[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 121) for the relief of John Grant Ridout.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 120) respecting the Windsor, Essex and Lake Shore Rapid Railway Company.-Mr. Clarke, Essex.
Bill (No. 122) to incorporate the Cabano Railway Company.-Mr. Gauvreau.

Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: I beg to move that on Tuesday next the House go into Committee of the Whole on the following resolution, which His Excellency the Governor General recommends to our consideration:-
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the 1'ost Office Act and the Civil Service Act and to provide as follows:-
That in the outside division of the Post Office Department the salaries of messengers, porters, letter-carriers, mail transfer agents or box collectors shall, in grade A be at the rate of $1.75 per day, in grade B at the rate of $2 per day, in grade C at the rate of $2.25 per day, in grade D at the rate of $2.50 per day, in grade E at the rate of $2.75 per day; that the salaries of the fourth-class clerks shall, on appointment, be $500 with annual increases of $100 up to $700; and that if the salary of an stamper and sorter or fourth-class clerk is at present less than $500, it shall forthwith be increased to that minimum.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL.: I beg to give notice to the right hon. the First Minister

that on the earliest opportunity I shall take up the Manitoba boundaries question.



SUPPLY-THE CASSELS COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed adjourned debate on the proposed motion of Mr. Fielding, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair for the House to go into Committee of Supply, and the amendment of Mr. Doherty thereto.
['Bill (No. 119) respecting the Quinze and Blanche River Railway Company.-Mr. Mc-Giverin.\nBill (No. 118) respecting the Anglo-Canadian and Continental Bank.-Mr. Ger-vais.']
Mr. ABTHUE MEIGHEN (Portage La Prairie).: When the House adjourned last night, Mr. Speaker, I had just concluded some references to a debate that took place in this House in 1891, and had quoted from the remarks of one of the supporters of the right hon. gentleman. I had shown that the Liberal party then subscribed to the doctrine that the sins of any one department were attributable to the entire government, that is to say that the Cabinet and the members of the Cabinet collectively were jointly and individually responsible for the delinquencies in the administration of each and every department. I wish to commend that view to the members of the government to-day and to ask the Minister of Marine and the Prime Minister if that doctrine has any application in this instance, and if, when the Minister of Marine asks that he should not be held responsible personally for the faults of his predecessor in office, he will not admit that, as a member of the Cabinet during the time his predecessor was in office, he and the other members of that Cabinet were equally responsible for the appalling abuses of the patronage system, which existed under their direction and control. What is the answer of the government to the charges made? The right hon. the Prime Minister, during the last election, replied that no member of his administration had been charged with any crime. The right hon. gentleman appears to have been converted to a new doctrine since the days of 1891. Now, it appears, he considers himself entirely irresponsible and his colleagues as well, until someone rises in the House and charges that any member of the government has been guilty of theft or some other crime. Let me remind the Prime Minister and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that there are other crimes against public policy besides that of theft. There are other errors of public administration which call for public condemnation besides the taking of money directly from the public coffers or winking at its being taken. If members of the government have been in office during years in succession and have failed to detect theft, if they have failed to exercise that supervision, that organizing, disciplinary and directing power which good government demands, that is a crime against the constitution deserving the condemnation of this House. The only reason that I can see which can be ae-


Glenlyon Campbell: proceed far enough to involve themselves. Considering these restrictions and limitations, it is really little short of marvellous the effect that has been produced by Judge Cassels' investigation and report. Why, here at the eleventh hour, right on the eve of this debate, the Minister of Marine goes through his department, and he reads out a few, not of the black sheep but of the black lambs, and he dismisses them from office; surely something has been accomplished by that. I read in the papers only yesterday that also, on the very eve of this debate, also on this, the eleventh hour, the Minister of Public Works sends a circular throughout the country and warns all those in the employ of his department that they must hereafter not pay excessive prices to tradesmen, that they must hereafter not accept any bribe or any loan or other favour from contractors. Surely these results are worth having. Surely it is worth while to bring these gentlemen to a state of consciousness as to their high duties to the people they represent. Surely these results are worth the whole cost of the investigation, and many times over. That investigation has furthermore accomplished the great result of bringing other members of the Cabinet to a fuller sense of their responsibility, and it has awakened throughout the country a sense of the duty of the people to hold members of the government to their responsibility. Surely these results call for a continuation of the good work. Surely the members of the government and the Prime Minister will respond to the appeal of Mr. Justice Cassels, and enter upon a course that will further enlighten public opinion and bring public opinion to a true sense of its responsibility, and ministers to a true sense of their own responsibility.
Now sir, what reason can be found, what reason within the realm of common sense can be adduced, by any hon. gentleman against such further investigation? No reason has been adduced. There is not a man in this House who will rise and put on his thinking cap and assert that a single reason has been advanced by hon. gentlemen opposite. It is no reason to say that because the Minister of Marine has continued the Conservative policy of deepening the St. Lawrence, has continued the policy of improving the waterways of this country in other parts, therefore the good work that has been done in this department should not be extended to other departments. Surely it was a travesty upon the name of reason itself for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to advance such a hideous argument to the people of this country, and it is no less a travesty on reason, but rather a reflection on the intelligence of this House, that the argument advanced by him should have been Mr. MEIGHEN.
the one argument reiterated by his subservient followers throughout the course of this debate. I stand here and I say that throughout the course of this debate not a single member of the government side of the House has come really to the kernel of the point at all, and shown that actual good would not be accomplished by extending the good work that has been begun, but was stopped so soon.
Now the question, I say, is whether the good wmrk that has been accomplished so far does not warrant a continuation of the investigation. The Minister of Marine has referred to the success of his party in the last election. Another speaker has referred to the slogan of the Liberal party in the last election, that he thought was largely responsible for the government being returned to power, and that was the slogan repeated throughout the press and on the platform, ' Let Laurier finish his work. Now the First Minister, speaking on various platforms throughout Ontario, as reported by his organ the Toronto ' Globe, promised the people that if they would return him to office he would finish his work; he promised that he would find out who the black sheep among his followers were and weed them out of the party. Now, Sir, the First Minister, in order to give a proof of his good faith in that regard, started right at the city of Ottawa and he weeded out Mr. Eraser, who was then candidate for election in this city. Further than that he has not gone; further than that, I want to state and I want to charge, that he has done nothing whatever toward finding out the black sheep amongst his followers, much less weeding them out. He has weeded out a few of the little lambs of his flock, but so far as his political followers are concerned, no step has been taken, visible at all events, that could be considered even a pretext of investigating who are the black sheep amongst them. Now this resolution calls upon the government to go on and fulfil the' pledge they made to the country in this regard, to allow the good work to go on, and to let Laurier finish his work. If they do this all is well. We are satisfied with the results accomplished, though we deplore the nature of those results; but we are satisfied that they are more than commensurate with the equipment allowed Judge Cassels. But if this resolution is rejected by the government then they will give the people of this country every opportunity to find fault with them again for breaking a very important pledge made in the last campaign. This is my final appeal to them:	Let this resolution go
through. If a further investigation is held, no harm will be done; but if they refuse a further investigation, they will be remiss in their duty to the people of this country.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN (Lunenburg).: The observations which I intend to address to

the House this afternoon will differ somewhat from the remarks made by speakers who have preceded me, and will perhaps treat more in detail some of the features of the report presented to parliament by the Civil Service Commission, as well as by the Cassels Commission. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Meighen) has ventured to criticise me for having questioned some of the findings of Mr. Justice Cassels, and it was intimated by one of the speakers last night that I was bound to accept the report of Mr. Justice Cassels simply because he was an appointee of the administration which I support. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to submit to such an opinion being forced upon me. I surely do not consider Mr. Justice Cassels or the Civil Service Commission infallible or immune from error and I am sure that neither Mr. Justice Cassels nor the Civil Service Commission would expect me to do so. I think both reports are open to criticism, that each made mistakes, but still it does not necessarily follow that I wish to impeach the motives of either. The report of the Civil Service Commission and the report of Mr. Justice Cassels have gone a considerable distance in weakening my belief in the wisdom of appointing commissions.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And the reasons perhaps which I have in my mind are not the reasons which hon. gentlemen opposite have in their minds. The report of the Civil Service Commission contained many manifest errors. They allowed themselves, through their carelessness, to reach improper conclusions. They made references, for instance, to the Department of Militia and Defence, without the slightest pretence to a knowledge of the facts which they were discussing. They made findings against the Department of Marine and Fisheries without having made the least effort to acquaint themselves with the facts, and, in many respects the findings of that commission are, to my mind, the findings of three fussy gentlemen who were anxious to report something of a sensational character and were not very anxious whether or not they were in a position to justify their findings. There is another feature of the findings and the procedure of the Cassels commission to which I wish to refer and that is, that in many cases witnesses who were not officials of the department and who appeared before Mr. Justice Cassels were denied counsel, and I submit that in many, many instances witnesses were done a grave injustice. I always did have considerable sympathy with my hon. friend for North Toronto 'Mr. Foster) for 120
being refused counsel on the occasion of the insurance investigation and I would have believed that an injustice had been done him were it not for the fact that at the conclusion of that investigation he publicly himself declared that he had been properly treated by the commission. I think, Mr. Speaker, the Cassels inquiry was certainly


Mr. FOSTER.: Of course, my hon. friend means that I am to take that last assertion in a somewhat Pickwickian sense? Otherwise I may say that I did nothing of the kind.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Cassels inquiry-


George Eulas Foster: I say I did nothing of the kind, and I think my hon. friend will have to retract it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not wish to misrepresent the position of my hon. friend, but, speaking from memory, I thought that during the discussion of that inquiry in this House a statement made by the hon. gentleman expressing his thankfulness to the commission and counsel, Mr. Shepley, was read. I may be mistaken in that, but it is not of very much importance. Now, I say that the inquiry


George Eulas Foster: Do I understand that my hon. friend accepts my word on that?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, I do

was a
very extensive one, it was a very severe one, and as I have said already the crossexamination of witnesses, other than those who were officials of the department, was exceedingly severe and, in manf cases, unfair and resulted in placing upon the records statements that I do not believe were actually correct. The commissioner also, did not consider himself restricted to the terms of the order in council appointing him. He in his wisdom, and I find no fault with that, roamed beyond the powers granted him by the order in council appointing him, and the investigation was sufficient to disclose irregularities and the public interests were amply satisfied by the scope of the inquiry. What was proven? Irregularities on the part of officials were proven. They had been dismised. Incompetency and lack of capacity on the part of certain officials was also amply proven. Some have been dismissed. I think it is quite possible that incompetency has been shown regarding other officials in the service of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and I think the minister might very well take into consideration certain evidence respecting other officials. The findings of the Cassels Commission also disclosed the regrettable fact that the bribery of officials was not an uncommon



thing. Those who were guilty of accepting bribes have been punished or censured in some form or another. I agree with the hon. gentleman (Mr. Doherty) who moved this resolution yesterday, that we should be more inclined to censure the man who gives the bribe than the one who receives it. We should be fair and lenient, I think, in our view respecting the practice of receiving bribes. It is a fact, although the mover of the resolution will probably question it, that in connection with shipping the giving of gratuities, in this case called bribes, is not an uncommon practice and it may be that a great number of the officials who did accept these bribes believed them to be mere gratuities and that they were justified in accepting them because they were simply acting in accordance with a practice common to maritime ports. There should be a uniform standard or code respecting the giving of bribes. It is not an uncommon thing in commercial life. We must not have one code respecting bribes for the guidance of civil servants and another for bank managers, for the managers of trust companies and other people. We must be fair about these matters. I admit thoroughly that these disclosures were most unfortunate and I am sure that members of parliament and Canadians generally will hope that we have seen the last of them. The commissioner's report also disclosed that excessive prices were paid for goods. Now, I think that has been magnified altogether out of its true proportions. For instance, regarding the purchases made at Montreal, I think that, beyond the Merwin purchases, the evidence amply justifies the conclusion formed by Mr. Justice Cassels that on the whole the prices were fair, and they were, in fact, the ordinary prices. He also makes the same remark concerning the purchases made at Sorel. There is no evidence of improper or excessive charges at St. John, New Brunswick. There is very little evidence of excessive charges at the port of Halifax. True there is some, but it does not amount to a great deal. As far as the evidence taken at Quebec is concerned, it certainly amply justifies the finding of Mr. Justice Cassels that the charges there were exorbitant and unfair.
Well ,what is the Department of Marine and Fisheries doing to remedy this matter of excessive charges? Some time ago, and before Mr. Justice Cassels commenced his inquiry, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) appointed Mr. Doutre as the purchasing agent of that department, and Mr. Doutre's duties, so far, have been so well discharged that upon the record we have the commendation of Mr. Justice Cassels. Mr. Doutre himself gave evidence to the effect that a great saving would be Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
made by reason of his being placed in charge of this portion of the department's business. That is what, the department has done to remedy this difficulty. Now, I admit that many of these practices to which reference has been made were irregular and indispensable. But let us be fair; the carrying on of the details of government is conditioned by circumstances which do not obtain in private business, and on many occasions in the future we shall find disclosures of improper conduct on the part of officials and of those who are selling goods to the departments. This, of course, requires vigilance on the part of the minister and his officials. But I am in the judgment of the House when I say that it can never be expected that any minister, or any official, or body of officials, will be able, at all times and on all occasions, to see that any department's business is so transacted as to be utterly beyond criticism.
Now, the resolution before the House asks that this inquiry be extended to other departments. I say that resolution is illogical; it is not supported by reason, for it is based upon the assumption that if irregularities occur in one department they necessarily must occur in another. If all human conduct and transactions were based upon that reasoning, one can readily see to what ridiculous conclusions we should be led. This resolution should not be supported, because there is no accusation or suggestion of wrong-doing as against any other department. It is true that the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Orothers) said, in a moment of counterfeited wrath last evening: 'When the heads of the government are guilty of grand larceny, how can it be expected but that the members of the Civil Service will be guilty of petty larceny?' But I suppose we can regard this merely as political sound and fury signifying nothing, and not intended to prove anything. Another reason why the resolution should not be affirmed is that the proceedings before the Public Accounts Committee during the last four or five years do not disclose irregularities of the magnitude or number of those in the Marine and Fisheries Department. And nothing that has occurred before this committee justifies anybody in making the assertion that inquiry should be made into other departments. The suggestion is further made that this inquiry should be granted because some of the contractors having dealings with the Marine and Fisheries Department and found guilty of irregular and improper practices have dealings with other departments. Supposing that this is absolutely true, does it follow that any other department must concur in this resolution and submit to an inquiry? What was the purpose

of the inquiry in connection with the Marine and Fisheries Department, if the other departments were not intended to receive some lesson from it? The hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) referred to the fact-which I noticed only a few moments ago in the Montreal 'Gazette' of this morning-that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) has issued a circular urging the officers of his department to observe great care and caution in making purchases on behalf of the government both as regards price and quality. They are also cautioned against the acceptance of gifts or favours of any kind from persons having dealings with the department. I naturally assume that the heads of all the other departments must take cognizance of the evidence disclosed during the Cassels' inquiry, and they must take cognizance of the names of the contractors dealing with the Marine and Fisheries Department and found guilty of improper practices, and must be, to some extent at least, guided by that evidence. Again, I say this resolution should not be confirmed, because, after all, what this country requires is that the irregularities prevailing in the past in the Marine and Fisheries Department should cease, as to that department and all others. The country is more interested as to the future than as to the past; and I submit that no good ground whatever can he given for supporting his resoluion.
Now, there are a few things in connection with the Cassels Commission report, with which I wish to deal, perhaps at some length; and possibly I may weary the House, but there are matters referred to in this report which have been the subject of discussion in this House for many years, which have been discussed frequently and persistently by gentlemen of the opposition, which have been constantly referred to_ in the press, and have found their resting place in the political campaign literature,- matters which relate to the policies of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and which, I believe, should he discussed. In dealing with these matters, I propose to take them up almost in the order in which they appear in the report of Mr. Justice Cassels.
One of the severest strictures made by the Civil Service Commission in its_ report two years ago was in connection with the administration of the Lighthouse Board. I think it was in consequence of this particular branch of the Marine and Fisheries Department that the commission of that day made the remark that some people were serving two masters, Scripture to the contrary notwithstanding. Now, this is a very important feature of the work of the Marine and Fisheries Department, and I think that the little time I shall take in discussing it will be justified. The Lighthouse 120i
Board was constituted a few years ago, and consisted of the deputy minister, Mr. Gour-deau, Mr. W. P. Anderson, Commander Spain, Mr. J. F. Fraser, Mr. Hugh Allan, Montreal, representing the Canadian Federation of Shipping, a id Captain J. W. Troupe, of Vancouver, representing^ the Canadian Pacific Railw ly shipping interests on the Pacific coasl, The Civil Service Commission, in dealin j with the Lighthouse Board, severely wnsured them. They say this :
Between June, 1905, and June, 1907, this hoard approved of and passed applications for new and improved aids to navigation amounting to $1,091,813. With the voting away of this vast amount of money the responsible minister had nothing to do. He was simply asked to initial the minutes of the different meetings of this most powerful but irresponsible board. The effect of this state of things is disastrous. It means practically the removing of all responsibility from those to whom extensive powers of administration and expenditures are granted.
When one realizes the enormous pressure being constantly brought to bear on the government of the day in favour of grants and bounties of all kinds, from one end of the country to the other, it would surely seem to be a most unwise thing to create a board with extensive powers which can be and are used in sympathy with this universal outside pressure, and without being accountable to anybody.
The two outside members of this board simply represent the shipping interest, which is their own. They cannot serve the country and themselves equally well in the same matter. The other members of the board are government officials, who, whatever their standing may be, personally or officially, are not independent of political influence or departmental pressure. They are in no proper sense qualified to fill such a position of trust as a seat on this Lighthouse Board should mean-where the most absolute sense of justice, with complete independence, is called for; with a keen desire to administer the people's money with the utmost economy and good judgment, and with all personal considerations sunk.
Mr. Justice Cassels, in dealing with the findings of the Civil Service Commission, commends the improvements in the aids to navigation on the River St. Lawrence. He finds that an injustice was done to the Lighthouse Board by the Royal Commission; that the Lighthouse Board is merely advisory; that the statement that the minister is not responsible is not in accordance with the facts; that the representatives of the shipping interest on the Lighthouse Board were improperly charged by the Royal Commission with serving their own personal interests. J concur most heartily in the finding of Mr. Justice Cassels in respect to the Lighthouse Board. I say that the Royal Commission exhibited gross and unpardonable carelessness and stupidity in making the finding they did, and neither I nor anybody else in this

House can be too severe in condemning their criticisms regarding that board. Inasmuch as very prominent and eminent citizens of this country, such as the Messrs. Allan of Montreal, have been condemned by this report, I think it is only fair that anything they had to say in answer to those charges should be made a matter of public record, and I ask the House to bear with me while I read some of the evidence given by those gentlemen at Montreal before the Cassels Commission. Here is some of the evidence, given by Mr. Hugh Allan:
Q. The Civil Service Commissioners, so-called, made some inquiries and a report, and in that report passed upon the functions and the performance of the duties bv this hoard of which you are a member, and the usefulness, or rather the uselessness of your board? -A. Yes.
Q. I should like to know from you just in a word, what you deem the chief functions of the board?-A. Well, the object of this board is to discuss the recommendations that are sent in to the board by various bodies; and in some cases recommendations, as far as the river and gulf of St. Lawrence, and the coast from Belle Isle to St. John, New Brunswick, embracing the whole of the Bay of Fundy, are concerned, have been made through the Shipping Federation of Canada, an association of shipping men in Montreal comprising all the regular lines of steamships that come to this port, with the exception of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. These recommendations have to a large extent, if not altogether, been based on an inquiry that was held, I think, in 1900, by the then minister of the department, at which the captains of all the regular lines running through the St. Lawrence were asked to give their views with regard to the improvements required in aids to navigation which had become, to a large extent, obsolete, and not at all suitable to the changed conditions that then prevailed and which have since, of course, grown immensely. These recommendations have all been endorsed bv the Shipping Federation, have been passed upon by them, and after being passed at their meetings, have been forwarded to the Lighthouse Board for their consideration. In like manner the recommendations of the people on the Pacific coast i-I am unable to say exactly what their organization is called, but it is practically the same as ours: that is to say Captain Troupe, I think, is the chairman, and all the interests out there are represented, and he calls them together, and they discuss what is required, and any improvements that commend themselves to this board are forwarded to the Lighthouse Board for their consideration. Sometimes individuals write to the minister or the deputy minister, or some member of the department, and they are put on the docket, and discussed, and if they commend themselves to the board, then they are passed, and if not, they are rejected. That is the mode of procedure at the board, and I may say that at that board a very full discussion is always had as to the advisability of every item before it is passed, but it has always been understood that these were recommendations when passed to the minister.
Q. Then the question has arisen out of the Mr. A. K. MACLEAN,
report of the Civil Service Commissioners as to whether or not the action of the board was independent, whether it was not merely the making of record of the views of the shipping interest including the views of individuals who had personal interests to promote?-A. lhat is absolutely without any foundation in fact.
Q. No foundation for it?-A. No.
Q. How could suoh an idea arise? Ap-iarently it was in their minds and their report is based upon it?-A. From what happened at the board meetings there was no reason why any one should come to such conclusions, and I can only imagine that such a conclusion would be arrived at by people who wanted to find fault and could not give any reason for finding fault. I think it is the most fortunate thing that ever happened for the shipping interests of this oountry that that board should have been established as it was. I think that anybody that knows the first thing about navigation, or shipping interests if he does not know anything about navigation, cannot have gone from Montreal to the sea, or from the sea to Montreal, without having foroed upon his attention, even as a passenger in a steamer, what tremendous strides have been made in navigation and how much good has been done. Take merely the most elementary or the most striking instance; to-day the largest steamers can navigate between Montreal and Quebec by day or by night if the weather is clear, if there is no fog or something to prevent them, and they could not have done that before these lights were established. To talk about this being a thing to be deplored in any way is perfectly ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous; I cannot use wards strong enough to express my surprise that any body of men should ever have said such a thing.
Q. The report says, 'And it certainly has not added to the general efficiency of the Marine and Fisheries Deparment/-A. Well, my experience is that the formation of this board has been the occasion of other organizations in the department being formed whereby the whole service has been systematized in a way that it never was before to my knowledge. There may have been in the internal Department of the Marine and Fisheries a body of men who looked after the thing, but I never heard of it, and now the shipping interests are advised of everything of importance; we keep in touch with the officers of the department in regard to everything. If a light goes out it is reported to our pilots and we report it to them. Not only is the lighting better, but the control of the lights is infinitely superior to what it was before.
Q. That report continues-
' Figuring as an impartial and skilled tribunal, passing upon all demands for government monev under the plea of necessary aids to navigation, they can do so without the slightest sense of responsibility, for they absolutely incur none.'
What do you say to that?-A. Well, I call that a miserable insinuation. If a body of men consisting of the principal officers of the department, that have served their lives in the department, and have shown their work that they have done, and if representatives of two interests, such as the shipping interest of the St. Lawrence, representing an enormous

Dumber of vessels and an immense tonnage and great value, are men that are supposed to stoop to acting without any sense of their responsibility. 1 am very sorry for the people who would think so. I think the business community of this country has not fallen that far. We have always had in this country, we have now, and I hope we always will have a very different moral tone from that.
He is then asked as to the value of recommendations made by the board, and he says:
As I said before it has enabled ships to continue their voyages, and therefore from a shipping noint of view it has made the route more economical. The insurance of cargoes also has been reduced, and will, I hope, continue to be reduced, but, of course, insurance companies, like every other business people, have to recoup themselves for losses in the past and their reductions have been gradual from year to year until they get down to a point where they consider they have gone as far as they can go and that will be gauged by tho results of the steamers navigating the St. Lawrence route. If there are accidents they will have to recoup themselves for the accident, but by guarding against those accidents, we will finally reduce the insurance to the lowest possible point.
Then he is asked:
Q. Then in connection with the functions, the performance of the duties of the board and yourself as a member of the board, did anything ever come to your knowledge as evidence of dishonesty on the part of those officials or of any other officials of the department?-A. I never heard anything of it.
Q. The commission to his lordship calls for a report as to acts of dishonesty on the part of any official?-A. I have no knowledge of any.
In this evidence, which is available for the examination of any hon. gentleman, Mr. Hugh Allan, I think, absolutely justifies the increased expenditures made by the Lighthouse Board. He states, regarding the conduct of officials, that he always found them attentive to their duties, discharging them properly, and that in no instance in his experience did he know of any member of the Lighthouse Board or any official in connection with it doing anything that might be termed improper. The evidence of Mr. Hugh Allan was confirmed by that of Mr. Andrew Allan and another gentleman representing the shipping interest of the port of Montreal. Now, my only reason for referring to this is that a very considerable portion of the increased expenditure of the Marine and Fisheries Department has been in connection with aids to navigation.
I presume that one of the matters which the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Crothers) had in his mind last night, when he charged this department with gross extravagance,
was its expenditure in aids to navigation, but I am sure every good Canadian must feel proud of the fact that the Department of Marine and Fisheries inaugurated a progressive policy in respect of the navigation of the St. Lawrence and elsewhere. This House, I am sure, will justify every dollar of that expenditure as being entirely in the interests of the country. The findings of the Civil Service Commission were grossly and manifestly unfair. They reached conclusions without having called for any testimony or information from the members of the Lighthouse Board, and they presumed to make findings without having put themselves in possession of the facts. It was suggested further by the commission that some of the officials in the department and some members of the Lighthouse Board were given to serving1 two masters, Scripture to the contrary notwithstanding, and they insinuated strongly also that these officials were in receipt of gratuities or something of that character. Well, the findings of the Hon. Mr. Justice Cassels are in direct opposition. There is no portion of the evidence taken by him which would justify any charge of misconduct or irregularity on the part of any of the officials of the Lighthouse Board.
The next matter to which I wish to refer is the question of the Willson gas buoys, to which Mr. Justice Cassels refers on page 12 of his report. I am not referring to this matter because of any findings against the department by Mr. Justice Cassels. On the contrary, his findings are in every respect favourable to the department and to the gentleman who manufactures and sells these buoys. But I am inclined to discuss this matter for another reason, and that is that Mr. Justice Cassels dealt with it in an altogether different way from that in which he dealt with another subject of a kindred nature, namely, the diaphone fog signal. He found that there was no evidence of any improper expenditure by Mr. Willson or his employees to reward any of the officials of the Civil Service and promote the interests of the company. He found that the buoys are unquestionably of great value. He was furnished with a statement showing the cost of production of the buoys, and he found that the reasons given in support of the contention that these costs should not be made public were well founded and he declined to make any further public disclosure. I would like here to read the statement quoted by the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) last night as a reason for inquiry into the other departments. That hon. gentleman quoted from remarks made by the hon. member for Grenville and Leeds (Mr. J. D. Reid) some two years ago in this House in which he referred to these particular buoys. And the passage he quoted was . the following:

Up to about two or (three years ago, we had the iPintsch gas system by which we had a permanent light on the gas buoys. It was changed then to the acetylene gas system.
I have not the slightest hesitation in saying, as I see from the Auditor General V Report, that the government have spent in the neighbourhood of $1,000,000 in the fiscal year of 1905 in making these changes, that there has been a very considerable rake-off, say from 25 to 50 per cent. Some one is getting that rake-off.
That was the statement made by the hon. member for Grenville and Leeds more than two years ago charging dishonesty on the pprt of departmental officials, and pretending to know sufficient to justify his making use of the term 'rake-off' and stating even the commission given government officials. But the finding of Mr. Justice Cassels completely disposes of that statement. Well, on statements just as ridiculous, the government are asked to consent to the appointment of another commission to make inquiries concerning the operations of other departments. Returning to Mr. Justice Cassels' report in this connection, what I cannot understand is that Mr. Justice Cassels should have adopted a certain procedure in the case of the gas buoys and another procedure in the case of the fog signals. In the case of the Willson buoys, he decided that it was not necessary to make public their cost. But in the case of the fog signal, he made a contrary ruling and obliged the manufacturer to go into the cost. In the case of the Willson buoys, he held it was not a matter of public importance what profit was made by Mr. Willson, but he found that it was matter of importance what profit the Canadian Fog Signal Company makes. In the case of the Willson buoy he did not invoke his interpretation of the patent law as against Mr. Willson, but he does as against the Canadian Fog Signal Company. I cannot understand this diversity in ruling upon two matters of a very kindred nature. I am inclined to think that his rulings in connection with the Willson gas buoy were the proper ones, and that those made in connection with the Canadian fog signals were not. They certainly could not both have been right.
Hon. gentlemen opposite for many years have had a great deal to say respecting the sale of these buoys to the department. It is a matter which we heard of frequently during the last election and which we often heard of in this House, but strange to say hon. gentlemen opposite, though threatening to investigate this matter in the Public Accounts Committee, have never ventured to make the final plunge and demand an inquiry. It was openly stated that Mr. J. F. Fraser, the commissioner of lights, was undoubtedly profiting by the many purchases of the department from Mr. Willson. The commissioner found there was no jus-Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
tification for this, also that Mr. Willson did not make any expenditure to government officials for the purpose of securing orders for these gas buoys. He also found that there is nothing in the evidence to justify the charge of excessive prices, and his finding with respect to all the purchases made from Mr. Willson, entirely frees the department from any censure in that direction.
Doubtless the purchasing of these buoys involved increased expenditure by the department, but in a word, I say it was a necessary expenditure, it was in the interest of navigation, and all men interested in shipping or marine matters in this country will justify the purchase of these buoys from Mr. Willson. There is no doubt that the cost of equipping the river St. Lawrence and other portions of our coast line with these gas buoys meant that the department would be obliged to pay a higher price than they were paying for the Pintsch buoys which they had been in the habit of purchasing for some years before. But while the cost of the Willson buoys was greater, it was a more efficient buoy, and the department and the country could well stand the increased expenditure. I submit that it is eminently satisfactory to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, to the members of the government and to tbe friends of the government to find that Mr. Justice Cassels, after an exhaustive inquiry into the whole matter, finds that the prices charged were not excessive, that tbe buoys were a great aid to navigation and their use was in the interest of shipping, that there was no improper conduct on the part of any member of the Lighthouse Board, who recommended the purchase of these buoys, and that no official of the department was guilty of any improper conduct in connection therewith. I say, these findings are satisfactory to the government and to the friends of the government, because, for several years, hon. members oppositive have been crying graft, and charging improper and extravagant expenditure in conection with these purchases. The next matter which I wish to take up is the findings of Mr. Justice Cassels concerning the Canadian Fog Signal. The question that he was considering was whether there had been a * lack of conscience ' in connection with this expenditure of the department by dishonesty on the part of the officials. From this point of view, he refused to allow the company, whose business was under consideration, to be represented by counsel. I am instructed that the Canadian Fog Signal Company asked to be heard by counsel. Mr. Cassels refused this. It does strike me that this was somewhat unfair. If Mr. Justice Cassels thought it proper on his part to inquire as to the cost and as to the price of the Diaphone Fog Signal, it was only proper that he should permit tbe owners or manufacturers of this pat-

ented article to be represented by counsel if they -wished. In the case of the Canadian Fog Signal Company Justice Cassels however, comes to the conclusion that there was no ' lack of conscience ' on the part of the officials, and that the whole course of the business of this company with the government had been absolutely regular and honest. Incidentally, he considered the question of manufacturing cost and the price as to which the manufactured product was sold to the government. I submit that, having decided to go into this, he should have gone further and permitted the Canadian Fog Signal Company to give evidence as to the elements of value that went to make up the cost of this manufactured article, and to explain the apparent discrepancy between the actual manufacturing cost and the selling price to the government. And, if that had been done, there would not have been shown the apparent discrepancy which we find to-day upon the records. The Canadian Fog Signal Company are the patentees, owners and manufacturers, of a sound-producing device as an aid to navigation and known as the Diaphone Fog Signal. Mr. Justice Cassels finds that this device is a great aid to navigation. This instrument was highly spoken of by Mr. Hugh Allan, by Mr. Andrew Allan and other gentlemen representing the Montreal shipping interest, in giving their evidence before the commission. Mr. Justice Cassels finds the cost of the device to have been $220, a figure that has been mentioned two or three times by hon. gentleipen opposite without explanation, one would not be surprised at finding hon. gentlemen opposite or people outside of this House criticising-as they might criticise with some degree of fairness-the great discrepancy between the cost and the selling price. Mr. Justice Cassels finds that the royalty paid on this machine was, on the average, $400, and he allows a profit of 100 per cent on the fog signal costing $220. Thus, he finds the total cost to the department should be $840, whereas the department to-day are paying $4,600 for this instrument. Now, I say that that finding is incorrect, it is not justified by the evidence. I say that the inquiry of the commissioner and the counsel representing the department on this occasion did not elicit, and did not attempt to elicit, sufficient facts, and the finding is therefore unfair and unsatisfactory. These instruments must necessarily be purchased from this company in the future, if they are purchased at all. I trust the Department of Marine and Fisheries will not refuse to purchase more of these fog signals-seeing they are such a great aid to navigation- by reason of the finding of Mr. Justice Cassels. I have made the statement that that finding was incorrect, and I think I can prove that in just two or three words.
Let me premise my attempt to prove this by making the statement, that in only one year did the department buy any great number of fog signals from this company. The average number of sales in every year but one, was seven. Putting the profit at the figure named by Mr. Justice Cassels, viz., $220, the total profits for the year would be $1,540. When I tell the House that the evidence discloses the fact that the Canadian Fog Signal Company paid the government alone $500 a year for the use of their testing plant at Toronto, and when I say that the cost .of fuel for operating this testing plant alone was, for some years, over $250, I have shown that more than half the alleged profit was absorbed, even without reference to any other fixed charges of the business. And, in stating these figures, I think, I amply make good my statement that the finding of the commissioner in this respect was absolutely valueless. Certain statements were filed by the Canadian Fog Signal Company as exhibits, during this investigation, and I wish to put on record one or two. One statement showed the receipts and disbursements of the company from October, 1902, to 1908, a statement prepared by Messrs. Barber and Gardner, chartered accountants, and by them certified. This statement shows that the total amount received by the government was $676,000 during all these years. It shows disbursements of $530,000, leaving a balance of $140,000 to be distributed as profits over the same six years, leaving available for dividends, this statement says, $22,600 per annum. This company also filed a statement showing their fixed charges per year, and I wish to put on record a sample statement for the year ending September 30, 1907, showing what were their fixed charges.
Storekeepers' wages	$	624 00Offices and workshop rent	
1,925	04Electric light	
55	08Telephone rent and long distance..	259	87Miss Mathews	
624	00Mr. Wadsworth	
1,200	00
Stationery, printing, typewriting,
books, magazines	
128	53Packing boxes, lumber, &c	
84	53S. L. Gibson	
1,500	00Office furniture	Patent fees	Cartage	Advertising	Insurance and taxes	Telegraph	Patterns	Jigs, tools, gauges, &c	Development and testing	
Testing boat-
Salaries: 1 engineer, 1 wheelman,
2 deckhands (6 months)		1,140 00
Expenses for 6 months, 4 men, 30c.
per day each	 ,
Depreciation, 10 per cent	 1,200 00
Power account at eastern gap.. ..	93 76
Travelling expenses-S. L. Gib-
270 89
30 00 46 50 118 72 368 90 166 63 136 06 482 34 95 38 2,080 40



[Stage Direction]
Now, the commissioner apparently paid no attention to these statements filed by the Canadian Fog Signal Co., showing what were their fixed charges, and the finding, therefore, that this instrument should have been sold for $840 to the department, is I say, absolutely at variance with the facts, and I think very little apology can be made for the commissioner and counsel for making such an error. The company also filed statements showing that for the year ending September 30, 1906, their profits were $8,244, or at the rate of 161 per cent; for the year 1907, their total profits were $32,743.99, or a profit of 40 per cent on the amount received; for the year 1908, the profits were 20 per cent on the amounts received. These profits are, of course, more than the profits which industrial concerns usually require ; but I submit and I am sure any fair-minded member of the House will agree with me, that proprietors of a patented article having a limited sale, are entitled to a profit somewhere in the region of that which they received during the several years I have mentioned, namely, 20 to 40 per cent.
_ There is another feature I wish to mention here in connection w'ith this Fog Signal Co., and I am referring to it solely that it may be placed upon the records; it is a statement showing a comparison of the cost of operation of the English siren which the government had in previous years purchased, and the diaphone at Father Point, Que.:
Comparison of operation of English Siren and 3' Diaphone at Father Point.
Cost per year of oil for power purposes only.
The English siren required for its operations 3-12 II.P. gasoline engines, each using 2 gallons of gasoline per hour. At 600 fog hours per year and 20 cents per gal for oil, the cost
was	Siren....$720
The length of blast was 2} seconds per minute.
The diaphone now in operation requires 1-12 H.P. engine, and at the same figures the cost
for power oil is	Diaphone. 240
The length of blast is 8 seconds per minute.
If the diaphone blast had been kept at 2J seoonds, the cost of oil would be only $75 per
year	Eiaphone
for same length of blasts	 75
The actual saving is $480 per year and is sufficient to pay a standard 3 feet diaphone outfit in less than 10 years. Had the blast been kept the same length the annual saving would have been $645, which would have paid for the diaphone outfit in about 7 years, and a complete new plant with diaphone in 124 years.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Now, Mr. Northey, one of the persons interested in the manufacture of this fog signal, presented to the commission a statement which gives considerable information respecting the sales of these dia-phones, and I wish to read a few clauses from this statement, as it will correct some of the errors which the commission fell into:
When the general business of the Northey Company, Limited, was sold in 1902, I retained the fog signal business, including the basic patent for the diaphone with four other patents purchased in the early part of 1902. My personal experiments and development of the diaphone resulted in the issue of the further patent to me in July, 1902. Before the diaphone was developed the Northey Company had furnished siren plants to the government, at that time the most efficient signals known.
In addition to the first patent issued to me in July, 1903, I applied for a patent in Newfoundland in December, 1903, which was issued in February, 1904. This was acquired by the Fog Signal Company by the agreement ot April 13, 1904, covering also all developments, all Newfoundland contracts and all Canadian government contracts to instal plants in Newfoundland.
Now, Mr. Justice Cassels neglects to take notice of the fact that the instrument which Mr. Northey sold to the department was not. the instrument which he purchased from the American patentees. True, that was the basic patent, and he was still paying a royalty upon it, but he improved that instrument by three or four patents which he subsequently took out himself. It was the basic patent that he bought from some gentleman in the United States and which he improved and sold to this department. Mr. Justice Cassels altogether failed to take that into consideration.


Mr. BOYCE.: What was the price of that fog signal sold to the government, and the cost of production?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The average price was $4,600; the actual cost, taking no account of any other consideration, according to Mr. Justice Cassels, was $220. Now, the diaphone before accepted, had been inspected a number of times by the then minister, and by officers of the Marine and Fisheries Department. This statement goes on to say :
The price tendered for the instrument, as would be apparent to any one, was not being based upon the cost to manufacture, looking at the size of the instrument and its general appearance. Its value was never considered in this way, but on the contrary, on the basis of its value as a new and important scientific invention.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is unfair for hon. gentlemen to urge that the selling price of an instrument of this kind should be determined by the actual cost of manufac-

ture. Mr. Justice Cassels finds that the actual cost of the machinery and labour is $220. Supposing the inventor had devoted 25 years of his life to the development of this machine, supposing he had spent a million dollars in its development, are not these two elements to be taken into consideration in fixing the price of this machine ? Is it not absurd to find that no other consideration was invoked in ascertaining what should be the price except the actual cost of the metal involved in the instrument. The statement goes on to say:
The character of the invention shows that the price is reasonable. It is admitted that the diaphone, as Col. Anderson put it in his evidence before the commission, is the best fog alarm in existence to-day. It marks a distinct advance in inventive science. Its character was explained to the Royal Commission on Lighthouse Administration in England, 1907, by Lord Rayleigh, scientific adviser to Trinity House, i. e., the British Lighthouse Department. In both the diaphone 'and the siren there are elongated apertures through which air is admitted periodically. In the siren these apertures are opened and closed by a revolving drum which passes oyer them. In the diaphone it is a piston which moves backwards and forwards and so alternately covers and uncovers the apertures. The great improvement of the diaphone is in its penetrating power, evenness of pitch, and by the application of certain principles of sound which produce consonance between the diaphone and the horn or resonator.
The commercial value of the diaphone is not to be measured by the cost of the materials and labour that will be required to make the instrument. The cost is excessive, as suggested pnly when the cost of materials alone is considered, but we contend that it is absurd to say that there should be only a profit of fifty per cent on actual materials and labour. This can best be illustrated by the difference in weight of the plant and instrument between the siren and the diaphone. The less effective siren and its plant weighed 9,280 pounds, the diaphone has a shipping weight of only 87 pounds. If the cost of the material is to be the criterion, then the less effective instrument should be entitled to over one hundred times the suggested price of the diaphone. What we contend is that the instrument which with less plant takes the place of the cumbersome instrument which weighs one hundred times as much is on every ground entitled to a higher price than the one it supersedes.
Now, this statement proceeds to make a crmparison of the prices paid by the British government for the siren which this government previously used. The diaphone is, in every respect, a superior instrument. The initial cost is very little more and the annual cost of maintenance and operation is so much less that it more than offsets any difference in the original cost. Mr. Justice Cassels also proceeds to criticise the officials of the department for not knowing the patent law of this country This strikes me as being a peculiar finding, particularly
when it is known that only a few months previous to the time of this examination, the Supreme Court of Canada held, confirming a judgment of the Exchequer Court, in a certain action which was brought in the Exchequer Court by Mr. Justice Cassels on behalf of a client, that a patent could be infringed or lost by reason of the owner refusing to sell. Now, the intepreta-tion of the law, as propounded in this case, was a matter of only recent occurrence. The decision given by the Exchequer Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court was in an action which was brought by a certain client on the advice of Mr. Justice Cassels, then Mr. Walter Cassels. It seems to me that it was unfair to say that the officials of the Department of Marine and Fisheries should have known the patent law, and should have known that it was not what Mr. Justice Cassels thought it was just a few months before that. _ I must hasten on because I find I am taking more time than I intended. But, I wish, very briefly, to refer to a few matters, and one has reference to the purchase of certain silverware by Mr. Coghlin. I will not take time to read the evidence, but I would ask hon. gentlemen, at some time, to read the evidence given by Mr. Coghlin before the commission and also the evidence of Mr. J. M. M. Duff given at Montreal.


George Eulas Foster: Which Mr. Coghlin is it to whom the hon. gentleman refers now?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Mr. Coghlin, sr., the gentleman who sold the goods.


George Eulas Foster: That gave the evidence?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes. The son also gave evidence. This matter has been referred to by hon. gentlemen opposite as an evidence of improper dealings on the part of some departmental officials. There are some curious facts in connection with this transaction. There is no doubt Mr. Coghlin was obliged to refund to the department $1,100 on account of this purchase. This is the way he puts it:
A. In connection with that I may tell you the Auditor General and the deputy minister imposed upon me, absolutely imposed upon me. They summoned me up here to ask me some questions and they said, ' You have overcharged us on these invoices.' I explained matters to them as best I could from memory and they were not satisfied. Then I said, 'What will you be satisfied with? I don't want my name to be made public in this connection, I am not doing this sort of business.' I said, ' How much will you want ? They said so much. I said, ' Give me a cheque,' and I made it out there and then. On inquiry when I got back to the office I found I had not only returned my profit, but $400 or $500 more than the profit I made on the transaction.
Later on Mr. Coghlin says to Mr. Justice Cassels:
The Auditor General was over zealous.

I always was inclined myself to think, after hearing the evidence of this gentleman in the Public Accounts Committee, that there was something in explanation of it, and I think that in all probability he did give the true explanation there. He did not want to have his name used in the newspapers as Ijaving charged excessive prices for these goods, and so, to escape this criticism, he made this refund of money. At the inquiry in Montreal the commission, very properly, I think, appointed an expert accountant to examine many accounts, and this gentleman's name was J. M. M. Duff. I wish to read a few words from the evidence of Mr. Duff respecting the Coghlin purchase:
Q. And as a result what did you find?-A. X saw the original invoices of the goods purchased, I verified the amount of duty and freight paid from vouchers, and I found the charges to the government, I verified the amount of that from the blue-book, and the result is that 1 find after taking off the refund which Mr. Coghlin made the firm received the sum of $2,320.92 for the goods in question, and they cost them in actual cost laid down on the floor of their shop, $2,043.89. Besides that $2,043.89 there would be other expenses, such as freight to deliver the goods in Quebec and cartage and various things, small items.
By Mr. Watson:
Q. What was the percentage of profit in this transaction?-A. It looks to me as if they made no profit at all after giving back the $1,100.
Q. After giving back $1,100?-A. Yes.
Q. The $1,100 would be about what profit?- A. The $1,100 would be giving them about 40 per cent.
Q. 40 per cent?-A. Yes.
Q. That is a large profit?-A. Well, on some things it would be; not on that class of goods.
Q. Not on that class?-A. No, not extraordinary.
There is an explanation which I think must be accepted by the House concerning this matter. I think it is a very fair explanation and affords another instance to show how easy it i-s to have the actual facts perverted or not truthfully and in detail presented to the House or to a committee of the House. Mr. Duff examined the accounts of one concern in Montreal which sold to the steamer 'Arctic,' at the time of her expedition to the north, some $12,000 worth of goods, and the accounts were very severely criticised in this House and before the committee appointed to inquire into the purchases made for the ' Arctic.' But in this sale of $12,000 worth of good? for the steamer ' Arctic,' Mr. Duff found that the total profits were less than $500.
I wish to refer briefly to two or three other matters and one is in connection with Captain Johnson, of Halifax. At page 48 in this report, Mr. Justice Cassels makes this finding:


Mr. A. K.: 


MACLEAN
[Stage Direction]
Captain Johnson, of the steamer ' Lady Laurier ' has to discharge himself from blame in respect of two matters brought to light in the evidence adduced in Halifax. First, in respect to the receipt by him of $1,550, apparently paid him on account of so-called salvage services performed by the ' Lady Laurier ' and the officers and crew for the steamship ' Hestia.'
I say that finding is not correct. There is nothing in the evidence to justify it, and it is most inexplicable how the commissioner came to make such an error. Let me preface my statement by two or three explanatory words. On the 12th of May, 1906, the steamer 'Hestia' was picked up off the Nova Scotia coast in a sinking condition. She was overtaken by the steamer 'Lady Laurier' and towed to Shelbourne roads. The towing took about half a day. The 'Lady Laurier,' after towing this stranded steamer to the shore, left her there and proceeded on her work. Later on, acting on instructions from the department, the 'Lady Laurier' was sent to the scene of the stranded ship with instructions to stand by until she was floated. In the meantime the Halifax Tow Boat Company was engaged to raise the steamer. The only service which the ' Lady Laurier ' performed was to tow the sinking vessel to shore and stand by three or four days while she was being raised. The crew of the ' Lady Laurier ' worked in assisting the salvors to raise the ' Hestia ' and the Halifax Tow Boat Company paid the crew-not Captain Johnson-for work performed by them. Later, according to the evidence, the underwriters made a gratuity to Captain Johnson and the officers of the ship and I wish to read a letter respecting this matter sent to Cunard & Co., of Halifax, from an underwriters' association:
I oonfirm cable sent you to-day as per copy inclosed advising the payment to your credit with Messrs. Williams Deacons Bank, Ltd., of the sum of 200 pounds, the agreed amount to be allowed as gratuities to the captain and officers of the ' Lady Laurier.' You will no doubt arrange promptly for the captain of the ' Lady Laurier ' to receive the equivalent of 150 pounds as his share of the amount, and will in conjunction with the owners? agents apportion and distribute the equivalent of the remaining 50 pounds among the officers.
It will therefore be seen that that $500 was paid by Pickford & Black, the agents of	the ' Hestia '	for labour	performedby	the crew of	the	' Lady	Laurier,'and merely for services rendered, and that $750 was paid to Captain Johnson by the underwriters as a gratuity and $250 to the other officers of	the	' Lady	Laurier.'In	addition $350	were paid	by Pickford & Black for damages done the 'Lady Laurier.' Therefore the findings of Mr. Justice Cassels are not correct. The hon. the leader of the opposition was under the same impression as Mr. Justice Cassels,
because he said last night that the 'Lady Laurier' was under contract at the rate of $400 a day to perform a certain service. I can understand anybody being misled by the evidence unless he went into the evidence thoroughly, but I cannot understand the commissioner making a mistake after the matter was explained to him thoroughly, even although he and Mr. Watson, the counsel, apparently did not wish to get an explanation from several of the witnesses. Captain Johnson of the 'Lady Laurier' received a message from the department to assist in towing the wrecked steamer. The Halifax Tow Boat Company objected, but nevertheless there was an understanding that if no other tow boat was available the 'Lady Laurier' was to do the towing at $400 per day. But she never did the towing.
Mr. MACKENZIE.: Why was that service not performed?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: For the reason that it was performed by the Halifax Tow Boat Company and it was against the policy of the department to allow a government boat to engage in towing if private individuals were ready to do it. Surely Captain Johnson was entitled to the money he received. I think I can safely say that the commander or the crew of a merchant ship is obliged to render salvage service and may claim salvage. If you look on the gratuity of $750 as salvage, I say under our Canadian Shipping Act, Captain Johnson could have recovered that sum as a matter of law. If he was not entitled to it as a matter of law, I think he was a matter of custom. There is precedent f(jr it. On the 10th of July, 1895, a letter was sent to
H.	W. Johnson, the agent of the Marine and Fisheries Department at Halifax:
I have pleasure in informing you that by order in council of the 30th ult, the sum of $250 has been allowed you out of the amount of salvage of the wrecked steamer ' Amsterdam,' in recognition, of the valuable services rendered by you ancT the extra labour performed in connection with this matter. Signed on behalf of the deputy minister.
Here is a case in which by order in council the agent of the department at Halifax received $250 and the man who was superintendent of lights occupying at that time the same position as Captain Johnson does to-day, was paid $500. I say that by custom and by law Captain Johnson was entitled without any departmental regulation prohibiting the same.
Then, there is the case in which Captain Johnson received $400 in connection with the wreck of the 'Mount Temple.' A little over a year ago one of the Canadian Pacific Railway steamers called the 'Mount Temple' went ashore near Lunenburg, Nova Scotia, with a large number of passengers on board. On the morning of the disaster
I made it my business to go to the Marine and Fisheries Department'to urge that the ' Lady Laurier ' be sent to the scene, but the department had already sent the steamer. Under instructions from the department, Captain Johnson made three trips from Halifax to the steamer and rescued six or seven hundred passengers. While there he naturally observed the conditions of the wreck. The Halifax Salvage Association undertook the floating of the ship, and eventually succeeded in floating her. During their operations, which occupied several months, Captain Johnson rendered to the Salvage Association, they say, very valuable advice, and gave them the benefit of information he was able to give by reason of the facts that he was an experienced seaman and had visited the wreck and observed the condition of the ship on three occasions; and when they eventually recovered their salvage, they gave $400 to Captain Johnson, as a gratuity, and not, as it would appear from the findings, for the services rendered by the 'Lady Laurier'. Now, the very most that can be said of the acceptance of this payment by Captain Johnson is that it may be an act perilously neaT being censurable. The payment was made to Captain Johnson for services rendered outside of his official duties, and not as superintendent of lights, as the commissioner says.
I feel that I cannot close without saying a word or two upon the findings of the commissioner respecting the charge made against Mr. Boudreau, the accountant of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The commissioner in his case finds _ the Scotch verdict of not proven. This I think is very much to be regretted. There certainly is no evidence of guilt on the part of Mr. Boudreau, and why the commissioner, after hearing the evidence, should feel justified, in his capacity as a judge, in finding the verdict he did is something I cannot understand. If Mr. Van Felson could not explain clearly every incident in connection with that alleged payment to Mr. Boudreau, the commissioner should have found that Mr. Van Fel-scn was the guilty man. There is hardly an element of evidence in the whole case to justify the shadow of a suspicion against Mr. Boudreau, and I think the finding of the commissioner was both unfortunate and unfair. He should, in clear and unmistakable terms, have acquitted Mr. Boudreau of any guilt in that connection.
There are a great many other features of this report which I would like to discuss, but I find that it would take considerable time, and much to my regret I must conclude my remarks. As I have said, irregularities have been disclosed in the Marine and Fisheries Department. The commissioner, in the concluding portion of hi3 r>-

port, asks what are the remedies for the amelioration of the conditions found to exist, and he makes four very sound and fair suggestions. The first is that the department should have capable and efficient officials. It is perhaps not fair to make! any remarks concerning some of the officials who have been retired; but I cannot help saying that while I entertain for the late deputy minister the most kindly feelings personally, having always found him a kind and agreeable official to have public business with, at the same time I cannot understand how many things could have occurred if he had exercised more than a _ technical responsibility as a deputy minister. It is impossible for a minister of a department, with his time divided by political, parliamentary and executive duties, to have control of the details of his department. Ministers come and go, and I think every minister should always make sure of having in his department a good, able, strong _ man as deputy minister, one who can resist the aggressions of men who operate by corrupt influences, men who at times appear to be friends of the administration, but who are too anxious to do things which easily discredit it. Mr. Justice Cassels also recommends that efficient officials be properly paid. I think that is an excellent recommendation. The government cannot obtain competent men to discharge the public business of a department unless they are prepared to pay them salaries somewhat corresponding to what their capacity and ability would obtain in outside markets. He further suggests that payments to those dealing with the department should be made promptly. I think this a very timely suggestion, and I trust that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries will hereafter see, if possible, that there are not long delays in making payments to those who are the creditors of the government.
In conclusion, let me say that the Department of Marine and Fisheries has for some years been the target of voluminous criticism from hon. gentlemen opposite. It has been a delirious and unbridled criticism. Hon. gentlemen have been very ready to whisper the good points of the administration of that department, and to megaphone the shortcomings of every official of the department. However, this is a good occasion for friends of the administration to be frank with the government and with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Transactions occurred in that department which were censurable. There has been inefficiency on the part of officials in the department as well as in the outside agencies. Friends of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries expect that he will make it sure that such things cannot occur again, and the friends of the administration will Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.
expect every minister to make sure that similar transactions cannot occur in other departments. I have sufficient confidence in the private and official integrity, in the capacity and ability as a departmental administrator, of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, to believe that he will leave nothing undone to correct any irregularities which have characterized his department in the past. From my own personal knowledge, gained by close personal contact with him during the last few years, I am sure has has always been actuated by nothing but the strongest desire to give to this country a progressive and clean administration.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with -more than usual interest to the speech of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean). I wondered what line of argument he would adopt and it has been interesting to follow his argument. I do not want to spend too much time upon that argument, for in the larger part of it he was in a far distant and foreign country and I d,o not propose to follow him in those, to him agreeable excursions. The hon. gentleman has of late lost faith in commissions. I wondered what had brought that about. Evidently he has no good will for the Civil Service Commission or for the Cassels Commission. I will leave the House to form its own judgment as to the reason for his somewhat sudden change of opinion. For a young man it seemed to me that he went a good distance when he characterized the three gentlemen who served on the Civil Service Commission as three fussy old gentlemen. Sometimes, you know, the youth thinks that he knows it all and he is not quite well enough on in years to prevent other people seeing that he thinks he knows it all. It is not so much a fault for a young man to think he knows it all but sometimes it is a great indiscretion to let it be publicly known. I almost think that the veteran gentlemen who formed that commission will still live in fair enjoyment of this world's pleasures and opportunities and will still be fairly well thought of by their not very small circle of old and tried acquaintances, even after this thunderous and ponderous condemnation of them which has been made by the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean).
The hon. gentleman (Mr. A. K. Maclean) went on to show reasons which appealed to him why this resolution should not be carried. I want to criticise just for a moment in all kindness and yet as trenchantly as possible his objections to it. He thought the resolution proposed was illogical and unintelligent. If the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) were here I would sympathize with him for this cutting criticism of the outcome of his public and

legal knowledge and standing. But how is the resolution illogical and how is it unintelligent? If my hon. friend will read it he will see that it is couched in plain English and says what it means. He may disagree with its meaning but in what sense is it illogical? First it says the Civil Service Commission was appointed and that it made certain strictures. Secondly as a result, and I think this comes in logically, the second commission was appointed and the second ^ commission, even according to my hon. friend, has proved that the suggestions made by the first commission were in large measure true, and that the conditions were even worse than the first commission indicated. Now, these two statements are not , illogical neither are they unintelligent. J.he third statement follows from these two. If from a partial investigation in one department there has been all this beneficial exposure, it seems a fair and logical inference to make that if the probe had extended to other departments dealing with the same people we would have equally beneficial results from further investigations. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, who have an eminently logical mind, that you cannot in any way agree with the hon. member for Lunenburg that this is an illogical and unintelligent resolution. I do not ask you to express a ruling in the matter, but I submit that my hon. friend failed to advance good reasons why this resolution should not be carried. What was his first reason? I hat the resolution is illogical and unintelligent. I have dealt with that, I think, satisfactorily._ He says that it is not necessary to think or it is not thinkable that because certain things occur in one case then under similar circumstances they may occur in another case. I have always understood that similar forces under similar circumstances, will produce similar results. It seems fair to argue that with similar forces at work in other departments, under similar circumstances, there will be similar results. The argument is irresistible. What has gone wrong with the mental machinery of my hon. friend from Lunenburg this afternoon? Usually he does not put himself in such a box as that. Something must be the matter, up late last night, here with the rest of us? He says also that another irresistible reason why this should not be gone on with-and I commend this to the hon. member for St. Anne-is because there have been no suggestions of evil in any other department.
Honestly, let me ask my good friend from Lunenburg to revise that statement of his. Has he been in this House for the last four or five years, and not only in this House but in the Public Accounts Committee of this House, only to come to us from the very thick of the fight of these discus-1
sions to tell us that there have been no suggestions of evil doings in other departments than that of Marine and Fisheries? Why, these suggestions have been so frequent, so insistent, so startling, they have been with us whilst we have slept and whilst we have been awake. So common have they been that the constant practice in dealing with them has made of my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) a most successful blocker. Has not the hon. gentleman heard these suggestions, and has he not fought them-manfully, I admit, and according to his lights though on bad grounds -in the Public Accounts Committee? Time and time again he and his valiant brothers in arms-one of whom, we hear, is to be translated to a sphere which will involve him in no more such contests-have stood against these suggestions of wrong-doing. Does not he remember how these three valiant brothers in arms, himself being one, have held the bridge, day and night, against the suggestions-and more than suggestions of wrong-doing in other departments that were made in the Public Accounts Committee? Surely, as I have said, something has gone wrong with my hon. friend's upper storey, or he would never have made such an assertion as that which he made to-day.
. The last reason he gave why this resolution should not be supported is that, while the same contractors are at work for the other departments that were at work for the Department of Marine and Fisheries, yet it is idle to put that forward as a basis for this resolution. The same malign influences of bribe-giving and of getting by means of bribes that which cannot be got by honourable competition, the same contractors and the same system may exist in the other departments that have been shown to exist in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but that, we are told, is no argument for this resolution. If we must reach a conclusion, and if we are to be led by logical process, surely the conclusion must be that the evils that existed in the Marine and Fisheries Department are likely to exist in other departments also. Why not? Is it because the men of the Marine and Fisheries Department are of different natures from those of the Public Works Department? That is unthinkable. We cannot subscribe to such a view, nor do I believe that my hon. friend really thinks that his objection is a valid one. To me, the logic of the case leads all the other way-that the men in the Marine and Fisheries Department are not worse than those in the Public Works, and that, as some men in the Marine Department have been bribed, have fallen, have forfeited their positions as the result of exposure after examination, men in similar employ in the Public Works Department are not necessarily im-

mune from such influences, though the necessary conclusion of my hon. friend s argument is that their immunity is complete. When the microbe is abroad, it is just as apt to attack a person working for the Minister of Public Works as to attack one working for the Minister of Marine and
Fisheries.	.
These are the four reasons according to the hon. member for Lunenburg, why we should not press our resolution. I commend them to you, Mr. Speaker, to this House, to the gentlemen of the press, and through them to the people of .this country, who, I am sure, will value ^ them at their worth. Having exhausted his reasons why this resolution should not pass, my hon. friend took his excursion ticket, and, leaving behind him the last vestige of the question we are discussing, went abroad into a long and interesting disquisition upon the theory of fog signals and their working, their price, and their excellence; he went up and down the St. Lawrence route, and told us how much better that route was than in 1896. He might have made the argument stronger, perhaps, and the explanation more lucid, if he had gone back to 1867 and showed the great advances made in the St. Lawrence navigation from the time of confederation. But what was the hon. gentleman's logical conclusion- and let me present it to my hon. friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) who has a logical brain. Here is the argument: Because an instrument is good, you must not examine into how that instrument was bought and paid for; because the improvement of the navigation of the St. Lawrence is a desirable thing, you must not examine into the methods by which that desirable thing is attained; you must not consider extravagance, because, forsooth, some good has been accomplished. Do we believe that? Does my hon. friend from Lunenburg himself believe it? I do him the justice of thinking that, when he looks at his speech in ' Hansard ' he will see that all this had nothing to do with the question in hand. It is all in line with the glorification club which has sprung into existence on the other side and which seeks diligently to find good things to say in order to draw attention away from things which are very much the opposite. And so, we have presented to us the excellence of the St. Lawrence route, the great power of the diaphone, the fine light of the gas buoy, and the fact that a treaty has been made between Canada and France-all these things have been trotted out in this argument in order to prove that we should not have an investigation into these other departments. I do not think it necessary to labour the argument. As Mr. Justice Cassels said of a case which was brought before him, and after but little evidence concerning it had been Mr. FOSTER.
taken: ' Let us pass on to something else; there is no use in beating a dead horse.' Now, if I come to a logical conclusion and I hope my hon. friend will admit that I can make a fairly good approach to a logical argument-let me try to show the trend of his argument this afternoon and its necessary deduction. He has spent three-quarters of an hour and more trying to show that Judge Cassels made a faulty, inadequate and, in some cases, an absolutely vicious investigation, and came to absolutely wrong conclusions. Yet ne told us that great good had resulted from this investigation. Well, I think that the only thing left for the hon. member for Lunenburg is to move in this House that some other gentlemen be appointed by the government to go over the work that Judge Cassels did so badly and do it better^ If so much that is good has been attained in spite of the faulty method, and bad deductions, and wrong conclusions, of Judge Cassels, then for pity's sake let us put a better man on, go over the ground again and get still more good results. But the richest cream of the whole on the can of milk was this, when my hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean), with grey hairs streaming over his ample brow, with the marks of age and great experience everywhere upon him, sits in judgment on Judge Cassels' opinion with reference to Admiralty law; and then, after he has sat down on it, suddenly wakes up-if he has waked Up yet-to the fact that the Prime Minister sitting just ahead of him has appointed Judge Cassels as judge in appeal in all Admirality cases in this Dominion of Canada. Putting all these things together, I am going to sit right down close by Judge Cassels in this business, and not take any part in the excursions that_ my hon. friend has invited us to take this afternoon. I advise him not to fake these excursions. Sometimes when you are improperly guided and your impulses are not quite to be relied upon, in strange countries and foreign lands you get into difficulty before you know it, and I am afraid that my hon. friend's excursion into Admiralty law has led him into one of those dangerous and unknown places.
I am not going through the course _ of questioning and answering and conclusion with reference to Captain Johnston's case. Would the minister tell me whether Captain Johnston is still in the employ of the government?


Mr. BRODEUR.: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Then he has an officer who has absolutely snapped his finger in the face of the department and in face of his instructions, put money in his pocket, and has kept it there until this day. Why has he been kept there? Is it true that he has been promoted?


An hon. MEMBER.: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Why has he been promoted? Is this the stern chastisement that was to purify and make better the department, and strengthen its discipline, when the commander of one of the high admirality ships says: ' A fig for your orders and your instructions!' I am afraid that discipline is very much threatened in my hon. friend's department, and soon, to lack of organization, lack of direction and lack of conscience, we will also have to add lack of discipline. For how can the master and servant walk together unless they be agreed in the way of instruction and carrying out of instruction? Well, we will leave that for the future.
My hon. friend-and I take the argument here just because he made it-has declared that there ought not to be and that there is not any reason for going into the other departments; that what may have occurred in one is not likely to occur in another. I asked the other day the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he had yet appointed his deputy minister. He said he had not, he had an open mind, he had not decided. Well, there is another point that I wish to bring to his mind. He vaunted himself yesterday for having destroyed the patronage system in his department. Does he mean the system, or the patronage lists? Which is it? When he took the extraordinary _ care of getting his own paid advocate, hired by himself, to introduce into the records of the commission a statement that he had done away with the patronage system so as to gather strength for himself, although it was absolutely foreign to the investigation-when he did that, what is the communication that he sends? Judge Cassels is misled, I think, in making the statement that he has done away with the patronage system. Here is the return to the order, going beyond the scope of the commission and which was obtruded for an obvious reason by Mr. Watson who interrupted the regular work and said:
I desire, my lord, in connection with the matters that have been before your lordship as commissioner in this investigation, to state what I referred to before your lordship at the last sitting at Quebec city. I stated to your lordship at that time that I understood the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had taken official action in abolishing the patronage list. I merely want now to follow that up and to state that I desire to place before your lordship, the offioial notice and statement that I received from the deputy minister, by direction of the minister, showing that that is the fact and that the patronage list has been permanently and absolutely abolished in this department. I will put that upon the record.
Here is the statement sent by Mr. Stanton, assistant deputy minister, to the following effect:
I am, by direction, to inclose for your information a copy of the Hon. Mr. Brodeur's
memorandum to the acting deputy minister, dated the 4th instant, instructing that the patronage files and lists containing names of firms which have been recommended to the department from time to time, are to be disregarded in future.
That is the whole of it. The minister can easily do away with the present files and patronage list and be a thousand miles distant from doing away with the patronage system. But the judge seems to have taken a wrong impression, and to have come to the conclusion that the patronage system was done away with by my hon. friend. Now let me say to him that if he has done or will do, away with the patronage system, fairly and squarely and wholly in his department, he will find no words of commendation moTe hearty from any one than from myself. But I asked him a question the other day, and I put a simple one to the Minister of Public Works, and I find that in each of their answers there are apertures through which you could pass a good sized automobile easily-it all depends on the will of the minister. The patronage system is done away with by my hon. friend, yet his acting deputy, Mr. Desbarets, went down to Halifax, and in the very heat of the election, put on, at the command of Carney & Roche, to aid them in their election, and admitted as such, a hundred extra men that the officers down there state were not necessary. 'Things that occur in one department are not apt to occur in another.' Are they not? What happened in the Intercolonial Department? The very same thing. August of last year saw 1,793 men temporarily employed on the Intercolonial, and the pay-list was $487,000. October saw 2,922 men employed, 1,200 more in a single month, and the pay-roll had gone up from $487,000 to $509,000. The next month the number went down to nearly the normal pay-list, to a little below the normal. In the province of Prince Edward Island the same thing took place on a smaller scale. In the Marine and Fisheries Department, in Halifax County, 92 men were on in August, and in October 288 men were on.
I say again what I have said a dozen times that if the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had a head on him, eyes in his head and a knowledge of the department he must have known that that thing was going on. In the city of Halifax for past years back-I am not going to say how many-the patronage of my hon. friend's department has been almost absolutely in the hands of Messrs. Roche and Carney and the minister knew it and knows it-knew it and' knows it because he mingled with these men. They were here during the session of parliament, he listens to their soft persuasions, and if these do not prevail he gives attentive ear to their menacing threats. But soft persuasion or menacing threat, one way or the other, they get their will. And the Minister of Marine and

Fisheries, but yesterday, paraded his ample skirts as the greatest reformer of the age.
I saw the tinge of shame upon the cheek of my right hon. friend and, although one would have to have a mighty big imagination to assist his vision, I thought I saw it also on the cheek of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, when this Luther of party purity paraded himself yesterday as the great reformer. How cruel of my hon. friend! Why could not he have said that the government has reformed things ? Why could he not have linked his colleagues with him? Is he the superior mind in reformation, the only one in the cabinet, as he appears to he the only one and to have been the only one who was perfectly oblivious to the corruption and knavery in the department over which he presided? These men have nothing to reform! but my hon. friend had a lot to reform. Has he done it? What was one of these reforms ? Wonderful ! He plumed himself that he had kept within his appropriation. Why, the law obliges him to do that. He would be convicted at once of lack of conscience if he did not do it. He would have come ' under the ban of the Civil Service Commission and of Judge Cassels as well. What a splendid reform! Have it painted, let it be put up where generation after generation can see it so that they can be told that in the year of grace, 1808, and in the reign of His Gracious Majesty King Edward VII., a great reformer arose in the Department of Marine and Fisheries and that the reform that he actually carried out was that this last year he had kept within his appropriation! Let me clinch this argument. If this sort _ of thing is done in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and if we have actually proved, out of their own mouths, that it was done in the Railway Department, is there not the very same necessity for an investigation into the Railway Department as there is for an investigation into other departments? I think there is. Let me go back a little farther. What is the whole effort, or rather the double effort, of hon. gentlemen opposite? The first one it to make it appear to the country that the government faced the occasion, was equal to the crisis, instituted an investigation into the working of the departments and punished the malefactors. Is not that what they tried to make us believe? Is not that the gist, is not that the tendency, is not that the purposes of their argument? What is the truth? The simple truth is that for weeks, months, years, we bombarded this government with suggestions, with intimations, warnings, facts, resolutions, Public Accounts investigations going to show that things were not well in the departments, and what reception did we get at the hands of these gentlemen? Did they ever allow Mr. FOSTER.
one of our resolutions to pass? Did they ever grant us an investigation that we asked for? Did they ever fail to block as best they could an investigation in the Public Accounts Committee? Did they ever forward one of our investigations in this House ? No. They met us with the statement :	' It is all froth and fury ;
there is nothing in it; the departments are all right. Peace, peace is the watchword and honesty is the motive. We cannot let you go into this because you are wasting time for nothing, and there is nothing m it. If this accident had not happened you would have had none of this debate here to-day, you would have had no Cassels' Commission and no probing of this department.' I want that to sink Tight into the heart of every man in this House and into the minds of the people of this country. I make the statement once more. If it had not been for the accident, unfor-seen and-oh, pity of pities-unprovided against by the Prime Minister, you would have had no investigation of this department, you would have had no Mr. Cassels and none of the report which we are discussing now. How do I prove that? The Prime Minister stood up in Welland or Niagara and said to the confiding, trustful people: How did the government meet these charges? This is how they met them. We had suspicions that things were not' all right in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, we appointed a commission to investigate them, they found our suspicions .justified; we appointed another commission, Judge Cassels, in order to find out the guilty persons. That is what we did. We did not wait for charges but we did that. What government could do more? That is nearly verbatim et literatim, what my hon. friend said, and every man who listened to him said:	'Laurier is a trump after
all; he did not wait until they made charges before the House; he found out that there was something wrong in the department, he appointed a commission to trace that wrong, it was found that there had been " bad practices, he put another commission to work to find out the bad practisers, and to pick the black sheep out from the white sheep before they would contaminate the whole bunch.' What are the facts? The right hon. Prime Minister refused every resolution, every plea, every argument for an investigation, every fact that we put before him and his government and would not allow us to investigate one of his departments. The Civil Service came to him for an increase of pay. They said: The cost of living has gone up and our salaries have not gone up in proportion. We want more pay. He procrastinated and there is where he fell into the hole. He did not want to meet the question with the knowledge he had as regards the cost of living, and the fact

that salaries had not been raised. Did not the right hon. gentleman know that the cost of living had increased? If he does not know it let him ask one of his officials and he will give him the figures in fifteen minutes. Did not the right hon. gentleman know that salaries had not gone up according as the cost of living had gone up? He had all the knowledge that he wanted, but he procrastinated and he procrastinated by resorting to the medium of a commission. Then he got a commission composed of Messrs. Courtney, Bazin and Fyshe, and he said to them: We are in a great hurry, go and examine into the condition of the Civil Service, the cost of living, their salaries, their system and report to us. Did he ask for any more? Did he tell them in his instructions that he had suspicions that things were going badly in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and would they be kind enough when they dropped into that department to look carefully into its administration? Look at the commission and see if it is there. Study my hon. friend's first angry statement when the commissioners' report came down, when he declared that they had gone into his department without asking his leave and whilst there had gone beyond the scope of their commission? Did he do so or not? Ask the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) who, with all his gallantry, in the full pomp and power of his military surroundings pitched into poor Messrs. Courtney and Fysche, and Bazin, hauled them over the coals and said they went where they had no business to go. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) clenched it all in his own constituency by quoting the words of the commission and giving his legal opinion that they had no right in the world to go into such an examination as they indulged in, in a spirit of mischief, in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. In this House he made the same argument. The commissioners during their investigation into the status of the Civil Service and the working of the system, took it into their heads to lift the lid a little bit. from one of those boiling cauldrons in the Marine Department and, animated if not exhilarated by the stench that came from it, thought they would give a little bit of the perfume to the general public and they did it in their report. Then a critical condition of things arose, then there was peril and crises, then we had the three commissioners backing the opposition charges, then the country pricked up its ears, read the report of a Royal Commission, and the Prime Minister and the other ministers dared not go back of that. But they did not go any further and Mr. Cassels was absolutely restricted. In what way? In his commission what department was at stake? The department 121
of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Who appointed the commissioner? The Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Who appointed the lawyers? The Minister of Marine and Fisheries from his own side of politics, in beautiful illustration of the firmness and thoroughness with which he had set his face against the patronage system. Liberal Conservative lawyers there may have been, perhaps just as good as those appointed, but the spirit of patronage was still there, the minister had not quite got the old Satan under and he appointed two Grits instead of one Grit and a Tory. So with his own commissioner, picked by himself, with his own counsel, picked by himself, with his own papers ladled out to these lawyers to set before the commission as they chose, with these lawyers following every bit of evidence watching for every ambush, the investigation proceeded, and when it came up close to a point where it was warm some one cried hot, hot, and they went off upon some other question. I will give one example. A stone-breaker whose name I think was Reid-not a broken reed but a Reid who broke stones-had a big contract, I think about $50,000, bringing up rocks to Sorel, crushing them in his breaker, and selling them to this munificent department. The investigation was being carried on, the lawyers sat there intent, looking for every clue. All at once the man in giving his evidence said:	I
had to get or I did get all my stone from the county of Rouville. If the ghost of the middle ages had appeared before these lawyers they could not have been more startled -and they did not follow up that clue. Mr. Power was said to have known a great many things about that famous Halliday contract. Mr. Gourdeau said that Mr. Power knew about it and could throw light upon it. It was understood that Mr. Power was to be called. Was he ever called? So 1 could take you through numerous instances in which they shut off just at the right time for fear somebody would be scalded by escaping steam. That was the genesis of the second commission, that was its method and scope and after all we got something out of it. Now these gentlemen have the shamelessness to pose before the people of Canada and say: 'We, of our own free will and accord, did not wait for charges, we sent a commission and a second commission hunting out the evil things and we have purged the departments of all the black sheep-nearly	all the black
sheep at least.' But my right hon. friend who made that solemn promise, did he implement it, did he make an examination in the other departments? Mv hon. friends say there is no reason why that should be done. What were the suggestions, w'hat were the proofs, what were



the allegations, what were the concrete instances that were put before the Public Accounts Committee of this House with reference to the Department of Marine and Fisheries? What was the cry by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the right hon. gentleman? Nothing in it, you shall not have your commission, you shall not have your probing and examination. What is the cry to-day with reference to the other departments, the peculiar argument of the Minister of Marine? You should not touch the other departments. Why? Because you might blast reputations and you might hurt feelings and you might brand people as being dishonest. In heaven's name whilst we are to be humane-hearted, whilst we are to be sympathetic, have we ever yet heard a statesman plead that you should not turn a department wrong side out and fling it to the winds of heaven to purify it because you might find some portions of dust and vileness that you have to characterize as such? That argument is surely no argument. Oh what a feast it would have been for these 'three fussy old gentlemen' if they had just got inside of the Interior Department, if they had been at the coat tails of Mr. Fraser when he landed that most profitable transaction at the expense of the public, when they were on the scent of the land deals of the Burrows and the Adamsons and of those other numerous individuals who have grown rich out of the public franchises of this country, grown rich because the departments did not do their duty and officers; of the departments were recreant to their trust. The right hon. gentleman himself has said that the 20th century is Canada's century. For what? For intelligence as to the conservation of our resources-and yet for years, the right hon. gentleman has seemed to be chiefly desirous of taking out of the control of the country in the shape of its finest franchises as much of our public domain as he possibly could and placing it in private hands. Take your Public Works Department; do you mean to say that no ragged ends have . shown there? No man can deny it. What are you going to do, Mr. Prime Minister? May I ask you, just personally between ourselves, what you propose to do with reference to the men who have stolen money from the public treasury? You appointed Mr. Justice Cassels. You at any rate, when you appointed him, thought he was preeminently the man to do this work, and he has done it. What has he told you? He has told you, Mr. Prime Minister, that the man who bribes is more culpable and more dangerous than the man who takes the bribe. To-day Halliday, according to the judge's statement, has $6,600 of the people's money. Do you propose to get that from Mr. Halliday? The Drolets have paid out $9,000 and more in proved transactions, and Mr. FOSTER.
the judge says that all of that comes out of the public till. Are you going to get it back into the public till? If not, why not? It is not your money; it is the people's money. The taxes of the people, piled up in the strong box, gave you that money, and you are the trustee to see that every cent of it is properly spent, or, if a man steals it, or takes it wrongly, to get it back from him. What are you going to do about it? Are you going to pursue Halliday and get that money back? Are you going to pursue Drolet and get that money back? Are you going to pursue McAvity and get that $35,900 back? When the names of the men who have been bribing your public servants, corrupting them, eating into the honour and manhood of your public service, and have been doing it greedily and systematically, have been exposed, are you going to proceed against them for that money? You do not seem to be getting much of a hustle on about it. That report has been before you for months. You have what you call the greatest Minister of Justice this Canada of ours has ever produced; what is he doing about it? You have a most distinguished and able and erudite Solicitor General; what is he doing about it? Why aTe not these two great powers, who represent the justice of the country in the interest of the people, getting their boots on and going out against these malefactors and getting the people's money back? Why don't you do it? Is it because you share in it


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: Just wait-for party interest and for party advantage? _ If not, why are you so modest about getting after the people's rights, you who are the trustees of the people's interests?
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Kecess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


MANITOBA AND NORTHWESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 81) respecting the Manitoba and Northwestern Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Cash.
On section 1,
Mr. NEELY.: I gave notice that I proposed to amend clause No. 1, but the law clerk informs me that the form of my proposed amendment is not just what it should be and suggests a change. If acceptable to the committee, I would like to change the form of my amendment. The effect is substantially the same.


Mr. LENNOX.: Let it stand over and report progress.


David Bradley Neely: If members of the committee are anxious that no time should he lost in making this change, I have no objection to letting this amendment stand over until Monday. But I see no reason why the amendment should not be considered now.


Mr. CASH.: I am not cavilling about letting the matter stand, but would like to know what this amendment means.


David Bradley Neely: Its effect is to strike out from the Bill that part which has reference to paragraph A, section 9, chapter 52 of the Statutes of 1893.


Mr. GRAHAM.: What part of the line is that?


David Bradley Neely: That part of the Bill which refers to the old charter from York to Prince Albert.


Edward L. Cash: And what is it the law clerk complains of?


David Bradley Neely: Just the form of the amendment-that is all.
Progress reported.


SUPERIOR AND WESTERN ONTARIO RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 78) to incorporate the Superior and Western Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Conmee.
On section 1:
Mr. LENNOX-A number of gentlemen wish to be heard upon this Bill who cannot be here to-night. The Bill could not get through to-night at all events, so I move that the committee report progress upon it. There will be no loss of time on it. We have not much time to-night any how.
Mr. CONMEE.: Has the Bill been distributed as amended?
Mr. LENNOX-I expect so.


James Conmee: What is the object of holding it up ?


Haughton Lennox: It is not going to be held up. But the discussion could not possibly be completed to-night, and I am instructed that a number of gentlemen who want to speak upon it cannot be here at this sitting. There will be no loss of time by a friendly arrangement under which it can stand over. Of course, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Conmee) seriously objects, we will begin to discuss it.


James Conmee: I think the hon. member (Mr. Lennox) is mistaken as to the Bill. I do not think that this is the Bill concerning which he has been instructed. However, he can have his way this time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.
1211	. J |

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee on Bill (No. 102) to incorporate the London and North Western Railway Company.-Mr. Beattie.
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: I am not personally aware whether the Committee on Railways carefully considered this Bill in relation to section 2. Section 2-in order, I suppose, to make absolutely sure that this parliament shall have jurisdiction over this railway, declares that the undertaking is to be a work for the general advantage of Canada. I can understand that a railway wholly within a province might be for the general advantage of Canada; it might be so located as to be likely to become part of a trunk line, or it might have connections which would make it very important and therefore of advantage to the Dominion generally. But I observe that, under this section 8:
The company may lay out, construct and operate a railway of the gauge of four feet eight and one-half inches (a) from a point in or near the city of London, in the county of Middlesex, to a point in or near the town of Sarnia, in the county of Lambton-
This is a comparatively short railway and wholly within the province of Ontario, not connected with any trunk line, and, apparently, not to become part of any great system.
-and (b) from a point in or near the said city of London to a point on Lake Huron, in the county of Huron., passing through or near the towns of Ailsa Craig and Parkhill, or either of them.
That also is purely local in its character. I am not quite sure whether or not it would be well for parliament to lay down the principle that as a steam railway company may be incorporated by this parliament, the very fact of it being a steam railway makes it a work for the general advantage of Canada. But it does seem to me that we ought to have some rule to guide us, we ought to lay down some principle of bringing these to the notice of the committee, because I am not aware of any railway charter which has been granted by this parliament which deals with an undertaking more purely local and provincial in its character than does this Bill.


Mr. HENDERSON.: The committee was perfectly cognizant of the character of this Bill, and considered the question I think very fully. The fact that it touches navigable waters at two points, I believe, weighed in the minds of the members of the committee; at any rate, after very full consideration the Bill was recommended and sent to the House. Nothing was overlooked, it was the fair judgment of the committee that it should pass.


James Conmee: Section 10 provides that the company may build and operate wharfs and other structures, and may operate steamers which naturally, in connection with this line of railway, would be steam ferries. As it connects with other trunk lines the operations of this company and the powers they are asking for, extend beyond the limits of the province.


William Pugsley: Not beyond the limits of the province.


James Conmee: Navigation must mean that, because there is no navigation in that section of the country except beyond the limits of the province.


George Perry Graham: It is true that the representatives of the Ontario government appeared against this Bill and against the one preceding it. If we want to get on I suggest that we let this Bill stand, and when the other gentlemen are here we will discuss the two Bills together. The same principle is in both.


Mr. BEATTIE.: This is not a local line at all, it is connected with several other lines that cross the St. Clair river. It is as much a railway for the general advantage of Canada as any other railway we have in this country. It will have connection with the Pere Marquette. Of course, it was contended that it did not go to the boundary, because it did not go to the centre of the river. That is a foolish argument. There is no line that goes to the centre of the river. It goes to the boundary of Ontario, just as any other line in this country. In fact all the vessels go up through Canadian water; the channel is through the Canadian part of the river. If the Minister of Railways wishes it to be held over, I have no objection.


George Perry Graham: We will put them both through at the next sitting.
Progress reported.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 96) respecting the Kettle River Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Burrell.
Bill (No. 86) respecting the Cobalt Range Railway Company.-Mr. Hodgins.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 114) to incorporate the British Colonial Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 115) for the relief of Victor Eccles Blackhall.-Mr. Sutherland.
Bill (No. 116) for the relief of Annie Louise Coltman.-Mr. Turriff,
David Henderson: Bill (No. 119) respecting the Quinze and Blanche River Railway Company.-Mr. Mc-Giverin.
Bill (No. 118) respecting the Anglo-Canadian and Continental Bank.-Mr. Ger-vais.



SUPPLY-THE MARINE AND FISHERIES DEPARTMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House resumed consideration on the motion of Mr. Fielding to go into Committee of Supply, and the motion of Mr. Doherty in amendment thereto.
["(Translation.) I cannot see how it can be called partial. It bore on all questions relating to the Department of Marine and it was open to the public at large. The hon. leader of the opposition was at liberty to take a hand in it. He is a distinguished lawyer and might have summoned witnesses, questioned or cross-questioned those that were called upon to testify, so as to bring out the whole truth.\nShould it be understood that the leader of the opposition has failed to do his duty? Where was he, what was he about when the commission was travelling from town to town? How is it that we have to-day, from the mouth of the leader of the opposition, the admission that he is not satisfied with the inquiry.\nWell, if so, he can only lay the blame on his own gross negligence. He gets a salary because he is expected to look after public business the whole year round; why did he not- think proper to appear before the commission and do the work the country pays him for ? Thus, on that occasion the hon. leader of the opposition was obviously neglecting his duty.\nThen, if such an investigation costing\n355,000\tdo not answer his expectations, will he be any more satisfied with a general investigation ? Or perhaps he thinks that we are going to order as many inquiries as there are departments.\nThere is a touch of irregularity irj the resolution of the hon. member from St. Anne's. The hon. gentleman acknowledges that the Minister of Marine is not guilty, that he is honest. On the other hand, we heard the hon. member for North Toronto making insinuations and taking to task not only the Minister of Marine, but the whole cabinet, and even the Prime Minister himself.\nAnother surprise was sprung upon us\nwhen the hon. member from West Quebec (Mr. Prince) came here and stated that as for him not only is the Minister of Marine honest, but even those who have been found guilty by Mr. Justice Cassels, and dismissed, did not deserve it.\nFinally, the hon. member from Leeds (Mr. Tavlor) stated this evening that for his part he thought the whole system was faulty and needed a thorough cleaning\nThus we have four different views. I rely on the evidence of our oponents themselves. I can see them altogether surrounded by a mist or by that cloud which is mentioned in the amendment. This is not only a suspicion, it is naked truth. Evidently, those gentlemen did not put their heads together beforehand, for one says white and the other says black, and they pull different ways. Therefore, how eculd I conscientionsly pass sentence without knowing anything positively, how could I blame the government and ask that they be put on trial when there is no cause for it.\nThe hon, leader of the opposition is an eminent lawyer, and let him say what scandal he is after. Why not be courageous enough to make a change and we shall answer you. There are eighty members on the other side of the House, but not one of them is able to proffer a formal charge against a single^ member of the government.\nThe Cassels inquiry was regularly held in _ such a manner as to enlighten public opinion. For that reason, I shall vote against the amendment.\nHouse divided Doherty.\ton amendment of Mr.  YEAS:\nMessieurs\t\nAmes,\tLennox,\nBarker,\tLortie.\nBarnard,\tMcCall,\nBarr.\tMagrath,\nBlondin,\tMarshall,\nBorden (Halifax),\tMeighen,\nBoyce,\tMiddlebro,\nBradbury,\tNantel,\nBurrell,\tNorthrup,\nChisholm (Huron)\tOwen,\nCrothers,\tPaquet,\nCurrie (Simcoe),\tPerley,\nDaniel,\tPrice,\nDoherty,\tRoche,\nDonnelly,\tSchafiner,\nEdwards,\tSexsmith,\nElson,\tSmyth,\nF oster,\tSproule,\nFraser,\tStanfield,\nGoodeve,\tStewart,\nHaggart (Lanark),\tTaylor (Leeds),\nHenderson,\tTaylor (New West-\nHerron, Hughes,\tminster),\n\tThornton,\nJameson,\tW allace,\nLake,\tWilson (Lennox and\nLalor,\tAddington),\nLancaster, .\tWright.-54.", "NATS:\nMessieurs\nBeauparlant,\nBelaud,\nBlack,\nBorden (Sir Fred'k.), Boyer,\nBrodeur,\nCalvert,\nCarrier,\nCash,\nChampagne,\nChew,\nChisholm (Antigonisli), Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Congdon,\nConmee,\nCurrie (Prince Edw.), Delisle,\nDemers,\nDevlin.\nDubeau,\nDugas,\nEorement,\nEmmerson,\nEthier,\nFielding,\nFisher,\nFortier,\nFowke,\nGauvrcau,\nGervais,\nGirard,\nGladu,\nGraham,\nHarty,\nHodgins,\nHunt,\nKyte,\nLanctot (Laprairie-Nanierville),\nLanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,\nLaurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laver gne,\nLaw,\nLeBlanc,\nLemieux,\nLoggie,\nMaclean (Lunenburg),\nMcAlister,\nMoCraney,\nMolntyre (Perth), McKenzie,\nMcLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), MoMillan,\nMajor,\nMaroile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),\nMartin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Michaud,\nMiller,\nMolloy,\nMurphy,\nNesbitt,\nNeely,\nPapineau,\nPardee,\nParent,\nPaterson,\nPickup,\nProulx,\nPugsley,\nRankin,\nReid (Restigouohe), Richards,\nRivet,\nRobb,\nRoss,\nRoy (Dorchester),\nRoy (Montmagny), Rutan,\nSealey,\nSeguin,\nSifton,\nSmith (Middlesex). Smith (Nanaimo), Templeman,\nTolmie,\nTurcotte (Nicolet), Turcotte (Quebeo County),\nTurgeon,\nVerville,\nWilson (Laval)-94.\nPAIRS:\nHarris,\nAylesworth,\nOliver,\nAllen,\nKnowles,\nSutherland,\nGuthrie,\nTurriS,\nSchell,\nGerman,\nClarke (Essex), MaoNutt, Sinolair, Carvell.\nBeattie,\nMaclean (York, S.), Haggart (Winnipeg), Thoburn,\nArthurs,\nCowan,\nMacdonefl,\nOsier,\nMoCarthy,\nCrocket,\nBristol,\nForget,\nLewis,\nSharpe (Lisgar).\nAmendment negatived, motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply."]
Right Hon.   S@: It never was my intention at any time to intervene in this debate, except in so far as it was necessary to state to the House the policy which the government intended to follow in this matter. The House has a right to know what is the attitude which we have taken, and the reasons therefor. The House is already aware of the attitude we have taken, and the House is entitled to know the reasons therefor, the motives which have impelled us to refuse to accept this motion. But before I proceed any further, if my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Anne, (Mr. Doherty) w'ill permit me, I would offer him my sincere congratulations upon the manner in which he has presented this question to the House. I differ from him. I do not admit his premises, still less do I admit his conclusions, but I am in the judgment of the House when I say, after an experience of many years, that it was impossible to present such a motion, in a matter of this kind which involved some irritation, in a better or more dignified parliamentary style. I am sorry I cannot extend the same compliment to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). That hon. gentleman has made a speech that is very characteristic of him. It was clever-very clever-and, to a certain extent, perfectly unimpeachable, to a certain extent very fair criticism, witty, pungent, unobjectionable, but my hon. friend could not conclude his remarks without showing the cloven hoof. My hon. friend could not conclude his remarks without showing us the narrow side of his nature in all its naked deformity. My hon. friend, in the course of his observations, after, as I said a moment ago, having offered very pointed and fair criticism, ended up by addressing himself directly to me. He stated that certain persons whom he named as Dro-let, Halliday and McAvity, had profited by their dealings with the department of Marine and Fisheries, had put in their pockets money which belonged to the people and then he struck an attitude and concluded by asking: Are you going to prosecute, and if not ,why not? Is it because you have shared in the proceeds? I have only to

say to my hon. friend, that, having enjoyed a prolonged life, I have never heard the man yet suggest to me that I had profited by the people's money.


George Eulas Foster: Will the right hon. gentleman let me put him a question?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: No, sit down.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


Wilfrid Laurier: I take this occasion to observe to my hon. friend that there is no man who is so ready to make insinuations-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, no man so ready to make insinuations and no man who will wince and whine so much when he receives a return blow. I have to say to my hon. friend that I never manipulated other people's money; I never manipulated trust funds.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Order.


George Eulas Foster: The rules of order of this House demand that no member shall say an offensive thing of another.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: That is a plain rule of order. The right hon. gentleman-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


George Eulas Foster: The right hon. gentleman has put a statement into my mouth which I never made, and in his anger he refuses to allow me to correct him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


George Eulas Foster: He prefers


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


George Eulas Foster: I am speaking to the point of order. He prefers to make an argument on that false statement rather than on a true statement-*


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


George Eulas Foster: And then proceeds to insinuate something with reference to myself.


An hon. MEMBER.: Did you share in it?


George Eulas Foster: Did I share it? I will give my hon. friend his answer. Let him get up on the platform in this country-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


George Eulas Foster: -and make the statement that I did and I will let him know, whether I shared in it or not.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


George Eulas Foster: I rise to a second point of order.


Mr. M. CLARK.: I rise to a point of order.


George Eulas Foster: I rise to a second point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The first has to be decided first.


George Eulas Foster: Very well, we will decide the first. The rules of order seem to be clear and plain.


James Conmee: Are there any rules in this House?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


James Conmee: If there are, they ought to be enforced.


George Eulas Foster: Send him off upon his special train.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order, order.


James Conmee: Mr. Speaker


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


James Conmee: The rules require that no member shall make offensive remarks.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


George Eulas Foster: Why all this excitement?


James Conmee: That is what I would like o know.


An hon. MEMBER.: What is the point of order?


George Eulas Foster: The point of order I hav.e stated pretty plainly. I have not the rules. The Speaker knows the rules, or the clerk can turn them up. The rule of order is that no member of this House is allowed to say anything that is disagreeable to another.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


James Conmee: You are the biggest sinner in this House on that point.


George Eulas Foster: The Prime Minister insinuated that I had manipulated trust funds. I throw it back in his teeth. No man in this House can make such a statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker

	*


James Conmee: Mr. Speaker-


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, the hon gentleman (Mr. Foster) tells us that it is a rule of the House-


George Eulas Foster: Is the right hon. gentleman debating the point of order?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sit down.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I appeal to the House to maintain the rules. The Prime Minister has the right to speak to the point of order.


George Eulas Foster: If he speaks to the point of order.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman very coolly tells us that it is a rule of the House that no man has the right to speak of anything that is offensive to another.


An hon. MEMBER.: Disagreeable.


George Eulas Foster: Disagreeable.


Wilfrid Laurier: Disagreeable. Is he willing to be judged by that?


George Eulas Foster: Certainly.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well then he had better sit down quietly.


George Eulas Foster: The right hon. gentleman had better speak to the point of order.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is his memory so short he does not remember what he said two hours ago?


George Eulas Foster: I do not think that is debating the point of order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: This point of order must be settled. I appeal to both sides of the House. This debate should be carried on with decorum and I beg hon. gentlemen-


George Eulas Foster: If it had not been that the Prime Minister


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Conmee: What is the point of order?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I fail to see that there is any reason for me ruling on this matter. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) raised a point of order but I fail to find a point of order. As far as saying anything disagreeable is concerned, I do not think we have any Tule on that point.


George Eulas Foster: My point is that the Prime Minister made an insinuation against
me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


George Eulas Foster: Made an insinuation that I manipulated trust funds.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: I demand a retraction.


James Conmee: The Prime Minister made no such statement.


George Eulas Foster: The Prime Minister made such a statement.


Wilfrid Laurier: Now, Mr. Speaker, that the point of order has been ruled upon


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: 


George Eulas Foster: I ask that the right hon. gentleman retract that statement. He is amenable to the rules of the House and of common decency just as I am.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


George Eulas Foster: And his followers will have to take their medicine.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, not yet.


George Eulas Foster: This matter has come to a head now and we will have it tried out.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Eulas Foster: He has made an insinuation. This is the first time that the Prime Minister


An hon. MEMBER.: Take your medicine.


George Eulas Foster: Let the Prime Minister-


Some hon. MEMBERS: You will have to take it.


George Eulas Foster: Take it back.


Mr. GAUVREAU.: Call for the Sergeant at Arms.


George Eulas Foster: Look out, the Sergeant at Arms might get you.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: I think it would be better perhaps if we returned to the usual tone of moderate discussion. I certainly understood, perhaps I misunderstood, the right hon. gentleman, but I certainly understood him to suggest in the plainest possible way that the hon. member for North Toronto had been guilty of manipulating trust funds.


An hon. MEMBER.: No, he never said that.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


Robert Laird Borden: I am perfectly willing-I am bound to accept the statement of the Prime Minister as to what he intended. Every hon. gentleman is bound to accept that and I would accept it at once. I would suggest that the words as I heard them either meant that or they meant nothing, and if the right hon. gentleman is prepared to state that he did not mean that, of course the House is bound to accept his word; but if he did mean that. I venture to think that in the interest of future good order in this House it would be desirable that the right hon. gentleman should withdraw that expression.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I am a pretty old member in this House. I have sat in the opposition, I have sat on the treasury benches. I have sat as a member of the House supporting the government and in opposition to the government, but I am not aware-and on this I place myself in the judgment of the House, hon. gentlemen on the other side as well

as on this side-that I ever said an offensive word to anybody. I have tried to carry on the debates in this House in a fair manner and in a polite manner also,
I have tried to be fair and courteous to all sides of this House but, Sir, I am human after all.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: And when an hon. member tells me to my face that if I did not take any certain action, if I did not prosecute certain parties, it is because I am afraid of the consequences, and the alternative is because I have shared in the proceeds


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no, he did not say that.


James Conmee: Yes, he did.


Wilfrid Laurier: What did he mean?


George Eulas Foster: Now we have got down
to common sense again.


Mr. PATERSON.: Oh no.


George Eulas Foster: I state here as a member of the House, I call Mr. Speaker to witness, because the speaker was on the point of order in one minute-if I recollect my words, they were like this-asking why it was not done: 'It is because you have shared'-and as I said the word 'share' the Speaker rose to call me to order.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Is there any difference ?


James Conmee: You repeated it


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: Keep your hull dog quiet over there.


James Conmee: Oh, you just keep quiet, we know all about your little firebrand. We will take care of that.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


George Eulas Foster: Now there is a gentleman who sits there and insults me in sotto voce across the floor of the House.


Mr CONMEE.: You started it.


George Eulas Foster: I think the Sergeant at Arms should take care of him. The Speaker was just rising to call me to order when I finished my sentence exactly as I intended to do: 'for the party, for the interests of the party.' I call the Speaker's attention to that.


James Conmee: What is the difference?


Wilfrid Laurier: And all the explanation which the hon. gentleman gives me is that after all he states I shared what? The profit for the party interest. That is to say, instead of putting it into my pocket I put it into the party pocket. Well, I do not accept any such retraction as that. I
3aid I had never manipulated any trust funds, I had never touched any money either politically or otherwise, and there is no point of order there, we have the ruling of Mr. Speaker on that. Having said that I have only to say that I leave this matter to my hon. friend to settle, and I hold that he and I are too old parliamentarians to indulge in such language as he has indulged in this afternoon-but I say I never court a fight, but I am not afraid of a fight.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, will you allow me to read


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order, sit down.


George Eulas Foster: -allow me to read rule 19?


An hon. MEMBER.: Take your medicine.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it a point of order?


George Eulas Foster: A point of order.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: Is it a new one?


George Eulas Foster: It seems to be a little laughed at that there is such a rule of order, but if it is a rule of order it should not be laughed at, it should be lived up to. Rule 19 is:
No member shall speak disrespectfully of His Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family; nor of the Governor or person administering the government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof.
The right hon. gentleman turned to me and in a voice and in language which it seemed to me was perfectly appreciated by every member in this House-that it was perfectly appreciated by every member on the other side was shown by the hearty applause which immediately followed-and said: 'I have never manipulated any trust funds.'


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: That is true.


Mr PATERSON.: That is true.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order.


George Eulas Foster: If there was any doubt-


Mr. HARTY.: You called him the people's trustee before 6 o'clock.


George Eulas Foster: If there was any doubt in your mind or in the mind of any hon. member that if that sentence had any reference at all, it was meant to be directed to me, and to charge me as a manipulator of trust funds. I say that is offensive.


An hon. MEMBER.: The cap must fit
you.


George Eulas Foster: The right hon. gentleman must in perfect right and obedience to the rule either withdraw the words or declare that they had no reference to myself.
COMMON fi


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend actually Tead this rule to the House:
No member shall use offensive words against either House or against any member thereof.
Yet the hon. gentleman within the last five minutes has forgotten that he asked me to my face if I did not prosecute Mr. Drolet, Mr. Halliday and Mr. McAvity because possibly I had shared in the money they had received for party purposes; and he means to say that these words are not offensive. He said that to me personally.


Mr. SPROULE.: But there was no objection taken to it at the time.


Wilfrid Laurier: And now when I tell the hon. gentleman that I will not tolerate being insulted in this House, he becomes still more offensive. Mr. Speaker, I ask for your ruling.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: To my mind the words, 'I never manipulated any trust funds,' are not in themselves offensive words. They may be so by inference, but that is a matter that every member of the House can judge for himself.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. I think it is in the interest of proper order in debate that there should be no misunderstanding on this point. I am not declaring one way or the other. I am only applying the rule. No offensive word can be used by any member; the rule is plain in that respect. The Prime Minister did not charge the hon. member for North Toronto with having manipulated trust funds. His exact words are not to that effect. I do not know that it is for the Chair to infer anything from the words. I have to take the words as they are actually uttered. The same rule might apply to the words used by the hon. member for North Toronto before six o'clock. When he used the words, 'Did the Prime Minister share.' I rose to call him to order; but when he added, 'for party advantage,' or something to that effect, this removed the personal aspect of his words. So that after hearing the explanations on both sides, I think the debate had better proceed.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order; sit down.


George Eulas Foster: As I interpret the Prime Minister's words, I think he ought to withdraw them.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. The Prime Minister has the floor.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


Wilfrid Laurier: Here is what my hon. friend said this afternoon:


George Eulas Foster: Is it because you share in it-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Eulas Foster: Just wait-'for party interest and for party adantagep' If not, why are you so modest about getting after the people's rights, you who are the trustees of the people's interests?


Wilfrid Laurier: This, Sir, my hon. friend does not call offensive. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have only to leave the question to the judgment of the House, and having said that, I pass on to the subject of debate.


George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the right hon. gentleman retract those words. It is no argument to say that because I transgressed the rule, if I did, before six o'clock, that he should transgress it now. By inference the Speaker has ruled that the right hon. gentleman's words ap-'plied to me. To whom else could they apply?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: I say it again: to whom else could they apply as they were uttered? I know what the English language means; I use it and I use it properly. If the Prime Minister, in the course of his argument, were addressing any one else, that would be a different matter. The right hon. gentleman applied the words to me, he meant to apply them to me, and I ask him to withdraw them.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I can only repeat what I said before, that if those words had been applied directly to the hon. member for North Toronto, they would have been out of order; but I fail to see that they were applied directly to that hon. member. There is more than one member in this House, and I can only deal with direct imputations.


George Eulas Foster: Does the Speaker himself think, or does he not, that the right hon. gentleman was applying those words to some one else or to me? He was addressing his argument to me and to me alone. He meant to cut me and no other man at that time. I stand here and demand that the right hon. gentleman prove himself equal to the occasion and withdraw that insinuation.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think it is ne.cessary for you to answer the question submitted to you, Mr. Sneaker, by the hon. member for North Toronto, because the Prime Minister has answered it himself. He stated most explicitly, only a moment ago, in your hearing, that he had used those words in retaliation for a statement of the hon. member for North Toronto. Therefore he has most distinctly admitted, in vour hearing and in the hearing of all of us, that he meant them to apply to the hon. member for North Toronto.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Order. It is impossible for the Premier to speak under these conditions.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I have never sailed under false colours; I have never made an insinuation that I have not been ready to back up. If the hon. gentleman had not spoken as he did, I would not have spoken as I did, and I have no hesitation in saying that in speaking as I did I applied my words to the hon. member for North Toronto. I state that like a man; and now, Mr. Speaker, I am in your ruling.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I must abide by the ruling I gave: offensive words cannot be used in debate I fail to see that these are offensive words in themselves. If they had been applied directly, they would have been.


George Eulas Foster: I desire, Mr. Speaker,-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order. Sit down. Chair.


George Eulas Foster: The right hon. gentleman has just now declared that he applied those words to me.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I am here the first man who ought to set an example to the House. I do not disguise the fact-I am too much of a man for that-that I meant to apply my words to the hon. member for North Toronto.


George Eulas Foster: I ask your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Wilfrid Laurier: You have said, Mr. Speaker, that these words applied to anybody were out of order, and I bow to your ruling, as it is my duty to do.


George Eulas Foster: Then will you take back the words?


Wilfrid Laurier: I obey the ruling of the chair, and I say to the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Foster) that I stand by my words, and when I have any charges to make, I make them and make them openly; but as I am outside the rules of the House, I shall not proceed further, but withdraw everything I said.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am bound to act according to the ruling of the chair. The chair has ruled that my words are not parliamentary, and I withdraw them. But my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Foster) must learn a lesson. He must learn not to treat other people as he has been doing. He has his own reputation to look after.


George Eulas Foster: And is able to look after it.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have here men who are not afraid to speak their minds. My hon. friend must know that there are two sides in this House and he cannot have everything his own way; and while there is no man more ready than he to throw insinuations, there is none who smarts so much when the lash is applied to himself. I have to say to my hon. friend from St. Anne's division (Mr. Doherty) that, while I give him great credit for his speech, he has been in one respect unfair to the government and myself personally. He said he had reason to believe that there has been no change in the department and that the same men who were guilty of giving commissions were still doing business with the government. He based this insinuation upon an answer which I gave some time ago to the House on a question put by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe). This question was asked by that hon. member:
1.	Has the M'arine and Fisheries Department continued to buy supplies, or give contacts to the individuals, supply men, or companies on whose behalf commissions, gratuities or interest were paid to officials of the department, as found by the Cassels Commission ?
.2. If so, what are the names of such individuals, supply men and companies, and the amount paid or to be paid to them since the receipt of said report by the government?
3. Have any other departments purchased supplies or given contracts to any such individuals, supply men or companies since the receipt of said report by the government? If so, why are the names and amounts thereof?
To this I made the following reply:
1 and 3. There may ibe cases in which it will be in the public interest to do business with some of the parties referred to. Each case will have to be considered on its merits as it arises.
2.	If any particular names be mentioned the information will be given to the House.
Thereupon the hon. gentleman asked if that answer was not tantamount to saying: 'If you will just show us that you know all about it, we will tell you all.' That is not a fair deduction. My hon. friend had better leave that kind of deduction to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) as such insinuations are more in his line. But to show how unfair his comment was, let me refer my hon. friend to another question which was put a few days ago, and to which I replied:-But first let me recall the reply I have just read:
There may be cases in which it may be in the public interest to do business with some of the parties referred to.
Implying that, as a general rule, we would not do business with these men. My

hon. friend said that in England, tinder such circumstances, no government department would have anything to do with a man who had paid commissions to any official of the government. And he contrasted that course with the conduct in this country. But the language I made use of showed plainly that we did not intend doing business with these men except' in cases where we might have to do so in the public interest. For instance some of them might have the exclusive patents in certain things we absolutely require. What could we do under such circumstances? The same question was asked a few days ago by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe):
1. Have the following persons had contracts for supplies, &c., with the Department of Marine and Fisheries since the date of Hon. Judge Cassels' report, viz. :	James
Murphy, W. R. Blakiston, James Halliday, Allison Davie, J. B. Cote, Jos. Samson, Ter-reau & Racine, Jean Drolet, E. Amyot, Charles A. Parent, A. N. Melvin, Howell & Co.?
My hon. colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries answered:
No contracts have been entered into with the following persons by the Department of Marine and Fisheries since the date of Hon. Judge Cassels' report:	James Murphy, W.
R. Blakiston, James Halliday, Allison Davie, J. B. Cote, Jean Drolet, Elie Amyot, A. N. Melvin, Howell & Company, Jos. Samson.
Orders have been given to the following persons by the Department of Marine and Fisheries since the date of Hon. Judge Cassels' report:
Terreau & Racine, $164.01. This purchase consisted of grate bars, patterns for which are the property of the above-mentioned firm.
This is one of the cases I have referred to. We had to do business with the firm of Terreau and Racine because they were proprietors of that patent and we had to make use of it. That is what we meant when we said that, in certain circumstances, the public interest would compel us to deal with some of these men.
Coming to the motion of my hon. friend, I said we could not accept it, and the reason was that the very premises upon which it is based are not in accord with the facts. Let me call attention to the first paragraph :
The commission of 1907 in the course of their investigations into the conditions of the Civil Service having made incidental inquiry into the workings of one of the departments at Ottawa, characterized that department as wanting in organization, lacking in conscience, and some of the officials as serving two masters, Scripture notwithstanding, and also criticised other departments.
I ask my hon. friend how he can say in the face of the record we have before us, that the investigation made by the Civil Service Commission was only thorough in one department. Is it not a fact that it Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
was thorough, not only in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but in all the departments?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: I repeat, notwithstanding what may be said to the contrary, the commissioners themselves declare in their report that they made a thorough investigation of all the departments.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Wilfrid Laurier: There are some hon. gentlemen evidently who doubt my word. Let me read what the commissioners themselves say at page 46 of their report:
Tour commissioners endeavoured to the best of their power to thoroughly sift the conditions of the civil service.
Can any words be plainer?
Possibly they have allowed their inquiries to extend rather beyond what might have been considered the limits laid down, but your commissioners are of opinion that to get at the full knowledge required to make a report their inquiries should be as extensive as possible. With this view they construed the reference as to efficiency and sufficiency of the departmental staffs as including in its scope the control of the appropriations granted by parliament.
In fact your commissioners could hardly have done otherwise considering how their attention had been directed to these matters by statements in parliament and in the public press.
On the face of this report, how can it be said that the investigation by the commissioners was not as thorough as possible. They felt that to do justice they had to go beyond the letter of their instructions, and they did so. Under such circumstances, how can my hon. friend say that the examination was not as thorough as it should have been. He proceeds to say:
That the Cassels Commission was limited in scope to an inquiry into implied official incompetence and dishonesty in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and the report thereof with attached evidence amply sustains the oharge of offioial negligence, wastefulness and corrupt dealing in that department, and affords ground for the conviction that similar methods prevail in other great spending departments.
My hon. friend from Lunenburg (Mr. A. K. Maclean), speaking to the motion, declared that the language of it was very illogical, and I appeal to my hon. friend from St. Anne's division himself to agree that the language he uses and the deduction he makes are absolutely illogical. What is his premise, and what is his con-plusion? His premise is that there was dishonesty in the Marine Department; that the officials there were proved to have been dishonest and to have taken bribes, and

his conclusion is that, therefore, there is ground for believing that there was dishonesty in other departments. That is the kind of logic in which the hon. member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) indulges, but I should have expected better from my hon. friend from St. Anne's (Mr. Doherty). It does not follow because one man is dishonest that another man is dishonest also. The hon. member for St. Anne's has quoted scripture about a man serving two masters


Mr. DOHERTY.: I only quoted the commissioners in their quotation of scripture.


Wilfrid Laurier: The commissioners quoted scripture, and my hon. friend quoted the commissioners, and I quote my hon. friend. But, now, I would like to quote scripture direct. Surely the hon. gentleman will remember a verse in scripture to this effect:	' To the pure all
things are pure.' And I suppose it is a fair assumption that to the impure all things are impure. To the mind of my hon. friend from North Toronto, and a good many others, all things are impure. It is easy for a man to find others dishonest if he himself is not very sure of his own ground; but I would not expect that from my hon. friend from St. Anne's. The resolution goes on to say:
That in order to lift the cloud of suspicion that rests upon the administration of the various departments-
The cloud of suspicion! Where do we see that cloud of suspicion? I see it on the other side of the House, but not on this side. Surely, this is a perfect illustration that to the impure all things are impure. Well, I have only this to say: We are responsible to the parliament of Canada, we are responsible to the people of Canada. We cannot admit what is stated in this motion. If anybody believes what is stated in this motion, that there is in the public service ' official negligence, wastefulness and corrupt dealing,' it is not a commission of inquiry that should be moved, but a direct vote of censure. It is our duty to administer the affairs of Canada; it is our duty to manage the departments of the government. Our intention is to discharge that duty efficiently. If we do discharge that duty efficiently, well_ and good; if we do not discharge it efficiently, we are open to censure. If the departments are, as suggested, inefficient, wasteful and corrupt, it is our duty to remedy these evils, and if we do not discharge that duty we are open to the censure of the House. I deny that it is the right of the parliament of Canada to look into the administration; that is a thing which is the duty of those charged with the administration, and for the proper discharge of that duty they are responsible
to the people. It would seem almost unnecessary in a matter of this kind to quote authorities, but I quote the authority of the English parliament on the point. On July 22, 1862, Sir George Bowyer made this motion:
That a select committee be appointed to inquire into the grievances alleged to exist and complained of by the persons employed in the Post Office Department.
This was a motion to investigate the practice of a certain department of government. Mr. Gladstone, who was Prime Minister, spoke upon that question to thi3 effect:
He said that his hon. friend exercised a wise discretion in not proposing to press his motion on the present occasion, for it was obvious that the appointment of a committee of inquiry at the present period of the session must be perfectly futile. He should have felt it his duty, however, at any period of the session to oppose the motion, which he regarded a9 being of a most dangerous character not only to the good order of the Po9t Office Department, but of the entire public service,
After having reviewed the question and discussed the grievances complained of, he
went on:
He hoped if his hon. friend dealt with the subject again, he would be careful to give an aoourate impression to the House. The question had been settled by competent authority -namely, the executive government. The executive government were ready to defend what they had done in the face of the House of Commons.
And so are we here. Mr. Gladstone concluded in this way:
If they thought the executive government were to blame, let them take the proper course and pronounce their censure upon the executive government, but he was satisfied that no worse policy could be adopted than for the House to take into its own hands the management of the public services.
Now, this is the authority on which we rely upon this occasion. We are responsible, as I have said, to the people of Canada. We are primarily responsible to the House. If there is reason to believe, as i3 charged in this motion, that there is wastefulness in the departments, and if we fail to deal with that matter and rectify the evils we are liable to censure. But we do not admit that there is wastefulness, that there is inefficiency. We believe, on the contrary, that there is reasonable efficiency in these departments. We are ready to go on with the administration of the country's affairs. If we are in error, we are liable to censure; we are liable to be turned out of office; but so long as we retain the confidence of the people we are ready to discharge every duty connected with the administration of public affairs. We have shown that we will do so. The hon. member for North Toronto says that we were

driven into making an investigation. I will not discuss that; I merely say that we have dealt with the matter. We appointed a commission to investigate and report. Not satisfied with the first report, we had a second investigation of the Marine Department. Why did we appoint that second commission for the special investigation of the Marine Department? Because the first commission, in its report, stated that there was ' lack of conscience ' in the Marine Department. If they had charged a ' lack of conscience ' in the other departments, we would have had a special commission to investigate those departments also. But the commissioners did not say that there was ' lack of conscience' in the other departments; they said there was inefficiency, lack of organization-matters of that kind which could be rectified by each minister in his own department, and which have been rectified by each minister. I have only to say, in the words of the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Maclean), that it is our duty to see that every officer of the public service does his duty well and faithfully, and it is our determination to do our duty in that respect to the fullest extent. Therefore, I ask this House to vote down this resolution.


Robert Laird Borden: I join with the right hon. minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in extending congratulations to the hon. member for St. Anne's division, Montreal (Mr. Doherty) who has moved this motion and supported it in a cogent, powerful and straightforward speech, which, it seems to me, ought to have commended the motion, not only to every hon. member on either side of the House, but to the members of the government themselves. I will not dwell upon the somewhat heated language of the Prime Minister at the opening of his remarks, nor to the very unfortunate incident which he brought about in this House. He told us in the end that he would set a good example. I think it is to be regretted that a gentleman in his position, responsible for the honour of this House, had not set a good example in the first instance. Now, the greater part of the time occupied by the right hon. gentleman has been taken up with that incident, and therefore he has afforded very little argument indeed, if you can dignify it by the name of argument, to hon. members of this House as a reason why this motion should be voted down. He has made statements of fact, and one of his arguments to which I will allude at once, because it is in my mind, is that no further investigation should be held because the investigation made by the Civil Service Commission of 1907 was a thorough one, and was stated by the members of that commission to be a thorough one. I ask my right hon. friend now whether he adheres to that statement Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
which he made a moment ago, because if he does adhere to it, I will undertake to prove out of the mouths of the members of the commission themselves, in the words of their own report, that the statement made by the right hon. gentleman on that subject is absolutely unfounded and unwarranted. That was however one of the main grounds of his argument. I take direct issue with the right hon. gentleman on that point. Did he ever read the report of those commissioners, or if he has read it, is his memory so short that he does not remember the quotations from it which were brought to his attention only last year? Let me recall to his attention what was said by these commissioners, appointed by himself, as to the thoroughness of the investigation which they did make. On page 20 of the very report from which the right hon. gentleman quoted here to-night, what do I read:
In dealing with this subject your commissioners have to submit that in a vast service such as exists at Ottawa, in the limited time at their disposal, it has been absolutely impossible for them to inquire fully into the efficiency of the officials in the several departments. There are probably, including labourers, some 3,000 employees at Ottawa. In the Department of the Interior alone there are 500 employees.
And this is the report of the commissioners who, according to the right hon. gentleman, made so thorough an investigation that he now asks his followers on the other side of the House to vote down the motion proposed by my hon. friend from St. Anne's (Mr. Doherty). I do not doubt they will vote it down. Any man in this House who can reconcile his conscience to voting for that iniquity, the Newmarket canal, may be expected to vote against a further investigation. Well, Sir, let us look a little further:
It would take many months to examine the work of the Department of the Interior alone, and when so many officials are engaged in the several branches it would be hard to gauge with accuracy the extent, or character, or style of the work turned out by each.
Yet my right hon. friend appeals with every confidence, a well justified confidence, to his followers to vote down this proposed investigation, because there has already been a thorough and ample investigation into every department. Let us look a little further. Dealing with the outside service, on page 27 of the same report, they say this:
Acting on this suggestion, as previously stated, your commissioners visited three places, and they only regret that the time at their disposal prevented them from pursuing their inquiries 'at other points. The information procured was most interesting and instructive, and even the chairman, who had spent nearly 40 years in the public service at Ottawa, had no idea of what constituted the

outside service until he visited the several localities.
further on, referring to the Department of Railways and Canals, the commissioners say:
Your commissioners have not visited this department, believing that other departments required more immediate inspection.
Perhaps they did, perhaps they did not. 1 am not so sure of that. But at all events, this quotation will enlighten the House as to the thoroughness of the information of "e hght hon. gentleman as to the character of the investigation carried on by the commission of 1907. That is not all. Speaking of the Department of the Interior they say:
With its large staff of 500 employees at Ottawa, it would require months to thoroughly inspect the work and see that the several officials are properly employed.
The commissioners regret extremely that, with the short time at their disposal, they were unable to visit the Northwest, much as they desired to see hoiv the land, and more especially, the timber sales are effected.
And it is because that investigation was absolutely sufficient and ample that the right hon. gentleman appeals to his followers to vote down this motion. Well, let us look a little further.
To do the work with any pretension to thoroughness-
I would ask especial attention to this language :
To do the work with any pretension to thoroughness would take much more time than would probably be agreeable to the government.
The right hon. gentleman, I presume, is convinced now that this was an extremely thorough and ample investigation, and that his argument to the House in that regard is absolutely j ustified by the report of the commission itself. Might I inquire now what the opinion of my right hon. friend is on that point, just at this juncture? Well, my right hon. friend refuses to satisfy what he would no doubt characterize as a too fastidious curiosity on my part.


An hon. MEMBER.: To the pure all things are pure.


Robert Laird Borden: I am bound to say in view of that interruption, that I think the argument mentioned by the hon member is much more cogent than that argument of the Prime Minister to which I am now addressing myself. Well, let us look a little further:
They have been able to go over only a very small section of even the Marine and Fisheries Department.
And the right hon. gentleman, within twenty minutes, has told this House, and on that ground has appealed to his followers to vote down this motion, that that was an ample, a sufficient and a searching investigation into all the departments, not into the Department of Marine and Fisheries alone, but into all the departments, including those that the commissioners did not even visit. Well, I imagine that my right hon. friend must have tnor-oughly satisfied his followers on that point in view of the quotations which I have read from the report of these very commissioners. This particular paragraph continues as follows. I will read the whole paragraph lest my right hon. friend may forget it, because, when one deals with so treacherous a memory as that of which he has given evidence to-night, it is well that the facts should be stated clearly. My right hon. friend will therefore direct his particular attention to this paragraph. I will read it again:
They have been able to go over only a very small section of even the Marine and Fish-enes Department. If they had had time it would have been most desirable to have inspected the work of the department at the agencies-Quebec, Sorel, Halifax, St. John Halifax 6SC0tt ~ Particularly Quebec and
At page 42 they also declare that:
-there is no means by which they could appreciate whether the amounts payable for sub-target guns or for Ross rifles are proper and just, but according to the evidence-
I think that was contradicted afterwards.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Yes, absolutely.


Robert Laird Borden: Not the part I have read, but the part I am about to read.


Frederick William Borden: The part that you have read, too.


Robert Laird Borden: These poor commissioners seem _ to be most unfortunate. They were appointed by the government, they bring in reports to which my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) takes exception, as he did take exception this afternoon, and it appears that in this particular instance they have also made a ^ mistake. Weil, I am not concerned with the concluding part of the paragraph, as it has been corrected. I may say to the Minister of Militia that I was not aware that the first part of the paragraph had been in any way corrected.


Frederick William Borden: I took a good deal of trouble to do it last year and I think it stands as I stated it last year.


Robert Laird Borden: In what way?


Frederick William Borden: That they had made a mistake.


Robert Laird Borden: No, that is not the point. Perhaps the hon. gentleman will look at it again.

There is no means by which they could appreciate whether the amounts payable for sub-target guns or for Boss rifles are proper and just.


Frederick William Borden: Oh, well, I cannot supply brains.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no doubt that the intimation will be conveyed to them that my hon. friend will not undertake to supply them with brains and, if they were such commissioners in that regard as they, have been described it may be deemed necessary to supply them from some other source.


Frederick William Borden: Thank you,
I have no doubt my hon. friend can supply them.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I would not like to go into comparisons on that subject.


Frederick William Borden: I quite agree with my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: As long as we are both agreed on one subject at least, perhaps we will proceed to discuss some other portion of the remarks of my right hon. friend.


Frederick William Borden: Quite so. We both seem to agree that the commission require brains.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I am not here to-night, Mr. Speaker, to argue the point with my hon. friend, that he and his colleagues saw fit to appoint a commission which was destitute of brains.


Frederick William Borden: I


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


Frederick William Borden: I at once admit my responsibility and express my regret.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I think that not only the hon. gentleman but his colleagues as well have every reason to express regret at the appointment of that commission. As we once more agree we will return to the remarks of the right hon. gentleman. Let us consider for a moment the answer of the Prime Minister to certain remarks of my hon. friend from North Toronto. He said that there was an absolute rule of British parliamentary government that no investigation into administrative affairs should ever be undertaken by parliament or by any commission appointed by the executive. Why, Mr. Speaker, the whole history of British parliamentary government is full of illustrations of exactly the contrary doctrine. As to an inquiry for the purpose of regulating the interior workings of a department, matters for which the executive alone is responsible and responsible to parliament, there may be some force in what the right


Robert Laird Borden: judieed as to suppose that the people of this country "will believe that men operating in other departments of this government, supplying different departments of this government, have been carrying on certain iniquitous practices in one department and have absolutely refrained from these practices in other departments? Will public opinion be satisfied by any statement of my right lion, friend, eminent as he is and experienced in public life, to that effect? I say no, a thousand times no. So far as party advantage is concerned,
I would welcome the voting down of this motion by the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues; but for the future decency of public life in this country, to remove suspicion that is already too prevalent, to cleanse the departments if they need cleansing, I still hope that my right hon. friend will change his mind in that regard, that he will remodel this resolution, if necessary, and give to the people of this country that investigation into the affairs of the various departments of this government which ought to be given, in view of what has been disclosed in recent years.


Mr. EMMANUEL B. DEVLIN (Wright).: Mr. Speaker, I wish to offer to the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) my congratulations upon the moderate way in which he has placed his case before the House. I am sorry that I cannot agree with the conclusions to which he came, and that I shall not be able to support his amendment which he has placed before the House. The amendment is to the effect that the commission of 1907, in the course of their investigations into the conditions of the Civil Service, made extended inquiry into the working of one branch only of all the departments in Ottawa, and criticised other departments, and it ends up by calling for a competent business commission to make an investigation into the working of all the great spending departments of the government. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the amendment had stated that where any specific charges are made against any particular department of this government an investigation should take place, I would have been very glad to have supported the amendment. If the amendment had said that the investigation should be held by a judicial commission, I would have supported it. I think the hon. member for St. Anne will agree with me that in matters calling for the examination of evidence-in matters of this kind, where witnesses must be examined and cross-examined by counsel, where legal technicalities may constantly arise-the only possible way of holding an honest and a wise investigation is to have it conducted before a judge. He will also agree with me, I think, that human nature after all is human nature, and that it would be hard to find a commission composed to say of three Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.
men, who would not be somewhat influenced by party feeling and party prejudice and perhaps by party passion; whereas his own experience upon the bench would teach him that the moment a man is called to the high, honourable and dignified position of a judge in this country, he leaves his political affinities at the door, and goes on the bench sworn to do his duty by his God and by his country.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we heard a very eloquent speech delivered by our .very sensitive friend the hon. member for North Toronto (Hon. G. E. Foster). An abler debater than he is I hardly think exists in this country; an abler reasoner hardly exists in this country; but a man with a poorer memory I have not yet met. My hon. friend entertained us this afternoon with a ghost of the middle ages. Would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that by chance I happened upon a certified cojiy of a report of a Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 21st of October, 1891; and i'f the ghost of my hon. friend's middle ages had appeared before me, I would not have been more astounded than I was to find that in 1891, when hon. gentlemen who sit upon this side were in opposition, charging the then hon. Minister of Finance, the present hon. member for North Toronto, and his colleagues with inefficient public servants, the hon. member for North Toronto, as Minister .of Finance, stood up in the House and with his colleagues offered to the then opposition -what do you think? A competent business commission, composed of business men? No, Mr. Speaker, 'Scripture notwithstanding,' the hon. member for North Toronto stood up and said: ' If my conduct as an officer in the administration of this _ country's affairs is to be questioned by this parliament, if the conduct o'f my colleagues is to be questioned I, the Minister of Finance, will be the one to investigate it; if I am.to be charged with any offence, or if the Civil Service is to be charged with any offence, I, the one charged, will examine into my conduct, and I will render the verdict which the country as a jury must accept.' This modern apostle of political reform was not satisfied with putting his name alone upon tliat committee, but be joined with it the names of two other gentlemen-not business men, Sir, but two of his colleagues; and I flnci-and I am very glad that that ghost of the middle ages is not here-that the two other names, accompanying the name of George E. Foster, were those of John IlaS' gart and E. Dewdney, then ministers, who were to conduct the examination. This is a most interesting document; it is not ancient history, but it applies perfectly to the case. I do not think the hon. member for North Toronto will deny its contents. It reads thus:
The committee of the Privy Council, appointed to investigate and report upon the

cases of irregularity in the civil service as developed in the Public Accounts Committee, and to further report upon any similar cases in the public service, beg leave to present the following as their findings and recommendations in respect thereof.
And first as regards the Department of the Interior, your committee find from a careful perusal of the evidence and documents hereto attached:-
1.	That the Civil Service Act of 1868 prohibited the payment, for extra services, of any sums of money to permanent clerks other than their regular salaries.
2.	That from a period dating at least as far back as 1875 a practice began to grow up in the department under which occasional payments for extra work were made to permanent clerks in violation of this clause of the Civil Service Act.
3.	That during the years 1882-1889 inclusive-
When our hon. friends opposite, then in power, were growing holder,

this occasional practice became frequent, and under it several permanent clerks received extra payments, either in the name of outsiders or fictitious persons

you would hardly believe it,

or through temporaty clerks, for work performed wholly or partly by themselves.
I shall not trouble the House by reading the whole of this report, hut will go to the sixth clause:
That the whole sum, thus irregularly paid to permanent officials for extra work, amounted, as far as can be ascertained, to $9,017 from the year 1875 to date.
Will the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) tell me if that amount of $9,017 of the people's money which he, as Finance Minister, was supposed to have control of, was ever refunded to the government of this country?


An hon. MEMBER.: Who was prosecuting?	*


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and his colleagues were the investigating committee, and what do you think that committee found as its conclusion?:
That the practice of giving extra work to permanent clerks in the department, in conjunction with temporary men, was not known to the present minister.
My hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) was asked to resign his seat because certain officials in his department had obtained moneys which did not rightly belong to them or were not paid to them in the due performance of their duties. Well, here was the -then Minister of Finance, the present member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) investigating into the acts of civil servants, and he found 122
that certain employees in the service were receiving money through fictitious persons -moneys which they had not earned and which did not belong to them. Did that hon. gentleman then resign his seat? Were his skirts then clean? In some cases he and his colleagues did dismiss but in other cases they adopted a very peculiar course, and in these cases we find that this peculiar investigating committee recommended as follows:
That all those permanent clerks who, since 1880, have taken extra pay for services performed out of office hours, and those who authorized or certified to such payments bedo you think dismissed, as the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries has done? No, Sir. Now, if the hon. the leader of the opposition were in his seat, how he would blush for the conduct of his hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster). Why, I see upon the countenance of the mover of the amendment, my good friend from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) that virginal blush- because he was not in his seat at the time- do you know, Sir, what the then Minister of Finance did? Did he imprison them? Not a bit of it. What did he do? He recommended that they be fined one month's salary. This apostle of political purity recommended that they be:-
fined one month's salary which shall be deducted from (their present salary in the proportion
-they did not want to be too hard

of one-half thereof from the amount falling due in each of the next following two months.
Then thev came to a very hard case and were a little stricter with it. I do not think it necessary to mention the name; but in the case of another party, it appears:
That he applied in 1886 to the deputy minister for a bonus of $500 as a remuneration for work done after office hours,

the minister did not resign

in keeping up his regular office duties, which were at that time pressing; that the deputy minister declined to recommend the bonus but hinted at a recommendation for promotion and intimated that the work he had done would be mentioned in support of the same; that the clerk in question then arranged with another one, who was a temporary clerk, to use his name for getting a portion of what he thought he was entitled to for working overtime, and in the name Of that temporary clerk drew $73 on an account certified by himself; that he received also a present of $20 from another temporary clerk who was paid on his certificate.
Presents were going in those days. What did the committee recommend? They recommended that the party in question:



he reduced to the minimum of his present class and suffer the consequences of his suspension to the date of this report.
There was no question of dismissal. And this report is signed by Geo. E. Foster, John Haggart, and E. Dewdney. I do believe in playing the game but in playing it fairly. If that was the proper constitutional course to follow in 1891, I fail to see why, upon suspicion, and upon criticism, the money of the people should be expended in investigating all the departments of this government. Sir, the Cassels' commission cost this country $55,000. That could have been expended in the interests of the farming classes. That would have helped the labouring classes. Hon. gentlemen opposite are not satisfied with taking from the pockets of the farmers and the poor people $55,000, and giving it to judges and lawyers, but they want to vote for a proposition which will take a million dollars of the people's money, and take it in order to obtain what? To obtain what hon. gentlemen opposite have obtained through the investigation- the opening of the doors of some homes and the throwing out upon the roadway of the poor bread-earners of these homes. That is what they have obtained, Sir.
Some hon. MEMBEES. Hear, hear..


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Hon. gentlemen opposite may smile, but I ask if some of these hon. gentlemen themselves, being placed in the way of temptation, have not fallen? I ask these hon. gentlemen if when, perhaps, almost starvation faced them, they were offered a hundred dollars, would they not accept it? After all, we must be fair. We took, perhaps, excessive means. We took the course suggested by justice and reason; we found that one department of this government was charged with offences, and we investigated it. And hon. gentlemen opposite are criticising every day. Do they want us to go further with that investigation? I think it is absolutely unnecessary.
Now, I do not think I shall feel justified in detaining the House at greater length-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Hon. gentlemen opposite do not seem to like the reading of certain reports-but I hardly think that the hon. member for North Toronto would pardon me if I did not refer to some of the language which he used, and which some hon. members seated here last session heard him use, with respect to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I have sat in my place during the last few days expecting that the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule), and the hon. member for Victoria and HaTiburton (Mr. Hughes), would be men enough to stand up and utter the same words, the same manly words, that Mr. DEVLIN.
were uttered by the hon. member for St. Anne's division, and declare that they believed that personally the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was an innocent man. Where is that hon. member who, last session, prior to this investigation, said that the name of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries reeked throughout this country? He is not in his place to-night to stand up and give credit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the reforms he has accomplished. What shall we say of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in view of the language he used last session in speaking of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I quote from page 3990 of 'Hansard' of last year:


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Foster) makes the statement that I have been in the habit of taking money from the public chest, and using that money for my own purposes and have been obliged to refund a part of th'at money. That is the charge he has made.
Now, Air. Speaker, this sensitive man who does not like to hear offensive language used against himself, yet who uses more disagreeable language than any other hon. member had not the courage to stand up and say: ' That is not what I said, that is not what I meant to say.' But here is the mean insinuation used by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster):
You are pretty close to it.
That is the charge the hon. gentleman made against the Minister of Marine and Fisheries-that he had kept for his own purpose for months money that he had no right to keep. Is that a charge, or is that an insinuation? And, Sir, he had not the manliness to do what the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurierj nobly did to-night, but he kept his seat and said:
' You are pretty close to it.' I feel that I am in the judgment of the House and will be in the judgment of the country by voting against the amendment as it is proposed. The leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden), very ingeniously said:
' Change the amendment in any way you like, provided you give us an investigation.' The hon. leader of the opposition knows full well that by constitutional practice and parliamentary rule no amendment can be offered to an amendment such as that before the House, because it is in the form of a vote of want of confidence in the government. Had an amendment been possible, we might have moved, as we would have moved, that whenever there was a direct and specific charge against any department we would afford an investigation. And, Sir, in conclusion, I say that when any hon. gentleman opposite has a charge to make against a department of this government and makes that charge, as constitutionally he should make it, upon the re-

sponsibility of a member of this House, then this government certainly will give a thorough and true investigation, and I will be the first to support them in taking that course.


Mr. WM. PRICE (Quebec West).: My hon. friend from Hull (Mr. Devlin), seemed to have no argument against the amendment, but he has a great deal to say about the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster). The hon. member for North Toronto is well able to defend himself, but it seems to me rather absurd that so many members attempt to cross swords with that hon. member. I find that I have practically no arguments to rebut; I have heard simply nothing against this amendment. What I did hear was that Conservatives before 1896 did the same thing. I can only answer as, I believe, a member of the British House of Commons did, ' I am glad to see that the Liberals of this day are now as advanced as the Conservatives were in 1896.' One would suppose that in thirteen years we should make greater advances than that. One would suppose that, by this time, we would drop this tu quoque argument and bring forward solid arguments before the House. It is tiresome, indeed, to a business man to come to Ottawa and to listen to this sort of thing in place or argument. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) told us yesterday that the responsibility for the state of affairs in his department as shown by the report of Mr. Justice Cassels rests as much with his predecessors as with himself. He goes as far back as 1867. This may be so, and let us assume that it is correct. In 1867, the expenditure on fisheries and coast service was something over $205,000. In 1896, the expenditure was $893,000, an advance during that time of $688,000. In 1907-8, the expenditure was $3,791,737, an increase since 1896 of over $2,900,000. I am not going to find fault with that increase now, because a great deal of the money was well spent in lighting the St. Lawrence channel and in many other important works.
I would like to draw attention to the salaries received by the agents of the Marine and Fisheries Department. Have they been increased or not? I find that Mr. J. U. Gregory, late agent at Quebec, was getting a salary of $2,200, a man who had been there 38 long years. This man was in charge of expenditures, averaging during the last three years $904,000. Mr. Harding, of St. John, was getting $1,800 a year after 13 years' service, and was handling an average expenditure of $250,000. Mr. J. O. Parsons, of Halifax, was getting a salary of $1,600 after 14 years' service, and was spending on an average $674,000 annually. Now, it seems to me that in view of the enormously increased expenditures since 1896, and particularly during the last four or five years, 1224
the Minister of Marine and Fisheries ought to have had some thought 'for the agents at those places. Enormous responsibilities were laid on the shoulders of these men.-They were expected to look after the spend-' ing of these enormous sums, they were expected to look after all the shipping and all the multifarious interests of the department. During the last five years the cost of living has greatly increased, and every one knows that men in those positions are supposed to maintain a certain style of living. Do you mean to tell me that many of those officials, who are paid salaries averaging from $1,600 to $2,200, salaries that are paid to ordinary bookkeepers because they keep their books correctly, are receiving what simple justice requires they should receive? I say the Minister of Marine is responsible for not having raised the salaries of those men. It is no wonder that some of those agents have done some things that they should not have done, or that things have gone wrong in this department, seeing that its agents were so poorly paid. I think they deserve sympathy, and that the government deserves condemnation for the parsimonious way in which it has treated those men. I noticed in reading the evidence taken at Halifax that the late members, Roche and Carney, were allowed to employ men during the election, or at least that they got men employed during the election. What has the minister done about that? Is he going to allow that to go on year after year? Are members and candidates on the government side to be allowed to have men employed in that way? I have myself suffered from the unfair interference of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in employing extra men during my election in Quebec West, men that were employed on purpose to vote against me. We are told that there is no reason why a further investigation should be held by the department. I think there are many reasons why a further investigation should be undertaken. Many of the men who have been proven by the Cassels investigation to have given bribes are still supplying goods to the Department of Public Works, and to several other departments. What kind of work is being done by the government at various wharfs? We have had the case of the Sorel wharf slipping into the water, after we have spent large sums of money upon it. We have been told about the absurdly high cost of the servants' quarters at Kingston. We know that there are various wharfs built in different parts of the country to many of which vessels cannot go. Now, it seems to me that if the public money is being wrongfully spent in these ways, an investigation should be held in regard to it. I submit that the amendment moved by my hon. friend from St. Anne's is a good one, that the reasons he Has given in support of it are sound, and that the

government, if they wish to do their duty, should accept it and immediately order another investigation into the various departments. I do not suppose they will do it, they are altogether too well satisfied with themselves. To the pure all things are pure. I think it might be better said that to the impure all things are impure on the other side of the House.


Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Montmorency).: I was rather anxious to hear my hon. friend from Quebec West (Mr. Price) express his views on this question. As many hon. members are aware, the member for Quebec West lives in the district in which most of these pretended scandals took place. Mr. Gregory, of whom we have heard so much, is living in the hon. member's county, as well as several other gentlemen who have been concerned in the Cassels investigation. I am not surprised, therefore, to hear the hon. member for Quebec West express his sympathy with these men who have been dismissed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I think the hon. member might have gone a little further and told the House why he had sympathy for these gentlemen, but he did not. Perhaps the reason he did not was that the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the leader of the opposition has spoken of these gentlemen in such language that the member for Quebec West did not dare to say anything further in their favour. After the words which have been pronounced to-night by the member for North Toronto about the Quebec merchants and the Quebec officials, I am not surprised that the hon. member for Quebec West could not say much more about them. If he did speak in that way concerning them, it was because he knew better than the member for North Toronto that these gentlemen who were concerned in that investigation were not as bad as the member for North Toronto has painted them. The member for North Toronto mentioned several names when he was replying to the hon. member for Lunenburg; he spoke, for instance, of Mr. Drolet, and he read some of the evidence taken with regard to him, but the hon. member did not read that evidence as he should have read it. He only selected certain words, or perhaps something that he might have heard from certain persons who were hostile to this gentleman, and then he brings them forward in the House of Commons. I might tell the hon. gentleman that if he had ever met Mr. Drolet personally, if he had ever known him, he would not have used that language. Let me tell you that Mr. Drolet is not a man to bribe anybody. He does not know how. He never learned, and he cannot even understand it. He is simply a skilled worker; he is a man of genius, a man who devotes


William Price: his attention to mechanics. The business and financial affairs of his firm are in the hands of his bookkeepers. I mean to say that while he is at the head of his firm the business and financial side of it is managed by others, and he does not himself know anything about payments made on behalf of the firm. The same thing might be said of others whose names are mentioned in the report of Mr. Justice Cassels. I make this statement because I believe it tp be true. I do not think there is any proof at all which would satisfy the country or parliament that Halliday has done anything wrong so far as his dealings with the Department of Marine and Fisheries are concerned. It has been said that he has received $6,000 more than he was entitled to. That is an affirmation which is entirely wrong and is not founded cn fact. If Mr. Halliday has received $6,000 more than what his original contract called for, as stated in Mr. Justice Cassels' report, it is because of the subsequent agreement which he entered into with the Department of Marine and Fisheries and under which he was entitled to receive that amount. It is easy to say that he has received more money than he was entitled to, but do hon. gentlemen know the circumstances under which he received it? Mr. Halliday had a contract with the Department of Marine and Fisheries by which a boat of his was hired to the department at $125 a day. There was a condition that he should be entitled to a certain part of the service of the boat for his own trade, and it was agreed that the moment the department wanted the entire service of the steamer for its own use the department would pay more than the first contract called for. That is the whole story, and yet we hear hon. gentlemen opposite making the statement that Halliday has received more money than he was entitled to. We hear these hon. gentlemen saying that men like Mr. Drolet were bribers. The statement is entirely wrong; it is entirely false, and there is no reason whatever for making it. Of course, I do not get up to defend any person who has given money to officials of the department. I do not say it is right, but I am taking special individuals, that hon. gentlemen opposite do not know at all, whose names they have put before the country as being bribers, and I am showing that their accusations are entirely wrong and that they do not know what they are talking about. They may find enjoyment in slandering these men, but the name of Drolet will remain in the minds of the people of the city of Quebec as that of a man of genius and integrity.
I would call the attention of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. L. R. Borden) to the fact that the

hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Price) had not a word to say against Mr. Drolet or Mr. Halliday. Yet, we hear these hon. gentlemen trying to cast discredit upon these men. They admire very much the hon. member for" Quebec West, they have great confidence in him, but still he does not share their views. He said to-night that he had a feeling of sympathy for the merchants and officials in Quebec. If I have referred to Quebec to-night it is because the hon. member for Qubeec West has spoken. It was not my intention to say anything about it, but I, in common with other Quebecers, feel sore because of the dismissals that have taken place in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. There were in the department men who had done a great deal for the public service. There were certain men who, if I am permitted to say what I think, should not have been dismissed, and who should not have been treated as they were. I might mention the case of Geo. O'Farrel, for instance, who, under special circumstances, happened to borrow money from some person who had business relations with the department. He borrowed money from him one day, it was made public and as a result of that the decision was arrived at that O'Farrel had to go. Any one who has followed O'Farrel's career knows that he has given valuable services to the department. He entered the department many years ago and since that time his life has been devoted to the public service. He continued in the service for many years at a very small salary, because as every one knows, the officers of the Department of Marine and Fisheries are not well paid. What were the circumstances under which he received the money which was the basis of the charge against him? He has explained them. His explanation is this: * I was in Halifax when I received a telegram saying that my son was dying, that my wife was very sick and that everything was going wrong as far as my family were concerned. I came to Quebec without any money. Whom did I meet? I met some persons in the office who were doing work for the department and I happened to borrow $100 from one of these persons.' For the sake of $100 you put that man out of the service; and what can he do now? You have said to him: 'You are dismissed.' That is the voice of the department, that is the voice of the minister, that is the conclusion of Mr. Justice Cassels' report. I might say the same for others but it is not my duty. We are bound under circumstances of this kind to sacrifice a few heads, and perhaps there are others in the department who might have been treated in a different way. That, of course, is a matter of personal opinion I leave it at that.
I would also say a word for another official of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, Captain Spain. It is of course a good rule that when an employee of a department has to travel on government business, he should give an account of his expenses from day to day, but if an official happens to make a mistake, if he happens to forget, surely there must be enough leniency in the minds of the people to overlook the disappearance of a few hundred dollars, and if Captain Spain was a good servant of the country, as Mr. Justice Cassels says, should we for the sake of $500 for which he cannot account, deprive the country of the very valuable services which he has rendered in the past? I cannot believe that we should do that. What is $500 or even $1,000 that for it we should sacrifice the services of a man of that sort.	.
I wish now to refer to the work performed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Unfortunately the member for Quebec Centre (Mr. Lachance) who is much better able than myself to express the views of the Quebec members in this House, is absent, but I felt it my duty to say a few words about the work which I know has been performed in Quebec. I have admired the position taken by the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty). He has presented an amendment to the motion for Supply and he has done it in such language and in such a way as will surely appeal to the members on this side of the House. He has praised the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) and he has done it probably because he knew that such praise was deserved. His language tonight was in striking contrast to that uttered by hon. gentlemen opposite last year. To-day the hon. member spoke not against Mr. Brodeur personally, not against the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as being Mr. Brodeur; he was criticising his administration, but not his personality. That is something to which we have not been accustomed, because during the time I have had the honour of a seat in this House, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has been the most bitterly attacked and criticised member of the administration. We have seen him for days and nights trying to pass a few dollars of his estimates, but prevented from doing so, by whom? By the members of the opposition, the same members who now recognize his merit and who now say he has done his duty and has been a good administrator of public affairs. When we say he has been a good administrator of the affairs of his department we know something about it and I probably know more than many other members in this House, because.it is my good fortune to represent a county situated on the shores of the St. Lawrence river. My constituency is a maritime constituency ; I have there sailors, navigators, captains.

pilots, and all classes of men connected with navigation. From all these men there comes nothing but compliment for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries because he has rendered every one of them full justice and has given them every aid in their profession that they could demand. A passenger travelling on one of the great ocean liners, going through the channel from Montreal to the gulf does not realize what the maintenance of that river navigation means; he does not think of the pilot who guides the ship, he forgets the men in charge of the lighthouse, and he forgets the man at the head of the river service. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has to look after all that , and to-day he has all the lighthouses and aids to navigation from Montreal to the gulf in such a state of efficiency that a steamer can start from Montreal at any hour of the day or night and traverse the St. Lawrence river as safely by night as by day. This has been the work of the present Minister of Marine. His predecessors tried to accomplish this,, but they did not succeed. He has succeeded and the country should be thankful for his efforts and should give him credit for that great achievement. Not long ago the Shipping Federation, whose opinion will not be opposed by the hon. gentlemen opposite, enjoyed an excursion down the St. Lawrence river as the guests of the minister in order that they might see the work that the department was performing. I need not repeat the opinion expressed by the Shipping Federation; it was published in the papers. They recognized that the work of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was the very best effort that any Minister of Marine had performed. I shall not longer detain the House in demonstrating that the minister has done his duty towards his country. To prove that, I need only take the words of the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) who has said plainly that the personality of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not in question. It cannot be. for those who know tfte minister feel that his name stands for honesty, for integrity, for everything that is the very best.
I wish to state now why I shall not support the amendment of the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty.) I do not believe that sufficient reasons have been advanced to induce us to vote for that amendment. Without any reasons and without any justification, we have the hon. gentleman's assertion that other departments may be wrong; but we do not know it, and until we have from hon. gentlemen opposite a definite charge, we cannot justify an amendment of this kind, and therefore I wish to put myself on record as saying that I will vote against it.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate my hon. friend Mr. PARENT.
from Montmorency (Mr. Parent) upon the courtesy he has done those of us, who would have been unable to follow him in the beautiful language in which he is accustomed to address the House, in making his speech in English; and if I do not pay that attention to it to which it is entitled, he will have to pardon me because of the lateness of the hour. If this debate has been somewhat protracted, it has not been lacking, at any rate in the later hours, in interest. To that interest the Prime Minister has largely contributed. I fancy that it is many years since this House has witnessed such a scene as has been enacted here to-night, for which the Prime Minister and he alone was responsible. What position has the right hon. gentleman taken with regard to this resolution? He has taken the position of obstructing it, opposing it upon premises which were absolutely untenable, and, as has been pointed out by the hon. leader of the opposition, upon grounds which the right hon. gentleman demonstrated clearly he was not sure of, and which I am quite sure he is satisfied now were incorrect. The right hon. gentleman, in making the attack he did upon my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), boasted of his manliness and of his long parliamentary career; yet he did not hesitate to make an imputation against the hon. member for North Toronto which he was afterwards obliged to retract. That was the commencement of a scene which was somewhat extraordinary, and following which the right hon. gentleman, with a fluency to which he is quite accustomed, quoted scripture. We have heard the right hon. gentleman quote scripture before, I think pretty often during the last campaign. The right hon. gentleman to-night quoted this saying: 'To the pure all things are pure.' When the right hon. gentleman made that very apt quotation, it occurred to me that I would like to quote to him, not from scripture, but from Shakespeare, apropos of the right hon. gentleman's specious explanation or apology for calling upon his party to vote down this resolution:
In law, what plea so tainted and corrupt,
But being season'd with a gracious voice,
Obscures the show of evil.
It is not extraordinary to find the right hon. gentleman opposing this motion, in view of the fact that during the last five years we on this side of the House have made similar motions to the present one, though limited in their scope to one department or another, and they have been met invariably with the same reply from the right hon. gentleman, that these departments were above suspicion, that he did not propose to investigate them no matter what scandal was charged against them. To

'the pure all things are pure,' is the song the right hon. gentleman constantly sings. Let me remind the right hon. gentleman of some of the pure things which he has called upon his followers to vote down a reasonable, fair and full investigation into.
I remember a debate which took place in this House two or three years ago, in regard to the action of a gentleman named Philip Wagner, who was in the civil service somewhere in the North West Territories. This gentleman had been convicted of stealing from the very men with whom as a public official he was brought into contact. After having been twice in gaol, he was brought out, re-appointed to the Department of Interior, promoted, and givem an increase of salary; and when a motion was made on this side of the House that Philip Wagner be dismissed or that his conduct be inquired into, the right hon. gentleman rose in his place and called upon his followers to vote down the motion, and it was voted down, because to the right hon. gentlemen then, as now, 'to the pure all things are pure.' I might refresh the right hon.gentleman's memory with one or two other instances in which he has voted and called upon his followers to vote against similar resolutions. He remembers well the case of one Joseph Nixon, another gentleman who in his office stole from the people with whom he was brought into contact. A motion to condemn that man, made from this side of the House, met with the same reply from the right hon. gentleman-'to the pure all things are pure.' As long as this government is in power, as long as this right hon. gentleman sits here, thieves in the public service are safe and immune from prosecution, because the right hon. gentleman says that 'to the pure all things are pure,' and by the thief all things may be thieved. Is the right hon. gentleman's memory so bad that it cannot carry him back to only a few days ago, when a measure of reckless extravagence was passed in this House, namely, the wil-iul and unjustifiable expenditure of $1,000,000 of the money of this country at a time when this country could ill afford it, when we have lectures on retrenchment preached to us by ministers of the Crown, for a work said to be a public work, but one that served no other purpose than either to satisfy election pledges or the greed of some contractor and to endeavour to entrench this government in power.
Does the right hon. gentleman remember *this? I might cite several votes which the right hon. gentleman gave to burk investigation, even when there was a case made [DOT]out so clear that he himself had to admit there was evidence in support of it and considerable suspicion. On each occasion the right hon. gentleman blocked the way.
He prevented any attempts to clear the atmosphere of those charges which hung so black and low upon the government and refused, as he is now doing, investigation after investigation. We have here facts which undoubtedly point to corruption and irregularities in the various departments of the government, but all the reply_ we can get from the right hon. gentleman is a misapplication of the words of the scriptures.
I do this, he says, because to ' the pure all things are pure.' With regard to the scope of the investigation there is a somewhat extraordinary divergence between the position taken by the government now and that which they took prior to the Cassels inquiry. When the Civil Service report was laid on the table, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries made certain explanations. Let me draw a contrast between what the government promised in the shape of an investigation and what the government gave. In the session of 1907-8 the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on page 5621 of ' Hansard ' said:
While I am aware that some officials have been open to censure for the manner in which they have discharged their duties, I never had any evidence to show dishonesty on their part.
Note that at the time the Civil Service Commission report was brought down, the minister admitted that he knew that some of the officials of the department had been open to censure. Well, is there one jot or tittle of evidence to show that there was any attempt made by him at any time to censure any of his officials or dismiss one of them, or hold an inquiry on his own account into the administration of his department? On page 3725 of ' Hansard,' I find the hon. minister saying with regard to the scope of the commission:
I may say at once that, so far as the government is concerned, nothing will be done to prevent this investigation being as thorough and as extended as possible. As head of that department I have every interest in seeing that it shall be as complete as it can be. I want to see this investigation conducted in such a manner that the people of Canada may be satisfied that the intention of the government and of the department is to make the investigation absolutely right in all respects.
Contrast with that declaration the fact that at that time the minister had written out, in the inner chamber of his department, a commission which circumscribed and limited the commissioner in such a way that it was absolutely impossible for him, according to his own ruling, to make a thorough and complete investigation into all the matters and in such a way as to satisfy the people that the intention was to have a thorough investigation. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance had also something to say with regard to the position in which the department found itself. On page 7330 of the ' Hansard ' of 1908, he said :

It is practically stated in the report of two of the commissioners, Messrs. Fyshe and Bazin, that there has been corruption in the Department of (Marine and Fisheries. The word is not used, But my hon. friend says he knows what the report means.
And again, on the following page:
If they wished to go into that branch of the question-and I do not say they should not have done so-as to whether or not the officials in the service were corrupt, then they were bound in justice to themselves, to the House and the individuals concerned, to go further and say in some detail who was corrupt and wherein the corruption lay.
Therefore, I say that what the minister and the government promise, and what they gave, are so far apart that the only possible reparation they can make now, in view of the circumstances as they are, in view of the insufficiency of this report, in view of the fact that this report in every way breathes of matters behind the scenes which ought to be, and which some day must he, investigated, is to open the doors of each department and extend the investigation along the lines of the resolution of my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty).
Now, what has been said by the other side in answer? Mainly, there are two grounds of opposition to this amendment. The first is that when the Conservatives were in office there was great corruption in the departments; and the other is one on which the right hon. Prime Minister and his supporters greatly plume themselves-that the people last election returned the right hon. gentleman and his party to power and thereby declared themselves completely satisfied with this investigation. How did they satisfy the people? I have shown that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and others were telling the country that the investigation would be thorough and efficient and that justice would be done all round. And the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laur-ier) told the people on the hustings at Niagara Falls that the people believed his government was an honest government, and, as the hon. member for North Toronto showed, he took to himself the credit of directing the holding of an investigation by the Civil Service Commission, and, as it was not sufficient, of ordering the one which he said would satisfy the people that there was nothing wrong left undisclosed to the public gaze. I say that the report of Mr. Justice Cassels, in certain respects which have been pointed out, and which I shall not go into in detail, shows that the cloud which rests upon the government has not been dissipated and that a further investigation is necesary. The inquiry stops short at most important points; very important subjects are not followed up; conclusions are not drawn; witnesses who could give Mr. BOYCE.
most valuable testimony on certain points are not called; and the result of the whole report is most unsatisfactory in that those who are most guilty are not disclosed and do not appear in the evidence.
I desire to refer to one feature of that report, the attitude taken with regard to the relations between Mr. Gregory, of Quebec, and the deputy minister of the department.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries will tell me if I am wrong in believing that the deputy minister has been retired with a superannuation allowance of $3,000 per annum, while Mr. Gregory, of Quebec, has suffered the pain of dismissal. Some animadversions have been made in the report on the deputy minister. I have not made an extended or analytical examination of the report, but I think there is a great deal that might have been brought out if witnesses had been called whom the deputy minister wanted to have called to complete the investigation. Extraordinary facts are brought to light. For instance, at page 55 of the report, the comissioner purports to quote the first part of a letter from the deputy minister to Mr. Gregory:
My dear Gregory,-As regards the letters which have been written to you lately, and which will probably be written again, they are simply to save the department in the eyes of the Finance Minister, they are doing all they can to curtail our expenses, but that cannot be done.
That clause, standing alone, seems to be rather peculiar; it would appear to bear only one construction, and that is that the deputy minister was instructing Mr. Gregory in one way by letters which were on file in the department and instructing him privately to pay no attention to these letters. I do not know whether the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) has laid on the table, or intends to lay on the table, the correspondence with Mt. Gour-deau in that connection. I would like to ask the minister that question. Apparently, the hon. minister does not consider the question of sufficient importance, so I will pass it by.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Do I understand the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) to ask me a question?


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Yes. Will the minister lay on the table the correspondence between Mr. Gourdeau and Mr. Gregory relative to the circumstances referred to in this letter?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know of any correspondence, except that Col. Gourdeau sent some letters last year with regard to his resignation. I think these letters have been brought down.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: Last year, Col. Gourdeau sent some letters-that is all the minister tells us. Let me ask the minister if he

recognizes this as being the context of that part quoted from Col. Gourdeau's letter?
In the meantime, I have obtained the Prime Minister's approval for the large expenditure for repairing the lightship and provision will have to be made, some way or other, to meet this.
What does that mean? It means that the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries was telling Mr. Gregory that expenditures were being made beyond the estimated amount, that he was telling him to curtail, but only in order to blind the eyes -of the Minister of Finance, and that he had, in the meantime, obtained the fiat of the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to the expenditure, and following that had got a warrant from the Governor-General in order to defray the expense. Well, Sir, it is an extraordinary fact, but I understand it to be a fact, that Col. Gourdeau also contends that there was-and I say this subject to correction by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if I am wrong-an interview in the city of Quebec between the right hon. Prime Minister and Mr. Gregory with reference to the expenditure, and that only a few days before this letter was written, the right hon. gentleman expressed himself to Mr. Gregory in the presence of Mr. Gourdeau as being satisfied with the explanation that Mr. Gregory gave as to his position at that time and the reason for the expenditure he had made, and that the Prime Minister came back, and, in order to provide for the expenditures, which then exceeded the estimates, he went to the Governor General and got a Governor General's warrant. Am I right or wrong? I ask the Minister of Marine and F'isheries. Then, if that be the case, what becomes of the statement in Mr. Justice Cassels' report with regard to this paragraph?
Col. Gourdeau, I understand, contends that the paragraph which was alleged to have been untrue was absolutely true, and that he was so instructed to notify Mr. Gregory. At that time the affairs of the department were under the management and control, not of the present minister nor of the late Mr, Prefontaine, but of the Prime Minister of the country himself. If there were irregularities which ought to have been brought to light as between the late deputy minister and Mr. Gregory at Montreal, surely it would have been proper, and in accordance with the scope of the investigation, if these statements are true, that the right hon. gentleman should have been called to the witness box to give evidence, seeing that he was in charge of the department at that time, and who, it i>s said, had conversations relative to these very matters with both the deputy minister and Mr. Gregory, and who gave his fiat for the increased expenditure. Without referring at greater length to the matters which are the subject of this resolution, I want to point out to the Prime Minister that the people of Canada demand a full and searching investigation into the expenses of thiis country, and I think I am only echoing the sentiments of the people when I say that they will not submit to an investigation being choked at its birth, as the government are trying to do in opposing this resolution. The resolution of the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) grows out of the facts referred to in Judge Cassels' report, and it follows as a logical sequence, that there should be a further' investigation, an investigation not limited to one department, but extending to all the spending departments of the government. And I say that just so long as the government stand in the door and bar the way to a complete and thorough investigation into these departments, just so sure will the government lose the confidence of the people.


Mr. CYRIAS ROY (Montmagny).: (Translation). Mr. Speaker, I do not propose speaking at great length on the question now before the House. I do not propose going into the details of the inquiry which has been carried on at the request of hon. members and with the approval of the government. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) charged some hon. gentlemen sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, with not being well posted on the rules of the House and having shown a lack of logic in their remarks. As regards myself, I think that if the mover of this amendment had proceeded in such a way as to permit our accepting his proposition, that is, if instead of introducing a non-confidence motion, he had applied directly to the government with a view to obtaining a continuation of the inquiry they had willingly granted in the case of the Marine Department, there would not have been a head of department who would not have agreed to such a request, and myself, as a liberal, I would have been in favour of such a move. But to-day a non-confidence motion is laid before the House asking for a general inquiry into the departments, and that after the government, through the Minister of Marine, has announced the policy he intends to follow in pursuance of the report of Mr. Justice Cassels. Seeing that the opposition has thought fit to take that stand, the proposal of a non-confidence motion, I consider it the duty, not only of the members on the government side, but of the whole House, to vote against the proposed amendment.
What reasons have been advanced in support of the amendment? Was there any

reference made to the report of Mr. Justice Cassels? Incidentally some members have mentioned it. We have it from the very mouths of those who have taken part in the debate on behalf of the opposition, that the Minister of Marine and his department are in no way involved in the findings of the Cassels inquiry. That is no doubt the reason why efforts are now being made to mix up things. What the minister has agreed to is declared insufficient. It must be stated publicly that the government is responsible for the circumstances brought out by the Cassels inquiry, since they refuse to grant the request implied in the said amendment. Well, Mr. Speaker, I say that such a mode of proceedure cannot be approved.
As I stated a moment ago, the hon. member for North Toronto has had the courage, relying on the experience he gained in this House, to rebuke an hon. member on your right, Mr. Speaker, for his so-called lack of experience and the illogical stand taken by him in consequence. Well, at the risk of being dealt with in like manner, being also a new member, not very familiar with the rules of the House, I shall undertake to express briefly the opinion I have as regards the question now before us. If I were called upon to answer the hon. member who has just taken his seat, I think that would be an easy matter, as he would have to admit that he has not dealt with the question before the House, that is to say the report of Mr. Justice Cassels. The hon. member stated that, if the report referred to is to be believed, all the ministers, and among them the right hon. Prime Minister, are to be held accountable for the findings contained in Mr. Justice Cassels' report. Now, what are those findings? Does not the report clear the department of Marine and all other departments of any charges made against them?
To show the good faith of the Minister of Marine, it will be sufficient to recall that this inquiry was made following on a report made by the Civil Service Commission appointed by the government. It has been claimed that the inquiry was incomplete, that the Minister of Marine was interested in preventing any light being thrown on the management of his department. Now, what is stated in the report of the Civil Service Commission, which has been the occasion for instituting the Cassels' inquiry? That paragraph has already been read, and in order to save time, I shall quote only the two last lines:
In other words some of the government's officers are serving two masters, and apparently succeeding with both-Scripture notwithstanding.


Cyrias Roy: Mr. Justice Cassels, after quoting that sentence from the report of the Civil Service Commission, goes on as follows:
Some limitation had to be given the inquiry and as the charges made by the report of the Civil Service Commission are mainly confined to -the -fiscal year 1904-5, 1905-6 and 1903-7, I limited the investigation in the meantime to those years.
An hon. gentleman on the other side charged the minister with having limited the inquiry. The above quotation from Mr. Cassels' report shows that, in limiting the scope of the inquiry to those three years, he took his inspiration from the report of the Civil Service Commission.
Then, by referring to the instructions given to Mr. Justice Cassels, it will be found that they do not contain any restriction as to the scope of inquiry. I quote the following lines from the commission signed by the hon. Minister of Marine appointing Mr. Justice Cassels 'Commissioner to investigate and report upon certain statements contained in the report of the Civil Service Commision reflecting upon the integrity of the officials of the department of Marine and Fisheries, or some of them.'
In view of the above quotations, on what grounds can it be contended that the Minister of Marine is responsible for restricting the scope of the inquiry? There is nothing to support such a contention.
As I stated a moment ago, the finding contained in the Teport of Mr. Justice Cassels, is that certain officers regarding whose conduct the inquiry was held, have, received certain amounts which they should not have received. Well, my views may differ from those of some of the hon. members on whose side I happen to occupy a seat, but seeing that the inquiry has been granted at their request, and that as a result, some officials have been found guilty, should the House now, in accordance with the wishes of some hon. members, start- a flesh inquiry ? Of course, we have the right to do so, but would we be justifiable in so doing ? I do not think so. Unless there are some very sound reasons for believing that the commissioner erred, it seems to me hon. gentlemen are not justifiable in discussing these conclusions. We are bound to accept them. And they go to show, unfortunately for the province of Quebec, a constituency of which I represent in this House, that certain officials have committed a breach of duty in accepting what they should have refused.
In view of the promptness and cheerfulness with which that inquiry was granted by the minister, who, though unaware of what had been going on, was anxious to dispel any suspicions resting on his depart-

ment, it seems t-o me that all that can' be expected now from the Minister of Marine is that he should give effect to the findings of the commissioner.
Mr. Speaker, I have noticed, and I make the statement in all sincerity, that in regard to certain questions, members on both sides of the House are apt to repeat the same arguments. I noticed it and took note of it. I do not wish it to be said that I am committing the same error. Considering the lateness of the hour, and as I understand the question will shortly be put, I shall discard the copious notes I had jotted down. However, I may state that for the reasons above mentioned and for others which I might state, I shall vote against the amendment introduced by the hon. member for St. Anne's.
Mr. JOSEPH DEMERS (St. Johns and Iberville.) (Translation.) I apologize to the House for having to take up some of its time at such a late hour. I listened with great interest and care to the speech delivered yesterday by the member for St. Anne's (Mr. Doherty). I am happy to say that, like the whole House, I appreciated his remarks in reference to the hon. Minister of Marine.
The hon. member for St. Anne's has deemed it his duty to publicly acknowledge the honesty of the hon. minister. Possibly he thought it incumbent on him to relieve his party of an obligation incurred, that of making amends for an injury unjustly caused to others.
The hon. minister had surely no need for the certificate of high honourability, which has been thus granted to him ; at the same time, the stand taken by the hon. member for St. Anne's is not the less meritorious, and is evidence on the part of the mover of the amendment of a spirit of fairness, which is creditable to him, and for which I sincerely congratulate him.
That is sufficient compensation to the minister for the attacks directed against him, during last session and this, as well as in the course of this very debate, attacks which have been of such a violent character, that we could not help wondering whether those who directed them were conscious of the part they were playing, and whether the minister was being attacked because of his being Minister of Marine or for some other reason.
The hon. minister had the right to expect an apology from some member of the opposition. True, the hon. member for St. Anne's has not thought fit to go to the point of congratulating the minister on his administration, but I think he could have done so just as well.
Just think what an enormous amount of work the hon. Minister of Marine has taken on himself to accomplish since he came into office ! Appointed in 1906, his first step was to go into the working of his. department, so as to put himself in touch with all details of its management. Very soon, however, he realized that such a task was very difficult of accomplishment, on account of the defective system of bookkeeping in use. He then decided to effect a change and to introduce a new and business-like system of bookkeeping. That required several months and entailed a pretty heavy expenditure ; but that expenditure was justified, I think, in view of the benefits derived therefrom.	.
Shortly after, the Civil Service Commission started its inquiry, one of the findings of which informed us that some wrongdoing had been committed by high officials of the Department of Marine. However, as that report did not mention any one, it was impossible to find out who the guilty officials were. The hon. minister then decided to require on his own account a thorough inquiry, in order to get to the bottom of the whole matter and insure the punishment of all offenders. The inquiry was held and the guilty officials have been punished. The department is to-day on the best possible footing.	_	,
Was the hon. minister right in trusting the officials of his department, from the time he took office until the facts were brought out in the course of the Cassels inquiry. Surely it is unbecoming on the part of hon. members on the other side to find fault with him on that account, considering that the officers in charge when he came into office had all been appointed by the late Conservative administration.
Could the minister be expected to do more than he has done? Appointed, as I have already stated, in 1906, that is three years ago, twenty months of which have been taken up by the work of succeeding sessions, he has been called upon to spend five or six other months in Europe, nego-ciating the Franeo-Canadian treaty. In spite of his numerous occupations, the hon. minister has found time to introduce in his department an admirable system of bookkeeping, which ensures a considerable saving. He has, moreover, vigorously prosecuted the great national work of deepening, lighting and providing with buoys the channel of the St. Lawrence. In spite of these enormous undertakings, the hon. minister has time to reform and renew the Montreal harbour commission, and to hold an inquiry which has enabled him to rid his department of a number of people who were not qualified to occupy important public positions.
The above statement of facts warrants me in saying that the hon. Minister of Marine has set himself to accomplishing a tremendous task, and I think he may well be proud for having carried it out in so short a time, by dint of unrelenting energy. The hon. member for St. Ann's might therefore

very well have gone a little further and instead of being content with praising the minister personally, have congratulated him also as to his administrative work.
As regards the amendment submitted to the House, I do not think we should agree to it. No new facts have been brought forward of a nature to warrant our starting a further inquiry into the management of the various departments. Inquiries are expensive, as we all know, and before granting them we should carefully consider that aspect of the question, and grant them only for very good reasons. I for one can see neither in the Cassels' report, neither in the speeches of hon. gentlemen opposite anything sufficient to warrant such action on the part of parliament.
As regards the Department of Marine the circumstances 'were different. The facts brought forward by the Civil Service Commission were such as to render an inquiry without hesitating a single moment, without even waiting that the request be made. That action of the government is an assurance to us that if it had been necessary to institute inquires in regard to the other departments, such inquiries would have been instituted and all the circumstances brought to light, as easily as in the case of the Marine Department.
To my mind, the hon. member for St. Ann's and other hon. gentlemen opposite have not brought forward any arguments warranting such an inquiry. Besides, an amendment such as this one, coming from hon. gentlemen on the other side, is rather a matter for surprise and a subject for laughter, when it is remembered that the state of things revealed by the Cassels' inquiry has been in existence from 1878 to 1896, during the long period of office of the Conservative government; when it is remembered, also, that the Auditor General, in 1886-as stated yesterday by the Minister of Marine-went to the length of notifying the department of the existence of the deplorable state of things then in existence, notwithstanding which these gentlemen^ never raised their voice in favour of instituting an inquiry. We have, in view of these circumstances, every reason to be surprised at the motion introduced by the hon. member for St. Ann's.
I have faith in the government, and I know they will take necessary measures for the safeguard of the people's interests. They can verv well do without the dictates of the opposition when it comes to reforming or setting matters right.
As for the speeches delivered by the members of the opposition, a number of them, while too long, were made up wholly of quotations from the evidence taken in the course of the inquiry and from the report Mr. DEMERS.
of Mr. Justice Cassels. I cannot see what bearing nor what expediency these speeches can have, when the reading population has been thoroughly posted on the whole matter through the great daily newspapers which have printed that evidence and even Mr. Justice Cassels' report. A considerable saving of time might then have been effected by leaving out such quotations.
The hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Crothers) charged the government with carelessness and neglect for not having discovered promptly enough the existing state of things, the outcome of the bad behaviour of the officers of the department of Marine.
To that I answer that the system recognized as bad has been in existence since confederation, as shown in the evidence and in the conclusions of Mr. Justice Cassels. I cannot admit for one moment that the Conservatives, from 1878 to 1896, realized what was going on, without seeking to apply a remedy; otherwise they should be held criminally responsible. Now, if they have failed during all those years in bringing to light the wrong-doing of certain officers of that department, is it surprising that this government should have let eleven or twelve years go by before finding out what was going on and applying a remedy?
The government have done their duty, and I trust they will continue to do so as in the past. By carrying on this inquiry they have shown of what metal they are made and what is their energy; they have shown themselves to be inspired by the purest motives of public interest.
As long as the government is favoured with a government such as this, the people may rest assured that public affairs will be managed in the best possible manner within the range of human power.


Mr. A. LANCTOT (Richelieu).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the various speeches which were delivered yesterday and to-day, in support of the motion introduced by the hon. gentleman from St. Anne's (Mr. Doherty). Of the various reasons put forward by hon. gentlemen who favour this motion, I fail to see a single one warranting its adoption.
In short, the hon. member for St. Anne's proposes by this motion that a general inquiry be carried on regarding all departs ments, so as to dispel, he says, any cloud of suspicion resting on the management of such departments; he adds that such an inquiry is called for by public opinion, by the whole electorate of this country.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that if there Tested a cloud of suspicion on the management of the various departments, that cloud has been dispelled and carried away by the wind

which blew on the 26th of October last, and Drought about the victory of the present ad-mmistration. It will be remembered that the Civil Service Commission was appointed on May 8, 1907, and submitted its report on February 28, 1908. In that report some charges against officers of the Marine Department whose names are not given, are mentioned.
On April 6 of the same year, a further C?1?imis?T011 wa? ^PPDinted at the suggestion ot the Hon. Minister of Marine, under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Cassels, to look mto some indefinite charges contained in the report of the previous commission, and summed up into an imputation of lack of conscience directed against public servants in the carrying out of their duties, and particularly against officers of the Marine Department.
That commission was issued about seven months previous to the last general elections. The result of the electoral campaign largely hinged on the discussion of that issue, and the people's verdict was that the scope of the inquiry as suggested by the Hon. Minister of Marine was sufficiently wide. The electors of this country took that stand, in spite of the charge preferred by our opponents that the same system of corruption was rampant in all departments. Whereof, I say that this issue has been settled at the last general election, there is no sense in insisting to-day on a further mquiry being carried on as regards the other departments, and in contending that such further inquiry is called for by public opinion.
The hon. gentleman from St. Anne's, in the course of his remarks yesterday, contended that the state of things which has been found in existence in the Department of Marine was to be found in the other departments as well; because the same people who have intercourse with officers of the Department of Marine must have acted in the same way in their dealings with the officers of other departments.
The hon. member for St. Anne's will allow me to ask him this question : he was for many years a judge of the Superior court at Montreal, and with honour to the bench ; _ would he advise a jury to force an inquiry on a party for the purpose of finding out whether he has committed some fraud, although no specific charge is made against that man ? I am satisfied the hon. gentleman will answer in the negative. Now, the proposition set forth in his motion is identical to the one I have just stated.
Allow me also, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the hon. member for St. Anne's on the courtesy he has shown in his dealings with the Minister of Marine, when he stated that the hon. member for Rouville was an honest and upright man. We had not been accustomed on this side of the House to such expressions on behalf of members of
the opposition. In the course of the last two years that I have had the honour to occupy a seat in this House, I have never until the day before yesterday, heard a single kindly word in reference to the hon. Minister of Marine fall from the lips Oi members on the other side. It was necessary that a judge should come down from the bench and enter the political fray to have it proclaimed in the midst of his political allies in this House and before the country, what all his friends, no doubt, thought m their hearts, but had not had the courage and generosity to state in pub-
Foliticai partisanship has its exigencies, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of it ; and it is seldom that from the ranks of a party there stands out a man generous enough to state the truth, in spite of party prejudices, and do homage to an opponent whom he has to hght, but whom he cannot help
ZrTn'Tv, aud admiri,ng- Such is the purport of the hon. gentleman's remarks, and I congratulate him once more on that account.
Mr Speaker, my intention is not to take up the criticisms of the opposition regarding the management of the Marine department. However, I may be allowed to state that, since the minister holds that im-pertant portfolio, he has invariably done his duty. He has accomplished in the interest of shipping and transportation more than any of his predecessors. It is under his rule for instance, that the building of dredges has been started throughout the country, and particularly at Sorel, in the constituency which I have the honour to represent here.
The deepening of the channel of the St Lawrence, as was stated yesterday, has had the effect of lowering the rates of ocean insurance. Manufacturers, farmers and shippers have largely benefited thereby, owing to the reduced cost of transportation in connection with the products imported or exported by them.
The policy of the hon. Minister of Marine which makes for the building in our own country of dredges and boats, which used to be imported from abroad, is also worthy of general approval. While deepening the bt. Lawrence, lowering the rates of insurance and putting manufacturers, farmers and business men in a position to ship their products to the markets of Europe under more favourable conditions, the hon. minister has also had in mind that other very interesting class, the mechanics. He was anxious that people engaged in the trades should take a hand in forwarding the success of his undertaking; he was anxious of satisfying foreigners and the country as a whole that, within the bounds of the Dominion, within the province of Quebec, within my own constituency, there were men capable of building these dredges, these

boats, used by the Department of Marine; in other words, he was anxious that our craftsmen, particularly those familiar with work of that kind, should be in a position to put their talents to use right here, without having to go abroad for a living.
Such is Mr. Speaker, the showing made by the hon. Minister of Marine. Such is the showing of that utterely incapable and incompetent man, who should resign his portfolio, to please the virtuous member from North Toronto (Mr. Foster).
As a representative of the province of Quebec, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say.that the hon. minister has always enjoyed the confidence of his fellow-citizens in that province and since he has taken office he has always been trusted and held in high esteem by his English-speaking fellow citizens.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, allow me also to congratulate the hon. minister of Marine on the firm stand he has taken in connection with the dismissal of the men who had been found guilty of wrong-doing in the Cassels' inquiry. _
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that it is not without some misgivings that a man of fine feelings, such as the hon. Minister of Marine, deprived of their means of living heads of families, who, I am satisfied, were not the greatest sinners. But it was necessary that severity should be shown; it was necessary that the good should be separated from the bad. The hon. minister has not hesitated one moment in doing his duty.
Allow me, Mr. Speaker, to state my satisfaction, as representative of the county of Richelieu, at being in a position to state in this House and before the people of Canada that the searching inquiry held on the extensive and multifarious works carried on at Sorel has not brought out any facts of a nature to discredit in any way, any of the officers or honest men employed at Sorel, and that the honour of the county of Richelieu has not thereby suffered the least injury.


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I would not have taken part in the debate, particularly in view of the very exhaustive manner in which the questions of interest in the discussion have been referred to on both sides of the House, if it were not for the fact that I feel that if I were not to make some observations, I might allow a grave injustice to be done to the gentleman who was the representative of the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the constituency which I have the honour to represent and upon whom a very unfair attack was made by one of the gentlemen who spoke from the other side of the House. I refer to Mr. F. J. Harding, who has been, for a good many years, agent for the department in Mr. A. LANCTOT.
the city of St. John. I thought that perhaps the House would pardon me for having felt it necessary to rise in order to do justice to that gentleman. I find, in the remarks which the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) made, that he referred in terms of condemnation to the government because we had retired Mr. Harding from the service and given him a superannuation allowance. The hon. member for North Ontario, in referring to Mr. Harding, said:
The nest official, Harding, is superannuated, although, according to the evidence and the report, lie had 'financial transactions with corporations dealing with the department, and was concerned with the destruction of papers of the department and with false entries made in books, in order to protect him.
In justice to that gentleman I desire to say that there is not a shadow of foundation for the statement made by the hon. member for North Ontario. I cannot but express my surprise, that, when the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) was addressing this House, knowing the grave injustice which had been done to that gentleman, a gentleman who is well known to the hon. member for North Toronto, a gentleman whose father before him was well known to the hon. member, because both he and his son were under him when he was Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and having knowledge of the general character of that gentleman and of the faithful manner in which he has performed the duties devolving upon representatives of the Marine Department in the city of St. John, should not have felt it incumbent upon himself to do a small measure of justice to Mr. Harding by calling attention to the evidence and pointing out that the hon. member for North Ontario was entirely mistaken in the references which he made to Mr. Harding. It would have been but a simple act of justice on the part of that hon. gentleman and, coming from him as one of the leading members upon the opposition side, would have carried great weight in this country and would have afforded some measure of satisfaction to the friends and relatives of the gentleman who was so unjustly attacked by the hon. member for North Ontario. As far as Mr. Harding is concerned, the government has superannuated him because the evidence failed entirely to show that he had been guilty of any wrong-doing or of any corrupt act. M-r. Justice Cassels, in his findings, expressly reports that there has been no corrupt act proved against Mr. Harding. The one thing that was found against him was that he had the misfortune to be poor. For a good many years he had been in the habit of borrowing money from some gentlemen who had been for a number of years supplying goods to the department, which

moneys he had from time to time returned. Even before any of these gentlemen had business with the department he was in the habit of obtaining loans from them. But, in so far as the evidence shows, Mr. Harding always faithfully and honestly discharged the public duties which he owed to the department. Unfortunately, he had been stricken with paralysis a few months before the investigation took place. He was not able to give his evidence and because of his very severe affliction my hon. friend, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, has felt it in the public interest to retire him from the public service, but he has retired him honourably. He goes out from the public service without a stain upon his character and he receives the superannuation which he is entitled to by law.
With regard to the deputy minister, he also has been superannuated. I do not wish to add anything to what has been said in regard to him, but I would say to my hon. friend from North Ontario, if he were in his place, that if he searches the evidence from beginning to end, while he may find that Colonel Gourdeau has at times been lacking in discretion, or may not have been as firm as he should have been in the interests of the department, the evidence fails to disclose any corrupt act on the part of Colonel Gourdeau; it fails to disclose that he at any time profited by anything that was done by the different people referred to in the report, and, therefore, it seems to me, that it was not improper, in view of the forty years service which Colonel Gourdeau had rendered to the department and the country that he should be retired with a superannuation allowance. I, as one member of the government, am prepared to take the full responsibility for the superannuation of these two officials. In addition, having made these remarks and done, as far as Mr. Harding was concerned, the justice, which was due to him, of defending him from the attack which was made upon him, perhaps, while I am on my feet, it might be proper for me to give reasons why I think this amendment which the hon. member for Montreal, St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) has moved should not commend itself to the judgment of this House. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) referred in most eulogistic terms to the observations which the hon. member for St. Anne addressed the House in support of the resolution, and a good many compliments have been showered upon that hon. gentleman by other gentlemen who have addressed the House. With regard to the observations of my hon. friend I do not differ at all in my appreciation of his remarks, but I am not prepared to give to my hon. friend that credit which I would like to give him for the resolution which he has presented and for which he asks the
support of the members of this House. It does seem to me that when an hon. gentleman presents a resolution to the House he should be sure that the statements which are made in it are accurate. He ought to be sure that he is calling upon the members of the House to support statements which they can justify afterwards and which are supported by evidencfe sufficiently strong to justify their actions in that regard. My hon. friend in his resolution calls upon this House to ask for an investigation into the other great spending departments of the government. And what does my hon. friend by this resolution say? He says:
The report of the commission affords ground for the conviction that similar methods prevail m other great spending departments.
In other words, that the report of the commission affords ground for the conviction that there is official negligence ; there is wastefulness, and there is corrupt dealing. That is what he says by this resolution and what he asks this House to say. Let me ask him what there is in the report to justify a statement of that character? He may read the report from beginning to end and he will not find any suggestion of any wrongdoing upon the part of any officials of any other department of the government. Therefore, my hon. friend is asking the House to affirm something which upon its face is absolutely without foundation, and may I say without offence to my hon. friend, is absolutely false. Surely when my hon. friend prepared the resolution he should have taken pains to examine the report and see if he would be justified in asking the House to affirm the statements made there, which I have said are absolutely without foundation. Then by this resolution he makes the statement to this House that the ^ commission of 1907 simply made inquiry into the workings of one department at Ottawa. As my right hon. friend the Prime Minister has stated, it is absolutely clear that the commission must have made inquiry into the Public Works Department, into the Customs Department and into the Military Department, because at page 42 you will find what they have to say of the Department of Public Works and at page 37 what they have to say of the Militia Department, and also in another place as to the Customs Department. It is true that they did not go as fully into the departments as they might have gone if they had had a longer time, if they had had years to make an inquiry, because then they might have gone to all parts of the country and made inqufty as to all transactions between the public and the various officials of the different departments of the government. The remarks which they make with regard to the Public Works Department and with regard to the Customs and Post Oflice Departments I think are sufficient to satisfy

this House that if the commissioners had seen any evidence of wrong-doing in any one of those departments they would have fully set out what they had discovered in their report. That they have not done, and the fact that although they made inquiry into those departments they make no suggestion of having discovered anything wTong ought to be sufficient evidence that they did not observe there was anything wrong or anything that should be reported to His Excellency the Governor General. Therefore, it seems to me that my hon. friend in making the statement that the commission had only made incidental inquiry into one department, states something which is absolutely without foundation, and is asking this House to affirm something which is not only without proof, but which is absolutely contradictory to the proof as we have it in the Civil Service Commission and the report made by Mr. Justice Cassels.


Robert Laird Borden: Is the hon. gentleman under the impression that the word [DOT] only ' is in the resolution in the sense that only one department was investigated?


William Pugsley: It is absolutely clear,
I think:
The commission, in the course of their investigation into the condition of the Civil Service, having made incidental inqury into the workings of one department at Ottawa


Robert Laird Borden: But not only one.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is right, it doe3 not say ' only one,' but surely if any meaning can be given to language, that is intended to convey the meaning that there was inquiry into only one of the departments and the hon. gentlemen who have spoken on that side have advanced the argument that theTe was no inquiry except into one of the departments, and the same meaning is to be taken from the resolution of my hon. friend. The hon. gentleman in his argument said that because irregularities had been shown in the Department of Marine and Fisheries it was to be presumed that there would be irregularities and wrongdoing in the other departments Sir, in considering the foundation for that inference, we should bear in mind this fact that the only wrong-doing of any very great moment that will be discovered in reading the report, took place in the city of Quebec where the trusted agent of the department was a gentleman who had not been appointed by this administration, but who had received his early training not under any minister who was at any time a member of this administration; that agent had received his training under previous governments and was for a number of years under the control of my hon. friend the member foT North Toronto (Mr. Foster). I do not say there was anything in the cOurse Mr. PUGSLEY.
of the administration of the department which came to his knowledge which would account for the conduct of that official, but we must bear in mind that he had been for a lifetime in the department. He has now reached the age of 70 years and upwards and it is not reasonable to suppose that this practice of taking commissions, this practice of making advances to the people who delivered supplies and did work for the department has been indulged in only of late years. We may fairly assume that he had been doing this for a great many years. Unfortunately Mr. Justice Cassels, although he was in no way limited by the order in council, did not feel that he could go back beyond 1904, that is to say beyond the administration of the last three or four years. If he had been able to go back 15 or 20 years he might have found-I will not say he would have found-that Mr. Gregory, the agent at Quebec, had been pursuing the same practices for a great many years. In the other departments, in my department for instance, there are many young men- I have a deputy who was appointed in recent years, who came in there bringing new blood and new life into the department and who is vigilant, I believe, in the discharge of the duties which pertain to his position. We have in this country resident engineers, many of them young men, active young men, ambitious young men, ambitious to serve their country and to rise to positions of responsibility and influence in connection with the work of the department. They are the men who are engaged in hiring labourers, in buying supplies, in purchasing materials for the different works we are carrying on. Because the gentleman who had charge of the agency in Quebec has been guilty of wrong-doing, has allowed excessive charges to be made against the_ department and has received commissions from those having dealings with_ the department, is it a fair matter of inference that my deputy minister and the resident engineers of my department in different sections of the country would be guilty of wrong-doing also? It is an inference which mv hon. friend cannot draw and which no person can be justified in drawing. Let me say that I would have no objection myself to the very fullest investigation being made in my department by the commission. If any hon. member of this House has asked for a paper or an account in connection with my department since I have been minister he has had the fullest opportunity of having access to _ the documents. We have a Committee on Public Accounts in which is vested the duty of examining into all the expenditures of the different departments and whenever any question comes up with reference to an account it is quite open to that committee to call witnesses as to 1 the reasonableness of the prices which have

been charged, and if there have been excessive charges witnesses can also be called to show whether there has been any corrupt or improper conduct in connection with the purchase of those supplies. I have in my mind one or two cases in which it has been shown that excessive charges have been made; but it is quite open to any hon. member of the Public Accounts Committee, whether in the majority or the minority, to summon witnesses before it, take their evidence under oath, and have a full and complete investigation. But, Sir, is it to be said, with this Committee on Public Accounts before which there is every opportunity for the fullest investigation, and without any charge of any kind being made against any department of the government, that a commission is to be appointed to go into the expenditures of every department and into the conduct of all the officials of this government, to turn the departments inside out, in order to ascertain - what? Not the truth of any charges that are made against the government or against various officials; but to find out whether they are honest men or not- to find out whether there is anything wrong in the departments or not. You know, Mr. Speaker, that the cost of the commission which we have had has amounted to upwards of $50,000 Its investigations took in Montreal, Quebec, Prescott, Halifax, St. John and Ottawa. If that investigation had been carried to the west, if it had taken in British Columbia, its cost would probably have been double what it has been. There are thirteen different departments of the government. If you even multiply the cost of the investigation which has already been held by thirteen, you will find the expenditure running to three-quarters of a million dollars. Suppose my department were to be investigated by a commission, with a judge, a registrar, stenographers and lawyers in attendance, if they made a full investigation they would not limit their inquiries to Montreal, Quebec, Prescott, Halifax, St. John and Ottawa; but they would have to go to Toronto and Hamilton, to Kingston, to all the towns in which public works had been carried on-to Winnipeg and Edmonton and Prince Albert, to Vancouver and Victoria and New Westminster, away up to the Fraser river and on to the Yukon, in order thoroughly to investigate the working of my department. They would have hundreds and thousands of officials to examine as well, as people doing work for or furnishing supplies to the department. And if a commission were appointed, and did not take in all sections of this country in its inquiry; if, instead of being limited to one year, it did not go back at all events as far as 1896, when this government came into power, it would be charged by the 123
other side that it was only a limited and partial inquiry. I venture to say that a million dollars would not cover the expense of such an investigation as that proposed by the hon. member for St. Anne; and with what purpose? In order to determine whether we are able efficiently to carry on the affairs of our departments or not; in order to determine whether or not our officials are honest-whether or not there has been any wrong-doing in the various departments; and without the slightest tittle of evidence which can warrant the suspicion that there is any wrong-doing of any kind or description. What has the investigation before Mr. Justice Cassels disclosed? So far as the city of St. John is concerned, it has not disclosed, after the most full and complete investigation; after Mr. Watson, the counsel, and the gentleman associated with him went around among the different merchants supplying goods to the department and examined their books and accounts so that they could compare the prices paid by the government with the prices paid by other parties -they were not able to show that in one single instance any of the merchants in the city of St. John had charged one dollar beyond the fair value of the goods. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster), in my absence this afternoon, asked whether the government was going to prosecute among other people the McAvitys of St. John. Let me say to my hon. friend that if he reads the evidence given before Mr. Justice Cassels from beginning to end, he will not find that the McAvitys charged one cent beyond the reasonable and fair price of the goods they delivered to the department; and, more than that, he will not find that the McAvitys were shown by the evidence to have ever given a gift of any kind or description to any one of the officials of the department. _ _ And yet my hon. friend asks the Prime Minister, in a manner as insulting as a question could be put by one hon. member of this House to another-looking towards the Prime Minister, and departing from the parliamentary practice of addressing the Speaker, he said: 'Why don't you prosecute those people who robbed the people of this country? Is it because you shared in'- and then my hon. friend was stopped by the Speaker because he was proceeding in an unparliamentary way, and then he said: 'Because you shared in it for party purposes? ' Let me say in asking that question, so far as the McAvitys of St. John are concerned, that, my hon. friend has done a wrong and an injustice to gentlemen of the highest_ reputation and integrity -men who stand just as high in the commercial world as any business firm in the Dominion of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific.


Mr. DANIEL.: Will the minister allow me to ask him a question? Did George McAvity, who received $35,933 from Mr. Gershon S. Mayes, keep that money in his pocket, or did he hand it over to the Liberal association for party purposes?


William Pugsley: I do) not know of any amount which Mr. George McAvity received from Mr. Gershon S. Mayes, nor do I know of any amount that Mr. George McAvity may have contributed for party purposes. My hon. friend professes to have a knowledge of that kind. If he has, he might acquaint the House with his knowledge. My hon. friend from North Toronto was not referring, I understand, to the alleged incident between Mr. McAvity and Mr. Mayes, but was referring to gifts alleged to have been made by these parties to officials of the Marine and Fisheries Department. I have already referred in this House to the matter about which my hon. friend aisks, and if the matter is brought up in such a way that it can be discussed, I shall be ready at all times to discuss it; but of course this is not the proper and suitable time to do so. It does seem to me that when my hon. friend from St. Anne puts before this Houise the statement that there is ground for suspicion that the other departments of government have been wrongly administered, that there has been-to use the words of the resolution -official negligence, wastefulness and corrupt dealing in the departments,-let me say to my hon. friend that if he has any suspicion of that character, it is due to himself as an hon. member of this House that he should acquaint this House with the grounds of his suspicion. If he has any suspicion against any individual official in my department, it is his duty to acquaint me and the public with the name of that official. And let me >say to my hon. friend if he has any suspicion that I, as Minister of Public Works, am improperly discharging the duties of my office, or have been guilty of negligence or wrong-doing of any kind, it is the part of a man of courage to come forward and make his charge; and, so far as I am concerned, and so far as any member of this government is concerned, I am satisfied that if any hon. member will take the responsibility of rising in his place and charging any one of us with maladministration of the affairs of our departments, we shall be only too willing and happy to afford to him every opportunity of having a full and complete investigation. But that is a different thing from going on a fishing expedition in order to see whether we are properly administering our departments or not.
One word in conclusion. I want to refer to what I think is going to be the beneficial results of the investigation before Mr. Justice Cassels. Let me say that that was not an investigation induced by hon. 1 Mr. PUGSLEY.
gentlemen opposite, but instituted by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries himself on hi>s own initiative. When the report of the Civil Service Commission was brought down, it contained certain reflections on certain officials of the Marine and Fisheries Department; and when my hon. friend saw that the commissioners had not gone as far as they might have, he, out of regard for the proper administration of his department, asked His Excellency to appoint a Royal Commiission to complete the work which the Civil Service Commissioners had not carried to a successful conclusion, and make a thorough investigation. What has been the result of that Royal Commission? It has been to show that practically all the evils which Mr. Justice Cas*sels complains of have resulted from the patronage system which has been in force ever since confederation.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The hon. minister has said that the commission was a Royal Commission. I understood that it was a departmental commission appointed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


William Pugsley: I think it was a royal commission. I do not know that there is much difference between the two.


Mr. BARR.: Oh, yes, there is.


William Pugsley: There is none as regards the power of taking evidence under oath and the summoning of witnesses.


John Barr: Surely the Minister of Marine and Fisheries could tell us which it was?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was a royal commission instituted under the statutes. The statute provides that investigations of this kind may be made under it, and these investigations are called royal because the appointments have to be made under an order passed by the King or his representative.


William Pugsley: A royal commission simply means a commission issued by His Majesty, or with his authority, for the investigation of certain matters. This commission was issued under the statute, in His Majesty's name, to Mr. Justice Cassels. It has been declared by Mr. Justice Cassels that the evils complained of are the result of the patronage system which was introduced, not by this government, but by the first government which held power after confederation,	and which has	been
continued ever since. I am not going into the merits or demerits of the system of having a certain number of prominent merchants and	manufacturers in each
community, whose name might be kept on file, and from whom purchases might be made after competition. There is no doubt

that there was a patronage list and that the prices were asked only from the few on that list, and there is no doubt that such a system is always likely to lead to confusion. But what has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries done? He has abandoned the patronage list. In my department, which is another great spending department, the patronage list has also been abolished. My hon. colleague the Minister of Militia, as I have understood, never had a patronage list in his department. Most of the supplies there are obtained by tender. I have found in my own department great benefit arising from asking for tenders and giving everybody an opportunity to tender. One great advantage, of course, is that it leaves no chance for favouritism, because the contract is given to the lowest tenderer. We have made a distinct move in the way of reform by doing away with the patronage list. When the furnishing of supplies is open to public competition, there will be no motive for any one to make gifts to certain officials in order to secure their influence or favour. In my own department I have realized, even in the case of smaller articles, where the amount involved was not very large, the great advantage of introducing tender and competition. What the country wants us to do is to profit by the examination which has taken place into the affairs of the Marine and Fisheries Department. The country does not ask that we should spend three quarter of a million or a million dollars on further investigations into departments with respect to which there is no ground for suspicion. What the people expect is that we should cary on the business of the different departments in an efficient and prudent manner. If we do that the country will continue to give us its confidence, and if we fail to do it then we shall have to meet public condemnation. I apologize for having taken up so much time, but I felt it was my duty to refer briefly to what I think are reasons why this amendment should not be carried. My hon. friend has taken a course which is calculated to induce every member of this House, who has confidence in the government, to refuse to vote for his amendment. He has not chosen to adopt a course which would enable an amendment to be made to his motion, but has moved it at a time when it must be regarded as a motion of want of confidence, and has asked the House to say that it has no confidence in my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, even when the hon. member for St. Anne's (Mr. Doherty) himself is obliged to admit that he has nothing whatever to say impeaching the integrity of my hon. colleague, but that, on 1231
the contrary, my colleague has done everything he could to secure the efficient administration of his department.
I oppose this resolution on two grounds. First, because it is a motion of want of confidence, and second because it is based on statements without foundation and contrary to evidence contained in the Civil Service report, and the report of Mr. Justice Cassels, and I appeal to the House with confidence to reject the amendment moved by the hon. member for St. Anne's division (Mr. Doherty.).


George Taylor: I had no intention of speaking, and would not have spoken at this hour of the night had not the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-ley) taken the floor. With the consent and approval of my leader (Mr. R. L. Borden) I suggested to the whip of the government side that, after the two leaders had spoken, we should take the vote. Again, after the hon. member for Wright (Mr. Devlin) had spoken I made the same proposition. This was not accepted. I thought the government were anxious to get supply and concurrence to-night. But, after several speakers from that side not being replied to from this, the Minister of Public Works having got up and occupied three quarters of an hour, I think it my duty to draw his attention to some facts that have an important bearing on this case. I will not take my facts from the report of Mr. Justice Cassels, but from the report of the Auditor General, and I think those facts should convince the hon. minister that there is need of an investigation. I fully concur in the amendment moved by my hon. friend from Ste. Anne's (Mr. Doherty), and I agree with the language used by that hon. gentleman in his speech as quoted by the hon. minister, except that those words are not strong enough to properly characterize and duly condemn the reckless manner in which the government has expended the money of the people of this country. In 1896, the public debt was something over $258,000,000. In 1909, it is $308,000,000, an increase of $50,000,000 under this government. In 1896, the estimates of the Conservative government amounted to $43,000,000. Sir Richard Cartwright isaid this expenditure was outrageous. And the present Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) promised the people that if they put him in power he would reduce the expenditure by two, three or four millions, that he would surround himself with business men and conduct business on business principles. The Minister of Public Works rises to-night and tells us that the patronage system was in existence under the previous government. But how can he justify himself by the acts of the previous government when the Prime Minister promised to make such changes as would greatly reduce the expenditure? As

a matter of fact the expenditure is increasing until the estimates last year amounted to $129,000,000, and the supplementary estimates which have just been passed amount to $3,000,000 more, making a total estimated expenditure of $132,000,000, or almost $90,000,000 increase over the Conservative government. If we take the increase of expenditure and the addition to the public debt, we find a total of $140,000,000 of increase under this government instead of the promised reduction of two, three or four millions.
Out of this $132,000,000 which they asked for on account of last year's expenditure, I admit that a part is uncontrollable. The statutory expenditures amount to $26,000,-
000.	Of course, we had statutory expenditures in our $43,000,000. Then, there is about $14,000,000 of salaries and other uncontrollable expenses. This would make a total of $40,000,000, leaving a controllable expenditure of $92,000,000. And where has that money gone? I say that every dollar of that wants investigating. If my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) will take the Auditor General's Report-and I wish him to follow me, for I am going to give him page and date for everything-and if he will turn to page V-52, he will find that his men in Montreal purchased 391 feet of five-inch belting and paid an average of $2.12 a foot for it. The invoice came to $924. They got a discount of 10 per cent, leaving $831 of the public money paid for that belting.


William Pugsley: Was that Lymburner?


George Taylor: Yes, if they had gone to any manufacturer, they could have got the same belting for $293. So, the middleman made a profit of $538. When I was a boy and went to school the schoolmaster used to propound this question:	If a herring and a-half cost a penny half-penny, how many can you get for a shilling? I will ask the Minister of Public Works that question.


William Pugsley: Are you the schoolmaster? The question is too much for me, at this time of night.


George Taylor: Then, let me ask the minister to work out this:	If on an
expenditure by this government of $831, the middleman makes a profit of $538, how much has been made by the middlemen out of the controllable expense of $92,000,000? That can be worked out by the rule of three-every school boy can do it. If the "minister will figure it out, he will find, at this proportion, the middlemen got a rake-off of $59,000,000. Now, if the hon. gentleman will turn to the Auditor General's report, page O-21, he will find that they went to a friend of his in St. John, having some little repairs to do, and thev hired from this friend of the minister's two cross-cut saws for 100 days at 10 cents a day each, a total of $20. If they had stepped into Mr. G. TAYLOR.
any hardware store, they could have bought those saws for $7, but they paid $20 for the use of them. And they paid the same man, Mr. Daniel McLaughlin, $24 for the hire of three planking screws that they could buy for $4.50 each. They paid $5 for the rent of a grind-stone, and they could buy the grind-stone at one cent a pound and the frame for $3.50. They paid this man $50 for the rent of tools that they could have bought for $17 and could have owned the tools when they were through. On this, the middleman got a rake-off of $33. On this basis, how much rake-off did the middlemen get on the controllable expenditure of $92,000,000? They got $60,763,000. Now, if the minister will return to page Y-53, he will find the record of purchases made for the repair of some buildings in Montreal. This was not let by tender, but they went to a political friend, Mr. Marchand, and they paid him for 11,000 feet of lumber, ash, basswood and elm, a total of $997. They paid $150 a thousand for ash, and $100 a thousand for basswood-and you can buy basswood anywhere for $28 a thousand. The average paid for ash, elm and basswood was $90 a thousand, and it can be purchased anywhere at an average of $35 a thousand. The middleman got a rake-off there of $55 a thousand. On that deal of $977 there was a rake-off of $607 to the middleman; what would be the rake-off on $92,000,000? The middleman would make out of that expense $57,000,000 of the people's money, if that rule applied as it applies everywhere else. After they got the building completed they went to a Mr. Thibault and got him to put in a floor upstairs, of hardwood, 216 squares, and they paid him $16 a square, amounting to $3,456; for birch flooring, 40 squares at $16 a square, amounting to $636.


William Pugsley: What is the square?


George Taylor: I am surprised that my hon. friend, being Minister of Public Works, does not know what a square is. Any schoolboy knows what a square is, it is 10 feet each way.


William Pugsley: I must confess I did not know that.


George Taylor: Then you are not fit to be Minister of Public Works. And yet he is building all over the country. He will pay $16 a square when it is only worth $7. I went home on Saturday, and went to a firm of the largest lumber merchants, Mitchell & Wilson, and I said to them: What will you put me in squares for, hardwood lumber, maple or birch, and they said they would do it for $7 per square, or for red beech, at $6.50 per square. Yet the minister paid $16 to a political friend in Montreal. He paid for 256 squares $4,090. If he had called for tenders he could have got it done for $7 a square. The middleman made there a rake-off of $2,300. At

that rate how much have they made on $92,000,000 of controllable expenditure? In V-103, the minister wanted some basswood lumber for his ships and he went over to Hull, to a Mr. Desrosiers, and got 3,010 feet of basswood lumber, for which he paid $60 a thousand, and he could have purchased it for $18 to $25 a thousand. The Minister of Railways knows something about the quantity they consume in the railway shops, where they buy the best. But here the Minister of Public Works pays $60 a thousand for the same goods. On that $180 worth, which he could have bought for $75, there was a rake-off to the middleman of $105. At that rate how much did the middleman make on $92,000,000? $54,000,000. In every case it works out between $50,000,000 or $60,000,000. I could cite a hundred cases like that all through the Auditor General's Report. No wonder they do not want an investigation. But the country does want an investigation into the accounts for the last 12 years, in every department, and this i3 one sample of many of them. I want to refer now to the cost of the steamers. In 1896 the government had nine steamers, named ' Aberdeen,' ' Alert,' ' Druid,' * Le Canadian,' ' Lansdowne,' ' Newfield,' ' Quadra,' ; Sir James Douglas ' and the ' Stanley.' The government to-day have nine also, but they have replaced some of the old ones with larger ones. In 1896, $150,000 was the entire cost far these nine steamers. To-day the government have nine steamers, the ' Aberdeen,' the ' Champlain,' the ' Druid,' the'Lady Laurier,' the 'Lansdowne,' the ' Minto,' the ' Montcalm,' the * Quadra ' and the ' Stanley,' and these nine steamers cost last year $696,000, or an increase of $519,000. How has all that money been spent? Here is a sample. In 1896 they paid the salaries of the captains and crews of these steamers, amounting altogether to $138,000. They paid for provisions to feed them, $77,000. Now the provisioning of the ' Aberdeen,' as a sample, cost $13,059, or $32.50 per month per man the year round, allowing the steamer had a full crew for a full year. They paid $32.50 per month just to feed the men on that boat, and the government furnished besides the cooks, the waiters, crockery and everything else. When I brought this matter up a few years ago my hon. friend promised me that he would make a change, and have the captain and/ steward board the men by the day. He did so, and how much did he save? On the ' Montcalm ' he paid the captain, or steward, 50 cents a day for the men, and the cost for that steamer amounted to $8,693, or $16 per month. But where the patronage system prevailed they paid their customers at the rate of $10 a barrel for apples for one of the steamers, and everything else m the same proportion. When the steward boarded the men and purchased the provisions, it cost the government $16 per month, whereas, when the provisions were
furnished on the patronage system it cost $30 to $32.50 per month. Is not that squandering the people's money? If the minister will turn up the Auditor General's Report, page 0-16, he will find why it cost so much. On the 'Lady Laurier' the board was $30 per month.
John Tobin & Co., Halifax: Apollo water, one case, $9; condensed cream, 5 cases at $4.60; condensed milk, 5 cases at $5.20; herring, 41 barrels at $2.50; jam, &e., $6.60; pork, 2 barrels at $22; Radnor water, 8 cases splits at $8.38; 7 cases pints at $9.50; shad, one half barrel, $12.50.
< i3 *he way they fed the men on the Bady Laurier,' and that is why it cost so much. If the hon. gentleman will turn to page 0-25, steamer ' Minto,' he will find that Louis Maiois at Quebec was paid $10 for a barrel of apples, and there are other items in keeping-turkeys at $3.75 each and so on. Ten dollars for a barrel of apples when they were $2.50 and $3 in Ottawa. Then there is another case in which they helped a political friend very nicely to which I wish to refer.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.
klr. GEO. TAYLOR. It will be carried when I get through, and not a moment sooner. Here is J. J. Yorston, Pictou, for hauling up the steamer ' Minto ' on two occasions, 1,451 tons at 20 cents, $580- laying on ways, 29 days, $4,207.90. If my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries would go to Kingston dry docks or to any other dry dock in the country and have this boat hauled up would he pay half that amount for having it done? I have made up a statement here. In 1896 the cost to the country for the uniforms of the men on the nine steamers that the Conservative government controlled was $150. What does it cost to-day? The government are not satisfied to give each man a cap for a uniform, but they clothe every man from top to bottom. The total cost for uniforms last year was $14,500, as compared with $150 in 1898. Let me read you a few items of expenditure for uniforms for the men employed on these boats. They did not buy the uniforms for the men on all the boats from the same firm, but they travelled all over the country from Halifax to Quebec and they went to different firms for the supplies for each boat. To some of their friends they went two or three times. We pay the captain, the engineers and the men good wages and, under those circumstances, why do they not furnish their own uniforms? Let us take the case of the ' Montcalm:'
8 uniforms at	$25
10 "	 21
3 dress suits at	 45
Suits fit for members of parliament. They cost $135.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Taylor: I will give the minister something to laugh at before I get through.
41 blue jumpers at	$3 50
4J. " pants at	 8 50
41 " collars at	 0 35
41 white dickies at	 1 00
41 white duck suits at	 2 50
41 sweaters at	 2 75
Then they go across the road to another gentleman and they buy $301 worth from him, which, with $1,114.50, makes $1,415 in all for uniforms for the officers and crew of the * Montcalm.'


An hon. MEMBER.: What is the rate by the rule of three?


George Taylor: If the rule of three were applied to that we should not furnish anything. The men in our employ get good wages and they have a right to furnish everything they require to wear. I will give you another example. I want to ask the minister how much mud this expenditure took out of the ship channel? The money is charged to the ship channel. He will find these accounts in the Auditor General's Report at page 0-163:
7 ladies blouses at $13.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


George Taylor: I am surprised that the Tight hon. Prime Minister can laugh at that. He is the trustee of the people of this country, and yet he will allow one of his ministers to put his hand in the public chest and spend money like this.
1 ladies cloak	$25
8 ladies costumes, each	 30
The total of these accounts is $744. I would like the right hon. Prime Minister to apply the rule of three to that. If one suit will move 20 yards out of the ship channel, how much will these eight costumes, which he has paid $30 apiece for, move? Then we have another which is worse than that, and the Minister of Public Works will say that there is no necessity for an investigation.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who were the ladies?


George Taylor: I do not know. I will put these facts on record some day before the session is over. These hon. gentlemen had a political friend at Toronto and he had to have a pull:
63-5-12ths doz. black neckerchiefs...$686 90
18 doz. petty officer's badges	 34 50
31 doz. badges	 57 18
100 gross Canadian gilt buttons	 613 10
20 yds. 1J gold wire navy lace	 46 13
400 yds. fth gold wire navy lace.. .. 271 70 300 pairs officer's shoulder straps.. .. 109 50 25 pairs commanding shoulder straps. 17 74 Mr. G. TAYLOR.
24 doz. officer's cap badges	$385 44
119-ll-12th doz. cap ribbons	 189 68


Mr. EMMERSON.: Who says Canada has not spent anything for a navy?


George Taylor: The duty on these articles was $456, the freight $18 and two cases $9, making $2,896 of the people's money that might as well have been thrown into the river. Why should we buy 52 dozen neck handkerchiefs, I ask the Minister of Public Works? I have given him the date and the page in the Auditor General's Report. In the other departments he will find the same story. All of these items make up a total of from $51,000,000 to $60,000,000 that has gone to the middle man for which the country has received no benefit. Yet we are told that in that department there is no need of an investigation. The Prime Minister laughed so hard that he did not hear what I read to-night, but I ask why we bought eight ladies costumes at $30 each which are charged to the ship channel. Does that need investigation? Was that brought before Judge Cassels? I want my hon. friend to ask his three officials in Montreal who certified that account for $831 why they did so, when they could have bought the goods for $209.


William Pugsley: I have already asked them.


George Taylor: I want to know where the $531 went if it did not go to the political supporters of my hon. friend for campaign purposes? Why was $100 a thousand feet paid for basswood and $150 for ash. Gentlemen opposite who will vote against this motion know in their inmost hearts that $1,000 is nearly four prices for that timber. They will vote for anything. I think I have said enough to convince the hardest conscience that it is the duty of this government to grant an inquiry into this loss to the country, which is really an increase in the national debt. Why should the government pay $10 for the rent of two bucksaws that they could buy for $7?


William Pugsley: I thought they were cross-cut saws.


George Taylor: The minister should know that he can buy them in any hardware store for 50 cent a foot.


William Pugsley: They cost more than that.


George Taylor: They do not cost more than that; I have sold many of them. For these clamp screws to hold a plank on a vessel when it is being spiked the government paid $8 a day although you can buy the whole outfit for $3.50. Who got the rake-off there? I could cite many similar instances, but I think I have adduced enough to show that the middleman receives from $51,000,000 to $60,000,000 out

of the controllable expenditure of $92,000,-
000.	The members of this House should certainly vote for the amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Ste. Anne (Mr. Doherty).


Rodolphe Lemieux: At this early hour in the morning I shall not detain the House at any length. I would not add anything to the debate but I think it is due to my colleague who represents the province of Quebec in the House, that I should say a word not in his defence, because he needs no defence, but in justification of the attitude taken by the Liberal party which is being assailed through him to-day. I was pleased to hear my old friend from Ste. Anne (Mr. Doherty) speak yesterday. I was not surprised at the tone which he adopted in moving his amendment. I have known him for many years. I am well aware that he is above all things an honourable gentleman. I know that he possesses a judicial mind and I believe that he is unbiased by party politics. Thanks to the hon. member for Ste. Anne the cloud has lifted and we know, the country knows and the House knows that the hon. Minister of Marine is an honest man. Under ordinary circumstances, I would not mention the fact, nobody would take notice of it; I suppose a man's first duty to himself and to his country as a public man is to be of sterling honesty. However, we have heard so much for two or three years with reference to the honesty and integrity of the minister that it is refreshing indeed to hear a man of the position of the hon. member for Ste. Anne declaring that in his opinion the hon. Minister of Marine is indeed an honest man. Parliament, as you well know, is not a school for mutual admiration. But as this is probably the closing chapter of a very sad story, may I say a word about the hon. gentleman who has represented Rouville since 1891? He sat from 1891 to 1896 on the opposition benches. As private member for Rouville, a county which in the past has always elected men of ability, he enjoyed the esteem of all his fellow members in the House. He was highly esteemed and respected when in 1896 he was elected deputy speaker and later speaker of the House of Commons. It will be remembered by the older members that as speaker of the House he adorned the chair which you, Sir, occupy. He again enjoyed the respect and esteem of the House when later on he was called by the Prime Minister to fill an important position as Minister of Inland Revenue. He certainly possessed not only the esteem and respect of both sides of the House but also the confidence of all.
We all know that this man who has been branded before the country as a criminal and against whose character insinuations of the basest kind have been made, fought, as Minister of Inland Revenue, not a lonely
battle, but a manly battle indeed against the trusts. I contend that at that time he possessed the full confidence of both sides of this House. Suddenly, he was called to fill the position of Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and then the onslaught against him began. I am not at all surprised that the onslaught was made against one member of the Reform government two years ago. The Conservative party had to find some one in the Liberal party as a scapegoat for the approaching elections. History only repeats itself. In 1900, after four years of Liberal rule, finding nothing against the Liberal policy, realizing on the contrary, that this country had been prosperous in spite of themselves, hon. gentlemen opposite had no other war cry but that of corruption to raise against the Liberal party. The cry then was directed against the hon. member who sits to-day a*s the representative of the county of Brandon. The country wa*s filled with posters representing that hon. gentleman, who was then among the most prominent members of the Liberal Cabinet, as having acted dishonestly in his administration of the then newly-discovered Yukon district. You remember, Mr. Speaker, the battle he fought in the Northwest against Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper on that very question. The elections of 1900 were not fought on the fiscal policy of the Liberal party or on any of the principles which divided the two parties; but they were fought on lcud accusations of graft. It was the same with the elections of 1904. Then rumours were afloat that some members of the Liberal party were to be brought not merely before the bar of public opinion, but before the bar of the criminal courts of justice. During the last campaign the accusations were again repeated, and again a scapegoat had to be found. Unfortunately, circumstances have helped our hon. friends on the other side of the House in their campaign of defamation. We all know that important additions were made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries; it had become a great spending department. The minister who had that department in charge, the late Hon. Raymond Prefontaine, had died suddenly in Paris and his remains had been brought back to Canada. My hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur) had to assume the direction of that department; and, Sir, as soon as the session opened, charges were hurled against the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Insinuations were made, not against the living minister, but against the dead minister, both in the press and on the platform; but there was such a protest from every section of the country, even from Conservatives themselves, that immediately the charges against the de_ad minister ceased, and they were directed against my hon. friend. Everybody will admit that he assumed a noble attitude

under these conditions. The elections were fast approaching, and on the eve of last session a commission had been appointed to investigate, not the administration of the departments, but the status of the Civil Service. We had heard in this House and out of this House, that the Civil Service of this country was underpaid, and that the work was not well apportioned among the employees of the various departments, and that commission was appointed by this government to investigate the two above mentioned facts. Three independent gentlemen were appointed, and they reported to this parliament generally or., the status of the Civil Service, but as they investigated the Department of Marine and Fisheries, they found what they thought to be very serious irregularities, which they mentioned in their report. The hon. member for St. Anne has embodied in his amendment the very words which were used by these commissioners. What was the duty of the government when these three independent and honest men reported that that department was lacking in organization, lacking in conscience, and that some of the officials were serving two masters. Scripture notwithstanding? Sir, the government did not remain silent under these general charges made against the Department of Marine and Fisheries. We appointed another commission under the direction of a judge. Mr. Speaker, I call your attention to the fact that other judges have been appointed by preceding governments to investigate. In this instance the Reform party did not inquire whether Judge Cassels had been during his past political career a friend of the government or a Conservative. We all know that Judge Cassels had been an independent Conservative during the time he was practising law in the city of Toronto. He was therefore appointed to investigate the very vague and general charges which had been made by the three commissioners without naming any one. Judge Cassels accepted the task and investigated. Lawyers were retained by the government, we secured the best legal talent in the country to assist Judge Cassels. Sir, I will not repeat what has been said on both sides of this House ; I will not read the conclusions of Judge Cassels' report. He reported that serious irregularities had been committed in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Sir, let me point out a fact which our hon. friends on the other side should not lose sight of, and which the country in the last general election did not lose sight of, namely, that the officials whose names were branded before public opinion as having been guilty of very serious offences, had nearly all been appointed by the Conservative government thirty or forty years ago. I do not say that officials appointed by the Liberal party cannot be derelict in their duties. But, Sir, the public knew that in Mr. LEMIEUX.
the present instance, the officials who were the cause of all the troubles in the Department of Marine and Fisheries were old-time nominees of the Conservative party. Sir, the report of Mr. Justice Cassels has been published. Has the Minister of Marine and Fisheries been found wanting in taking action upon that report ? Here is the chain of facts; accusations made by the three commissioners ; the investigation immediately ordered by this government, in order to find out who were the guilty officials; names of the guilty officials published in the report of Judge Cassels. Has the minister not done his duty like a man under very difficult circumstances, because, as you very well know, Sir, it is always a hardship for any employer, more particularly a minister of the Crown, to dismiss any of his officials. My hon. colleague has dismissed the guilty ones, and therefore has wiped out the evil complained of in the Teport of the Civil Service Commission and-of Mr. Justice Cassels.
Insinuations may be made, but there has been nothing charged against any minister rf the Crown. I appeal to the sound judicial sense of my hon. friend from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) who asks this parliament to appoint a commission-to investigate what? Charges made? He knows full well that in no British parliament, unless a member puts his seat in jeopardy by making a direct charge, will the government grant a commission of inquiry. The government can afford to disregard mere insinuations. Can we be reasonably asked to investigate general insinuations? We have had no charges made against any minister of the Crown. We had charges made against officials, we have had an independent investigation into these charges, and the officials have been dismissed. Sir, charges were made against the officials and also against the patronage system which has prevailed since confederation. What has happened? Let me refer my hon. friends to that portion of the report of Mr. Justice Cassels in which he states that unfortunately many of the minor officials sometimes fell into temptation because their salaries were too low, and where he points out that perhaps those who offered the bribes may have been more guilty than those who had accepted them. For the removal of the patronage list, all credit is due to my hon. colleague the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It was he v'ho took the bull by the horns and did away with that list The patronage system has been abolished by the Liberal party. Then take the second evil complained of and that is the underpaying oi the officials. This government has gone to the very root of that evil. Last year, under the inspiration of my hon. friend who administers the Department of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) a Bill was introduced to reform the Civil Service. In future our civil servants will not be ap-

pointed on the mere caprice of any party, but will be selected by an independent commission. We have now an independent commission which will select our officials, regardless of politics, and solely on their merits, and this parliament only a few. weeks ago has passed legislation in order to raise the salaries of our under-paid civil servants. This is a great reform due to the Liberal party. I claim that we have eradicated the evil. Now we are asked to appoint another commission to investigate the other departments. What departments? Has my hon. friend named any one minister whose department requires investigation or scrutinizing ? He has not. I appeal again to his judicial sense and his knowledge of parliamentary government. Is it not a fact that the regular process in such matters is to first, when there is anything wrong in connection with the administration of public affairs, to make a charge before the high court of parliament and await its decision This House is elected by the people, and amongst the represen-tives of the people is chosen a cabinet. The cabinet is after all only a committee of the House of Commons. If there are charges made affecting the government, they must be brought before parliament, and if the majority of this House find that these charges are unfounded, these charges fall through. But the members of this House are responsible to the people who elect them and who will in last resort, pass judgment on their conduct. Such is the doctrine of British parliamentary government. It is a sound doctrine to which, for my part, I shall give my adhesion. I therefore decline to accept the amendment of my hon. friend from St. Anne.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.: The closing arguments of the Postmaster General and his quotations from the scriptures remind me of the several illustrations we have had this evening of Satan quoting scripture for his justification. Immediately after the general elections on the 26th of October last, a number of newspapers engaged in a contest to find out the reason or the meaning of what had occurred; and one paper, not unfavourable to hon. gentlemen opposite, suggested that the meaning of the results of the elections of the 26th of October was that the people had decided that 'He that is unjust let him be unjust still; and he that is filthy let him be filthy still.' I would ask whether the argument put before the House does not bear out the answer given by this newspaper? We are asked to vote down this resolution, demanding impartial inquiry into the conduct of important departments, on the ground that while the scandals complained of were fresh before the public we had a general election and that the government was sustained in that election by the majority which supports it in this House.
I do not intend at this hour to dwell upon that, further than to say that the majority by which this government has been sustained is not larger than the number of persons upon the pay-roll in the several constituencies. In fact, I would venture to say that, if we took the total number of people on the pay-roll in the constituencies, especially on election day, the total majority by which this government has been sustained will be found far less than the number of persons in their direct employ. The reason why I have arisen at this hour to take part in this debate is that I think the record would not be complete without the addition of a chapter contrasting the attitude of the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) now with the attitude taken by him on a very important occasion when the report on an investigation of one of the departments was before parliament for adoption or rejection. At that time he did not lead the government, but occupied the seat of leader of the opposition and the post of chief inquisitor for the opposition of that day. We had an investigation into the Department of Public Works in consequence of grave charges which has been canvassed for a time before parliament and in the press, and which were at last put into such shape that they were referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections for thorough inquiry. In that investigation we did not find the spectacle presented now by hon. gentlemen opposite opposing at every step the work of a commission with authority to investigate only into the minoT officials employed by the department; we did not have a commission restricted so that the moment a point of danger was arrived at, the moment, for instance, when a witness said-as I have seen reported in the press one witness did say in the present investigation-that one reason why he charged excessive prices to the department was that he was expected to contribute to the party campaign funds, the inquiry was checked. On the contrary, whenever in that investigation such a suggestion was made the inquiry got hotter than ever, the activity of every person was aroused, and summonses weTe issued for all those concerned in the allegation made, and they were brought before the committee to be questioned as to even the smallest detail. When they got the case of a minister under suspicion of having received from the government-or having stood in with the contractor who received from the government-sums to which he was not entitled, what did they do? Did they take his word for it that he was innocent?-word which he gave on his responsibility as a member of this House that, so far as he was concerned, there was nothing in the accusation. No; they

brought that minister with his little bank pass-book, and the accountants from the bank came with their ledgers, showing his account from the first day of the acceptance of office by the minister until the day the investigation was carried on, and an inquisition was held into every item of that account. After such an investigation, the committee came before the House with certain findings. And, when it was moved in this House that the report should be accepted-and it took four months to carry out the investigation, which was as complete as an investigation could be, for the government appointed leading counsel to conduct the inquiry, including counsel from the other side of politics, so that there could be no suspicion of bias-we found, according to the report in ' Hansard ' of September 24, 1891, that Mr. Laurier made these observations:
Sir, this is not a question of individual offences. Individual offences may always take place; frauds may be perpetrated in the most honest communities, but in this case, we have to grapple with a system which permeates the whole public service from the top to the bottom. We have often boasted of our political morality in this country, especially in contrast with that of our neighbours to the south. But the American people have given us an example which should help us on this occasion. Twenty years ago, comparing ourselves with our neighbours with our eyes turned up to Heaven, we thanked the Lord that we were not like other nations. I admit that our neighbours had much to be ashamed of in those days.
Omitting a passage which is not relevant to the present discussion, we find that the hon. gentleman proceeded:
But I almost despair of my country when I see the government willing to punish the minor offenders, ibut receding before the mighty-when I see them willing enough to punish clerks in offices, but refusing to censure the men who are the most blameable of all. How can this nation expect to live if such offences are condoned? No nation can live in which public moneys are not applied exclusively to public purposes. In discussing this case the other day, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier was only too happy to have a fling at the Liberal party, and to point out that there are accusations pending against ft in the province of Quebec. Sir, I will not prejudge the case; I have only this to say, that that measure of justice which we call for in this parliament we want applied also in the province of Quebec. Wherever, after investigation, blame and censure are found to be deserved, blame and censure should be pronounced. Upon this occasion, I appeal especially to my fellow countrymen of French origin, to stand up to the duty of the hour-
The ' duty of the hour ' seems to have been a spectre in those davs as it was in 1908.

painful as that duty is. I do not appeal
to them in any words of my own; but I ap-Mr. J. B. TAYLOR
peal to them from the teaching of their history. The old city of Quebec has been the victim on this occasion of most of the malversations which have been unearthed. Let them remember -that -this is not the first time in her history that she has thus suffered, and let them remember at what cost to the country.
So you will see in a great many phases of these two investigations the situation in 1891 was similar to that before this parliament to-day. The hon. gentleman continues :
Sir, the system which has been revealed in this investigation was not invented by the Department of Public Works. This system of manipulating contracts for the profit of the contractor, this system of substituting private for public interest, this system of plundering the treasury to enrich individuals, was not invented by the -Eepar-tment of Public Works, but was practised in those days by the administration, by Bigot the Intends n-t, and his creatures Pean, Vergor and others. In the month of August, 1757, M. de Doreil, one of -the commissioners of the army, thus wrote to the Minister of War, concerning Pean, one of Bigot's creatures: 'Pean has made so rapid a fortune in eight years that he is now supposed to be worth two millions.'
Mr. Speaker, I -am not authorized to make any application of that, but I would ask those familiar with the records of this country, and of the popular report voiced by the members of this House if there have been any fortunes similar to this made under the aegis of the Liberal party now in power in Canada? This very eloquent passage concludes:
Canada was the prey of official jackals-true lion providers, since they helped to prepare a way for the imperial beast, who, roused at last from his lethargy, was gathering his strength to seize her for his own.
That is a quotation from Parkman. Then Mr. Laurier proceeds:
How humiliating the language, but how true-how painfully true! The resources of the colony were exhausted in shameful peculations, the way was prepared for the invader, and after her first defeat Canada had not the strength -to retrieve the loss. Sir, 130 years have rolled over since those unfortunate days, and time and freedom have obliterated the grief, but the shame is always there, and there is not to-day a cottage in Lower Canada where the names of Bigot and Pean and the other official jackals who suoked the life blood of their country in the hour of danger, are not remembered with abhorrence. Sir, Canada is to-day again the prey of official jackals-the jackals of this government. Again there is robbery everywhere; if again cupidity has taken hold of clerks and storekeepers and officers, again everywhere false certificates are admitted. Montcalm is not here, but if he were, and if he were a menber of this parliament, with the right to speak and vote, is there any one who doubts -that he would denounce the conduct and the infamy

of the Bigots and the Peans of to-day, as vigorously as he denounced Bigot, Pean and Vergor in his own day. But if Montcalm is not here, we have his example; and if his stern patriotism still lives in the hearts of his countrymen, to them I appeal, and as lie would now do, so now let us do.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why I should not appeal to my fellow countrymen of the province of Quebec, which I am proud to claim as the province of my nativity, as the right hon. gentleman appealed to his fellow countrymen on that occasion -I do not know why I should not appeal to them to follow the noble example of Montcalm. The government of Canada has now been entrusted to men of their race, to men of their province whom they had delighted to honour, and who have so deservedly occupied positions of leaders in the political and social life of that province, and now when these hon. gentlemen have the government in their possession, I do not know why I should not appeal to them to preserve the record unsullied, and not to add their names to those of Bigot, Pean and Vergor on the roll of dishonour referred to in this narrative.


Mr. J. E. O. GLADU (Yamaska).: (Translation.) Before speaking to the motion which is just now occupying the attention of the House, I wish to say a few words in answer to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor). He recalled a moment ago an incident of his youth. His appearance shows that he is no longer a child, but his speech leads one to believe he is in his dotage. That hon. member stated with a groan that the country's debt has to-dav reached $309,000,000. If that is not mere childishness on his part, I am at a loss to know what name to give to such a statement on the part of the hon. member. He knows very well that the financial situation of a country cannot be gauged merely by the amount of its public debt; its assets should also be taken into account, that is to say the financial status should be considered in all its aspects.
The hon. member finds fault with us for having considerably increased the expenditure. But when these hon. gentlemen were in power in 1896, the country's trade barely reached $200,000,000, so that the revenue at the time was very far from reaching the figures reached nowadays, when the trade aggregates $600,000,000.
To return to the motion submitted for our consideration, I intend to deal briefly with it, on account of the lateness of the hour and seeing that there is very little left that has not been said. However, there is one point which, if I am not mistaken, has not been dwelt upon in the course of this debate, and to which I shall refer. We are being called to task on account of wrongdoing and deeds of extortion committed in
the Department of Marine. No doubt, you have not forgotten, Mr. Speaker, that in 1896 and 1897, when the government resolved to make some changes in the staff of the various departments, in pursuance, as it were, of the verdict of the people who had decided on a change of government, you have not forgotten, I say, how these gentlemen on the other side waxed indignant and branded us as persecutors. You have not forgotten with what energy they protested against the ways of the government whom they ^ called persecutors because they were dismissing, they claimed, public servants of many years standing in the service.
Well, what does the Cassels inquiry now bring to light? That all those who have been guilty of extortion, who have committed the greatest frauds in the management of that department are those very men of the old regime whom we were prevented from expelling, under the threat of being branded as persecutors.
Of course, I do not contend that the present staff is unimpeachable. It is a human institution and therefore may have its imperfections. But we are free from all stain, and if to-morrow the people thought fit to change the government-I say"so with a feeling of pride for the party to which I belong-if to-morrow the country though fit to send us back to the cold shades of opposition, our last moan, when descending into our political grave, would be the faithful echo of the first wail heard in our cradle when we came to power; there would be just as much honesty in one case as in the other.
I stated that, while not contending that our management of affairs was free from imperfections, it was at any rate free from all stain. I congratulate the hon. Postmaster General on his eulogy of the late hon. Raymond Prefontaine ; i congratulate him on the lesson he has taught a moment ago to those occupying seats on the other side and who still go through the country casting aspersions on the memory of the late Mr. Prefontaine. I trust they will not fc-rget that lesson, and it is this ; in the grave there is room only for the corpse ; there is room for nothing else, not even the poisonous breath of the serpent.
It seems strange to me that the hon. member for North Toronto should have grown so indignant and shown himself so touchy in connection with some remarks made by the right hon. Prime Minister. If those remarks had been uttered by a private member, it is just possible they would not have been taken back as they were by the Prime Minister, on account of the high position he occupies in the House.
If those remarks grate on the nerves of the hon. member for North Toronto, one thing only remains for him to do, and that is to read over once more the fearful arraignment of himself by the Minister of

Justice a year ago, when direct and formal charges of which he has never cleared himself, were made against him. As a matter of fact, he has never got rid of the blemishes which for the last twelve years have made him as well as his party, an object of scorn in the eyes of the public, not- only in this House, but in the country at large ; nor did the abuse with which ha and his friends have loaded the hon. Minister of Marine, tarnish the high reputation of the hon. minister as an honourable and respectable man.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to speak much longer, it being so late. In the meantime I was anxious to make known my views on the question, and to state in all sincerity my admiration for the Minister of Marine personally, and for the able way in which he has administered his department in the interest of the country at large, of the government of which he is a member and of the whole Dominion.


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac).: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention, until, a short time ago, of taking any part in this discussion this evening, or, I might say more properly, this morning, if it had not been for certain statements made by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) in the course of his remarks. I have listened to many of the speeches which have been made here during this debate with a great deal of interest and pleasure. I have listened with some surprise to some of the remarks which have been made. I have listened to speeches made by some hon. gentlemen opposite with a great deal of surprise because of the lack of argument which they contained relevant to this resolution. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) furnished two very strong arguments, for further investigation, or rather he furnished one direct to the members on the government side of the House and when he was furnishing that argument they furnished this House with another argument. My hon. friend from Leeds made some very serious charges as regards the expenditure and as regards the prices paid for articles in different departments of this government. Those statements, which must be taken seriously, have furnished this House with something that we should think of very seriously and they have furnished us with an argument that this investigation should be carried on farther. The mirthfulness with which they were received by hon. gentlemen opposite is a still further argument why this investigation should go further. It is a serious matter indeed that statements such as those which were made by my hon. friend from Leeds should only elicit from members of the government and their supporters laughter and jeers. By that very Mr. GLADtf.
act of laughing and jeering at statements so serious as those, the government have inadvertently furnished this House with an argument why this investigation should go further because as evidently the Cabinet Ministers are disposed to look on matters such as that in a light manner we naturally think that there is ample reason for further investigating the affairs of the different departments of the government. Before referring to the remarks of the hon. Minister of Public Works I want to call attention to some statements made by the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux). The Postmaster General said that the Conservative party went into the last election with the cry of graft and corruption. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman and the members of this House who forced the Conservative party to refer to graft and grafters:	Was there not evidence enough
to attract the attention of the Conservative party to graft and grafting? What about the case that was referred to by one of the speakers this afternoon of Philip Wagner, the man who was taken out of prison and appointed to a responsible position at an increased salary? Was that not sufficient to call the attention of the Conservative party and of the people of the country to graft and grafters? What about the importation of ballot boxes into the ridings of Frontenac and Hastings by men connected with the party across the way? Is not that sufficient to attract the attention of the country and would not the Conservative party be open to censure if they passed matters of that kind without comment? The Liberal party, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, has furnished the Conservative party with lots of reasons for speaking of graft and grafting. I regret that the Liberals have done so. Another reference made by the Postmaster General was to the effect that the officials who had been dismissed after the Cassels inquiry were officials who had been appointed by the Conservative party. Very well; it does not matter ,as far as I can see, whether they were officials who had been appointed by the Conservative party or whether they were Conservatives or Liberals. I think he makes a case out against himself and the government in making that reference because the fact shows that if these men were appointed by the Conservative party the Conservative party were successful not only in keeping them but other officials in their places while the Liberals were not capable of keeping them in their places when they came into power.
Now, I want to call your attention to one or two remarks made by the hon. Minister of Public Works. He said that he rose for the purpose of defending a gentleman by the name of Mr. Harding, but it struck me that he was more concerned about doing

justice to or putting up a defence on behalf of one of his party friends than he was in discussing the resolution of my hon. friend from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty). The Minister of Public Works criticised my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Anne, on the ground that he had made inaccurate statements. He said that he should be sure his statements were accurate before he made them. I could not help but take particular notice of a statement like that from the Minister of Public Works and I repeat that it was the statements made by the hon. gentleman which led me to speak at all upon the matter under discussion. I had before my mind, when he made that statement, certain statements which had been made by the Minister of Public Works in reference to expenditures in the neighbourhood of the city of Kingston. Let me refer to one or two statements made by that hon. gentleman. The Minister of Public Works has been more than inaccurate. He appealed to this Plouse for $15,000 to build a veterinary hospital. When that expenditure was criticised he defended it. What did we find later on? We have the hon. gentleman, after obtaining that appropriation, coming forward and admitting that the year previously he had talked the matter over with the Minister of Militia and Defence, and had made up his mind not to indulge in the expenditure, stating that it was a printer's error and that he would, with the concurrence of the House, cut it out of the estimates. Yet, the hon. gentleman comes here and criticises the mover of the resolution as to the accuracy of his statements. Do you want another instance of the inaccuracy of the Minister of Public Works? A certain contract was let in the city of Kingston for some sixteen cottages, now famous, and the contract called for $77,000 of expenditure. Some $55,000 was voted last year. The hon. gentleman asked for $57,000 additional this year. Gentlemen on this side of the House criticised that, and said that the expenditure was ridiculously high and absolutely indefensible. The Minister of Public Works put up a defence for that. He argued that the amount was not too much and went into details about rock excavation and so on. After defending this expenditure of $112,000 and the additional expenditure of $57,000 the minister announced that it was a mistake, that a five had been put down instead of a three, and he reduced the item by $20,000. Then he presumes to criticise the mover of this resolution on the ground of inaccuracy. The very manner in which money was expended in the Public Works Department as we have seen this session calls for further investigation, and shows the need for further investigation. I was surprised to hear the hon. gentleman
state that works in his department were carried on by tender and the patronage list was abolished. This statement was repeated by the Postmaster General in reference to all the departments. In Kingston alone we have had the Royal Military College stables for which the contract price was $6,960. They were built several years ago at a total cost of $8,573. An extra of over $1,500 was given without tender to the man who had the original contract. As these stables were built four or five years ago and have never been used, surely there should be an investigation of that expenditure. Do the ministers think that the people of Kingston are not asking for it? I can assure them they are, and that there is room for investigation. For the barrack accommodation in connection with the stables the contract price was $9,490, and the work has cost $15,000. $5,000 or $6,000 going to the fortunate contractor. The Royal Military College cottages were to be erected for $77,739. The minister says he has abolished the patronage system, yet he gave to Michael Sullivan without tender extras in connection with these buildings amounting to $6,237, and other works to the amount of $3,034, a total of $9,361. The only amount above the original contract let by contract was $3,695 for lighting to the Halliday Company. The Royal Military College gymnasium cost $40,000 without being equipped, and it is common street rumour in Kingston that the specifications required that that building should be lined with pressed brick, but that ordinary brick was substituted and painted red. Do the members of this House not think that the people in Kingston, knowing these things, are asking for an investigation into all these departments? That is the opinion of the people down there. They believe there is need of investigation in the different departments as called for in this resolution. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-ley) admits that the investigation of Mr. Justice Cassels was not thorough and did not cover the whole ground. He said it would cost $1,000,000 to make a thorough investigation. Would it not be more sensible and more in the interests of the country to spend even $1,000,000 on that work than to throw it away in the Newmarket ditch or in such useless expenditures as the building of those cottages in Kingston at that price?
I believe there is a general feeling throughout the country that these matters should be further investigated. Prior to the last election if these questions were raised in the country the Liberal party would appeal to the people, it was one of their election cries that because the Civil Service Commission reported certain irregularities Sir Wilfrid Laurier would investi-

gate further, he would probe to the bottom and had appointed Mr. Justice Cassels for that purpose. They appealed for support for Sir Wilfrid Laurier on that ground and in that way many votes were cast in his favour. When we referred to the. irregularities, we were met with the argument that Sir Wilfrid Laurier was disposed to be fair and to go to the bottom of these things, that he had shown that by appointing Judge Cassels. In that way they appealed to the people to give the Prime Minister an opportunity to finish his work. To-day not a man has attempted to prove that the investigation has been anything but a partial investigation. The amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for St. Anne is one which should appeal to all members of this House, but more strongly to members on the other side than to those on this side. The public honour is in the keeping of the Prime Minister and his cabinet and it is up to them and not to this side to keep that honour unsmirched and to probe this matter to the bottom. I repeat they are not dcing their duty by the country in voting down that resolution.


Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption).: (Translation.) I do not intend giving a silent vote on the amendment which is now before the House; but I shall be short. I wonder why the hon. member for St. Anne's has introduced a motion on those lines. He proposes that an inquiry be carried on concerning all the departments, because the inquiry relating to the Marine Department has brought to light certain frauds, certain extortions already condemned by the Liberal party.
I do not wish to fritter away the time of the House; however, as a young member, I must say that I was really surprised to hear old members, who have occupied seats in this House for several years, or even members who have been entrusted in years past with the administration of justice, suggest into the various departments, inquiries entailing heavy expenditures, without having any idea of the outcome of such inquiries.
I am perfectly satisfied that the policy adopted by the Minister of Marine is absolutely correct. He has thought fit as a result of the Cassels inquiry to dismiss some of the men and to superannuate others. I must say that some of his followers have possibly disapproved that jxdicy to a certain extent. We were of opinion, especially if yielding to the impulse of youth, that some of the officers who have been superannuated, might have been dismissed purely and simply. We considered that some of the worse cases of extortion were attributable to officers who have been kept on through condescension, through the good-heartedness of the Liberal ministers, and among others the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who Mr. EDWARDS.
wished in that way to give fair play to the appointees of the old regime.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the House very long. I am bound to say that the Minister of Marine has acted with all the earnestness that might_ have been expected in starting this inquiry, that he has followed it up with unrelenting zeal, and has meted out punishment to the guilty men. I shall vote against the motion of the hon. member for St. Anne's, because it strikes me rather as a pretext for empty talk, as a means of making political capital, as an attempt at slandering our government. We are interested in maintaining in power the honest government which we have since 1896. I shall not detain the House any longer at this late hour of the night. However, I must add that the carrying on of an inquiry into any of the departments would not satisfy the opposition, and particularly those who, while holding here a mandate as members of the House of Commons, are at the same time pensioners of the state.
We have a duty to fulfil here, it is to administer the public funds in such a way that every dollar expended may accrue to the benefit of the state. Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that if further inquiries were granted, the net result would be the condemnation of friends of hon. gentlemen on the other side, who were appointed while these gentlemen were in power. Those who are in favour of a general inquiry have not shown that we would be justifiable in spending such a large sum of money as an inquiry of the kind would entail.	_
I know moreover that the inquiry which has been carried through will cause the ministers to keep their eyes open, and that some day or other we shall witness the disappearance from the service of those people who are there only for the purpose of intriguing in the interest of persons oc-cuping seats on the opposition side.


Mr. J. P. TURCOTTE (Quebec County).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I request a moment's hearing. I have made up my mind to vote independently of all party prejudice; and I am even willing to close my ears to anything that has been said by members on this side of the House and to rely solely on the remarks made by hon. members on the opposition side. But there is one circumstance that is somewhat annoying to me. I would like to know from the leader of the opposition whether he intends starting a new inquiry into the Marine Department in case the amendment carried. I am waiting for an answer.
I want to know from the leader of the opposition if, in case the amendment is adopted he will be ready to begin over again the investigation in the Department of Marine and Fisheries?


Frederick William Borden: (Translation.) I would be entirely disposed to do so. There are some matters in that department which have not been fully investigated. The Commission which began its work in 1907 only partially completed it, and the investigation made by Mr. Justice Cassels was confined to a single paragraph of that Commission's report.


Mr. TUECOTTE.: (Translation.) Then, if I understand correctly, we have this extraordinary statement:	An inquiry has
been ordered for the purpose of discovering all that has taken place in one particular department, that of Marine. That inquiry was open to the public; the opposition was entitled to have a representative present.


Frederick William Borden: (Translation.) That enquiry was only partial.


Gustave Adolphe Turcotte: (Translation.) I cannot see how it can be called partial. It bore on all questions relating to the Department of Marine and it was open to the public at large. The hon. leader of the opposition was at liberty to take a hand in it. He is a distinguished lawyer and might have summoned witnesses, questioned or cross-questioned those that were called upon to testify, so as to bring out the whole truth.
Should it be understood that the leader of the opposition has failed to do his duty? Where was he, what was he about when the commission was travelling from town to town? How is it that we have to-day, from the mouth of the leader of the opposition, the admission that he is not satisfied with the inquiry.
Well, if so, he can only lay the blame on his own gross negligence. He gets a salary because he is expected to look after public business the whole year round; why did he not- think proper to appear before the commission and do the work the country pays him for ? Thus, on that occasion the hon. leader of the opposition was obviously neglecting his duty.
Then, if such an investigation costing
355,000	do not answer his expectations, will he be any more satisfied with a general investigation ? Or perhaps he thinks that we are going to order as many inquiries as there are departments.
There is a touch of irregularity irj the resolution of the hon. member from St. Anne's. The hon. gentleman acknowledges that the Minister of Marine is not guilty, that he is honest. On the other hand, we heard the hon. member for North Toronto making insinuations and taking to task not only the Minister of Marine, but the whole cabinet, and even the Prime Minister himself.
Another surprise was sprung upon us
when the hon. member from West Quebec (Mr. Prince) came here and stated that as for him not only is the Minister of Marine honest, but even those who have been found guilty by Mr. Justice Cassels, and dismissed, did not deserve it.
Finally, the hon. member from Leeds (Mr. Tavlor) stated this evening that for his part he thought the whole system was faulty and needed a thorough cleaning
Thus we have four different views. I rely on the evidence of our oponents themselves. I can see them altogether surrounded by a mist or by that cloud which is mentioned in the amendment. This is not only a suspicion, it is naked truth. Evidently, those gentlemen did not put their heads together beforehand, for one says white and the other says black, and they pull different ways. Therefore, how eculd I conscientionsly pass sentence without knowing anything positively, how could I blame the government and ask that they be put on trial when there is no cause for it.
The hon, leader of the opposition is an eminent lawyer, and let him say what scandal he is after. Why not be courageous enough to make a change and we shall answer you. There are eighty members on the other side of the House, but not one of them is able to proffer a formal charge against a single^ member of the government.
The Cassels inquiry was regularly held in _ such a manner as to enlighten public opinion. For that reason, I shall vote against the amendment.
House divided Doherty.	on amendment of Mr.  YEAS:
Messieurs	
Ames,	Lennox,
Barker,	Lortie.
Barnard,	McCall,
Barr.	Magrath,
Blondin,	Marshall,
Borden (Halifax),	Meighen,
Boyce,	Middlebro,
Bradbury,	Nantel,
Burrell,	Northrup,
Chisholm (Huron)	Owen,
Crothers,	Paquet,
Currie (Simcoe),	Perley,
Daniel,	Price,
Doherty,	Roche,
Donnelly,	Schafiner,
Edwards,	Sexsmith,
Elson,	Smyth,
F oster,	Sproule,
Fraser,	Stanfield,
Goodeve,	Stewart,
Haggart (Lanark),	Taylor (Leeds),
Henderson,	Taylor (New West-
Herron, Hughes,	minster),
	Thornton,
Jameson,	W allace,
Lake,	Wilson (Lennox and
Lalor,	Addington),
Lancaster, .	Wright.-54.

NATS:
Messieurs
Beauparlant,
Belaud,
Black,
Borden (Sir Fred'k.), Boyer,
Brodeur,
Calvert,
Carrier,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chew,
Chisholm (Antigonisli), Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer), Congdon,
Conmee,
Currie (Prince Edw.), Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin.
Dubeau,
Dugas,
Eorement,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Fowke,
Gauvrcau,
Gervais,
Girard,
Gladu,
Graham,
Harty,
Hodgins,
Hunt,
Kyte,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Nanierville),
Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laver gne,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Lemieux,
Loggie,
Maclean (Lunenburg),
McAlister,
MoCraney,
Molntyre (Perth), McKenzie,
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), MoMillan,
Major,
Maroile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),
Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,
Neely,
Papineau,
Pardee,
Parent,
Paterson,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Restigouohe), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Ross,
Roy (Dorchester),
Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sifton,
Smith (Middlesex). Smith (Nanaimo), Templeman,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turcotte (Quebeo County),
Turgeon,
Verville,
Wilson (Laval)-94.
PAIRS:
Harris,
Aylesworth,
Oliver,
Allen,
Knowles,
Sutherland,
Guthrie,
TurriS,
Schell,
German,
Clarke (Essex), MaoNutt, Sinolair, Carvell.
Beattie,
Maclean (York, S.), Haggart (Winnipeg), Thoburn,
Arthurs,
Cowan,
Macdonefl,
Osier,
MoCarthy,
Crocket,
Bristol,
Forget,
Lewis,
Sharpe (Lisgar).
Amendment negatived, motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.



SUPPLY.

Mr. FIELDING.: I desire to make a general motion. The committee has passed a large number of items, but I desire to move that one-fourth of each remaining item be voted by the committee. The clerk can work out the details, so that we need not go over the items.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no objection to that, subject to the usual reservation always made in such cases as to our right of discussion on the balance.


William Stevens Fielding: I could not deny that right if I wished.


Robert Laird Borden: A reservation of that kind is usually made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and committee rose and reported accordingly.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 3.12 a.m. Saturday.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 5, 1909.