1919-05-26

REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Labour for fiscal year ended March 31,	1918.-Sir
Thomas White.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by asterisks.)

Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	What steamer has replaced the Princess?
2.	Who has been appointed captain of the said steamer, on what date was he appointed, and by whom recommended?
3.	How many years' experience has the person appointed had as captain?
4.	What are the names of the applicants for this position and how many years' experience has each of said applicants had as captain?


Hon. Mr. BALLANTYNE:: 1.	C.G.S. Loos.
2.	Wm. Tremblay, May 5,	1919, appointed by Civil Service Commission.
3.	His captain's certificate is dated April 8, 1915.
4.	No information in Naval Service Department. The advertising for this position was carried out by the Civil Service Commission.
Dr. O. B. KEDDY.
Mr. d'ANJOU:
1.	Was O. B. Keddy of Windsor, county of Hants, physician, in any way in the employ of the Militia Department of Canada, or in connection with the British Expeditionary Forces stationed at Windsor, Hants county, during- the war?
2.	If so, in what capacity was he so engag-ed, what work was required of him, how much time was he required to devote to it and what was the rate per day and the total amount of money received by him?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1 and 2. Yes; he was employed as medical officer examining recruits for the Imperial army and railway construction troops. He was paid as follows: Under 50 men, $1 per
[DOT] 2798

head; 50 to 100 men, $2 per day; 100 to 150 men, $3 a day; 150 and over, $4 a day. Dr. Keddy was paid a total amount of $1,436.44; $607 of this was incurred in examining recruits for the Imperial army, and is being recovered from the Imperial Government.


RUMANIAN RELIEF-MARINE INSURANCE.
Sir SAM HUGHES:: 1.	What Arm is doing the Marine Insurance on cargoes from Canada under the relief arrangements for Rumania, Greece, Belgium, etc.?
2.	Are other firms aslced, or allowed to complete?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: 1.	In connection with the credit to the Kingdom of Rumania for the purchase of goods in Canada, the Canadian Trade Commission, acting as agents for the Rumanian Government, have placed marine insurance through the firm of Messrs. Jones & Proctor Bros. Ltd., Toronto.
2.	The commission is of opinion that the Rumanian Government would be better . served by handling the insurance through a single firm than by calling for tenders. They state that the method adopted is the best way from a competitive standpoint of handling marine insurance. It is stated that the firm selected was instructed by the commission to place the business with companies registered in Canada, provided rates were satisfactory.


OVERSEAS MILITARY EXPENDITURES.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Antigonish and Guys-borough) :: 1.	Were the Overseas Military expenditures audited?
2.	If so, who was in charge of the audit and by whom was he appointed?
3.	Is it the intention of the Government to submit these expenditures to a further examination by the Auditor General's Department?
Major-General MEWBURN:
1.	Yes.
2.	Colonel L. A. Dowie is general auditor, Overseas Military Forces of Canada; appointed by the Canadian Government.
3.	Yes.	-


VICTORY LOAN ADVERTISING, 1918.
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	What amount was paid for advertising in 1918 for the Victory Loan?
2.	What amount was paid the same year for printing, in connection with the said loan?


Sir THOMAS WHITE:: Assuming that question means what was paid for advertising and printing for the
[Major-General Mnwburn.]
fiscal year ended March 31, 1918, for the Victory Loan floated in November last, the answer is as follows:
1.	$275,596.88.
2.	$219,257.23.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. D'ANJOU:
1.	Is Hadley B. Tremaine, M.P. for Hants, - in the employ of the Government of Canada or in any way connected with the Military Forces of Canada ?
2.	If so, when was he first appointed?
3.	In what capacity is he so. engaged and what salary does he) receive?
4.	How much pay has he received from the outbreak of the war up to and including the 12th day of May, 1919?
5.	Is the wife of the said Hadley B. Tremaine in receipt of separation allowance? If so, how much 'has she received to date?
6.	If the said Hadley B. Tremaine was and is in receipt of pay from the Military Forces of Canada, was he and is he in receipt of his indemnity as a member of the Parliament of Canada?

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon, RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Maison-neuve): I as'k the Minister of Finance if the men employed at the income tax office in Montreal and elsewhere are appointed by -the Civil Service Commission. If not, under whose authority are their appointments made?
William Thomas White: The appointments are made by the Government upon the recommendation, in the first instance, of the Commissioner of Taxation, who is responsible for the administration of the office.


LABOUR SITUATION IN THE WEST.
Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell):: In view of the serious situation which the papers indicate prevails throughout West-

ern Canada, has the Government any information to give the House regarding the strike in Winnipeg, and the threatened strike which the press to-day predicts in Calgary, Edmonton, and other western cities?


Hon. A. K. MACLEAN (Acting Minister of Labour):: There is nothing substantially new to report in connection with the Winnipeg strike, but I may say that the telephone service is almost normal and business activities are being gradually re-established. There is no official information as to the probability of a strike at Calgary and other places in the West.


Mr. H. A. MACKIE (Edmonton East):: I would like to know what steps the Government intends to take in regard to the situation in Edmonton and Calgary, particularly in Edmonton. I am in receipt of a communication to the effect that a sympathetic strike is declared there, and that there is likely to be danger to property and person.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No official information has been received by the Government or the Department of Labour in respect of the matter to 'which the hon. member refers, and until there is the Government cannot very well express an opinion on the subject.


Mr. R. L. RICHARDSON (Springfield):: Did the postal employees in Winnipeg return to work this morning? It was stated that they would be obliged to go back to work at 11 o'clock this morning or their places would be filled.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Department has had no information from Winnipeg today respecting the return of the postal employees. Last evening, however, we received a message to the effect that a great number would likely return this forenoon, but there has been no confirmation of that.


Charles Murphy: May I ask
my hon. friend whether he or any other member of the Government has received communications from North Vancouver regarding the conditions that prevail there? I have received two letters written on paper headed, "Second Narrows Bridge and Terminal Railways Special Joint Committee", signed "Ewart Adamson, Campaign Manager". In the second letter, which I received to-day, attention is drawn to the industrial and labour conditions at North Vancouver, and the concluding sentence reads: "Even now our form of representative Government is being weighed as against
the Dictatorship of Labour". Can my hon. friend give the House any information as to the conditions existing in Vancouver?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no knowledge of this matter, but I shall make inquiries and endeavour to give the hon. member information to-morrow.


ST. JOHN AND QUEBEC RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways) Bill No. 117 to authorize an extension of time for the completion of the St. John and Quebec Railway between Centreville, in the county of Carleton, and Andover, in the county of Victoria, N.B., was read the second time and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-time for completion extended to December 31, 1919:
Mr. CAHILL:: What is the nature of this agreement?


Mr. J. D. REID:: The agreement made between the Government of the province of New Brunswick and the Dominion Government was that the Provincial Government should pay for and build a road from Centreville to St. John, which the Dominion Government was to take over and operate on a percentage basis, this Government taking 60 per cent and the Provincial Government 40 per cent of the gross earnings. This 40 per cent which the Provincial Government was to receive was to help pay the interest on the bonds. The road has been partly constructed, and is now in operation from Gagetown to Westfield, where it strikes the Canadian Pacific near St. John. When the agreement was revised a couple of years ago, it was decided to run over the Canadian Pacific from Westfield to St. John, instead of duplicating that last fifteen or twenty miles.


Frank S. Cahill: Will this road be merged with the Canadian National Railway system?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes. You can take the Canadian National now from McGivney Junction and connect with this road. That would be the short line over the Transcontinental into St. John. That part of the road between Centreville and Andover has not yet been completed by the Provincial Government, owing to the increased cost of labour and materials. When at the beginning of the session I asked for an extension of time in which to complete the road between Gagetown and Westfield. I overlooked the

fact that the road was to he built from Andover to Centreville, thence to Westfield, and into St. John.	v


Mr. LEMIEUX:: What is the distance from Andover to Centreville?


Mr. CARVELL:: Twenty-five miles. The road has been completed for about 160 miles and is in operation to Gagetown. The last 40 miles from Gagetown to Westfield will be completed and in operation within three or four weeks at the very outside. When completed it will be operated by the Canadian National Railway system under the agreement ratified by Parliament in 1911.


John Dowsley Reid: The road is being operated now from Centreville to Gagetown, about 160 miles, on the 60-40 per cent basis.


Frank S. Cahill: Is it the intention of the Government to take over this line when completed?


John Dowsley Reid: If the New Brunswick Government construct the road between Centreville and Andover, the Dominion Government will take it over on the 60-40 basis.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Is there not a line
running from Andover to Centreville now?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What amount has been paid by the Dominion Government towards the -construction of this road?


John Dowsley Reid: The usual subsidy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No guarantee of bonds?


John Dowsley Reid: No, the bonds were guaranted by the New Brunswick Government.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Have there been any net earnings since the road was in operation?


John Dowsley Reid: I do not think the 60 -per cent would pay the operating expenses, nor the 40 per cent the interest on the bonds.


Frank S. Cahill: About how much of a loss will this mean to the Dominion treasury?


John Dowsley Reid: I think I gave a statement some time ago of the earnings of each part of the Canadian National Railway system, but if not, I can give the figures for this particular line when my Estimates are up. The loss is not very great to the Dominion Government. The 40 per cent does not come near paying the interest on

the bonds, but, of course, the provincial Government must stand that loss.


Frank S. Cahill: Does the agreement oi
1911 include the extension that is asked for now?


John Dowsley Reid: The Act that we have already passed covered all this, and in addition 25 miles from Grand Falls.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported the third time and passed.
At this point the Right Hon. Sir Robert Borden, Prime Minister, and Hon. Arthur L. Sifton, Minister of the Interior, entered the Chamber for the first time since their arrival home from the Peace Conference. The hon. members of the House rose in their places and cheered.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne (Minister of Marine) Bill No. 119, to amend the Act respecting the appointment of a harbour master at the port of Halifax, was read a second time and the House went into Committee on the Bill-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-maximum remuneration of harbour master increased from $1,800 to $3,000; to be retained out of fees collected.
On section 2-harbour master's fees increased : rates of fees:
Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister explain on what basis this schedule is prepared?


Mr. BALLANTYNE:: The object of this Bill is to enable the harbour master for the port of Halifax to receive a greater remuneration than he is receiving at the present time, namely $1,800 per year. His salary is paid him according to the fees that he can collect from vessels entering the harbour. This Bill provides that he may receive a larger remuneration than $1,800 a year but not more than a maximum of $3,000. The old Act was passed in 1885. When we consider the high cost of living to-day and the fact that the harbour master has to pay boat hire, I am sure hon. members will agree that $1,800 is not a sufficient remuneration for him especially in view of the fact that at other large ports the harbour masters are receiving as high as $5,000 a year. The object of this Bill is to enable the harbour master to increase the salary he is now drawing and also to increase the fees levied against ships.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Has there 'been a proportionate increase in these fees? Wages have only gone up a little more than one-third and there should not be morh than a corresponding increase in the fees exacted from ships.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The increase that
the Bill provides for is a very small one. We propose to increase the fee for every ship over 1,000 tons register from $5 to $7. As I explained when this matter was before the Committee on Wednesday evening I do not think the harbour master will get more than $2,000 or $2,500 a year. If we do not increase the fee from $5 to $7 the harbour master will continue to receive the same meagre salary of $1,800 that he received in 1885. It is only a reasonable proposition that this small change in the fees should be allowed and that the harbour master, if he collects $2,000, or $2,500, or even the maximum of $3,000, should be allowed to keep this himself.


Samuel Hughes: I cannot understand why you are limiting the salary of this officer to the meagre pittance that he is being given here. I imagine some of his clerks will be receiving more than $1,800 a year and if he is worth anything why not give him a straight salary or give him a sufficient proportion of the fees to ensure him a proper income. No apology is required for giving this officer a larger remuneration.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The ships that enter
the harbour complain very bitterly about there being any fees at all. They believe that they should be exempt from any fees of this kind. I think that if you pay the harbour master $3,000 he will be satisfied. He only used to get $1,800 and, while that was small, he was evidently satisfied to stand by. I am not complaining about the fees being raised sufficiently high to secure $3,000 but immediately anything of this kind is done the ship masters complain that you are reducing their meagre earnings. I do not think the harbour master of the port of Halifax is required to devote all his time to the duties of his office. We have a very capable harbour master in my town and we have a very good harbour. I do not know of anything particular that this harbour master does except to see that ships arrange themselves in proper shape and that they do not unnecessarily get in each other's way. *1 think that is all he does. He has not to decide anything excepting that, if there is any complaint about a ship being unseaworthy, he may have something to say about it.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I cannot agree with my hon. friend about the duties of the harbour master not being most important at a very large port like Halifax. The tonnage entering and leaving that port each year is so considerable in amount that the harbour master has to give all his time to his duties there. The duties of the harbour master are to see that berths are allocated to vessels entering the port.
He also has to see that the vessels are properly moored. The harbour master has full charge of the port, and I consider that his duties in the case of such a port as Halifax are most important. When one compares the port of Halifax with the port of Montreal, where the harbour master receives $5,000 a year, and with the port of Quebec, where the harbour master gets $3,500 a year, I do not think that we are overpaying the harbour master of the first-named port when we place him in a position whereby he may possibly make five or six hundred dollars a year more than he is now drawing. For instance, in the year 1917 the total amount of fees collected in the port of Halifax only amounted to $1,832. Now, il the total amount of fees collected in 1920 do not exceed $1,800, that is all the harbour master of Halifax will be allowed to get in the way of salary; but if the fees, as I have already stated, amount to $2,500 or $3,000, he will draw a more substantial remuneration. Considering the fact that Halifax is a very large and important seaport, I hope that hon. members will agree with the reasonableness of the provisions of this Bill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: tl am not complaining about the harbour master getting a salary of $3,000; I think it is little enough for him, but I know how vigorously shipping masters in the past have complained regarding the exaction from them of any unnecessary fees. I simply wished to be sure that there were no greater fees to be collected than were necessary to meet the salary proposed to be given to the harbour master.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: In regard to the fees to be collected, we are only proposing a very slight increase. From my experience as a commissioner for the port of Montreal, I know that the shipping agents are always on the alert and do not want to pay anything more than they are obliged to pay, which is only natural. I am quite sure that the small increase in fees which is proposed here is not going to be a burden on any of the ship-owners, nor will it have any detrimental effect on shipping, but it will yield the harbour master a larger remuneration.


John Howard Sinclair: Under whose control is the port of Halifax at the present time? I understood when the Halifax disaster occurred that the port had been placed under the control of a naval officer.- Does that control still continue, or has it again been placed under the department?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: During the war
authority over the port of Halifax was exercised by the Naval Service, but since the signing of the armistice control of lhe harbour has once more reverted to the department.


Mr. PEDLOW:: Why is the harbour master of Halifax paid by fees, whereas the harbour master of Montreal receives a salary of $5,000, and the harbour master of Quebec a salary of $3,500? If it is deemed desirable to increase the remuneration paid ta the harbour master at Halifax, why not adopt the course which has been followed in the case of the other two harbour masters mentioned?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The system of administering the port of Halifax is entirely different from the system which obtains in the ports of Montreal and Quebec. The two latter ports are -administered by a harbour commission, and power is vested in them to pay to the harbour master whatever salary they may deem fit. On the other hand the port of Halifax is not under the control of a commission, but is administered by the Department of Marine, and we ate not allowed by the Pilotage Act to pay the harbour master a fixed salary; his salary can only be obtained by the collection of fees.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to, Bill reported, and read the third time.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Ballant-yne (Minister of Marine) the House went into Committee on the following proposed resolution.-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Resolved,. That it is expedient to amend the provisions of sections 432, 862, and 865 of the Canada Shipping Act, chapter 113 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1906, and to provide :[DOT]-
1. That notwithstanding anything in Part VI of the said Act, the Governor in Council may, when it appears to him to he in the interest of navigation, appoint the Minister to be the pilo-tage authority for any pilotage district, or for any part thereof; and the saild Minister shall thereupon supersede the then existing pilotage authority for that district or part of a district: Provided that nothing in said Part shall authorize the Minister to sit as a tribunal for the trial of offences of which pilots may
	;i * *
be accused before the pilotage authority; hut such Minister may, in any oase not provided for by Part X of the said Act designate a tribunal or officer to try any such offence.
2.	That for and in respect of all ships entering a port to which Part XII of the said Act applies, and at which a Harbour Master is appointed, and discharging or taking a cargo, ballast, wood or water, there shall he paid as fees the amount prescribed hy paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g) of section 862 of the said Act; that paragraph (h) he repealed ; and that the following paragraphs be added to the said section:-
"(h) for every ship over seven hundred tons and not over one thousand tons register, five dollars;
" (i) for every ship over one thousand tons register seven dollars."
3.	That the salary or remuneration of each Harbour Master shall from time to time be fixed by the Governor in Council, hut shall not exceed the rate of one thousand two hundred dollars per annum, and shall be subject to the provisions prescribed by the said Act, providing for the payment into the Consolidated Revenue Fund of all moneys received hy him for fees, after deducting therefrom the salary or remuneration fixed as aforesaid, and if the moneys received by him for fees in any year amount to a less sum than is so fixed, then such less sum shall he his salary or remuneration for that year.
John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister explain the object of the resolution?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The object is to enable me to introduce a Bill permitting the Department of Marine to take over the control of all the pilotage systems of Canada and to vest authority in the Governor General in Council. At present, and for some twelve years past, the pilotage systems of the two districts of Quebec and Montreal have been under the Department of Marine. In order to determine what steps should be taken in the interest of the greater efficiency of the pilotage system in Canada, the Government appointed a Royal Commission in the early part of 1918, consisting of Mr. Thomas Robb, of the Shipping Federation, Montreal; Captain Bayles, Deputy Warden for the port of Montreal; and Captain Harrison of Halifax, to inquire into the matter. The commission visited all the important seaports on the co-asts of Canada, such as Halifax, Sydney, Louisburg, St. John, N.B., Vancouver, Victoria, and Nanaimo, and their report, which has been already tabled, recommends very strongly that these pilo-tage districts, outside those of Montreal and Quebec, be taken under the supervision and direct control of the Department of Maxine. I am sure hon. gentlemen will recognize that the only object the Government has in recommending that this course be followed is to place the pilotage systems

in the ports referred to on a much more efficient basis than they have been in the past, and to provide for much more rigid pilotage examination. It is the intention of the Government, if the resolution should pass, to appoint a local superintendent of each one of these leading ports who shall be a seafaring man holding a master mariner's certificate. In addition the Government intends to appoint a general superintendent of pilots, to be stationed at the head office of the department in Ottawa, who will have general charge of all the local officers and of the various pilotage systems. It is further provided that the harbour dues on ships of over one thousand tons registered tonnage shall be increased to $7.
A great many of the harbour masters who are looking after our ports now are only allowed to draw a maximum salary of $600 per year. The object of this Bill is to allow them, if they collect sufficient fees, to draw a maximum salary of $1,200 per year. For instance, the harbour master for the port of Victoria, can at present, only draw a salary of $600 per year, whereas if this Bill passes, he will be allowed, providing he collects sufficient fees, to draw a maximum salary of $1,200.
There are, therefore, two important matters in the resolution before the Committee: First, that the pilotage systems of Canada from Halifax to Victoria be vested in the authority of the Governor-in-Council under the Minister of Marine and Fisheries; and, second, to provide harbour masters who are now drawing $600 a year a maximum salary of $1,200.


John Howard Sinclair: Have the Boards of Trade or the shipping authorities of any of the ports asked for this legislation?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The efficient management of the pilotage systems of Montreal and Quebec under the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the past twelve years was considered sufficient evidence to warrant the Government in appointing a Royal Commission to investigate the pilotage systems of these other ports. All the shipping interests and also the various Boards of Trade appeared before the commission when it visited those ports, and this Bill is receiving the unanimous approval of those interests.
The pilotage systems of the ports that I have referred to were looked after by local pilotage commissions, and as those commissioners did not receive any remuneration for their services, naturally they did not
178i
give the attention that they should to their duties. There is great scope to increase the efficiency of the pilotage systems, which systems it is now proposed shall be vested' in the Governor in Council, and eventually-shall come under the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, more particularly as we are going to have a local superintendent, who will be an ex-master mariner holding a master's certificate. All the interests concerned agree that this should be done.


John Howard Sinclair: This is a revolutionary proposal in a way, because it is removing the control of pilotage altogether to Ottawa. There must be a large number of pilotage commissions along the coasts of this country, and under the law they have-jurisdiction to determine the age, the qualifications and the skill of the pilots who are acting in their particular vicinity; to grant or withhold licenses to those pilots; to make regulations for their control, and other powers. The minister is proposing to sweep them all away and vest the control in an officer at Ottawa. I hesitate about approving the change, because I do not think it is wise to centralize this control. The local authorities know these pilots, they have been trained in the vicinity, and the commissioners are the best judges. Ottawa is too far away from the sea coast for an officer stationed there to possess the necessary local knowledge. A thousand miles makes a great difference in efficiency in matters of this kind. With all due respect to the minister and his department, I would: hesitate to take this authority out of the hands of the local commissioners and transfer it to some one in the department.
From what I have heard in this House and have gathered from the press, I do not think that the management of the pilots in the St. Lawrence river has been such a great success as the minister describes. I think it is open to a great deal of criticism. We are aware of the patronage that has existed in connection with the appointment of those pilots, and it is only a few days ago that we were called upon to vote a considerable sum of money to pay pensions to pilots on the St. Lawrence river who should never have been appointed. I do not know Ahether that system of appointment is still continuing or not, but I am aware of the fact that owners of ships coming up the St. Lawrence river will not employ some of the pilots appointed; they prefer pilots that they know are competent and they do not care as a rule to take any pilot that comes along. As a matter of fact, I do not think that the management of the pilotage business in the

St. Lawrence river commends itself so much to the people of Canada that they want to .place all the pilotage systems under the authority of the same officer. I am not -speaking for the different Boards of Trade in the country or the ship owners,, but I would be surprised if they have all agreed *to this proposal.
W6 are told that a Royal Commission investigated conditions. I do not know who these Royal Commissioners are, but I understand it was a Royal Commission consisting of two or three captains, officers of the Government. The trades people were not represented on the commission. It would be a very easy matter for two or three officers to travel around the country and get opinions favourable to their own theories. I would not place so much reliance on the report of those Royal Commissioners as I would on the report of the representative men selected from the business interests of the country. I would advise the minister to hesitate before he takes this revolutionary step oi wiping out all the pilotage authorities and centralizing the control at Ottawa.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The only criticism that is likely to fall upon the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries is that successive governments did not take any step several years ago that I purpose taking now. As to the hon. member's remarks in reference to the Montreal and Quebec pilots, the best answer I can give is the almost total absence of any accidents during quite a term of years. It is true that several of the large steamship companies prefer to engage certain pilots to take charge of their vessels. But from any knowledge that I am possessed of-and I do not claim to be an authority on pilotage, although I have been connected with it for a good number of years-I do not know of a more efficient lot of pilots than those who have charge of vessels in the Montreal and Quebec districts.
In regard to the personnel of the Royal Commission, none of those gentlemen are connected with the Government. Mr. Thomas Robb is president of the Shipping Federation and occupies an important position; Captain Burns is deputy Port Warden of Montreal, and Captain James Harrison is superintendent of one of the large steamship companies at the port of Halifax.
Here is what the commission states about the Montreal Pilotage district:
From the evidence adduced before your commission, it appears that the administration of 
the Montreal Pilotage district has been carried out in an efficient manner, and in this respect considerable credit must be given to the civil servant who has been handling the records, etc.
The commission also pay the same tribute to the Quebec Pilotage district. Their recommendation to the minister is this:
That the commissions at present administering the pilotage service in the districts o< Miramichi, Sydney, Louisburg and St. John have been found by your commissioners to have outrun their usefulness, and we recommend the immediate enactment of legislation appointing the Minister of Marine and Fisheries the pilotage authority for these districts.
They make the same recommendation as regards the pilotage districts of Vancouver, Victoria, and Nanaimo.
The hon. member has made reference to the local pilotage commissions. The authority that those commissions have at present is subject to the approval of the Governor in Council and to the approval of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. So that we are not taking away any powers from them; we are simply saying that their work must receive the approval of the minister. But hon. members will readily see that a pilotage commission that receives no remuneration at all is not entirely satisfactory. It is not particularly interested in the rigid examination of pilots, nor in seeing that their efficiency is kept up to the standard that the importance of the calling demands. The pilotage systems of Montreal and Quebec have certainly worked admirably.
I am only asking for authority to take these pilotage systems over providing that we think it necessary to do so. But I would not care to assume the responsibility of the pilotage systems in Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo, Halifax, St. John and Sydney being what they should be if they are left in the hands of lbcal pilotage commissions. There is a great deal of opportunity to increase the efficiency of the pilots and to see that the examination is a great deal more rigid. Therefore it is in the interests of navigation that this resolution should pass.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not wish the minister to misunderstand me. I did not condemn the pilots of the St. Lawrence; there are no better pilots than they. But I have been informed that they are not all efficient, that there are some who should not have been appointed, which is proved by the very fact that the minister has asked us to retire them and provide for them otherwise.

In reference to the other pilotage commissions, if it is not the intention of the minister to interfere with them, I would not have the same objection. But I do not think they should be interfered with unless there is some request from the locality that is interested. The fact that the pilotage commissions have been giving their services free of remuneration is not any reason why they should be dismissed. In the county I represent we have had a pilotage commission for many years, and the commissioners have not received any remuneration, but they are very proud of their position and they have done good work in the appointments they have made.
They accept these responsibilities and discharge them very well without remuneration; but there is no reason why their services should be dispensed with if everything is satisfactory to the locality concerned. If it is the intention of the minister to take over the pilotage only in cases where the people of the harbours concerned wish it, then I would not have so much objection to the measure.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension as regards Montreal and Quebec pilotage. I do not say anything about other ports, but the transfer to Ottawa some years ago of the control vested in the pilotage commissions of Montreal and Quebec was a change for the better. Before that time there had been many accidents in the St. Lawrence river, but since then the river has been practically free from accidents. At first the pilots were very much averse to the move and opposed it strongly, but they have become reconciled to it because they find that under the supervision of the Department of Marine and Fisheries the pilots have become more versed in their pro-4 p.m. fession and more alert in their service. The superannuation plan was adopted when Mr. Brodeur was Minister of Marine and Fisheries, in order to provide for old pilots who had become blind and who were unable to give further efficient service. The list of superannuation is decreasing yearly, and after a while there will be no more. May I ask the minister whether pilots, especially those of Montreal or Quebec, who are' nearly all French Canadian, may pass their test examinations in the French language? I read something in the press about this some time ago. I know that the minister is as broadminded as a man can be, but I would like him to give the assurance that the
pilots may pass the examination in whichever language they choose.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am happy to inform my hon. friend that, in line with their general ability, the French Canadian pilots speak one language as well as the other, and the examination is such that they have to be familiar with the English language as well as the French. The examination may be carried on in French if the pilot so desires. But having regard to the fluency with which they speak English it is of little importance to the French Canadian pilots whether the examination is in English or is in French.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who are the members of the Pilotage Board in Ottawa?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: There is no Pilotage Board here now, but if this Bill ^goes through I hope to have a General Superintendent of Pilots at Ottawa who will be in charge of all the pilots at the various ports. At any port where the French language is the dominant one, we shall provide a super- ' intendent who can speak that language.


Mr. LOGGIE:: I wish to congratulate the Government upon bringing down this measure. The matter was not looked into in a near-sighted manner, as the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. J. H. Sinclair) would seem to indicate. The shipping interests as well as the manufacturing interests were fully heard, and I am sure that better service will be given under a management that is in direct touch with Ottawa than could be given through a local commission. I would like the minister to provide that in any event there shall be a minimum salary of $300. I have heard from harbour masters in small ports that there is a very great grievance because the fees were so small that they did not provide a reasonable remuneration for the work done, and it would be nothing but fair to include a provision that if the fees were only say, $200, the harbour master in any case would get $300. The work is considerable and the responsibility a grave one, and it would be in the interests of all concerned if the minister could fix a minimum for the harbour master in accordance with my suggestion.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do not think it is necessary to consider that. I have a memorandum showing the remuneration that harbour masters receive at various ports, and. in most cases it amounts to between $500 and $600 a year. We think that that is too low, and that it ought to

be increased, provided they receive sufficient fees, to a maximum of $1,200.


Mr. DUFF:: How are the pilots on the St. Lawrence route appointed ?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Whenever there is a vacancy it is advertised through the press, and any one may apply. I presume the hon. member refers to apprentice pilots, who have to pass the examination required every year until they become full-fledged pilots, when they take their turn as vacancies occur.


William Duff: Is the examination taken before the Pilot Commission or the Civil Service Commission?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Department ot Marine and Fisheries set the examination and have everything to do with it.


Mr. FOURNIER:: It is true that practically all the pilots speak both languages, but probably some are not as fluent or as well versed in one or the other language as might be desirable, and I think it might very well be provided that in the case of inquiries or accidents, testimony could be taken in French. I do not quite agree with part of the remarks of the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair). I have the honour to represent the constituency oi Bellechasse, in which there are many pilots, and I do not think my hon. friend has a precise knowledge of the St. Lawrence route. If he travelled with some of the pilots over that route on two or three occasions I am sure he would be convinced that these men are expert navigators. Indeed, I do not think that better or more prudent men could be found. The channel is narrow, and they are obliged to travel at night, and notwithstanding the difficulties they encounter, there are very few, if any, accidents. I suggest that it should be provided that testimony should be accepted in both languages.


William Duff: In places like Halifax, Vancouver, and St. John, are the local superintendents to be appointed directly by the Minister of Marine or by the Civil Service Commission? The appointment of superintendents in these places is a very important matter, and these men should be appointed by the minister himself, after consultation with the shipping men, who are best informed on the subject. These appointments should not rest in the hands of the Civil Service Commission.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I agree with the views of the hon. member, and while the Civil Service Commission will have the ap-

pointment of local superintendents, I, as minister, will necessarily be called on to pass upon their qualifications. The efficiency of the pilotage system very largely depends on the knowledge and qualifications of the local superintendents.


Mr. PARENT:: Does the practice of " tour de role " still obtain, and, if so, does the present Bill seek to abolish it?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: " Tour de role " still applies.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There are in the county I represent a very large body of pilots, and I should like to know somewhat more about this Bill. I must say, in justice to the pilotage system in the harbour of Sydney-a system that has been in existence for at least a hundred years-that the work has been excellent, and while there may have been some complaints, as there necessarily are against every human institution, considering the number of pilots at work in Sydney harbour and the very large number of ships with which they have had to cope, I think the number of accidents or complaints of any kind must be a very small percentage indeed. In view of this fact, I would like to be assured that full justice will be done to these men, and that they will not be placed in any worse position than they are under the present management. Is the minister making any provision for members of the pilotage system at Sydney who will be called upon to retire, or' who he thinks should retire? And I may ask also if he is making any provision for the officers who are now employed in. connection with that work. I do not know how many officers there are, but I think there are two or three men who are paid salaries in connection with the work- of the commission and who are doing the work very well. I suppose it would be regarded as just as great a hardship to the men in Sydney to deprive them of theii living as it is to those in Quebec and Montreal, where provision has been made by way of pension for those pilots who were retired. I am not finding fault because such provision has been made by reason of a change in the system, but I do say that the same justice should be meted out to men in other parts of the country who will be deprived of their living as a result of this change. In Sydney harbour under the present plan, which has been in force for some time, apprentices are appointed by the' board and it depends to a great extent upon the ability of the apprentice as to when he shall be admitted to the full

status of a licensed pilot. Once he gets a license I do not think there is any difference between him and others. Can the minister say how old a pilot must be before he gets a license, or is there an age limit; and to what age is he permitted to serve under the provisions of the statute?
I think the maximum age now in Sydney is sixty-five years. I do not know that there is any fixed minimum, but I suppose a man could not become a pilot under twenty-five or thirty years of age at all events. How apprentices can be appointed from Ottawa ratheir puzzles me. The pilotage commission is on the ground there, they know the men, and I have never had very much reason to complain about the appointments they have made. Of course, it has been a political institution. When we were in power, Grits were appointed, but since the change of Govern-a Grit has not had much chance of becoming a pilot or an apprentice. But we did not find very much fault with that, because it was regarded as a part of the party system and as legitimate patronage. Now that a change is proposed I should like some explanation of the system the minister is going to adopt. If it is still going to be the party system, he must be advised by some person in the constituency who has knowledge of party affiliations. If it is not going to be the party system, there must be some agency through which the apprentices and pilots will be appointed regardless of party affiliations. We have already the supposed non-party system in connection with the post office and custom house and other departments, but as I have already pointed out in this House there is a marvellous instinct exercised in making these appointments, and a Grit is never by any possibility appointed where the vacancy should _go to a Tory. I am only mentioning these things so that the minister will devise a system that will .be satisfactory to all concerned and that justice shall be done. I suppose that once a man has been appointed as an apprentice, the position he gets as pilot depends upon the place he takes in the examination. The discrimination, as I regard it, can be more effectively exercised in selecting the apprentices. I think in Sydney harbour we have 32 pilots; 34 would be the limit. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the minister to reduce that number and whether any other radical changes are proposed in the pilotage system at Sydney.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend need have no fear of appointments being made
on political grounds. Ever since I have been minister I have paid absolutely no attention to party politics in administering this department, and that will be my attitude so long as I hold office. Hon. members on the other side of the House who call upon me well know that I am as ready at all times to serve them as I am to serve members on this side of the House, and no one will strive harder than I to keep the pilotage system free from political patronage.
With regard to apprentice pilots, the local superintendent at Sydney would report to the general superintendent of pilots at Ottawa, and that report would come before me, so my hon. friend need have no apprehension as to the qualifica-. tions of the apprentices or that' appointments will be made on party lines.
At Sydney there are 33 pilots and 7 apprentices. It is not my intention to interfere with that brganization in any way, except that I have had a request from the port of Sydney to take the pilotage system under the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the same way that Quebec and Montreal have been taken over. The only change will be that instead of the local pilotage commission having charge of the pilots, the local superintendent will have charge of them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister did not
answer my question as to what he is going to do with the officials there.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Government
has no pension system for pilots except for those of the Quebec district, and that has to be approved by Parliament each year. The various pilotage systems throughout 'Canada, however, have pension funds of their own and provide for their pilots when they reach the age of 65, which is the age limit. It is not the intention of the Government at the present time to propose a pension fund for pilots. The pilots have annually to pass an eye test and show that they possess the other necessary qualifications, and then when they reach the age of 65 they are generally retired, although a pilot may continue to the age of 70 subject to the approval of the minister. If the pilot on retiring has no means of his own the Pilotage Fund generally takes care of him.


John Howard Sinclair: Will there be a
local examiner at each port ?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


Mr. PELLETIER:: I understand that this legislation is for the purpose of putting

the different pilotage systems under the control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. When the Bill comes up we shall have an opportunity of studying all the details. There are several important questions to be considered-the question of pensions, for instance. Conditions vary at the different ports. In Halifax, for instance, the pilots may have to get on the bridge of a ship and stay there for only two or three hours, whereas between Quebec and Father Point they will be on duty from twenty-four to twenty-eight hours. I have no objection to the passing of this resolutiou because we shall have ample time to consider all the important questions involved when the Bill comes up. I approve of the systems being placed under the control of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I am somewhat interested in this question because I live down there and understand the conditions. I think it would be of great advantage if the examiners and those in charge of the pilots were required to speak both languages.


Mr. MARTIN:: Is it true that the department purchased at a cost of $70,000 or $80,000 a steamer to take the place of the pilot boats at Halifax, but that she was found cumbersome and the pilots had to take to the pilot boats again?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Department of Marine and Fisheries simply borrowed from the Department of the Naval Service the boat now used by the pilots.


Peter Francis Martin: Am I correct in understanding that the department equipped her at a cost of $60,000 or $70,000, and had to abandon her afterwards?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am not aware of any such expenditure as the hon. gentleman speaks of. I shall be very glad to look into it.


William Stewart Loggie: I want to ask a question.


The CHAIRMAN:: I am afraid the hon. gentleman will he out of order.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. BALLANTYNE thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 122, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, founded on the resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Hon. Mr. Calder for the House to go into Committee of Supply:
Rodolphe Lemieux: 
Mr. SPEAKER:: Was it a judge of the
county court, or a judge of the Superior Court of Quebec who imposed the sentence in this case?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House went into Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
NAVAL SERVICE ESTIMATES-STATEMENT BY Mr. BALLANTYNE.
The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.

Civil Government-Department of Naval Service-Salaries, $i23'8,900.
Contingencies, $->0,000.
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. Chairman, before asking the Committee to deal with the Naval Service Estimates, it will be in order that I should reply to the charges made some time ago by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) against the Naval Service. I regret that my hon. friend did not do me the courtesy to let me know that he was going to launch those charges on the floor of the House at that time, so that I might have been in my seat to reply to the inaccurate statements he then made. If the hon. member had said that the ships comprising the Royal Canadian Navy were not as efficient as they should be, I would not feel so much disposed to take issue with him; but he saw fit to detail a long list of inaccurate charges against the loyal and capable officers and men who have been defending the coasts of Canada to the best of their ability, and, as Minister of Naval Service, I am happy to say, in the most efficient manner during the period of the war. It is not my intention to reply to every charge that the hon. member made, because if I did I would take up too much time and probably I might weary the committee. I feel sure that he did not prepare these charges himself; no doubt they were collected together for him. When I was in Halifax last fall I quite accidentally came across a well-known man, not a member of this House, who was very busy trying to gather w'hat information he could so as to supply the hon. member with the defective ammunition that he used in making these charges. I am sorry that .the hon. member did not himself look into these matters more carefully; I am satisfied that Ke would never have made the charges had he known that they could not be substantiated.
I may mention in the first place that the establishment of the Royal Canadian Navy when war broke out on August 4, 1914, was only 300 men. Suddenly the Naval Service was called upon to furnish escorts for the convoys that were going out of Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and Sydney, and also to provide the necessary patrols, and hon. members will appreciate what it meant to increase suddenly the establishment of the Royal Canadian Naval Service from 300 to over 5,000 men. During the period of the war over 10,000 men passed through the Royal Canadian Naval Service. I resent, and I am sure that the people of Canada will resent, the very unfair and
unfounded charges that the hon. member (Mr. Duff) has seen fit to launch
5 p.m. against the loyal Canadian officers and men, as also the officers and men of the Imperial service, who gave their time and best efforts to Canada when her very existence as a nation was threatened. I am glad to take advantage of this opportunity, as Minister of the Naval Service, to pay my whole-hearted tribute to the splendid work done by the Imperial officers and men in the Canadian Naval service and by the loyal and efficient Canadian officers and men, who during the four and a half years of war, have been exposed to all kinds of hardship and of peril. I am surprised and disappointed that any member of this Parliament should make such unwarranted and unfounded charges as the member for Lunenburg has seen fit to make against these patriotic men who rendered to Canada and to the Empire such devoted self-acrificing service during the war.


William Duff: I said no such thing. If the minister will read my speech he will see that I took the part of the men and of some of the officers.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: T.he hon. member
made charges against the men and he cast slurs at the efficiency of the Naval Service of Canada. Having charged the Naval Service with inefficiency and blundering, and having cast ridicule upon it, he cannot now rise in his place and say that he did not make any charges against the personnel of the Canadian Naval Service. It will be interesting, no doubt, to the hon. member to hear what a stoker had >to say with regard to one of his charges as published in the Montreal Star:
What the Navy Did.
Sir,-In a recent Star I saw that a Mr. William Duff, of Lunenburg, ran down the Naval Service on the Nova Scotian coast. Now, if it had not been for the Naval service there would not have been one of the Lunenburg fishing fleet on top to-day. I was on one of the naval boats, the Stadacona. We were sent ouit in very bad weather to find the Lunenburg fishing fleet on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland and send them home because there were submarines around, and we did not stop till we had rounded every boat up. There was over 60 I was told. I did not count them myself-about 5 miles apart. In the meantime the men stood at the guns day and night, watching for subs.
I happen to know that the Lady Evelyn is not the best equipped vessel in the service, and when she went to Magdalen Islands, she took something of a great deal more value than lead pencils. Mr. Williiam Duff of Lunenburg may know a lot, but he doesn't know everything.
George Goodman, Stoker. ,

And now the hon. member says that he made no charges against the officers and men of the Canadian Naval Service. If he did not, what did he mean, when he said that at the time the oil-tanker Lux Blanca was sunk by a submarine several miles from the gas buoy off Halifax, the naval officials at Halifax were holding a pink tea and playing bridge whist? To-day, when I charge the hon. member with making unfair and inaccurate statements with regard to the officers and men of the Naval Service, he tries to make out that he did not reflect upon the personnel; that he was referring only to the ships. Such an explanation at this late date will certainly not go very far.
It is strange that the hon. member should go for his information to a junior officer, Lieutenant Julian-a man who did not know the bow from the stem of a ship when war broke out and who knows very little more to-day. In winding up his long list of supposed charges he says that he asked this young politician, Lieutenant Julien, to what he ascribed the inefficiency of the Naval Service of Canada; and that Lieutenant Julian said it was due to Sir Robert Borden and the late Conservative party. That clearly shows that the charges were made for the purpose of trying to gain some political party advantage. The late lamented and gifted leader of the Liberal party, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, did his best to inaugurate a Canadian naval service, and he placed a Naval Service Act upon the statute book. The ships that we have to-day are the ships [DOT]that were brought out to this country by the Liberal party. And yet a full-fledged Liberal like the hon. member for Lunenburg gets up and slams the navy that was created by his late revered leader.
It is not my intention to enter into any political controversy on the subject of a Canadian naval policy. It has always been a matter of great regret to me that the naval defences of the coast of Canada ever became a question of controversy between the two parties; I should have preferred to see it treated as a national matter and kept entirely out of the political arena. I shall not, therefore, this afternoon go over *the history of former Liberal and Conservative Governments so far as it relates to a naval policy for Canada. The matter of a Canadian naval policy will be taken up in due time. When Parliament meets in the next session I am satisfied that the Government will place before Parliament and before the people a naval policy that
[Mr. Ballantyne.l
will receive the unanimous approval of members of Parliament and of the people generally.
The first charge that the hon. member (Mr. Duff) makes is this:
I am going to show, Mr. Chairman, that this $31,000,000 was practically all wasted, that it was not spent in the interest of the taxpayers of Canada; that it was entirely unnecessary, and did not in any particular, or in any way help to defend Canada or to protect the property of her citizens.
That is a nice charge to make against the Liberal party who created the Naval Service of Canada. It is strange that the hon. member throughout his speech did not return to the financial side of the question, except to say that the Government proceeded to waste money on the purchase of a lot of small boats that were utterly useless.
Then, the hon. member had something to say in regard to the Niobe and the Rainbow. He said:
Shortly after Hon. J. D. Hazen assumed the position of Minister of Naval Affairs the crews of these ships were disbanded, the boys sent home and only a few men kept on board to act as caretakers.
I shall give the actual facts. On the 28th of July, 1914, when events in Europe first began to look alarming, the Rainbow was in commission with a full crew. On that day she was directed to prepare for war, and on the 2nd of August she was despatched to sea to cruise off Vancouver Island to be in readiness for any sudden attack by German submarines, known to be on the west coast of America. Immediately upon the declaration of war on the fourth of August, the Rainbow was ordered south to convoy His Majesty's gunboats Algerian and Shearwater to Esquimalt, a task which she successfully accomplished. She was continuously at sea until paid off in the spring of 1917, covering something over 50,000 miles during her period of service and her activities extended from Panama to the northern coast of British Columbia. By the battle off the Falkland Islands the great menace of the German Pacific fleet was removed; but there was considerable scope for useful work on the Pacific until the entry of the United States into the war. It was then decided that the Rainbow's trained and experienced crew could be used to better advantage on the Atlantic. So much with regard to the Rainbow.
The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) had also to say something about the Niobe. He said that upon war being de-

dared "it was found that her boilers were in such condition that it would take several months to put her in a seaworthy condition." Here are the actual facts, which are very much at variance with the statement of the hon. member for Lunenburg. The Niobe was ordered to prepare for war on the 28th July. Steps were once taken to bring her forward for service, and to raise a crew for her. She was ready for sea on the 31st August, 1914. She at once joined the N.A. & W.I. Squadron, her first duty being to escort SS. Canada with the Royal Canadian Regiment to Bermuda and return with an Imperial regiment. She then patrolled the gulf of St. Lawrence and coast of Newfoundland, whilst the First Canadian Contingent was preparing to leave and during their passage through Canadian waters. She subsequently formed part of the so-called New York Patrol until she was paid off in September, 1915, after a full year's efficient service, during which she steamed over 30,000 miles. Hon. members will see that there is a wide difference between the charge that the hon. member made, that her boilers were in such condition that she was not seaworthy, and the actual facts, which were as I have just stated. Furthermore, at the request of the Admiralty all the big guns on the Niobe were removed and used on the merchant marine ships, but only after the active service at sea to which I have referred had been performed.
The hon. member was good enough to say that lie had no charge to make against my administration, but that he had as to the administration of my predecessor, Sir Douglas Hazen. I want to say, in fairness to my predecessor in office, that he is not to blame in any way for the Naval Service of Canada not having done more than that which it did render so effectively during the war.
In the early months of the war the Canadian Government inquired whether, in the judgment of the Admiralty, it was necessary or desirable to undertake preparation for naval defence. A reply was received stating that naval preparations were not necessary and that Canada's effort should be concentrated upon military forces. A further inquiry was made in the spring of 1915. with the same result. In the autumn of 1916 the Canadian Government was suddenly called upon by the Admiralty to undertake certain preparations for naval defence. The Department of Naval Service took up the matter immediately and vigorously, with the result that all the proposals of the Admiralty were carried out practically in their entirety and to the greatest extent that was possible in the circumstances. The result is seen in the largo number of patrol boats of various types and sizes which were engaged in anti-submarine defence.
It will be seen, therefore, that the Government on two different occasions inquired of the Admirality if there was anything that Canada could do more than was being undertaken at the time, and the reply was that the British Government did not desire that Canada should do anything more than concentrate her full effort upon necessary military forces to send overseas. The hon. member (Mr. Duff) makes this further interesting statement:
I make the statement here that if the Niobe had) been ready to proceed' to sea the morning that Avar was declared she would have succeeded in capturing prizes which would have paid the Canadian expenditure for war purposes during the first year of the war.
I, am sure that the hon. member finds himself in rather an awkward position this afternoon after having given expression to views that had been gathered for him by some persohs who had very strong partisan political leanings, and who were not careful about the accuracy of the statements that they placed in his hands. The hon. member no doubt referred to German vessels sailing to or from United States ports, but I may say that the German Government took the precaution to warn all masters of ships in advance that war was likely to be declared, and on receipt of this intelligence these vessels were careful to remain in the shelter of neutral ports. It will be interesting to learn that an Imperial cruiser of very similar type to the Niobe put into Halifax the day after the outbreak of war and that Imperial vessels continually shadowed the Atlantic coast from that time on. Neither this ship nor any others of the fleet made any captures off the Canadian or the northern United States coasts, which, I think, effectively disposes of the supposition that had the Niobe been at sea she would have made many valuable captures. The committee may rest assured that the Imperial Government were quite awake to the possibilities of the situation and took measures to deal with it.
The further the hon. member proceeded with his speech, the farther he got away from the facts. He wanted to know why the Niobe did not capture the German steamer Willehad. If he had taken the trouble to ascertain the actual facts he would have learned for himself that this German steamer Willehad sailed from Montreal

on the first day of August, and war was not declared between Great Britain and Germany until August 4. Notwithstanding, the hon, member expected the Niobe to open up her guns, and if not to sink this German steamer, at least to capture her, before a state of war existed. I am surprised that the hon. member should have made such an inaccurate statement before the intelligent members of this House.


Mr. COPP:: When did she sail from Quebec?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: She sailed from Montreal on the first day of August.


John Howard Sinclair: When did she pass Quebec?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: She passed Quebec on the 2nd, and her movements were watched and telegraphed to the Naval Department all down the St. Lawrence. Furthermore, the vessel Canada was held in readiness to intercept her in the event of war being declared while she was in (Canadian waters.


William Duff: Where was this ship on the 4th of August?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: On the 4th of August she was outside of Canadian waters on her way to Boston, where she arrived on the 5th of August. But, said the hon. member, while she was going down the St. Lawrence, the Naval Service did not watch her, nor make any attempt to capture her. It must be obvious that the reason we did not do so was that war had no.t been declared at that time. The hon. member said, in regard to the Princess Cecelia:-
It was humiliating for Nova Scotians to know- that the North-German-Lloyd SS. Princess Cecilia left Boston a day or two after the war was commenced, with the most valuable
cargo ever shipped1 from that port.and
that no effort could be made by the Niobe or any Canadian cruiser to go out and capture that ship.
The facts are these: The Princess Cecelia left New York on the 28th July, 1914, one week before the declaration of war, bound for an European port. When matters assumed a threatening aspect she was half way across the Atlantic. She was ordered to return to a United States port by wireless and reached Bar Harbour on August 4th before the declaration of war. She left Bar Harbour on the 6th November, 1914, under an agreement between the Imperial and United States Governments, for Boston, in order that better supervision might he exercised over her. She did not leave Boston ['Mr. Rallantyne.]
until after the entry of the United States into the war in 1917, and then flew, the United States flag. The value of sea power was never more startlingly demonstrated. No prizes were made on the North Atlantic coasts, as the German ships simply stayed in neutral ports or fled to them for shelter, making a rich harvest for those neutrals at a later date, when they in turn entered the war and took over hundreds ot thousands of tons of the finest shipping in the world without an effort.
The hon. member's next charge is that relating to what he calls the waste of money on small patrol vessels. I do not suppose the hon. member knew that the Canadian Naval Service had to provide an extensive system of patrols. Not only did we have to have patrols outside our principal Atr lantic seaports such as Halifax and Sydney, but we had to furnish escorts for the numerous convoys conveying Canadian and American troops across the Atlantic from Montreal, Quebec, Halifax and Sydney. These men of our patrol service who have served on small trawlers and drifters in all kinds of weather, performed as good service, and deserve as much commendation for that service, as our gallant soldiers who fought in the trenches in France for all that we hold dear. I cannot help feeling annoyed that the hon. member for Lunenburg should make such slighting and sneering references to the naval men who have performed such signal service for Canada. It might interest the members of the Committee to know what we have done ifi the way of Atlantic coast patrol. The patrol squadron consisted of:
10 Auxiliary Patrol vessels.
12 Canadian Trawlers (named).
7 Trawlers Sweepers Type known as P.V's and numbered).
36 Trawlers (known as T.R's and numbered). 36 Drifters (known as C.D's and numbered). 15 Drifters (Imperial and temporarily lent, known as I.D's and numbered)
6 United States Submarine Chasers.
1 United! States Torpedo Boat (allocated to Air Service, Halifax).
The whole of the above were manned by Canadian Naval Service ranks and ratings (with the exception of the United vessels), the total number of ranks and ratings employed being approximately two thousand.
The area to he patrolled, and over which practical operations were continually carried out, extended from Belle Isle to Shelburne, and from Point Des Mon's (St. Lawrence) to the Virgin Rocks, including the Nova Scotia Banks and Grand Banks. This area gave some 1,800 miles of coast line besides open sea areas and routes which had to be patrolled.

The operations on which the vessels of the Patrol Squadron Area were employed are:
Coast patrolling and investigation at all points of the coast line of reports of suspicious crafts sighted, suspicious lights, possible mines, etc.
Constant patrol of certain positions of strategic importance.
Frequent patrols of the Grand Banks and Nova Scotia Banks and giving warning to fishing vessels of enemy submarine activities.
Port patrols off Halifax and Sydney.
Daily mine sweeping of the approaches, to Halifax, Sydney and St. John's, Nfld.
Frequent exploratory sweeps over mineable waters along the coast routes of shipping.
Convoy escorts to the slow convoys transporting stores overseas for some 150 to 200 miles out to sea. (These convoys number 25 'to 43 vessels in a convoy) .
Convoy escorts to the troops convoys leaving Canada.
Convoy escorts continually along Canadian and Newfoundland coastal routes.
Organized searches over areas where any enemy submarines were known or believed to be operating. In addition to which a very considerable amount of salvage work has been done by the Canadian patrol vessels.
The force was divided between the bases of Halifax and Sydney in proportion to the measure of activities required in the neighbourhood of these ports and the force based on each of these ports were further divided into separate flotillas utilized respectively for patrols, convoy escorts, minesweeping, etc. The main principle guiding the amount of sea time for patrol, convoy escort and other flotillas engaged in work beyond the minesweeping of harbour approaches was that two-thirds of the force were actually in active employment, one-third being in harbour undergoing necessary overhaul, coaling, storing, etc., and their personnel receiving instruction in gunnery, minesweeping, signal, hydrophones, depth charges, etc.
By this it is seen that force was maintained actually at sea for two-thirds of its time, which, when the weather conditions of the coast, the class of vessels employed, the small number of their crews, and consequent strain are considered, together with the amount of work which has to be carried out even when in harbour, is considered as much as can be expected of the
crews and at the same time maintain a good and efficient lookout.
When the war was on, a strict censorship prevented both my predecessor and myself from giving the public any information as to the splendid work the Canadian Naval Service was performing, and in one sense the country should be thankful to the hon. member for Lunenburg for making these charges, because it gives an opportunity not only to refute them in toto, but to place on Hansard the record of the splendid work of the Canadian Naval Service during the four and a half years of war.
I might also say that our Canadian patrols discovered several German mines, and no one can tell how many ships and how many lives have been saved by their vigilance in that respect. There is another thing. The people of Halifax and of Sydney, not familiar with the work of the patrol service, and observing these trawlers and drifters, which look very much alike, as they strolled along the port of Halifax or Sydney, were under the impression that the trawlers and drifters never went out to sea, and that has led sometimes to the unfair charge that the men of the patrol service doing nothing but attending pink teas and wasting the country's money and their own time. As a matter of fact, these trawlers and drifters proceeded to sea as divisions, and when they had stayed out the requisite number of days, they came back to port to refit. Surely no one will begrudge these men the short leave they were granted when they returned to their base.
1 shall not refer to what the hon. gentleman had to say about chartered ve '.sels and motor launches, but here is a statement that T cannot allow to go unchallengj l. He said:
When it was found that Halifax was full of these boats a base was established at Sydney. I have no hesitation in saying that the large expenditure of money for naval purposes at Sydney harbour was absolutely wasted, and there was no good result from having these boats in that harbour.
That is a very strong statement for an hon. member who was not conversant with the facts to make. In view of the brief outline I have given of the work of the patrols at Halifax and Sydney, I cannot understand how the hon. member could get up and state they had performed no service whatever for Canada, and that the expenditure in maintaining the base at Sydney was a waste of money. The hon. member for Lunenburg shakes his head. What I read were his actual words. I will read them again. He said:

L have no hesitation in saying that the large expenditure of money for naval purposes at Sydney harbour was absolutely wasted.
There I take sharp issue with him. I say there was no money wasted at the base at Sydney or at the base at Halifax. Words fail me to do justice to the splendid gallantry and efficiency of the men of our patrol service. Here again is another evidence that the hon. member could not have gathered this information from any trustworthy source.
The naval base at Sydney was first established in the spring of 1915. It was made a permanent base in 1916. During the summer practically the whole export trade of Canada passed through Cabot Straits. During the war Sydney became more important and in 1917 the Admiralty used it as a port for collecting the-convoys proceeding from the North American ports to Europe. Convoys consisting of thirty, forty, or more merchant ships would leave Sydney regularly every week throughout the summer. Sydney was certainly a most important base and was used not only on the judgment of the technical officers of the Canadian naval service but also on the advice of the Admiralty. I think the advice I had, as Minister of the Naval Service, was more to be relied upon than the inaccurate information that the hon. member has received. The hon. member for Lunenburg follows along with this other statement:
Captains and mates were taken from the merchant marine service and held around Halifax for months doing nothing.
That might sound all right if there was a general election on but I do not see why the hon. member should make such an absurd statement as that these men were taken from the merchant marine service and held around Halifax for months doing nothing. What are the facts? When it was decided by the Admiralty to build 60 trawlers and 100 drifters, the department agreed to assist by providing crews for those in Canadian waters. This meant the addition of at least 1,600 officers and men. It is obvious these men could not be recruited, and instructed in their special work in a day, and, therefore, they were recruite .1 and held in readiness, so that as each vessel was ready at the builders the whole crew could be despatched to bring the vessel out to sea without loss of time. That is what these men were doing at the port of Halifax when the hon. member says they were lying around doing nothing.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Could the minister tell me what year it was and at what time of the
Illr. Ballantyne.]
year these men were waiting for these trawlers?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: If you get down
to such details as the name of the month or the day of the month they were there, all I can say is that I have not that information before ine; nor can I tell you whether it was full moon or half moon, but I can find that out if you want to know.
Mr. J. H. iSIN'OLAilE:	Does the minister say that these men were not kept at Halifax at all waiting for ships to be ready for use?
Mr. iBiALLANTYNE:	No, I do not say
that.


John Howard Sinclair: Will he say they were not kept there for a whole winter by the hundred?	,


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I say that they
were not kept there for a whole winter and they were not kept there by the hundred, but there was of course a certain number of men held there waiting to man these ships. Then the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) makes another statement about the craft. He says:
Owing to their condition they were constantly undergoing repairs, most of them were unseaworthy and were not fit to go outside the headlands.
I do not know where the hon. gentleman got such information as that but I want to say that in view of the importance of their duties, these vessels were always kept as far as possible at the top notch of efficiency. There was room for a possible failure when these vessels were ordered out for duty. They were, therefore, always immediately overhauled on their arrival in harbour and any small defects made good, and as much time as possible was given in harbour for this purpose. Of course owing to the rapidity with which they were built, on account of the emergency, many of the vessels developed more minor defects than would be normally the case.
Then the hon. gentleman speaks of the crew of trawler No. 30 and he makes certain charges about that vessel. In July 1918, trawler No. 30 was engaged in escorting convoys and merchant ships to sea. The hon. member referred to the court martial-ling of certain members of her crew. Her crew had complained of leaks in the forecastle deck. All available caulkers were engaged in more urgent work and repairs could not be taken in hand at once. On the morning of the 18th, the men refused to take the ship to sea, and consequently

she was unable to take her part as escort to the outgoing convoy.
The ship was	inspected	by	the	shipwright officer, who reported that there was a slight leak over the starboard after bunk, also over the mess table; a leak in the captain's cabin,	the worst	on	the	ship.There were three or four leaks in the engineer's quarters. He further reported that the leaks were no more than might be occasioned in the case of a ship sweating and in no way impaired the ship's seagoing efficiency. In view	of the fact	that	the	country was at war,	and these	men	put	their
comfort before the safety of valuable lives and ships in the convoy, the crew were tried by courtmattial for refusing duty and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. This sentence was considered not excessive.
The captain of the Hochelaga I wish to inform the hon. member, was not a member of the court which tried these men and the statement of the hon. member that he was a typical example of the distortion and misrepresentation employed by him throughout his speech to work up a case against the naval service. Then the hon. member had gathered certain shreds of information regarding the Hochelaga. He stated:
There was a steamer on naval duty called the Hochelaga, which was commanded by a certain gentleman and which was sent to sea on (patrol duty. The lookout on this naval patrol boat one morning sighted a submarine; he reported the matter to the captain, and1 the captain, who was in charge of eight or ten small boats in addition to his own, at once put up signals to return to port, and instead of stopping and endeavouring to get that submarine or be sunk in the attempt, the captain of the Hochelaga deliberately turned tall and proceeded back to pout.
And yet, the hon. gentleman says that he has not made any charge against the officers and men who comprise the Canadian naval service.


William Duff: I did not say that at all.
Mr. BALLANTY'NE: Hansard makes the hon. gentleman state that the captain-
At once put up signals to return to port.
That is a direct charge against the officers and men of the naval service.


William Duff: Against some of the officers and men but not against all.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My hon. friend need not try to draw the line too fine because his statements were general and sweeping. The particular charge that he makes in this
connection is against the officers and men who were on board the Hochelaga. The facts are: On the 25th August the patrol ships Cartier, Hochelaga and trawlers Nos. 32 and 22 were patrolling, ships three to four miles apart. About 1.45 p.m. the ' Hochelaga sighted two schooners which being reported to the captain, he altered course to intercept them. When about four miles from the schooners a submarine was sighted close to them, and at the same time one of the schooners sank. The captain then ordered his crew to stations for "action," altered course towards Cartier, his senior officer's ship and away from the submarine, and reported the presence of the submarine by wireless. Cartier immediately steered for the position of the submarine, accompanied by Hochelaga, but the submarine had by that time disappeared. Then the hon. member for Lunenburg asks:
Why in the name of common sense was he allowed to go with an honourable discharge?
There again the hon. gentleman's information is totally inaccurate. Here are the facts in that case:	When the circumstances were reported, the captain of the Hochelaga was tried by court-martial on the following charge:
That he did not, from negligence or other default, on sight of a ship of the enemy, which it was his duty to engage, use his utmost exertions to bring his ship into action.
He was found guilty and sentenced to be dismissed from His Majesty's service. By no stretch of imagination can this sentence be called an honourable discharge. There can be scarcely any greater disgrace than such a sentence in time of war, which carries with it not only the forfeiture o'f his commission as an officer, but also of all claim to pension, war service gratuity, medals, or other benefits. Surely that was enough punishment for a man who showed some neglect in the performance of his duty. This officer was not on the court which tried the crew of Trawler 30, for refusal of duty, although the hon. member says that he was.
Then my hon. friend unearthed another mare's nest and he referred to the oil tanker Luz Blanca, which was either sunk by a shell, or torpedoed by a German submarine, seventeen miles off the gas buoy at the port of Halifax. The hon. member made a nunp ber of charges of culpable negligence against the officers of the department in connection with the sinking of that ship. Here is further evidence that the hon. member made charge after charge against the
REVISED EDITtON

officers and men of the Naval Service of Canada. At the opening of my remarks the hon. member disclaimed having done so; but as we consider his speech we find that as he proceeded he time and time again ' makes absolutely unfair and inaccurate references to these gallant men. Then the hon. gentleman goes on to say:
While this vessel was being sunk a number of the officers at Halifax were at pink teas and playing bridge whist. This is the way we were protected on the Nova -Scotia coast.
I am glad of this opportunity to absolutely refute the accusation-the unfair accusation-that	the hon. member has
brought against British officers with a splendid record in the Imperial navy, and against the excellent officers and men who comprised the Canadian Naval Service of Canada. For the hon. gentleman to allege that in time of war these men who had donned the King's naval uniform would be guilty of attending pink teas and playing bridge while an oil tanker was being shelled and sunk outside of the port of Halifax, is absurd and nonsensical, and I hurl the charge back at him as unfair and totally inaccurate. Now, here are the facts in regard to the iLuz Blanca, which may afford some information to the hon. gentleman: She left Halifax about 7 a.m. on the 5th of August, 1918. She was struck by a torpedo on her starboard side when about 35 miles southwest of the Outer Gas Buoy of Halifax harbour. There was a considerable amount of haze on this day. Her report of the attack was received by the senior officer of patrols at 1.45 p.m., and action was taken immediately. At this time there were at sea-one division of patrol vessels (i.e., four vessels) and two United States submarine chasers. The former had just left the convoy, and the latter were still in company with the convoy. The W/T. message was sent to both divisions, which was coded, sent, decoded and acted upon by 2.30 p.m.
That is very prompt action. This is how the officers were employed instead of attending a pink tea and (playing bridge whist. The patrol vessels were uncertain of their position, as they had been at sea for some time in fog. Unfortunately, -the senior officer made a wrong decision as to his position on the advice of -a fisherman whom he happened to pass-, and in consequence -did not get into touch with the Luz Blanca. He was absolved from blame by the court of inquiry and -the department concurred in this. Any man who knows- anything at all about navigation-and I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Duff) knows much about
[ ilr. Ballantvne.l
it-is aware that when a ship is in a dense fog it is nothing unusual for a navigator not to be able to determine what his right course is.


William Duff: Does the minister say there was a fog on that day?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do. I suppose my hon. friend later on will assert that there was no fog on the -day in question.


William Duff: I absolutely assert that there was no fog on that day, and I will put up $1,000 to prove the assertion.
Mr. BALLANTYNE! Hon. gentlemen will appreciate, from what II have said already, whether the accuracy of the statement of the Minister for the Naval 'Service, or the accuracy of the statement of the hon. member for 'Lunenburg, is the .more to be depended upon. The submarine chasers arrived on the scene too late to save the ship, but picked up survivors. Those are the facts in regard to the sinking of the Luz Blanca.
It now becomes my duty to deal with another statement by the hon. gentleman; and it appears that the further he proceeded with his speech the more intoxicated he became with his inaccurate statements.


An hon. MEMBER:: He had been taking pink tea.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Probably he had been taking tea, and I hope it was not anything stronger.


William Duff: I must ask the hon. member to take back his suggestion that I was indulging in something stronger than pink tea.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I will withdraw the observation, because I am satisfied the hon. gentleman would be perfectly satisfied with tea, and more especially " pink tea."
Now here is another statement by the hon. gentleman:
That whilst a German submarine was off the coast, the Lady Evelyn was sent to Magdalen islands with six lead pencils.
It is a shame that the hon. member should occupy the time of the House with such frivolity as that, and to take up my time and the time of my technical officers in looking up accurate information to reply to any such nonsensical charge as that the Lady Evelyn was sent to the Magdalen islands with six lead pencils. The facts are that the Lady Evelyn left Sydney at five a.m. on the 3rd August on patrol duty in the gulf of St. Lawrence. Whilst on this duty she visited, in the ordinary course,

the various war signal stations in her area, at the same time landing any supplies required by them. She continued patrolling until seven a.m. on the 7th August, when she returned to Sydney. The submarine on the 5th August was operating off Halifax, and not in the area of the Sydney patrol to which the Lady Evelyn belonged.
Then the hon. gentleman dealt with the assistance rendered by naval vessels from the country to the south of us, and here is what he said:
An American destroyer was off Cape Canso, she received a call to return to Halifax. When the commander of the destroyer received the call, he wired back that he had information a submarine was in his zone. Nevertheless 'he was ordered back to Halifax on some paltry excuse, and when he got there he was sent out on convoy with the ship that was to take Prince Arthur of Connaught to England.
The facts of the case are as follows; The Halifax subdivision of United States chasers were ordered to leave Halifax and to search Banquereau bank and return to Halifax, in order to escort H. M. S. Shannon, which ship was to convey Prince Arthur of Connaught to England. No submarine was sighted or reported by any of these vessels, and their programme of search was not curtailed in the least degree for the purpose of returning to Halifax. The normal routine was maintained, which would have been used in the .case of any ship of the size of fhe Shannon proceeding to sea.


John Howard Sinclair: Has the minister the log of the Lady Evelyn?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is available.
Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR; Can the minister tell us where she was on the 5th August?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am sorry I cannot off-hand tell the hon. gentleman the longitude and the latitude of the ship's position on that date-it is not to be supposed that I should know-but I will try and get that information for him. There is no necessity for me to refer to where the submarine went.
I pass over several of the hon. member's remarks and come to his statement that the Americans established seaplane bases at Halifax and North Sydney, and that this was a humiliating position for Canada. Well, let us see how humiliating it was for our beloved country. The seaplane bases at Halifax and Sydney were established, constructed and paid for by the Naval Service Department. As all naval operations on the Canadian coast were carried out in consultation with the Imperial and the United States authorities-that is to say, after our
1791	.
neighbour came into the war, it was agreed that when the stations were erected, the United States would lend such personnel as was desired to assist in operating them, for the following excellent reasons: I need not go into details, but there were large numbers of American soldiers going out of the ports of Sydney and Halifax, and it was necessary to establish a naval seaplane base not only at Sydney, but also at Halifax. The agreement was that the Americans were to provide the machines free of cost, which they very generously did-not only seaplanes, but kite balloons, and they were also prepared to supply airships. They also agreed to supply the personnel until we had a sufficient number of Canadian officers trained to take the places of the American officers. When one considers the number of men that we sent overseas and the number of men engaged in the naval service, it was not at all humiliating for Canada-when it came to filling the technical posts of pilots and crews of seaplanes, kite balloons and airships-to apply to the United States for the necessary skilled officers and men until Canada could provide the personnel. Canada had her share in this. We had to provide the buildings and the landing base, which we were proceeding to do as rapidly as possible, and some of the buildings were partially constructed when the armistice was signed.
As to the patrol of our waters by the United States war ships, the United States was one of the Allies. The tremendous British fleet was performing, as we all know, the herculean task of providing the necessary escorts for the vast number of ships that were carrying soldiers, munitions and foodstuffs, as well as holding the enemy at bay in the Kiel canal during the whole term of the war. Therefore, an arrangement was made with the United States for their navy to patrol a certain portion of Canadian waters. The United States established their outer base at Shelburne with a view to protecting the approaches to the northern United States ports. The patrol from Lockeport, east and north, was carried on by Canada. So the United States was only taking a fair share in looking after the safety of her own ports as well as the safety of her own soldiers.
Then the hon. member comes to an offer than he heard was made by Mr. J. K. L. Ross "to pay for a British cruiser if the Government would build the other four, but his offer was turned down." There is no record in the Naval Service to show that

any such offer was ever made by Commander Ross. Furthermore, at the outset of my remarks I clearly showed that the Canadian Government on two different occasions asked the Admiralty if we could do anything in the way of building ships or providing further naval service, and the reply was, "No; concentrate Canada's effort on the military forces."
Then the hon. member deals with the Halifax explosion, and here is what he
states;
There was absolutely no necessity for the Mont Blanc to come up harbour, and the Naval Authorities had no right to allow her to come up, there being plenty of space in the Eastern passage to lay, etc.
I would state that there was absolutely no reason why this vessel should not come up Halifax harbour. The channel is wide and straight, the largest ships in the world have navigated it throughout the war with ease and safety in all weathers. The people of the city of Halifax would, I think, be the last to claim that the entrance to Bedford Basin cannot be navigated, in all weathers and at all hours, with ordinary every day precautions on the part of pilots and masters for their ships. So there was no necessity whatever that the Mont Blanc should be held out for there was any amount of sea room and the day was perfectly clear. The hon. member further states that the collision was caused by violation of the rules of navigation. In answer to that, I may say that a court of inquiry was immediately ordered by me, as Minister of Naval Service. That court was presided over by Mr. Justice Drysdale of Halifax. The court found Pilot MacKey to be at fault, and his license was cancelled. Not even the slightest insinuation was made by the court that the Canadian naval authorities at Halifax were to blame.
It will require only a moment to deal with the statement of the young lad, Julian, who is the hon. member's authority for charging that the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt were in a deplorable condition. I can assure the hon. member that they were not; on the contrary, they were in constant use at the time and they have been in use ever since. I will not take up any more of the time of the House by referring to the commissioning of the Niobe and Rainbow; the fishery protection vessels; or the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserve.
If my hon. friend (Mr. Duff) does not hold the officers and men of the Royal Canadian Naval Service in very high es-

timation, our beloved Sovereign does, and he has been pleased to approve of the following posthumous awards:
Mr. Albert Mattison, late aoting boatswain, R.C.N., Albert Medal.
Late Stoker Petty Officer Edward S. Beard, V.R. 1731, R.N.C.V.R., Albert Medal.
John T. Gammon, Ohief-master-at-Arms R.C. N., member of the Military Division of the British Empire Order.
Chief E. R. A. 2nd Class, Hay, R.C.N., Meritorious Service Medal.
Walter Critch, A.B., Official Number 1242', Newfoundland, R.N.R., Meritorious Service Medal.
The British Admiralty have requested that an expression of their Lordships' appreciation may be conveyed to the following officer:-Mr. Walter O'Reilly, Gunner, R.C.N.
The Admiralty have sent letters of appreciation to the next of kin of the following ratings :
Chas. C. McMillan, Leading Seaman, V.R. 2496.
Carl C. Wilson, Able .Seaman, V.R. 1561.
Albert Sanders, Able Seaman, V.R. 1066.
Freeman P. Nickerson, Able Seaman, V.R. 1891.
Geo. H. Yates, Stoker, 2nd Class, V.R. 5480.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I think I have covered the ground sufficiently to satisfy every hon. member of this House that there is no truth whatever in the charges that were made by the hoft. member for Lunenburg either against the materiel or the personnel of the Naval Service.
I have shown what splendid service they have rendered, and as Minister of the Naval Service I have paid my tribute to them. I am sure that the House and the people of Canada will feel proud of the splendid work done by the Naval Service, its officers and man. of whose aoiiiviues they have to-day been informed for the first time, in a meagre way.
In closing his remarks the hon. member (Mr. Duff) suggested that a committee of the House be appointed to investigate the affairs of the Canadian Naval Service. There is no ground for the appointment of such a committee; there is no necessity for it. I think I have made it plain that not one of the charges made by the member for Lunenburg is substantiated by the facts.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
The Committee resumed at 8 o'clock.


William Duff: 
Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Did the hon. member not say, when he was referring to the Lux Blanca being torpedoed seventeen miles from the coast off the entrance to the port of Halifax, that admiralty officers at that time were trifling at pink teas and playing bridge whist? Will the hon. member say whether or not he made that statement.


William Duff: That is not an answer to the statement I have just made, but for the benefit	of	the	hon.	minister	I willquote further from my speech later on; and as to the naval officers in Halifax in their relationship	to	the	Lux	Blanca,	I haveabsolute proof	that	they	did nothing torelieve the situation that existed on the occasion to which I referred. While, perhaps, they	might	not	at that	precise
moment have been attending. pink teas or playing bridge, I can substantiate the statement that this condition of affairs generally prevailed in Halifax at that time; and if the minister would grant the investigating committee which he refused this afternoon I could prove my charges to the hilt. I am quite aware that there are good men in the so-called Canadian Navy. For instance, there is young Silver of Halifax, who was lost on the H.M.S. Good Hope off the coast of Chili. No brighter boy ever donned the uniform than this young man, who went to his death as a hero in battle against German ships in the Pacific Ocean. Or. take my good friend, the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Gauvreau), would anybody say for a moment that his son is not a credit to Canada-a young man who has been for four or five years in the Naval Service in command of a submarine chaser? No man, certainly not myself, wTould ever think of saying anything derogatory of young men such as these. Again, there is the son of Mr. Justice Brodeur. Would any one sug-

'gest that he does not deserve the utmost credit? What I do say, Mr. Chairman, and I do not think it can be controverted, is that there were certain men in the so-called Canadian Navy who were not fit to be in it, and this fact I shall prove in a 'few moments.
The hon>. minister was disposed to sneer at my knowledge of marine affairs, and he said I did not know much about the sea. Well, I do not profess to, but I think I know more about naval affairs than a gentleman who was bom in the city of Montreal and had the odour of paint in his nostrils for the last ten or fifteen years. I was born with the smell of salt spray in my nostrils and have been familiar with the sea ever since I could toddle, and I should be the last to say anything disrespectful of men in whom I have taken an interest all my life. For this reason it did not become the Minister of Naval Affairs to sneer at me and to suggest that I was unfriendly to the fishermen or those whose- calling is to follow the sea. I presume the minister likely derived his knowledge of the sea on a gump-head in Montreal, while I, on the other hand, got my knowledge of the sea on the sea itself, however little that knowledge may be. The entire speech of the minister consisted in sneering inuendoes and insinuations, and it was painfully evident to all present, as he read his essay, that he had not learned his lesson as perfectly as he might have done, for he did not even lay the emphasis on the proper portions of his address-; he- j.ust recited his statement with the aid of the two officials at his side who coached him from time to time. He also suggested that the charges which I made in my speech some time ago were not prepared by me. Well, what about the answer of the minister himself? Did he prepare the statement he made this afternoon? Was there very much of a suggestion that the work was his own, or did it not rather appear that he was repeating what the officials of his department had prepared for him? I do not think that any one sitting beside me when I made my charges could question the originality of them, and I can prove and substantiate them in their entirety.
But I do not wish the admiral of the fleet to take my words alone for what 1 have said; I am quite prepared to give him some more evidence on this matter, and for this purpose I will first quote a gentleman well known in this country, Mr. J. W. Wilkinson, R.N.A.V., of Toronto. Let us see what he says-and I am' willing to

admit that this gentleman knows more about naval affairs than I do myself. This is what Mr. Wilkinson says:
It has always been to me a source of disappointment and regret that Canada has ever failed to realize her duty with regard to assuming her full share of responsibility in connection with Naval Defence	
When considering Canada's weakness with regard to her naval obligations, I would ask, could anything be more grotesque than the ceremony which took place opposite the City Hall during " Sailors' Week," when under the auspices of the Navy League of Canada a dummy ship was christened the Victory, and at which the Premier of Ontario, the Lord Bishop of Toronto, and His Worship the Mayor, were present, while simultaneously the Captain of the steam trawler Triumph at the Toronto Exhibition, tells his pitiable story or how he was captured by a German submarine, of how guns and a wilreless were placed on his steamer, and how he and his crew of twenty were crowded into a small boat, and after being insulted, had the humiliating experience of seeing his own boat steam away manned by a German crew, with the object of sinking the rest of our fishing fleet, and of which they were successful in destroying some twelve vessels. No effort was available from the Marine Department in the way of .defending our fishing fleet against & cruel and relentless foe, who simply destroyed at his own free will. To use a well-worn quotation, "Nero fiddled while Rome was burning"
I may vary the quotation and say that " Mr. Desbarats fiddled while our fishing fleet was being 'sunk on the banks of Newfoundland and off the coast of Nova Scotia." Mr. Wilkinson proceeds:
After four years of war, to appear to get busy over the British navy about the glorious work it has and is doing, would practically be an admission of ignorance, and to do so at the present time would have a tendency to place Canada in a false light by advocating the necessity of the British navy, when Canada, as a matter of fact, has no navy of her own to talk about.
Further on he says:-
Notwithstanding that we thus have the enemy in our own waters, performing deeds of piracy and destruction at his own free will, without let or hindrance, as far as Canada's ability to defend herself is concerned, we read in the newspapers that the Naval Department at Ottawa calmly makes the statement that "all steps possible are being taken to meet the situation," and that a fleet of submarine chasers from the United States and British navies had put off after the enemy submarines. Are we to understand from this that Canada still refuses to assume any responsibility whatsoever as regards naval defence, but merely assumes the right when attacked by German U-boats to call for help to the United States and British navies? What greater proof is our present Union Government waiting for to make them realize that the great need of Canada to-day is a navy of her own?	.
When we remember the indifference displayed by Canada in the past with regard to her naval responsibility, any thoughtful person must surely look on with amazement that even

after four years of war, and the enemy sinking our ships at his own free will in our own waters, that no action appears to be considered neoessary for our Govelhiment to take in the way of providing a navy for our own protection.
He says further:-
There never has been a time when the want of a Canadian navy has been more keenly felt than at the present. We are at war and we want a navy to drive the enemy from our shores, and protect our ships sailing in Canadian waters. Is it not a fact that the very type of vessel is at present being built in Montreal for the British navy, which we require for our own coast defence, viz, the submarine chaser? Would it. not, therefore, be advisable to get some of these or similar craft included in our Canadian navy, in order that they might be placed in commission with as little delay as possible? It would also be advisable in my opiniop to have guns placed. on all. fishing vessels of sufficient size, which would at least give each boat a fighting chance. These are, however, all matters which I trust will be taken into consideration at an early date by the Marine Department.
Unless something of a definite nature be done while we have an enemy to fight, there will be a strong tendency with a very large section of the Canadian people to come to the conclusion when the war is over, that a navy as far as Canada is concerned, will not be necessary.
Those are the words of Mr. Wilkinson; they are not mine. Yet the minister this afternoon said, in effect, that I was the only person in -Canada with the audacity to get up and say one word in this House against the Naval Department- of which he is the head. He also quoted from a letter which he cut out of the Montreal Star. I wonder if the admiral of the naval forces also cut out an editorial which appeared in the Star on Saturday morning, to show to Ills leader on his return to-day? The letter which the minister read was no doubt written in good faith; I have not one word to say against the writer, but I noted this sentence which the minister read: " The patrol fleet had notified sixty iLunenburg vessels to go to port.55 Now, if there is one thing I know it is about the Lunenburg fleet, and particularly what happened last summer on the Atlantic coast, and I happen to know what happened to the fishing fleet. So if that is the only evidence the minister can adduce his defence of the Canadian navy is very badly supported.
I have also received some letters, and one of them happens to be from Montreal. I want to be fair to the Canadian navy. Any criticism I made was made in good faith. I made it as a business man who did not want to see the money of this country wasted. When I can say a good word for the Canadian navy I shall be only too glad
to say it, and to be absolutely fair I shall read this letter in full:-
Dear Mr. Duff,
I read with interest the comments in the papers on your speech in the House regarding the Canadian naval situation, also your criticisms.
As a demobilized member of the R.N.C.V.R.,
I do not wish to make any remarks one way or the other, but I think that, while the question is up, it is only fair for me to draw your attention to what I consider the brightest spot in the whole service, namely, the Naval Hospital in Halifax. During the influenza epidemic last fall I was unfortunate enough to be one of the victims and was sent to this hospital for treatment, and I cannot speak highly enough of Dr. Rousseau, Dr. Irwin and the two nursing sisters, and, in fact, every one connected with the institution. I was in the hospital itself for about two weeks, and during that time every patient with whom I came in contact, had the same feeling of appreciation.
With regard to your remarks on the Naval College, while never having met Commander Nixon, I can only repeat to you what appeared to be the general opinion among the men I met while in the service, namely, that the Naval College was efficient, that it did splendid work and turned out efficient officers, and that those officers wdio had graduated from the Naval College and who were serving with the imperial Fleet were highly thought of and efficient.
With regard to Lieutenant Julian's views on the general administration, I had the privilege of serving on the same ship with this officer and know him very well personally, and am sorry to say that both myself, and, I think fully ninety-nine per cent of the officers and men in the service are forced to agree with him.
Now, what has the minister to say about Lieut. Julian? He insinuated this afternoon that Lieut. Julian was no good, that he was not a good officer. I say that he was a good officer. He served four and a half years in the naval service and had a splendid record, with not one black mark against him. I say it was most unfair for the minister to insinuate that this man was not a good officer and a good Canadian. The writer continues:
I trust that in all fairness you will, while drawing attention to the dark spots, also draw attention to the bright ones. In October, 1917, I with a number of other officers, was sent from Halifax to Esquimalt, and we one and all were greatly impressed with the difference in the atmosphere prevailing at the latter station. In Half ax there was nothing hut discontent and what seemed to us practically chaos, whereas at Esquimalt everything was efficiency itself and every one seemed well content.
On my return to Halifax in the spring of 1918, after having put in six months at Esquimau, the difference in the atmosphere was d-oubly impressed on me. I think it was sufficient to say that every officer who was trained at the Esquimalt base feels the same towards it, and it was a heartbreaking experience to find that all the "esprit de corps" that had been created at Esquimalt was absolutely crushed

out after the men had been a very short time at Halifax.
Will the minister deny that this is true? This afternoon he flapped the flag and tried to make out that I was simply insinuating -that there was nothing in my charges. I have another letter which might interest the Minister of the Naval Service and the Admiral of "the Bum Boat Fleet." This writer says:
It is all true, and further, the half has not
been told. I think	would give you
some information along that line as he is pretty sore at them for the way he says they used him. He appears to be' ready to squeal on them as he is awfully sore.
These are not my words. I could talk all night about the way naval affairs were conducted at Halifax. You must have noted, Mr. Chairman, that the minister this afternoon, trying to get some applause from his own side, endeavoured to make it appear that I had introduced politics into this question. 'Nothing was farther from my thoughts, and although Lieut. Julian in making his charges blamed the Borden Government, I was not responsible for that. After saying that I had introduced politics into this question, the minister in his next breath went on to say that I was making charges against ships built by the Laurier Government. If I was introducing politics, why should I introduce charges against ships built by the Laurier Government? 1 think that is a complete answer to the minister's insinuation. The truth is he was simply floundering around like a seal on ice and did not know where he was half the time.
He also objected to my remarks about the Niobe. He tried to make out that there was nothing wrong with this steamer's boilers. I tell you that the Niobe was compelled to come back from her cruise because her boilers were no good, the result of having been allowed to rust. It is quite true that for four or six weeks after the war was declared they did manage to patch the boilers up, but I would ask the minister how much money was spent for repairs on the Niobe from September 1, 1914, until she finally played out in 1916. The only reason she played out was that her boilers were out of condition. Will the minister, or anybody connected with the naval base at Halifax, deny that?
He tried to make out that I was getting my information from outside sources, and that it was second hand. I want to tell the minister that this is not the fact, and further that I watched operations proceeding and that any information I got was from

the officers themselves and the men of the so called 'Canadian navy.
The minister also tried to make out that I had said that the men on the Hochel-aga had run away from the submarine.
I did not say any such thing. If the minister knew anything about marine matters he would know that the cook, steward, cabin boy and marines have nothihg whatever to do with navigating the ship but that that is a duty which is left entirely to the captain. To make such an assertion shows very little knowledge of naval and marine matters on the part of the minister. He tried to make out that I had said the men were guilty of cowardice. I said no such thing. The men were all right. 'If I could only repeat some of the conversations that the men had with me on their return I would tell you how, with tears in their eyes, they told me that they wanted to fight the submarine but that they were not allowed to do so by the captain. The men are not to blame; they are all right. The men are all young Canadian boys, they thought they were going to do something for their country, they went into the Naval Service prepared to do it but -they were prevented by the naval officials.
The minister also tried to make out that this captain of the Hochelaga was a great man. I hate to say anything unkind about anybody but if the minister knew where the captain of the Hochelaga came from and what service he had had, the information would make him hang his head in shame. I know all about the captain of the Hochelaga. I know how long he has been in the Naval Service, I know where he came from; and I say he never should have been put in command of that boat and I can prove it.
Then the minister talked about the Lady Evelyn and he practically said I was not telling the truth about that steamer when I said that she had gone to the Magdalen Islands to deliver six pencils. I beg the hon, minister's pardon. She not only delivered the pencils, but she also delivered some pads for the wireless operators. I have the facts from the officers who were *on board the Lady Evelyn. I intend to repeat what these officers said and if the minister does not want to take my word I will give him that of somebody else. On August 20, 1918, the day that the Triumph was captured, the Lady Evelyn was in a Nova Scotia port. A wireless message came stating 'that the Triumph, a steam trawler owned by the National Fish Company of Halifax, had been captured by a German submarine on the Middle Ground,

a fishing bank off the Nova Scotia coast. Word also came that the German submarine commander had equipped the Triumph with guns and manned her so '.that she could be used as what- is known as a raider. This word came to the Lady Evelyn. The captain immediately sent a wireless to the man in charge of the naval dockyard at Halifax asking permission to go and try to capture the Triumph. The men on the Lady Evelyn did not sleep all night, they kept steam up and they waited minute after minute and hour after hour for the expected word from the Halifax authorities to go and recapture the raider which had been previously a fishing boat. No word came from Halifax but the Lady Evelyn with Commander Shenton in command was sent to the Magdalen Islands to deliver six pencils and a few pads for the wireless operator.
Let me give a little more information about the Lady Evelyn. In a few days the *Lady Evelyn returned from the Magdalen Islands and reported to the base at Sydney. The flash came over the wires that on a certain night a German submarine was coming up the strait of Canso. The Minister of Naval Affairs, of course, with his knowledge of marine matters and geography, knows where the strait of Canso is, 'but for the benefit of hon. gentlemen who may not have that information I will explain its location. The strait of Canso divides the island of Cape Breton from Nova Scotia and connection between either side of the strait is maintained by the operation of a steam ferry between Mulgrave and Point Tupper. That is practically the only means of communication between the great coal mining and steel districts of Cape *Breton and Nova Scotia and the Test of the world. The situation was considered so serious that the Government ferry was laid up at Point Tupper. It was not allowed to cross the straits for fear the submarine might come up and attack it. The Lady Evelyn was lying at Whitney pier at Sydney with steam up waiting until *word came from Halifax. The men were all on tenter hooks. They wanted to engage the submarine. They were anxious to go, and suggestions were made that they should not wait for orders but that they should take the Lady Evelyn and go to the strait of Canso. You can understand the state of mind in which these young men were when they were deliberately talking of mutiny, of taking charge of the ship, taking her up to the straits of Canso and fighting the submarine. This is what an officer said about it:
We were in Cianso a few weeks ago and all our old Mends were there to welcome us and renew olcl acquaintances. While there one evening a party of young 'ac'es from Canso came on hoard and entertained us with music and singing. We left next morning. We now hear they are being shelled, while we are lying comfortable at Sydney. Perhaps these same young ladies that entertained us are being murdered by the German beasts, while we, lying at anchor, steam up, ship ready with a lot of damn, stupid Englishmen preventing us from slaying the murderers of our friends and sweethearts less than a 100 miles away.
Would the minister be kind enough to tell this Committee why the Lady Evelyn was left at Sydney and why she was not dispatched to Canso to try and catch that submarine if submarine there was?
The Minister of Naval Affairs also endeavoured to contradict my statement in reference to the steamer Lux Blanca. I wish to tell the minister that if the officials gave him the information that he gave here this afternoon there is only one thing to he done with these officials and that is to get rid of them. The minister said that there was a fog that day. I was on the Nova Scotia coast and I never saw a more beautiful summer day than that on which the Lux Blanca was sunk. There may have been a fog in Ottawa and if so it was around the Naval Department.
But, Mr. Chairman, he went on to say that there were patrol boats that had gone out in answer to the Lux Blanca's S.O.S. call. I said they did not, and I think I can prove it in a few minutes. The minister this afternoon deliberately contradicted my statement, and said that patrol boats went out to help the Lux Blanca. But he had to admit that those patrol boats lost their way, and they tried to get their course from a fisherman, but the fisherman could not give them their course. Well, Mr. Chairman, I do not know very much about marine matters, but I will say this-and I am looking at my hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. A. K. Maclean) while I say it, because he had something to do with putting buoys and lights at the entrance to the mouth of Halifax harbour-that from my little experience of marine matters I can leave Halifax in a boat on -a dark night or a foggy morning, feel my way out to the Fairway buoy, and can shape my course to where the Lux Blanca was sunk. If that is the kind of men the Minister of Naval Affairs had on his boats-if'with their lead lines, their compasses, their horns, and everything

else, they could not find their way out in the fog,-my charge in that connection is proved out of the lips of the minister himself. But, Mr. Chairman, I do not want the minister to listen to anything I say; I am going to give him the evidence of somebody else. I would not expect him to accept the correctness of my statements, after what he said this afternoon I am almost afraid myself to believe that I know what I am talking about; but I will give him the testimony of other men. When the Lux Blanca was sunk, what happened in Halifax? I am going to recite a conversation which took place between a master mariner, who is the agent of a very large insurance company in Halifax, and who knows all about marine matters, and certain other parties. I will give what he said about the sinking of the Lux Blanca. This gentleman-he is a reliable man and I will give his name if necessary-said:
I was informed of the sinking of the Dorn-fontien off the Bay of Fundy and shortly after of the sinking of another vessel up the coast towards Cape Sable. I saw at once that the U Boat was headed towards this part of the coast and of course expected that the Dockyard was watching the course of events and would be preparing to look after her. Great was my surprise next morning when going to my office on finding Long Distance frantically trying to locate me. I at once took up the phone and
found Captain	 of a fishing vessel
speaking from down the shore, he said, I have just been sunk by a large German submarine a few miles of Cape LaHave. We are all out this morning, he is going towards the eastward and will probably get all of us who are out, for God's sake get in touch with the Dockyard and send help.
This marine insurance man continued:
I asked him the particulars and then rang off, calling up the Dockyard and giving them the information. I do not know who answered the phone but it was some stupid idiot who wanted to know how he could be sure the information was authentic and he also replied that everything that was possible was being done.
That day (I am not sure whether he said that day or the next day) a prominent merchant of Halifax called me up on the phone and told me a German submarine was1 shelling an oil tanker a few miles off Sambro, he said,
I am going to call for you in my car and we will rush to the Dockyard and interview the "powers that be" and see if we can do any good, I replied, "I will be waiting for you." _
A few minutes later the Halifax gentleman arrived in his car and we drove to the Dockyard and went at once to see Admiral Storey. He appeared a very sociable chap but I was not there on social calls that day.
I do not know whether this Admiral Storey gave the two gentlemen pink tea or not, but you will notice, Mr. Chairman, that this insurance man says "he appeared
	j
to be a very social gentleman." He wenfc on:
We went over the situation with him as quickly as possible and then asked him what he was doing. He replied very calmly that he was sorry but that he had nothing he could send out to engage a modern submarine. I replied, "Great God ! do you mean to tell us that with all those patrol beats" (pointing to a mass of boats I could see from his office) "you will calmly let a steamer be shelled to pieces by a German submarine and never lift your hand to stop them, and this almost before your eyes?" He replied, "Gentlemen, as I said before, I have nothing which can engage a modern submarine." We had a few more words and we left, and what we thought of the Dockyard I had better not say.
Now let us see what the captain of the Lux Blanca himself said:
When the Captain of the Lux Blanca arrived in port with his survivors he at once came to see me and I can tell you he was a very hot boy. He gave me the full particulars of the fight and he ended with. "Had I thought that the Dockyard of naval people would not send me help I would) never have tried to do what I did. I was expecting help to come every moment from around the point but never a sign of assistance came. My ship was sunk underneath my very feet and two of my gunners killed almost in sight of the forts of Halifax and with all the patrol boats and everything else, not a sign of anything came to help me. What in Heaven's name can they be thinking of there? I put up an unequal fight for hours, but I might better have tried to save our skins for all the assistance I got from the Canadian navy.
Now, Mr. Chairman, let us go on a little further.


Mr. MORPHY:: Does the hon. gentleman assert that there was anything in the Canadian Navy in the shape of a war vessel fit to go out and cope with a modern submarine at that time?


William Duff: I am very pleased indeed that the hon. gentleman has asked me that question. It is quite true that there was no vessel in Halifax, or in the Canadian Navy, which could have coped successfully with this German submarine, but let me tell the hon. gentleman that what the naval authorities at Halifax should have done was this: They had, as this marine underwriter says, scores of boats lying in the dockyards doing nothing, but if Admiral Storey had gone down and said to the crews of those boats, "I know you cannot cope with this submarine but get steam up and start for Lux Blanca and the minute the German submarine sees the black smoke coming round the head it will submerge and go away," it would have been effective. The authorities might at least have done that. I do not say they could

have sunk the submarine, but I do say there were boys in the Canadian navy who could, have gone out and driven that submarine away.


Mr. COOPER:: Did the hon. gentleman give Admiral Storey the benefit of his excellent advice?


William Duff: No, Mr. Chairman, he had so many Englishmen around him there was no necessity for me to give advice.
I will read about some of them before I am through. Now, Mr. Chairman, as I said before, I do not want the minister to take my word as to what happened.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Does the hon. gentleman think it was a misfortune for Admiral Storey to have Englishmen around him while the war was on?


William Duff: Well, we had a certain class of Englishmen in Halifax, some of whom were not much good. For instance the captain of the Hochelaga was an Englishman. Here is what was said by the Halifax Herald in its issue of August 7, 1918:
The outstanding- feature in connection with the three hour battle outside the harbour that rivets attention with compelling force is the absence of any protecting ships while torpedoes sped on their deadly mission, shells fell thick and fast and the air reverberated with the crack of guns for a space of 3 hours.
Where was the patrol fleet? The brave wireless operator of the oil tanker heriocally obeyed duty's call, but the patrol answered not. Had it been a ship in distress even in peace times succor would have arrived in less than that time.
But at war, with the fiendish Hun pirates at our very door and known to be lurking in the waters off the coast, the brave crew of the allied ship fought single handed a monster pirate of the deep-and there was no response to the piteous calls for help from the patrols- which at least it would be thought would be busy scouring the waters that lap the shores of Halifax and all the other towns an 1 villages from here east and west.
The Halifax Herald goes on to say:
Where the patrol was, what they were doing, may he in the ken of the authorities-
And I presume it was, Mr. Chairman, and I want the minister to pay particular attention here:
Where the patrol was, and what they were doing may be in the ken of the authorities-may be confidential, but the citizens of this city-who have already suffered from the greatest calamity ever visited upon any city on this continent by gross and criminal carelessness, and neglect of proper control by the constituted authorities, are vitally interested to know that the patrol is such that it may with all human probability save Halifax from another calamity.
If the patrol (boats did such good work, why does not the minister produce their
logs and tell us where they were on the coast of Nova Scotia during this time? That would be the proper evidence to lay before this Committee. But he gives us only sneering remarks about my knowledge of these matters, he tries to gloss them over- to put a coat of Sherwin-Williams shellac, on the whole business.
The minister says that some of these boys were decorated by the King. Certainly they were. They were good Canadian boys lost in the Halifax explosion. They were on the Niobe at the time and volunteered to go out to the Mont Blanc, and they deserved to be decorated by the King or by anybody else.
I would like to call the minister's attention to what he said about the conduct of the captain of the Hochelaga in comparison with the conduct of the six boys who were sentenced as criminals to eighteen months' imprisonment in Rockhead jail. The captain of that steamer, as I said before, was discharged for gross negligence and cowardice in the face of the enemy. The hon. minister tried to make out that I said the captain was honourably discharged. Perhaps I did so express myself. But if the Naval Department discharged the captain of the Hochelaga, is there any man in Canada to-night who will say that the department is treating those six young boys as they should be treated, some of them iad's from the city of Victoria-no doubt from the county represented by my hon. friend (Mr. Cooper) who interrupted me a few minutes ago? These boys are at present languishing in a criminal prison at Rockhead, forced to associate with vicious, degraded criminals. I assert that no man should dare get up and say that those boys got a correct sentence. Immediately the minister read my speech he should have taken steps to interview the Minister of Justice 'and have these young men discharged from custody. I say it is a disgrace that these six young men should be tonight undergoing the association of criminals while we are here sitting on our cushioned chairs; and I say emphatically that to-morrow morning the first thing the minister should do is to see that those young men are immediately released.
Now, Mr. Chairman, for a few moments I wish to make some further statements, as the minister did not quite believe what I said in my last speech. I noticed this afternoon that he spoke about the good work- the Royal Canadian navy did on the British Columbia coast. That is quite true; but no credit is to be given to the naval authorities at Ottawa for that good work.

At Victoria, British Columbia, a few public spirited men got together in 1912 and put their hands in their pockets for the purpose of forming what is known as a Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve. They applied to Ottawa for permission to form this reserve and for help. The officials of the Naval Department turned those men down, and declined to give them any assistance. A petition accompanied the request. Shortly after a cold formal acknowledgement was received from the department saying " the matter would be given consideration," but nothing further was done by the department. Influential citizens of British Columbia were interested in this matter, and, as I said a moment ago, out of their own pockets they subscribed liberally, and as a result 400 boys joined what is known as the Royal Canadian Naval Reserve. Nothing was done until July, 1914. You will remember {.hat the minister this afternoon took credit to his department for what was done in relation to these	boys.	The
department was compelled to give them recognition, because in July, 1914, the Kam-agata Maru arrived in Victoria with a large number of Hindus-, and the city authorities, realizing the seriousness of the matter, telegraphed the Ottawa authorities and asked that those boys be given power to look after that ship and see that nobody landed from it. That was when the Naval Reserve was first recognized. No. 1 Company, Victoria, of the R.N.C.V.R, were the first to offer and to perform volunteer service in Canada when the war started in August, 1914.
Those boys at that time were sent to Esqui-malt, and to show you the state things were in, for a few days they were given orders to dig trenches in the solid rock around the dock yards. Ammunition pits were dug and shelters erected, and general chaos" reigned throughout. To show that nothing was contemplated, these boys were not fitted out with any equipment, clothes, rifles or anything else.
What happened on the Pacific coast? On or about August 10 the German cruiser Leip-sig was known to be in the Pacific. The citizens of Vancouver, of Victoria and other coast towns were very much afraid that this cruiser might reach the British Columbia coast and shell them. In fact, the banks in the coast cities removed their gold to then-inland branches. Our fighting strength at the outbreak of the war on that coast was represented by the cruiser Rainbow and the other two ships mentioned by the minister this afternoon. In addition, there were

two fishery protection boats, the Galaino and the Malaspina and the two submarines which were purchased in Seattle about this time from an American shipbuilding firm. There was also a fleet of auxiliary yachts given to the Naval Reserve by wealthy men of Victoria and Vancouver. The Naval Department agreed with the Marine Department here to transfer those fishery protection boats to the Naval Service. These two boats were armed, but on being taken over by the Naval Service the guns were taken off and they were sent to sea without guns or ammunition. It is well known that the Galaino proceeded to sea without guns or ammunition of any kind.
But, Mr. Chairman, the Naval Department determined to do something, and they thought they had better help out one of their friends, I presume, so they arranged to charter the Grand Trunk Pacific steamer, the palatial Prince George. She was chartered on August 8, 1914, at $500 per day. Then the department proceeded to spend a lot of money on her for repairs and alterations to fit her as a hospital ship. Equipment was purchased, cots and sick bays and operating areas were installed, and a staff of female nurses and a medical officer were placed on board. These are a few of the things that were purchased:
Drugs and medical supplies	 $505.40
Surgical instruments	 287.16
Flags	 115.65
Medical stores	 127.27
Bowls, jugs, soup tureen, etc.,	etc. ..	109.78Arrowroot biscuits, 500 lbs.,	etc	135.00
Blue jackets, overalls dressings; gowns, 72 at $2.00 each; tooth
brushes, towels, etc	 S62.35
Bed spreads, 74 at $2.10 each;
Blankets, 111 pr. at $5.25 per pair;
Felt mattresses, hammocks, etc.;
silver forks, etc	2,214.89
-and hundreds of other items. This steamer, Mr. Chairman, was sent on the broad waters of the Pacific with lights out. Now, anybody knows that Red Cross boats or hospital ships should not be sent out in that way. It is well known that the Hague Tribunal provides that hospital ships shall be painted white with a green stripe and with the red cross displayed in four or five	prominent places, and in
no way try to conceal her identity. The Prince George proceeded on her journey, and had she been unlucky enough to have met with one of the German cruisers then at large, a terrible calamity would have occurred.
It is not the custom nor the procedure of the Admiralty of any country to send hospital ships sculling about, endangering the

lives of people on board; these ships are to follow after an engagement, not to precede it. During, an engagement they remain at their base or in the safety zone. After a short but somewhat expensive career this hospital ship was recalled and dismantled, and on September 23, forty-five days after being chartered, was turned back to the Grand Trunk Pacific. This little farcical episode cost the country $49,805.05, plus some other items of expenditure appearing in the expenses of H. M. C. dockyard, Esquimalt. As I said before, the Government paid the Grand Trunk Pacific $500 per day for the use of the Prince George.
While this was going on on the Pacific coast a number of German trading vessels were proceeding from Japan to Pacific ports in America. It was known to every pilot on the Vancouver coast that these ships had sailed from the other side and were on their way to this side of the Pacific. Two of the lieutenants who were at Esquimalt- one of them was Lieut. Julian and the other, Lieut. B. L. Johnston, a Vancouver pilot- presented to the naval office at Esquimalt a list of the German vessels which were then on their way acro-ss the Pacific, and requested permission to take the Galiano or the Malaspina, place her guns back on board and use the boat in an effort to capture these German ships. The senior naval officer promised at once to communicate with the naval authorities at Ottawa, but a few days later the lieutenants were informed that permission was not granted. One of the trading vessels was the German barque Kurt, which arrived at the port of Astoria, United States, on September 11, 1914. If these young Canadians had been allowed to take these fishery protection boats out they would have captured the German barque Kurt, which was worth $600,000 in gold, had a full cargo of products from South America, and was without guns or ammunition of any kind.
There were other vessels which the commander at Esquimalt was told about, and concerning which, I assume, he sent word to Ottawa. One was the ss. Alexandria, which arrived in San Francisco from Samoa about this time with the entire personnel of the German staff of the South Pacific German possessions, and over a million. dollars of gold in her strong-box. Other German boats which arrived safely at their destination on this side of the Pacific were the Arnoldus Vinnen, which arrived at Astoria on October 11, 1914, and the German ship Ottawa, of 2,542 tons register, which arrived at San Francisco August 21, 1914. If these young lieutenants
had been allowed to use the fishery protection vessels to which I have referred they would in all probability have captured these three valuable prizes.
What was done to help these boys keep up this naval reserve? The climax was reached and the death knell sounded for the Royal Naval Canadian Volunteer Reserves on the arrival of the Director of Naval Service in Esquimalt, Vice-Admiral Chas. E. Kingsmill. Strong representation was made to him by the heads of the respective branches at Esquimalt to obtain the bare necessities for carrying on the R.N.C.V.R., and it was hoped that his arrival would in no small way herald the righting of things. It is to be remembered that Admiral Kingsmill called the entire corps of the naval volunteers to assemble in the drill hall and there addressed them somewhat along the following lines:	He
said he had been informed by the department at Ottawa that the Government had received instructions from England to devote all their energies to manning an army, not a navy. This is in contrast to the recruiting that was going on in Great Britain and in the Dominions overseas. Admiral Kingsmill stated: That the naval volunteers had been very badly advised; that the naval volunteers had been to a much greater extent poorly led; that there appeared to be
.	great discontent throughout the
9 p.m. rank and file, and that it was not the intention of the department to go on with the volunteers as a fighting force, and, therefore, that as many as wanted could leave the yard forthwith. This was small recompense and very little thanks for the work done up to this time under the most adverse conditions by these men. They had been in the stokehold of the Rainbow when at sea; they had coaled ships in their civilian suits and had generally borne the brunt of things in the yard. Great consternation reigned after this speech. However, suffice it to say that over one hundred availed themselves of the admiral's advice and departed.
Needless to say, naval recruiting was at a standstill. The blow had been dealt, ani the naval spirit that existed up to this time in Western Canada was practically dead. Many of the naval ratings joined the Canadian Expeditionary Force. However, it is to be noted that about sixty days later the Naval Department, evidently being in need of naval ratings, sent an urgent telegram to Esquimalt, using the words " Recruit! Recruit! RecTuit!"

As showing the kind of situff our Canadian boys are made of, I may point out that a large number of them, some 1,188, went across to the Old Country and joined the British navy. But let us see what The Sailor, a magazine published in Toronto, says about affairs in the Canadian Naval Service. It is headed " The Price of Inaction/5 and says:
Mention has been made editorially of the fact that Canadian officers serving in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve strongly desire to be identified with a Canadian Naval unlit. This desire has been expressed not once, but many times, and recently was voiced in a constructive manner by a young officer, who, in writing home, suggested that some plan be worked out whereby Canadians who are now serving under the White Ensign be formed into a Canadian Naval unit and loaned to Great Britain for the duration of the war. It may be parenthetically remarked here that the young officer in question has already been recommended for a foreign decoration and has been since appointed to a responsible post in the British navy. Therefore, his suggestion was actuated by the purest motives of patriotism, and shows plainly the spirit which animates our sea warriors ; for no matter how high they may climb ; no matter what their environment, they are Canadians first, last and all time; and they are proud of their Mother Country. It is a curious fact, however, that the suggestion was identical with the one made by Capt. the Hon. Rupert Guinness, R.N.V.R., to the Department of Naval Service in 1916. At that time he was in Canada armed with diplomatic credentials, and (instructed to urge Canada to recruit 2,000 men for the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve, and to lend them to Great Britain, where they could be trained in various ratings. While he was pleading with the late minister, and his deputy minister, to take action in the matter, Commander Armstrong, R.N.V.R., was also in Canada and was energetically recruiting for his unit. The result was obvious, the apathy of the one side and the energy of the other, brought its own reward, and when Commander Armstrong left Canada he had secured about 400 of Canada's finest sons for the British branch of the service. Meanwhile the late minister and his deputy sat idly by, and watched the young men go. In fact, it took them from early spring until late autumn to break the monotony of their inaction, and then they decided to start recruiting for the R.N.C.V.R., in the depth of winter. This decision was indicative of only two things, of either the utter incompetency of the late minister and his deputy as departmental heads, or of their absolute indifference to the branch of the service which they were bringing into being.
These are not my words, Mr. Chairman, but the words of the editor of The 'Sailor. I think his name is Mr. Amelius Jarvis, of Toronto. At the time the German cruiser was on the Pacific coast and we had only the poor old Rainbow and the other little boat 'to do our work, wThat was the position that Canada was placed in? We had to accept help from the Japanese Government. Three Japanese cruisers-I

forget their names-came to the Pacific *coast, established a base at Esquimalt and did patrol work for 'the Canadian Government and the Canadian people during a great many months while there was *danger on the Pacific coast. .
The minister this afternoon endeavoured to convince the Committee that it was impossible for the Niobe to capture the German steamer Willehad, which sailed from Montreal.
'Some one asked that question, and it was shown that she was going along the Nova Scotia coast the very day war was declared. My information is, and reliable information too, Mr. Chairman, is that the steamer Canada was at that time on the Atlantic coast. She carried two twelve-pound guns, and if she had been given instructions from the dockyard or from the authorities at Ottawa she could have captured the Willehad. There was no necessity to have the Niobe to capture the ship. Now, it was considered necessary to purchase an aggregation of boats for patrol, and in connection with this matter I do not think I need say very much. There were a number of boats connected with the Marine Department for the purpose of laying buoys, and looking after the bells on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. One of these boats was the Lans-downe. She was one of the largest steamers in the Marine Department, being equipped with derricks for the purpose of placing and hoisting buoys. This ship was taken off Marine work and put in the Naval Service, the cost involved being some $47,043. Instead of being put to useful work she was kept at the base in Sydney for the purpose of lifting and lowering the signals at the defence boom to allow vessels to come into Sydney-work which a small tug boat could have done rather than -this large ship belonging to the Marine Department. Let us see what happened as a result of the boat being taken off the Marine work. As I said a moment ago, the work of these boats was to lay buoys along the Nova Scotia coast every spring. In winter some of these buoys have to be taken up owing to the ice, and during the spring and summer of 1918 a number of buoys were not placed because the Marine Department had no boat to lay them. The following are the buoys not placed in position:
Liscomb Fairway, gas and whistle.
Thrum Cap, gas and bell buoy.
Three Fathom, gas and bell.
Egg Island buoy, no whistle or light.
Thorn Shoal, bell.
Owl's Head, bell.
Ship Harbour, automatic whistling buoy.
Spry Bay, bell.

Sheet Harbour Passage, bell.
Basson Reefs, bell.
Lockwood Rock, automatic whistle.
Nixonmate, bell.
Bull Rock, bell.
Isaac Harbour, gas and whistling buoy.
New Harbour, whistling buoy.
Tor Bay, whistling buoy.
Flying Point, bell.
Whitehead, gas and whistling.
Cerebus, gas and whistling.
Grimes, gas and whistling.
Argus Shoal, whistling buoy.
Petitdegrat, gas and bell.
Beak Point, whistle buoy.
Haddock Rock, bell.
L'Archeveque, bell.
Fourchu, whistling buoy.
Guion Island, gas and whistling buoy.
Barr Reef, whistling.
Now, I suppose the Minister of Naval Affairs will say the reason these buoys were not placed is that the German submarines, if the buoys were in position, would find their way into the harbours. That argument will not hold water, because the German submarines had no need of the buoys or bells to enable them to get into the harbour. All the coast lights were burning, and if a German submarine wanted to go into a harbour from Cape Sable to Cape North it could have done so at any time, day or night. To show what kind of naval service we had, we were obliged to have a Japanese guard on the Pacific coast, while a similar:	condition
existed on the Atlantic. It will no doubt be remembered that two Australian ships came to our coast to help protect our coastal waters. If I remember correctly, these ships were the Sydney and the Melbourne. One I am sure was the Sydney, which sank the German ship Emden in the Pacific and afterwards came to help us. So that it is obvious the minister could Hot rely on the service of his navy when *we had to have Japanese and Australian ships assisting us. Then the hon. gentleman told us about the work of the mine sweepers. The joke about them is that they only swept the sea after the convoys had passed, and for this statement I have the most reliable authority. The duty of the mine sweepers is to clear the water before the ships carrying soldiers and other passengers .go forward; but this patrol calmly swept the ocean after the convoys had passed and were out of sight. We did have some protection on the Atlantic coast in 1917, on the suggestion of Mr. Amelius Jarvis of Toronto. The Canadian Government, with money which I believe belonged to the Imperial Government, purchased seven or eight fishing schooners which were changed to represent camouflaged vessels.
They were supplied with motors, and had guns. They also had on deck dories which were let down and disappeared in the waist of the ship. These vessels were bought in May or June, 1917, and as an illustration of the expedition with which the naval authorities in Halifax did their work, these seven or eight vessels were not made ready until October of the same year. Of course, as every one knows, in October the fishing fleet were home so that those ships did not do any work that season. However, they should have been kept for the next year and could have rendered excellent service. One of these little vessels fixed up to look like a fishing craft could be anchored or laying amongst the fishing fleet, and on a German submarine coming up, this "mystery ship," as it is known, would lower her dories and train her guns on the submarine, and before the latter had time to get her own guns ready, the camouflaged boat could damage, if not sink her. In the winter of 1918, I presume at the suggestion of the department, these vessels were sold at about half their price to any one who cared to purchase. I contend that they should have been kept, for they could have performed very valuable services in 1918. But, as I said, they were sold in February or March of that year. We have been told of what was done to protect the fishing fleet on the Atlantic coast. I do not profess to take any credit for what was done, but I may say that I did telegraph the Acting Minister of Naval Affairs last year acquainting him with the condition of affairs in Nova Scotia and asking him if something could not be done to protect about 150 fishing vessels at that time on the broad Atlantic. I received word from Ottawa-a very nice telegram, I must say-that they were doing all that they could in the matter. Of course, I knew what that meant, and I telegraphed hack and requested that an endeavour be made to get either British or American cruisers to come and patrol the Nova Scotia coast. We have heard about the Stadacona and the advice to fishermen to leave their grounds and go into port. Now, I took the matter up myself when I could not get satisfaction from the minister, and on my responsibility I telegraphed every port in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland where vessels were in the habit of going and advised them to remain in, and by the time that either American destroyers or any boats which the Naval Department might have sent from Halifax got to the grounds, there were only two or three vessels on the Grand Banks. So that

when the gentleman who wrote the letter to the Montreal uiar, as quoted by the minister this afternoon, said that there were 60 vessels notified, I will say that it must have been in the stokehold of the boat shovelling coal instead of being on the lookout. These vessels could not continue their fishing voyage owing to lack of protection by the Canadian authorities, and the advice I gave at the time was that they should endeavour to get home at the earliest possible moment and in so doing hug the shore.
The instructions which I gave them at that time were to try and get home at the earliest possible moment and hug the shore; that is, they were to leave the Newfoundland ports and come up around Cape North, down through the straits of Canso, and hug the shore from there to Lunenburg. This was done, but I regret to say that one of the vessels which was hugging the shore-this would not have happened if we had had the proper naval protection-on the sixth of September was blown on the rocks by an easterly gale, and eighteen men were lost owing to the culpable negligence and' lack of protection afforded by the Canadian naval authorities. When these vessels arrived at their home ports I telegraphed to the Minister oi Naval (Service that some 150 valuable ships had arrived home with valuable cargoes ranging in value from $30,000 to $40,000. 1 asked if it would not be possible for him to send some patrol vessels from Halifax to patrol the coast off the mouth of Lunenburg and Lahave, but the minister has not yet done me the courtesy to reply to that telegram. Two days after the armistice was signed, on the 13th of November, into the harbour of Lunenburg steamed about a dozen patrol boats, the first we had seen since the beginning of the war. That is the kind of patrol service which the minister tried to defend this afternoon.
Early in the war a despatch came from Ottawa to the naval authorities at Halifax that the German cruiser Karlsruhe was shelling the town of Glace Bay. Of course, no such thing ever happened, but word came to that effect. The naval authorities hustled around. At that time the good ship Canada, a boat not much longer than this Chamber, was lying at Halifax. She had two twelve-pound guns, and that was the boat that was sent down to Glace Bay to engage the German man-of-war. At the same time, in order to give further protection to the citizens of Glace Bay, a crew with a couple of guns was sent by train. This crew was made up of sick-bay attendants and watchmen on the Niobe; there
TMr. Duff.]
was hardly a naval rating among them. The joke was that the gunners went without any ammunition and without a breach lock. One of the guns sent by the naval authorities at Halifax was about twenty years old, and had been used as a hearse at sailors' funerals. The whole thing was a joke, and after setting up some wire at the town of Glace Bay, the sailors came back.
The minister did not think I was correct when I said that a certain gentleman had offered to give one destroyer to the Government if they built four others. That offer was made by Commander J. K. L. Ross. He gave his own boat, the Tuna, and also took charge of a vessel called the Grilse. The Grilse was the only vessel in the patrol service that could be said to be equipped with guns and ammunition, and would you believe it, after the Grilse had been bought in New York and brought to Halifax she was sent up to Gaspe Basin, in the St. Lawrence, to help convoy ships carrying Canadian soldiers. Her guns and ammunition on her first trip consisted of a half-barrel with a stick of wood painted gray lashed on top of it.
The minister also talked about the ships the Government bought. I notice that six of these small patrol boats cost something like $208,000 each, or $1,250,000 altogether. They could have been bought in England for at most half the price, and I say without fear of contradiction that somebody made $75,000 or $100,000 on each of these six boats. If the minister would grant me the investigation I ask I have no doubt this fact would come out. It is true that other boats were purchased, but all kinds of prices were paid for them and no attempt was made by the department to get value for the people's money. I have no hesitation in saying that our naval affairs were conducted by the department in such a way that every Canadian should hang his head in shame.
The minister said that my remarks with regard to the Mont Blanc were not correct, and he spoke of the beautiful harbour of Halifax. Now, if anybody should know about the beauties of Halifax harbour I should. It is one of the finest -harbours in the world; I might say the finest, but the hon. members for St. John might not agree with me. The minister said that it was all right to allow this ship carrying high explosives to come into Halifax harbour. I do not know whether the minister knows this or not, but it is a fact that the Mont Blanc had her decks on fire before she reached Halifax harbour. Some oil had got

out of the casks on deck and started a fire. That ship was deliberately allowed to come up to Halifax harbour with her decks on fire. Is that the way to protect the citizens of this country? I do not want the minister to take my word alone; I am going to put somebody else on record. On December 20, 1917, the 'Morning Chronicle said:-
The public have the right to know under what authority. the Mont Blanc was allowed to approach the Narrows, proceeding inward towards Bedford Basin at the very moment when the Imo was outward bound. The naval authorities, as we understand, control the movements of all ships inward and outward. It is imperative that the public should know by whose authority the Imo was ordered to leave her anchorage in Bedford Basin at a time when it must 'have been plain to the competent naval authority that the two ships would meet in or near the narrow channel which leads from the inner harbour to the basin. It is also imperative not only for the purposes of this investigation, but for the city's security in future, to ascertain why a proper patrol was not maintained by naval craft to keep the course clear for the munition boat. The naval authorities have a large number of boats of various sorts at their command in this harbour, but so far as we have learned none of them were employed in escorting the Mont Blanc on her way to Bedford Basin. Why? The public have a right to know why these and other precautions which we might mention were not taken and, above all, why the risk of allowing these two steamers to meet on this narrow waterway was taken.
The Morning Chronicle at that time was a supporter of the present Government and of the Minister of Naval Affairs. On December 22, 1917, the Chronicle says:-
Halifax has suffered a calamitous loss on account of the explosion on a ship which carried exceedingly high explosives. What we want to know is what precautions were taken to avert this disaster; why the Imo was allowed to go through the Narrows, where the waterway is comparatively narrow and a considerable current runs, at the same time as the Mont Blanc laden with munitions; why the course was not kept clear for the latter ship? And why warning was not given to -all craft to give the munition-laden ship a wide berth?
The public want this whole matter thoroughly and searchingly probed, not alone to establish the responsibility for what has occurred, but to ensure that there shall be the most absolute safeguards possible for the future. They want to know if the regulations governing the movement of traffic in this harbour shall govern in the future, and they want to have it made absolutely certain, so far as human effort can make it, that no such risk of disaster will ever be taken again.
Now Sir, I will go a little farther to establish my case. I do not want the minister to think that I am the only person in Nova Scotia who complains about his bum-boat navy. The Chronicle of December 26 (?) says:
Halifax harbour is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian Government lit is
officered and staffed by Federal appointees who act under Federal orders. Neither the province of Norn Scotia nor the city of Halifax exercises or can exercise any control over its navigable waters. It is evident, therefore, that neither of them bears any responsibility for anything which may be amiss in the management of those waters. They receive neither fees nor direct emolument from the shipping which enters the -port. They have no -power to regulate, much less to prevent, the movement to, from or within the harbour of undesirable or dangerous shipping	
It seems to us that the Dominion is not only legally and equitably liable for the Injuries occasioned by the explosion of the Mont Blanc in Halifax harbour, its entrance having -been sanctioned, if not invited, by responsible -federal officials, b-ut -that it is morally and conscientiously bound to indemnify, in so far as it can, the people of Halifax for the grievous loss and injury which has been inflicted upon them through the direct acts of its regularly appointed and duly authorized agents.
Would- not any individual citizen of Halifax have a good cause of action against the Dominion Government for his personal loss? If so, should1 not the -damage done to the city toe borne without contest or murmurs by the whole people of -Canada every one of whom has as much -personal interest in the cargo of the Mont Blanc as had any citizen of Halifax, although all the loss caused by the explosion fell immediately upon the people of this city?
The Government and the minister admitted their responsibility when they paid the citizens of Halifax millions and millions of dollars. The Halifax Chronicle of December 28 said:
The inquiry which is demanded is an inquiry to establish the responsibility for the movement of the ships, the one from her anchorage in the lower harbour, the other from her anchorage in Bedford basin-why a death-carrying vessel w-as allowed to proceed up the harbour and into a narrow channel and there to come in collision with an outgoing steamer, with, so far as it is known, no precautions or safeguards whatsoever having been taken or provided. That is the crux of the whole question.
The minister said this afternoon that this ship was perfectly justified in coming up the harbour an-d that the naval authorities had done nothing wrong, and yet we have this Government organ, the Chronicle, condemning in unscathing terms not only the minister but his officials at both Ottawa and Halifax. But I am not going to rest my case upon what the Chronicle says. The Morning Chronicle once upon a time was a Grit paper and of course some of my friends might -say Grit papers are not always reliable. So I am going to give a few quotations from another paper. This paper is known as the Halifax Herald, a newspaper edited by no less a gentleman than the Hon. Senator William Dennis, of the city of Halifax, province of Nova Scotia. What do we find the Herald saying on December 24?-



There is no need to try and disguise the fact that the citizens will not rest content until the blame is rightly fixed and it would he useless to deny that there is considerable unrest in the minds of the people, that the citizens require to have their faith re-established in the ability of those having the safety of the port under their care.
It is alleged that there is no effective harbour patrol, though the naval authorities have a number of craft at their disposal, many of them tied up when they might be keeping the roadway clear for ammunition-laden ships. That there is a scarcity of men to man those patrol boats does not seem apparent from the number of uniformed1 men which were seen day by day in the vicinity of the Acadian hotel, which by the way was a sort of hotel for naval men on the " waiting list."
"Set when the hon. (member for Guys-borough (Mr. Sinclair) asked the minister a question about the number of men lying around Halifax he tried to make out that they weie net there for any length of time. He will go a little farther and see what the Halifax Herald says on December 31:
The persistent demand made jby the Halifax Herald is for a thorough investigation into all the causes that led to the explosion and the placing of official and personal responsibility therefor.
(a)	Who permitted the Mont Blanc to pass up the harbour without being preceded by a patrol boat?
(b)	Who permitted this foreign ship, heavily laden with a cargo of inflammables and the most deadly explosives and with a captain, officers and crew who couldn't speak a word of English and a pilot who couldn't speak a word of French? What naval, or other Canadian Government official permitted this ship to steam up to the Narrows not only without a patrol escort, but without even the ordinary and usual " red flag " danger signal?
(c)	Who permitted the Norwegian steamer Imo, chartered as a Belgian Relief Ship, but now in ballast, to proceed down the harbour at an hour and minute that made it possible for the empty Imo-also without patrol escort- to collide with the Mont Blanc and her cargo of death-dealing explosives, through " error of judgment," "accident," "crass stupidity," "'gross carelessness," "damnable cussedness
or from any other cause-to collide in the very narrowest part of the harbour-this wonderful harbour in which the greatest ocean leviathans can swing around at full speed and the niavies of the Empire could ride in safety.
We will go a little farther with this investigation and see whether the naval authorities were doing their duty at the time this boat came through the Narrows ana blew up with the result that some 1,80U people lost their lives and some 20,000 or 30,000 were injured and wounded. This was the greatest disaster that any city haa suffered for a number of years and it was all due, as proved by the Chronicle ana the Herald, to the carelessness of the naval authorities. On January 31, the Herald said:

There are rumours that there may be a complete reorganization of the naval department at Ottawa, but it is hardly likely that anything will be done until the findings of the Drysdale Commission are received. The feeling here is that there is ''too much pomposity and too little efficiency among certain naval officers in Ottawa."
I address this in particular to the minister himself.
Deputy 'Minister of Naval Affairs Desborats is admitted to be a competent official though, of course, he is a civilian and consequently lacking in naval experience.
The shake-up in Canadian naval affairs at Halifax is without doubt only preliminary to a more extensive carrying out of a much needed reform in the Department of Naval Affairs at Ottawa.
Let me go a little farther to prove my case: The Halifax Herald of February 5, 1918, says:
Notwithstanding the cruel manner in which-
And this is a reference to the minister:
.-he was deceived by his officials when he made his deplorable utterance at Halifax some weeks ago in defence of men who have been shown to he utterly incompetent, and of a system thoroughly rotten, congratulations are due Hon. Mr. Ballantyne on the initial reforms he has made. No one to-day regrets that utterance more than he and the changes he has already made can he looked upon as an instalment towards a complete reorganization of the staff at this port-and which should carry with it as complete and' as thorough a change in the department at Ottawa, An investigation of the conduct of naval affairs in Canada, apart altogether from the question of harbour control, will reveal changes that should have been made long ago ; and if they had been made not only might the great catastrophe have been prevented, but much money would have been saved which has been expended for unseaworthy craft and their incompetent management.
I would like the minister to give careful attention to that.
Of that there will hei more to reveal in the future.
Let us see what the Halifax Herald says further of the Department of Naval Affairs. On February 9 it says:
Yet upon this simple policeman's job the Canadian naval service, with all its frills and feathers-
Now who is talking about pink teas and furbelows?
The result 1,500 innocent men, women and children killed', thousands injured, and several hundreds blinded for life. The punishment, the preventive methods for the future must not stop with the prosecution of a pilot, a ship's master, and a subordinate examining officer. The horror is too appalling, the measure of official^ neglect too ghastly.
We will go a little further in the matter. In its issue of February 12, 1918, the Halifax Herald says:

So accustomed has Halifax become to startling developments in connection with the recent disaster and the matter of harbouir control, there would seem to be nothing added which could further appal the people of this city, and further convince the country of the necessity of revolutionary changes. But once again comes a terrific shock. It is an actual fact that the great ocean greyhound, the Olympic, had, because of harbour mismanagement, a narrow escape, when freighted with thousands of human lives, from going on the deadly Sambro Ledges. The Commission appointed by the Federal Government to inquire into pilotage affairs was astounded yesterday afternoon near the close of the second session of the day at an announcement by Captain Latter of the pilot board. Captain Latter declared that "the naval people shifted buoys without warning, and vessels coming up in the fo<g narrowly escaped going on Sambro Ledges."
Then this appeared in the same papei on the same day:
Another development of the inquiry was the further proof of the "death sleep" and lethargy of the Marine Department at Ottawa given the evidence of J. E. De Wolf, one of the Halifax Pilot Commissioners. Mr. De Wolf said that some six or seven years' ago the (Marine and Fisheries Department asked the Pilot Commission to draft new by-laws.. The Commission, assisted by Hector Melnnes, K.C., did this and the new by-laws were sent to Ottawa. It is evident that they are still reposing in a dusty pigeonhole. No notice was taken by the department. " They treated us with contempt " said Mr. De Wolf. 'We never heard a word and I urged upon the commission to resign in a body as a protest."	.
Now, the point I am making in connection with what I am reading now has reference to do with what happened after the explosion. The explosion occurred in December, and although the naval authorities knew all that happened in that regard, the officers of the Naval Department at Halifax made no attempt to better the conditions of that city. Therefore we read as follows in the Halifax Herald of March 12, 1918:
Further investigation by the Halifax Herald in shipping and pilotage circles yesterday has brought additional and conclusive evidence that there must be a shake-up of no meagre dimensions at Ottawa. The pilot's story that a steamer laden with high explosives was allowed to lay in the fair way of the harbour one dav last week for seven hours., was fully confirmed, and in getting the confirmation other details of a most startling nature were disclosed.
The Halifax Herald is scrupulously careful to abide by the rules of the censorship and anything calculated to furnish information to the enemy is gladly withheld from publication. There is not a man familiar with marine affairs at this port, not a Nova Scotia captain, who has gladly given his services to the work of naval patrol, not a master mariner who regularly brings in and takes out a steamer, but what has a story to tell of stupidity, of pig-headedness, of bungling in connection with the affairs of the port, and, following up these stories, the trail leads directly to Ottawa and reveals a heterogeneous bunch of incompetents who may know the ways of society, who may be able to judge aright the merits of various blends of wines, but who certainly do not know the ways of ships .arid are not able to judge the competence of those whom they place in charge.
The coming in, the anchoring and the going out of ships is at all times a matter which should demand the attention of men familiar with the. sea. Nova Scotia has produced some of the best seamen of all time-they are not at Ottawa* they are not in control of marine affairs, such, control is left to men whose hands never gripped hemp, men to whom the use of a sextant is an absolute mystery, and their management of floating things limited to a slight knowledge, possibly of a varnished canoe on a still lake.
In times of peace we should not have such men at the head of affairs qf a maritime nature. To have them in such position in these awful days of war is evidence of a laxity on the part of our people, a laxity which has already led to fatal consequences, and which should, perchance, a break be made through the British fleet, lead to awful disaster. God forbid that a change at Ottawa be withheld until such a time comes.
It took one of the greatest disasters the world has ever known ito partially arouse those in auhority, but those who were in supreme authority then are still in authority. Britain, France, Italy, the United States, all have had a shake-up, and a betterment of their management of marine affairs-. Canada, after appalling evidence of incompetence is without a shake-up. A Jellicoe was shifted, a Kingsmill reigns supreme.
I think I hear the minister whispering something to the Chairman. Perhaps he does not want me to read these extracts; but I would like to finish the task which I have undertaken, even if I am getting under the skin of the minister. In its issue of March 13, the Halifax Herald says further:
that so long as men who have notoriously outlived their usefulness as public officials, and some of whom are regarded as having become fossilized incompetents are retained in positions of great responsibility at Ottawa in marine and naval affairs there will be no harmony, cooperation or practical co-ordination among those upon whom the safety of this port depends and while this condition remains the people of Hali

fax cannot feel that "all that is possible for their protection is being done."
Then the Halifax Herald says on the same day:
The Halifax Herald has been informed by responsible citizens, in a position to know, that [DOT]while the vessel was at anchor in the fair way, explosive matter was removed from her, that it was taken up the harbour, that not only tugs or barges, but a motor boat, with gasoline on board, was used in the transportation of certain cases from the vessel before she was taken up into the basin.
Yet the Minister of Naval Affairs this afternoon without endeavouring to criticise the charges I brought against the department, pronounced those charges inaccurate

Now I have established to the satisfaction of other members of the Committee that what I said in my previous remarks on May 7th was correct. I have also gone at great length into these matters to-night. I have more to say; and if the minister will grant me the investigation for which I have asked I will prove who is speaking truly and who is not. We are going ahead to-night with the Naval Estimates. On May 7th after making my charges, I made the assertion that under all the circumstances, after what had happened in the case of the Canadian Navy officials, we should not vote one dollar for naval expenditure this year. I repeat that statement to-night. After all has been said and done, after all that was heard on May 7th, and what has been said to-night, and after all that is current talk in the city of Halifax, and in every port of Nova Scotia, I say that this Committee should not vote one dollar to the present Administration for Naval Affairs in Canada. We are asked to vote a sum of $288,000 for the salaries of men whose incompetence has been proven not only by myself, hut 'by the Halifax Chronicle and the Halifax Herald. Therefore, I urge this Commitee not to vote one dollar for the Department of Naval Service. It is quite unnecessary. It can *do no good. There is no necessity for any *vote of public moneys for men in Halifax *connected with the Naval Department. They should be discharged as incompetent, and the vessels either sold for old junk, or else handed over the Minister of Public Works, filled with cement and ballast and then sunk for the purpose of making breakwaters at the mouths of harbours. We are not only asked to >vote $288,000 for salaries for these gentlemen in the Naval Department, but the immense sum of $1,805,000 is asked for the maintenance and upkeep of the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt and the Royal Naval Reserve. I say, Sir, that no good can come from this expenditure especially in view of the present (financial situation of Canada, and every representative of the people should decide against one dollar being voted for this purpose.


John Howard Sinclair: 
William Duff: That is right.


John Howard Sinclair: They were court martialled and sentenced to eighteen months' imprisonment. I suppose they are serving their sentence; at least we have not
been told anything to the contrary. That may be all right-I do not know. It looks to me like very severe punishment. But admitting- that it was all right, what was done to the commanding officer of the Hoche-laga, Lieut. Robert D. Legate? He was in charge, and his orders were to destroy submarines. He saw a submarine at sea, but instead of attempting to destroy it, he turned tail and made for harbour. He was court-martialled. And what was his sentence? He was dismissed from the service. Now, those seven boys would have been very easily punished if they had been simply dismissed from the service. Perhaps that would have suited them very well. At any rate, this officer was simply dismissed from the service and not punished at all.
The minister said that if these seven sailors had been in the British navy and had got their just deserts under the laws of war they would have been court-martialled and shot. Under the naval laws of Great Britain would Commander Legate not have been court-martialled and shot too? If so, why was he not punished? I am informed that this is the first time in the history of naval warfare that the white ensign ran away from an enemy; I do not think such another case is recorded in British history. Why does this man go scot-free? Why were these sailors sentenced to eighteen months in prison while the commander of the Hochelaga was simply dismissed from the service, although his offence was much more serious than that committed by the seven sailors? That is the point which was made by the member for Lunenburg in his first speech, and it has not yet been answered. It ought to be answered by the minister before we go any further in voting salaries for his officers. The question was asked some days ago in the House whether the Canadian haval Department had
10 p.m. the power to punish this man, and the answer was in the affirmative, though no indication was given as to why they did not do it. Will the minister give us that information? If not we shall have to come to the conclusion that in the Canadian Naval Service there is one law for sailors and another for officers.
The character of the ships employed in the service has been referred to several times in this discussion. The minister has not told us very much about the character of the ships. In the naval discussion we had a few years ago the late Liberal Govern-men was reproached for what was described as a proposal to build a " tin-pot navy." The present political associates of the minis-

ter objected at that time to fast cruisers of the Bristol type. Ships like the' Sydney, which did such splendid work in the war. This was the class of ships that was proposed to be built by the Government then in power, but the minister's friends objected to that class of vessel. Nothing short of dreadnoughts would suit them; Bristol cruisers they christened " tin pot." But if ever a navy deserved to be called a " tin-pot navy," it was the navy constructed by the department of my hon. friend. The only ships that were any good in this navy were the ones that were there prior to 1911.
No one can deny that there was a great *deal of discontent in Halifax. Discontent prevailed in many places along the coast, hut chiefly at Halifax. If, as the minister says, everything was rosy, where did all this trouble come from? Why were there eo many complaints at Halifax? The fact that the Halifax Herald, though ia strong (supporter of the present Government, attacked the Government on this question, ought to be proof to the minister that there was something wrong. I suppose the Government was never so severely attacked as it was in connection with naval affairs by the Halifax Herald during the war. The Herald does not blame the officers at Halifax; it traces the trouble to the Naval Department at Ottawa; it blames the heads of the department here and it must be admitted that the contention of the Herald with regard to the inefficiency of the department was well founded. I do not expect the minister to give orders in regard to warfare or to naval affairs, and I do not throw the blame upon him. But the minister is responsible if he fails to surround himself with competent men. If he finds that his staff is incompetent and fails to take prompt measures, then we have to throw the responsibility on him.
The member for Lunenburg has been reading from the Halifax Herald; let me read a few extracts from the Halifax Mail. The Mail is the evening edition of the Hemld; both papers are owned by a prominent gentleman in the other Chamber, Senator Dennis. In dealing with this matter the Mail opened its columns to complaints, and they came in so fast that the Mail did not know what to do with them. They had a 'special editor whose duty it was to answer complaints of all kinds, but these complaints poured in at such a rate [DOT]that the editor was overwhelmed with them and admits that he could not answer them. But he makes a list of them in the paper [DOT]day by day, and here are some of them:

Question No. 1662-Why were the ratings on T. R. 30 court martialled in the Canadian navy last summer for refusing duty and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment, when several so-called skippers and mates positively refused to take boats overseas last winter and were not court martialled or punished in any way? (2) How can discipline he maintained in the service, when such work is allowed to go unpunished? (3) Is there one law for officers and another for ratings under the present management of the Canadian navy? (I) Can you give the names of the officers comprising the court martial before whom the ratings on T. R. 30 were tried, and are they still in the service? (5) Had the officer in command of T. R. 30, at the time these ratings refused duty, sufficient experience to command men and was he a Canadian? (6) Is there any truth in the report of the wholesale discrimination against Canadians in the Canadian naval service? (7) Will there toe a fair, impartial investigation toy a committee of the House of Commons at the next session of Parliament into the naval affairs of Canada during the war, with full power to go into all matters of expenditure, promotions, granting of commissions, etc.? (S) Who, on behalf of the Government, looked after the building of tooats known as C. D's? (9) Who accepted these boats from the builders as being fit for service?
: Then the paper goes on to say:
Answer-Here are nine questions on a matter of which we have no paiticular information. The only place where you can be effective in eliciting replies is in the House of Commons. The n'avy make a rule not to answer questions, as attempts on our part have fully demonstrated. Hundreds of questions are received every week concerning the navy, the majority of them asking the questions put toy our correspondent as above. It is evidently not a very happy or united family.
The above is an extract from a leading paper in Halifax, a supporter of the Government, published during the time these transactions were going on. I submit that the minister should answer them.
The only way in which they can adequately be answered is by granting the request of the hon. member for Lunenburg and giving an investigation. Let us take another extract from the same paper:
Note.-Questions continue to pour in concerning naval affairs. Many concern the men of T. R. 30, who are in prison for, it is alleged, refusing to go to sea in a craft unseaworthy. Others relate to P. V. 5 which it is alleged is in an unseaworthy condition. They say she is leaking aft around the rudder and also in her starboard bunker and the statement is further made that they were pumping from three to four tons of water per hour from her, that the conditions on board are unbearable. There is no getting away from the fact that there is seething discontent in the service. One correspondent says it is caused by "racial" distinction. He says he is a Canadian, wants to be a Canadian man-of-war sailor, but objects to be designated as a "native." The complaints may not all be founded on fact, but where there is scr much smoke, there must surely be some fire. The imprisoning of the boys on T. R.

30, seems to be causing considerable indignation. The complainants all lay stress on the statement that the boys should not have been sent to prison for refusing to go to sea on an unseaworthy craft, when captains of other boats, who refused to go to sea on the same plea were passed over without a reprimand. It is impossible to And room for all the letters. We would advise the complainants to take the matter up with the secretary of the Navy "League. The league has a paper of its own with 'a big circulation and is quite sympathetic to the men who have grievances. It is stated that out of 4,000 men in the service during the war, only a baker's dozen, when asked the question, if they desired to go on the reserve, answered "yes." If the service has become so unpopular, that men will not enter it unless by force, something drastic must be done at once.
That is the opinion of the chief organ supporting the Government in Nova Scotia, and I submit to the minister that it does raise a question for an investigation. If the officers at the head of the Canadian Navy are incompetent and inefficient, something ought to be done by the minister to see that this state of affairs is remedied. We are all anxious that the navy shall he properly managed and shall be such as all citizens of Canada may be justly proud of, and it is the duty of the minister to make this possible. I am sure he would be carrying out the will of the members of this Parliament and of the people of this country if he took decided steps in that direction, and I am quite sure he would have the support of every hon. member on this side of the House in such action. 1 am not here for the purpose of unduly criticising the minister, but it is my duty to ask him to take this question up seriously and make an investigation into the conditions of his department. And if he finds that there is truth in the allegations and that the officers responsible for the management of affairs in the Naval Department are inefficient, then it is his duty to see that they are dismissed and efficient men are appointed in their stead; if we are to spend millions of dollars in an endeavour to build up a Canadian Navy, let us have a navy in which the people of Canada can take a pride.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I took the pains
this afternoon very carefully and categorically to answer every charge that the hon. member for Lunenburg made in his speech, delivered as 'I understood him to say, on May 7. I occupied the .time of the committee for a period of about an hour and a quarter, and I really do not think it would be fair to hon. members to ask me to cover the same ground again. I made a full and complete answer in regard to the court martial of men on trawler 30 who
refused to carry out the orders of their superior officers. I did not say that if these men had belonged to the Imperial service they would have been court-mar-.tialled and shot. What I did say was that .if on the field of Flanders Canadian soldiers had refused to carry out the orders of their superior officers they would have been court-martialled and undoubtedly the sentence of death would have been passed upon them, and they would in all probability have been shot the following morning.
I also very carefully explained to hon. members the full particulars about the captain of the steamer Hochelaga. I can traverse that ground again if hon. members think it necessary, but I must say that I endeavoured to the best of my ability to give a full, frank and complete answer- .which was not difficult-to the hon. member for Lunenburg. The hon. gentleman has wearied this House to-night for some two hours, continuously reading extracts and comments of the press of Halifax. Now, 1 am not interested in what the press of Halifax may have to say regarding the Naval Service of Canada, neither does it interest me to know whether the owners of those papers belong to either the Liberal or the Conservative party. We are dealing with serious matters. The hon. member for Lunenburg, has treated the Naval Service of Canada in a light and frivolous manner, and I made ample reference to that phase of that attitude this afternoon. He rose in his place some weeks ago and made the statement that the steamer Hochelaga went to the Magdalen Islands to carry six lead pencils to that port.


William Duff: The Lady Evelyn.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Lady Evelyn then. Does the hon. member think for a moment that sane members in this House will take that statement seriously? Who on earth would send the Lady Evelyn or any other steamer on such a voyage as that-to carry six lead pencils to any port? All through the hon. member's two hours' talk this evening, everything he did say confirmed what I stated this afternoon in regard to his slighting references not only to the officers of the Canadian navy but also to all the men connected therewith. The hon. member was not content to do that alone, but he deemed it fit to cast slurring remarks upon officers of the British navy. If we are holding-


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Allow me to finish, please. If we are holding this session now,

it is due to the fact that the Imperial fleet and those brave and gallant officers have defended Canada and the British Empire for hundreds of years, and it ill becomes the member for Lunenburg to make the slighting and slurring remarks which he made during his last speech in his reference to English officers that were employed-[DOT]-


William Duff: I rise to a point of order.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Mr. Chairman, I must protest against this interruption. I desire to complete my remarks.


Georges Henri Boivin: The hon. member has risen to a point of order. He must be given an opportunity to state his point of order.


William Duff: My point of order is that the minister is accusing me of reflecting on the British navy.


Georges Henri Boivin: Order. That is not a point of order, but a question of privilege, and the hon. member can correct any misstatement when the minister has concluded.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I think I followed the hon. member very closely. He referred in very unparliamentary terms to the officers of the British navy that had been loaned to the Canadian Government, and his wearisome two hours' speech very largely consisted of long extracts and quotations from certain Halifax papers. Now," I am only too glad to give the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), or any other hon. member in the House all the information in my possession regarding the naval affairs of Canada. I was only attempting this afternoon to refute the charges of the hon. member for Lunenburg, and made no attempt then to go into details of the Naval Service. But as the items come up in the Estimates before the Committee now, I shall cheerfully and gladly give hon. members any information they desire; and if the hon. member .for Antigonish and Guysborough wishes me to go over again the facts regarding court martials, I shall be only too pleased to do so. In the army and navy there are rules and regulations covering offences and courts martial that were held in regard to the men of Trawler 30, and also the officer in charge of the Hochelaga, and I am quite sure they were followed out.
Hon. gentlemen surely would not for one moment suggest that under the rules and regulations of the Canadian navy, which are similar to those of the British navy, full justice is not meted out to the officers and men tried before a court-martial for dis-

obedience or any other offence. I can assure my hon. friend that there is not one code for the seamen and a different code for the officers. Everything has been done according to the rules and regulations. It is to be regretted, of course, that these young men on Trawler 30 refused to obey orders. The craft was proven to be in a seaworthy condition; Canada and the Empire was at war; these men had been ordered by a superior officer to carry out certain duties; and surely, when these sailors disobeyed that order, hon. gentlemen could not possibly expect that we would let them go scot-free. Discipline could not possibly be maintained under those circumstances. The sentence was not a heavy one in view of the seriousness of the orime.
With regard to the captain of the Hochelaga, the charge of cowardice was not proven against him. The only charge proved against him was that he did not do all that he might have done. He was tried by a very competent board of. British and Canadian senior officers, and when an officer is dismissed from the service and loses all that I stated this afternoon, that punishment cannot be looked upon as a light sentence. I do not want the House to think I am trying to hide anything in connection with the naval affairs of Canada. I do not suggest that the service is so efficient that no criticism can possibly be levelled against it, because it is certainly open to legitimate criticism. I took the trouble this afternoon to answer fully and completely every one of the charges made by the hon. member for Lunenburg, and I did not hear anything new to-night in his long two-hour speech. There is no necessity to my mind for a commission to be appointed to inquire into his charges, because I have clearly proved that every one of his charges was inaccurate. When we come to the Estimates I shall be very glad to give full and complete information.


William Duff: The minister in his reply
a moment ago endeavoured to make the Committee believe that I had said something against the British navy. I want to deny that absolutely. In any remarks I made I did not refer to the British navy. Like every British subject I realize that the British navy was the only thing that stood between us and the German hosts. We know what the British navy has done in this and every other war, and I say it is not fair for the minister to insinuate that I, who am as good a British subject as ever he dared to be, would say one wqrd against the British navy. The minister

gets up and says that this afternoon he answered all my arguments. Let hon. gentlemen read Hansard and see what paltry excuses he made this afternoon. His chief stock-in-trade was an endeavour to brand me with saying that the men on the Canadian ships were not good sailors and were not doing good work. Hansard will show that those insinuations are absolutely groundless. Now he tries to make the Committee believe that I am against the British navy. I say he should be ashamed to insinuate anything of that sort in regard to any British subject in this House.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Would the hon.
gentleman deny that he made some slurring remarks on the English naval officers in the Canadian navy?


William Duff: No, I will not say that I did not make some remarks about English officers in the Canadian navy. I do not know any body of men in any line of business which is one hundred per cent efficient, and consequently, good as the English navy is, and better as the British navy is, composed as it is of English, Irish and Scotch, and Canadian, I do say that there were men in the British navy who were not one hundred per cent efficient, and that some of those who came to Canada were cast-offs from the British navy. They were put over men like Captain Manning, a native of my own county, and a better seaman than they in every respect. If the minister desires it, I can show him where English officers' were put over good Canadian officers. Let him investigate the case of the captain of the Hochelaga. The minister talks of the captain's naval record. He had none, and I know it. It is not right for the minister to insinuate that I said anything derogatory of the British navy.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is the first minister I have heard who, on going into his Estimates, takes occasion to stand up and lecture hon. gentlemen opposite on how to con- . duct themselves, and to suggest what criticism it is proper for them to make. A few days ago my hon. friend from Lunenburg made some statements in the House that seemed to me, and I believe to other hon. gentlemen, to be of a very serious nature. The minister tells us that he has answered those charges fully and completely, and then he deplores the audacity of my hon, friend from Lunenburg in standing up again and wearying the House with a two-hour speech. What has
the minister to say of himself for standing up for an hour and a half this afternoon reading extracts and reports prepared for him by officials of his department? We might as well have a show-down here and now as to whether the minister can stand up and lecture hon. gentlemen on this side of the House for venturing the criticise the Estimates of his department. Has the minister such a high and sensitive nature, and are his qualities so statesmanlike and of such a high order, that his department must be above criticism by hon. gentlemen on this side of the House? The minister expects his Estimates to pass. I have no desire to block Estimates in this House, but hon. gentlemen have a perfect right to criticise without being insulted by the minister.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It is rather difficult for me to understand the remarks of my hon. friend. I have never ventured to question any hon. member's right to criticise the Naval Estimates. We have not as yet taken up the Naval Estimates. I have already said that I will cheerfully give all the information I have when we come to discuss the items. The discussion this afternoon and evening has related almost altogether to the charges made by the hon. member for Lunenburg. I certainly have no desire to lecture any hon. gentlemen opposite, and I am not aware that I have done so. I would be the last man to do it, because, of course, every hon. member has a right to ask what questions he pleases, and it is the plain duty of a minister to give the House all the information that is asked for. Last year when my Estimates were up and again this year I gave all the information I had, and I intend to follow that rule.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Then why complain that an
hon. member on this side of the House is wearying the House?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I made no reference to hon. gentlemen opposite wearying the House. I just referred to the long speech of the hon. member for Lunenburg, but I want to make it perfectly clear that I find no fault with hon. members criticising to the fullest extent and asking any questions they like regarding the Estimates before the Committee. I had no such intention as the hon. gentleman has recently imputed to me.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Does the minister say that he will dole out to us how we shall criticise and how we shall ask questions and that he will answer them? While my hon. friend from Lunenburg was discussing this matter

this afternoon the minister did not pay-much attention to what he said, but -when he read extracts from the Halifax Herald, which supports this Government, he -began to be weary of my hon. friend's argument. Hon. members on this side of the House have just as much right to take part in discussions, whether their remarks be long*or short, as has my hon. friend the minister.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Mr. Chairman, I need not say that the tone and manner of the Minister of Naval Affairs (Mr. Ballantyne) in his criticism of the speech offered by my hon. friend (Mr. Duff) surprised me very much. 1 had been in this House for many years before we had the honour of the presence of the distinguished minister, and I have also been here since he came. It seems to me that he has always been rather a high-minded gentleman and we always have treated him as such. But to-day he came into this House with a speech prepared for him by some piqued officer of his department, by some party who ought to know better and who is responsible to some extent for what has been going on in his department. That gentleman was piqued and hurt because there was criticism and he transferred his pique to the minister. It was so apparent to everybody who heard the remarks of the minister that the language and emphasis were not his own, but were absolutely foreign to his style. Hereafter, if he finds it necessary to criticise anybody on this side, let him prepare his speech himself and not be responsible for the pique, spleen and bad manners of somebody in his department.
I listened with the closest possible attention to the speech delivered on the 6th of May by my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Duff). I listened with all the attention of which I was capable to. the speech of the minister this afternoon. I was looking for a calm and deliberate refutation of these charges if they could be refuted. I have heard no su-ch argument. I have heard a tirade of scolding from the minister. That is all we have received-assertions on one side and denials on the other. We had assertions by the hon. member for Lunenburg about matters with which he is perfectly familiar and flat denials by the minister upon facts furnished to him by his department.
Let us take the one statement as to the failure to go to the assistance of the American tanker that was being sunk off the port of Halifax. It has been stated by the Halifax Herald and other papers, 3nd. by business men in Halifax, that when called

upon the commander told them that he could not go out, that he had nothing to go out with. That is a statement of fact published in the newspapers. We have members sitting in this House representing the city of Halifax. I would like to hear from them what defence they have for the conduct of the department. The statement is made in the newspapers, and by the hon. member for Lunenburg, that there was no assistance sent out to this vessel. The minister makes a statement that this is all false, that a ship did go out, and that she was lost in the fog. It is most extraordinary that such a thing could happen. There is a square issue of fact. Surely the controversy might toe settled by some person who was present in Halifax as to whether the truth lies in the statements which have been made in regard to this incident or in the reports which -the department has got. If the people are paying millions of money for the upkeep of the Naval Service, surely there can be no dispute about an important question of fact such as this which should be settled beyond all controversy.
We have always understood that nothing will be stated as a fact by a naval or military officer in the service of this count unless it is absolutely a fact. Here we have a dispute on a bare, bald question of fact; and I think, although it does not make very much difference now when the matter is over whether it is true .or false, we should know what the fact actually is. A seaman knows the place to which he has to go before he leaves port; he knows the latitude and longitude of that spot; he has his compass, his log, and he knows how fast his vessel is steaming. He ought to be able to get to that point along the coast of Nova Scotia without stopping in the fog to consult some poor fisherman whom he encounters a few miles from the shore. A more absurd statement was never made in this House-that a warship should stop on her course in order to allow the officers to consult a poor fisherman as to her latitude and longitude and where and how she should sail. That is the most absurd proposition and the most damning evidence as to the incompetency of the men who say that they did go out when other people say that they did not go out at all. These are the answers we "have to these charges. Reputable newspapers and men in the city of Halifax say that they did not go out at all; now they say that they did go out in the fog and that this fisherman gave Them some directions as to how

they should go, but that he did not give them the proper direction. I do not think the minister should waste one minute in defending an officer of that kind.
Then, leaving that, evidence is produced to show that bungling of the worst kind took place in Halifax harbour in connection with the vessel's explosion there which resulted in the destruction of millions of dollars worth of property and in the loss of hundreds, if not thousands, of lives. There is not a word in the nature of a satisfactory explanation. We are not told the name of the officer in charge, we are not told who he is, or what he did or whether he did anything. But we have the newspapers and citizens of Halifax condemning the actions of the naval officials. The minister simply stands up and abuses my hon. friend from Lunenburg for daring to bring this matter before the House. There are these two things, the failure to rescue that vessel and the bungling in Halifax resulting in this accident. Does the minister explain how that accident took place? The people of Halifax and the newspapers say that it was simply due to the bungling of his officials and we have no answer to that.
The minister becomes very wrathy because we say that a certain steamer went to the Magdalen Islands with a small cargo of pencils. If that is not so why does not the minister tell us what the vessel went with?
He is absolutely reticent and non-communicative about what the cargo was. Surely the position of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Duff) could be made more untenable and perhaps ridiculous if it could be shown that this vessel went for a good cause and was carrying a good cargo, and refused to do other duties in order to discharge her mission to the Magdalen Islands? There are scores of other reasons why an investigation of some sort should be granted into the matters which have been brought forward.
I regret exceedingly that the minister found it necessary to resort to a contemptible practice that has prevailed in this House and in this country for the last five or six years, viz.: directing charges of disloyalty at hon. gentlemen on this side. I am surprised that a gentleman of the standing of the minister should stoop to such a course. He knows very well there is not a single man on this side who would indulge in any fling at the British navy or at any British officer; he ought to know that if anything that could be construed into an
accusation of that sort slipped from the lips of any body on this side it would be merely a mistake, and something that was uttered unintentionally. Nobody in this House who is in the possession of his sound senses would do such a thing, and nobody knew better than the minister that no such thing was intended. Let me say that any hon. member-no matter on which side of the House he sits-who interrupts a speaker may very well expect to get a retort he was not looking for. The hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Duff) was interrupted by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Cooper) who asked him in a sneering way whether he gave orders to a certain Admiral Storey in Halifax. All that the hon. member for Lunenburg said was, " No, I did not advise him, he had plenty of Englishmen about him to do that." On that very meagre statement, which did not amount to anything at all, a minister of the Crown thinks it proper for him to start a cry in the country that an Opposition member insulted the British navy. The minister is welcome to all the glory he can get out of it; he has laid himself open to being stigmatized in this House, as a man who is capable of descending to low, contemptible tactics. That is my judgment of any man,
I care not whether he is a minister or an ordinary member, who would stoop to such miserable, contemptible proceedings.
Let me tell the minister that I hold in my hand a letter dated at Esquimalt on the 11th day of the present month, and which is therefore of recent date. It was written to me by some men out there who say that they are anxious to get clear of the Naval Service. The letter states:
We have come to the conclusion that they are holding us so as to hold their positions as long as possible. If we were doing some useful work which necessitated our being kept on, it would not be so bad. But we are just stalling round, painting the cars of the officers at the Government expense. Could you give the matter your immediate attention, and oblige?
That is an extract from a letter from men who were engaged in the Government service around Esquimalt and on the warship Bain-bow. Like requests came to me from Halifax. I brought the latter requests as speedily as- I could to the minister, and I am very glad to say that two days afterwards he moved in the matter, and those very men were allowed their liberty. I suppose the men in Esquimalt found that their friends in Halifax were allowed to go, and now they complain that they are being kept there for the purpose of making positions for superior officers. They say they are not

doing anything that is useful for anybody except painting cars for their officers.
I must also draw the attention of the minister to the case of those men who- are suffering imprisonment in the Rockhead jad at Halifax. They are not Nova Scotia men, every one. of them is from British Columbia, and their names are: Frederick L. Jones, Robert G. Bissett, David A. Curry, Oscar T. Metras, George Gibson, Archibald M. Green, and John C. Hewson. 1 would expect some of their friends from British Columbia who sit in this House to take an interest in them. I know something about marine law, and a great deal about sailors and their difficulties and their lawrsuits; I have lived for thirty years as a lawyer in a seaport, and have had much to do with a great many such cases. It is true that I have no knowledge of naval rules. We never had any occasion to deal with the Navy, or with naval men who were in difficulties, we would not have an opportunity of so doing; but I do know that our young men of the sea are brought up under the rules of the Merchant Shipping Act. They are not educated to know very much about naval rules, but they do know that in the case of those men in question, who were possibly sailors, and who had gone to sea from Canada, that if there was anything wrong with the vessel it was the duty of the captain to send them ashore, and for them to make complaint before a magistrate and a harbour master. It would then be the duty of these officials to hold a survey on the vessel, and the finding of that survey would be conclusive as to whether the men complaining should go to sea or not on- the vessel. But there was nothing of the kind in this case. The absurd practice was followed in the case of certain miserable, craft that had been moving along the shores, vessels that are no good to anybody, and run to land when anything like danger threatens, of applying to them the austere rules of the British navy. When these boys complained that the deck was leaking, that their beds were full of water, and that any food they would take into their quarters was soaked with salt water, they were not allowed to leave. The moment they did that, there was no word of calling in the proper authority to inquire as to whether the ship was seaworthy or not; they were brought before men who turned up the authorities in order to ascertain what constituted insubordination in the British navy. I suppose that if a ship were just going into action and one of the gunners refused to [Mr. McKenzie.!
take charge of his gun, it would amount to insubordination. A charge of that kind was applied to these poor boys who were accustomed to the right of making complaint and going before the harbour master and magistrate, and having the actual conditions determined. The naval rules were rigidly applied to them and they were sent to jail for eighteen months; whereas a man who had for the first time in the history of Great Britain, or in the history of our navy, disgraced the white ensign, as has already been stated, got off scot-free. Probably he was able to attend those pink teas in Halifax with the rest of the officers who were there doing nothing, and eventually perhaps his passage home was provided for. But let me in all seriousness say to the minister that he cannot put his finger on one single thing that his miserable navy did for the defence of the Atlantic coast that was worth tuppence ha'penny. Where is it? Not a single thing, except shovelling out hundreds of thousands of dollars of the people's money. Is it not most marvellous, Mr. Chairman, that year after year we were spending large sums of money, and yet we had nothing that could do anything to defend us?' Could there be a more deplorable confession than that when this American vessel was within a short distance of the port of Halifax and appealed to the headquarters of our naval and military forces, in the province of Nova Scotia, in the Dominion of Canada, the officer in charge had to say: " I am absolutely helpless; there is nothing I can do"? And that was after three years of war. Surely if there was any efficiency in the department something could have been done, even if we had to borrow an American craft or get one from overseas to defend our own shipping. There was nothing done.
. Now, if in humility and honesty the hon. minister had come here to-night and said:
" I regret exceedingly that there was nothing we could do. We had nothing Vhen the war began, we had nothing when the war was half way through, and we had nothing at the time of the armistice," we would sympathize with him and say: " Possibly in view of the circumstances that is the best thing you could do." But instead of that he allows some zealous official in his department to create a howling speech full of abuse for everybody in sight who dares find fault with the efficiency and standing of the navy and what it did for this country.
I repeat again that the only time when a submarine appeared off Sydney harbour the vessel that went out to deal with her fled cowardly, and the master was discharged

because he did so. Off the coast of Nova Scotia an American vessel was being smashed and sent to the bottom, and we had to acknowledge that we could do nothing. Where is the efficiency, where was anything done in connection with the war of which we can be proud, and from which we have any return for the money spent? I would be glad, indeed, to be informed what naval service was rendered and by whom, and I would be delighted to give credit to the minister and to his department for anything accomplished for our protection during the war.
I am not going to say very much about the little craft on both coasts that he hired, because he has steered absolutely clear of them. Those craft were hired to no purpose whatever. Every man of a certain line of politics from Cape Sable to Cape North simply ran to headquarters with his little boats and hired them at the highest possible prices that they could ask. Those boats were engaged all the time, but what they were doing nobody knows. It would be quite in order for the minister to give a list of the craft of every kind and description that he engaged for service on the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick coasts, together with the names of their masters and the amount of money that was paid out in connection with the " secret " services performed. What they were doing, as I have already stated, nobody knows.
Now, in view of the fact that there was inefficiency from start to finish, the minister should not get on his high horse and hurl epithets at hon. members on this side of the House when they dare to question the services rendered by our Naval Department, I would ask the hon. minister and his department to give us the best possible account of what was done for the lavish expenditure of the people's money.
For myself and my friends on this side of the House I am not at all satisfied with the tone of the minister in replying to the criticisms of the hon. member for Lunenburg, nor am I satisfied that any defence worthy of being called such was made to the charges put forward by the hon. member. However, a great many of these things cannot be helped, 1 suppose. But the minister can help those boys who are pining in jail at Halifax, and he can let them go home to their friends, where I am sure they will be more useful to the- country than they can possibly be kept in confinement at Rockhead. Rockhead is the site of the old penitentiary in the province of Nova Scotia before Confederation, but I am glad to say that so law-abiding and excellent are our
people that we have no penitentiary there to-day. But Rockhead is still there, and it still carries the same disagreeable odour that was associated with it while used as a penitentiary. To 'that old penitentiary those boys were sent. I hope 'that the minister will be perfectly satisfied that they *have sufficiently condoned for any little shortcomings they may have been guilty of.
I am sure, Sir, 'that now the war is over *nothing is to be gained by afflicting the sore hearts of this country, and this is one little thing we can do, or rather the minister *can do to allay irritation, having amply punished any insubordination on the part *of those young men. I trust,- therefore, *that before many more days have passed *over our heads the minister will he able *to tell us that he has done one good thing- [DOT]allowed those boys to depart to their homes *in British Columbia.
I have not had an opportunity, Sir, of looking through the Estimates to any extent but I presume they are somewhat along *the lines of the other Estimates, and we *shall be very glad to give fair and honest consideration to every item in them. I am *sorry that this is the first time that a minister of the Crown, this year at all events, has started out with a storm, which has been visited hack upon his own head, and which has kept him for over three weeks before getting a single item through the Committee.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I might be allowed to say a word or two in answer to the hon. leader of the Opposition,- for whom I have the greatest regard. With regard to *the young men referred to, it was my intention when the peace treaty was signed *to give orders for their release. The hon. leader of the Opposition has stated that *when orders are disobeyed in the navy it *would be proper to call in the harbourmaster and refer the matter to the Marine Department. That of course could not be done in naval affairs, because the Marine Department has nothing to do with the navy, and in this case we necessarily had to follow the regulations. But I will be very glad to look into the matter again *and see 'if these young sailors may not be *let out even before the signing of the peace treaty.
The hon. member has stated that I made no explanation to the Committee in regard to the Lux Blanca. I will very briefly repeat what I stated this afternoon. There were off the coast at that time one division of patrol vessels, comprising sixty-four ves-

sels, and two United States submarine chasers. The former had just left their convoy; the latter were still in company with a convoy. A wireless message was immediately sent to both divisions, and this message was coded, despatched, decoded and acted upon by 2.30 p.m., which shows considerable promptitude. The patrol vessels were uncertain of their position in the fog. I do not claim to have any great knowledge of navigation, but I have crossed the ocean several times and have talked with mariners, and I know that it is not unusual for a man to be uncertain about the position of his vessel, especially during a thick fog. These trawlers went as quickly as they could to the assistance of the Lux Blanca.
With regard to the service generally, the hon. member says that it has not done anything. As I said this afternoon, 11 p.m. having regard to the fact that aside from the Rainbow and the Niobe the Canadian naval service is made up of trawlers and drifters, it rendered good and efficient service for Canada. The trawlers acted as escorts to the convoys, and also as scouts and mine-sweepers. So that considering the craft that were at our disposal, the service was as efficient as could be expected.
I made reference this afternoon to the services of the Niobe and the Rainbow. If there is any further information that I can furnish to bon. members, I shall be only too glad to give it.
With regard to the men out on the Pacific coast who, the bon. member says, have nothing to do but certain painting, I have no knowledge of that, but I will immediately send a wire out there to ascertain the facts and shall be glad subsequently to give my hon. friend more information than I am able to give him now.
I thought that I covered the ground pretty well this afternoon. I did not say during the course of my remarks that we had modern ships in the Canadian navy. When I became Minister of the Naval Service I had to do the best I could with the ships that the Canadian navy had. Hon. members know all about the Rainbow and all about the Niobe. These trawlers and drifters were new ships. I understood the hon. member to say a moment ago that Trawler 30 was an old ship. I wish to correct him on that point; this was a new trawler and, according to expert officers, was perfectly seaworthy, although she was leaking a little, as all new vessels do. As we proceed with the Estimates I shall be

glad to give any additional information that I can.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has kindly invited us to bring to his attention anything we heard of that was not satisfactory in the Service. I wish to direct his attention to a matter relating to the claim of a sailor in Halifax by the name of James C. Lavandier, I received the following letter from him on February 17 last:
I beg to acknowledge to you that I am out of the naval service, and what about I cannot tell, as I was steward of the ship Hopper Barge No. 1 and was getting my food from H.M.C.S. Niobe, and was getting food for 18 of the crew, and as it happened that the Captain, John Barr, had on board his wife and daughter, and the mate also had his wife, I was short of food. This was on Friday, January 24th. I thought that there was nothing else for me to do but to tell the Captain, and I did so, and he said if I should speak to him again he would report me to the Niobe, and I told him to do so, and he did, and on Friday night at 8.30 he told me to get my clothes and go ashore. I did so, and on Monday the 27th of January I went, down to the Niobe, and they said I had run away from the ship, and they gave me 17 days' leave and 17 days' pay cut off, and although I had two witnesses they did not take my word. Of course, if I had been a Captain I would have been all right, but as a slave I was cast down, and on February 10 I was let off and I did not get my discharge yet.
That is what I got after being in service from August 20th, 1914 till February 10th, 1919, and we were under fourteen days' notice. I was discharged without a cent, and all thoso that did nothing and have joined the service from this last year are going away with three months' pay or six months and I have nothing to show for my services.
I hope you will take charge of this case and see what you can do for me. I have four yeais' service and five months.
Yours truly,
James C. Lavandiei
When I received that letter I wrote Mr. Destoarats, the Deputy Minister of ^ Naval Affairs, as follows:
I am enclosing- herewith a letter just received from one of your employees in Halifax, James C. Lavandier.
Be kind enough to look into this matter and let me know if this man has a reasonable complaint, and if anything can be done to adjust it, and oblige.
I received the following reply from the deputy minister:
I am in receipt of your letter of the 24th enclosing copy of a letter from James C. Lavandier complaining of certain treatment in the Naval Service. He does not give much information in his letter, but I am having his record looked up and should he able to inform you of the facts of the case.
That was on the 28th of February. I waited for some time for an answer, but there did not seem to be anything doing,

so I decided to write to Colonel Thompson, the Commanding Officer of Military District No. 6, Halifax, to see whether I could make any progress in dealing with this sailor's case. I received the following polite reply from Colonel Thompson, dated March 15:
I am in receipt of your letter in reference to a sailor's grievance, which I handed over immediately to Commander D. Tatton-Brown of II.M.C. Dockyard, Halifax. He advises me that he has instructed the Commanding Officer of the Niobe to look into the case and take the necessary action. I asked him to communicate with you direct.
If you hear nothing in the course of a day or so you might please write the Commanding Officer of the Niobe yourself.
I trust you will be able to get a full explanation of this matter. Should there be any delay and should you consider I could help you further I shall be pleased to hear from you.
Colonel Thompson referred the matter to the commanding officer of the Niohe. Colonel Thompson wrote me a further letter on March 17, as follows:
With further reference to my letter of the 15th instant, I attach herewith copy of communication this day received from the Assistant Superintendent H.M.C. Dockyard regarding the complaint made by Mr. J. C. Lavandier.
This is the letter that he enclosed. It is addressed to Colonel Thompson and reads:
The Admiral Superintendent has directed me to inform you that if Mr. J. C. Lavandier has any complaint he should have made it to the Commanding Officer Niobe or to the Admiral Superintendent.
If Mr. Sinclair requires any information with regard to men in the Naval Service he should apply to the Department of Naval Service., Yours faithfully,
D. Tat ton-Brown, Commander, R.N.
This gentleman is evidently more anxious about the due observance of rules or red tape than he is to see that justice is done to the sailor. He gives no explanation of the sailor's charge that he was dismissed from the service because he ventured to tell the captain that the food had run short. As will have been observed in his letter, the man was a steward on this vessel and was getting food from the Niobe to feed eighteen persons. The captain took his wife and daughter on the ship, end the mate also took his wife; and the number of those on hoard multiplied so that the man could not feed them on the supply he was receiving from the Niohe and when he brought this fact to the attention of the captain he was reprimanded and dismissed from the service and he has been at No. 2 Hurds Lane ever since that time waiting to get a settlement of his case. In the
meantime, I have been writing letters and waiting for replies from the commander of the Niohe or from the deputy minister in regard to the matter. This dismissal occurred in January and it is now the 26th of May; and while I have had a number of polite letters from different officers in the department there has been no settlement or explanation. The sailor has not received his wages. I have done my best to obtain a settlement from the minister's officers and have failed, and I submit that this is only another illustration of the inefficiency of the Department of Naval Affairs. The question is what next? After the impudent letter I received from commander D. Tatton-Brown, K.N., I do not feel like going back to Halifax for any solution of this matter, and 1 trust that the minister himself will see that the necessary steps are taken to have a satisfactory adjustment made.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I shall be glad to
look into the matter to-morrow and let the hon. member have a prompt answer. I understand that the man to whom he refers was not a member of the Naval Service, but was a civilian on hoard a ship called the 'Speedy, all the crew of which had been demobilized. This is the first time the matter has been brought to my attention, and I shall see that the hon. member receives a satisfactory and prompt reply.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to bring to the
attention of the minister an experience I had similar to that of the hon. member for Guysborough. Last fall I also received a rebuke from a gentleman who was, I think, the master of the N.E. 30. I do not happen to remember his name. One of his sailors came ashore in my town and found illness in his family. He came to me as the member for the county to see if I could intervene with the officers of the ship with a view to getting him leave to stay at home with his sick wife. His wife was a nervous wreck on the verge of confinement, without any help, and she simply clung to her husband and refused to let him go. In an endeavour to help the man I wrote as politely as I could to the commanding officer. He wrote back to me informing me that I should mind my own business, and suggesting that I should know better than to write a letter like that to a man in his position. He said that if anything was required I ought to know where to look for the information. He signed his name and never mentioned the sailor at all. Now, Sir, we are a simple Canadian people, unaccustomed to such conduct as that. In future years we may

know how to deal with such high and lofty officers, but I desire, on the floor of Parliament, to bring to the notice of the minister the fact that such conduct engenders in the hearts and minds of the best people of Canada nothing but the .most extreme contempt for such officials or any one who may stand behind them; and the sooner they learn that this is a democratic country and that we are a democratic people, the better. We are willing to stand behind efficient service and give our hearts and souls, and our blood, in support of such service, but we will not tolerate snobbery or contemptible behaviour of such a character.
Fisheries Protection Service-To provide for the repairs and maintenance of Fisheries Protection Steamers, $400,000.


John Howard Sinclair: How does the minister intend to spend this money?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: This item shows an increase of $120,000 over the Estimates of 1918-19 and an increase of $45,000 over those of 1913-14. The increase is due wholly to the fact that most of the vessels engaged in fisheries protection work were also engaged in patrol duties under the Royal Canadian navy. As such their expenses were defrayed from the war vote and not out of this item. This condition will now cease, and vessels will return to peace basis. The increase of $45,000 as compared with the pre-war estimate is due to the fact that three of the smaller vessels, those employed in fisheries protection duty, have outlived their usefulness and have been disposed of. To fill their places the department has transferred from the Naval Service, the Hochelaga, and two new trawlers, and also the patrol vessel Stadacona.


John Howard Sinclair: How many ships have we now in the fisheries protection service, and where are they?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: We have the Canada, the Hochelaga, the Petrel, the Gulnare, the Arras, the Arleux, the Vigilant, the Mala-spina, Stadacona, the Armentieres, and the Givenchy. They are distributed as follows: On the east coast the vessels are: Canada, Hochelaga, Petrel, Gulnare, Arras and Arleux; on the west coast, Stadacona, Mal-aspina, Armentieres, and Givenchy, and on the Great Lakes the steamer Vigilant.
Mr. J. H. 'SINCLAIR: I wonder whether we are not spending too much money at the present time in fisheries protection service. There is really nothing special to protect. We are allowing American fishermen to come into our harbours freely to purchase 
supplies, etc., and are not in the same need of protection we were in a few years ago when we had to watch the American fleet and when the regulations called for more care than at present. It strikes me the minister might make some reduction in the cost of this .service if he looked into the matter carefully. I think he could find we could do with fewer boats thereby reducing expenditure.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I have been looking into the matter carefully and we have been increasing the revenue especially in British Columbia which will make up for any deficit shown in previous years. The fishermen call constantly for the protection we are now giving them, and while I have gone carefully into the matter I do not see how we can very well cut it down any further. We have not got a very large fleet. These vessels are protecting our fisheries and seeing that American vessels do not fish within our limits.


John Howard Sinclair: There was a proposal made recently by people engaged in the fishing industry that a special deputy be appointed to give special attention to the fishing interests on our coasts. Does the minister approve that idea, and is it likely to be carried out?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I was going to go into that when the fishery Estimates are before the Committee. I have been favoured with a delegation from the Fisheries Association. I realize that great opportunities exist for increasing the fisheries of Canada, and I hope before very long to be able to separate entirely the Department of Naval Service from the fisheries. In the meantime I am taking active steps to develop to the utmost the fisheries of Canada, and to make that branch as efficient as possible.
I shall be glad to go more fully into the matter when the fishery Estimates are up.
Radiotelegraph service-to provide for the building .and maintenance of wireless stations, $285,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this for new stations, or repairs to old ones?
Mr. BAiLLANTYNE: It is mostly for the maintenance of our present stations., but also for the construction of some new ones. We intend to construct one on the east coast at a cost of $7,500, one on the west coast at a cost of $48,700, and another on the Great Lakes at a cost of $1,000. The balance of the item is for the maintenance of our present stations.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Where is the one on the east coast going to be built?
Mr. BALLANTYNE!: At Grosse Isle.
Mr. -McKENZIE: Is there not a wireless station there now?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, but we have to rebuild the present station.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How many Government-owned wireless stations are there on the Atlantic coast?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: The Government
owns all the wireless stations on the east coast except the one .at Pictou.


Mr. McMASTER:: Has the minister in his Estimates any item dealing with the wireless' equipment on Government boats? If he has not, I am going to ask permission of the Committee to raise a matter concerning wireless equipment on Government boats, information concerning which I have been unsuccessfully endeavouring to get from the Government since the opening of the session. If there is an item in the Estimates dealing with the matter I shall not interrupt the work of the Committee to [DOT]deal with it now.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: My Estimates do not contain any item for wireless equipment on any boat of the Canadian Government Merchant Marine. I must apologize for the delay in giving my hon. friend the information he has asked for. I have personally inquired about it several times, and the information is now in preparation, but in these 'busy days it seems difficult to get information as speedily as we would like. [DOT]I hope in a few days, however, to give my hon. friend the information, he has asked for.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I thank the minister *very sincerely for his kind promise. It is *now several days since I received from the gentleman who occupied the position of *Minister of Marine and Fisheries during the regretted sickness of the present minister a letter which led me to suppose the information would be forthcoming about the 20th of May. I am glad to know that 1 shall have it in the course of a few days.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not know that the large wireless station at Glace Bay was owned by the Government, but I understand from the minister that it is. There is a small wireless station at North Sydney and a large one at Glace Bay, which I thought was private property. Will the minister tell us how many stations there
[DOT]are altogether, and where the others are *located?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Glace Bay is not included in that list.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is a private station, owned by the Marconi people.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister told us that Pictou was the only private-owned one, but I understand now that both Pictou and Glace Bay are private-owned.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is correct.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Has the Government any
interest in the wireless station at Newcastle?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: That is a private-owned one.


Arthur Bliss Copp: But the Government have controlled it for the past two years?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: During the war
only.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is it in operation now?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: It has been handed back to the company, the Marconi Company, I believe.
Patrol of the northern waters of Canada, $40,000.


John Howard Sinclair: What is being
done in these northern waters. Is this in connection with the Stefansson expedition?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: This is to pay the balance incurred in connection with the ' Stefansson expedition that was sent north some years ago.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is the word "patrol" the proper word? Patrol has a certain significance, and I did not know there was any "patrol" of these waters.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I think the hon.
member's point is well taken. The word "patrol" should really not be there. This



amount is required in connection with the northern expedition that was fitted out at the expense of the Government in 1913. Mr. Stefansson's report is now under way, and' I understand from conversation I have had with him that it is going to be of considerable scientific and practical value to Canada.
Life saving stations, including of rewards for life saving, $100,0!00.


John Howard Sinclair: Who is the superintendent of the life saving stations on the coast of the Maritime Provinces? Some two or three years ago Mr. Nickerson occupied the position of superintendent, and I would like to know who succeeded him.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: No one was appointed to succeed Mr. Nickerson, and we have no officer performing his duties.


John Howard Sinclair: I think it is very unsatisfactory that nobody should visit these stations.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I do not want to convey the impression that no one visits the stations. The officers of the Fishery Protection patrol, as they are in the vicinity, visit these life saving stations.
Royal Naval College of Canada, $100,000.


John Howard Sinclair: This appears to be a new item.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: I am very glad to see it. I think it is a move in the right direction that the Royal Naval College should be supported. If we are going to have a Canadian navy, we must support the institution that teaches the boys the very important lessons necessary to give them a start. The accusation has been made against the department that they have not acknowledged young Canadians who have devoted their lives to the naval service. A considerable number of young men have been trained in the Naval College at Halifax. I am not familiar enough with the matter to say whether the charge is substantiated by the facts or not, but it is * that Canadian cadets who were trained in the Naval College were not given positions in the Canadian naval service during the war. I would like the minister to give me a list of the young men who were trained in the naval service and who were put in charge of Canadian vessels during the war.


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I am very glad to hear the commendation of the hon. member regarding the Naval College cadets, a very large number of whom have joined the 
Imperial service, and their record has been a most admirable one. The object of the present vote is to buy a site. It will not be sufficient to put up a good, modern, well equipped naval college, but it is sufficient for the time being, and next year we will probably come back for an additional amount.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it true that none of these young men were employed by the minister in the Naval Service?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Yes, a few. I will be glad to send the hon. member a list that he has asked for. A large majority joined the Imperial Service in preference to the Canadian because they would see more active service and also get a better idea" of the duties of a naval officer.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Where is the college to be built?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: At Halifax.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What opportunities for training will the naval cadets or students have in connection with the college at Halifax? Will there be a ship in which they can learn something of naval seamanship generally and put into practice the theory which they are receiving at lectures?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: I quite agree with my hon. friend that they ought to have practical training as well as instruction in theory through lectures. While our cadets have done well and made creditable records for themselves I am in hopes that they will get a still better training than they have had in the past and that they will, also get the training on board ship such as the hon. member suggests.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Has the site been purchased?


Charles Colquhoun Ballantyne: Not yet.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Ballantyne the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Tuesday, May 27, 1919.