PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 55) to incorporate the British Columbia Life Assurance Company.-Mr. Cowan.
Bill (No. 56) respecting the Canada Life Assurance Company.-Mr. A. H. Clarke.
Bill (No. 57) respecting the Vancouver, Fraser Valley and Southern Railway Company.-Mr. J. D. Taylor.
Bill (No. 58) respecting the Vancouver, Westminster and Yukon Railway Company.-Mr. R. Smith.
Bill (No. 59) to incorporate the Victoria and Barkley Sound Railway Company.- Mr. R. Smith.


Mr. BEATTIE asked:: 1.	What amount of silver currency has .been coined for Canada for each of the years 1905>
1906, 1907, 1908?
2.	What profit accrued to the Dominion Treasury from such coinage in each year?
3.	What amount of United States silver currency has been in circulation in Canada during each of the years above mentioned ?
4.	What steps, if any, has the government taken to limit the circulation of United States silver currency in Canada?
5.	Is the government aware that United States silver coinage is being used by the officials for the transaction of business in the post offices throughout Canada?


Right Hon.   S@: 1 and 2:
Coined. Profit.
1904- 5	$100,000	$ 55,492 871905-	6	
862,000	445,432	531906-	7	
984,000	476,654	141907-	8	
600,000	284 288	20
3 The government is aware that United States currency in considerable quantity is in circulation in Canada, but has no means of ascertaining the amount.
4.	In 1905-6, under an arrangement with the Canadian Bankers' Association, $580,224.16 of United States silver was exported from Canada, and in the estimates now before parliament an appropriation has been asked for a similar purpose.
5.	The regulations of the Post Office Department forbid postmasters accepting United States currency, but it is understood that in many cases local business conditions make it difficult to carry out this regulation.


DREDGE ON LAKE WINNIPEG.
Mr. BRADBURY asked:: 1.	Is the government aware that the tug and dredge operating on Lake Winnipeg late last fall is said to have gone to the east side of the lake and worked for some days getting the steamer Mikado oif a sandbar?
2.	If so, what was the expense incurred at this work, and did the owners of the Mikado pay same? If not, is it the intention of the government to collect the account?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (for Minister of Public Works):: 1.	Yes.
2	(a) $393; (b) No.; (c) Yes.


SOULANGES CANAL EMPLOYEES.
Mr. BOYER asked:: 1.	What is the number of employees on the-Soulanges canal, and what are their names, salaries and duties?
2.	What is the auxiliary staff, and what are their names and salaries?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals).: I would ask that this question stand as notice of motion for a return.



SPECIE RESERVE.

Mr. PERLEY asked:: Referring to the specie, amounting to $61,674,578.70, held by the government on December 31, 1908, as a reserve in connection with the Dominion note issue and the savings bank deposits, at what time was the last inspection and actual count of this specie made, and by whom?


Right Hon.   S@: 

MAIL CARRIAGE-RAILWAY STATION AND WINNIPEG POST OFFICE.

Mr. BRADBURY asked:: 1.	Who had the contract for carrying the mails between the railway station and the post office at Winnipeg last year?
m
2.	Has any change been made? If so, who now has the carrying of said mail?
3.	Were tenders invited for the work? If so, who were the tenderers, what was the amount of each tender, and did the lowest tenderer receive the job?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General):: 1.	Mark S. Peacock during January and February and Matthew Peebles from March 1, to December 31, in each case the work being performed under temporary agreement.
2 and 3. Tenders were invited for a permanent contract to take effect as soon as the new post office building was being used for post office purposes. The following tenders were received :
M. S. Peacock, 54 cents per single trip; Wm. R. Sinclair, 55 cents per single trip; Matthew Peebles, 55 cents per single trip; E. W. Green, 70 cents per single trip.
These tenders being considered excessive the chief post office superintendent was instructed to open negotiations with a view to obtaining more favourable offers with a result that a contract has been made with Mr. Matthew Peebles at the rate of 43 cents per single trip.



SURVEY ON THE NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCarthy asked:
1.	What is the average cost per mile of survey of base and meridian lines south of the North Saskatchewan river west of the fourth meridian ?
2.	What is the average cost per mile of survey of base and meridian lines north of the Saskatchewan river west of the fourth meridian?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: The answer to this question requires an examination of the surveyors' accounts for the last thirty years and an investigation of their reports and field notes in order to ascertain what proportion of their time was spent upon the lines referred to. An accurate answer could not be prepared in less than two months, but the following is submitted:
1.	The recent surveys of base lines and principal meridians north of the Saskatchewan river between the fourth and fifth meridians and their cost are as follows:
1902, L. E. Fontaine, 16th and 17th base lines (survey includes subdivision work), $35 per mile; 1906, R. W. Cautley, 17th base line, $63 per mile; 1906, A. W. Ponton, 18th base line, $67 per mile; 1907-08, A. W. Ponton, 5th meridian, $153 per mile.
2.	The cost per mile of surveys of base lines and principal meridians between the fourth and fifth meridians and south of the Saskatchewan river has not been calculated, but the surveyor general thinks that it would average something like twenty dollars per mile.



FISH HATCHERY AT BANFF.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. McCarthy asked:
1.	What, if any, representations have been made to the government as to the necessity or expediency of establishing a fish hatchery at Banff or in the vicinity thereof, when were snch representations made, and by whom?
2.	Has any action been taken upon such representations, and is it the intention of the government to establish a fish hatchery at Banff or in the vicinity thereof? If so, when will the work be proceeded with?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1.	Representations were made during 1908 by the Calgary Board of Trade ; the Fish and Game Protective Association of Alberta; the Calgary branch of the Provincial Fish and Game Protective Association; and the Canadian Pacific Railway.
2.	Matter still under consideration.



VISIT OF CHARLES OLIN TO SWEDEN.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GOODEVE-hy^ Mr. Geo. Taylor- asked:
V What was the total amount paid Charles Ohn for services in respect of his visit to Sweden during the winter of 1907-8?
2.	Of this amount how much was for expenses?
3.	What were the dates of leaving and returning?
4.	What, if any, practical results have followed his visit?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	$651.34.
2.	$351.34.
3.	Left on or about December 9, 1907. Returned about May 20, 1908.
4.	Some effective immigration advertising in the Scandinavian countries; that being the main object of Mr. Olin's visit.



POSTMASTER AT ST. JOHN.

Mr. DANIEL asked:: 1.	Who at present is the postmaster at St. John, New Brunswick, and how long has he occupied his present position?
2.	Has he passed the civil service examination? If not, why not?
3.	What disposition was made of his predecessor ?
4.	If superannuated, was it at his own request? If not, at whose request was it done ?
5.	How long was he in the position of postmaster, and what is his superannuation allowance ?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: Mr. Thomas Benjamin Hanington is postmaster at St. John; has occupied that position since 25th April, 1891, but is to be retired upon 1st April next, his superannuation allowance being $1,116 per annum. Mr. Hanington's retire-Mr. OLIVER.
ment was considered to be in the public interest. As, therefore, there is no actual vacancy at present, no appointment of a successor has been made.



SPEED OF MAIL TRAINS ON INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY.

Mr. EMMERSON asked:: 1.	Have any instructions ever been issued by the Department of Railways or by the management of the Intercolonial Railway, with reference to the speed of special mail trains, so-called? If so, what were such instructions?
2.	Is it true that orders were issued at any time to the effect that such trains should run at rate of speed not less than fifty-five miles per hour, and is the rate of speed authorized inclusive or exclusive of stops at stations and for taking water ?
3.	At what rate of speed was the special mail train which recently met with disaster between Dalhousie junction and Campbellton, when one of the locomotive engineers of the train was killed and others injured, running?
4.	Was the speed in accordance with the instructions or regulations in such cases?
5.	Whose duty is it to direct as to the average speed to be maintained in such cases, and is it optional with the train hands in charge of such trains, or any of them?
6.	Is it true that any engineers or conductors of such special trains have been penalized for maintaining a certain average rate of speed, inclusive of stops, or exclusive thereof?
7.	Were any instructions issued as respects the average rate of speed to be maintained by the train referred to? If so, what were they, and by whom issued?
8.	Do the regulations, if any, provide for any difference to be made in the average rate of speed to be maintained by such trains as between winter and summer roadbed and rail conditions ?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1. No instructions were issued by the department as to speed to be made by the English mail special. Reports were supplied and all delays that appeared to be undue ones were inquired into.
The engineer of maintenance, November 11, notified all the superintendents:
I have a letter from the general manager, stating that the ' Empress of Britain,' the first of the mail boats, delivering mail at Halifax, N.S., will arrive at that place on the 13th instant

Until further instructions, trains on your division can make the following rate of speed:
Halifax to Moncton, 45 miles per hour running time.
Moncton to Campbellton, 45 miles per hour running time.
Campbellton to Ste. Flavie, 40 miles per
hour running time.
Ste. Flavie to MacKenzie, 35 miles per hour (on old rail).
*McKenzie to Chaudiere, 45 miles per hour running time.

Chaudiere to Daveluyville, 40 miles per hour running time.
Daveluyville to Ste. Rosalie, 45 miles per hour running time.
Will you please notify the trackmasters as nearly as possible the time that these mail trains will run on their division in order that they may notify sectionmen.
Please acknowledge,
(Sgd.) T. C. BURPEE,
Engineer of maintenance.
Circulars in conformity therewith were issued by the several superintendents, of which the following is an example:
Bulletin No. 658,
To conductors and enginemen, English mail special train.
This is to advise that the engineer of maintenance under date the 11th instant, has sanctioned a speed per hour for these trains, over the districts from Ste. Flavie to Ste. Rosalie Junction, as follows:
Ste. Elavie to McKenzie, 35 miles per hour on old rails.
McKenzie to Chaudibre, 45 miles per hour running time.
Chaudiere to Daveluyville, 40 miles an hour running time.
Daveluyville to Ste. Rosalie, 45 miles an hour running time.
The rate of speed as per the above must on no account be exceeded.
Please note and be governed accordingly.
(Sgd.) W. A. DUBE,
Super i ntendent.
This was amended by a subsequent bulletin dated December 5, 1908, No. 664, sanctioning speed of the trains from McKenzie to Riviere du Loup, 35 miles an hour, and from Ste. Flavie to McKenzie, 40 miles an hour.
2.	No such orders were issued.
3.	From Halifax to Truro, 32 miles per hour; from Truro to Springhill, 36-0 per hour; from Springhill to Moncton, 32-2 per hour; from Moncton to Newcastle, 39-3 per hour; from Newcastle to McLeod siding, where accident occurred, 43-6 per hour.
4.	It was within the allowed speed on the section.
5.	It is the duty of the superintendent and the despatcher to keep tab on these trains, and the duty lies upon the whole train crew to conform to the instructions contained in the bulletin regulating the speed.
6.	No.
7.	See No. 1.
8.	The regulation for the special trains as to speed limits are enumerated under No. 1. The engineer of maintenance of way modified the rate of speed on all trains from time to time, according to conditions of the track.



WHARFAGE DUES IN PORT OF MONTREAL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GERVAIS-by Mr. Lavergne-asked:
1. Has the government promised or is it about to promise, to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, that its by-law or by-laws or decrees providing for the increase of 50 per cent or 75 per cent or less of the wharfage dues in the port of Montreal, will be approved of or confirmed by the Governer in Council?
2.	Is it to the knowledge of the government that it is asserted that any such increase would prove detrimental to the harbour of Montreal ?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to dispose of any such by-law?
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: 1, 2 and 3. No by-law has been received from the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal providing for such increases.



HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS OF MONTREAL AND EMPLOYEES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GERVAIS-by Mr. Lavergne-asked:
1.	Is the government aware that the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal are said to be giving, or are about to give notice of dismissal, without cause, to all of their officers, foremen or employees?
2.	Has any such course been approved of by the government?
3.	Is it to the knowledge of the government that such a process would prove very detrimental to the workingmen and their families, as well as to the interests of the public of Canada, and especially to the efficiency of the work of the port of Montreal?
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 1, 2 and 3. The government has no information on the subject.



BY-ELECTION IN COMOX-ATLIN.

Rt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: Before the orders of the day are called-with reference to the question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell), I have to inform him that I made a mistake in the date of the issue of the writ for Comox-Atlin. The answer of the Secretary of State was correct. The writ was issued on the 22nd of January.



REPORT OF CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION.

Mr. FOSTER.: Has the Civil Service Commission made its report as required by law? I have not heard of any yet. It was required to be laid on the table within fifteen days after the opening of the session.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that it has not been made.


George Eulas Foster: I call the attention of the First Minister to that. It is a very grave omission for a commission commencing a work like this.



DEPARTMENT OF MARINE AND FISHERIES-EMPLOYEES AT HALIFAX.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I desire to ask the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to page 695 of the 'Unrevised Hansard,' where will be found an answer of the minister, giving a list of permanent and temporary employees in the Department of Marine and Fisheries in Halifax County. The question asked was:
Wliat was the number of permanent employees and temporary employees in the service or employment of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the county of Halifax upon the first day of each month, the fifteenth day of each month, and the thirty-first day of December in the year 1908?
Taking the month of January, under the heading of ' permanent,' the answer is 66, and under the heading of ' temporary,' the answer is 84. I do not know whether the reference is to the first day of the month or to the fifteenth day of the month. Then, under the next two heads ' first day of the month' and 'fifteenth day of the month,' the answer is 64 and 62 respectively. I do not know whether this has reference tp permanent or to temporary employees, nor do I know whether the 64 or 62 refers to temporary or permanent employees. By referring to the question the minister will, no doubt, see my difficulty.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I gave the answer as I received it from Halifax, but I will be glad to bring to the attention of the officers who prepared this answer the observations of my hon. friend (Mr. R. L. Borden). I am under the impression that in the columns headpd ' permanent ' and ' temporary ' are intended to be given all the permanent and temporary employees during the month. In the next two columns is given the information with regard to the number of officers employed on the 1st and 15th of the month. But, it may be that at those dates some persons who were employed during the month were not employed on these two dates. I suppose that is the explanation, but I will make inquiries.



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-PRINTING OF REPORT ON BRANCH LINES.

Mr. EMMERSON.: I would like to ask if any provision has been made with respect to printing the report laid on the table today by the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) in regard to the branch lines. I notice that the report seems to be voluminous and it would seem to me to be in the interest of the members of this House to have it printed.


George Perry Graham: This report was not laid on the table in compliance with an order of the House, but simplv at the request of my hon. friend. Let it stand until to-morrow. Mr. FOSTER.



MARINE DEPARTMENT INVESTIGATION.

George Eulas Foster: May I ask the Miniser of Marine and Fisheries if he has brought down the communication that was made to Mr. Justice Cassels in reference to the abolition of the patronage list in his department?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, I laid it on the table the other day.


George Eulas Foster: Then I wonder where it went. We shall have to hold the Minister of Marine and Fisheries responsible after what has occurred in this House.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I find by reference to the Votes and Proceedings, page 90, the following:
By leave of the House.
Mr. Foster moved that an order of the House do issue to the proper officer for a copy of official communication, addressed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to Commissioner Cassels, respecting the abolition of the patronage system in the Department of Marine and Fisheries; and the question being put, it was agreed to and the order issued accordingly.
Mr. Brodeur presented,-Return to the foregoing order.


George Eulas Foster: Then it will go to the Record office.



AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT VOL. II.

Robert Laird Borden: Is there any information as to when the remaining volume of the Auditor General's report will be ready?


Mr. MURPHY.: Next week.



REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR.

Mr. U. WILSON.: I beg to ask the hon. Minister of Interior (Mr. Oliver) when we may expect his report? We have been waiting for it.


Frank Oliver: The Interior report is in the printer's hands and will be distributed early next week.



THIRD READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 6) to amend the Railway Act.- Mr. Lancaster.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN BARR (Dufferin) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 32) to amend the Railway Act. He said:	Mr. Speaker,
in moving the second reading of this Bill I would like to remind the House that last year I explained the object of the measure and, although there are many new members who were not in the House then, I do not intend to trespass at any great length upon the time of the House on the present occasion. The object of this Bill is to facilitate the crossing of railways by lines or wires

for telegraphs or telephones, or for conveyance of light, heat, power, or electricity, and by water mains, conduits, and sewers. As the law stands at the present time, in order to extend any of these public utilities across a railway, it is necessary for an individual or company to make application to the railway authorities. In many cases great delay is caused. I do not believe it is necessary that such should be the case, but those who are interested in these crossings often experience delavs in receiving an answer from the railway companies of from one to four weeks. When the answer comes back it usually is that permission will be given to cross on payment of $5. I think this is all wrong. I have on every occasion objected to the suggestion that the people should be compelled to pay anything for a crossing which they have a right to. Hon. gentlemen are aware that in 99 cases out of 100 these crossings are on the public highway in towns and villages, or on side roads and concessions in the rural districts. The railways do not own these highways. They belonged to the municipalities long before the railways were built, and it seems to me to be an outrage that the people should be asked to pay $5 for what belongs to them. The railways have no power over these highways. All they possess is the right, obtained from the charter granted by this House, to cross these highways under certain restrictions. The provisions of this Bill are that an individual or company asking to be allowed to cross a highway shall give notice to the railway authorities, to the station master, or if there is no station master in the municipality, to the official most convenient. If the company do not take action within fifteen days the individual or company making application may cross the railway according to regulations laid down by the Board of Railway Commissioners.
In this there could be no hardship so far as the railroads are concerned. The instructions from the Railroad Board protect the railroads by requiring that a certain kind of wire shall be strung and that the arms and poles must be in acordance with the rules and regulations. Thus there could be no reason for not granting this Bill.
As to sewers, viaducts, conduits and water pipes which pass under the railroads, I have provided in this Bill, in accordance with the direction of the Railway Board in a number of cases, that in the event of municipalities or individuals crossing a railroad by water pipes or sewers, &c., the engineer of the railway company must approve of the method of crossing and must be paid by the party making the crossing, the charge not to exceed $5. This is the amount awarded in several cases in which I was interested, and as the engineer's time would not generally be occupied for more than an hour, it seems to be a fair charge.
This Bill has been demanded by the people in every part of Canada. When I introduced it last year it was printed in the Municipal Journal and I had many letters from every province, a few of which I read to the House, approving of the Bill. Since this Bill was printed I have received a number of letters which I shall not trouble the House by reading. Hon. gentlemen are aware that in cases of crossing railroads with water pipes, &c., the railways demand not only the $5 but also a lease of $1 a year for all time to come from the municipality or individual, which appears to me to be ridiculous. We have had demands of that kind in the village of Shelburne; we refused to accede to them and application was made to the Railway Commission; but the commissioners were busy at the time and we were delayed for some six or seven months.
The telephone is a utility whose use is increasing very rapidly. In the four years during which the Railway Commission has existed the number of applications for crossings by telephone lines was 2,411 and the number granted 2,328. None were refused, showing that the railroads should have granted those crossings without putting the applicants to the trouble and expense of an application to the Board. During last year there were 1,025 applications of this character to the Railway Commission and I submit that if this Bill goes through it will take a great deal of work off the Railway Commission, which we have heard is overworked. At the time when farmers are building their telephone lines, the Railway Commissioners are usually on their holidays and by the time they return to their offices a large amount of work has accumulated so that there is unnecessary delay to the farmers in securing permission to cross the railroads. Then an application to the Railway Commission entails great expense, particularly upon the small companies which are threading their telephone throughout the country. The telephone has done a great deal for this country. It has united the cities, towns and villages with the country and has made country life much more easy, much more fascinating to the young and rising generation and has had the effect of keeping many young men on the farms who would otherwise not remain there. Under these circumstances I think we should facilitate as far as possible the building of those telephone lines. I had hoped that the time would not be far distant when the telephone lines would be taken over by the provincial or Dominion government. The province of Manitoba has taken over the Bell telephone lines there and I was glad to see the announcement of the Prime Minister of Manitoba that during the past year their telephones have been a paying asset to the province and that they are determined to push the work as rapidly as
[Stage Direction]
possible and build telephones throughout that province. If Manitoba can make the telephone a paying speculation, there is no reason why other provinces should not do so and why it should not be a still greater success if the Dominion parliament should take hold of it and operate it. Some years ago, after weeks of personal investigation before a committee, Sir William Mulock stated that it was the intention of the gov-enment to bring in a Bill the following year to take over the telephones and run them in connection with the post office. If we had a telephone in every post office and in every farm house where they desired to pay a reasonable price, it would be a great boon to the rural population of Canada. That project did not materialize but whilst we have not these advantages, whilst we are not advancing as rapidly as the province of Manitoba in this respect, I hope that the good example of Manitoba will be followed by other provinces.
While that is the case I submit that it is our duty to facilitate the building of these telephone lines as quickly as possible. In connection with these 1.025 crossings during the last year, if the railway companies had been able to carry out their designs, they would have pocketed over $5,000 of the people's money. I think that should be prevented, and I have a clause in the Bill prohibiting the railway companies from demanding any money from the people on this account. There is no reason why they should. In every case of such a crossing the people are put to considerable expense. They have first to make their application to the Commission, then they have to send a duplicate of the plans and specifications, and in some cases they have to employ a lawyer or some other person to take the necessary proceedings. All this should be avoided. There is no reason why they should be put either to delay or to expense. Under these circumstances I would ask the government to allow this Bill to have a second reading and then to go to a committee, as was agreed to last year-either the Railway Committee or some other committee; and any improvements that can be made to the Bill I can assure you I shall be glad to give careful consideration to, so that it may be made as perfect as possible. I think I have stated the case fairly enough to show beyond a doubt that there is a grievance and that there should be a remedy, which can easily be worked out, and I think this Bill fairly meets the requirements of the case.
George Perry Graham: Mr. Speaker, this Bill, as my hon. friend has remarked, is not a new one; it has been in the House before, but as this is a new parliament and there are a large number of representatives who have not been here before, perhaps the House will bear with me while I say a


Mr. BARR.: few words upon it. My hon. friend has discussed the question of the provinces or the Dominion taking over the telephone lines. That is a large subject, and I have no objection at all to my hon. friend impressing it upon his friends in the provincial legislatures or upon my friends where they have the supremacy in the provinces. The policy adopted by the Parliament of Canada has been government control through the Board of Railway Commission- . ers over telephones, telegraphs, express companies and railway companies; and this year that power is to be extended along another line. A year ago I had the honour to introduce an amendment to the Railway Act, which brought telephone companies under the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and that part of the Act was brought into force by order in council. It was not brought into force at once owing to some representations having been made to me which appeared to satisfy the House on that point. That order in council was passed some little time ago, and to-day telephone companies are under the control of the Board of Railway Commissioners. The gist of my hon. friend's Bill is that any company, either a telephone company, a telegraph company or a municipality, can, without any reference to the Board of Railway Commissioners or to the company concerned, string their wires across a railway or run their pipes under the track. Now, I submit to the House that that is a very serious proposition. At the present moment the question of the safety of the people travelling on our highways is engaging the attention of this House and of the country, and we must be very careful to do nothing to increase the danger to the travelling public either on the highways or on the railways.
I have discussed this matter very thoroughly with some men who ought to know, and they tell me that it would be a very great source of danger if every person who thought he knew how to string a wire were allowed to string wires across a railway track near the wires of the railway company, without the supervision of some competent person to see that it was done properly. A great many accidents from fire are said to be caused by the improper wiring of houses, and a great deal of danger might be caused by the improper placing of a wire by inexperienced people across a railway track, where it might come in contact with the wires already there, or, if loosely strung, with the trains.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: Cannot any farmer measure six feet?


George Perry Graham: We might ask the same question about the insulation of wires; but there is a proper way and an improper way, a proper place and an improper place for stringing wires. This matter has been

placed in the hands of the Railway Commissioners, who are the servants of the public, and there it ought to be left. My hon. friend will not say that during the past year he had to wait six months for any reply to his communication. My hon. friend said that it occurred a year ago, so that it must have been the same case that he referred to before; it could not have occurred within the past year. I think all such matters have been dealt with promptly within the last few months, and they will be in the future. With regard to pipes under the railway tracks, I am not an advocate of the railway companies at all, but on behalf of the public I think this is a case in which the greatest care ought to be exercised. The railway companies ought certainly to be notified in every case, and if they have something to say as to whether an application should be granted or not, they should have an opportunity to show where and how the pipes should go. Several cases of this kind have been brought to my knowledge. In some cases it is sought to put pipes under railway tracks where the ground is springy, and consequently where the roadbed might be seriously affected and an accident caused to the travelling public. These are reasons for leaving the matter under the control of the Railway Commissioners, in whom we have confidence. I have no objecion to the Bill going to the committee, but nothing has been said to change my mind or I believe the mind of this House as to the importance of exercising the utmost care in allowing wires to be strung across railway tracks or allowing pipes to be put under them, and this care can best be exercised by the men we have appointed for the purpose, that is, the Board of Railway Commissioners.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph lines.

[Stage Direction]
For a copy of the report made by Charles Olin to the Department of the Interior, of his visit to Sweden for this department in 1907-8._ and of all correspondence leading up to his appointment to make such trip, and in any way relating thereto.-Mr. Goodeve.
For a copy of all communications, accounts, reports and other papers received by the Department of Public Works from A. Edgar Hansom, E. T. P. Shewan, or other person or persons, relating to the survey of the St. John River channel between Fredericton and Woodstock, and of all letters, instructions, &c. from the department to Mr. Hansom. Mr. Shewan or other person or persons in connection therewith.-Mr. Crocket.

Henry Robert Emmerson: With the permission of the House I would move:
For a copy of the report of the Commissioners appointed by the government to inquire into, examine and report on the branch lines of railways connecting with the Intercolonial Railway. Also for a copy of the report of the Commissioners appointed by the government of the province of New Brunswick to inquire into, examine and report upon the branch lines of railways within the said province to connect with the said Intercolonial Railway.
He said :	I make this motion with the
view of having the papers already laid on the table brought in their order so that they may be considered with respect to having them printed.


George Perry Graham: They will be a very lengthy printed document. The only part which would be of much benefit to the House would be the report of the commissioners themselves. The statement as regards the number of locomotives, the condition of the ties, the repairs of the road and all such details are in the report of the Minister of Railways. The documents we are asked to order will be so lengthy that we are not likely to get them this session.


Samuel Hughes: What means has this government of producing the report of the government of the province of New Brunswick?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It is on the table.


Mr. SPROULE.: Why then move for a return? I thought the intention was to move that it be printed.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I made the motion in order to put it in order for printing. While the papers are already on the table, they are not regularly so with the view of having it printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Hon. GEO  P.@: GRAHAM moved that the rules be suspended and that these documents be ordered to be printed forthwith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 19) to amend the Post Office Act. -Mr. Lemieux.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PATERSON moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) returns to-night from the Forestry Convention in Toronto, the resolution standing in his name, dealing with the Civil Service, will be taken up first. If that is disposed of, it will be followed by the estimates of the Indian and Interior Departments. If the Minister of Agriculture is not here then we will go into supply at once on the Indian and Interior estimates of the Railway Department.']
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Before the motion carries, I would like to ask the Minister of Railways if he is prepared to tell me now

whether that reference alluded to by the ex-Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton) in 1902, when he said there would be a reference to the courts to ascertain the actual cost of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway, has ever been acted on?


George Perry Graham: I have referred that to one of my colleagues who has the matter in hand and is hunting up the exact conditions. I expect to have an answer in a short time.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. gentleman bring down the order in council itself which was made in 1902 and which corresponds with the order in council increasing the capital stock?


George Perry Graham: Yes.


Mr. HAGGART.: Would the minister remember whether there was a provision in the order in council that the effect would be the same, as regards the percentage of earnings, as the Bill which was introduced by the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Fitzpatrick)? In other words, is it provided that the 10 per cent should be calculated only on the original stock issued, namely, $65,000,000?


George Perry Graham: That is the last order in council I have brought down, and it does not affect in any way the original condition regarding percentage.


William Findlay Maclean: There are four orders in council since 1902 dealing with the same question. Will they be brought down also?


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend desires I will bring them all down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
' Pension to Mrs. Elizabeth Wilmot, $51.75.
['If my hon. friend desires I will bring them all down.']
Wilfrid Laurier: This is a new item and the pension was granted under these circumstances. Constable George Ernest Wilmot, Royal Northwest Mounted Police was murdered while on duty at Frank, Alberta, on the morning of the 12th of April, 1908, by some person or persons unknown. Up to the present time no clue to the murder has been obtained. During the first days of April, 1908, a number of burglaries took place in Frank and Sergeant Haslett arranged with constable Wilmot to patrol the town at night to try to capture the criminals. On Saturday night April, the 11th, Sergeant Haslett came off duty at 12.30 being relieved by constable Wilmot and about 7 a.m. the following morning constable Wilmot's body was found lying in an alley-way behind the hotel at Frank. There were gaping wounds on the neck and chest caused by gun shot. Mrs. Elizabeth Wilmot, mother of the deceased, is a widow residing in England and she applied for compensation for the loss of her son on whom Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.
she was entirely dependent for support. There is evidence that the deceased was in the habit of sending her money from his police pay. She has two sons living, one of whom is married and has a home of his own and the other is an inmate of an epileptic home. These facts were sworn to before a Justice of the Peace. Following the usual practice in existence since 1885, and, it being a most deserving case, we granted to the mother a pension of one-half constable Wilmot's pay.


Samuel Hughes: Surely Constable Wilmot was paid more than $108 a year ?


Wilfrid Laurier: It is based on 365 days' pay at 30 cents a day.


Samuel Hughes: Is no cognizance taken of the value of his rations and uniform ?


Wilfrid Laurier: I followed the rule that has been in existence since 1885.


Samuel Hughes: And that is all the pension the poor woman gets ?


Wilfrid Laurier: That is all.


Robert Laird Borden: The rule followed by private corporations which grant pensions is to take into consideration the value of house rent and fuel where such allowances are made and to add their value to the salary. These things are always taken into consideration in granting a pension to the family of a deceased officer.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not dispute that nor do I say it is not a sound rule, but I found this rule in the department and I adhered to it.
Penitentiaries, $507,350.


George Eulas Foster: Is this intended to cover all the expenditure on penitentiaries for the year 1909-10 ?


Hon. J. BUREAU (Solicitor General).: It is supposed to cover all the expenditure for the year.


Mr. DANIEL.: There is quite a large increase in the expenditure for Dorchester penitentiary.


Jacques Bureau: That increase was caused by the installation of an electric light plant in the penitentiary.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will this be a permanent increase ?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Mr. RHODES.: Was this plant installed by the government itself; is this amount simply for the cost of wiring ?


Jacques Bureau: This is the difference in price between lighting by coal oil as formerly and lighting by electric light. It costs us $1,000 more to light by electricity than by coal oil.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: What arrangement was made between the government and the electric light company as to installation and electric wiring and so on.


Jacques Bureau: The wiring and installation was done by the convicts and there was no charge for outside labour. We pay 8 cents per kilowatt for the light. There is $1,000 for increase of salaries and the other $1,000 increase is for electricity.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I w.ould like to find out, if I can, what was the entire cost of the installation of the electric lighting.


Jacques Bureau: We purchased the material and the labour was done by the convicts.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Perhaps the solicitor general would bring the information down at a later date ?


Jacques Bureau: The Auditor General's Report will show what supplies were purchased and I will have to get information as to the number of hours the convicts worked on the job and the estimated value of their labour.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I ask what the arrangement is for the electric light the company has to supply ?


Jacques Bureau: 8 cents per kilowatt.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Can you make it as little as you choose, or as much as you choose, cr does the contract call for the acceptance of any quantity they may choose to give you?


Jacques Bureau: We take it by meter.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: You can stop the service any time you choose?


Jacques Bureau: There is a contract for five years, but there is no minimum or maximum amount we are bound to take. We take only what we consume.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Then you are not bound to take any.


Jacques Bureau: Except what we consume.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Can you cut off the service any time you choose?


Jacques Bureau: No, we have a five years contract.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Are you bound to take a certain quantity of electricity from the company in any event?


Jacques Bureau: I told my hon. friend that there was no minimum amount that we were bound to take, and no maximum amount either. We take what we require, and pay for what we take.


Mr. CROCKET.: What is the estimated cost of lighting the penitentiary per year?


Jacques Bureau: 


John Waterhouse Daniel: What was the previous annual amount for light before you installed electricity?


Jacques Bureau: $700, and we add $1,000 more for electricity.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: Will the committee please confine their attention to the first item,'$3,000 for the general vote?


George Eulas Foster: Will the Solicitor General explain the decrease of $9,000 in that general vote?


Jacques Bureau: There are two inspectors, a parole officer and one architect, that are mentioned in the estimates. Last year their salaries totalled $8,400. These are transferred from penitentiaries to civil government.


George Eulas Foster: How do you propose to expend the other $3,000?


Jacques Bureau: The expense of the parole officer is $1,700, assistance to paroled and discharged convicts, $300, for office contingencies, $1,000.
Kingston penitentiary, $151,200.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: I ask the minister to look at the items mentioned in the Auditor General's Report L-17:
Frontenac Lumber & Coal Co., Kingston: cement, 152 barrels at $2; cartage on same, $12.90; hemlock lumber, 10,005 ft. at $22.50; cedar posts, 100 at 20c.; cordwood, 21 cords at $4.50; oak, 10 ft., 80c.; total, $657.32.
Were all these goods purchased by tender?


Jacques Bureau: They were not purchased by tender. Quotations were asked from various dealers, ani these were the lowest figures that were offered. We have no patronage list in the Department of Justice, and never had.


George Taylor: Then I want the Solicitor General to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the fact that here at Ottawa where cement is made, he got 86 barrels for his work on the astronomical building and paid $2.50 for it; and the Minister of Railways purchased his at Montreal at $1.65


Jacques Bureau: The Minister of Railways bought by the carload, and got it cheaper


George Taylor: That shows how political friends have a pull. At Kingston they only get $2 a barrel; here at Ottawa they get $2.50. I do not see why the government should not make a rule, and pay the same price all round. Then turn to page L-18, and the minister will find a purchase from Alphonse Racine & Co., Montreal, amounting to $2,436, principally for dry goods. Were these purchased by tender?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, those were purchased by tender. Public tenders are asked for through the press.


Mr. WM. R. SMYTH.: At Kingston the minister paid $22.50 per thousand for hemlock lumber. Is he not aware that hemlock lumber is not worth more than $13?


Jacques Bureau: I suppose it all depends on the lumber.


William Ross Smyth: It all depends upon whom you buy it from.


Jacques Bureau: This was dimension lumber that was required for the repair of a wharf, and that is the reason that we paid a little higher price for it.


George Taylor: For dimension lumber it_ ought to be a great deal less. For repairing a wharf you simply need square pieces. I have had a good deal to do with wharf building.


Jacques Bureau: In these eases prices were invited, and that is the best price we could get. The prices were invited from the local dealers, friend and foe.


John Barr: If there were no advertisements in the paper, only the friends could know.


Jacques Bureau: We send them a notice asking for prices.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the Solicitor General say that notices were sent to all the local dealers inviting them to tender.


Jacques Bureau: I am informed there are only three or four dealers in Kingston, and (he notice was sent to each of them. Anyway, we gave instructions to ask the dealers for prices.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I find that our friends the McAvitys of St. John are down for quite a large order for supplies for the penitentiaries. Were tenders invited from them?


Jacques Bureau: Quotations were asked from the hardware merchants, Robertsons of Montreal, who have a house in St. John, and the McAvitys. The McAvitys prices were the lower, I am informed by the inspector.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What other firms were invited to tender in St. John outside of the McAvity firm.


Jacques Bureau: Jas. Robertson & Co. and McAvity were the only two from whom prices were asked.


Oswald Smith Crocket: All the other hardware dealers in St. John and New Brunswick were not asked?
Mr. BUREAU I am informed not.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And yet the Solicitor General says the Justice Department has no patronage list.


George Taylor: 


Jacques Bureau: There is none.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I notice you are dealing with the same bunch as the other departments.


Jacques Bureau: These are two of the largest houses in the Dominion, and the prices quoted by smaller houses could not be any better.


George Eulas Foster: I think this is an opportune moment for finding out, if we possibly can, what the government means and whether it is playing to the gallery and concealing what it is actually doing. In the last two or three weeks an impression has gone broadcast, through the publication of Mr Justice Cassels' report, that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had done away with the patronage system. I am not sure that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries anywhere said that he did away with the patronage system. The communication, as I find it, is that he had instructed that the present patronage lists be done away with. That has gone broadcast through the country and the press supporting the hon. gentleman opposite are heralding it as a great and important reform, that now the government, seeing the error of its ways, has determined to do the square thing and have no more of this system of patronage. I looked at the communication which was sent by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to Judge Cassels, through Mr. Watson, and it was accorded a very prominent place in the report, for what reason I do not know, and the essence of it, boiled down, is simply that the minister had instructed that the present patronage lists should be dispensed with. Now, we ought to have the same method of dealing by the government through all its departments. I think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister will bear me out in that statement. On the question of public policy what one department does the other department ought to do. If the patronage system is wrong and something else should be substituted _ in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the same method of dealing should hold in the other departments. I do not think the right hon. gentleman will controvert that statement. The Solicitor General has, by a concrete instance, shown that the patronage list is not abolished in reference to his department. He has not even gone as far as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Jacques Bureau: That was a year ago.


George Eulas Foster: This is one of the items that we are discussing now, and in this particular case only two firms have been asked for tenders in the city of St. John.


Henry Robert Emmerson: That was a year ago.


George Eulas Foster: One in St. John and one in Montreal.
Mr. BUREAU Robertson is in St. John also.


George Eulas Foster: Then, there were two in St. John.


Jacques Bureau: That was last year.


George Eulas Foster: That was last year? That is the patronage list. The Solicitor General says there never was a patronage list in the Justice Department. There seems to be a patronage list. I know, of my own personal knowledge of St. John, a number of excellent firms that are engaged in dealing in hardware. I think we ought to have now a declaration of the policy of the government and I think I can bring it out by two questions Will the Prime Minister tell us that, by the abolition of the present patronage lists in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, that department has abolished the patronage system? That is one question. The other question is:	Are the reasons which led
the Department of Marine and Fisheries to abolish the patronage system if he has done so good enough to base the action of other departments of the government upon? Is the whole government, in the purchase of these supplies, going to abolish the patronage lists and the patronage system, one or the other, or both? The Solicitor General's reply is that in so far as the work is concerned which he is explaining, they have not abolished the patronage list or the patronage system.


Jacques Bureau: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster; takes advantage of this item to say that we have been exercising very little discretion in our purchases, but, looking over these items, purchased from McAvity & Sons, I find that they are all for very small amounts, that they were purchased at various times, and that the total is $1,109 for the year. I see that there were 150 feet of asbestos pipe covering at 15% cents per foot purchased from that firm. Does my hon. friend mean to say that we should ask tenders through the press, or from every dealer, whenever there is a small repair to be made or a small quantity of anything required? I am informed by the inspector that these houses of Robertson and McAvity are two of the strongest houses in Canada and that getting prices from them would be a fair indication of the lowest prices that could be got from any one. These small purchases were made from time to time as occasion required. Prices were asked from Robertson and McAvity, and McAvity's prices being the lower, the purchases were made from them.


George Eulas Foster: The Solicitor General has taken care not to answer at all the question that I asked. I am not going to lay up against him as a crime the bad practice of the past, but will he tell me if, for the future, the department whose estimates he is explaining now will do away with the patronage list and the patronage system as it has been carried on in the past?


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: I would like to ask my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) what system he would suggest adopting in the case of small purchases. In the case of the Department of Marine agency at Halifax some few weeks ago a list of the supplies wanted during the current year was made up. The public were asked to tender in some cases for one fog horn or one paint brush. There were numerous instances where but one article of a particular class was required How would the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) deal with purchases of this kind unless he leaves the matter to the judgment of some officer or agency of the department? Surely he would not insist on public advertisements for such supplies. I think the department has adopted a very good and businesslike method, where the quantity is so small, in asking two reputable business houses to furnish prices, and where the quantity is large in asking the public for tenders.


George Eulas Foster: I shall answer my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean), who seems to occupy the place of the devil's advocate in this, after the answers have been given by the minister who is explaining the estimates. I never knew a system or principle of any kind that could not be reduced to an absurdity by applying it to one paint brush or box of pins. The general principle remains the same, and I would ask the minister to reply to my question.


Jacques Bureau: I explained that we did not ask for tenders from any one but McAvity and Robertson, because the purchases were small and scattered, but the Department of Justice, when a large purchase is to be made, invites prices from the most reputable houses and the storekeeper is responsible in all cases for paying the lowest market price. The instructions are to take good care not to pay over the market price.


George Eulas Foster: The answer is not satisfactory; where does he draw the arbitrary line between large and small purchases?


Jacques Bureau: I suppose the answer my hon. friend wants is that we have a patronage list and will stick to it; then he could sail in and abuse us. If we were buying a hundred sacks of cement or a few barrels of flour we W'ould ask for prices-


Samuel Hughes: By tender?


Jacques Bureau: By circular from the best houses in the line. I see my friend smiling; that is what we do.


Mr. LENNOX.: That is what you ought not to do.


Jacques Bureau: No. If we followed your policy we would not do it, but we do it in spite of that. We ask all houses for prices


George Eulas Foster: All houses?


Jacques Bureau: All houses reputed to be good houses. We take the best houses in the line and ask prices and take the lowest price.


George Eulas Foster: Take the Kingston penitentiary. Will the Solicitor General say that general tenders are asked for supplies from all reputable houses and that circulars are sent to them irrespective of their party politics?


Jacques Bureau: In speaking of one hundred bags of cement I was simply using an illustration. The articles principally used in the penitentiaries are as follows, and before buying them we invite competition by public advertisement in the newspapers.


Oswald Smith Crocket: For a year's supply?


Jacques Bureau: For a year's supply, the contract is for a year. The list is as follows:
Fresh meat, pork, bacon, coal, coal oil, cord-wood, milk, blankets and prison clothing, grocery staples, grocery sundries, sole leather, leather findings, hardware sundries, hardware staples, dry goods sundries, dry goods staples, oil, tinware, fish, drugs.
Next year we will add cement to this list.


George Eulas Foster: Lumber?


Jacques Bureau: We cannot specify in advance what lumber we will require.


George Eulas Foster: That is satisfactory. I always had an idea that the Justice Department was kept pretty clear from the evils of the patronage system, but I began to get suspicious when I heard the answers of the Solicitor General. I understand it is intended to add other articles to the list next year and that the department will advertise and take the lowest tender. That is a perfectly intelligible and businesslike basis, and if that is the system adopted, I am very glad to know it and to know that it is being lived up to in that department. I would like to have from the First Minister a statement whether that is the system which is to be adopted by the government as a whole? The country is interested in this.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think it is the system which is followed in every department, but to be doubly sure I shall Mr. SAM. HUGHES.
reserve my answer until I make further inquiries, and I shall give the information the next time we go into Supply.


George Taylor: I would like to ask the minister who tendered for these dry goods, which he says were purchased by tender, and if samples were given to the different tenderers?


Jacques Bureau: When tenders are called for, they are accompanied by a sample. The tenderers were: Lewis & Patterson, Montreal: P. Garneau, Fils & Cie., Quebec; Hodgson, Sumner & Co., Montreal; and A. Racine & Co., Montreal, who were the lowest.


George Taylor: My hon. friend must know that there are in Kingston some of the largest wholesale houses in Canada, and why were they not invited to tender? Why go to Montreal and pay larger prices than the goods could be purchased for in Kingston?


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend is under a misapprehension. These tenders were called for by advertisement in the newspapers. He does not expect us to go to Kingston and press his friends to tender. They had an equal opportunity to do so with the others, and every article mentioned in the Auditor General's Report was not bought on the schedule price given in the tender.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: Will my hon. friend say in what newspapers the advertisement for these tenders appeared?


Jacques Bureau: I have not the information, but can bring it down.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Was it published in any newspapers besides those of Montreal?


Jacques Bureau: Certainly-in Kingston, St. John. Toronto, Montreal, Quebec and Halifax.


Mr. BLAIN.: Is there a patronage list of newspapers?


Jacques Bureau: I suppose my hon. friend would expect the department to consider the interests of this country and to advertise in papers having the largest circulation and most read by the people. Therefore he can draw his own conclusion.


Richard Blain: In answer to that, I may say that last year I directed the government's attention to the fact that they had spent $600 in advertising for tenders for a small post office in a town in western Ontario, and the advertisement went into Reform newspapers only. I gave the circulation of the London ' Free Press,' in the very centre of that district, which has a larger circulation than any other newspaper, and strange to say, it was not on the patronage list.


Mr. A. H. CLARKE.: It ought to be.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend from Essex sees the importance of what I say.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Do I understand the hon. Solicitor General to say that lumber is not to be on the stock-list for future purchases?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think it should be, because I find on page L-17 of the Auditor General's Report that for hemlock $14 a thousand was paid to W. C. Edwards & Co., and $22.50 a thousand to the Fronte-nac Lumber & Coal Company, a difference of $8.50 a thousand.


Jacques Bureau: The difficulty is that we cannot ask for any definite quantity of lumber as we can of flour or coal, because we do not know what kind or dimensions we may require during the year, and the quantity is not very great. I will try to find out the reason for the difference in price.


George Taylor: I would thank the hon. gentleman to bring down the schedule of prices of the different articles of dry goods in the tender of Messrs. Racine & Co.; because 1 am certain that Mclnnis & Co., of Kingston are prepared to compete with any house in Montreal if they had the opportunity.


Jacques Bureau: Does my hon. friend think we used any means to prevent the Kingston people tendering? They were as much at liberty to tender as any others. I will bring the schedule of prices


Mr. BRADBURY.: The practice followed in every great city is to call for tenders for millions of feet of lumber before they know what thev want. They get the prices for dimension lumber and dressed lumber, so that if you want 10,000 or 20,000 feet of dimension lumber, you know exactly what you are going to pay for it.


Jacques Bureau: The suggestion of my hon. friend is worth considering and we will see whether we can work it out or not.


William Ross Smyth: Will the hon. minister give us the dimensions of the lumber he paid $52 per thousand for ?


Jacques Bureau: I have not the information here.


William Ross Smyth: We ought to have it.


Jacques Bureau: I said I could not account for the discrepancy but no doubt it was due to the season or other conditions.


Mr. BEATTIE.: The worst feature is that you buy 1,000 feet at $14 and then you buy 10,000 feet at $22.50. There must be great discrepancy in the quality.


Jacques Bureau: I am not an expert in lumber and cannot account for the difference in price. It may be due to difference in grades. I shall however get the information.


George Taylor: But a few minutes ago the minister said it was used for wharf repairs.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, but I did not know the size of it.


Mr. GEO. GORDON.: It is well known that Georgian Bay district practically fixes the price for lumber, and those well posted know that mill run hemlock sold for $14 per 1,000 f.o.b. and that lumber from 16 feet to 18 feet was worth a dollar more, and over 18 feet, two dollars more. To these you would have to add the freight and the dealer's profit, so that the prices would be reasonable.


William Ross Smyth: If you will come to Algoma we will give you the lumber at a good deal less than $14 per thousand feet.


Mr. MILLER.: Will the hon. gentleman say that the price of hemlock was the same then as to-day ?


William Ross Smyth: You can get any amount at Algoma considerably under $14 per 1,000 feet.


George Gordon: Lumber is selling at four to five dollars a thousand feet less than a year ago.


George Eulas Foster: As this is a discrepancy which the minister cannot understand, he might ask his officer to get the information and let us come back to the item again.


Mr. J. ARTHURS (Parry Sound).: In view of the declaration by the minister that tenders were called for, how is it that we find several firms supplying similar goods at different prices ?


Jacques Bureau: In the case of each penitentiary, we call for tenders.


James Arthurs: I am quoting from page L-17 and 18 of the Auditor General's Report re Kingston penitentiary. Take James Crawford, Kingston.


Jacques Bureau: He has the contract for supplying groceries.


James Arthurs: But we also find groceries supplied by A. McLean, Kingston.


Jacques Bureau: He supplied bacon and barley and pork.


James Arthurs: He also supplied groceries. In dry goods, I find the same thing. I find dry goods bought from Hodgson, Sumner and Company, Montreal, and from Racine and Company, Montreal and from J. Tweeddell, Kingston.


Jacques Bureau: Hodgson, Sumner and Company have the contract for sundry dry goods and Racine and Company for staples.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Take Dorchester penitentiary. F. M. Leblanc of Memramcook supplied 2,124 pounds of beef, at $5.87 per hundred-weight, and you paid Charles McKenzie, of Sackville, 7i cents per pound for 26,442 pounds of beef. I thought that in the case of beef, tenders would be invited for a year's supply, and I cannot understand this discrepancy.


Jacques Bureau: Leblanc tendered at $5.87 per hundred-weight and supplied some beef at that price before signing the contract. Then he found he had tendered too low and refused to sign a contract, and we gave the contract to the next lowest tenderer.


George Taylor: The minister made the statement that Hodgson, Sumner and Company had the contract for sundry goods and Racine and Company for staples. How it is then that the same lines of goods are charged in both accounts ? In the one case 104 dozen shirts and drawers are paid for at $4.50 and in the other 12 dozen shirts and drawers are paid for at $4.75. He bought from Mr. Mills, his friend in Kingston, straw hats at $1.25, and from Hodgson and Sumner straw hats at $1.10. It would appear that the same kind of goods are divided up piecemeal between Hcdgson and Sumner and Racine and Company. If Mclnnis and Company of Kingston who are large wholesale men got an opportunity for tendering they would be able to supply these goods if they were not shuffled out of the contract.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Are they Conservatives?


George Taylor: They happen to be Tories.


Jacques Bureau: Tenders are called for publicly through the press and everybody has an opportunity of competing. What my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) calls a discrepancy is explained by the fact that these goods are given to the convict when he is discharged from the penitentiary.


Mr. HODGINS.: If I understand Mr. Taylor's contention it is that the patronage should be given to some one in the. city of Kingston.


George Taylor: All other things being equal.


George Frederick Hodgins: If I am rightly informed there is only one wholesale house in Kingston, and therefore there would be no competition if tenders were invited only from firms in that city. Racine & Co. and Hodgson, Sumner & Co., of Montreal, are firms Mr. ARTHURS.
of high repute, and as I have some knowledge of the value of dry goods I can say that the goods are. supplied by these firms at fair prices.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I cannot understand why clothing supplied to the prisoners while serving their term is classed as staple articles and tenders called for in respect of same, while clothing supplied to all prisoners, when leaving the prison is not classed as staples and no competition asked in purchasing same.


Mr. WHITE.: I see by the Auditor General's Report that you paid $44 for street car tickets. Were these for the convicts?


Jacques Bureau: The penitentiary is quite a distance from the city, and these tickets are given to officers who go to the city on official business.


George Eulas Foster: Do all officers get them?


Jacques Bureau: Only the accountant and storekeeper, and occasionally the engineer.


George Eulas Foster: You have made a reduction of $40,000 in the binder twine item; what is the explanation of that?


Jacques Bureau: That is because we are not buying any hemp this year. We have on hand 850,352 pounds of twine and 210,516 pounds of fibre.


George Eulas Foster: What has been the average manufacture of twine for the past two or three years?


Jacques Bureau: About 400,000 pounds a year.


George Eulas Foster: Was more manufactured last year than usual?


Jacques Bureau: The sales were not up to the average last year.


George Eulas Foster: For what reason ? last year was a great wheat year.


Jacques Bureau: We sent circulars last year as. usual to the Farmers' Associations, and to every one who had purchased from the department previously and we gave the same publicity as in former years.


George Eulas Foster: Was the twine of inferior quality or was the outside competition greater?


Jacques Bureau: The main reason is that we require cash with order, and all other manufacturers sell on time.


George Eulas Foster: But you have always required the cash?


Jacques Bureau: Money was scarcer last year than the year before, and as we required cash that may account for the difference.


George Eulas Foster: Does the report of the department give that as a reason or is that mere theory?


Jacques Bureau: The inspector informs me that there was a heavy demand made for binder twine last year if we would sell it on credit, but as we required cash they would not buy from us.


George Eulas Foster: Do you purpose varying your method in future so as to sell on credit when you get sufficient guarantee? The twine industry was started at Kingston to give healthy employment to the inmates and is it not better to adopt a prudent credit system rather than let the industry die out, and leave the convicts without employment?


Jacques Bureau: I am informed by the officer that shortly after the system was installed at Kingston, they sold some of the twine on credit, and they had any amount of trouble in collecting the money that was due for the twine. Perhaps the hon. member for Toronto may be able to suggest some better plan, but for the present we propose to continue on a cash basis.


Samuel Hughes: I will suggest this plan to the Solicitor General. Some years ago the Minnesota State Binding Twine Institution found that they could not sell their twine for cash, and they had to take orders for twine from the farmers, on their note. Eight or ten farmers jointly signed a note for the twine they wanted for the year, each being responsible for the whole amount. As soon as the harvest was over and the grain was marketed, they had the money in hand to pay for these notes. I suggest to the department whether that plan might not be worth consideration, that eight or ten farmers should join together and each be responsible for the whole. I do not see that there would be any danger then. Before harvest very few farmers, in some parts of the country, have ready cash.


George Taylor: The minister stated a little while ago that a tender for staple dry goods was given to Messrs. Alphonse Racine & Co., and for sundries to Messrs. Hodgson, Sumner & Co. Turning to page L-17 it appears that he purchased lines of the same goods from Messrs. P. Garneau Fils & Co., of Quebec, for $1,545. In that order were shirts and drawers, 15 dozens at $4.50, 20 doz. at $6, and 20 doz. at $6.25. Other parties had tendered for supplying these goods, and yet the department go down to Quebec and give an order there for $1,545 without tender.


Jacques Bureau: I am informed by the officer that in respect to shirts and drawers there was a shipment made by Garneau & Sons to. finish up a contract they had in the previous year, and it was paid out of the appropriation for this year.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Were potatoes considered a staple article of groceries for which tenders were called?


Jacques Bureau: No. They grow their own potatoes at the penitentiary, and they buy only when they are short in their crops.


Arthur Meighen: If there is anything of a staple character I should think it would be potatoes. But I find that you paid six different men for potatoes at varying prices. Would it not be better to advertise and get a price for potatoes for the year? Did you call for public tenders for flour?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: How is it, then, that flour is purchased from two or three different individuals at varying prices? You purchased flour from James Cummings, 410 barrels at $4.90; from Higham and Ramsay, Stonewall, Manitoba, you purchased 1,548 bags of flour at $1.80, and 410 bags at $2.45, less freight, $256. If the minister calls for tenders for flour at the lowest prices, how is it that he paid these varying prices?


Jacques Bureau: Last year no tenders were called for and no contracts were given for flour. Generally we do call for tenders, but last year the market was so unsettled that the officers of the department thought it was better not to advertise for tenders, and they did not call for tenders. But that is only one year.


Arthur Meighen: Do you call for tenders for molasses? I find molasses appearing in three different places. Molasses appears in the Crawford account and in the Maclean account, at different prices.


Jacques Bureau: ' Tenders were invited for this year and we have let contracts for the current year.


Arthur Meighen: Were they invited last year?


Jacques Bureau: Last year they were not invited, for the reasons I have stated.


Arthur Meighen: Molasses appears in the Crawford account, 438 gallons at 35 cents, and in the Maclean account, 93 gallons at 36 cents. What is the explanation?


Jacques Bureau: The Crawford account was under contract. In regard to the Maclean account, the officer explains that it may be an overlapping of the previous
year.


George Eulas Foster: Is that all?


Jacques Bureau: I do not know; I will have to find it out.


Arthur Meighen: The minister might look at this item:	Brown sugar, 8,000 pounds,
at $3.85 per cwt., bought from Mr. Maclean. Surely brown sugar is a staple article, or was the market unstable there also ?


Jacques Bureau: I am not in a position to give the explanation just now. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) has asked for the schedules; I will bring them down and then my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) may satisfy himself.


Arthur Meighen: The schedules will not satisfy one on that point.


Jacques Bureau: You will see by the schedules what we got prices for and what the prices were.


Arthur Meighen: If the tenders were accepted that is the man from whom the goods should have been purchased.


Jacques Bureau: Certainly.


Arthur Meighen: But they were not purchased from him.


Jacques Bureau: They may have been classed as staples and sundries. One man might tender for grocery staples and the other for sundries.


Arthur Meighen: Are these items staples or sundries?


Jacques Bureau: I do not know.


Arthur Meighen: I take from the list, potatoes, flour, molasses, beans, butter, barley; all these are purchased from different individuals. If these are not staples one would be at a loss to understand what staples are. Is there anything the minister considers a staple article of groceries which staple article he has purchased by tender from the lowest tenderer and from that man alone?


Jacques Bureau: I stated just now that all these things are purchased from the lowest tenderer.


Arthur Meighen: From that man alone?


Jacques Bureau: There might be various contractors for the different institutions.


Arthur Meighen: They may not be the lowest tenderers.


Jacques Bureau: I admit I cannot explain this. When I get the schedules down we can again take up the matter and see why these things were purchased from two different parties.


Mr. STAPLES.: The minister said that the flour market was unsettled last fall?


Jacques Bureau: Not last fall, but a year ago last fall.


William D. Staples: The price of wheat was pretty steady last fall.


Jacques Bureau: Last October we had to ask for tenders, but it was a year ago last fall-October, 1907-that I had reference to.


Mr. J. D. REID.: That is just when the elections were on.


Arthur Meighen: 


Jacques Bureau: No.


John Dowsley Reid: You said you asked for tenders in October last?


Jacques Bureau: Certainly we asked for tenders in October last, but we did not ask for tenders because the elections were on.


George Taylor: Last year wheat was very cheap and yet they paid $4.90 for flour.


Jacques Bureau: I will have to retract. I am informed by the inspector that tenders were called for in the public newspapers after the elections.


George Eulas Foster: That is explained in this way:	The year before there was a pretty
definite idea that there would be an election here; it was considered that the markets would be unsettled and, therefore, no tenders were asked for. Is that it ?


Mr. MONK.: I would like to ask my hon. friend if there is any other kind of work done at the penitentiaries than the making of binder twine?


Jacques Bureau: We make our own clothing, boots and shoes, and we work for other penitentiaries. We have in the penitentiaries eight instructors for the purpose of training convicts in various trades-carpenters, stonemasons, quarrymen, brick-makers, &e.


John Dowsley Reid: Do you make any shirts or drawers?


Jacques Bureau: No, we buy them; we make pants and coats though.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there any of the product sold outside of the penitentiary?


Jacques Bureau: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Or given away?


Jacques Bureau: There is nothing given away. I am informed by the inspector that sometimes some of the goods manufactured by the convicts are sold outside. There are articles of furniture which are manufactured in the penitentiary for the officers and paid for by them. Of course, they are manufactured by the convicts, who are being taught their trade at the same time.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think that if there are articles of furniture manufactured there and sold to the officers it might give rise to abuses. The case I referred to more particularly was this one:	A complaint was
sent to me about 96 church pews that had been manufactured at the penitentiary at St. Vincent de Paul, sent up from there to some church in Ottawa and sold for the sum of-I do not exactly remember the sum -but $100 or so. These pews were large and commodious, capable of accommodate

ing six people and were worth $960 at a low valuation. I would like to know exactly what occurred in regard to this transaction.


Jacques Bureau: I am informed that there were some pews made by the convicts for a church at Ottawa. The lumber was supplied by the members of the congregation and the sum of $106 was paid for the labour which was used in making these pews by the convicts. That is the only instance.


Samuel Hughes: Did the church put up an election subscription?


Henry Robert Emmerson: It was not that kind of church.


Jacques Bureau: It put up the prayers.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Was the lumber sent down from Ottawa and through whom was that transaction carried out?


Jacques Bureau: The lumber was sent down from Ottawa and the transaction was carried out through Mr. Dawson, inspector of penitentiaries. He thought it was a good thing to give our apprentices in the carpenter shop some work. The inspector gave them the lumber and saw that the cost of the labour that was put on this work was paid by the congregation.


George Eulas Foster: Is Mr. Dawson at liberty to do that generally? There are a great many churches that would like to get pews at that rate. I think it is the most extraordinary transaction I have heard of in a long time.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that this has been done on other occasions. One precedent is the supplying of cut stone for a church at Portsmouth, where Sir John Thompson paid the money and furnished the material.


Samuel Hughes: Sir John Thompson had nothing to do with it.


Jacques Bureau: He paid for the cut stone out of his own pocket.


Samuel Hughes: After it was discovered that it had been furnished from the penitentiary.	_


Jacques Bureau: I did not say when he paid it.


Samuel Hughes: He said it should not have been done at the expense of the people of Canada, and he paid for it out of his own pocket when he found the work had been done at the penitentiary


Jacques Bureau: It was not paid for in this case by the people of Canada; the $106 did not come from the people of Canada, but from the congregation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: That is not exactly the point of view to take. The question is, what kind of operations can be carried on 29J
in a general way. My hon. friend knows that there is serious conflict between prison and outside labour, and if this sort of thing can be done in one instance why can it not in another? My information is that at the penitentiary I have mentioned there are serious disorders of that kind. As I have no precise facts that I can establish I do not wish to refer to those disorders in a general way, but this particular case goes to show that the inspector has the right to order work to be done for outside parties for remuneration in money, and I think that is at least opening the door to very serious abuse. It is not fair. If our convicts in the penitentiary can be employed, for instance, on public works, there is a great deal of work that can be done without their labour competing with that of outsiders. That competition we should not encourage. It cannot be allowed to take place.


Jacques Bureau: The inspector has just explained to me that the work was done at his request for himself; he says it was his contribution to the church I take issue with my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) when he says that at St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary there are disorders of that kind. I want to register a protest. Last year he made charges against the officers and administration of the penitentiary. I spent a week there and made the most minute investigation, but found there was no foundation for the charges made against the officials there.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What are the charges against which he protests?


Jacques Bureau: You say there is great disorder in that line in that penitentiary.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When did you hold an investigation?


Jacques Bureau: Last year after, you and the then member for Laval made your charges against the warden and officials of the penitentiary


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I find it extremely singular that the Solicitor General should have held an investigation there of charges I made without giving me an opportunity of appearing before His Worship to establish the charges. I do not think the investigation was of a very serious character. The only charge I made was that the prefect of the penitentiary took an active, open and violent part in elections. If the Solicitor General went down there and found that the prefect took no part in the elections I cannot say that I think much of his investigation, because it is well known there that Mr. Beauchamp took a very violent part in every election in that county since 1896. That was the only charge I made at that time, but I am making another one

now. My hon. friend seems to become terribly indignant because we offered criticism-


Jacques Bureau: Not at all.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: What are we here for, to burn incense before my hon. friend?
Mr. BUREAU I wish you would.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I thought we were called upon to point out defects to criticise, and I say that I have had reports that the inspection is not properly done there, that work is done, articles are manufactured there and taken out of the penitentiary.


Jacques Bureau: And paid for.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, but I have no other instance, but that one about which there is no doubt whatever. An order was given for the manufacture of furniture, worth $960, for which $104 was paid. I take the view that it is unfair; if you open the door to that kind of thing you could have a furniture manufacturer getting furniture manufactured there, you can have prison labour in opposition to free labour. My hon. friend need not get indignant. We on this side of the House will not stand for protest and indignation because we offer fair criticism and bring facts to the notice of the government.
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER The item before the committee deals with Kingston penitentiary; shall this carry?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Yes, but upon that item I raised the question of penitentiary labour. If I am out of order I will abide by your ruling, but I think that in voting $50,000 for Kingston penitentiary, I am at liberty to raise the question of prison labour.


Wilfrid Laurier: Two questions have been brought up. The last point is a reasonable one and I think might come under this item, whether or not it is proper and advisable that prison labour should be sold outside of the penitentiary. That is a very old question of debate in this House. But there was another the hon. member (Mr. Monk) did not exactly state, but he insinuated that something had been done which was not absolutely correct, that these pews had been sold to the congregation at a lower price than their real value. As I followed the discussion I think he is satisfied that there has been no dishonesty and nothing wrong whatever, whatever the wisdom of the policy might be. As I understand, the material was furnished by the congregation and the labour, which was supplied by the penitentiary, was paid for by the congregation. Under such circumstances it seems to me there is nothing wrong and that matter should more properly come up when we are discussing the votes for St.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Vincent de Paul penitentiary. In the meantime my hon. friend has suggested a larger question whether or not the labour of the convict should be permitted to compete with the ordinary labour. That is a question which has been discussed again and again in this House for the last thirty years. I do not know that anything has been done to assert a principle one way or the other. Generally it was supposed that the labour of the convict should not come in competition with free labour and if this is the only instance, it seems to me to be not worth while discussing it.


George Eulas Foster: That is true to a certain extent; I think both governments have gone on the principle of not allowing the convict labour to come in competition with ordinary labour. It seemed to be felt that some useful and steady employment could be found for the prisoners, and the compromise was the establishment a good many years ago of the binder twine manufactory which has been carried on ever since in Kingston. But that is different from a general policy announced by this government of not coming into competition with the general labour of the country. That is different from the general policy which has actuated both governments, of not allowing prison labour to enter into competition with the general industries and employments of the country. I do not agree with my hon. friend, however, in treating this matter so cavalierly. I think it is not only unwise, but wrong. I would like to ask whether the department authorized this particular instance or not. It was asserted by my hon. friend that Sir John Thompson had done the same. Will he make the statement in this House that Sir John Thompson, as Minister of Justice, or as premier, authorized that to be done ? Or, was it not a matter which, when found out, was not approved of by Sir John Thompson, who took as manly a way as he possibly could of getting out of it ? But I think you go a long way into competition with the ordinary trades and labour of the country when you allow the inspector of penitentiaries to furnish a church with $900 worth of furniture for $104.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is not a fair way of putting it.


George Eulas Foster: I understand that pews which were worth about $900 were got by the church.


Henry Robert Emmerson: They furnished the lumber.


George Eulas Foster: I know. The church produced the lumber for making the pews and got the labour for almost nothing. If they had to go into the general market and thus had given employment to the trades in that

line, they would have paid a great deal more, and the trades would have got the advantage. In this case, while the whole country is keeping up the penitentiary, this one particular church gets that advantage. I do not think that ought to be allowed, and I would like to hear whether or not the minister of the department gave his authority for that transaction.


Jacques Bureau: The minister never gave any special authority to the inspectors. The inspectors took it upon themselves to do this. While on my feet, I may correct an error of the hon. member for North Toronto, who is under the impression that 96 pews were furnished. There were only 42. The lumber was sent to St. Vincent de Paul, and the time was put in by the convicts. It is true, the whole country supports the convicts, and if any churcn gets the advantage of the cheap labour, every other church should have the same; but still this was a special case. The worthy inspector tells me that it was done in perfect good faith.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not know what church is in question, and I have no doubt that the object for which these pews were ordered was an excellent one; but I object to the principle. I put a question on the subject to the House the other day, and I believe the answer was that there were 63 pews. Now the number Is stated to have been 42. The information sent to me was that there were 96, the value of which was $960. If you open the door to that kind of thing, it means the employment of prison labour to the detriment of outside labour; and I believe that both governments have agreed that that should not be done. In that letter there was an insinuation, as my right hon. friend says, that this was more or less of a practice at St. Vincent de Paul. If so, I think it is important that it should be put a stop to. In connection with Kingston penitentiary I find that there was a revenue of $10,646.93 outside of the binder twine industry. The farm contributed $3,402.41, the tailor $2,579.20, stone $598, and so on. Was this revenue derived from sales made outside, or what is the nature of it ?


Samuel Hughes: ; While the hon. Solicitor General is looking up the answer, I wish to make one statement in justice to the memory of Sir John Thompson. As soon as he found out that those articles were purchased from the penitentiary, he instituted an inquiry, the result of which was that condign punishment was inflicted upon the subordinate officers who caused the transfer of the work from the penitentiary to the church authorities, and he saw that the country did not suffer to the extent of one dollar by paying the money himself.


Jacques Bureau: The revenue from the bakery represents bread sold to the officers; that from the blacksmiths' shop represents
work done for other penitentiaries; that from the tailor represents contracts executed by the penitentiary for the Department of Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior. That is the largest amount.


George Eulas Foster: Is any of it from work done for outside parties ?


Jacques Bureau: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand that this was done by the inspector on his own mere motion. Is' it part of the inspector's duty or right to make contracts with outsiders for prison labour ?


Jacques Bureau: The inspector, as I said just now, gave the work himself. The inspector gave out the work himself.


Samuel Hughes: To what church does he belong?


Jacques Bureau: St. Matthew's. Is that my hon. friend's church? The lumber was sent in to the inspector, and he ordered the work to be done as if it were for himself. Being a member of that church, that was his contribution. The time was kept of the labour making the pews, and he paid for that labour at the rate charged for penitentiary work.


George Eulas Foster: He did that as an officer?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, and I do not want my hon. friend to understand that I approve of the policy. It is one that is open to question.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would think that an inspector of penitentiaries has certain duties to perform, and that outside of these he has no authority to become a contractor for churches or any one else.


Jacques Bureau: That is hardly putting the case fairly. It has always been the custom for penitentiary officers to have their furniture made by the convicts, and they pay the usual penitentiary rates. This gives employment to the convicts. The inspector did not act as a contractor but as a member of the church, and he availed himself of his privilege as an officer of the penitentiary to have work done for the church as he would for himself, paying the same rates. It was done for a good purpose, and the country lost nothing, and on the question of putting an end to that question I am not ready to pronounce.


George Eulas Foster: I should have hoped that my hon. friend would have been ready to say no and say it at once. This case arises out of the fact that you give to your officers a perquisite in that way, and that leads us back to the consideration whether an officer should have any perquisites of that kind at all. Why should any officer have the right to get his furniture cheaper than an outsider? The country is paying him a proner

salary or it ought to do so; and this is one of the perquisites, many of which were abolished, and I do not know why this one was allowed to remain.


Jacques Bureau: How will you keep your convicts busy?


George Eulas Foster: You should not say that in order to keep them busy, you will allow perquisites to your officers. There are other ways of keeping your convicts occupied. Pay each officer his wage and eive him no favours. I would ask the leader of the House what estimates will be taken up after six o'clock? We are at a loss by not knowing five minutes ahead what is to be gone on with. That makes it more difficult for us and the ministers as well. If we knew a day in advance, we would be better prepared to facilitate the business, and the minister himself might be prepared to expedite it if he would only take counsel with his officers before he comes to the House.


Mr. PATERSON.: What ought to be going on to-day is the work of the Opposition, but instead they allow their motions to stand on the order papers, and then expect the government to take up its business.


George Eulas Foster: What will we go on with to-night?


William Paterson: With these penitentiary estimates.


George Eulas Foster: And what after?


William Paterson: I am glad to hear my hon. friend give indication of such diligence in expediting business. We shall, probably, go on with the Indian estimates and Interior Department.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Eecess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


George Henry Bradbury: I find that the department paid {3.60 per barrel for 724 barrels of flour purchased from Higham & Ramsay, of Stonewall, and that the department also purchased from a man named Cummings 410 barrels of flour at $4.90 per barrel. What is the reason for this great difference in the price. Every one knows that the flour made in Manitoba is the best flour in the world, and no better flour can be found any where than that made in the Stonewall mills in my constituency. How did you come to p>ay Mr. Cummings $4.90 when you only paid $3.60 to Messrs. Higham & Ramsay? While on my feet I may say that I was rather surprised at the statement of the Solicitor General to the effect that the question of employing convict labour in competition with free labour was open to discussion. I believe that every member in this House will agree Mr. FOSTER.
with me that the principle of allowing convicts to make $900 worth of pews for a church at a cost of some $120 is a wrong principle. It brings convict labour into direct competition with free labour and it should not be tolerated. The Solicitor General, in what I consider a rather flippant manner, said that he did not endorse the principle but he thought it was open for discussion. I say that it is not open for discussion; it is absolutely a wrong principle.


Henry Horton Miller: The hon. gentleman ought not to say that pews worth $900 were furnished for $120. I do not say that the principle is right, but it is only fair to say that the parties who got the pews furnished their own lumber.


George Henry Bradbury: That does not alter the principle at all.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It alters the fact.


George Henry Bradbury: There is no doubt whatever that the pews were made by convict labour and furnished at a much less cost than if they were made by free labour. It is the old story of convict labour coming into competition with free labour and the principle is wrong.


Jacques Bureau: I do not say that the principle is right in this particular case, and while I do not want convict labour to come into competition with free labour, yet, these prisoners are learning a trade and it is rather difficult sometimes to draw the line. The officers of the penitentiary are allowred to have certain articles made by convict labour and they pay for them.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the Solicitor General approve of that system?


Jacques Bureau: I did not say that I did. but the question having been raised I said it was worth considering.


George Henry Bradbury: What about that difference in the price paid for the flour?


Jacques Bureau: I am informed that the price of flour varied last year and that the current market price was paid at the time the flour was purchased.


George Taylor: My hon. friend from Selkirk may not be aware that Mr. Cummings who got the high price for the flour was the Liberal candidate in Brockville some time ago.


Jacques Bureau: That would not make any difference. Does the hon. gentleman say that more than the current market price was paid?


Arthur Meighen: How is it that if, as we are told, tenders were called for staple articles and the contract awarded to the lowest tenderer and the goods purchased

from him, that these same staple goods have been purchased from so many different parties.


Jacques Bureau: That was in the case of molasses and sugar.


Arthur Meighen: The explanation given by the Solicitor General was that potatoes were not purchased by tender because it was only when more potatoes than were grown on the penitentiary grounds were required that potatoes were ^purchased; but as some 1,500 barrels were purchased during the year surely the department cou'd have made a nearer estimate as to its requirements than that. The Solicitor General told us that as the price of flour fluctuated last year tenders were not called for, but he gave us no explanation with regard to the prices paid for molasses, and barley, and beans, and cheese, and butter. Is the minister prepared' to give that information now?


Jacques Bureau: The officers leave the department at six o'clock and any how I had not time to go there.


Arthur Meighen: We can rely on getting that information to-morrow?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Will we get the information before these estimates are passed?


Jacques Bureau: We can do it on some other item. I will leave an item open.


Mr. EDWARDS.: I understood the minister to say that they considered it inadvisable to sell twine to the farmers on credit. Can he tell me what was the length of credit, as a rule, asked by the farmers?


Jacques Bureau: They asked until after the harvest to pay for the twine, those who asked for credit.


George Henry Bradbury: Is it not a fact that in the case of Higham and Ramsay they actually tendered for that flour? Were tenders called for in any other case?


Jacques Bureau: I have explained this afternoon that we did not invite tenders a year ago on account of the unsettled condition of the flour market. These gentlemen had been supplying the penitentiaries before, and we bought from them They were a reliable firm who had been doing business with us before.


Mr. BARNARD.: ' I understood the minister to say that the officials of the penitentiary were allowed to purchase things that were made in the penitentiary, such as furniture. I see a large amount of revenue here derived from the tailor. Are the officials entitled to get anything in the shape of clothes, or anything from the shoemaker's shop?


Jacques Bureau: They get clothing and shoes for their families and themselves. The greater part of the revenue from the tailor is owing to the fact that we take contracts with the Indian Department; all the tailor work required on the Indian reservation is done in the penitentiary at Kingston, and we charge it up against the Indian Department.


George Henry Barnard: On what basis is the price fixed for these goods, and who fixes the price?


Jacques Bureau: The price is fixed by the accountant of the penitentiary, and by the instructor of the particular branch in which the work is done, upon the basis of 30 cents for labour, the cost of material, and also the cost of supervision.


George Taylor: Turning to L-18,
I find that you purchased from Geo. E. May-bee, of Napanee, castile laundry soap, 2,114 lbs. at 5 cents. Who is Mr. Maybee?


Jacques Bureau: Mr. Maybee is a manufacturer's agent.


Uriah Wilson: The hon. gentleman is misinformed. Mr. Maybee is a commercial traveller who visits our town, and I have known him for many years.


Jacques Bureau: He represented himself to us as a manufacturer's agent.


Mr. CROTHERS.: Who would be responsible for buying supplies that were not advertised for by tender for the penitentiaries?


Jacques Bureau: In such a case a requisition is made by the storekeeper^ then it is handed over to the warden, and if the warden approves of it, he turns it over to the inspectors, and if they approve, the purchase is made. Of course it goes before the minister.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I see that 1,700 bushels of potatoes were bought in that way. For some, 60 cents a bushel were paid; for others, $1 a bushel, to the same man. No doubt if a staple like that had been advertised for you would have got the whole quantity for 60 cents a bushel.


Jacques Bureau: That might be, but we could not take delivery of the whole quantity at once. These were bought at different times when the prices varied.


George Henry Barnard: Could the minister give us a detailed statement showing how much of this revenue was derived from the sales of goods, altogether apart from the government and the penitentiary; also, showing what proportion of it is sold to the officials?


Jacques Bureau: I could get that information, but it would take some time to prepare it. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman put a motion on the order paper

for a return. It would give us a better chance to get the whole of the details out.


William Cameron Edwards: Were tenders called for the sand that was supplied?


Jacques Bureau: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That does not give the information. The question which has been asked is this: Is it the intention to purchase these articles, where they are obtained in large quantities, by tender or by private advices to men in the business?


William D. Staples: I would like to know whether or not you grow your own potatoes at the penitentiary in Manitoba and whether you are carrying on the farming industry in connection with that institution?


Jacques Bureau: We try to grow them.


William D. Staples: Does the minister mean to insinuate that we cannot grow potatoes in Manitoba? If they made an attempt at all there is no doubt that they would succeed in growing them.


Jacques Bureau: We did grow them, too.


Mr STAPLES.: I would like to know whether or not they have been able to supply the demand there or did you go out in the open market to purchase them?


Jacques Bureau: There were no potatoe purchased in Manitoba, as appears by th details of the penitentiary report, page 168 I hey were all grown there.


William Cameron Edwards: The reason I asked th. question a few minutes ago as to the pur chasing of sand for the penitentiary is this In the county of Frontenac there are threi persons engaged in the sand business. Twi ot these are strong Liberals and the othe: one is a strong Conservative. In gettim sand for the Rockwood asylum, which i: under the provincial government, tender: are asked for and the two Liberals have ar equal chance with the Conservative to sup ply that sand. But in getting sand for tin penitentiary apparently tenders are no asked for and a fair chance is not giver to all parties. I hope this system will b< changed in the future in fairness to al persons engaged in this business.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Richard Blain: I think my hon. friend is entitled to an answer as to whether sane will be purchased by tender.


Jacques Bureau: He expressed a hope: Wc do not know the quantity of sand that wc will require.


William Cameron Edwards: You required in the neighbourhood of 200 cubic yards last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This seems an unreasonable evasion. You must be buying sand in large quantities in future. The question is whether it will be bought by tender.


Jacques Bureau: We only bought $189 worth.


Jacques Bureau: 


William Cameron Edwards: The Conservative that I referred to and who is engaged in the sand business has been distinctly told on more than one occasion that there was no need of him tendering or thinking of supplying sand to the Kingston penitentiary because of his politics, and I am asking if that sort of thing is going to be allowed, or if you are going to give everybody a fair show as is done ip buying sand for the Rockwood asylum?


Jacques Bureau: I think it is only fair to know by whom the hon. gentleman was told that. If any officials said that to the hon. gentleman's friend they certainly ought to be reprimanded. It might have been told to the hon. gentleman by one of his political friends for the purpose of using it in the House for all I know.


William Cameron Edwards: In our portion of the country we do not consider that reprimands would do much good. In election time these officials go out and work as actively as any person in the county.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Does the reprimand you speak of mean an advance in salary?


Mr. THOBURN.: As a Canadian manufacturer I have an important question to ask. By reference to page L-18 of the Auditor General's Report I find that there were 88 hats bought from a Canadian firm at $1 each. Turning to page L-17 of the Auditor General's Report I find that there were six dozen hats bought from Hicks & Son, London, England, at $1.25 each. As a manufacturer of Canada I would like to know if Canadian manufactured hats are not good enough for those penitentiary chaps at Kingston?


Jacques Bureau: I am told that the hats that were bought in England were for the officers, being portions of their uniforms.


William Thoburn: It does not say so in the Auditor General's Report. Even if they were, why could not they have been manufactured and purchased in Canada?


Jacques Bureau: In the minister's report the whole thing is stated.


William Cameron Edwards: Might I ask for an expression of opinion in regard to the purchase of sand for the Kingston penitentiary? Is it to be done by tender or not?


Jacques Bureau: We will be glad to ask the hon. gentleman's friend for a tender if he will give us his name.


William Cameron Edwards: I am young at this business, but I do not think that is an answer to my question.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, I think it is. The hon. gentleman wants to find out whether we are going to purchase from the same party without inviting tenders


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Whether by tender or by private agreement.


Jacques Bureau: We are going to ask for prices.


William Cameron Edwards: I will be satisfied if the hon. gentleman will give me the assurance that when they want sand they will ask for tenders.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend does not mean to say that if we want a load of sand w'e are going to advertise for it. If my hon. friend will give us his friend's name wo will send him .a circular and ask him for prices.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is begging the question. You bought during the past year a large quantity of sand, and it is likely that you will buy a large quantity in the future. The question of the hon. gentleman is: Is it the intention of the government to buy by public tender or by contract with private individuals? He is entitled to an answer to that question.


Jacques Bureau: It is not the intention to buy by private agreement with private parties.


Richard Blain: At page L-36 of the Auditor General's Report, under the heading ' Twine returned into stock,' I see 88,260 pounds, valued at $10,149.90 and 24,050 pounds valued at $2,654.50 put down as having been returned. May I ask the minister if this twine was sold, found unsatisfactory and returned to the department?


Jacques Bureau: The Canadian Society of Equity were overstocked, they had 88,260 pounds left on their hands and asked us to take the twine back; we did so and refunded them the money. The same thing applied to the 24,000 pounds.


Richard Blain: Where is this firm ?


Jacques Bureau: It is not a firm, it is an association of farmers in Alberta, for the whole province of Alberta. They club together and give their order but they had this on their hands after the crop was in and asked the authorities to take it back.


Richard Blain: Was the freight paid on it to the penitentiary ?


Jacques Bureau: It was taken to the penitentiary at Edmonton and is stored there.


George Taylor: My hon. friend is mistaken. In the next item he will find that
the Alberta Farmers' Association returned only 7,200 pounds. The minister should be careful and read the documents in his hands and give answers in accordance with the facts. The facts in this case are that some society of equity returned over 112,000 pounds but the Alberta Farmers Association returned only 7,200 pounds.


Jacques Bureau: I am informed that the Canadian Society of Equity is an association in southern Alberta but the_ Alberta Farmers Association operates principally around Edmonton.
St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary, $114,000.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The farmers will be glad to know that they pay $1.50 a bushel for barley, and $2.50 for peas down there.


Jacques Bureau: I am informed that this grain was for seed.


William D. Staples: How many bushels ?


Jacques Bureau: 25 bushels.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: They paid $5.30 for flour to the Campbell Milling Company but at the next page I see tney got Manitoba hard at $3.60.


Jacques Bureau: The market was fluctuating at that time. That year the flour market was very variable and it was decided not to advertise for tenders but to buy from time to time as we required it. That is the only year tenders were not asked for.


George Taylor: I see that a saddle horse was purchased from Alfred Charbon-neau for $245, a generous price.


Jacques Bureau: We have a certain number of horses there, some for the farm and others for the mounted patrol. My hon. friend will admit that the patrol must have good horses if they are to be of any use. If a prisoner should escape on one of the farm horses the patrol could not overtake him unless he had a better horse.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Were the turnips for which you paid $1.10 a bushel for seed?


Jacques Bureau: I suppose they were bought when the price of turnips was high or they might have been larger turnips.


George Taylor: I see that Robert R. Creighton a clerk at Ottawa was paid $232.79 for two trips Ottawa to Montreal and return.


Jacques Bureau: That charge is right. Mr. Creighton was paid that amount. He is the accountant of the branch and wTas making an audit of the books, and that is for his travelling expenses.


George Henry Bradbury: I see at L-21 a purchase :
Kinsey Boyden, Cincinnati, Ohio, 9 ply jail bars 23,184 pounds at 8j cents, 24,185 pounds at 8i cents, 1,182 pounds at 9 cents.

Could these bars not be got in Canada?


Jacques Bureau: I am informed that this steel bar, which is tool proof, is not made in Canada.


Mr. MADDIN.: I would like to draw the attention of the Solicitor General to the fact that the Nova Scotia Coal and Steel Company roll steel bars of any shape and dimensions.


Jacques Bureau: Do they roll tool proof steel in Nova Scotia?


James William Maddin: I do not think they do.
Mr. BUREAU I may inform the hon. gentleman that there were inquiries made before it was bought to ascertain whether or not it was manufactured in Canada, and it was found that it was not.


George Henry Bradbury: I notice at page L-22 that spur gears were bought from the Platt Iron works Co., of Dayton, Ohio. I would like to ask the Solicitor General if it is the policy of the government to buy these things outside of the country when they can be bought in the country?


Jacques Bureau: These were duplicate parts of a machine which came from there, and therefore they had to be obtained there.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman was good enough to give us a list of the goods supplied to the Kingston penitentiary on public advertisement. Will he give us a list of the goods supplied to this penitentiary? For example, is coal supplied by tender?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, it is. There were
two tenders-the T. F. Moore Co. and Cohen & Son. The tenders were called for by public advertisement in the newspapers.


John Dowsley Reid: Why was it that the price of coal in Montreal was over a dollar a ton more than it was in Kingston-the same grade of coal?


Jacques Bureau: I cannot account for that. When we advertise in the newspapers for tenders, all we can do is to accept the lowest tender, which we have done.


John Dowsley Reid: What newspapers?


Jacques Bureau: I have not got the list here. I will bring it down.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman will turn to page L-22, he will find that Alphonse Racine & Co. furnished goods. I want to know if they tendered for supplies there, and if so, what supplies?


Jacques Bureau: There were tenders called for frieze, and theirs was the lowest tender. There were seven tenders put in.


George Taylor: They supplied shirts and drawers, 127 pairs, at $4.50 per Mr. BRADBURY.
pair, whereas at the Kingston penitentiary the price was $4.50 a dozen. Surely there is a rake-off there.


Jacques Bureau: That is a printer's mistake. The word 'dozen' is omitted before the word 'pairs.' It should be 127 dozen pairs, at $4.50 a dozen.


William Thoburn: At page L-21 there is an item of $2,173 for lumber, which ranges all the way from $20 to $55 a thousand. Will the minister kindly tell us what kind of lumber was bought at $55 a thousand, and was it bought by tender?


Jacques Bureau: I have not the details of that item, but I will get them from the department and bring them down.


John Dowsley Reid: With reference to this coal purchase from L. Cohen & Son, will the minister tell me what quantity of coal was asked for in the advertisement, and did it specify screenings; also what were the names of the parties who tendered, and the prices of the tenders per ton.


Jacques Bureau: The tender of Cohen & Son is for soft screenings at $3.75 a ton. 1,500 tons were asked for. The other tender, that of Moore & Co., of Montreal, was at $4.75 a ton.


John Dowsley Reid: When was the advertisement for tenders published ?


Jacques Bureau: The supplies of the year 1907-8 were advertised to be tendered for up to March 18, for the various penitentiaries.


John Dowsley Reid: And only two tenders were received.


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Were the parties invited to tender for all the penitentiaries ?


Jacques Bureau: It was optional for them to tender for one or for all the penitentiaries.
Dorchester penitentiary, $70,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the department still buy its hardware from the firm of Mc-Avity & Sons, of St. John, New Brunswick?


Jacques Bureau: Lewis Brothers of Montreal are the contractors for the hardware, both sundries and staples, for the year 1907-8.


Oswald Smith Crocket: In the Auditor General's Report, I notice that upwards of $1,000 of hardware was purchased from McAvity & Sons.


Jacques Bureau: These were plumber's' supplies and steam fittings, small orders given at different times, when the things were wanted quickly.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Without public tender or competition. Is the Solicitor General

aware that the head of this firm is George McAvity, the gentleman who got away with a rake-off of $35,900 in connection with the Mayes contract ? If that firm has any account against the government^ it might be well to set it off, so far as it will go, against that rake-off, seeing that the department is unwilling to take proceedings to recover back the $35,900. In connection with McAvity & Sons, I find that they received $2.45 per barrel for 120 barrels of Portland cement, but I notice that cement was purchased for the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary at $1.85. It might be interesting to the Department of Justice to know that the Public Accounts Committee of New Brunswick had occasion to investigate the accounts of McAvity & Sons some years ago when the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) was in the government of that province, and it was found that they were charging two prices in many instances.


Jacques Bureau: The penitentiary at St. Vincent de Paul is right close to the market where they deal in cement, which may account for its being cheaper there. I do not know if there are any cement factories in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, and the difference in freight may explain the discrepancy. If you buy from Hull, you will have to pay more freight.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Would the freight account cause such a difference?


Jacques Bureau: The purchase may have been at different times and larger quantities may have been required for St. Vincent de Paul than for Dorchester penitentiary.


James Arthurs: I find that 235 barrels of Portland cement were bought from J. H. Hickman at $2.45.


Jacques Bureau: Yes, the same price as from McAvity & Co.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: The chaplain at this penitentiary receives $200 a year less than at St. Vincent de Paul. Is that by reason of his inferior capacity or less onerous duties?


Jacques Bureau: Less onerous duties, on account of the population being less in Dorchester than in St. Vincent de Paul.


William Thoburn: I find on page L-22 of the Auditor General's Report that the government purchased from T. Prefontaine & Co., Montreal, lumber commencing at $20 and running up to $75 per 1,000 feet. Unless this lumber was made into mahogany chairs or things of that kind, the price seems a fabulous one.


Jacques Bureau: The $75 per 1,000 feet was paid for oak.


Uriah Wilson: Could the minister say how much of the items for salaries
and retiring allowances at St. Vincent de Paul and Dorchester penitentiaries is for each separately ?


Jacques Bureau: Last year there were $38,606.48 for salaries and $2,077.76 for retiring allowances.


Uriah Wilson: The retiring allowances ought to be put separately in the estimates so that we might know them.


Jacques Bureau: We cannot tell in advance what the retiring allowances for the year will be.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How many convicts in Dorchester penitentiary?


Jacques Bureau: 245, an excess of 51 over the previous year.


Samuel Hughes: Were tenders called for the installation of a power plant at Dorchester?


Jacques Bureau: We have no power plant; we are buying the electricity.


Samuel Hughes: Was an estimate made of what it would cost to run your own power plant?


Jacques Bureau: It was estimated that a plant would cost $10,000 and salaries of officers to run the plant $3,500 a year.


George Henry Bradbury: The Sackville Hay & Feed Company were paid $6.10 per barrel for some flour; $3.15 for other flour, and $4.85 per barrel for other flour. What is the explanation?


Jacques Bureau: They were different grades of flour which were mixed together so as to lessen the cost.
Manitoba penitentiary, $60,350.


Mr BRADBURY.: I notice by the Auditor General's Report that Scott & Stratton, of Stonewall, were paid $4,652 for various lumber supplies. Were these supplies bought by tender? Does the Solicitor General know that this is a very small firm doing business at Stonewall? Where there is such a lar-e amount of lumber required would it not be cheaper for the department to buy from a wholesale house in Winnipeg rather than from these small dealers?


Jacques Bureau: I am informed the purchase was made after inviting prices. They tried to get the same goods in Winnipeg but they found they could not get as good service.


George Henry Bradbury: That explanation is hardly in line with what are the facts. Stonewall is about 8 miles from Stoney Mountain and Stoney Mountain is about the same distance from Winnipeg. There is a first-class train service from Winnipeg to Stoney Mountain, so that if the lumber were bought in Winnipeg it could -be delivered much easier at Stoney Moun-

tain than from Stonewall. There is something wrong in that explanation.


Jacques Bureau: I am informed this firm took the order and shipped to Stoney Mountain. The inspector tells me he does not know where the lumber came from.


George Henry Bradbury: Were public tenders asked for, or was the contract simply given to these people?


Jacques Bureau: Prices were invited from these people and from parties in Winnipeg, and the prices of these people were lower than the prices we got from Winnipeg.


George Henry Bradbury: Don't you see at once that when you invite tenders from only two or three people you leave room for that collusion which must have taken place in this case. A firm doing business like Scott & btratton, m Stonewall, could not sell as cheaply as a large firm in Winnipeg. A small firm like that outside of Winnipeg would have to buy from the Winnipeg firm, and resell it at a higher price to the government.	[DOT]


George Taylor: What firms were asked to tender for these supplies?


Jacques Bureau: I have not that information. The prices were asked by the penitentiary officials.
Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR, that information?
You will get


Jacques Bureau: I do not know. It is ask-inS a good deal of the officials to send us down copies of all their letters. They were instructed by the inspectors to ask for prices, and give the contract to the lowest tenderer.


George Taylor: Were their instruc tion given from Ottawa?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


George Taylor: You will bring down the instruction that was sent by the inspector who to buy it from.
Mr BUREAU There is a standing induction to all the purchasing agents of the various penitentiaries that they are to buy at the lowest market price.


George Henry Bradbury: I do not suppose the hon gentleman knows who the firm of Stratton & Scott are. Stratton is the president of the Liberal association of the
SffM SSfii 1 lh,nk ,h" "k*""


Jacques Bureau: Does my hon. friend claim the prices are excessive?


George Henry Bradbury: I think they are in some cases.


Arthur Meighen: I find an item of $48.40 for advertising for tenders for supplies. Was a tender asked for dry goods, and was the lowest tender accepted?


George Henry Bradbury: 


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Who was the lowest tenderer?


Jacques Bureau: For dry goods special. J. M. Garland Sons & Co., of Ottawa. They received the contract for all the articles that are mentioned under the heading of dry goods special for all the penitentiaries in Canada. Dry goods staples for Manitoba went to Racine & Co.; there were four tenderers.


Arthur Meighen: How do independent tenderers know that they may procure contracts? Unless the tenders are taken and accepted only as advertised, and for the articles advertised, then tendering is of no use to the country.


Mr. McCOLL.: I think my hon. friend does not understand the matter correctly. If he would read the advertisement carefully he would see that in a general way it calls for tenders for certain supplies, with a form of tendering, and stating that particulars can be obtained on application to the warden. Then if he looks over the tender form, that would specify in detail the different kinds of groceries, and the different kinds of clothing, and so forth, required. One tenderer may be lower for one kind of clothing, and another lower for another kind, and that accounts for the contracts being given to different parties and not all to one.


Arthur Meighen: There is no mention of that in the advertisement. The advertisement says that parties may tender for one or for all of the different public institutions, but it does not say that parties may tender for part of the dry goods, or for part of the groceries, or for anything else under any one heading. It simply invites tenders for one institution or for all. Consequently the public in general would not know that they could go to the department and divide up the tenders for part of the dry goods or part of the groceries; there is no hint of it in the advertisement. I think I understand the advertisement as well as the hon. gentleman.


John B. McColl: If my hon. friend would refer again to the advertisement he will find that it states: ' Forms of tenders can be obtained, with particulars, from the warden '. Has my hon. friend ever seen one of these tender forms? Take a tender for different kinds of clothing for instance. One tenderer puts in a certain price for one class of goods, and another tenderer puts in a price for another class of goods, and so on. A third tenderer may be lower on one class of goods, and higher on another, and the department in each case gives it to the lowest tenderer for the particular kind of goods that is on the list. There is no patronage in the matter at all.


Jacques Bureau: The specification is contained in the blank form of tender. By applying to the warden of the penitentiary he who desires to tender gets a form, and on that form every article is mentioned under a special heading. Here, for instance, is a tender for dry goods special, enumerating particulars of weight, colour and quality. They put their prices on the different articles. One may tender for blankets, another for prison clothing. The specification is on the tender. They apply for this from the warden, and they get an enumeration of all the various articles required under the special heading.


Arthur Meighen: The minister can accept the tender as to one item, and reject it as to another. Is that not so?


Jacques Bureau: In the form of the contract they say that samples or tenders will be considered item by item. Suppose a man is lower on blankets we will award him the contract for blankets and not for other things upon which he may not be as low.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am afraid my hon. friend is neglecting the spiritual welfare of some of the inmates of this institution.


Jacques Bureau: Where?-in Manitoba?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Yes. I see there are five chaplains who receive $688 and one who gets $1,000.


Jacques Bureau: What page?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: L-26. I would like to know if these five were all in service at the time or whether they were serving periodically, turn about?


Jacques Bureau: They were serving periodically, turn about.


George Henry Bradbury: I would like to direct the attention of the hon. gentleman to page L-27.
Higham & Ramsay, Stonewall: bran, 1 Ion $18; Imperial flour, 620 bags at $1.55; sundry items, $3.90, $982.90.
A while ago the hon. gentleman stated that the tenders were called for after the general elections. If my memory serves me aright the contract was let for this flour in Selkirk about ten days or two weeks before the elections.


Jacques Bureau: I am informed that the tenders were called for in November and the contract let in the same month.


George Henry Bradbury: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if he would bring the tender down, because this is a disputed point. It is in my own constituency, and I happen to know the circumstances. I am not complaining of Higham & Ramsay getting the contract because they happen
to be friends of my own, although my opponent was bidding high to get them as the public accounts will show. Two weeks before the election Higham & Ramsay received some assurance that if they had not obtained the contract they were going to obtain it. I would like to know whether that is a fact, and I would like the hon. gentleman to bring down the tender.


Jacques Bureau: I have the tenders under my hand and I have a letter dated Winnipeg, Man., November 26, and addressed to the Inspector of Penitentiaries at Ottawa, as follows;
Dear Sir,-Inclosed we beg to band you out tenders for the supply of flour at the penitar-tiaries at Stony Mountain, Sapperton and Edmonton.
The tenders were sent in on the 26th November.


George Henry Bradbury: What about Stony Mountain?


Jacques Bureau: It was sent in on title 26th November, 1908.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: What is the date of the tender?


Jacques Bureau: There is no date on the tender, but here is the letter transmitting the tender.


George Henry Bradbury: Is that the tender for the supply of flour for the Stony Mountain Penitentiary?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


George Henry Bradbury: What is the date of the tender?


Jacques Bureau: The 26tli November, 1908.


George Taylor: Who is the tender addressed to?


Jacques Bureau: The Inspector of Penitentiaries, Ottawa.


George Taylor: Who is it mailed by?


Jacques Bureau: I have not the name of the office boy, but it was signed by the tenderers.


George Taylor: Who signed the tender?


Jacques Bureau: The Ogilvie Flour Mills Co., Ltd., by R. Dobell.


George Henry Bradbury: What about the tender of Higham & Ramsay? That is the one I am asking for.


Jacques Bureau: It is here. It is with the others that were put on the list in the month of November and the contract was awarded, I am told, in the beginning of December. Do you want to see it?


George Henry Bradbury: That is satisfactory;
I will take your word for it.


Mr. W. H. SHARPE.: Are these tenders ever dated?


Jacques Bureau: It all depends upon the man who fills it up. These are not dated. They generally inclose their tenders with a letter.


William Thoburn: At page L-28 I see that Windatt & Co., Winnipeg, supplied 79-7 tons of coal at $9.20. The quality is not specified. Would the hon. gentleman tell us what the quality was and if it was bought by tender?


Jacques Bureau: Yes, that coal was bought by tender after public advertisement. It was egg coal.


George Henry Bradbury: The tender sent over here looks all right, but there is no signature and no date. This only confirms the suspicion I have that this was all arranged before my election because it was street talk two weeks before the election that Higham & Ramsay had the contract to furnish the flour.


Jacques Bureau: My hon. friend will understand we could not let the contract before we had the figures. They were the lowest tenderers. We have accompanying letters showing that they were mailed on the 26th and the 24th of November.


William Henry Sharpe: Does that not show the time they were transmitted to Ottawa?


Mr BUREAU.: Here is the Campbell Milling Company tender dated November 28 and not signed. Here is the tender of Cum-ming, of Lynn Lin, dated November 28. All these people were on the list and the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer. All these being on the list there could not be any game, because we did not know who was the lowest tenderer.


George Henry Bradbury: I am quite satisfied to take the hon. gentleman's word for it, but it looked peculiar.
There is an allowance to school district 294, Stony Mountain, in lieu of school fees of $250. It is a great hardship to the residents of that district to have this amount so small; the government should allow that district at least $500. The settlement is very small; they have kept up the school; the larger number of pupils attending it are children of the officials, and the government are not bearing their fair share of the burden.


Jacques Bureau: The matter deserves consideration. There was a time when they were getting nothing and the $250 was fixed at their request as compensation for the extra cost of the children of the officials of the penitentiary.


George Henry Bradbury: The hon. gentleman realizes that the staff in the penitentiary is increasing and the children are increasing.


George Henry Bradbury: British Columbia, $56,500.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: At L-29 of the Auditor General's Report it will be seen that there was an unusual number of retirements last year. Would the minister explain?


Jacques Bureau: Seven officials retired from the British Columbia penitentiary, Atkins, Bourke, Burr, McKee, McNeill, Mc-Niven and Whyte. McNiven and Burr have since died. McNeill was suspended, but after investigation it was found that the suspension was not justified and he was awarded his retiring gratuity. They are paid one-half month salary for the first five years' service and a full month for each subsequent years in the service.


James Davis Taylor: Is that the only explanation of the extraordinary number?


Jacques Bureau: Atkins retired on account of physical unfitness for service; Bourke retired after the investigation into the escape of certain prisoners; Mr. Burr retired on account of ill-health and died since; Mr. McNeill retired, as I have explained, and Mr. McNiven and Mr. Whyte on account of ill-health.


James Davis Taylor: The minister's explanation is not so full as we might have expected. In addition to those to whom gratuities were paid, some permanent guards retired without gratuity. Is there any special reason for the retirement of T. B. Anderson.


Jacques Bureau: The other guards retired voluntarily, because they thought they could do better outside of the penitentiary.


James Davis Taylor: Do I understand the minister to say seriously that that was the reason for the retirement of Mr. Anderson and Mr. Theroux ?


Jacques Bureau: I cannot assign the particular reasons. They were not asked for their resignations and were not dismissed by the department, but resigned voluntarily-


James Davis Taylor: Well, I live at New Westminster and have considerable acquaintance with the affairs of the penitentiary there, and I have very positive information that Mr. Theroux did not retire voluntarily, and that there were very special circumstances connected with the request for his retirement. I would like the minister to inquire, before we proceed further, whether some of these incidents cannot be recalled now.


Jacques Bureau: The only information we have in the department is that he forwarded his resignation, written by himself, to the minister, and that it was accepted.


James Davis Taylor: Well, all I have to say is that the department is far from being

fully informed. Among these gratuities I notice that Mr. Bourke, who is shown by the report of the Minister of Justice to have been a very long time in the service, receives a retiring allowance of only $279.23. The circumstances must be very special to have him so niggardly dealt with.


Jacques Bureau: That is for the period mentioned there, from July 23, 1886, to October 13, 1892. After fifteen years' service in the penitentiary, he becomes entitled to a superannuation allowance, which he is now getting, in addition.


James Davis Taylor: It is a fact, is it not, that Mr. Bourke has an application now before the department for a more substantial retiring allowance ?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


James Davis Taylor: May I ask what the claim is ?


Jacques Bureau: He wants us to add ten years to his service.


James Davis Taylor: There is another interesting item on this page :
Canadian Detective Bureau, Vancouver: expenses searching for escaped convicts, $2,485.85
I would like some explanation of that.


Jacques Bureau: This was paid for the services of those who were employed in connection with the Bill Miner escape, and those who escaped with him.


James Davis Taylor: I would like the minister to supplement that by stating whether there were any results from their search ?


Jacques Bureau: We heard about a month ago that they would probably be apprehended before long.


James Davis Taylor: According to an answer given in this House the other day, Bill Miner escaped on the 8th of August. Might I ask when this detective bureau were instructed in this matter.


Jacques Bureau: They were instructed on the 15th day of August. The letter of instructions left on that date.


James Davis Taylor: What was the reason for the delay ?


Jacques Bureau: We wanted to get Bill Miner's portrait printed, so that they would not be working at random. We had a lithograph made, and when It was ready, we sent it with the instructions.


James Davis Taylor: On page L-31 I find this item:
Lieutenant-Colonel A. P. Sherwood, commissioner of police, Ottawa: detective services. $150.
Was that also in connection with the Bill Miner case ?


Jacques Bureau: Yes.


George Taylor: And the commissioner of police was instructed when?


Jacques Bureau: On the 12th day of August, the day we heard in Ottawa that Bill Miner had escaped.


James Davis Taylor: The hon. minister is in error there, because that does not agree with the answer given the other day, that the department heard on the 9th of August that Bill Miner had escaped.


Jacques Bureau: They heard on the 8th that four convicts had escaped, and on the 12th they learned that Bill Miner was one of the four.


James Davis Taylor: In the annual report of the minister we read this at page 2:
The unusual number of escapes is a matter of extreme regret. All occurred at British Columbia penitentiary, and were due to general lack of discipline and to disregard of the prison regulation. The staff of the penitentiary has been reorganized, and several subsequent attempts to mutiny and escape have been frustrated. The tendency of some officers to act upon their individual judgment, in defiance of the established regulations, which are the product of decades of experience, invariably leads to disastrous results. The superior officer who disregards the instructions and regulations by which he is governed cannot enforce obedience from subordinates who naturally exercise the same private judgment in the discharge of their duties. The successful commander is he who has first learned to obey.
This paragraph charges general insubordination and neglect of duty or worse in the British Columbia penitentiary. I submit that when we are called upon to pass the estimates for the support of that institution, we are entitled to have a serious explanation from the minister in charge of it, and I ask him now to make a fuller explanation than has been made respecting the condition of affairs shown by this report to have existed in that institution.


Jacques Bureau: I understand that at the time of the escape of Bill Miner, Bourke, the deputy warden, was acting as warden, and did not keep the discipline he ought to have kept, and it was for that reason that the escape took place. Now Mr. Bourke has disappeared, a new warden has been appointed, and the reorganization is complete.


Mr. BURRELL.: I do not think that is exactly a satisfactory explanation. The case of Bill Miner was a specially notorious one in British Columbia, and indeed in the whole of western Canada. The man had held up railway trains, his exploits had attracted unusual attention on the other side of the line, and flattering references were made to the expeditious way in which justice was meted out to this man. Yet he

escaped on the 8th of August and the department responsible for the penitentiary did not know until the 12th of August that he had escaped, and did not take steps to recapture him until a week afterwards, when it was practically impossible to catch him.


Jacques Bureau: When the officer in charge of the penitentiary wired of the escape he did not mention any names. He just said four prisoners had escaped. It was only on the twelfth that we had the name of Bill Miner mentioned in any despatch to the department. Immediately we gave instructions to try and recapture him if possible.


James Davis Taylor: When the inspector reports upon these penitentiaries, to whom does the report go? Does it go to the Solicitor General or to the Minister of Justice?


Jacques Bureau: It goes to the Minister of Justice.


James Davis Taylor: It is the Minister of Justice who would be informed of this, if any minister were informed?


Jacques Bureau: Certainly.


James Davis Taylor: I am sorry to take up the time of the committee but I am afraid I must supply some of the details as to which the persons responsible for reporting these matters to the department have been so reticent. It has been common report in British Columbia for a long time that Bill Miner did not escape in the ordinary way, that his departure from the British Columbia penitentiary was connived at by persons high in the service of this country. That remained as a matter of mere report until very lately when this arraignment of the officers of the British Columbia penitentiary anpeared in the report of the Minister of Justice. The retort to this was the statement by Mr. Bourke, the late deputy warden who had been retired, that he had in this connection some sensational and far reaching disclosures to make, and he added in a subsequent interview that Bill Miner did not escape from the British Columbia penitentiary but was virtually handed out, and that the other three prisoners were permitted to escape in order to cover up the Miner transaction. This statement has been made in the public press by Mr. Bourke. the late deputy warden. It was made a subject of inquiry by me in this House on the 1st of February, and the answer to my question was an intimation that the inspector had written to Mr. Bourke asking him to make the sensational disclosures which he indicated. But here is where the weak point of the procedure comes in; when we turn to Mr. Bourke's statement we find that the very man who asks him for the report is the man whom he charges with knowing something more about this affair than has been Mr. BURRELL.	'
communicated to the department. I read in the New Westminster ' Columbian ' of the 28th of January this statement said to have been made by Mr. Bourke:
Editor ' Daily Columbian.'
Sir,-Under the heading ' Dispatch from Ottawa gives wrong information,' appears an item in a local paper of to-day. Wrong impressions, where the escape of Bill Miner is hinted at, seem to he in order. Indeed right impressions of anything connected with the penitentiary service are about as rare as angels' visits; for, if a few good men were to retire, truth might be reckoned there among the lost arts.
It was my hope that when I tendered my resignation justice would be done me. It was also my hope that I would be allowed to spend the balance of my days in comparative quietness. These hopes are vanished. Justice has not been done me in the matter of my retiring allowance, and there is evidently a desire to pursue me into retirement with a spirit worse than vindictive. The secrets that I intended to keep must therefore become public. I have written to Ottawa for a report of the Minister of Justice, and if I find the reports to the press of this province correct, I shall open up a new field for moral reformers in which the evils, as compared with those in the old fields will be found as 16 to 1, that is, if moral reformers have courage enough to investigate.
He then proceeds to refer to some other matters which I need not read.
Mr. Bourke returned to the charge on the 3rd of February.


Mr. D. A. GORDON.: Who is the editor of that paper you are quoting from?


Samuel Hughes: That is immaterial.


James Davis Taylor: For the information of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gordon) I may tell him that I, when I am at home, am the editor of that paper, and that I am not ashamed of it.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: And it is Bourke's own statement you are reading?


James Davis Taylor: Certainly, these are Mr. Bourke's statements, and I think the merriment of the hon. gentlemen opposite is very much out of place in the midst of an indictment like this.


Jacques Bureau: Where is the indictment?


James Davis Taylor: Where is the indictment?' asks the Solicitor General. What have we to hope from such a department of government when the second highest officer in the department having heard the charge that Bill Miner did not escape but was handed out from the penitentiary of New Westminster, returns the answer; Where is the indictment?


Jacques Bureau: Bourke was in charge when he was handed out.


James Davis Taylor: Mr. Bourke returns to the charge in this way:
I have just received the blue book and find your quotation as given in the ' Columbian ' a few days ago


Jacques Bureau: Will my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) allow me a question?


James Davis Taylor: Certainly.


Jacques Bureau: Is this the Mr. Bourke who was in charge of the penitentiary at New Westminster at the time of the escape of Bill Miner?


James Davis Taylor: Yes, sir, this is the same Mr. Bourke who was in charge of the penitentiary, and he is therefore in a position to know what went on within the walls of that institution.


Jacques Bureau: And he is a man who was .under oath to keep good guard of the prisoners in the penitentiary.


James Davis Taylor: If the Solicitor General will kindly permit me to proceed without interrupting me I think I shall be able to show before I conclude that there is good ground for him to believe that persons who are nearer to him have also been dis-regardEul of their oaths in this connection. Mr. Bourke proceeds to say in this second statement:
I have just received the blue book and find, your quotation, as given in the ' Columbian ' a few days ago, correct. The die is now cast. The inspectors have" left me no choice. I must remain under the cloud which they and their satellites have generated over me or appeal to the public. It may be said I should ask for an investigation. The value of an investigation depends entirely on the character and honour of the man conducting it From long experience and close observation of penitentiary investigations I am sorry to have to say I have not to-day one shred of confidence in them. A penitentiary investigation appears to me as a man clothed with authority to find out certain facts. He goes to work with a whitewash brush in one hand and a tar brush in the other and seeks diligently for everything but the facts required. If by any chance he finds these facts he applies the brush-the whitewash to those he likes, the tar to those he dislikes.
I have another objection to such investigations. I am strongly of opinion that their frequency and methods connected with them are largely responsible for the demoralized condition of that service.
Then he proceeds to moralize, which it is not necessary for me to read, and he concludes in this way:
The Bill Miner case alone would not give this opportunity. It is but an incident. I shall begin at once to collect and arrange my facts and when this is done which will probably be in a few weeks, I shall hand all to the press.
I submit that this statement by Mr. Bourke, which seems to have been brought 30



[Stage Direction]
to the attention of the department here, calls for a serious report to this House regarding the facts connected with this occurrence in British Columbia and as to what the department knows about it. The current report at New Westminster-for which I do not vouch because there is no way by which we can verify it except by the department giving us the facts in it3 possession-has been published in the press from time to time, as current news of this kind usually is, and that current report is to the effect that Bill Miner in his first train robbery-because he committed two in British Columbia-secured a quantity of valuable securities, and that the owners of these bonds endeavoured to induce him to state what he had done with them, but that he refused to make any communication unless he was released. Further, that certain persons, presumably detectives, were permitted to visit him in the penitentiary on several occasions before he escaped, or appeared to escape; that these persons were still in New Westeminster when he did escape, and that a few weeks before his escape his hair and moustache were allowed to grow, and at a later period he was allowed freedom from the interior of the prison, where criminals of his character are confined, and given the comparative liberty of the brick yard.
Mr. W. CHISHOLM.: Did Mr. Bourke state or insinuate anything of that kind?


James Davis Taylor: I think I am making a statement so serious that I should not be interrupted. Mr. Bourke did not say that, so far as I know, but I say that it is common report.


William Chisholm: Mr. Bourke will not say so.


James Davis Taylor: It is common report, and if the hon. gentleman has any further information it is his duty to disclose it. Before I have done with this business I propose to ask for an inquiry, and if that inquiry is granted, I shall see that the hon. gentleman is summoned as a witness. But in the meantime I would ask him not to interrupt the proceedings. The current report is that the very afternoon Miner escaped the fact was wired to the department at Ottawa and when the next day no answer was received, another message was sent to the department urging it to give a prompt reply and asking that a liberal reward be offered for his recapture. Not only one, but three, four, five and six days passed before the department at Ottawa was heard from and before a reward was offered; and when a reward was offered it was the paltry sum of $500 for the recapture of a desperado known all over the North American continent and whose liberty would be cheap to him at ten times that sum.


EDITION
Mr. TALBOT.: And his moustache was so grown you would not recognize him.


James Davis Taylor: Apparently the hon. gentlemen who sit behind and support those responsible for the Justice Department see nothing but a subject for a slim joke in the circumstances I have related. I ask these hon. gentlemen who treat this as a joke if there be any crime in the calendar which they would condemn, when they treat as a matter for merriment the allegation that by the use of a golden key you may unlock the door of a penitentiary and allow to escape a criminal who had committed an offence so grave that pardon for it was out of the question. I am surprised that this matter should be treated in a spirit of levity by any one in this House. This escape of Miner is unique in this respect, that he was the only prisoner who ever got away from British Columbia with the exception of two halfbreeds who escaped from Wright's island, and one of them was recaptured a few days ago. Before this episode, such a thing as a clean getaway was unknown, because escaped prisoners were always caught again. We have in these rumours, all of which have found their way into the press, and in the personal statement of ex-Deputy Warden Bourke that Bill Miner did not escape, but was handed out, sufficient grounds for an investigation, not only into the management of the penitentiary, but into the connecting links between the Department of Justice and the penitentiary at Westminster, and we are entitled to be informed how it is that grave incidents connected with the visit of the inspector previous to the departure of Bill Miner were not reported to this department.


Jacques Bureau: Does the hon. gentleman make the statement that shortly prior to the. escape of Bill Miner there was a visit of the inspector to the penitentiary?


James Davis Taylor: I have it in the Auditor General's Report here, which gives the date of the visit


Jacques Bureau: I am not disputing the statement. I did not understand what the hon. gentleman said.


James Davis Taylor: I verified it from the Auditor General's Report before mentioning it in this House. The reason I asked if there was any particular incidents connected with the retirement of a couple of the guards shortly prior to Miner's escape, is because the story is current that one of those guards was found to have addressed to him a communication for Bill Miner, enclosing money, and that in consequence of this discovery he was told to resign; yet we are told now this man resigned voluntarily and his resignation was accepted.


Mr.  J. D.@: 


Jacques Bureau: Does the hon. gentleman know the name of the guard?


James Davis Taylor: His name was Ter-roux and I have personal information as to the cause of his retirement. A close friend of his came to me, as a newspaper man in New Westminster, and begged that if we heard anything about his retirement we should not publish it because the poor fellow had been caught in the indiscretion of doing a little for a prisoner and was told he should resign. Later on it was alleged that he was acting as the go-between between some one on the outside of the penitentiary and Bill Miner. My information was that when the Terroux incident was reported, the inspector was actually present in the penitentiary, and that was what led me to ask in this House the other day whether the department had any knowledge of any communication from outside the penitentiary with convict Miner prior to his escape. The answer given me was 'No,' which would indicate that this incident of a receipt of a money letter by Miner was not communicated to the department; that the report was wrong that detectives were permitted to go into the cell and interview Miner there.
The answer I have received gives the contradiction to the story of the detectives which I have mentioned here to-night. I am aware of the discrepancy between this statement and that of the late deputy warden of New Westminster. But I say the situation is so grave, the whole chain of circumstances connected with Bill Miner's escape was so suspicious, even before that ex-deputy warden came forward with his extraordinary statements, that there is serious ground for some kind of inquiry so that this matter may be disposed of. I think the Minister of Justice cannot afford to let an incident like this be dismissed with a laugh on the part of his supporters. I do not think the Minister of Justice could have had the slightest suspicion of any thing of this kind having occurred without taking drastic measures immediately. 1 have confidence in the integrity of the head of that department. But the answer I have-received here, and on a former occasion, leads me to believe that his subordinates have not conveyed to him the information which he should have received. Therefore I ask the minister, as the responsible head of the department to take steps to make a full inquiry and to see that the inquiry is conducted by some other person than the inspector who is now writing to Mr. Bourke, but who stands arraigned on the grave statement of Mr. Bourke to the public press.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: I shall not attempt to make an answer to the observations of the hon. gentleman (Mr. J. D. Taylor), as I have not been able to hear them. But I

welcome the opportunity to make to this committee a statement of the circumstances connected with the escape of this particular convict. I should say first that it was not only the only escape that had taken place that summer from this institution. The warden, Col. White, a gentleman who had been in charge of the penitentiary in British Columbia for many years, was at that time unable to discharge the duties of his position, from a serious illness which not only confined him to his room and his bed, but made it impossible to communicate with him on matters of business, and which afterwards turned out to be his final illness. In consequence of that illness the care and charge of the institution had devolved upon the deputy warden. Mr. Bourke had been an official in the service from 1886; he was a man, at all events of long experience, who had gone from the penitentiary in Manitoba to the penitentiary in British Columbia, and was a trusted official of the public service. There had been more than one previous escape that summer under circumstances which, at all events, seemed to indicate that there was * a looseness of discipline, a lack of care, an absence of proper instructions to the guards in such a responsible position, and having charge of men of the character of convicts. After these previous escapes had taken place I was not a little taken aback, I am willing to admit, when, on the evening of 8th of August, 1907, a telegram was received from Mr. Bourke stating that four prisoners had escaped, giving no names, giving no particulars, and no indication of what was being done, or could be done, if anything could be done, to effect a recapture. The inspector, Mr. Dawson, was at that time upon official duties in Kingston, Ontario. The other inspector, Mr. Stewart, was in Ottawa; and he and I consulted with reference to what should be done with regard to the condition of things which appeared to exist in British Columbia. We did not doubt that without toy instructions from Ottawa there would be at once every possible effort made by the acting warden, and by the guards and officials in charge of the institution, in so far as guards could be spared, to scour the country in every direction, and to make every possible effort to effect a recapture. I do not doubt that that was done. I did not doubt, upon the reports which subsequently were received, that every possible exertion was made by Mr. Bourke and those who were acting under him, to discover traces of the escaped ^prisoners and to effect a recapture. And I attributed to the excitement that such an occurrence necessarily would cause, and to the efforts which were undoubtedly made by all who were in charge to secure the recapture of the prisoners, if possible-I attributed I say, to that circumstance the fact that no 30i
additional communication came from Mr. Bourke on the subject until the 12th of August. But the extent of the message which then came, and which for the first time gave the slightest hint that Miner was one of those that had escaped, was a telegram which Mr. Bourke despatched on the 11th of August. When it reached Ottawa it was not addressed, as it ought to have been, and as I understand Mr. Bourke says his original message was addressed, to the inspectors, but it was addressed to Mr. Dawson individually. On receipt at Ottawa, instead of being delivered to me, or to Mr. Stewart, or to the department, it was repeated to Mr. Dawson at Kingston, and for that reason there was a delay in the delivery of that telegram of some hours, over night, and possibly some portion of a day. But immediately on that telegram being sent by Mr. Dawson to Mr. Stewart, and upon its reaching Ottawa, and upon my becoming acquainted with the fact that Miner was one of those that had escaped, I sent for Mr. Sherwood, the commissioner of Dominion police, and directed him at once to offer a reward for the apprehension of Miner, and to communicate immediately with a man who had recently been in the service, Mr. Chamberlain, of the Dominion Police, who had a few months before gone to Vancouver, and who was there in the position, I think, of chief of police for that city. That was done. Col. Sherwood acted with promptness, and without loss of even one hour. From the time when the first intimation came to us at Ottawa that Miner had escaped, every possible exertion was made, in the offer of a reward, and in securing the services of the best man we knew who could be obtained for the work, Mr. Chamberlain, to endeavour to assist the officials of the penitentiary to discover some traces of the escaped prisoners. These efforts turned out to be unavailing, the prisoners who escaped on that afternoon have not been found up to the present time. A reward was offered, the search continued until it was useless to search longer. Looking back after the event, and with the memory of the depositions which afterwards were taken, and of the exertions which were afterwards made by the officials, I am not able to see in any respect how any thing more could have been done after the escape had taken place by any of the officials of the penitentiary or of the department, in the effort to retrieve the misfortune which had fallen upon the institution and upon the country by the escape.
Mr. Dawson was sent at the earliest moment he could be spared from his duties in Eastern Canada to New Westminster to take charge of the institution. He arrived there on the 27th August. At once, in his

capacity as inspector, he assumed charge of the institution. He remained there until some time in the following December endeavouring to put that institution upon a more satisfactory footing in matter of discipline, in the matter of reorganization, and in endeavoring to find out by a long, patient, painstaking investigation what the trouble was and what was the explanation of the numerous escapes which had taken place during that summer. That investigation was conducted by Mr. Dawson under oath, exercising the powers which the Penitentiary Act confers upon him. The depositions of the witnesses were forwarded to Ottawa, -were carefully examined by myself and are on the files of the department. As a result of that investigation in which a most careful effort was made to ascertain the whole truth of this matter, and to find out if possible, where the blame lay, it was thought that there must be some change in the management of the institution. Four prisoners scarcely walk out of a penitentiary or escape through a hole dug under the palisade in open daylight under the very eyes of guards or officials without there being somebody to blame. Mr. Bourke now speaks of the use of a whitewash brush or of a tar brush in every investigation, and speaks as if it were a question as to which had been applied to the officials in this case. I can only say that certainly no tar brush was applied to Mr. Bourke. He was the man in charge, the responsibility rested primarily and to a greater extent upon him than upon any one else. I do not mean that his eye was watching when the escape took place, but it was his duty, his business, his power and right, to assign the different gangs of convicts to the different guards about the institution. It was he who directed where the men were to work upon any given day, what guard, or guards, were to be in charge, who stationed the officials and who was, in that sense, responsible. Mr. Bourke's resignation was not demanded. Mr. Bourke was not dismissed. Mr. Bourke was allowed to retire and was given his retiring allowance calculated upon the full basis of his service. He thought that the rule which, in some instances, had been, years ago, applied to officials in the service by which, in calculating the amount of their superannuation or retiring allowance, ten years was added to their actual period of service, ought to have been applied to in his case. He asked that ten years should be added to his years of service for the purpose of computing his superannuation or retiring allowance. I had to tell him that that had never been [DOT]done by this government, that, as a matter of policy, I, at any rate, was opposed to the whole pension system and that in so far as his proposition was concerned I [DOT]could not recommend the granting of what Mr. AYLESWORTH.
he asked. Mr. Bourke, in his letters to the newspapers on this subject says, according to one of the clippings before me, that his quarrel in this matter-he calls it his quarrel-is with the inspectors. He says:
My quarrel is with the employees and the officials of penitentiary service, not with the government or Minister of Justice.
Mr. Bourke has a grievance. Mr. Bourke complains that ten years was not added to his service in addition to the actual number of years that he had served in computing his retiring allowance or superannuation. I can only attribute to his feeling of not being dealt with as he thinks he ought to have been the course which he has recently seen fit to take in regard to this matter. He takes offence, or he objects to the remarks which have been made by the inspectors in their annual report, and which have been referred to. That language is, as it purports to be, the language of the inspectors themselves. They say in their report to me:
The unusual number of escapes is a matter of extreme regret. All occurred at British Columbia penitentiary, and were due to general lack of discipline and to disregard of the prison regulations. The staff of the penitentiary has been reorganized, and several subsequent attempts to mutiny and escape have been frustrated. The tendency of some officers to act upon their individual judgment, in defiance of the established regulations, which are the product of decades of experience, invariably leads to disastrous results. The superior officer who disregards the instructions and regulations by which he is governed cannot enforce obedience from subordinates who naturally exercise the same right of private judgment in the discharge of their duties. The successful commander is he who has first learned to obey.
I did not pen these words. I read them, they were put before me, I approved them then and I approve them now. I think the circumstances called for at least that amount of comment. But, Mr. Bourke, seeing these statements or comments in the report of the inspectors, appears to have rushed into the newspapers; in fact, if I am to credit the statements which he makes in either an interview or a signed letter published in the Daily ' Columbian ' of New Westminster on the 3rd of February, he is appealing to public opinion to right him in this matter. I can only say that, seeing as I did on the 29th of January, in the Eastern Canadian newspapers, a telegraphic item that Mr. Bourke stated that he was in a position to make sensational disclosures, I immediately, upon my reaching Ottawa, having read this statement on the train coming to Ottawa, instructed the inspectors to communicate with Mr. Bourke and to demand-to demand as a right- that he should put the department in pos-

session of any information whatever which he had. It is true that Mr. Bourke gave evidence in this matter while the occurrences were fresh. Mr. Bourke was examined at great length before Mr. Dawson in the investigation which took place in the fall of 1907 and while the events were fresh in the minds of everybody. His evidence is upon file in the department and he was sworn not only to answer the questions that were put to him, but to tell the whole truth in regard to this matter. If, notwithstanding his duty as an official of the department and the oath under which he was testifying, he kept back material circumstances which he did not then disclose, it seems to me the disclosure of those circumstances now will come from him with far less weight than if he had told them when under oath to tell the whole truth. Mr. Bourke was written to on January 30 in these terms :
Dear Sir,-An item appeared in a few of the Ontario newspapers yesterday stating that you are in a position to make disclosures regarding the escape of Bill Miner on August 8, 1907.	_	.
For the information of the minister will you please furnish us at once with a statement of any information you may possess regarding the matter, that you have not already disclosed ?
That letter has not yet, I suppose, had time, in the course of post, to produce an answer here; at all events no answer has yet come. But Mr. Bourke in the meantime has not thought fit to keep silent; he has communicated to the newspapers in the way indicated and yesterday copies of the British Columbia newspapers of February 3, containing the substance of interviews with him or articles written by him reached Ottawa and were seen by me. I refer only to one thing in the communication which the hon. gentleman who has just addressed the committee has in part, or possibly in whole, read. Mr. Bourke speaking of investigations, says:
I have another objection to such investigations. I am strongly of opinion that their frequency and the methods connected with them are largely responsible for the demoralized condition of that service.
I do not know to what Mr. Bourke refers in speaking of frequency. I had not been in charge of the Department of Justice much more than a year when this investigation took place in the fall of 1907, but I have asked those who have been connected with the department for many years in regard to the frequency of investigations referred to by Mr. Bourke and I am told that for more than twelve years there had never been a single investigation in the penitentiary of British Columbia, or occasion for it. until these repeated and numerous escapes in the summer of 1907 called for investigation and inquiry. In these circumstances I am at a loss to understand what is meant by this allusion to these frequent investigations, and I can only say in regard to the attitude which Mr. Bourke has seen fit to take in this whole matter, that if he had communicated directly with the department, either upon the occasion of the escape itself, or upon the occasion of the subsequent investigation, or upon the occasion of his application for a retiring allowance and superannuation or at this date, and before he had resorted to the newspapers for his vindication his representations would have received the most careful attention and consideration which it was in my power to give.
Allusions are made, hints are thrown out,
I do not know but statements have been made, it may be that it has been in so many words charged that this was no real escape on the part of the malefactor Miner, that this was something connived at, something assisted by some one in connection with the institution, or some one of the authorities. I can say nothing in that respect except what I know. When a general charge is levelled at everybody at large and it is said that somebody connived, somebody assisted, somebody helped,
I do not know who is meant. I can speak for myself at all events and I think I can speak for the officials of the penitentiaries branch of the Department of Justice and repudiate any such insinuation and say that there is not one word, one breath, of foundation for it. Reference is made I understand, to some rumour or story or canard to the effect that there were bonds hidden, stolen property, the secret of whose hiding place was known to Miner and that there was some arrangement, understanding, proposition or suggestion that if there were disclosure of that secret by him his escape would be winked at, he would be allowed to go. There was some allusion to such a thing by some witnesses in the investigation to which I referred. An effort was made to trace the thing up to find if there was the remotest ground or reason under the sun for thinking that any such thing had taken place. It was investigated, so far as was possible to investigate such a shadowy vague and unsubstantial rumour, and it was found to be exactly what I described, absolutely unfounded. If Mr. Bourke has information in regard to the existence of any such understanding, I wish certainly that he would make it known. It is my desire, it must be the desire of every member of this committee, it must be the desire of every citizen of this country who has its welfare or the enforcement of its laws at heart that if there be the slightest reason for supposing even that such a thing is a fact, those reasons should be known and the matter should be put

before this House and before the public. I hope at any rate that if Mr. Bourke is possessed of any information whatever which he has not already disclosed he will respond to the demand which has been made upon him and give us the benefit of that information at once.
There has not been on the part of the department here or of the inspectors or of myself or any one in authority at Ottawa, any delay any laxity, any resting on our oars ; from the very hour when the first knowledge that action was taken and everything was done that could be done in the effort to find the man and to restore him to the institution from which he had gene.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to contrast the very interesting and important statement just made by the minister with the manner in which we were endeavoured to be put off by the Solicitor General when I raised this question an hour ago. I would like to put it to the committee if the statement just made by the Minister of Justice does not warrant the course I took in insisting that we should have an explanation upon this subject. If it does not condemn the attitude of the Solicitor General, who must have known the facts which have just been stated to the House by the Minister of Justice and yet deliberately concealed them from this committee when challenged and invited over and over again by me to give an explanation on this subject


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman must not use the term ' deliberately conceal ' in the House.


James Davis Taylor: If I have gone beyond the bounds of parliamentary decorum, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the term ' deliberately concealed ' from the House, but I wish to say that when an hon. minister is entrusted with the duty of putting estimates through this House, and gives answers as of his own knowledge to questions put to him by a member of the House, he should at least be posted; and that we are entitled to view with distrust other statements when we find him deliberately disposing of a great question like this with the statement that there is nothing in it, in view of the fact that the answer of the Minister of Justice a few moments afterwards shows that there is a great deal in it, and that the department was fully informed on it when the Solicitor General was not. I would like, to correct the hon. Minister of Justice on one point. He says that this was not the first escape from the British Columbia penitentiary, but was only one of a series of escapes. That is an error. The report of his own department shows that there were only six escapes during the year-these four and two subsequently from Wright's Island near the New Westminster peniten-


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: tiary. There were no previous escapes from that penitentiary, so far as I know, or as indicated by the report. To that extent the minister appears to have been misinformed. I would like to call attention to the fact that the most grave passages of the story which I have related to this House have not been dealt with. For instance, the current report in New Westminster is that the guard Theroux was dismissed or ordered to resign because he was found passing communications from the outside to Miner. That has not been dealt with at all, and I submit that we are entitled to an answer as to that. There is also the further report that certain detectives were interviewing Bill Miner. That is either so or not so; I do not know; it is currently reported in New Westminster and that too has not been answered. If we had the positive assurance of the minister that the department never gave permission to any person to go in there and interview Miner, it would do a great deal to clear up the cloud that hangs over this transaction. We have also heard nothing from the hon. minister as to the suggestion that there should be an impartial inquiry into this affair, because, as we have seen, the only answers that have been made so far have been made by the inspector, the very person whom the ex-deputy warden accuses; and therefore, even if he is as innocent as an unborn babe, even if this charge of the ex-deputy warden is simply from pique that his demand for a greater gratuity is not acceded to, it is not proper that the inquiry should be at the hands of the person accused. We should have some statement as to what course the department intends to take, and therefore I woultl suggest that this item should stand until the minister can read ' Hansard ' and learn what has been said here, post himself on the facts and make a statement to this committee.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not be disposed to attach too much credit to statements such as have emanated from Mr. Bourke, seeing that he has had an oppor-, tunity already of giving evidence upon oath and making known any of the alleged facts to which he alludes in his recent statements to the newspapers. The Minister of Justice in speaking of the communication to Mr. Bourke, said that he had demanded from him, not as of grace, but as of right, full information respecting the facts to which Mr. Bourke had made allusion. When we heard the letter read, it did not seem to me that it quite bore out the view of the minister in that regard, because it was couched in the terms of a very polite request rather than of a distinctly stern demand upon this man to make known matters which must have come to his knowledge as an official of the government of this country, if at all. It was: ' Will you please give information

to the department of any of these matters to which you are alluding ? ' It does not seem to me that this is the way in which the government of this country should deal with a man who had made statements of that kind. He was the deputy warden, the acting warden, in charge of this penitentiary at the time the escape took place. Mr. Bourke has said either too much or too little, and I think the answer that ought to be given to him by the government as those responsible to this parliament, would be to summon him at once before a committee of this House to tell upon oath all he knows of this matter. That is the only way to deal with a man who has made the very grave statements that apparently he has made in the newspaper press. This is due to the government, the parliament and the people of this country; because so long as statements of this kind go abroad and remain uninvestiagted or are treated with indifference, they are bound to bring the administration of justice-and the punishment of offenders is strictly a part of it-into contempt. I therefore suggest to the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General that they should take at once into their grave and serious considerations whether this man should not be brought before a committee of this House, and the statements which he has made so frequently in the public press tested by a thorough strict and stern examination of him upon oath in order that he either withdraw or make good.


Jacques Bureau: Replying to the hon. leader of the opposition, I may state that his suggestion will have careful consideration. He knows my position and the position of the Minister of Justice. I do not form part of the Cabinet, and if he will allow me to confer with the minister, I have no doubt the request will be granted. As to my hon. friend, who is the editor of a paper in New Westminster, I am surprised at the attitude he takes when he says I deliberately concealed information which I had from the House. He has no ground for that statement. He asked for the reasons why So-and-So was retired. I gave the information as I had it from the officer in charge of the institution. I have no apology to make for my conduct to this House. I have never tried to conceal or hide anything. Whatever answers I gave were true answers, giving the information that was conveyed to me. As to the details of Miner's escape, the hon. member never asked me to go into the history of it or tell him what passed between the government and the officials. To the questions put I gave the answers. He asked if we had heard any news about Miner. I told him exactly the information as conveyed to me by tne inspector. He asked what the mone.v wras used for. I stated for the purpose?
indicated in the Auditor General's Report. The hon. gentleman comes with bad grace to claim that we are trying to conceal anything or that we are not true to our trust before the House when he takes common report from the streets, when he takes the stuff he fills his paper with.
The hon. gentleman takes common rumour and sets that against the statement of a man examined under oath. He does this to suit his purpose, and it comes with bad grace from one who will do this, to throw suspicion on the honesty and the loyalty of those who represent the Department of Justice. My answer to questions on the estimates, I admit, may not be as clear as they should be, and I admit that I may at times weary some members of the committee by asking them to repeat their questions, but my hon. friend must not forget that when I am talking English I am not talking my mother tongue, and I think that there is sufficient patience and courtesy in this House to bear with me under the circumstances. At times I may make use of a word which is not technically correct, but when I do so, I do not think that warrants any hon. gentleman in taking advantage of my lack of knowledge and saying that 1 have given an offensive answer or have tried to deceive the House. And when my attention is drawn to any slip I may inadvertently make, I think I can rely on the kindness of my neighbour to tell me what is the proper word to use. The hon. member for New Westminster tried to throw a cloud over an official of the Department of Justice, the inspector, Mr. Dawson. The hon. gentleman insinuates that there must have been some connivance between some officer high in authority in the administration of our penitentiaries and the convict Miner. But how could there be any connivance be tween the authorities in Ottawa and the officials in New Westminster? How could there be any plot and conspiracy except by writing or wire? I submit further to the fairness of this committee, who would have been the man at the other end of the line, on the Pacific coast, to hold the strings and be the chief medium in any connivance with the officials in Ottawa? It would certainly be the man highest in authority in the administration of the penitentiaries, Mr. Bourke. And if Mr. Bourke knew that the officials in Ottawa were not doing their duty, if he knew that they were trying to have Miner escape, and did not disclose that when under oath, why does not Mr. Bourke-who wants now to take the public into his confidence and show them how badly he was treated by the department- and what a rascal is the inspector of penitentiaries-why does he not now produce those lettefs published in my hon. friend's paper? I suppose the reason is that he has not got them. There can be no other reason. I am sure he has not got them. I know, from the knowledge I have of the

administration of the Department of Justice, that not a shadow of suspicion ought to be cast on Mr. Dawson the inspector of penitentiaries. There is no man in the whole service who stands higher in the esteem of his chief and of all concerned with the administration of the department than does Mr. Dawson, and I repeat there is no ground for the suspicion cast upon him by the hon. member for New Westminster to-night. If the hon. gentleman has any charges to make, let him make them. It is his duty to do so. If he has any proof, it is his duty to make a charge, and show that among our officials, in whom we have every confidence, there are men who are betraying their trust, and in this way he will give us an opportunity to inquire into the facts and see that justice is meted out.
The hon. gentleman said that just shortly prior to Miner's escape, one of our inspectors had visited the penitentiary. Well, it was the time for his yearly visit. It was in the month of June, when he went to New Westminster to inspect the penitentiary, as he does in that month every year. During that time, the hon. gentleman insinuates, Theroux had letters and money for Miner.
In this way the hon. gentleman tried to convey the impression that the inspector was in connivance with all those people to procure Miner's escape. And all his insinuations are based on what he calls public rumours. In this way he tries to connect the inspector of penitentiaries with what he says was not an escape but the handing out of a prisoner.
The hon. gentleman insists upon the fact that there were detectives who visited the convict Miner shortly prior to his escape. Well. I am informed that there were, but what was the reason? Miner was arrested for the Kamloops hold-up. The detectives wanted him to give evidence on the Mission hold-up because they thought he knew something about it, and in fact was the guilty party. In this attempt to seek information and discover the culprit, I see nothing reprehensible. That is done in every penitentiary when we believe that convicts can give important information which will lead to the discovery and arrest of criminals.


Robert Laird Borden: When did the visits of these detectives take place?


Jacques Bureau: During the twelve months that proceeded Miner's escape, I am told by the inspector that there were several visits made to him, but that convicts are not allowed to see any one alone. Consequently in every one of these visits the detectives were accompanied by the warden or deputy warden. In this case Mr. Dwight was present with the detectives who visited Miner.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the date of the last visit?


Jacques Bureau: 


Jacques Bureau: I cannot say definitely. The information is given from memory only. But the last interview between Miner and the detectives was in the presence of the warden Dwight; and as he was ill quite a few months prior to Miner's escape, I could not give the exact date.


Robert Laird Borden: Would my hon. friend be good enough to give any information with regard to another fact which was mentioned, and which seems to have some significance, if well founded. I refer to the dismissal of a guard for the alleged offence of having been the means of communication between persons outside and the convict Miner inside the penitentiary?


Jacques Bureau: As far as the department is concerned, the only information we have is the letter of Theroux and there is nothing in that letter stating that his resignation was asked. He sent in his resignation. There is nothing on the files, nor any letters showing that his resignation has been asked for. He had sent in his resignation.


Robert Laird Borden: Was that during Mr. Bourke's regime.


Jacques Bureau: I cannot tell from memory; it was sent in in June or July and it was accepted at once.


Robert Laird Borden: It is important to know whether it was when Mr. Bourke was in charge.


Jacques Bureau: I am not as familiar with this matter as is the Minister of Justice, and I will confer with him and get all the information I can and convey it to the House. I do not want to have it believed, as my very kind friend (Mr. J. D. Taylor) has insinuated, that if the thing was sifted to the bottom the Solicitor General would be found to have connived at the escape of Bill Miner. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor) need not stay awake about that. If the Solicitor General has not conveyed any further information to the House it is due to the fact that the Solicitor General has no further information to convey. There never was on my part any idea of deceiving the House or withholding information from it. I want to say further, that so far as the Department of Justice is concerned, and so far as the Minister of Justice is concerned-and upon that subject I know his views, because we have conferred very often on the question of the officials-there is no man who stands higher and whose character is more above suspicion than Mr. Dawson the inspector who my hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Taylor) has been trying by insinuation and innuendo to connect with this escape.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be important that the Solicitor General should confer with the Minister of Justice about that particular incident.


Jacques Bureau: What incident?


Robert Laird Borden: The incident with reference to the guard Theroux.


Jacques Bureau: I will try and find out the exact state and get all the information available as to why he was permitted to resign.


Robert Laird Borden: And whether or not at the time of his resignation it was known to the department here, or to Mr. Bourke, or whoever was in charge of the institution, that he had been guilty of some offence of this character.


Jacques Bureau: I will get all the records of the department and bring them down.


Robert Laird Borden: If necessary it would justify communication by telegram with the authorities of the penitentiary in British Columbia.


Jacques Bureau: I will do it.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to correct the Solicitor General in his impression that I attributed to him any knowledge of these circumstances. In fact, I was careful to ask him very early in my remarks whether these reports if made would be made to him or to the Minister of Justice, and he replied that they would be made not to him, but to the Minister of Justice, and, therefore, as I thought, he escaped from the situation altogether. I wish to say also that the Solicitor General is very unjust to me when he insinuated that in any sense I reflected on the manner in which he addressed this House or upon the language he used.


Jacques Bureau: You said I deliberately concealed what I knew.


James Davis Taylor: I am sure that in no remarks I have made to this House have I been guilty of rudeness to any hon. member and much less have I been guilty of so gross an offence as to venture to criticise the English of the Solicitor General whose mother tongue is French and who speaks our language so beautifully. I would like to point out that there is still another point not cleared up in this transaction-and if the Solicitor General would try once or twice more to forget his resentment towards me in that I have drawn from him the very interesting information that we have at last succeeded in extracting-if he would forget that and deal with some of the points I put before him it would be very much more to the purpose. There is this other matter on which I would like to have information, and that is whether or not Miner was prepared for departure from the institution prior to his escape. It is the practice in these institutions that when a convict is about to end his term his hair and moustache are
allowed to grow. The story current there is -and I have never heard it denied and it has not been denied by the Solicitor General to-night-that Miner was prepared in these two particulars to remove all traces of a convict from him. We knew nothing of the bonds before, until the Minister of Justice told us that came out in the investigation. The Solicitor General could not tell us that. The report of the visit of the detectives was only a street rumour before, and now the Solicitor General tells us that also is correct. Then we come to this other feature of the story, and I ask whether or not Miner was prepared for departure from the penitentiary two or three weeks before he actually got out. I renew my suggestion that full information respecting all these things should be given before we pass this item.


Jacques Bureau: The information at our disposal is a sworn statement from the oflicer in charge that Miner's hair was less than three-quarters of an inch long when he left the penitentiary.


James Davis Taylor: As a preliminary to this discussion I put this question to the government a short time ago:
Q. Had the department any knowledge of communication from outside the penitentiary with convict Miner prior to his escape.
A. No.
The statement to the House to-night i3 that detectives visited him on a dozen occasions in the year preceding his escape.


Jacques Bureau: I explained that.


James Davis Taylor: How did you explain it?


Jacques Bureau: These detectives when they go on official duty are not considered strangers; they are on special service.


James Davis Taylor: That reminds me that the minister stated to this committee that these detectives had gone to Miner to ask him whether or not he had committed the Mission hold-up. There was no doubt at all in the mind of any person in British Columbia about that; there was the fact stated that Miner was recognized and was well known as the man who did commit the Mission hold-up. Even if it were not known, I submit to any lawyer in this House whether it is a rational statement to be made that detectives would be permitted to go into a cell to interview a convict to obtain evidence from him to incriminate himself That evidence could not be used against him afterwards.


Jacques Bureau: The name of the detective is Bullock and he was trying to get information about the Mission hold up. My hon. friend says it was common knowledge in British Columbia that Miner was the

guilty one in that. Why did not my hon. friend produce that evidence before the the tribunal which tried him.


James Davis Taylor: He was not tried on that charge.


Jacques Bureau: He was not tried because they did not have the evidence. Why did you not give to those interested in the administration of justice the evidence as to that?


James Davis Taylor: He was not tried on that charge.


Jacques Bureau: They could not try him unless they had the evidence.
Mr. .1. D. TAYLOR. He was tried for an offence committed a year later and convicted for that offence and sentenced to life imprisonment. What more could you do to him?


Jacques Bureau: But he may not have been alone in the Mission hold up.


James Davis Taylor: The story is that these bonds were stolen in the Mission hold up and the Solicitor General bears that out.


Jacques Bureau: Certainly, they were trying to know what had been done about it; they were trying to get evidence. If we folded our arms and did nothing the hon. gentleman would say: look at the Department of Justice, it is doing nothing, our lives are not safe on the street, and the ' Columbian ' would have come out with a warning to the people to carry revolvers and daggers to protect themselves because justice was not administered. But when we try to get information, then we are doing wrong, we are guilty of a connivance with wrong. That may be the hon. gentleman's view, but' I do not agree with him.


James Davis Taylor: The minister stated just now, as I understood him, that these bonds were supposed to have been stolen at the Mission hold up, and he said that certainly we were trying to get information about them. Am I correct?


Jacques Bureau: I am informed that the object of the interview with Bullock was to get information from Miner about the property that was stolen, he went to the same source of information as my hon. friend. He is informed by common rumour that there were Australian bonds among that property, and they were trying to get from Miner whether he had any knowledge of what disposition was being made of the property.


Robert Laird Borden: The Solicitor General says, as I understood him, that these detectives were admitted because they were officials.


Jacques Bureau: No, I did not mean that, I said they were on official duty, going there to seek information.


Jacques Bureau: 


Robert Laird Borden: Did they go there at the instance of the government of Canada?


Jacques Bureau: Speaking from memory, these people were trying to investigate this matter at the instance of the railway company, who were then held responsible for the loss by the express company. They were acting on behalf of the company to get all the information they could about the property.


Robert Laird Borden: There seems to be more in the suggestion than one would have gathered from the remarks of the Minister of Justice. * We understood from his remarks that this had been investigated and that there was absolutely nothing in it.


Jacques Bureau: Among the officials of the penitentiary.


William Sora Middlebro: I gather from the Minister of Justice and from the Solicitor General that the whole blame for the escape of the four prisoners is cast upon the deputy warden. In view of that, and in view of the strictures laid upon that gentleman by the commission, in which they say there was an unusual number of escapes due to that gentleman's lack of discipline and lack of enforcing the prison regulations, acting in defiance of the instructions of the department-in view of all that, I would like to ask the department if they still intend to superannuate that gentleman, and give him the same treatment as would be given to any man who was retired without any stain upon his record. I understand that superannuation can only be given to a man who has discharged his duties satisfactorily and maintains his reputation for integrity and honesty.


Jacques Bureau: There was no charge against his reputation. He was accused of being slack in the observance of penitentiary discipline, but that was nothing against his character.


Martin Burrell: As representing a constituency in which this robbery took place, I would like to say one word. I want to express the very strong feeling there was throughout the whole of the province at the desperate character of this man's crime, and to ask hon. gentlemen opposite not to treat this whole matter as if it were one in which we were trying to take a party advantage. Hon. gentlemen opposite have no right to assume that I am trying to make party capital out of an incident in regard to which I value the standard of public justice in Canada more highly than I do party advantage. The feeling in that community was of so grave a character that it was participated in by all men regardless of their party affiliations, and I say that we ought to consider this matter as in-

volving the good name of the whole Dominion, and to appreciate that there is a general desire to clear it up in the interest of justice. That in broad daylight so notorious and so desperate a character as Miner was allowed to escape, and apparently, as has been pointed out by my hon. friend, there is evidence to show that that man's hair was allowed to grow in an unusual way, that he was allowed to escape in broad daylight from a penitentiary equipped, as this was, when the moral effect of his capture and his sentence had been so salutary throughout the whole of British Columbia, then I say the matter is sufficiently grave to require that it be probed to the bottom by the department. I do not know this man Bourke, but I agree with the leader of the opposition in saying that either Bourke has said too much or he has said too little.


William Chisholm: Does the hon. gentleman mean to insinuate that any of the officials of the department were privy to the escape of Miner ?


Martin Burrell: If the hon. gentleman can construe any word that has come out of my mouth to-night in such a way as he suggests, he does not understand the King's English. I am speaking on behalf of my constituents, and expressing the moral effect of this whole affair in British Columbia. I say again that this man Bourke has either said too much or too little, and that the matter is so grave that it should be probed. I think the hon. gentlemen opposite should realize that there are many of us in British Columbia who value the standard and reputation of Canadian justice more than we do party advantage.


William Chisholm: Referring to the statement of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) to the effect that Mr. Bourke said too much or too little, did that hon. gentleman come to his conclusion from the remarks of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor). I wish to put a question to the hon. member for New Westminster. Wil} he undertake to say that Mr. Bourke suggests in any way whatever that the escape of Miner was due to any negligence, improper conduct or connivance of any of the officials of the penitentiary in British Columbia ? I am not here to defend Mr. Bourke. I know Mr. Bourke, or I know of him as a Tory of the Tories. I realize that hon. gentlemen opposite have placed Mr. Bourke in a false light, and I rise for the purpose of protesting against the aspersion which has been cast upon his character. An aspersion has been cast upon his character by reason of the assertions which were made by hon. gentlemen opposite which assertions have been referred to as if they were expressions of opinion by Mr. Bourke himself. The hon. member for New
Westminster went on to explain how it was that Miner had escaped. He read extracts from interviews and letters published in newspapers, from Mr. Bourke and the impression that would be conveyed to the mind of any ordinary hearer is that Mr. Bourke has made these charges. I venture, for one, to say, that Mr. Bourke never made any such charges, that the charges that the hon. member for New Westminster has referred to are charges which were found in the newspaper of which he has been the editor or with which he is connected.


James Davis Taylor: I ask, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Chisholm) is in order in stating that the letters which I read to the House as letters of Mr. Bourke were not letters of Mr. Bourke but fabrications of that newspaper.


William Chisholm: I never said anything of the kind. The point of order is entirely too premature. The impression which was conveyed to the House by the remarks of the hon. gentleman was that the sentiments which he expressed were the sentiments of Mr. Bourke.


James Davis Taylor: I ask your ruling, Mr. Chairman, on the point of order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I did not hear the hon. gentleman's point of order. Would he kindly state it again?


James Davis Taylor: The hon. gentleman stated that whereas I had read to this committee, as statements of Mr. Bourke, the extracts which I did read here, they were not the statements of Mr. Bourke but they were statements of the newspaper with which my name is connected. I say that is a reflection upon my honour as a member of this House.


William Chisholm: The hon. gentleman


Some HON. MEMBERS.: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wm. Chisholm) has the right to explain before the decision is given on the point of order.


William Chisholm: The hon. member for New Westminster objects that I should ascribe certain sentiments to him. I did not ascribe them to him at all, but what I did state was that the remarks that he made in explanation of the escape of Miner, would, under the circumstances convey the impression that Mr. Bourke had given expression to these sentiments. Now, what I said is that he misled the committee -not intentionally


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: You cannot tell that.


William Chisholm: I am willing to grant that it was not done intentionally. But, he misled the committee by quoting

from interviews and letters written by Mr. Bourke, not finding fault in a general way, but interviews and letters which did not contain one single iota of a charge against the penitentiary in any way, shape or form, and then the hon. member for New Westminster supplemented that by a statement of his own.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I ask if this is speaking to the point of order or if it is pressing an argument on another question. We should have the ruling.


William Chisholm: If I have trespassed against the rules of the House I certainly withdraw anything I have said of that character. But the point that I am endeavouring to make is that I know Mr. Bourke, and that whatever may be his faults in so far as discipline is concerned, whatever may be his weakness, I know him to be a strong Conservative, a man of honour and integrity, and it is on that ground that I rise up to protest against the impression that is sought to be created in the minds of hon. members of the House by reason of the remarks made by hon. gentlemen opposite. I am quite sure that Mr. Bourke will exclaim 'save me from my friends' when he reads 'Hansard' to-morrow. The hon. member for New Westminster said that a friend of Mr. Bourke came to the newspaper office and suggested that this thing should not be ventilated in the press.


George Taylor: That is not what I said.


William Chisholm: Mr. Theroux had said that he did not want to have this thing ventilated in the press, but right at once Mr. Bourke goes to the press himself and supplies the series of articles that appeared in the paper. Let any man read those articles and tell me if he can find in them a single charge against the penitentiary. All that these articles do is to ventilate the grievance of Mr. Bourke because he did not receive superannuation. It is true that Mr. Bourke believes that he is entitled to superannuation. It is true that he says that under a previous administration there is a precedent for granting him the superannuation^ That is a debatable point. It may be that morally he is entitled to it. But, as the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) pointed out, there is no case within his knowledge in which such a procedure had been adopted. The whole point is whether they could add time to the time he had already served in order to entitle him to superannuation. Mr. Bourke does not say that he has been treated unjustly or unfairly, but he does say that he is entitled to superannuation, while the Department of Justice say he is not. Whom are we to follow in this matter? Whom are we to suppose right in the matter? We must Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM.
come to the conclusion that the Minister of Justice and the government are right. I merely rose for the purpose of protesting against any aspersion being cast on the character of Mr. Bourke. Whatever may be his weakness as a disciplinarian and as an officer he is a thoroughly honourable man.


Jacques Bureau: I was going to ask hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, as there will be considerable discussion upon this point, to let the item stand as it has been agreed and go on with the items for Alberta. There is only one other item left outside of British Columbia. We can leave that and it will bring us back to the discussion of this matter.
Some resolutions reported.
Hon. Mr. PATERSON moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would the leader of the House kindly tell us what will be taken up to-morrow?


William Paterson: If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) returns to-night from the Forestry Convention in Toronto, the resolution standing in his name, dealing with the Civil Service, will be taken up first. If that is disposed of, it will be followed by the estimates of the Indian and Interior Departments. If the Minister of Agriculture is not here then we will go into supply at once on the Indian and Interior estimates of the Railway Department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 12, 1909.