sence from their work at East river, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, for the purpose of going to vote at election in Lunenburg county on November 24, 1909 ? 2. If so, what are the names and positions on dredge of each person who obtained such leave? 3. On what day did each leave the dredge and on what day did each return? 4. Was the dredge working as usual while such persons were absent from duty? 5. Was the work of the dredge carried as efficiently without the persons in question as when they were on board and working? 6. Were the said persons or any of them provided with free transportation over the Intercolonial railway, or otherwise provided with free transportation from their place of work to the county in which election was being held, or for any part of the distance? 7. Were the said persons paid or will they be paid usual wages for the time they were absent to said election? Hon. WM. PUGSLEY: 1. Yes. 2 and 3. J. A. Ledingham, engineer, absent from 20th to 30th November; G. H. Hunter, oiler, absent from 23rd to 30th November. 4 and 5. There was no cessation in the operation of the dredge. 6. The department has no information. 7. The parties above-mentioned have been paid for the month of November. Mr. RHODES: 1. What is the name, place of residence, occupation on ship, and wages of each member of the crew, officers and men, of the dredge Northumberland,' while employed at East river, Pictou county, Nova Scotia, in the year 1909? When did each of such men go to work on said dredge in 1909, and how long was each employed on said dredge during 1909? 2. Are any of the officers or crew on wages at the present time? If so, are they on the dredge? If not, where are they, and what are their names? 3. What was the total expense of operating said dredge in the calendar years of 1908 and 1909, respectively? 1. Has the Minister of the Interior received a petition from the residents of township 50, range 27, W. 2nd M., relative to the difficulty of getting dry wood for fuel, etc., and asking for permission to obtain it from timber berth No. 876? If so, what assistance is he able to give them? 2. Are permits to cut wood being granted to these settlers on any government land? If so, where and to what extent? 3. Is the minister aware that on several sections comprised in timber berth No. 876 there is said to be not sufficient timber to make them commercially valuable? If so, will he take steps to withdraw them from the berth and throw them open for settlement? If not, will he cause inquiries to be made? Hon. FRANK OLIVER: 1. Yes. Berth 876 was acquired at public competition, and the department is not in a position to issue settlers' permits thereon. 2. Permits to cut wood for fuel are issued by the local Crown timber agents, without 30 00 May 17 30 00 June 22 30 00 April 22 reference to the department, and the department, therefore, cannot state, without communicating with the agent, whether or not permits are being granted to these settlers on vacant Dominion lands. 3. This statement was made in a communication recently received at the department. An inspection has been ordered, and if it is found that any of the lands do not contain merchantable timber to such an extent as to make them commercially valuable, they will be withdrawn from the berth. HOMESTEADING ON SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 12. Mr. STAPLES: 1. Is the northeast of section 34, township 12, range 21, west 3rd meridian, province of Saskatchewan, open for homesteading? If not, why not? 2. Has it been entered for homesteading? If so, by whom, and when? 3. Has there been any settlement duties done on it? If so, what is the nature of the duties? 4. Is it subject to cancellation, and will it be open for settlement? Mr. OLIVER: 1. Not open for homesteading at the present time. Already entered for. 2. Taken as a homestead by Howard A. Moore, October 27, 1908. 3. According to a declaration filed here by the homesteader, the following duties are claimed: Residence-Was on homestead part of June, August and September, 1909. Improvements-26 acres of breaking, Mr. OLIVER: 2. Yes, his whole time during office hours. 3. The department claims Mr. McQuarrie's whole time during office hours. THE ROSS RIFLE AT BISLEY MEETING. Mr. WORTHINGTON: 1. Has any Ross rifle mark II., double star, or any other mark, been submitted to the National Rifle Association of Great Britain, for its opinion as to the eligibility of the rifle for competition at the forthcoming Bisley meeting? If so, with what result? 2. If no rifle has yet been submitted to the National Rifle Association, will such a course be adopted? If so, when? 3. Have inquiries been instituted as to whether the Ross rifle will be eligible at the next Bisley meeting? If so, what reply has been received? mission of rifles for competition in the vari4. Has any rule or regulation for the ad ous national or other contests at Bisley been recently adopted by the National Rifle Association? tion and when was it adopted? 5. If so, what was the nature of the resolu Sir FREDERICK BORDEN. This is a matter which pertains exclusively to the Dominion Rifle Association, and will, I have no doubt, be dealt with satisfactor 1. Yes; inspector of Dominion lands ily by the executive council of that assoagencies for Saskatchewan. 2. On the 1st January, 1905, as inspector of Dominion lands agencies. 3. From 1st January, 1905, to the present time. Engaged in inspecting Dominion lands agencies, except in 1908 when he was employed for part of the year in connection with seed grain distribution. 4. Salary: 1904-5, 6 months, $1,000; 19056, $2,000; 1906-7, 9 months, $1,500; 1907-8, $2,000; 1908-9, $2,666.66; 1909-10, 10 months, $2,500. Expenses: 1904-5, 6 months, $840.60; 1905-6, $3,676; 1906-7, 9 months, $2,736.02; 1907-8, $3,403.59; 1908-9, $2,766.53; 1909-10, 10 months, $3,350. 5. Inspecting Dominion lands agencies. 6. No. W. L. MCQUARRIE. Mr. BOYCE: 1. What position does Mr. W. L. McQuarrie hold under the Department of the Interior at Prince Albert, and what is his salary? 2. Is he required to devote his whole time to the performance of the duties of his office? If not, may he properly accept another position of a public nature? 3. Under these circumstances, does the minister consider that the department has a claim only upon a part of the time of Mr. McQuarrie? Mr. OLIVER: ciation. REVISED EDITION. 1. W. L. McQuarrie is senior assistant in the Dominion Lands Office at Prince Albert, and his salary is $1,200 per annum. BOUNTIES ON IRON AND STEEL. Mr. BOYCE. Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to ask the government if it is the intention this session to introduce any legislation with a view to a renewal of the bounties on iron and steel? Mr. FIELDING. At the present moI am ment, we have no such intention. not prepared to make any statement more than that. NAVAL SERVICE OF CANADA. House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the second reading of Bill (No. 95), respecting the naval service of Canada, the proposed amendment of Mr. Borden thereto, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Monk. as the hon. the right hon. gentleman in his political gymnastics on any great question, but, on this question, I contend he has well earned the title of champion political lightning change artist of the continent of America. What has been his course? Speaking in this House last March, the right hon. gentleman gave pledges of sympathy and loyal support. Last November, he said that not a ship should go without the consent of parliament. Last December he modified that somewhat by saying that we might help if England were severely pressed. Early this month, he said that if England is at war, Canada is at war. And later in the present month he modified that again by saying that he meant that when England was at war Canada was at war, inasmuch as Canada formed part of the empire and was liable to attack when England was at war, but he did not mean that Canada was necessarily involved in taking part in I all England's wars. (Frontenac). was somewhat amused, the other evening, at the effort of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) to reconcile the positive and negative statements of his leader. Any such evolutions and contortions member went through in order to reconcile the two positions of his leader would give a snake lumbago. On this great question, involving the future destiny of Canada and the empire, we see the premier of this country suspended in mid air, like Mahomet's spirit between heaven and hell and fit for neither place, wobbling about like a Chinese kite answering to the sentiments of whatever popular audience he happens to be addressing-one day uttering sentiments for the ears of British Canadians, and furnishing headlines for such papers as the Toronto Globe,' the next day uttering sentiments for those French Canadians whom he has carefully schooled to look in the direction of his highest aspirations. Sir, the right hon. gentleman has become an expert in the manipulation of the English language. The people of Canada have become somewhat accustomed to the right hon. gentleman's lingual inconsistencies; but on this great question I think the people of Canada would like from the premier of this country, definite, clear-cut and unequivocal statements. The right hon. gentleman, speaking a few days ago, and referring to the conquest of Canada by Wolfe in 1759, made use of these words: Mr. J. W. EDWARDS When the House adjourned yesterday, I was considering the resolution unanimously passed by this House last March. If you examine carefully each clause of that resolution, you will find that the position taken to-day by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) is absolutely consistent with every one of those clauses. The amendment moved by the leader of the opposition does call for speedy organization, for co-operation, for close relations with the British navy and for active participation. I also contend that the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has gone back on every principle embodied in that resolution. Sir, the Bill before us is not a policy of speedy organization, but one of delay; it is not a policy of co-operation, but one which makes co-operation absolutely impossible; it is not a policy of naval service in close relation with the British navy, but a policy designed to keep our fleet of vessels separate from the British navy; it is not a policy of active participation, but one of useless inactivity; it is not a policy to render our commerce and the empire more secure, but a policy of graft and ingratitude, a policy to breed another flock of political vultures to add to those that have followed in the wake of this government since 1896 and have grown fat on what they have stolen from the people of Canada. This is not an imperial policy; it is not a Canadian policy, but it is, in my estimation, a policy of rank and brazen hypocrisy which waves the British flag before the eyes of the Canadian people as the talisman of liberty and plots the disintegration of the empire behind its protecting folds. Never in the history of the British empire has any statesman occupied so pitiable a position of weakness and vaccillation as that now occupied by the right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who leads this House. It is difficult to follow My ancestors lost on that occasion, but it simply transferred their allegiance from one but they did not lose their independence, Sovereign to another. They lost the battle, their liberty, their rights and privilege3; and to-day the sun in his daily career does not shed his light upon any people on the face of the earth enjoying more liberty than my fellow countrymen of French extraction. And my last words to the doubters is that freedom is worth fighting for and worth dying for. Mr. Speaker, I believe that these words are true. And yet, Sir, time and again it has been impressed upon us in this House that there is an anti-imperial sentiment in the province of Quebec which has to be reckoned with when any great political question comes before this House and country. There is no getting around this, and there is no use in mincing words in dealing with it. We have heard it stated in this House within the last few days that if one should undertake to criticise an estimate for a wharf or a post office in the province of Quebec he is liable to be misrepresented in that province as being antagonistic to the French Canadian people. We know that, time and again, we have been cautioned to be very careful how we considered any question on which the people of Lower Canada have an opinion which differs from ours. In the consideration of the French treaty it was almost as much as a man's position was worth to express an adverse criticism, no matter how honestly he might hold that view, for fear of being misrepresented as an Anglo-Saxon bigot. In the case of the hanging of Louis Riel, who was judged to be a traitor, it was represented as due to his French origin. In the matter of dealing with the Manitoba school question, the people of this country were given to understand by one leader that Manitoba must submit to the will of Quebec, while the other leader took advantage of the position to gain power in order that he might use that power to coerce the new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and, subsequently as has been made apparent to everybody in this country, has given Manitoba to understand that she must remain the 'postage stamp province' until she is willing to bend the knee to the will of Quebec. While we recognize the fact that there are people in this Dominion of French origin, I wish to remind hon. gentlemen opposite, and I do it in all kindness, that there are also people of English, Irish, Scotch and Welsh origin, and that the interests of the English-speaking people must receive more consideration in the future than they have in the past. I maintain that the English-speaking portion of this country has been held up before the eyes of the world by the premier and his delegates at different imperial conferences as being indifferent and callous to the calls of their kindred across the sea. That is the only conclusion we can come to from the position taken by the right hon. First Minister and other delegates at different imperial conferences. It seems that the uppermost thought in the mind of the government is: What will Quebec say ог think? Ontario and the other provinces, they seem to conclude, can be relied upon to be fooled as usual with a few sentences having an imperial ring, but really as empty as sounding brass. I have not one word to say against the French Canadians of this country. I believe they are an energetic and intelligent people. I, myself, think that they are an exceptionally intelligent people, because, Sir, if what the hon. member for Hochelaga said yesterday, that there is no feeling of disloyalty among the French Canadians of Quebec is correct, I say it speaks very highly for the intelligence of the people of that province, for if there is no feeling of disloyalty in the province of Quebec it is not for lack of teaching by hon. gentlemen opposite. Battleships and cannon are very necessary implements of war, but a country's strength does not depend on these alone. It does not depend on these so much as on the men behind the guns. We cannot measure the military and naval strength of Canada by the calibre of our cannon or by the number of Bristols. But, if we are honest with ourselves and honest with the people of the country, we have to take into consideration, in viewing this question, the sentiments not only of Canada as a whole, but of each part of Canada. The hon. member for Hochelaga challenged any one in this House to say that there is a feeling of disloyalty in Quebec. I do not like to use the word disloyalty, but I do believe we have ample evidences in this House in the expressions which have fallen from the lips of different speakers that there is in the province of Quebec an anti-British, or, if you like it better, an anti-imperial sentiment. I propose to deal with that matter squarely and to place the blame for that sentiment, which I do not consider in the interests of Canada, where it justly belongs. Is there an hon. member in this House who will deny my assertion that separation from the empire is preached in the province of Quebec? Is there an hon. member in this House who will deny my assertion that public money of the province of Quebec has been used to buy books to disseminate such doctrines in that province? I will challenge any man in this House. I will challenge any man in the province of Quebec to deny that assertion. I say that that separation from the empire has been preached in the province of Quebec not only on the platform but through subsidized books. An hon. MEMBER. What book? Mr. EDWARDS. The hon. gentleman asks me what book, and I will tell him. The following statement was made by the Winnipeg "Telegram' some time ago: The Quebec element opposed to aiding the which talks seriously of the disintegration of navy of Great Britain, is also the element confederation. |