defending both the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts of this country. '
Mr. OLIVER J. WILCOX (North Essex): My hon. friend from South Cape Breton during the course of his remarks stated that he did not hear the speech of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I feel sure that had he had the privilege of listening to that speech, he would never have been guilty of making the speech he did because the minister answered every allegation put forward by my hon. friend. It is to be regretted that at this time in the history of our country when we are involved in a gigantic struggle, this Government and its supporters, who are burdened with responsibility-


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What is worrying my hon. friend?


Mr. WILCOX:: -such as no Government has been burdened with since Confederation, or probably ever will be again after this war is over, should have, day after day and night after night, to defend most vicious partisan attacks, that are entirely uncalled for.
I do not propose-though I suppose I could make as great a noise as some of our hon. friends opposite-to enter into a lengthy debate on this question, but I do want to answer a point or two that have been raised in this discussion. My hon. friend from Cape Breton South (Mr. Carroll) and my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald; raised the old bogey of the Nationalists again. They do love to try to associate this Government with the Nationalists. Well, whatever else may be said, one thing about the Nationalists is absolutely sure, and that is that in the naval measure the Nationalists allied themselves with the members of the Opposition, The Government side committed themselves to a policy of strengthening the naval defence of the Empire, and the Liberal party said that should not be done, and that was the position that the Nationalists took also. So, on this question, they sleep in the same bed.
My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugs-ley) stated that the right hon. leader of the Opposition had never said that the Canadian navy, as proposed by the late Government, would be built in Montreal Here are the words of the right hon. gentleman as 107


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
reported in Hansard of 1913, volume 1, page 1034:
Yes, we thought as the general elections were coming, that it would not he fair, in a matter of this kind, which was at issue between the two parties, to award the contract, in case there might be, as there was, a change of government. X say now that the Government in power would have been better advised if they had awarded the contracts, and, had they done so, we would at the present time have under, construction on the stocks in Montreal, four cruisers and six destroyers.
Here is a very distinct statement by the leader of the Opposition that the total number of ships embodied in his Bill would be constructed at Montreal; and this, notwithstanding the fact-and I am surprised to think that the Liberals would do this- that in practically every constituency where there was water the prospect was held out to the electors that these boats would be built in that constituency. So far was this carried that in a meeting in Collingwood the opponent of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) alleged to the electors that these boats would be built in Collingwood. When the hon. member spoke after his opponent, and told the electors that the Welland canal was not large enough to let the boats out of Lake Erie, his opponent was on the horns of a dilemma It all goes to prove that the thing was a political scheme from beginning to end.
Robert Rogers: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say they were not going to build even one in St. John?


Oliver James Wilcox: Not one, they were all to be built in Montreal. But during the election they were to be built where the most votes were to be had. So the statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was absolutely right, and the hon. member for *St. John was wrong, as he generally is. Now, it is getting late, and I move the adjournment of the debate.
Mr. MACDONALD': I desire to say a word or two before the motion is carried.


Robert Rogers: Does the hon, gentleman want to go on?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Yes, I would like to say a few words.


Oliver James Wilcox: I withdraw my motion.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: When I presented this motion it was with the idea that this country was entitled to do something to assist the navy of the Empire in this war,


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
and I felt that in so far as the results of the Naval Service Department's efforts in this matter on the Atlantic seaboard were concerned, they were entirely inadequate. My hon. friend the Minister of the Naval Service (Mr. Hazen) proceeded to raise the old, question of the naval policy which was so thoroughly threshed out three years ago. He even ventured to make the statement, which is made by the unthinking in this country, that if Canada was not doing anything for the navy 1 in this war the fault lay with the Liberals. He entirely overlooked the point raised by my resolution. The speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister was enough to surprise any old member of this- House who can remember the speeches of the right hon. gentleman in 1909, when he declared that it was time for Canada to begin the construction of a Canadian navy. He went up and down that province justifying that position, and telling the people of Nova Scotia that this was the hour of destiny for them, that because of the adoption of a policy of speedy construction of a Canadian navy there was to come to them once more the maritime supremacy which they formerly enjoyed. That was the declared policy of the Opposition of that time, when the gentlemen representing the Liberal Government went to Great Britain in pursuance- of the resolution which the right hon. gentleman had supported. Those representative's made the arrangement with the Admiralty, and that arrangement was made by Australia at the same time. The Australians went back to enter upon the carrying out of the policy which was agreed upon, just as Sir Wilfrid Laurier came back to Canada to enter upon the policy agreed upon with him.
When I hear these flambuoyant speeches from the Minister of Naval Service and the right hon. Prime Minister, I wonder if they spoke to the Right Hon. Mr. Hughes, Premier of Australia, who went through this country a month ago, and whom they made a member of their Privy Council, in regard tQ the question as to whether or not a policy of contribution, so far as naval matters are concerned, is the correct one. I am afraid that if hon. gentlemen admit the Right Hon. Mr. Hughes to their conferences on the naval question very often, there will be a very marked division of opinion amongst them, because the Right Hon. Mr. Hughes glories in the fact that he was the father of the Australian navy idea. If these gentlemen who thought that Australia was

no good, that she could not send any men, that she could not build any ships, had asked the Right Hon. Mr. Hughes as to what is the proper policy for Canada and as to what was the proper policy in 1911, he would have expressed an opinion which would cause hon. gentlemen to realise that the speeches of the Minister of Naval Affairs and of the Prime Minister this evening were entirely beside the mark; he would have said that he, at least, did not believe in the policy of contribution. The Prime Minister of this country does not believe in a policy of contribution. He will not stand up in this House and say that when he pronounces what he always calls his permanent policy, that policy is1 bound to be a policy of the construction of Canadian ships, built right here in Canada and manned by Canadians. In the absence of the Prime Minister, I say to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries- that I defy the right hon. gentleman, since this question has been raised by him and his minister to-night, to stand up when the Naval Estimates are under discussion, and say that he is opposed, as the permanent policy in Canada in the matter of naval affairs, to the policy which Australia and every other overseas dominion has adopted. If he will not do so, what is the use of hon. gentlemen trying to wave the flag? What is the use of their beating tom-toms and going round the country talking about what they would have done; In 1910 the right hon. gentleman who leads this House 'discovered' that some political fruits might be gathered through the assistance of the hon. member for St. Antoine and one or two other gentlemen who could, by money and other methods, make a deal with Mr. Bourassa, the Nationalist, in the province of Quebec, to continue the propaganda against Sir Wilfrid Laurier. That lion, gentleman, so far as the policy of construction is concerned, has laid low. He never attacked it, never denied it at any time during all his career; nor has he ventured to do so to-night. There are sitting behind him in this House to-day twenty-six men who are opposed to all kinds of naval assistance to Great Britain. The right hon. gentleman in 1911 took into his Cabinet three men who were pledged to this same thing. He has been juggling with that Nationalist combination ever since, trying to placate them, trying to keep the tail from wagging the dog. The right hon. gentleman says we should play the part that Australia played, while he

knows in his heart as well as anybody does that the reason why we did not play the part that Australia played may be attributed solely to. him. He is the man who prevented us from playing the part that Australia played. When history is written on this questionwhen men look at these things with clearness and certainty, entirely apart from political prejudice, the attitude of the right hon. gentleman will be made clear. Why, he was in the hole after 1911 in respect of this Nationalist combination, to whom it is said he pledged himself against doing anything in the way of a 'Canadian navy-which was the objectionable thing in their minds- although he had voted for it in 1909; and he had to get up something to take its place. From the remarks of hon. gentlemen opposite, one would almost think that the right lion, gentleman, with the vision of a seer, had known that this war was going to come about- that there was to be an assassination in Serbia, and that events -were to follow in the Balkan countries 'by which the war should 'be commenced.
Rodolphe Lemieux: They knew it all.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Of course; they had heaven-born inspiration which gave them knowledge of all these things. Yet some months after the war began there was a good deal of talking about whether Great Britain was right in taking part in this war; reams of documents were written and printed to satisfy British people the world over that Britain was right in entering upon this war. All that was done to convince the public mind as to what we should do in regard to this matter. Speaking in the City Temple in London on November 10, 1914, Mr. Lloyd George made this declaration at a time when there was matter of argument in Great Britain with reference to the war:
When this war broke out, we were on better terms with Germany than we had been for fifteen years. There was not a man in tire Cabinet who thought that war with Germany was a possibility under present conditions.
Lloyd George, of course, knew what he was talking about, If the British cabinet did not think that war with Germany was a possibility, then the hon. Minister of Naval Service and the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada, if they knew about all these things, knew more than the people in Great Britain. If that be the case, they must have had a wonderful second-sight. Yet they say to the people: we knew this war was coming; hence it was that our policy of 107i
contribution to please the Nationalists, based on an alleged emergency, was the right policy. I was absolutely, surprised at the right hon. Prime Minister to-night when, the question having been raised by the hon, member for St. Johns as to what the Liberal policy was in 1913, he said: we had included in our resolution the condition that anything that was to be done was to be subject to the approval of the people of Canada. I am going to put on Hansard the amendment submitted at that time by the right hon. gentleman who leads the Opposition, so that there will be no question about the matter. It is to be found on page 1038 of Hansard of 1918, and is as follows:
That all the words after the word 'That' be struck out, and the following be substituted therefor:

'This House declines to concur in the said resolution and orders that the same be referred back to the committee with instructions to amend the same in the following particulars, namely, to strike out all the words after clause (a) and substitute therefor the following:
The memorandum prepared by the Board of Admiralty on the general naval situation of the Empire and communicated to this House by the right hon. the Prime Minister on December 5th shows that several of the most important of the foreign powers have adopted a definite policy of rapidly increasing their naval strength.
That this condition has compelled the United Kingdom to concentrate its naval forces in home waters involving the withdrawal of ships from the outlying portions of the Empire.
That such withdrawal renders it necessary that Canada without further delay should enter actively upon a permanent policy of naval defence. -
That any measure of Canadian aid to Imperial naval defence which does not employ a permanent policy of participation by ships owned, manned and maintained by Canada and contemplating construction as soon as possible in Canada, is not an adequate or satisfactory expression of the aspirations of the Canadian people in regard to naval defence and is not an assumption by Canada of her fair share in the maintenance of the naval strength of the Empire.
This House regrets to learn the intention of the Government to indefinitely postpone the carrying out by Canada of. a permanent naval policy.
It is the opinion of this House that measures should be taken at the present session to give effect actively and speedily to the permanent naval policy embodied in the Naval Service Act of 1910 passed pursuant to the resolution unanimously approved by this House in March 1909.
This House is further of the opinion that to increase the power and mobility of the Imperial navy by the addition by Canada under the above Act of two fleet units, to be stationed on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of Canada, respectively, rather than by a contribution of money or ships, is the policy best calculated to afford relief to the United Kingdom in respect to the burden of Imperial naval defence, and in the words of the Admiralty memorandum to re-

store greater freedom to the movements of the British squadrons in every sea and directly promote the security of the dominions ; and that the Governement of Canada should take such steps as shall lead to the accomplishment of this purpose as speedily as possible.'
That was the policy of the Liberal party in 1913. That is the resolution which we debated in this Parliament during the long session. And to-day, if that resolution had been adopted and if this Government had been true to the statements made by their own leader and by the Minister of Trade and Commerce,- whose impassioned utterance in 1909 as to Canada's duty to enter actively upon the line of naval assistance will always be remembered by those of us who were here, had they been true to themselves and followed that policy of ours, which was the Australian policy, we would not need to have the Sydney and the Australia defending our Atlantic coast to day; we would have had ships of our own doing it. But what had these hon. gentlemen to do? All they had to do was to go on under the provisions of the Canadian Naval Act placed on the Statute book in 1910. All they had to do was to ask Parliament to vote $35,000,000 to be expended under its provisions and not by way of contribution. But my hon. friends were afraid of the Nationalists and did not venture to do that. Had they, in 1913, asked Parliament for a sum of money to be spent under the provisions of the Canadian Naval Service Act of 1910, the money would have been voted. They knew that but they did not do it. What did they do?
They did nothing in 1913.
12	midnight. Now, in 1916, we learn for the first time that the Premier of this country, asked Sir John Jellicoe, in 1914, to come out to Canada. Mark you, this gentleman who knew all about the war coming on, who was certain about it, was proceeding, with such leisurely haste in regard to the matter that, doing nothing at all of any kind in 1913, not buying or building submarines, not buying or building vessels in any way, he leisurely suggested to Sir John Jellicoe, on the eve of this war, which he knew was coming on, to come out to Canada and talk over the question of what? Of an emergency assistance? Not at all, but of the permanent naval policy of Canada which he was going to enter on in 1914 i If non/ gentlemen, in view of these facts, which cannot be denied and which are simply a repetition of history, expect to be able to presume on the credulity of the people of this country, 
to such an extent that they will believe that the Premier had any information in 1914 that this war was coming on when he
was leisurely going to talk over the situation with Sir John Jellicoe as to the permanent naval policy, they overestimate the credulity of the Canadian people.
My hon. friend says that if their resolution had been passed there would have been three dreadnoughts in the North Sea. Would there? We would have had to go to England and borrow the $35,000,000 and hand the money over to the British Government and say to them; Please, Mr. Government, we , are entirely an inadequate people in every way, we are not to be compared with the overseas Dominion of Australia which has gone ahead and done its own financing and its own business, but please, lend us $35,000,000, Mr. Britisher, and then take it and build our ships for us ! That was the proposition, when they could have voted the money and built the ships themselves for the common defence. But they were playing to the Nationalists on that proposition. If they had laid down the keels of the vessels in 1913, under the provisions of the Naval Service Act, we would have had vessels that would have been of some use as coast defence vessels in this country to-day, and we would have had something of real value in the present situation. One does not need to follow in this House the story of this naval question in order to arrive at a clear view of the situation. When I hear the Prime Minister of this country stand up in this Parliament and declare that the position he took in 1909 vras incorrect when he stated that what we should do was to stand for a speedy construction of a Canadian navy, when I hear him doing that frankly as a public man, then I will believe he has changed his opinion. But he has never done it up until to-day. He has talked about contributions and about emergencies and all that, but he has never expressed this change of opinion, because he is expecting some day, when he has a permanent policy, to adopt the policy of the Liberal party to this matter.
This expression was entirely beside the proposition which I submitted to the House. My right hon. friend, through juggling with words, attempted to make the House believe on the question of whether we should recruit men in Canada for a naval reserve, that Great Britain did not want men to be recruited in Canada for the navy. If that was his idea he was trying to lead this House along lines which were incorrect. What did he do? He took 250 men from the

Royal Navy Reserve out in British Columbia and he put them on these vessels on the Atlantic. They were on the Niobe two months ago. To-day he is calling for recruits out in Vancouver in order to fill up that reserve. Why is he calling them if they are not wanted? What is the meaning of this statement, for instance, that was made by Dr. Macnamara on the floor of the British House of Commons? Dr. Macnamara was asked by Mr. Bellaire, the well known naval writer, who was in the British House of Commons, as to what South Africa was doingj and he said:
Tthe offer of the services of a number of the South Africa Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve was gladly accepted by the Admiralty, and the men are now attached to the Royal Naval Division in this country. It was understood that they wished to serve as a unit representing their corps.
Did the Prime Minister ever make to Great Britain the offer which was made by Cape Colony in that respect? What does it mean that Australia has sent so many men to serve in the British Navy? What did it mean when Newfoundland, the colony adjacent to my province, sent 1,600 men to serve in the navy? These men are not reservists, as my hon. friend says. Some of them were reservists, but numbers of them came from the outports, who were simply sailors, fresh from the sea, who went over and enlisted in the navy in preference to enlisting in the army. And why did they want to go into the navy? Simply because the sea appealed to them. The navy proposals in regard to pay and allowances were not as attractive as those of the army. My hon. friend will tell me that Cape Colony made an offer of men which was accepted. Australia made an offer of men which was accepted, and so did Newfoundland. Does my hon. friend the minister mean to say that if we had offered the same kind of men for the vessels of the British Navy that our offer would have been refused? I will wait to see the papers which my hon. friend has promised to bring down before I believe anything of the kind.
We have heard a great deal about the Niobe. I want to say just a word or two in regard to that vessel before I conclude. In the first place, let me say that the Niobe is a first class cruiser of 11,000 tons. She was built in 1909, and her armament consisted of 16 6-inch guns, 12 12-pounders, 3 3-pounders, and 2 machine guns. We are told that she is old and obsolete. My hon. friend the Minister of Naval Service (Mr. Hazen) rolled like a sweet morsel on his tongue the statement mad,e by Commander Roper that these vessels, the plans of which had been prepared by the British Admiralty in 1911, and for which the contracts could have been let in October, 1911, by the minister himself, would be obsolete before they could be constructed. If that statement is true, then nearly the whole British navy is obsolete. It is a statement which could be made in regard to every vessel that is over two or three years old, to ,every vessel, that is to say, that was constructed prior to 1910 or 1911. That is the proposition of the hon. minister.


Robert Rogers: The ships which the British Admiralty built to take the places of our three dreadnoughts are not obsolete.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: They have been built within the last three years, and they were not built to take the place of my hon. friend's dreadnoughts at all.


Robert Rogers: Yes, they were.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The British Admiralty simply proceeded in the ordinary course to construct those vessels.


Robert Rogers: Will my hon. friend permit me to put him right? A question was asked by Mr. Arthur Lee in the British House of Commons on 5th June, 1913, and in reply Mr. Churchill said:
The situation created by the rejection of the Canadian Naval Aid Bill requires immediate action in order that the margins of naval strength necessary for the whole world protection of the British Empire may he adequately ' maintained for the autumn and winter of 1915, and in the spring of 1916. In these circumstances, the Government have determined to advance the construction of the three contract ships of this year's programme, and orders have been issued by the Admiralty which will ensure their being begun at the earliest possible date instead of in March next.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend knows what that meant. It simply meant that the Admiralty intended to build three ships after my right hon. friend the Prime Minister went over there and said: We will give you three ships, or rather we will borrow the money for you; and, when the British Admiralty found that he was not going to borrow the money, they had to build three ships in order to carry out their original programme.


Robert Rogers: They built them, and they are not obsolete.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: What I was pointing cut was that the theory of my hon. friend the

"Minister of Marine and Fisheries that, because Commander Roper told him that the vessels, the plans of which had been drafted by the Admiralty in the winter of 1910-11, would be obsolete before they could be constructed, would apply to every vessel which vras constructed previous to three or four years ago.


George Perry Graham: If he told the truth.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was speaking of the Niobe, and I have some figures here which I have taken from the Naval Annual. Take first the first and second class cruisers. How many of these do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, there are in commission in the British Navy that are older than the Niobe? There are 35 of them. How many naval vessels of the same class as the Niobe, and built in the same year, are now in commission in the British Navy? Seven, all built in the same year, and of the same class exactly. How many armoured ships older than the Niobe are there in the British Navy? There are no less than ten built at dates running back to 1895. They are as follows:
Caesar, 14 900 tons, comp'eted in	1897;
Hannibal, 14,900 tens, completed in	1897 ;
Illustrious, 14,000 tons, completed in 1898; Jupiter, 14,900 tons, completed in 1897 ; Magnificent, 14,900 tons, completed in 1895; Majestic, 14,900 tons, completed in 1895 ; Mars,
14.900	tons, completed in 1897 ; Prince George,
14.900	tons, completed in 1896; Renown, 12,350 tons, completed in 1896; Victorious, 14,900 tons, completed in 1897.
There are 47 ships as old or older than the Niobe in the British Navy to-day. Taking cruisers, there are :
Arlus (3,600), completed in 1893; Astraea
(4.360)	, completed in 1894 ; Barham, completed in 1890 ; Brilliant, completed in 1893 ; Cambrian, completed in 1894; Charybdis, completed in 1SE5 ; Crescent (7,700), completed in 1894; Diana (5,600), completed in 1898 ; Dodo (5,600), completed in 1898; Doris ('5,600), completed in 1898 ; Eclipse (5,600), completed in 1897; Edgar (7,350), completed in 1893; Flora, completed in 1895 ; Forte, completed in 1895 ; Fox completed in 1897 ; Gibraltar (7,700), completed in 1894; Grafton (7,350), completed in 1894; Hawke (7,350), completed in 1893; Hermione
(4.360)	, completed in 1895; Hussar, completed in 1895 ; Iris (5,600), completed in 1898 ; Juno (5^600), completed in 1898; Minerva (5,600), completed in 1897 ; Pelonis, completed in 1897 ; Philomel, completed in 1892 ; Royal Arthur, (7,700), completed in 1893 ; Sappho, completed in 1893.
One of these cruisers is the Hawke, which distinguished herself in one of the few naval battles which took place in the British Channel. She was built in 1893 and she is only 7,350 tons, or more than 4,000 tons less than the Niobe. As far as armament
and equipment are concerned, she did not begin to compare with the Niobe.
Then of vessels of the same class as the Niobe, all of 11,000 tons, built between 1896 and 1898, there are the following:
Amphritite, 11,000 tons, launched in 1S98, completed 1900; Andromeda, 11,000 tons, launched In 1897, completed 1900; Argonaut,
11.000	tons, launched in 1898, completed 1900 ; Ariadne, 11,000 tons, launched in 1898, completed 1900 ; Diadem, 11,000 tons, launched in 1896, completed 1899; Europa, 11,000 tons, launched in 1897, completed 1899; Spartiate,
11.000	tons, launched in 1898, completed 1902.
These vessels were built about the same time as the Niobe, and have the same armament, and all of them are sailing the seas while some of them have been in action during the present war. The only trouble about the Niobe was that she was sent out here while a Liberal Government was in power in Canada. The fact is that in the British Navy to-day there are 47 vessels older than she is.
With regard to size, there are 87 first-class vessels set out in the Naval Annual as having a smaller tonnage than the Niobe and they are all in commission to-day in the British Navy, though older than the Niobe.
Let us compare her with one or two of the vessels which defended our coasts last summer. Take the Berwick, 9,800 tons. She has smaller guns than the Niobe. The Carnarvon is of 10,850 tons, or some 250 tons less than the Niobe, and, with the exception of four 7.5 guns, she had not as heavy an armament. Then there are the Cornwall, the Cumberland, the Essex and the Suffolk. These names are all familiar to those who have read the newspapers All of them are cruisers of 9,800 tons; all are of the same armament as the Niobe, or even lighter, and nobody has ever heard of them being called no good. The Glory, for instance, the flagship that was out here last year, was 12,000 tons, or a little more than 1,000 tons bigger than the Niobe. Her armament was practically the same as the Niobe's, except that she had in addition four 12-inch guns. The Leviathian was a 14,100-ton boat; she had a couple more guns than the Niobe. The fact is, then, that the Niobe is larger than five of the vessels which comprise the North Atlantic squadron defending our coast to-day. Furthermore, when hon, gentlemen came into power in (19111 the Niobe was, larger than any vessel in the navies of Denmark, Greece, Holland, Norway, Sweden, and Portugal, and yet hon. gentlemen opposite
[Mr. Macdonald.J

who claini to be the repositories of everything that is patriotic in this country, have done nothing since the Niobe came to Canada except to declare that she was of no value whatever, and that it was a disgrace that she was ever sent out here by the British Government. Well, I have given the Niobe's history. My hon. friend says that her boilers were bad. I wonder what has beoome of the boilers of these other eight or nine vessels that were built at the same time and which are now fighting the battlps of the Empire.
It does seem to me that I had very ample grounds for calling the attention of the House to the situation to-day with regard, to our Naval Service. If hon. gentlemen opposite had this wonderful prescience in regard to the war, if they knew it was coming, why did they sit down and do nothing after the verdict of Parliament in 1913? Parliament rose in the spring of 1913. These gentlemen who had it in the back of their head,s that war was coming on did nothing at all to prepare for it, either on land or on sea.	Was it	that they wanted to
play politics? Because they wanted to act upon the suggestion which seems so gratifying to the Minister of Public Works, that because the proposition had been turned down, they need do nothing but play politics with it? What were they doing from the spring of 1913 to August 1914, and what have they done from August 1914 down to the present? As the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) has said, the only vessel in Nova Scotia that is any good to-day is the one that was given to this Government. Does it mean that because the policy of contribution of hon. gentlemen opposite was turned down and they did not wish to adopt the alternative policy of construction in Canada, they decided to sit down and do nothing; that no matter how long this war is going to last they will not initiate some method of building ships in Canada to protect our coast? As the hon. member for South Cape Breton has pointed out, when the British Government wanted ten submarines last summer, they bought them from Vickers-Maxim, Montreal, and we in the Maritime Provinces saw them floating across the ocean to the other side. Why do not hon. gentlemen opposite do something of that kind? Why do they not encourage conditions in Canada under which we could construct vessels of some kind to defend Canada on the sea? They have not done anything.
And that is why I moved the resolution. I moved it to call the attention of the people of this country to the failure of the Minister of Marine to do anything in the way of providing a defence for Canada upon the sea, and for the purpose of calling attention to the fact that while * Australia, Cape Colony and Newfoundland are sending men to take part in the naval battles of the Empire, the best the Minister of Naval Service can do is to send word around to the boys who run motor boats that in a while, when somebody comes out from England to make the necessary arrangements, they will be given a chance to recruit There are many young men in Canada just waiting for an opportunity to hecruit. I submit that that is the situation to-day so far as Canada is concerned. The question as to who was right in 1913 in regard to the whole problem will be settled, and settled right, before many years are over. When ever the Prime Minister of this country has the nerve and temerity to propound a permanent naval policy in this country, that permanent policy will be the adoption of the Liberal policy in 1913. We on this side of the House are perfectly prepared to await the judgment of the people on that question; we know what that verdict will be. But to-day, when my hon. friend from Cape Breton is going away to take his part in the battles of the Empire, as he has decided to do in the past ten days, and when all our other young men are coming forward to bear their share, let us forget the old struggle for a moment, and consider whether we have done our part on the sea since 1913. I think this discussion has disclosed the fact that we have not done our part and that it is time the Minister of Naval Service began to realize that w-should be doing something in this direction.
Motion of Mr. Macdonald agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. Rogers for the adjournment of the House:


George Perry Graham: What business to-morrow.


Robert Rogers: We shall take up any Bills that are on the Order Paper, and then ' go on with the Shell Investigation resolution. I hope we shall make more progress to-morrow than we have to-day, which we might consider as a day wasted. Otherwise we shall have to sit much later than in the past if we are ever going to get to the end of the session.


George Perry Graham: I think this can hardly be called a day wasted. For instance, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has had an opportunity to make that speech of his over again, and we like it. It is not a day wasted. The people of the country like to know the mind of public men on these great questions. I do not belong to that class of people who do not like these discussions. I am sure I enjoyed the discussion immensely, particularly the speech of my hon. friend from Pictou, and I think if the Minister of Public Works will revise his view, he will come to the conclusion that a day like to-day has not been wasted.


Robert Rogers: Let us hope that tomorrow will be better.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 12.27 a.m. Tuesday.
Tuesday, March 14, 1916.