[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 118) respecting the Anglo-Canadian and Continental Bank.-Mr. Talbot.
Bill (No. 119) respecting the Quinze and Blanche River Railway Company.-Mr. D. A. Gordon.


Mr. HERRON asked:: 1.	What are the total areas tinder lease for grazing purposes in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, respectively, distinguishing between irrevocable leases and leases with the two-year cancellation clause?
2.	What is the annual rental payable thereon to the government, and how much was collected during the year ending 31st March, 1908?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: 


Mr. FOSTER.: 1.	Saskatchewan. Area under open lease, 430,118 acres; area held under leases subject to cancellation on two years' notice, 77,449 acres; area held under irrevocable leases, nil acres. Total area under lease, 507,567 acres.
Alberta. Area under open lease, 345,116 acres; area held under leases subject to cancellation on two years' notice, 1,232,891 acres; area held under irrevocable leases, 359,232 acres. Total area under lease, 1,937,239 acres.
2.	Saskatchewan. Present annual rental, $10,151.34; amount collected year ending March 31, 1908, $7,499.10.
Alberta. Present annual rental, $38,744.78; amount collected year ending March-31, 1908, $26,455.12.



GOVERNMENT LOANS.

Mr. PERLEY asked:: What are the amounts and dates of the loans falling due prior to December 31, 1913?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance) :: 

NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY EXPENDITURE.

Mr. PERLEY asked:: 1.	What was the total amount expended to February 28, 1909, on the building and equipment of the National Transcontinental Railway, from Winnipeg to Moncton?
2.	What is now the government estimate of the further amount required to finish it and put it in working order ready to hand over to the Grand Truqk Pacific?


Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals):: 1.	$48,372,560.01.
2.	$66,021,206.00 exclusive of Quebec bridge, Quebec terminals, and line thereto, Winnipeg terminals or large shops in that vicinity.



IMMIGRATION BONUSES.

Mr. VERVILLE asked:: C
1. Is it the intention of the government to do away with the bounties on immigration?

2.	If not, to what companies, individuals or [DOT]associations will they, he paid?
3.	Does the government intend to have the restrictions on immigration observed? If so, id what manner ?
4.	Is the government informed of the methods of propaganda employed by the Salvation Army in England on the subject of immigration bounty?
5.	If so, what attitude will the goverment take in this matter?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of Interior) :: 

THE EASTER RECESS.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved:: That when this House adjourns on Wednesday next, 7th April, it stands adjourned until Tuesday, the 13th April.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
, Mr. J. W. DANIEL (St. John City). Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to a statement which I find in the St. John 'Standard' with regard to the violation of the Lobster Fishing Act. It is as follows:
lit is reported that undersized lobsters are being caught and sold in enormous numbers along the western coast of Nova Scotia. A commercial traveller, whose business frequently takes him to that section of the maritime provinces informed the ' Standard' that the hotels and canneries in the vicinity of Digby and Yarmouth were buying wholesale quantities of undersized lobsters for three and three and a half cents each.
I wish to ask the minister if his attention has been brought to this statement, and if so, what he proposes to do in the matter.
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: My attention has not been brought to that statement. I will make inquiries, however.



SUPPLY-THE CASSEL'S COMMISSION.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['One of the last remarks made by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Rivet), who has just taken his seat, was to the effect that he had carefully read the motion which is before the House. Of all the remarks uttered by that gentleman that was the most surprising to me, because, throughout the entire course of an address lasting I believe over an hour, it was the only remark that bore any possible relation to the words of the motion at all. I regret that, owing to the lateness of the hour, and owing to the fact that to answer the hon. gentleman would require me to disregard utterly the motion itself, it will be impossible for me to give much attention to his address. As to the gentleman who preceded him, the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Ee-rement), who spoke in French, I regret, with my hon. friend from NoTth Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) that I was unable to understand his address. I regret it all the more because, though not able to understand it, I was able to appreciate the music of his voice and accent, and the apparent eloquence of his language.\nThe Minister of Marine and Fisheries has exhibited some remarkable qualities during the present session. I must congratulate him on the marvellous facility of intellect and the bewildering dexterity of mind that enable him to come to almost any conclusion that may be congenital to him, or satisfactory to his conscience, utterly irrespective of the facts. On April 30, almost a year ago, when his department, in conjunction with other departments, stood charged before the country with the most serious delinquencies, when he himself, as part of the department, stood charged with a lack of conscience, when his department stood charged with being utterly wanting in a directing head, as far as the commissioners could see, the minister saw fit to come before the House and tell of the hard work he had done in his department, to recount the undertakings he had carried out in the St. Lawrence river, and up in the neighbourhood of Port Arthur. No doubt he conceived that that was an answer to the charge of the Royal Commission. And when the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) saw fit to state that the resolution as it stands does not call in question, and does not make a question in this debate,', "of the character and integrity of the minister himself, the minister saw fit at once to come to the conclusion that the member for St. Anne, speaking for this side of the House, had acknowledged the integrity of the character of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as head of that department. Surely that was a delightful contortion of the mind, that was a beautiful piece of reasoning. The Minister of Marine has also come to another conclusion very satisfactory to his conscience. He comes before this parliament, and before we were in session more than a week, he assured this House that he had received a certificate of character, not only from the hon. member for St. Anne, but front this commission. He assured this House, and it is now on record, that he came out with his skirts clear from the report of Mr. Justice Cassels. Now it is indeed a beautiful piece of reasoning for the minister to come to the conclusion that his skirts are clear by an investigation through a commission which was forbidden above all things to investigate anything about him at all. The hon. member for Richmond also says that it can no longer be said that there is any charge against the minister, or any suspicion that can be levelled against him, because, he says, the minister is cleared by the report of Mr. Justice Cassels. But the hon. member for Richmond made that statement in face of the assurance of the Minister of Agriculture, in face of the assurance of the Attorney General of this country, in face of the assurance of the Minister of Marine himself, and of the Prime Minister himself, that Mr. Justice Cassels was forbidden to investigate any of the conduct of the minister of that department, but was restricted in his investigation to the underlings. Surely, it ill becomes a minister to look for a certificate of character to a commission that was forbidden to investigate anything that might throw any light on his own transactions in the department, or upon his own connection with the delinquencies that existed. We have heard about drowning men clutching at straws, but the anxiety of the Minister of Marine and his followers to obtain a certificate of character for their chief certainly bears a very strong resemblance to that picture. The minister in his defence practically repeats the speech he delivered in this House on April 30, 1908. He goes back and tries to show that the system which is now so much abused by this government was in vogue under Conservative administration. That argument has been very frequently combatted in this House and I do not think it can be combatted too strongly. It does seem to me that the country, and I think most members of this House, are tired of it. Surely the Minister of Marine, surely members on the other side of the House do not pretend to say that a Mr. MEIGHEN.\nsystem that fits one time will fit all times. Surely they do not pretend to say that the successors of the Conservative party for all time to come are to be bound within whatever limits the Conservative party, 20 years ago or 30 years ago saw fit to be bound; surely they would not say that their successors in office for years to come, that their political successors shall have a circle drawn around them and be confined within the narrow limits by virtue of the present administration; surely they will allow some scope for the evolution of political morality and for improvements that will take place. It does not seem to me that it is a sufficient answer to this House and the country that the use of a patronage list in 1886 is a justification for its use years afterwards; surely they ought to make some allowance for the progress of time, surely they must admit that the times have out-grown that system. Supposing they do not admit that, it is not so much the system that is attacked, it is not so much the system that brings disgrace on this government and discredit on its members, as it is the abuse of the system. The abuse of the system seems to have taken root within the last few years. The abuse of this system has not been traced back by Mr. Justice Cassels nor indeed by the previous commission beyond the days of this government. Surely, therefore, they cannot hide behind the fact that the system existed to shield themselves from the consequences of their abuse of that system.\nThe Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) very rightly suggests that he should not be held responsible for the sins of his predecessors. Personally it would be unjust to hold him responsible. But the Minister of Marine, in common with other members of this government who were members of the government when the minister's predecessor, Mr. Prefontaine, held that portfolio, was responsible for the discrepancies of the Marine Department at that time. I need not take the statements of Conservatives in support of that doctrine of ministerial responsibility, but shall refer to the speeches delivered by prominent Liberals in 1891 when the late Hon. Sir Hector Lan-gevin was charged in this parliament with misconduct in his own department. They will find that one of the strongest constitutional lawyers in this conutry, the late Hon. David Mills, speaking on behalf of the opposition of that day, was very emphatic upon this point. Before quoting his words, let me briefly state the circumstances: The late Hon. Sir Hector Langevin was charged with serious misconduct in connection with the Department of Public Works. Specific charges were made against him. The matter was submitted to a special committee of this House. Two reports were presented to this House, a minority report and a majority report. The majority report specifically\n\nand unequivocally acquitted Sir Hector Langevin from anything in the nature of active participation or any connection with the irregularitites found to exist in the department. The minority report also went so far as to find that they had not evidence to connect Sir Hector with any improper transactions. The two reports coincided in that particular, but the minority report went on-and I draw the attention of the Minister of Marine to this particularly, because they are the words of his colleague in this House, the late Hon. David Mills, and the Hon. Sir Louis Davies of the Supreme Court. At page lxxxii of the Journals of the House of Commons of Canada, A. 1891, appendix No. 1, they say :\nExcept the desire to please and obey the minister at the head of the department, we cannot discover any motives which would induce these engineers to assist in defrauding the public in order to put money in the pockets of Larkin, Connolly & Co.\nTherefore, the ground that these men considered sufficient to connect the head of the department with the frauds perpetrated by those beneath him was that they could conceive of no other motive except that they wished to please and obey the minister at the head of the department. If that ground was good then it is good today, and if it is good now it distinctly implicates the head of the department and puts him on his defence. If the same circumstances exist now as existed then they should lead to the same conclusion.\nSpeaking in the light of those findings of both the majority and minority reports of those days, Mr. M. C. Cameron, then member for Huron, speaking in the House of Commons of Canada, used the following words at page 5824 of the ' Hansard ':\nA member of parliament, a former political friend and supporter of hon. gentlemen opposite, has, for three hours arraigned the policy and the conduct of the hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to their administration of public works, and yet upon the ministerial benches, behind them and on each side of them, there is^ not a man who has courage enough to rise in his seat and defend the position of the government. Hon. gentlemen will remember that this is not an assault solely upon the late member for Quebec West or an assault solely upon the late Minister of Public Works. It is an assault upon every hon. gentlemen who was the colleague of the Minister of Public Works while he was a member of the present administration. They supported and sustained him, and if they know anything about parliamentary, constitutional rule, they must know perfectly well that each one of them is just as responsible as the late Minister of Public Works. I am astounded at the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of War, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and the Minister of Finance, and above all the Secretary of State, should remain silent in their seats. Are they going to plead guilty to the charges levelled against them?\nThat is to say, Mr. M. C. Cameron, who was at that time put up by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government to argue the constitutional aspect of this case as it affected the individual responsibility of the other ministers of the Crown, was made to say and did say that they all shared the responsibility for the guilt even of officials of the department on the ground only as stated in the minority report that there was a reasonable inference that these acts were done either in obedience to their wishes or their orders. As the hour is late I beg to move that the debate be adjourned."]
Mr. C. J. DOHERTY (St. Annes, Montreal).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I desire to submit to the consideration of this House, and more particularly of the government, a matter which seems to me to be of grave importance to the people of this country, and one upon which I regret to say there is as yet no indication of an intention on the part of the government to take any steps in the direction in which it appears to me such steps are imperatively called for. As this House knows, in 1907 the Civil Service Commission, after making a more or less complete examination into the working of the different administrative departments of this government, submitted a report very severely condemning the workings of one department in particular. This was a department concerning which the commission had made a more careful investigation; but it criticised also other departments with regard to which it expresesd its regret that time had not allowed it the opportunity of making closer inquiry. Upon that report, the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries thought it desirable, in the exercise of the power conferred upon him by statute, to appoint a commission to inquire into the operations of his department. And he appointed the Hon. Mr. Justice Cassels as commissioner to elucidate the question whether or not its officials had so conducted themselves as to deserve the scathing condemnation pronounced by the Civil Service Commission.
In the month of January of this year, the commissioner appointed by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries made his report. That report has been in the possession of the government since some time in J anuary and has also been in the possession of this House for some time; and early in this week we had laid upon the table an order in council in which was set forth the steps which this government had decided to take in consequence of the conclusions reached by the commissioner and set forth in his report.
It is not my purpose to deal in detail with the recommendations contained in that report. To my mind the report is more remarkable for what it ignores than for what it contains. It is more remarkable for what it declines to deal with than for what it has dealt with. While the government has seen proper to deal with some of the questions and with the cases of some individuals in particular condemned by the commissioner, it has kept an absolute silence on some things which are obviously the necessary consequence of the findings

sible minister. Mr. Speaker, I am not here to make any attack upon the honour, nor do I propose to make any appreciation of the conduct of that hon. minister that might reflect upon him in any way. _ _ It seems to me that what his personal position in this matter may be is a question of minor import compared with the greater question to which I would call attention, and in regard to which I only wish it were possible for me to hope that I shall be able to induce action by this government. I take it, as I have said, from the action of the government that they cannot but know that the result of that investigation, the report made upon it, is to establish the possibility that I have indicated, that a permanently established system of corruption should have gone on without the knowledge of the responsible minister, and that in that particular case, it did go on without the knowledge of the responsible minister, and I am not here to question their conclusions in that matter at all.
I am free to say that, in so far as I am concerned in making this motion, I have not risen to make it because of any doubt in my own mind of the personal integrity of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. What may be his position_ upon the point of constitutional responsibility is quite another question, and one which, however, I do not propose to touch. But what I do desire to point out is that the action of the government, indicating as it does their belief that this system of corruption, not only could, but did go on without the knowledge of the minister responsible for the administration of that department, conclusively establishes that it is in their judgment possible in this country that such a system may be inaugurated and carried on year after year without the responsible minister having knowledge of it. If that is true, I would ask the ministers who preside over the other great spending departments of this government, and I would ask the right hon. the Prime Minister, who is responsible for all these ministers, and who presides over their operations, whether they are prepared to say that in these particular departments, which have gone uninvestigated, in the face of what has been pointed out by the Civil Service Commission, there is nothing to look into. If the ministers charged with these different departments take the position that under them nothing of this kind can happen without their knowledge, and if the right hon. the Prime Minister approves that position on their Dart, then I say that the government to-day is doing what I have declined to do, and making a direct and most condemnatory attack upon the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. If all these other hon. ministers can sit hack in the absolute eon-Mr. DOHERTY.
spiiousneiss that nothing can go wrong in their departments without their knowledge, it is because they have discovered the secret of watching and supervising all the details of administration. If they take the position that they have been able to do that, then I am at a loss to understand how it is that they condone-because from their point of view it must be something that requires to be condoned-the fact that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was not able to so control his department that things of that kind could not go on without bis knowledge.	_	_
I am perhaps wasting the time of the House in discussing the question from that point of view. It is manifestly clear that the government recognize the possibility of this state of affairs prevailing in a department without the knowledge of a responsible minister, and as I have said I am not questioning the correctness of that proposition as a proposition of fact. Is it then that these hon. ministers feel that there is something connected with the peculiar operations of the Department of Marine and Fisheries that is of a nature to germinate this corruption and from which their own operations are absolutely tree? Do they think that in their commercial transactions they are dealing with a quality of human nature with which the Department of Marine and Fisheries does not come into contact ? What is the difference in the Department of Militia and Defence, what is different in the Department of Public Works that gives us any reason to suppose that tlieTe would not be the same temptation which we have seen to exist in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, that there would not be the same human nature subject to those temptations, and that there would not be the same succumbing to those temptations that we have unfortunately seen to take place in the Department of Marine and Fisheries ? The responsible ministers of those departments do not need to read between the lines of the report of the Civil Service Commission to see that in the judgment of those gentlemen the system that in their opinion calls for a careful investigation of the operation of a criminal law in England, existed in their (those minister's) departments as well as in the Department of Marine and Fisheries They have no reason, I respectfully submit to suppose that in their operations they may expect any greater immunity from the spirit of graft than has been found in the Department of Marine and Fisheries.	'
But there is more than that. If you go through the evidence and the report of Mr. Justice Cassels you will find evidence that the same men who, in their dealings with the officials of the Marine and Fisheries Department, were guilty of bribery,

have been dealing with the other departments. Is it to be expected that the briber will change his character when he is dealing with one department from that which he has shown when dealing with another? If you consult the returns laid on the table at the instance of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sam. Sharpe), you will find the names of a number of people who were proven guilty of bribery in their dealings with the Marine Department figuring as having received large sums of money from each of the other spending departments within the last few years. Was there any reason to expect that the man who would bribe a Marine Department official would be above the idea of trying to cultivate, by irregular means, an official, say of the Department of Public Works or of the Department of Mititia and Defence? You will find in the very report of Mr. Justice Cassels and the evidence of Mr. Halliday, a gentleman who is shown by the report of the honourable judge to have in some very mysterious manner been enabled to be paid by the Department of Marine and Fisheries at the rate of $200 a day, less a rebate I believe of $20, for the use of a vessel which he had contracted to furnish at $125. You will find in that very evidence that, at the very same time, that gentleman was engaged in carrying on a contract for another department of the government of this country and yet that gentleman, as I have said, had managed to receive this extraordinary addition to his contract price from the Marine Department-and nobody can tell the reason why, at least that is the conclusion of the Hon. Mr. Justice Cassels, the commissioner in the matter. A suggestion was made as to the reason why, but the commissioners concluded that that suggestion, which afforded an explanation which would have involved a gentleman more highly placed than any official of the department, was not established. I hasten to say, bearing out what I said in the outset, that the gentleman more highly placed whom I desire to indicate is not the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur). But the remarkable fact remains that that gentleman Mr. Halliday, was dealing at the same time with at least one other great spending department, and that his name will be found in the return to which I have referred as having received very considerable sums of money from the other departments of this government within the period of time covered by that investigation and even since then.
In the report itself you will find evidence as to the dealings of these gentlemen with other departments of this government, and names crop up which are quite familiar to us in connection with certain discreditable transactions that we have heard of in this House and out of the House. If, for in-117
stance, you accompany the commissioner to the city of St. John you will find figuring-not as deserving of words of praise from the commissioner-a name that perhaps might evoke some recollections in the mind of the Minister of Public Works, who, I am sorry to see is not present in the House just now, because these recollections might be most pleasant for him; you will find figuring among the men whose dealings with the Marine and Fisheries Department did not meet the approval of the commissioner, a gentleman who by the present Minister of Public Works during the reign of a preceding minister had been described as being a very nice person to be represented by at Ottawa; the result being that that recommendation and what came of it proved a very nice thing for the gentleman so recommended. And so I say that in the report itself you have intrinsic evidence that these bribers are, or rather have been, in business relations with the other departments of government. I said that the bribers ' are ', but I corrected myself to say that the bribers ' have been ' in business relations with the other departments of this government, because I could hardly invoke the evidence in the report as proof of what has been going on since it was presented. But, outside that report there is evidence which justifies us in concluding that the bribers still are dealing with other departments of this government, and that justification is to be found in ' Hansard ' of March 22 last, in a reply of the Prime Minister to the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe). The hon. member asked:
Has the Marine and Fisheries Department continued to buy supplies, or give contracts 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?
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?
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, what are the names and amounts thereof?
To these questions the right hon. the Prime Minister gave an answer. To the question whether the Department of Marine and Fisheries, or any other department of the government had been continuing to deal with the persons who were found guilty of bribery in the investigation, before Mr. Justice Cassels, the answer of the Prime Minister was :
There may be 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.
And then, to the question as to the names of these persons and the amount of tha



transactions the government had with them, the Prime Minister gave the oracular reply:
If any particular name be mentioned the information will be given to the House.
Does not that answer come perilously near to saying: 'If you will Just show us that you know all about it why then we will tell you all,' Mr. Speaker. I say that in these answers of the right hon. gentleman we have evidence that justifies us in the conclusion that the men who have been guilty of bribery and found to be so guilty by Mr. Justice Cassels are still considered a worthy class of men with whom, not one department of government in particular but different departments believe they should continue to transact business. The right hon. gentleman tells us that it may be in the interest of the country that the government should continue to give its patronage to the men who have been so convicted; men who have been proven out of their own mouths to have paid bribes to our servants, then added that bribe and Heaven knows what percentage in addition to the price charged to the people of this country, and then pocketed the whole thing to our detriment. And, the Prime Minister tells us in this answer that the attitude of the government towards those bribers remains a matter to be determined in each particular case. Why in England, a man who would be discovered giving a bribe to a public official, would, without any ceremony whatever disappear from the list of those from whom the British government would under any circumstances purchase supplies. I have before me the report of the Public Accounts Committee of the imperial parliament for the year 1907 and I find there two cases which are quite in point to this discussion. One of these cases occurred in the Admiralty Department, and I sincerely trust the inference will not be drawn that there is anything peculiar to Marine Departments or Admiralty Departments which provokes this kind of conduct. In the Admiralty Department it was shown that certain officers had received a commission of five per cent, and by the way I think five per cent was the amount of the commission that played such a large role in the dealings of the Marine Department in Quebec. These officers had received a commission of five per cent upon some clothing purchased by the Admiralty and which it was their duty to pass. And, when the British Admiralty had to deal with that matter they dealt not only with the officials who had received the commission, but they dealt and dealt immediately with the contractors who paid it, and these contractors were at once stricken from the list of persons from whom the government would purchase supplies of any Mr. DOHERTY.
kind. You will find that case referred to at page 4 of the report of the Public Accounts Committee, and you will find it more specifically dealt with in questions from 271 to 280 in the appendix which contains the report of the proceedings. Now, let me call the attention of the House to this, and let us contrast the practice of this government with the practice of the British government under similar conditions. When the question was asked of the responsible minister, if he had determined that the department should cease to purchase goods from the men found guilty of giving bribes, his answer was: 'certainly.' In the report to which I have referred you will find another case in point, and this time it is in the War Department, so that any possible suggestion that there is any particular connection between salt water and this sort of an offence disappears. There was a similar case in the War Department, and when the minister was asked what action he had taken his reply was: 'Why, automatically' - remark the word 'automatically' - 'automatically that man ceases to be a person with whom the government or any of its officials may in future have dealings.' It was not in England, a question of considering each particular case as it is with the right hon. the Prime Minister; it was not considered that it might be in the interests of the country to have dealings with these men; it was not a question of encouraging the man who had been guilty of this despicable crime of bribing his wav into the pockets of the people of the country.
But we need not go to England to learn how men who do that ought to be treated, and whether it is a matter to be dealt with in each particular case. If you turn to our own Criminal Code and look at sections 158 and 159, you will find that every one of these bribers was guilty of a penal offence. We had it some time ago in this House from the lips of a much greater legal authority than I can pretend to be; and if you turn to section 159 of the Criminal Code, you will find that the law of this country has decreed that a portion of the proper penalty to be inflicited upon the man guilty of that offence is that he shall cease to be recognized as having a right to have any contract or any dealing with the government of this country. And yet in the eyes of this government it is a question to be dealt with in each particular case. I say that those answers, indicating as they do a line of conduct that looks upon the action of a briber as something to be leniently dealt with, notwithstanding the letter of the law combined with the terms of those answers, which refused to us in effect information which the hon. gentleman who asked for it and all the members of this House were entitled to

have at the hands of the government, justify us in concluding that to-day the departments of this government are still dealing with these bribers. If we are making any mistake in drawing that inference, I can only say that the responsibility for the mistake lies at the doors of those who refused to us, as they effectually do, this information properly asked for, and lies at the door, too, of the government that has laid on this table the report of what it has decided to do with regard to the report of Mr. Justice Oassels, and has confined itself to telling us simply what it has done or is going to do with regard to certain of its officials, and maintains an eloquent silence with regard to what is going to happen to those political friends, the bribers, whom the report of Mr. Justice Cassels declares to have been guilty, if not more guilty, than the officials who received their bribes. It was this action on the part of the government that led me to say, in opening these remarks, that I regretted that there was absolutely nothing to indicate that this government in the slightest degree contemplated taking steps to investigate the other departments. While in the eyes of this government the bribing of its officials calls for no action so far as the bribers are concerned, the law of this country says that those men should be prosecuted and convicted, and above all should not be dealt with thereafter by the government. I say in all earnestness that I would have welcomed, and would welcome still, from this government, any indication of intention on its part to push through to its proper conclusion this investigation which began with the Department of Marine and Fisheries- to push it through on broader lines, on lines that would indicate an intention on its part to hew to the line, let the chips fall where they may; and if anything that I say now, by way of emphasizing what I consider are the conclusions to be drawn from the inaction of the government, should look as though I were speaking with a desire simply to condemn, I desire to say that all my purpose is to try if I can to bring home to those who are responsible for the conscience of this country the position in which they stand and the responsibility which they are assuming, not by their action, but by their inaction, with regard to what has been established by this commission. Not only is the fact of what has gone on in the Department of Marine and Fisheries in itself sufficient to cause hon. ministers in control of other departments to inquire whether all is well within their households, but we have had the evidence, within the present session of this parliament, of this House putting itself on record as being of the opinion that this sort of iniquity, which we now know to have existed in at least one of the departments of the government, is so generally prevalent throughout the commercial life of this 1171
country, that it was necessary that we should enact a special criminal law to reach it. The government knows that; it knows how prevalent this offence is in the general business of the country; and the inaction of the government leads us to suppose that we are expected to believe that there is no suspicion in the minds of the men responsible for the spending departments of this government that any such thing exists in the course of the immense transactions which some of those departments carry on.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know that it is necessary that I should dwell at any greater length upon considerations tending to demonstrate the truth of the proposition which I am free to confess seems to me so obviously true. I may say that it seemed to me so obviously true that I have sat in this House since the opening of the session waiting day by day to hear an announcement that this government of its own motion meant to carry the investigation, which had begun in this one department, through to its ultimate conclusion. I am not here to say that such an investigation will necessarily result in the discovery of regrettable facts similar to those which have been brought to light in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. But if such an investigation should demonstrate the entire absence, or even approximately the entire absence of any such corruption in the other departments, that investigation would be worth whatever money it may cost. The people are anxious that matters of this kind should be cleared up. They are interested not merely because of the heavy loss in money, which the prevalence of such a system as has been found to exist in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, must entail, but chiefly because of their desire to ascertain whether, from the highest to the lowest, those charged with the administration of public affairs are perfectly honest, and that the public service of the country may be taken as characteristic of the honesty of the people at large. The people, expect our public service to be of such a character that we need not. when speaking of it, hide our heads in shame. In the report of the commissioner and in the evidence, there are weighty reasons why the government should proceed with such an investigation. Look at the conclusions of that report, and surely the government must pay some attention to the opinion of the distinguished judge whom they selected to make this investigation. What does he tell us is the remedy? You must, he says, rouse the public conscience. Mind you, not the conscience of the employees of the Marine and Fisheries Department, but the public conscience. Why? Because to every reasonable and reflecting man, the evidence leads inevitably to the conclusion that there has grown up among a certain class the belief that the government-not any one department in par-

ticular-but the government as a whole, is fair game and that a legitimate means of making money out of it is to bribe the servants of the country. Then, Mr. Justice Cassels goes on to suggest some other improvements with regard to the Marine and Fisheries Department, and he cannot restrain himself from asking: 'Are there not other departments in which this may be done?' His question implies the suggestion that the conditions in the other departments are similar to what they have been shown to be in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. That is the impression brought home to the public mind by this impartial investigator. I ask the government whether they have any confidence in the man they chose to make the recommendation ? If they have, how can they flout his recommendation? Are they going to sit back and say: 'What is the public conscience to us? We sit in our seats, we hold the reins of power, we may do as we please at all events until another election-what care we for the public conscience? We will satisfy the public by passing a law to prevent the bribery of the servants of individuals, but we will not take any steps to see whether servants of the public are being bribed.' Sir, the government of this country is in a very special manner keeper of the public conscience. I ask you how it is possible to suppress bribery and corruption among our people when we find that those who hold in their hands, for the time being at all events, the control of the destinies of this country, declare that, so far as the departments for which they are responsible are concerned, so far as the business of the people which they are doing is concerned, it does not interest them in the slightest whether the corruption which has been demonstrated to exist in one of the departments does not also exist in the others. Eouse the public conscience, if you will, but our consciences are not to be aroused, would be a fair inference to draw from the inaction of the government.
I do not propose to extend my observations to any further length. The people of this country, I venture to say, look for a thorough investigation of the administrative departments of this government. Such an assertion may not be entitled to any weight coming from myself, and possibly might be questioned, as coming from the opposition benches, but I can support it by authorities which cannot be charged with political bias. Let me cite two quotations from newspapers which support the government and which appeared after the general elections had taken place. These newspapers have told the government in no uncertain tone what I have been trying to impress on the House this afternoon, namely that there is need foT, and this country demands, a thorough investigation into all the spending departments, were it only as an earnest of the sincere intention of this gov-Mr. DOHERTY.
ernment to give us an honest administration of the public business. I read from the Ottawa * Free Press ' of 22nd October, 1908:
Sir Wilfrid's individual strength is great; he has shown on many occasions that he cares for no man. There is an opportunity now for him to prove to the people that they have reason for confidence in him, that not only is he himself a man above suspicion, hut that his whole administration is clean and beyond reproach.
The Liberals as a whole have been classed as a gang of looters.
I am not classing them; I am only reading. *
Sir Wilfrid owes them a clearance certificate.
From what we know of the administration of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in the last twelve years, we believe that it will bear the closest scrutiny; from our knowledge we have been able to characterize as a gross slander the wholesale charges that have been made against it; but there are those not as well informed who are not able to refute the accusations of their fellows, and it is in justice to these men that the most searching investigation should take place, as is now taking place in the Marine Department.
The other I propose to recite is from a newspaper published in the city of Montreal, a newspaper whose devotion-and effective devotion-to the right hon. prime minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and to the party he leads will not be questioned. I read from the Montreal ' Herald ' of 26th October last:-
In the administrative services it is the time for an overhauling and a fresh start. There are departments to which the strong hand must be applied, and people will not be satisfied unless proofs are given that this is understood. Efficiency is demanded and will be insisted upon. At the same time, every reasonable effort to add to the dignity of the service, to minister to the independence and selfrespect of the man who works for the country, will be approved.
And, returning to the charge, on 31st October last, the same paper said:-
Similarly, the Liberal press is not disposed tc take the triumph of Monday last as absolving the party from inquiring if all is well within it. The Ottawa ' Free Press ' demands sn impartial investigation, suoh as is being made into the Marine Department, into the workings of any other department which has come under suspicion. The Toronto ' Globe ' urges the abolition of the patronage system in the purchase of supplies, the reform of the Senate, legislation bettering the conditions of life, the punishment of incompetency and dishonesty in public office, the completion of the scheme of Civil Service reform.
Then, it goes on with its own commentary on what others have said.
All this is good journalism, good partisanship, and good patriotism. The Montreal

' Gazette,' however, sees in it only evidence that the election was won under false pretences. The Liberal press and speakers, it declares, claimed that all the charges of the Conservatives were unfounded, and that the country took them at their word. What a narrow, partisan view. No wonder the Toronto ' Telegram ' claims the ' Gazette ' as a reactionary. No man or journal of any standing in the Liberal party has assumed what the ' Gazette' claims was the general assumption. On the contrary, confession has been made, time and again, that in the spending of millions of money, spread over twelve years, mistakes may have been made. The argument presented to the country, and accepted by it, was that the government, as a whole, was clean and honest; that it had instituted reforms of administration as the necessity developed; that it had ordered independent investigations of alleged evils; that the Premier could absolutely be depended on in every emergency where courage and honesty were required;	
Now, after the conflict, with five years of work before the government, surely it is the part of well-wishers of it, and of the party, to point out the work that is to be performed.
Sir Wilfrid has the ball at his foot as never before. He is under no obligation to any man, or group of men, to refrain from doing as he will along the line of departmental reform, of legislative reform, or of financial retrenchment. In the past he has faced, with courage, and intelligence, and fine public spirit, every issue that presented itself. He has shirked no task, once he saw his duty and his way. Thus he gained that confidence of his fellows so signally defined on Monday. And thus, we may be confident, he will face the tasks that the campaign may have uncovered to his mind. He hais been engrossed for twelve years in the great work of nationbuilding, the work of harmonizing our diverse races, of cementing confederation, of peopling half a continent. Perhaps, for a season, the labours of our Canadian Hercules are to be in a large measure the humbler, but not less necessary, labours of perfecting administration, of safeguarding the public domain from the assaults of the selfish, of creating a healthier public opinion in regard to electoral corruption, and generally in strengthening the moral fibre of the party and the country.
The purpose of my motion is to call upon the government to do the work of generally strengthening the moral fibre, not of the party-I am not so much concerned about that-but of the country. It seems to me that the first step towards that is to make it quite clear that the departments of the government are not afraid to put their operations before the public, but that they are as anxious as the public is, that if there are wrong doings in the operations of those departments, they should be discovered and corrected. And I desire that this should be done, not only so far as the officials of the lower grades are concerned, but from top to bottom of these departments.
I trust that I may be proven to have been mistaken in my view that all the indications were that we need not expect such action on the part of the government. If so, I for one shall hail with pleasure the fact that the government shows itself equal to the task that, it seems to me, clearly lies before it; and I shall be happy to congratulate the government and this country if the result of the investigation should be to show that there was no occasion to make that investigation save in so far as it might serve to relieve the public mind. I hardly venture to hope that that will be the result, but, if it should be, surely the government will not have reason to regret that it made the investigation, and most assuredly the country will congratulate the government and congratulate itself upon such a result having been shown.
But to do that-and I want to insist, just for a moment, on that point-we must have an untrammelled investigation; it must not be a matter of stopping when you strike at the members or when you strike at the man who ' was a member and is a candidate, nor of stopping when you strike at the man whose bribe went as an election subscription, nor of stopping even if you should reach up- which I am not insinuating in any way; it is foreign to my purpose to do so-to the very head of the department himself. To make it worth anything, we must have an untrammelled investigation.
We must not have an investigation that- take one startling instance in this investigation-will make it possible for a government to whom it is reported by an official, a judge entrusted by them to investigate, that an official occupying the highest position in the department under the minister himself, has improperly, at the instigation of two candidates in an election, put 100 men unnecessarily at work upon public work for the sole purpose of influencing their votes-that shall make it possible, I say, for the government, or the minister to whom this report was made, to do absolutely nothing about it. Yet that is what we have in this very report, which is perhaps the most startling instance, or one of the most startling instances of the undesirable effects of the limitation of the power of that commission. Yet I leave it to the common sense of this House if there is any more despicable form of bribery in this world than that which makes the labouring man's bread and butter the price of his vote. I therefore beg to move that all the words of the proposed motion after the word 'that' be left out, and the following be substituted therefor:
That the commission of 1907, in the course of their investigations into the conditions of the Civil Service, having made incidental in-

quiry into the workings of one of the departments at Ottawa, characterized that department as wanting in organization, lacking in conscience, and some of its officials as serving two masters, Scripture notwithstanding, and also criticised other departments.
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 simply sustains the charge of official negligence, wastefulness and corrupt dealing in that department, and affords ground for the conviction that similar methods prevail in other great spending departments.
That in order to lift the cloud of suspicion that rests upon the administration of the various departments, to satisfy the demand of the country for honest and businesslike methods, and to purge the public service of inefficiency, reckless waste and corrupt practices, it is advisable and necessary in the public interest that a thorough and untramelled investigation be made by a competent business commission into the workings of all the great spending departments of government.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I do not find any fault with my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty) for the way he has presented the case he has just laid before the House; I desire even to offer him my sincere thanks for the personal allusion which he made to me during his remarks. I am exceptionally grateful to him for these kind remarks, because I have not been accustomed in the past to receive that sort of treatment. Ever since I have been in the department I have been doing all that I could to put it upon a proper footing. I was appointed Minister of Marine and Fisheries a few months before the session of 1906, when I had no time to put myself thoroughly au fait of the situation in that department. During that session, several investigations took place in the Public Accounts Committee, and some other committees, concerning the administration of that department. As a result of those investigations, I became aware that some reforms were necessary, especially with regard to the accounting system, which was particularly defective. I appointed some persons who were strongly recommended to me for the purpose of establishing in that department an accounting system which would permit the minister and the superior officers to exercise more effective control over the administration. Later on, when the Civil Service Commissioners came into my department to make an investigation, they may bear testimony to the fact that I gave them the fullest latitude to discover everything which might be wrong in the administration of that department. At last the commissioners reported, stating that:
There would also seem to be a lack of conscience. In connection with the enormous expenditures which are deemed necessary, the Mr. DOHERTT.
word ' discount ' never appears. It is tacitly assumed that there is no such thing; but the whole commercial world knows otherwise. If no one gets any benefit from trade with the government except the trader, then it must be clear that in these great purchases made for the government, without discount, its officers must be assisting the trader to get better prices from the government than he can get anywhere else; for everywhere else he has te give discount. In other words, some of the government's officers are serving two masters, and apparently succeeding with both-Scripture notwithstanding.
I then reported to His Excellency the Governor General and to my colleagues that:
It is assumed by that statement that commissions are received improperly, or enhanced prices paid through dishonesty on the part of the officials of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. But, unfortunately the report does not mention any names which would enable him to take definite action concerning those officials. It is, however, in the interests of the Department of Marine and Fisheries and of the country that immediate steps should be taken in order to determine what officials (if any) deserve condemnation and to give to all an opportunity to meet the charges implied.
That recommendation of mine was concurred in by His Excellency the Governor General and by my colleagues, and the Hon. Mr. Justice Cassels, whom I think everybody in this House recognizes as one of the ablest jurists in this country, a man of impartiality, a man of rectitude, was appointed to discharge the duties of investigating the charges made against the officers of the department. The report is now before us and we have taken action upon it. My hon. friend from St. Anne's (Mr. Doherty) has given us a synopsis of what has been done in connection with officers who were implicated in that report, but now my hon. friend states in his speech that though acknowledging the personal integrity of the minister he cannot fail to say that the minister is constitutionally responsible for the conduct of these officers.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I think what I said was that what the constitutional responsibility might be was a question on which 1 did not want to express an opinion.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As the question of constitutional responsibility has been raised, I may be permitted to say a few words upon it and once for all to lay the responsibility where it should rest, to ascertain whether the minister of the day should be held absolutely responsible for everything that has been done since confederation. Mr. Justice Cassels, in his report, says that the system which has been found defective in the department is mostly the purchasing of supplies, what he calls the patronage system, and he says:

The system seems to have been handed down from one administration to another since confederation.
That is the system which has always prevailed. I shall not take the statement of the hon. judge alone but I think I shall be able to prove to the House by correspondence and documents that the system has also been in vogue when members of the opposite party were in control of the department, and that I was the first minister to make the change which commends itself, to the judgment of Mr. Commissioner Cassels. I have been preceded in the department by a number of ministers, all men of greater ability than I. My predecessors and their terms of office have been:
Ministers.	Dates.
Hon. Peter Mitchell	 1867	to	1873


Hon.   A@: Smith	 1873	to	1878


Hon.  J. C.@: Pope	 1878	to	1882


Hon.  A. W.@: McLelan	 1882	to	1885


Hon.  G. E.@: Foster	
1885	to	1888Hon. Sir Chas. Hibbert Tupper 1888	to	1894Hon. John Costigan	
1894	to	1896Hon. Sir Louis Davies	
1896	to	1902
Hon. Raymond Prdfontaine.. .. 1902 to 1905
I was appointed at the beginning of 1906. Some of my opponents argue that I should be held responsible for a system which has prevailed under ministers who were very superior in ability to me, but as I have said I was the first minister to get rid of the patronage system in 1908. As this is likely to be the last chapter of this famous marine investigation it may be as well to review what has been done in the past. Let us look at the record since 1867 and ascertain whether I should be held constitutionally responsible for everything which has occurred during that period. In the report of the Auditor-General of 1887, page 393, will be found a letter written by the Auditor General, the late Mr. J. Lome McDougall, to the Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, on August 21, 1886. In that letter Mr. McDougall said:
I was recently at Quebec and visited the office of your agent there. I find that the supplies purchased by Mr. Gregory are not obtained under contract, and that the prices paid are apparently higher than those which are paid for the same kind of goods for the marine hospital under contract. The differences probably arise from tenders being called for in the latter case and not in the former.
Then the Auditor-General in this letter not only suggests but requests that Mr Gregory should be ordered to purchase his supplies by tender.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who was then minister?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. member for North Toronto was then minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. FOSTER.: Oh come off.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not wish to find fault with the hon. member for North Toronto; he was simply doing what other ministers had done before him. My contention is that it is unfair for my opponents to endeavour to charge me with responsibility for every thing which has been brought cut during this investigation when that investigation simply disclosed the same svs-tem as has existed since 1867.
In 1886, then, the Auditor-General requests that tenders be called for. A few months afterwards, on February 21, 1887, Sir Hector Langevin telegraphs to the deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries as follows:
I wish that as usual paint, powder, oils, drugs, common stationery for lighthouses, groceries, hardware and dry goods be purchased in Quebec, also provisions at once.
(Sgd.) HECTOR L. LANGEVIN.
On February 10, 1887, a telegram was sent by the nresent member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) to the deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. William Smith, as follows:
Continue usual patronage Baudot & Chinic, Quebec, with conditions as per letter sent concerning Sir Hector's request, inform Caron.
(Sgd.) G. E. FOSTER.
This telegram was signed by the then Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Foster). On the 21st of February, 1887 Mr. Gregory telegraphs to the department as follows:
Navigation nearly open, say whom I am to purchase supplies from and prices to pay. Captains lightships want usual advance. Shall I pay, it takes $2,000.
(Sgd.) J. U. GREGORY.
Here is the memorandum which was prepared by the deputy minister for the then minister:
Please inform me what plan you have decided to adopt about Gregory purchasing supplies, as he does not like to purchase now without authority. The best plan in the public interest is to advertise openly for tenders and let all get a chance to state prices for the principal articles.
21st April, 1887.



[Stage Direction]
Deputy Minister.
Memorandum for the Minister of Marine, relative to the purchase of supplies at Quebec. Immediate.
Mr. McGreevy has handed in the accompanying list of names whom he recommends should receive patronage at Quebec in the purchase of supplies. With reference to the first list marked for tenders he recommends that tenders should be asked from the different parties mentioned therein when any articles are required.
Not public tenders mind you, but simply that tenders should be asked from those
[Stage Direction]
who were political friends of the government of the day, these persons being recommended by Mr. McGreevy the then member for Quebec west.
With reference to the second list he recommends that these persons should be emploved if their services are required, or that supplies should be purchased from them without tender as it would be difficult to make contracts for these articles mentioned in the second list.
(Sgd.) WM. SMITH.
22nd April, 1887.
Minister approves W.S. 23rd April, 1887.
This is a sample of how things were done under the Conservative administration, and if we look at what happened after the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) left the department we will find that the same system was. perpetuated. In a memorandum from Mr. Smith deputy minister, to the minister on the 27th of October, 1888, he says:
I have visited the different light stations at Anticosti in the government steamer, and while on board the vessel I examined into her internal economy. On inquiry as to prices of provisions it appeared to me that everything was purchased at the fullest market prices, and the captain mentioned to me confidentially that the vessel could be provisioned much cheaper if he would be allowed to purchase in the open market without reference to political patronage.
There had been a change of Minister of Marine in the meantime and this memorandum was for Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, in 1888, and here is what Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper wrote upon this memorandum:
Arrange a fair rate with each captain accordingly, slightly under existing extravagant system, and have it understood that in the event of complaints being made, if found to be reasonable, fines will be made and deductions from masters' pay for same.
(Sgd.) C. H. TUPPER.
March 11th, 1889.
From this it will be seen that Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper desired to make a change in the manner in which supplies had been purchased and he suggested that a rate should be made with each captain and a contract entered into with him. This system was in force for some years, and after giving the question some consideration I have come to the conclusion that it is certainly the best way in which to provision our vessels; we could contract with the steward or the master of the vessel paying a certain sum of money per head of the crew and no more and no less. But, in 1891 Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper changed this svstem and Mr. Smith the deputy minister in a report to the minister says:
As I presume it is intended to go back to our old system of provisioning the steamers at Quebec, namely, by allowing the agents to purchase the materials as required, and allowing them to use as much as crew wish, Mr. BROUEUR.
but holding the captain and steward responsible for the total average cost per month.
Then he suggested a plan of purchasing supplies from the different firms that were recommended, and letters were sent to Mr. Gregory in Quebec and Mr. Harding in St. John as follows:
I have to request you to invite tenders from a number of friends of the government in the trade for the provisions required during the coming season.
There were to be no public tenders and no public competition, but the purchases were to be made just from friends of the government. Then, I find that on the 4th of May 1891, Mr. Gregory states that he had complied with the instructions, that he had called upon all the friends of the government in the trade to send tenders for the provisions required, that he had consulted Mr. McGreevy and Mr. Chateauvert in order that he might not commit any error in calling on the tradesmen in question, and then he incloses tenders from two or three persons who were friendly to the Conservative government. However, Mr. Gregory was reproached for the manner in which he had done this, and then he answered that there were only two grocers who were friendly to the government and that he could not ask the others to tender because he was told to do business with the friends of the government only. Mr. Speaker, that is the system of purchasing supplies which existed under the Conservative government, and which.has also existed since the Liberal government came in power until last year. Looking at the evidence before us I find, however, that in Montreal from 1888 to 1896 there were only 22 names on the patronage list, whereas from 1896 up to last year there were 170 names on that list, which goes to show that the persons from whom tenders were invited were much more numerous under the Liberal regime than under the Conservative regime. This system as I have shown has existed for many years, but I have come to the conclusion that it should be a system of the past, and last year I changed it and now goods are purchased by public tender in every case where it is possible to do so, without any reference to a patronage list. The system now established is that the purchasing agent should have the right to go not only to friends of the government, not only to my own political friends, but to go any where he wishes in order to obtain the best prices possible in f1'" interest of the country and of the department.
I do not want to find fault with any person in particular for these abuses. The name of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) has been mentioned; but I do not blame him in any shape or form. He simply followed the practice that had previously been in existence. But I ask for myself the same consideration

that I am willing to give to my opponents; I ask to be treated with the same leniency with which I am willing to treat my opponents who were maintaining a system which was bad.
Mr. SPROULE.: Might I ask the hon. member this question:	If the same thing
took place under a dozen governments before his advent to the department, would that make it less an offence now, that it is continued under his regime, when it is drawn to his attention by his own commissioner?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am drawing attention to the fact that this system and these abuses have been at all times in existence in the department. At all times it has been represented by officers of the department and by the Auditor General that public tenders should be called for, and that the patronage system should be abolished; and I am glad to say that the first one who had the courage to change that system was myself. My hon. friend will probably one day be a minister of the Crown, and he will then learn how difficult it is to change any system of administration; he will find how difficult it is to eradicate abuses. But I hope he will be able to do his duty, as I know he will be anxious to do it in the best interests of the country. In the meantime, I ask him whether he does not consider that I have done my duty in doing what I have done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the hon. gentleman asks me that plain question, I tell him that I do not think he has by any means done his full duty, in face of the report of the commission appointed by himself as one of the ministers of the Crown.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Of course, that is a question of opinion; but when I have had the courage to remove abuses which I have proven existed since confederation, abuses which my hon. friend from North Toronto, one of the ablest men we have in this country, was not able to remove, my hon. friend must admit that the member for Rouville has shown some courage and energy, and has shown that he was willing to discharge his duty.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the work of the department has enormously increased during recent years, and some new and important works have been added to it. We must take that fact into consideration in examining the situation of that department. Take, for example, the services undeT the control of the department; there were 19 twenty years ago; there are now 40, an increase of more than 100 per cent. The expenditure in 1886 was $1,144,520; ten years later it was $1,136,254; last year it was $6,174,855. What caused this great increase? Additional services in the department. I have in my hand a statement showing that the
new services taken charge of by the department since 1896 entailed upon it last year an expenditure of over $2,000,000. These include the St. Lawrence Ship Channel, the dockyards at Esquimalt and Halifax, wrecking plants, the ice breaking steamer at Fort William, wireless stations, a naval militia, marine schools, reporting stations, pilotage, ice-breaking steamers, submarine bells, Parry Sound depot, the lighthouse depot at Prescott. Here are new services that did not exist in 1896, or were not then under the control of the department. If we look at the number of vessels, there were only eight twenty years ago, while there are now fifty-three. Of letters received there were last year 38,190, against 7,800 in 1886, and 13,000 in 1896. Of light stations there were in 1886, 534; in 1896, 629; and in 1908, 957. Of light-keepers, there were 682 in 1886 ; 646 in 1896; 914 in 1908. Of gas buoys there were 39 in 1886 and 470 in 1908. Of wharfs there were 134 in 1886, 416 in 1908. That shows the immense quantity of work which has been added to this department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much was dropped in the department when the department was divided into two-the Marine Department and the Fisheries Department?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am speaking of the whole department-the two branches of the department.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You are practically only dealing with the Marine Department to-day whereas before you dealt with both.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am dealing with the two branches of the department. They were divided, I think, in 1886, but in 1891 they were brought together again. We have done, I think, some useful work, and in the criticisms to which my department has been subjected, these works have been lost sight of. But I have testimony to the value of what we have done in improving the St. Lawrence. Take the resolutions passed by the Shipping Federation in 1886, 1887, 1906 and 1907. Take those of the Montreal Board of Trade in those late years. I might quote those because they show that something has been done which is very useful. Take the resolution of the 15th of November, 1906, by the Montreal Board of Trade:
Resolved that having received from the president and the representatives of the shipping interests on the council their reports on the annual inspection of the channel, which inspection, by courtesy of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, they attended, the council of the Board of Trade of Montreal hereby expresses its appreciation of the manner in which the Dominion government has met the desire of the country that a generous expenditure should be made for the purpose of improving our national waterways from Montreal to the ocean, and the council further expresses its gratitude to the hon. the min-

ister and to the engineers his department for having so readily and promptly met the various specific requests for channel and lighting improvements made by this board and the shipping federation.
Here is the Montreal Board of Trade, the most important body in the country, praising the Department of Marine and Fisheries for what it has done in improving the St. Lawrence route. Take the resolution of the shipping interests of the 21st of November, 1906:
That this federation is extremely gratified with the permanent and substantial manner in which the many undertakings are being carried through and consider that great credit is due to the government and to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the way in which this national work is being done. The beneficial effects have already been felt in the lowering of insurance rates by the St. Lawrence route, which not only benefits the ships, but also the producers in the west.
That the members of this federaton are pleased to note the able manner in which the minister has mastered the many details in the short period in which he has held office.
A resolution to the same effect was passed by the Shipping Federation in 1907:
Be it resolved that the members of the federation express their satisfaction with the permanent and substantial manner in which the many undertakings are being accomplished and consider that great credit is due to the government and to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the manner in which this national work is being carried through.
Those testimonies ought to be worth something. My hon. friend from St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames), who knows the people who have passed these resolutions, will appreciate their value. He knows that they were passed with the desire oi being absolutely true and representing what really existed. I might quote also a resolution from the Board of Trade of Fort William of the 21st of May, 1907, in which they congratulate us for the work we were carrying out at that particular time in connection with the breaking of the ice:
This board fully appreciates the action taken by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in putting the ice-breaker 'James Whelan ' at work to break the ice blockade on Thunder hay and in the harbour of Fort William this spring. The fact that this breaker opened navigation at least two weeks, and probably three weeks, earlier than_ it would have opened, fully justifies the action of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
That this Board of Trade felt that the work of opening this harbour, so well begun, should he continued each year. The result will he that navigation will open from two to four weeks earlier than it usually does, and such a result is a very important factor in the development of the west, and is of national importance.


Mr.   BRODETJB@: What has been the result of our policy and of the work we have been doing on the St. Lawrence? One result has been the lowering of insurance rates to a very considerable extent. On grain these rates have been reduced by 60 per cent of what they were in 1900. On provisions they have been, reduced by 54} per cent, and the president of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, a man who is pretty well posted on all questions concerning finance and transportation, spoke in his speech at the annual meeting of the Canadian Bank of Commerce, as follows:
The Marine and Fisheries Department have also for some years past been steadily improving the lighting of the St. Lawrence, and it is claimed that during the last eight years the decline in insurance rates has been such as to make a saving to freight and vessel owners combined of about $6,000,000.
Here are $6,000,000 which we have saved to the country by improving the St. Lawrence route. Of course during the last elections not a word was said by our opponents about this very beneficial work done by the Department of Marine and Fisheries. They were too busy slandering the minister and his department, for small, petty things, to think of saying a word about the good work we have done in the public interest.
When I took charge of the department, I wanted to make some reforms, and I propose to state in a few words what reforms I have succeeded in making. When the investigation of 1906 took place in the Public Accounts Committee, I found that our system of bookkeeping was absolutely defective. At that time I was told that some changes were being made in the accounting system of the Department of Railways and Canals and that I might get experts who would establish in my department what is called the Cost System. What is that system; it is one by which we can find out in our different stations and places where we manufacture, the cost of each part of a manufactured article. We have not only the cost of the total article but of each part, so that we can easily ascertain whether it will be better for us to continue manufacturing or purchase at the prices elsewhere. Suppose we wanted to purchase anything which pertains to a boiler. What the cost of that part manufactured in one of our establishments was, I could not tell, but by the system I have introduced we can find out exactly what it costs. Then, we can compare that cost with the prices quoted by other dealers and in that way ascertain whether it would be better to continue the manufacture or purchase elsewhere.
That was the reason of the cost system. Formerly, we could not tell whether given parts of the manufacturing articles we were making were too expensive or not. Now, the exact cost to us of manufacturing any part of any article is known to the

officers of the department, and so we can judge whether it is advisable to- continue manufacturing or to purchase. I think the establishment of this system will commend itself to the judgment of the House.
1 found in the department a system, which had been in existence for many years by which there could be overlapping payments-in other words, the expenditure in each year was not kept within the appropriation. I do not remember exactly the amount paid out of the appropriations oi 1905-6 on account of expenditures incurred in the previous year, but I know that the amount was a very large one. I thought this system extremely detrimental to the administration of the department, and decided to change it. Within a few weeks after I took charge of the department, I instructed the proper officers to see to it that each officer under whom expenditures were made should make a statement showing exactly what he required to complete the expenditures of the year, and what money remained to meet these requirements. I was very sorry to find that, in the first report laid before me by Mr. Falconer, no less than $484,000 was paid during 1906-7 for expenditures incurred in the previous year. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) knows what abuses such a system can bring about. Being determined to change this system, I gave such formal and unmistakable instructions that now, to-day, on this first day of April, 1909, at the opening of the fiscal year, I am in a position to state that all the expenditures incurred in the fiscal year closing yesterday can be paid out of the appropriations for that year. I have here a monthly statement such as I get from my officers regularly, showing the amount of each appropriation, the amount spent during the month, the total amount spent to date and the balance available. Not only expenditures for the current fiscal, but also those made on account of last fiscal year must be clearly shown. With such a statement before me, I am able to judge whether there will be enough money to provide for the necessities of the year. 1 can completely control every expenditure, and can see whether each officer is living up to my instructions or whether he is transgressing those instructions. The report I have now in my hand is that of March 1, 1909. It shows that, on appropriations representing a total of $7,055,600, there was a balance available of $1,870,000, or enough to cover all the expenditures to be incurred during that year. This method enables me to absolutely prevent overlapping payments, a system which, perhaps, led to the abuses which were discovered in Quebec. Such abuses cannot occur under the system I have established. As a part of this system, I have a statement prepared
by my officers, every month showing the amount of the appropriation and the amount expended and the balance available. For the fiscal year, 1908-9, the year which closed yesterday, is a balance of our appropriation of $883,000_that will not be required. In other words, there will be no overlaping payments for the fiscal year just closed.
Another reform that I made in the department was the classification of the lighthouses. I found that the salaries of the light-keepers were graded, not according to the work they had to do, not according to the importance of the lights they had to take care of, not according to any good business principles which should guide in such cases, but according to the favoritism a man might be able to claim, according to his influence, sometimes even according to the number of children he had. I thought that was a system that should be put an end to, and so I asked my officers to make a classification of all the lights according to their importance, according to their sites, according to the illuminating apparatus installed in them, in order that the salaries of these light-keepers should not be purely and simply at the discretion of the minister but should be regulated according to business principles. I did the same thing in the classification of the fog alarms, no such classification having existed up to that time.
I come now to another reform-the fifth -which I consider I have introduced in the department: the appointment of a purchasing agent. Abuses have been proved by the investigation to have existed because purchases were made without much consideration for the price, sometimes without much consideration for the quality or even the quantity of goods. I thought that we should centralize these purchases, and that local parties should not be the only ones to quote our prices. However, in order to protect the local dealers, to-day, when we advertise for goods we always state, if these goods have to be delivered at Quebec, Halifax, St. John or elsewhere, that tenderers shall quote prices for goods delivered at the point selected. The results have been very satisfactory. We call publicly for tenders in all cases where the amount is large enough to justify us in doing so. In all cases of purchases exceeding $5,000 we call in this public way for tenders. For smaller purchases, the purchasing agent is absolutely free to go where he likes to make these purchases, his instructions being to get the lowest prices and the best conditions possible.
Also , some two years ago, I abolished the free importation of goods, because I found there were abuses in connection with that system. Even before a law was passed by parlia-

ment declaring that goods purchased by government should pay duty, I gave instructions that goods, purchased in my department should pay duty, and consequently I do not think that we will experience any longer the same troubles that were disclosed, in some cases, by the investigation. The contract system has been established on the boats, and now we have given contracts for supplies on all the boats of the government, with one or two exceptions. Last year my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) discussed this very question, and urged that it would be a good thing to provision the boats, not by purchasing the goods ourselves, but by making contracts through the captains and stewards of those boats. That system is now in vogue, it was in vogue even when he drew my attention to it on several of our boats, and at present the contract agent is completing arrangements for the other boats we have. I think I may also mention the great improvement that has taken place with regard to the works under the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal. My hon. friend from St. Anne, Montreal, (Mr. Doherty), knows very well how those works were carried on previously in the Montreal harbour. A new commission has been appointed, and now the work is being done in a way which is creditable, not only to the commissioners, but to the whole country.
My hon. friend from St. Anne states that corrupt acts have been committed; it is true. He states that corrupt acts have been disclosed; it is true. But let me assure him that these corrupt acts were unknown by .the minister or by any of the superior officers of the department. Those acts took place under a system which had been in vogue for many years, a system which had not given satisfaction, and a system which we are now changing. I do not desire to prolong my remarks. I think I have shown that the Department of Marine and Fisheries is now on a footing which will commend it to parliament and to the country. Should we go further? My hon. friend says we should go further, and make a further investigation. In all cases there is not the same justification as there was in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. Does he want to have all the officers branded as robbers? Does he want all the officers of the government branded as thieves, or as having received gratuities? I know he does not want that. We must take it for granted that these officers are honest. There was justification for an inquiry in the Marine and Fisheries Department, because we had before us the report of the Civil Service Commis-Mr. BRODEUR.
sioners, in which they stated that there was a lack of conscience in the department. But I do not think my hon. friend is justified in going any further.
Now, some allusion has also been made to the dismissal of officers from my department. I must say, Mr. Speaker, that it was a very painful duty for me to perform. I received a great many letters, supplications from mothers, sisters, wives and children, imploring me to show compassion on those who had been implicated in the disclosures of the Cassels investigation. I did find that in some cases it was very hard to resist the appeals of these persons. But I approached the matter, neither with antipathy nor with sympathy, but with the sole desire of rendering justice to all those who were the subjects of the investigation. I have tried to do my duty, not as an enemy, not as a friend, but purely and simply as a judge in the discharge of his duty. The report on this matter, which was laid before the House a few days ago, was a result of the mature judgment and consideration of all the cases of men who were implicated in those disclosures. I think, Mr. Speaker, that in doing this I have only fulfilled my duty, as I was bound to fulfil it, in view of the disclosures which were made. Finally, I place myself in the hands of parliament. I am ready to submit to the judgment of the country, and it is my belief that the country will see the Department of Marine and Fisheries conducted in future in such a manner that is will be at all times a credit to this country.


Mr. J. W. MADDIN (South Cape Breton).: Mr. Speaker, the resolution which has been placed in your hands, moved by the hon. member for St. Anne, Montreal, (Mr. Doherty), has for its object to impress upon the government the necessity of making an inquiry into the other spending departments of this government, such as has been made into the Department of Marine and Fisheries by His Honour Mr. Justice Cassels. In fact, the resolution goes further than that, it suggests a searching, untrammelled and a more thorough inquiry than that which was held by Mr. Justice Cassels. The hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, after occupying the attention of the House for something more than an hour, endeavouring to answer the arguments of my hon. friend from St. Anne, has not succeeded in answering one of them. During nearly the whole of his speech he seemed only anxious to defend himself, and to make out for himself a good character in respect of his administration and the efficiency of his department. He appeared to be very anxious to exhibit the endorsations

which he had received from various boards of trade throughout the country. Sir, in that respect	his	department is not	inquestion in this resolution, nor is it before the	House	at the	present time.No one	at	this	time is	making	anycomplaint that his department is not efficient,	no	one	on this	side of	theHouse denies that improvements have been made in his department. That might be said at another time and under other circumstances; that aspect of the minister's department is not now before the House. The question before the House is simply this:	Do we learn sufficient from the report submitted to us by Mr. Justice Cassells to warrant us in taking the public behind the scenes in the other great spending departments of this government? The Minister of Marine has not offered one reason why such an investigation should not be had. He asks that his conduct in the department should be condoned and points out that he is the least of a great number of men who have filled that office, and then he tries to show that he was the one man of all these who had the courage to boldly come out and undertake reform. He tells us that he was appointed Minister of Marine in February, 1906. On May 8, 1906, only a few months after the hon. gentleman undertook the duties of that office, the member from Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) in addressing the House, spoke as follows:-
Up to about two or three years ago, we had the Pintsch gas system by which we had a permanent light on the gas buoys. It was changed then to the acetylene gas system.
Further on he says:
I have not the slightest hesitation in saying, as I see from the Auditor General's 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. There is a system going on in the Marine and Fisheries Department by which, on almost every item in connection with this matter, there is a rake-off of at least 25 per cent, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, when he examines the accounts that go through his department, will have to come before the House and admit that there is 25 per cent at least paid on every item in connection with this matter over and above what I or any other member of this House could purchase these appliances for. That is a fact, and I defy the minister to dispute it. I can prove it here by the items in the Auditor General's report. It is most unfair to have a system of that kind going on in the Marine and Fisheries Department. It is not going on without some one getting a rake-off. We should know who is getting that rake-off! It is a shame that this oountry has to pay these exorbitant prices.
This was in May, 1906. Yet the Minister of Marine boasts here of the virtue in his
department. When a woman boasts about her virtue we at once become suspicious. The minister did not waken to his sense of duty until in 1908 he says he had the courage to order goods to be purchased in his department by public tender. Further than that, after the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Marine, a new system of bookkeeping was introduced into that department at the instance of the minister; at a very great expense to the people of this country, Falconer & Co. of New York made a searching inquiry and audit of the books of the Marine Department. What did they discover? They discovered a system prevailing there that was even worse than Mr. Reid in his modesty had suggested. Although this investigation took place in 1907 the minister undertakes no reform until 1908. The minister says that from the earliest time in this department of the government the system of buying goods through government patronage has obtained and after doubtless searching the records of the department with the greatest care he brings here a letter written in 1886 and points out that it is shown in that letter that when the hon. member for North Toronto was Minister of Marine and Fisheries, the purchase of supplies at Quebec was under the patronage system, that the sale of supplies for the St. Lawrence branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries was not open to the public but was circumscribed to the extent that purchasers were obliged to buy from certain Conservatives whose names were put on the patronage list. For years preceding 1896 hon. gentlemen opposite were wont to go to the country and point out amongst other evils which characterized the Conservative administration that of the patronage system. They boasted on every platform that when they got into power they would abolish that system forever. In that way they obtained the confidence of the people and were entrusted with the administration of the affairs of the country and why did they not then bring about these reforms? It ill becomes the Minister of Marine in 1909 to say that because in 1886 a system obtained which was bad the government were justified in carrying on the same system. Two wrongs cannot make a right and the minister's statement that this system obtained in the past does not by any means exculpate his department and the present administration.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


James William Maddin: When you left the chair at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I was referring in detail to some of the instances disclosed

by this report of the Cassels commission. We find that a man named Wm. Blackeson, who followed the occupation of his father as a sail maker, testified that he paid five per cent commission to Mr. Gregory as his father had done before him. Mr. J. J. Murphy paid five per cent commission to Mr. Gregory, and Mr. Murphy received 15 per cent profit on his sales to the government over and above what he paid Gregory. We find also that no less than 28 officials of the department in the city of Quebec received from Mr. Drolet a sum of $9,342 in a period of three years, an average of $3,114 per year, on an average per head of $111 for these 28 men. Then we have it in evidence that Mr. P. J. Mailloux knew of payments being made to Mr. Gregory, and that George Davie of the firm of Davie & Sons paid Gregory $500 per year on an average for eleven years, in addition to paying $75 to Mr. Petty, engineer of the ' Montcalm.' Mr. Davie, who had large contracts with the department, well knew that in receiving these payments Gregory was violating the law of the country, and hc\ doubtless also knew that he himself was guilty of an offence because he admits that he departed from the ordinary custom of his business, and, in order, as he says, to shield Gregory, he took the extraordinary course of drawing the $500 on McGee & Company, brokers, and having it paid in five-dollar American green-back bills so as to leave no record of the payment. This man also testifies that a further sum of $800 was paid to Mr. Gregory on August 30, 1906, and a still further sum of $500 was paid to him in August, 1907. This same man Davie was making a profit of 50 per cent on his contracts with the department. Among other favours conferred on Mr. Gregory by Mr. Davie the latter paid Gregory $400 to go to New York to transact some business for him, and it developed that he was paid this sum to use his influence as a government official to assist Mr. Davie in selling some dredging apparatus to an American firm. In addition to this, in December, 1907, Mr. Davie paid the captain of the La Canadienne $25; in December, 1906, $50, and in 1905, meeting him on the street one day, he casually handed him a one hundred dollar bill. Here are specific instances in which a briber approached the officers of the government and bribed them, not with trifling sums, but with sums aggregating more than a year's wages for most of the artisans and labouring men of the Dominion. An artisan who averages $800 per year thinks he is well off, and yet on one occasion this lump sum was paid by one contractor to this official of the government. The evidence with regard to the Hallidav Bros, is a striking illustration of how things were manipulated at Quebec. Thev had a contract with the government for the services of the S.S. ' King Edward' by which originally they Mr. iMADDIN.
were to be paid $135 a day, and these men were receiving pay from another department at the same time they were under contract with the Marine and Fisheries Department. They subsequently rendered a bill to the Marine Department for $200 a day for the steamer, and eventually they were paid at the rate of $180 per day or $45 per day more than the original contract. A Mr. George B. Hall handed Mr. Gregory a gratuity of one hundred dollars, and although Mr. Hall is a lumber merchant, yet he was selling oil to the department and making a rake-off from 25 per cent to 30 per cent as a middleman in that business. Mr. Wm. Doyle paid Mr. Gregory a commission of 3i per cent or $495 on $17,300 worth of goods which he sold to the department. It seemed that Mr. Gregory owed Mr. Doyle $613.90, and that account was wiped out by Gregory paying Doyle $117.77. Mr. Drouin allowed Gregory five per cent on the purchases which Gregory made from him for the department, the scheme being that Gregory paid the amount to Drouin previous to the receipt of the government cheque and this five per cent was said to be by way of discount. Then, Mr. Gillespie also borrowed from Gregory so as to allow him five per cent. I shall not go further into minute details in connection with this matter, but I do wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that section 158 of the Criminal Code, was framed to meet such cases. Section 158 reads as follows:
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a fine of not less than one hundred dollars, and not exceeding one thousand dollars, and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and not less than one month, and in default of payment of such fine to imprisonment for a further time not exceeding six months who-
(a)	makes any offer, proposal, gift, loan or promise, or gives or offers any compensation or consideration, directly or indirectly, to any official or person in the employment of the government, or to any member of his family, or to any person under his control or for his benefit, with intent to obtain the assistance or influence of such official, or person to promote either the procuring of any contract with the government for the performance of any work, the doing of any thing, or the furnishing of any goods, effects, food or materials, the execution of any such contract, or the payment of the price or consideration stipulated therein, or any part thereof, or of any aid or subsidy payable in respect thereof; or,
(b)	being an official or person in the employment of the government, directly or indirectly, accepts or agrees to accept, or allows to be accepted by any person under his control or for his benefit, any such offer, proposal, gift, loan, promise, compensation or consideration ; or,
(e) being an official or employee of the government, receives, directly or indirectly, whether personally or by or through any member

of his family or person under his control or for his benefit, any gift, loan, promise, compensation or consideration whatsoever, either m money or otherwise, from any person whomsoever, for assisting or favouring any individual in the transaction of any business whatsoever with the government, or who gives or offers any such gift, loan, promise, compensation or consideration; or,
[DOT](g) having dealings of any kind with the government through any department thereof, pays to any employee or official of the government, or to any member of the family of such employee or official, or to any person under his control or for his benefit, any commission or reward or within one year before or after such dealings, without the express permission in writing of the head of the department with which such dealings have been had, the proof of which permission shall lie upon him, makes any gift, loan, or promise of any money matter or thing, to any such employee or other person aforesaid; or
(h) being an employee or official of the government, demands, exacts or receives from such person, directly or indirectly, by himself, or by or through any other person for Ms benefit, or permits or allows any member of his family, or any person under his control, to accept or receive (i) any such commission or reward, or (ii) within the said period of one year, without the express permission in writing of the head of the department with which such dealings have been had, the proof of which permission shall lie upon him, accepts or receives any such gift, loan or promise.
Now, I wish to read section 159:
Every person convicted of an offence under the last preceding section shall be incapable of contracting with the government, or of holding any contract or office with, from, or under it, or of receiving any benefit under any such contract.
I have read these portions of section 15S which are pertinent to this resolution and the whole of section 159, in order to emphasize to this House that in 1892, and I doubt not previous to that, there were provisions in the Criminal Code of this country for the punishment of the identical offences which Mr. Justice Cassels has found to be so rampant in the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I do this to emphasize the fact that the criminal law of this country was framed and passed in order to meet just such cases as have arisen here. This report of Mr. Justice Cassels came down in the latter mirt of Januarv. and on the first day of February a Bill, entitled 'An Act to prevent the payment or acceptance of illicit or secret commissions and other like practices.' received its first reading in this House. The first section of that Act is as follows:
This Act may be cited as 'The Secret Commissions Act, 1909.'
When that Bill was introduced into this House by the hon. the Minister of Justice,
while agreeing with him that the provisions contained in it would meet with the approval of a majority of the people, I endeavoured to point out that it was most desirable that the criminal law of this country should be preserved in the codical form in which it had been handed down to us by the late Hon. John S. D. Thompson; so that we should have our criminal law in one volume and not distributed through the various statutes of Canada under different headings, and with various high-sounding titles. Was there any special motive for introducing that Bill at that particular time? As up to that time there had been no persons prosecuted under the Criminal Code for receiving secret commissions, was it hoped that the people throughout the length and breadth of the country would, by the introduction of that Bill, have their eyes closed to the lack of prosecutions by the government for the flagrant disclosures made in the report of Mr. Justice Cassels? When it became known that that report would bristle with the most flagrant instances of violations of the criminal law of the country, it was sought to draw a red herring across the trail, by introducing a piece of legislation which, although it does not on its face say so, implies that it was framed for the purpose of meeting any future cases that might arise similar to those disclosed by the investigation into the affairs of the Marine and Fisheries Department. The criminal law of the country is quite clear with regard to these offences. I have read what sections 158 and 159 of the Code have to say, and I can readily appreciate the sentiments in the mind of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries when he says that no one knows how hard it was for him to apply the pruning knife to his department, to the extent he did, as shown by the order in council brought down the other dav. I can readily understand how, moved by letters addressed to him from the wives, mothers, sisters, and children of officials in his department, he is loath to institute prosecutions against them. I would not for a moment advocate that an example should be made in every individual instance in which an offence has been disclosed by this investigation; but I say this, that when it comes to the knowledge of a community or a country that a part of the criminal law of the country has been openly and flagrantly violated for a period covering several years, it bpcomes the duty of the person responsible for the administration of the department in which these crimes arose, to make an example of someone ;-to single out some of the more flagrant instances-and there are many-and institute proceedings against the parties. The hon. Minister of Marine and Fisher-


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Will the hon. gentleman be kind enough to quote one instance when I said anything of the kind.


James William Maddin: I am not prepared to state on what platform or on what day the hon. minister said it, but I promise him that I will furnish him with the place and date.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I never said anything of the kind.


James William Maddin: In deference to the hon. minister and to the rules of the House I am obliged to accept his denial, but I was told this on the authority of members from the province of Ouebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Name them.


James William Maddin: I do not propose to name them. They are not on that side of the House at any rate. This was the reason put forth by the French-Canadian press in the province of Quebec to account for the attacks made on the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Let me say that the Liberal-Conservative party has never been found wanting in regard and esteem for French-Canadians. That, narty, from the beginning of confederation, and long previous to confederation in Upper Canada, held the French-Canadian people in the highest esteem. Hon. gentlemen on this side are always willing to nay any tribute due to the memory of Champlain and Cartier and even to the right hon. the leader of the government, in so far as he is a Canadian citizen. We have never been lacking on this side in regard for our compatriots of French origin, so that it cannot be said, with any degree of truth, that it was be-Mr. MADDIN.
cause of the hon. minister's origin, he and his department were attacked.
Let us trace the history of this investigation. A commission was appointed and this commission reported in 1907, and in its report reflected on the administration of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The hon. minister then suggested this inquiry. urged on by his colleagues in the cabinet. It was they who instituted these proceedings, and for any disclosures which have arisen, they have only themselves to thank. But the resolution moved this afternoon has for object an inquiry into the other spending departments of the government; and unless hon. gentlemen opposite support this resolution, it may be said, with some degree of truth, that the Marine and Fisheries Department was made the scapegoat for the sins of the other departments as well as its own. Unless this resolution be accepted by the government, they must consider that the Department of Marine and Fisheries is better administered than the others. After the mover of this resolution (Mr. Doherty) had addressed the House this afternoon, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries rose to reply; and I venture to say that this is the first instance in the history of confederation, when a minister of the Crown replied to a resolution without committing himself either to an endorsement of it or to opposing it. He did not intimate how he proposed to vote if the House came to a vote on the question. He did not say that he was opposed to the resolution or that he approved it; but by inference, perhaps, it may be concluded that he does not intend to support it. The hon. minister _ went back through the history of the Liberal-Conservative party looking for precedents. It is remarkable how, when this government wishes to find a precedent for anything that will hardly bear close scrutiny, it always endeavours to find one in the past records of the Liberal-Conservative party. Well, after going through the records of that party from 1878 to 1896, one letter was discovered written in 1886.
Why, asked the minister, do not my opponents give me credit for the great results I have accomplished, for the good I have done? But on the other hand, why does not the minister play fair? Why does he not give credit to the then Minister of Marine for the good things done under the Liberal-Conservative party in the eighteen years they were in power? Instead of looking up ancient history, why does not he apply himself to something more modern and look through the correspondence on the files, from 1896 to the present, regarding expenditures of Whe character described in Judge Cassels' report? If he had any desire to act fairly, he would do that, but evidently he has no such intention.
In conclusion, I have only to observe that the minister has not met the issue

raised in this resolution, but has simply contented himself pointing out the reforms undertaken and carried out by his department. He has argued in a most peculiar fashion, and made some very illogical deductions. In effect, he says. 'Under my administration I have improved the St. Lawrence service, as you will see by resolutions passed by the Quebec Harbour Commission; I have introduced ice breakers, and call your attention to the resolution adopted by the Board of Trade of Port Arthur. I have caused the rates of insurance to be reduced on the St. Lawrence route; I have introduced a new system of bookkeeping in the Department of Marine and Fisheries; and because I have done all these things there should be no inquiry into any other spending departments of the government.' Would any one call that a logical argument? In his report Mr. Justice Cassels states that in order to bring about a successful reform in the spending departments of the government, it was advisable to awaken the public conscience. Why then will not the government accept this resolution? Have they anything to fear from it or to lose by it? Does the government consider that suspicion, as a result of this Cassels inquiry, is not deeply rooted in the public minds? If the other spending departments of this government are above reproach, an inquiry will redound to the credit of the administration, and I believe that there is no member on this side of the House but will be only too happy to find that there was no ground for such an inquiry. But that the circumstances demand that the inquiry be made, I think no reasonable man can deny. Why, what would be thought of a business man, say Mr. Thomas Lindsay, of the city of Ottawa, who runs the department store down town, if he, upon investigation, found fifteen or twenty people trading with the clerks in his grocery department had been bribing those clerks with thousands and thousands of dollars which they had added to the price of goods which they sold to the department, and, though these identical men were doing business with his millinery department, his furniture department and other departments, should still say: ' Oh, it's all right; I will not inquire into these other departments; probably everything is straight there '? Do not you suppose that under such circumstances any business man would at once investigate every department under his control? And do not you suppose that, in any event, he would at once cut off from the list of those with whom he transacted business the names of persons whom he found guilty of corrupting the employees under his control? Will the government follow the counsel of this commission and make an endeavour to awaken the public conscience? Or are they afraid that they may awake the wrong passenger, that they 118
may awake public indignation?-that they fear that an investigation into the other spending departments of the government would not redound to the credit of their administration? I wonder if the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden), the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), and the Minister of Mines (Mr. Templeman)-I wonder if these gentlemen were to take the evidence submitted by Mr. Justice Cassels in his report and make a careful perusal of it, if they would not recognize the names of those who have corrupted officials in the Department of Marine and Fisheries as the names of those who are still doing business with their several departments. For the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to argue that this system of patronage obtained under Liberal-Conservative rule is no justification. In his perusal of the files in his department from 1896 to date, he does not show us any instances such as the dozen or more that I cited to him here to-night; all that he does show-and I suppose he has shot his bolt, that he has selected that specific case which he thought would apply here -is that a system of competition by which the late government practised the custom of buying from friends of the administration. They bought by tender from amongst the supporters of the Liberal party who were on the patronage list of the government. But still there was competition among the supporters of the government to get the contract whatever it might be. That is entirely different from the condition that has obtained under the present government up to this time. I submit that it is one matter to have a patronage system where goods are bought in competition between friends of the government and an entirely different matter to have a system under which friends of the government are put up to compete against each other, the contract to go to the one who will give the highest bribe to the ofiicials. I say that in view of the evidence submitted in this report showing the relation of these bribers to this department and other departments (the significance of the report being as much in what it does not say as in what it does say), and in view of the circumscribed nature of the commission which Mr. Justice Cassels had which would not let him go beyond certain means and abuses, taken under these circumscribed conditions,_ it is of such a character as not only requires but demands the fullest and most untrammelled inquiry that the government can hold.


Mr. GEO. W. KYTE (Richmond, N.S.).: I desire to offer one or two observations touching the matters that have been discussed this afternoon in connection particularly with the report of Mr. Justice Cas-


REV1SED EDITION COMMONS'
[Stage Direction]
seia in his investigation into the Department of Marine and Fisheries. I presume that there will be no question on the .part of gentlemen on either side that it is in the highest degree desirable that the very best officials, the most competent and honest men, the most trustworthy men, should be employed by every department of the government throughout the whole country. I think that every hon. member will agree that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), like every member of this government, is not anxious to retain in the employ of the government men who are guilty of a breach of trust or of violating the sacred honour reposed in them in respect of their employment. But we must not lose sight of the fact that the government of Canada is a large institution, that it employs a horde of officials from one end of this broad Dominion to the other, that these employees are not brought directly under the supervision of the minister responsible for their actions, and it naturally occurs- it must inevitably occur- that much must depend on the personal integrity of the men so employed. It has happened that certain officials of the Marine and Fisheries Department have been proven guilty of wrongdoing and of neglect of that standard of honesty and rectitude set up for the guidance of public officials. The question is not whether the government has acted faithfully in carrying out its trust in this matter-the charge is not made that the government or any department has not dealt out summary punishment to those officials when any wrong-doing was brought to their notice. The report of Mr. Justice Cassels deals with a number of officials in Quebec, in St. John, in Halifax, who have been more or less derelict in respect to their obligations to the government and of the code of honour which they should apply to their own conduct. We have before us an order in council submitted by the First Minister a couple of days ago in which is recited what has been done with respect to the officials thus wanting in their duty and honesty. One would think, from the address of the hon. member for Ste. Anne (Mr. Doherty) and the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr Maddin), that the government, having learned that its officials had been derelict in their duty or guilty of breach of trust, instead of summarily punishing them had condoned the offences of which they were proven guilty. That is not the case. The evidence before us in respect of that ( order in council goes to show that every | official who was guilty of wrong-doing has i been punished in the manner called for by ! the obligations of the government in this I regard. I am not going to enumerate the t names of those officials, because I think it i is not desirable that their names should be < embalmed on the public records of this < country. I will merely repeat, that every Mr. KYTE.
one of those officials who has been proved guilty of dishonesty has been dismissed, and they are no longer in the employment of the government.
Now, with respect to the ministers themselves, I beg to remind the hon. gentleman that there is not one single word censuring any member of the government, in the whole of this inquiry and report of Mr. Justice Cassels. I am well aware, and the House is well aware, that for the past twelve months the atmosphere resounded with all kinds of charges of wrongdoing and wholesale corruption in respect of the various departments of this government. During the last election campaign we remember that every minister was put upon his trial, and charges the most flagrant and most unjust were levelled against them. But the report of the commissioner exonerates absolutely every minister whose name was dragged into this question. Inasmuch as the hon. member for St. Anne devoted a great deal of attention to the report of the Civil Service Commission, I wish to call attention to the fact that that commission did not examine any person upon oath. They had a commission to inquire into certain departments of the government, and as a result of that inquiry, not based upon any sworn testimony, they came to the conclusion that there were certain things transpiring in some of the departments that were not desirable. Referring to their strictures in respect to the light house board, on page 8, Judge Cassels says:-
I am quite satisfied that had Messrs. Fyshe and Bazin heard the evidence adduced before me, the language quoted above would not have been used by them.
That is, language referring to certain maladministration with respect to the Lighthouse Board, in which wrong-doing or want of conscience, as they put it, was charged. But, as I said a moment ago. Judge Cassels having heard the sworn testimony of every person giving evidence, came to the conclusion that if these gentlemen had heard the sworn evidence adduced before him, they would not have used that language. With respect to their references to other branches of the Civil Service, I desire to point out that the commissioner does not censure the minister of any one of the departments of the government. As a matter of fact, the Civil Service Commission does speak of the Post Office Department, the Department of Railways and Canals, the Department of Customs and the Department of Secretary of State, but in terms which do not at all imply that they had discovered the slightest trace of wrong-doing. The only two departments referred to at length by the commission were the Department of Marine

and Fisheries and the Department of Militia and Defence. Let me refer for the moment to the statement with respect to the Department of Militia and Defence. The only charge made against that department is the charge that they were spending a great deal of money, and this is what the report says:-
The expenditure in this department is going up hy leaps and hounds. In 1903-4 the total expenditure, both in capital and consolidated fund, was in the neighbourhood of three and a half million dollars. In the estimates lately submitted to parliament for the fiscal year ending March 81, 1909, appropriations are asked for aggregating $6,500,000. That is to say, in four years and three-quarters the expenditures will have increased, if the supply asked for is granted, to the extent of three million dollars.
Now, that in itself does not imply any wrong-doing in the Department of Militia, though one might be inclined perhaps to suppose that the commissioners had in mind some suspicion that money was improperly spent. I need scarcely remind you that within the period referred to by the Civil Service Commission during the last four years the Department of Militia and Defence, in pursuance of that policy of expansion and with the object of relieving the mother country of some of the burdens that she bore for a hundred years in our defence, came to the conclusion to assume the maintenance of the fortifications at Halifax and Esquimalt. Hon. gentlemen opposite are loyal to the British empire, are loyal to the flag of Great Britain, and we had evidence a few evenings ago of what these hon. gentlemen think of Canada's duty to aid in the defence of the empire. Surely, then, those hon. gentlemen will not censure the government because the expenditure in the Militia Department has increased two or three million dollars by reason of the added responsibilities assumed by that department in taking over these fortifications. It is a fact that the estimates of the department were increased by over two millions on the single item to maintain the garrison at Halifax, but surely no hon. gentleman opposite will find fault with the department for undertaking this expenditure, inasmuch as by so doing they are relieving the mother country of a great burden. Now, with respect to the internal management of the Militia Department, they do make some criticisms of certain officials, and of the duties assigned to them, and they point out that perhaps in some respects the expenditure might be decreased and greater economy practised if that department were reorganized. Well, I have every confidence that the Minister of Militia and Defence will not lose a moment to investigate in what respect he can reduce the expenditure, while at the same time pro-118}
viding for the increased expenditures that must come from time to time. With regard to the Post Office Department, the commissioners say as follows:-
Your commissioners find that this is the third of the big_departments scheduled under the Civil Service Act. As far as the commissioners can ascertain, the working of this department is conducted in a good businesslike manner, and except for the intervention of politics, and, possibly, the desire to run the department too cheaply, no fault can be found with the administraion.
I wonder if our hon. friends opposite complain of the Post Office Department because it is running affairs too cheaply. While we would regret if the Postmaster General were obliged to turn a deaf ear to certain requests made to him for improvement of postal facilities, I am sure every hon. gentleman in this House will rejoice that the Civil Service Commission state that the only fault to be found with that department is that the minister is running it too cheaply. There is no suggestion there of any wrong-doing. Now, I come to the Department of Railways and Canals:
Your commissioners do not propose to make any specific remarks about this department, although it is a great expending department and also has large revenues derived from the government railways. The present Deputy Minister of Railways, who has not been long in office, has established a new system of bookkeeping on the Intercolonial Railway, and it would seem probable that improvements will be effected generally.
I might go through all the departments referred to, and not in one instance do the commissioners reflect in the slightest degree upon the minister in charge, or upon the administration of the department. Then I come back to the sole point under discussion, and when I state that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries has discharged his duty in dismissing the officials who have been found guilty of wrong-doing, when I state that by order in council the government have undertaken to dismiss every one of those men who have been proved guilty of dereliction of duty, I am satisfied" that no reasonable gentleman on either side of the House can refuse to accept that act as an answer to the charge made by the hon. gentleman who moved the resolution. Another matter I desire to refer to is of the contract entered into between the department and Halliday Bros., of the city of Quebec. It was stated by the hon. member for St. Annes that the original contract was for the use of their steamer at $125 a day, and that subsequently that sum was increased to $200 a day, and the insinuation is there made, that the late minister in charge of the department was responsible for that. But Mr. Justice Cassels in his report states:
[Stage Direction]
Repeatedly during the examination of Colonel Gourdeau lie stated that he could bring evidence to corroborate his statement that the variation took place with the assent of the late minister. The witness referred to was Mr. Power, late member for Quebec. I invited Colonel Gourdeau to produce the evidence. No such evidence has been given and I have to judge of the matters on the evidence adduced before me. In a great many respects the evidence of Colonel Gourdeau was unsatisfactory and contradictory.
Not a single suggestion is made in the report of Mr. Justice Ca3sels to show that the late Minister of Marine and Fisheries was in any way responsible for increasing the amount of Halliday Brothers' contract'; but on the contrary he stated that Mr. Gour-deau's promise that he would produce evidence in that regard had not been fulfilled and he was obliged to come to the conclusion that the late minister had nothing whatever to do with it. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) referred to the fact that hon. gentlemen who were implicated with respect to these charges had not been haled before the court. I shall speak for a moment of the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. There is a court in this conutry, the highest court we have, the high court of public opinion. Down in the county of Rouville there is such a court, the court of the people of the county of Rouville, the county represented by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. In view of all the charges made against the minister in the last 12 months with respect to maladministration in his department one would imagine these hon. gentlemen would have made good and would have availed themselves of the earliest opportunity to appeal to that court and to prove there that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries was no longer worthy of their confidence and should not be returned to represent them in parliament again. It is a most extraordinary circumstance that the one minister against whom all their attacks and all their shafts were levelled for 12 months was allowed on the 26th of October to be returned by acclamation to this House. Surely if these hon. gentlemen were sincere, surely if they felt the full responsibility of the charges they made against the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and against his department, they would have taken the earliest opportunity to have prevented the minister from coming back to preside over the department which they insinuated he had so ineffectively and so dishonestly administered. If there was one constituency in the whole of this broad Dominion that they should have fought and fought to the death in the last election that was Rouville, in order to prevent that minister coming back to disgrace the high office he had held, as they would have expressed it. But the only constituency in Canada which they allowed to go by acclamation was Roqyille, *
George William Kyte: and surely that is the best answer and the only answer that is required to the charges against the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. It is quite true that we had the pleasure of listening to a high certificate of character in respect to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries this afternoon given by the hon. member who moved this resolution (Mr. Doherty). I was not unprepared to hear that because I had felt ever since the election of the 26th of October last, that the hon. gentlemen opposite when it would be up to them to produce evidence to support their contentions would find it exceedingly difficult to carry on their campaign any longer. I was prepared to hear the hon. member for St Anne (Mr. Doherty) paying high eneoniums to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and why should I devote one instant of time more to defend the hon. minister against charges which have been thoroughly dissipated, from which he has been completely vindicated, charges which hon. gentlemen themselves testified this afternoon are absolutely without any foundation in fact. But, Sir, perhaps it is not desirable that the senses of the people of Canada should be steeped in forgetfulness with respect to the record of the Conservative party themselves when they were in power. The hon. member for South Cape Breton made an admission which was so significant that I shall refer to it. He said that whenever the Liberal party wanted a precedent for corruption they went back to the regime of the Conservative party. That statement is so absolutely true that I was rather amazed that the hon. gentleman found himself called upon to make it. I shall not go over the lurid history that filled the pages of ' Hansard ' from 1878 to 1896, but I shall cite one case to show that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries should not be held responsible for anything that his officials did, particularly when those acts were committed hundreds of miles away from his direct supervision. I shall refer to the case of the Curran bridge which was investigated here in 1894, and was one of the last cases investigated prior to the defeat of the Conservative party. A vote of $170,000 was asked by the Conservative government for the construction of the Curran bridge in Montreal. The hon. member for South Lanark (Mr. John Haggart) was then Minister of Railways and Canals. The construction of the bridge was undertaken by day's work, not by tender and contract, and it was found that instead of $170,000 being sufficient to complete that work, it cost nearly $400,000.- No pains were taken by the Minister of Railways of that day to supervise the carrying out of that contract or to ascertain for himself whether the money was honestly spent. I exonerate the ex-minister from any dereliction of duty in that regard, for notwithstanding the fact that the work was carried on only three

hours' ride from here, in Montreal, within easy rail, telephone and telegraph communication, although the minister could much more easily have an eye on the supervision of that work than the Minister of Marine and Fisheries could have upon a horde of officers scattered all over Canada, I do not say that the mere fact that money was grossly misspent is any personal reflection on the ex-Minister of Railways. When this came up in parliament it was proved beyond peradventure that this money was misspent to such a degree as had never been heard of in any committee of this House. The quantity of lumber required to be used was 2,594,000 feet, and there was charged and paid for 3,613,000 feet, or a steal of over 1,000,000 feet representing over $15,000. The stone-cutting which should haye been $16,000 was $40,000. Upon the Wellington street bridge the cost of stone-cutting by day's work, which should have been $3,000, was $16,715, and the Grand Trunk bridge work, which should have cost $3,000, cost the government $23,180. The attention of the government was called to that condition of affairs by certain references made to it in this parliament and by certain items in the Montreal press. The ex-Minister of Railways then undertook to investigate and he found every charge made in respect to the expenditure of that money was absolutely true. In the session of 1894, Sir Richard Cartwright, then a member of this House, moved a resolution censuring the government in respect to that work. The concluding paragraph of that resolution reads:
That in the opinion of this House, the Department of Railways and Canals is deserving of the severest censure for inefficiency, neglect of duty, extravagance and the general management in connection with the said works.
The defence made then by the Hon. Mr. Haggart, Minister of Railways, was just such a defence as I would expect he would make, and I believe every word of it; he said:
I never heard, until the evidence was given in the Public Accounts Committee the other day, that there were a number of men transferred from Mr. Kennedy's roll to Mr. St. Louis's pay-roll, and I may as well here show how impossible it was for me to find out the frauds which I knew were being committed there. I knew that the timber charged for wa9 in excess of what was required for the purpose of building that bridge; I knew that the labouj; charged for could not possibly be employed in its construction, and I knew that the demands mado upon the department were in excess of what was honestly used in the construction of the work. I tried every possible means to get at the bottom of the frauds, and to that end I had the detective force employed on the Intercolonial Railway sent up and put on the Montreal works; but I found it impossible to discover where the frauds were committed. I had great difficulty in obtaining the evidence of the time-keeper, Mr. Doheny, for the purpose of defending the government against an action brought by Mr. St. Louis in the Exchequer Court for a sum of money, amounting, I think, to $67,000 or $68,000. I had great difficulty in getting evidence sufficient to prove that there had been frauds on_the work.
Again he said:
The chief engineer reported the condition of affairs to me, setting forth that, so far as Mr. Douglas had been able to investigate, he believed the cost would reach no less a sum than $360,000, but that Mr. Douglas would continue his investigation. Mr. Douglas continued his investigation, and reported that he believed the cost of the bridges would exceed the amount he had already named.
Here we have the Minister of Railwaya in the Conservative government setting up as his defence that it was impossible for him to be cognizant of this wrong-doing which was perpetrated only 100 miles from the city of Ottawa; that defence prevailed, and the motion of Sir Richard Cartwright was voted down, every Conservative member voting to justify the minister. The hon. Mr. Haggart declared that the money was mis-spent without his knowledge, that he could not personally supervise the expenditure, that he was deceived and misled by his officials, and is it not fair to ask this House now to declare that the wrong-doing in the Department of Marine and Fisheries was absolutely without the cognizance of the minister and was such that it was absolutely impossible for him to detect it.


Mr. STAPLES.: I was not in when the hon. gentleman began his remarks, but might I ask him if he is referring to the Quebec Bridge?


George William Kyte: I was referring to the Curran bridge.


William D. Staples: Is the Curran bridge still standing?


George William Kyte: The Curran bridge was completed, and was supposed to stand. Now, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the conditions that existed in Canada from 1891 to 1896 let me quote the utterances of some English newspapers. The London 'Times' says:
Here in the mother country there can be only one feeling, that of deep regret for the wrong done to the fair fame of the eldest of her daughters.
The London 'Graphic':
It is no longer possible to doubt that corruption in its worst form is rampant in a lqrge portion of the Canadian Civil Service.
The London 'Telegraph':
Enough, unfortunately, is already known in England to make it clear that only the most resolute and drastic purification can redeem

public life in Canada from the taint of corruption, the like of which we have not seen in our own country for hundreds of years.
The London 'Echo':
No country can prosper where public departments are in league with fraudulent contractors, and where ministers are open to offers.
These English newspapers perfectly describe the condition of affairs in Canada from 1891 to 1896, and there is absolute truth in the statement made by the hon. gentleman for South Cape Breton when he said that we were obliged to go to the regime of the Tory party to find precedents for corruption in this country. The hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) gave a certificate of character to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and although the hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) used much stronger language and exhibited much more temper than his colleague (Mr. Doherty) he also paid a compliment to the minister. He said that he would not now make a complaint against the administration of that hon. gentleman, but that a charge would be made at another time. I wonder if the hon. gentleman had in mind the time some years hence when this parliament will be dissolved and the right hon. the Prime Minister will age in appeal for the support of the electors. I wonder if the hon. gentleman from Cape Breton thought that when that time comes around he will revamp these charges against the Minister of Marine. Well, Sir, I tell him and I tell others that here and now are the place and time to make charges against any minister of this government and not when the election campaign is on and when they can give free scope to their unfettered imagination and irresponsible rhetoric. When the Liberals were in opposition in this country they made charges in this House, they met the accused face to face and they asked for committees to be allowed to prove these charges. That was the manly course to take, but the Conservative government then in power made sure that if an inquiry were granted the accused should be surrounded by all the technicalities the law' afforded for their protection. The resolution of the hon. member for St. Anne simply calls for an inquiry into other departments of government to see if any wrong-doing has been committed. We are bound to assume, as these gentlemen opposite have failed to make charges, that the truth is that having made all the inquiry they could they are unable to point a finger at one single act of maladministration committed by any minister of the Crown. The hon. gentleman from St. Anne gave his case away when he said a cloud of suspicion rested on the Mr. KYTE.
department. Well, there is no cloud of
suspicion in the minds of gentlemen on this side of the House, and in view of the result of the elections on the 26th of October last I venture to say there is no cloud of suspicion in the minds of the electorate of this country. And, Sir, the government having been charged by the people of Canada with the full responsibility of conducting the affairs of this country, I believe they can find themselves much better employed than in appointing roving commissions to investigate foundationless charges. The motion of the hon. member (Mr. Doherty) is one of non-confidence, and it asks us who support the government to say that the ministers are not worthy of our confidence. I believe, Sir, that the members of this government are at present, and have at all times been exercising such care over their departments, that where there is wrongdoing shown to have been committed they will treat the guilty officials in the same way as they have treated certain officials of the Marine Department, and it seems to me that is all the country can reasonably expect the ministers to do.


Mr. THOMAS W. CEOTHEES (West Elgin).: As I understand it, the charge made against the government is not that certain officials of the Marine and Fisheries Department have bleen guilty of wrongdoing. One can easily understand some of the officials of so large a department as the Department of Marine and Fisheries going wrong, and it would be unreasonable to find fault with the minister or the government if the minister, on ascertaining the wrong-doing, or at the time he should have ascertained it with ordinary vigilance, had dismissed the wrong-doer and punished him, as the law provides. What we charge is, that not only the head of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, but the head of the government who knew, or ought to have known, of the wrong-doing of * these men three or four years before they were dismissed, did not take the course they should have taken. We also charge that at the present time, they are not taking the course they should take with reference to the men whose guilt has been established. They knew at least three years ago of the misconduct of one of the men whom they dismissed only a day or two ago.
The hon. member for Eichmond (Mr. Kyte), who has just sat down, said that the report of the commissioner found no fault in any of the ministers. Let me remind that hon. gentleman that the scope of this commission did not warrant the commissioner in going into any investigation of the conduct of the ministers, and when some of the witnesses were asked respecting the conduct of the ministers.

and respecting what the ministers knew of the wrong-doing, they were not allowed to give evidence with regard to that. The commissioner himself gives in substance the scope of the inquiry where he says:
Thereupon the commission, dated the 6th April, 1908, appointed me commissioner ' to investigate and report upon certain statements contained in the report of the Civil Service Commission reflecting upon the integrity of the ofliciais of the Department of the Marine and Fisheries, or some of them.
Not the integrity of the government or the integrity of the ministers, but the integrity of the officials. Then he goes on to say:
Some limitation had to be given to the inquiry, and as the charges made by the report of the Civil Service Commission are mainly confined to the fiscal years 1904-5, 1905-6 and 1906-7, I limited the investigation in the meantime to those years.
So that the scope of the investigation is to inquire as to the integrity of certain officials and as to their conduct during those three years. The evidence adduced before the honourable the commissioner, covers nearly 2,200 large pages of printed matter, and the report of the commissioner, which is composed largely of quotations from the evidenc, covers 78 pages. I do not propose to detain the House to go over all the evidence contained in these 2,200 large pages of printed matter; but any hon. member who has read that evidence and the report of the commissioner must have reached these conclusions which I propose to read as the conclusions which I have reached on a fair reading of the evidence and the report:
(1)	. That the Department of Marine and Fisheries as a whole was loosely, extravagantly and dishonestly carried on.
(2)	. That both judge and counsel were anxious that all the officials should be able to prove themselves innocent, and that every opportunity to that end was given them. I have not drawn this conclusion with any intention of reflecting on either the counsel or the judge, but simply to show that every individual who was charged, or against whom there was any suspicion, was accorded the most ample opportunity to come forward and clear himself.
(3)	. That the investigation which was actually had, was fragmentary, disconnected and incomplete.
(4)	. That large numbers of officials were shown, even by such a partial inquiry, to have been dishonest.
(5)	. That the fraudulent transactions extended over at least three years, from 1904 to 1907, to which the inquiry was limited, although there was some evidence reaching into the year 1908.
(6)	. That there was an utter absence of any man, from the Prime Minister down
to the petty agent, exerting any intelligent zeal for the protection of the treasury.
(7)	. That owing to the limited scope of the commission, the responsibility for the shameful conditions exposed, was not fixed.
(8)	. That grounds are disclosed, which demand a thorough examination into the workings of the other great spending departments of the government and a completion of the partial investigation already had in the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
As I have said, I do not propose to travel over these 2,200 pages of evidence, but I propose to confine my observations to a little evidence that was given by the Auditor General, beginning at page 230:
By Mr. Watson:
Q. Now, in the first place, take the deputy minister of the department, Colonel Gour-deau. What, if anything, has come to your knowledge in your official capacity bearing upon acts of irregularity and of that character as issuing from him? If that is too close and specific broaden it if you please. You know the scope of the investigation?- A. Well, I felt he did not sufficiently control or ascertain the manner in which the business was done by his officials although he was the responsible head.
Q. Then will you just state what you have in regard to the matters as issuing from him? -A. Well, I have had to complain very frequently about the prices, the cost of goods, the manner of purchase, the lack of calling for tenders, and all that sort of thing.
At page 232, I find the following evidence :
By Mr. Watson:
Q. Will you proceed then?-A. I notice another one on page 208 headed, Silverware for
steamers ' Montcalm ' and ' Champlain,' December 26, 1905,

You will notice that this transaction precedes that date, December, 1905,

By Mr. Watson:
Q. Will you proceed then?-A. I notice another one on page 208, headed ' Silverware, &c., for steamers * Montcalm ' and * Champlain,' December 26, 1905.' Sir,-I beg to bring to your notice the accounts rendered by Messrs. B. J. Coghlin & Co., for silverware, glassware, and other table furnishings to the amount of $3,492.78 for the steamers ' Montcalm ' and ' Champlain.' I should like to be informed of the advantage to the department of purchasing the articles in question through Messrs. Coghlin instead of direct from the trade. I should also like to be informed if it is customary to equip these vessels, which are not passenger carrying vessels, with silverware, cutlery, &c., of such an expensive nature as that which appears in the accounts above referred to.
We find that afterwards that the man who got the amount of $3,492 admitted that he had made a rake-off on the transaction of $1,100 and refunded it to the government. And this government knew, or ought to have known in 1905 of that trans-

action; and knowing of it, I submit they should have dispensed with the services of the man who was guilty of such a transaction.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN.: Might I put the hon. gentleman a question? I desire to ask him if he will give the evidence of an accountant named William Duff at Montreal, selected by the Cassels Commission, and who gave evidence respecting this particular transaction?


Mr. TAYLOR.: Let the hon. gentleman take the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I think that before I get through I shall have given the hon. member all the evidence he would like to hear. I find this evidence on page 234:
By Mr. Watson:
Q. I understood you to say before the silverware was not in his line?-A. No, although he may have had facilities for purchasing. He did buy some few years before, I ascertained, for some other steamers some silverware. When I confronted him with the original invoices he said there must be some mistake, and in fact he did not know what to say. It ended, however, in Mr. Coghlin refunding about $1,100.
Q. Oh, indeed, Mr. Coghlin refunded about $1,100 on the purchase price of something over $3,000-A. Yes, taking the contract to be what Colonel Gourdeau told me, and as it was confirmed by Mr. Coghlin, that they were to be furnished at the original wholesale price and 5 per cent commission allowed.
By Hon. Mr. Cassels:
Q. That would mean he utilized his being in the wholesale business to get from some ether trades wholesale prices, that is what that would mean?-A. Yes.
Mr. Watson.-But the statement of the wholesale price was not correct.
By Hon. Mr. Cassels:
Q. I understand that. But he was using his position as dealer to get wholesale prices?- A. Yes.
Q. What did the deputy minister know about the contract originally?
By Mr. Watson:
Q. Yes?-A. Well, I think if I recollect he had something to do with ordering the goods.
Q. Oh yes, ordering the goods, but about the prices. What information did you get from him as to his personal knowledge about matters of contract?-A. He said that was the bargain they made with Mr. Coghlin.
That he was to buy the goods and get 5 per cent commission on the invoice price. Then take the evidence on page 235:
Witness-I understand they had the original invoice in the department? I dont know. I could not get it there.
By Mr. Watson:
Q. You mean showing smaller prices?-A. Yes.
Hon. Mr. Cassels-What you mean is, Colonel Gourdeau knew the prices being charged were less than the prices contracted for.
Mr. Watson-More, my lord.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: At page 236:
By Hon. Mr. Cassels:
Q. Had you any conversation with Colonel Gourdeau after the refund of $1,100? We want to get all the information you can give us?-A. Yes. Colonel Gourdeau asked me since if we should not pay the $1,100 back to Mr. Coghlin,, as it came out in evidence afterwards that he should not have refunded that according to his contract.
Q. That Coghlin should not have?-A. Coghlin.
Q. Coghlin should not have refunded the amount?-A. Yes.
Q. That was the attitude of the deputy minister?-A. The peculiar thing was that they were both agreed on this statement, that the goods were to be supplied at the original cost price and 5 per cent commission charged, and on the strength of that Mr. Coghlin had made the refund of the overcharge, the apparent overcharge. Afterwards, some months afterwards, when the agreement in writing was produced at the Public Accounts Committee he wanted to get his money back. It has always seemed strange to me ever since that neither of them had any recollection of the original agreement, why they should contend that the agreement was one thing, which would mean a lower price to Mr. Coghlin, and it should transpire afterwards that there was the higher price he should have got.
Perhaps I had better read just in that connection another little passage showing what the contention of Mr. Coghlin was. it was that a year or two before he had an agreement with the government, under which he was to get the regular discount, and the Auditor General said that this discount amounted to between 40 per cent and 60 per cent. He discovered that he had been purchasing years before and getting 40, 50 and 60 per cent from the government, and therefore ought to have got it on this particular transaction instead of 5 per cent, so that the agreement doss rot help us very much. Then at page 238:
Q. Yes, I am aware of that. Now, let us exhaust the information you have in regard to each, first in regard to the deputy minister. You have spoken of one or two matters, is there anything else that has been called to your attention as affecting his position?-A. Well, his certificate came in the same category, after I had found out in the case of the silverware that the prices were not fair and just.
Q. Yes. Then did you get any specific information afterwards which would lead to any inference other than a favourable one as to his conduct?-A. In connection with the silverware P
Q. Yes, other than that?-A. No. It has been in that unsatisfactory condition to my mind ever since, that the matter was never satisfactorily explained.
Q. That is as to the silverware?-A. Yes.
Q. But I am seeking to carry it on to any other transaction by him. Have you a knowledge of any other transaction of a similar character or in which you were not satisfied

with the evidence of proper business transactions?-A. Well, I have seen his certificate in connection with the admission of goods free of duty where the certificate was not correct.
Q. Do you mean in favour of importers, contractors?-A. No. This is a certificate that the goods were required for the use of the government, and they were not.
Q. When they were not?-A. Yes.
Q. Yes?-A. To that extent the government was deprived of revenue.
That is another case where the falsity of the certificate was made apparent to the Auditor General. Now we have another one on page 240:
iBy Hr. Watson:
Q. Did you actually?-A. When he was present in the department here.
Q. I see. Well, I asked-probably there was some information that I had not been able to obtain when I examined Commander Spain yesterday, but I intended my questions to cover everything, and I think they did cover everything. His statement was they were correct. What did you find, Mr. Fraser, in regard to that?-A. Well, he had to make a refund. I think, between $800 and $900 on one year's travelling expenses.
Q. What year was that, 1905? I see in that year the expenses charged at $4,627. I called his attention to that yesterday. A refund of $800 or $900,-do you mean that expenses were charged for being out when he was in?-A. Yes.
Q. Is that the character of the charge? It is not excessive payments, that is where he paid $2, $3, $4 or $5 a day too much, you don't mean that; you mean, I understand, charges he made for being out when he was inside?- A. Precisely. Railway fares and the ordinary expenses.
Q. And did you ascertain the fact that he was actually in Ottawa when he was charging for expenses outside of Ottawa?-A. Yes, by the record.
Q. And you say that that existed to the extent in one year of $800 or $900?-A. That is as far as I could check it. I could not get the whole of the records.
Q. Why not?-A. I could not find them.
By the Hon. Mr. Cassels:
Q. Did you get the records in the Marine Department?-A. Yes.
Q. Who keeps them?-A. Well, it was the attendance book I asked for, and I don't know, the books usually run a month or two months, something like that, and I could not get the whole of the books for that year.
Q. Was part of that $800 the $6 a day allowance?-A. Not at that time. At Jhat time he got $6 a day or a per diem allowance, I think it was $6, while investigating wrecks; on any other business he got his actual expenses.
Q. This was $800 actual expenses which you say he should never have charged?-A. Yes.
Q. Then you mean there was no satisfactory explanation?-A._No, I did not consider that was a-fit was unsatisfactory, that he had to refund the money.
Q. Had he to certify to that account?-A. Yes.
q". Any one else?-A. The deputy minister's initials were on it.
Q. Yes.-A. I do not know whether that account is the one on file. I think it was remodelled.
9- Oh, the account was corrected?-A. I think so.
Q. Well, the original account should remain on record, should it not?-A. Well, they got it back to examine it and see what was the trouble with it, and I think I got a new account.
By_Hon. Mr. Cassels:
Q. Was the old account not kept?-A. It was out of my hands then.
Q. What?-A. It was out of my hands.
By Mr. Watson:
Q. You have not any personal knowledge whether that was kept or not?-A. No.
Q. You indicate a doubt?-A. I do not know anything about whether it was kept or not.
Q. I see. Have you knowledge of the system sufficiently to say whether or not the deputy should have personal knowledge that he was in and not out when those expenses were charged for?-A. He should have personal knowledge.
By Hon. Mr. Cassels:
Q. Was this fact brought to the attention of the minister or anybody else?-
He was so startled that it struck him at once that such a state of things should be reported at once not only to the minister, but to the head of the government if reporting it to the minister was not enough.
A. Your lordship. I might be permitted to say just at this point

Q. What?-A. At this point I would like to say, if it were possible, that I would not like to go into any confidential conversations with the minister.
Q. I don't want any conversations, but it seems to me on the statement you made this morning the first duty of somebody would be to report the fact to the minister?
Not only to the minister, but to the Prime Minister; and if the minister or the Prime Minister would not pay attention, then the Auditor General should have reported it to the people of this country through the press.
Q. I don't want any conversations, but it seems to me on the statement you made this morning the first duty of somebody would be to report the fact to the minister?
That would strike anybody. And what answer do we get from the Auditor Gen-i eral?
A. His deputy should have done it.
That is to say:	'I knew all about it as
Auditor General; I knew that this man had certified to an account of $800 larger than it should have been and that he had to refund half of it; I knew that he gave a certificate to a party for an amount of something over $3,000, and that of this the party had to refund $1,000; I knew that he gave a false certificate to enable a party to bring in goods free of duty;-and still I thought it was the duty of the deputy minister to tell the minister.
Then, down near the bottom of the page you have the following:

Q. You do not know whether the matter was ever attempted to he cleared up. Did you ever get any clearing statement of that afterwards?-A. No. 1 never had any doubt in my own mind as to the padding of the account.
Q. Because it is inconceivable

I should think so.
-in the absence of explanation that the matter was not put in the hands of the County Crown Attorney.
-that an officer of this government had falsely charged up $800 to travelling expenses, that that fact had come to the knowledge of the deputy minister and the Auditor General, and that the facts are in possession of the government to-day and still the matter is not in the hands of the County Crown Attorney as far as I know. Why, we have had cases of poor washerwomen stealing a few red herrings and being sent to jail for six months, here in this province of Ontario, and here we have public officials, not only one but three or four, knowing of the grossest irregularities-to use a mild word-in the handling of the public funds, and still the government does nothing to punish the man who placed himself in that position. Not only that, but they actually retire the deputy minister, give a comfortable allowance for the rest of his life to a man guilty of the offences here charged against him by the Auditor General.
At all events you do not know what explanations were made or were not made afterwards?-A. No, I have no administrative duties at all.
Q. Then anything else in regard to Commander Spain?-A. Oh, I think his next account following that one had two or three items in that had to be struck out.
Q. You mean not excessive charges, but wholly false items, distinguishing them in that way. It would be an entirely false item if he charged an item for expenses out when he was in, would it not?-A. My recollection is it was some boat-hire or horse-hire, some thing of that sort, he charged in his next account that I called his deputy's attention to.
That was a second offence.
Q. Yes?-A. And he ordered it to be struck out.
By Hon. Mr. Cassels:
Q. Was that because it had not been used, or because it was not a proper payment ? There would be a great difference between the two?-A. In that case the deputy said it had not been expended.
Q. What?-A. It had not been expended.
By Mr. Watson:
Q. That is, the deputy told you?-A. Yes.
Q. It had not been expended at all. Was that in 1906?-A. That would be 1905 or 1906.
Q. Anything else, Mr. Fraser?-A. Well, I asked the deputy then to keep a record for the next year's audit, that I would require a memorandum at the end stating the dates on which Commander Spain left the department on business, what the business was, and when he returned, to enable me to check his next year s account properly.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: After the close of the year when I asked to be furnished with that information I was told that it had been kept, but they thought it was not necessary, or something, at the end of the year, and it was thrown in the waste basket ?
Q. Who told you that?-A. The deputy minister.
Q. Yos.-A. So his accounts were in that unsatisfactory condition that they may be right or not.
Q. I see. You have the instances which you have given where you learned they were positively wrong, in fact false?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you ascertain that any other items afterwards were false, that is, the next year 1906 and 1907, did you get evidence of falsity of items?-A. No, I had no means of getting it.
Q. I mean by inquiry or otherwise, you did not get it?-A. No.
Q. Then did you pass it?-A. I had to, certified oorrect.
Q. I see. Certified correct by whom, by him and the deputy minister?-A. I could not say now what certificates were on.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it would be very interesting to complete this investigation, that has only gone a little way. When the Auditor General came up to a certain point, and then stopped, saying, 'I would not like to say anything further about any private conversation I had', it would be interesting to trace this up to its source, and fix the responsibility for these large expenditures of public money, and for keeping men in public office where they could repeat that sort of thing year after year. It would be interesting to fix the responsibility for that, and that is what this investigation did not fix; and for that purpose alone I submit that the investigation in the Marine and Fisheries Department ought to be completed. Now I want to read a letter that was sent away back in 1908 by the Auditor General with respect to this same matter. It was addressed to the acting deputy minister Mr. Desbarats, and read as follows:
I wish to call your attention to the accounts of Commander Spain of your department for travelling expenses for the fiscal year 1907-8, and to say that notwithstanding the fact that these accounts appear to have been approved by Col. Gourdeau, deputy minister, I cannot accept them, as they bear on their face the too evident appearance of incorrectness.
This is in 1908, although they had this deputy minister's certificate, the man who has been by this generous government superannuated for life.
It is almost an impossibility for this office to test anything more than the mathematical correctness of an account for travelling expenses unless we take unusual and distasteful means to obtain information. It is sufficient under the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act to have the accounts bear evidence of having been examined by the department having control and vouched for by some offioer having a personal knowledge of the

expenditure, and in most cases this is found sufficient. Tor various reasons I cannot, in the case of Commander Spain's account, ac-oept these conditions.
On an examination of his accounts for 1901-5 they were found to bear such evidence of incorrectness that unusual means were adopted, with the result that about one-sixth of the whole sum had to be refunded, and the circumstances were such that the deputy minister undertook to say that future accounts should be correct.
That is away back in 1908.
The present difficulty appears to be a continuance of the practioe complained of in 1901-5, namely, charges for railway fares, &c., when, in my opinion, no travelling such as charged for was done.
Then at page 245 we have counsel asking this question:
I do not quite understand the functions of the auditor. What actually is your duty, 6imply to represent to the deputy minister, and then if he passes the matter that is the end of it?-A. Well we have to question anything that we think is not in accordance with the rules and regulations or with the Act, or anything improper.
Q. Well, supposing he says it is all right, is that the end of it?-A. Oh no. We have got to get a better explanation than that, we have got to satisfy ourselves in some shape or form that the matter is all right, or report it to the Treasury Board.
Now, Mr. Speaker, who compose the Treasury Board? By section 9, chapter 23 of the Revised Statutes, it is to be composed of the Finance Minister and five other ministers of the Crown. Now the Auditor General tells us that unless he gets a satisfactory explanation it is his duty to report to the Treasury Board. He has told us over and over again during this evidence that for four years he did not get satisfactory answers, and therefore it was his duty to report to the Treasury Board. Mr. Speaker, did lie report to the Treasury Board? One of two things exists:	Either
the Auditor General did report these transactions, not merely to the Treasury Board, but to the Prime Minister of this country, or he did not. It was clearly his duty to do it. If he did not do it, I submit that it is up to us to get another Auditor General; and if he did do it, it is up to us to get another Prime Minister. Now I do not propose to read any more evidence. I have gone over enough to satisfy, I think, every hon. member that we have several high officials who, for three or four years, were guilty of offences, not one slip, but repetitions of offences, known to the Auditor General, it being the duty of the Auditor General in such cases to report these offences to the Treasury Board. Nay, more, although the Audit Act may not require it, still I submit that it was his dutv to report a transaction of that kind to no one lower than the right hon.
the Prime Minister of this country. Surely the Auditor General would not stand upon the matter of the Audit Act; surely he would not repeat the act of the man who preferred to drown rather than be rescued from the water by a man to whom he had never been introduced. Surely some one is to blame. If the Auditor General reported, as we have a right to assume he did report, to the Treasury Board, composed of the Finance Minister and five other gentlemen, members of the government-I do not know whether it includes the Prime Minister-but I think it will occur to every member of this House that it was the duty of the watchdog of the treasury, in circumstances such as these, not to stop until he went to the head of the government and told him the conditions that were existing in the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
What have we now? We had the Civil Service Commission referring to lack of conscience in the lower officials, and we had the commissioner who was appointed suggesting as a remedy the awakening of the public conscience.
Did it ever occur to these gentlemen that as in nature decay very often sets in at the head, so in the body politic lack of conscience at the foot is often the Tesult of lack of conscience at the head. And, Mr. Speaker, a government that had been convicted-I do not wish to speak excitedly, but I say correctly and advisedly-a government that has been convicted of squandering millions of the people's money and of plundering the public domain of this country and of appointing to high public office men who had been guilty of the most serious election offences against the state-I say that when we have such grand larceny at the head we cannot be surprised to find so much petty larceny at the bottom.
To show that these officials received fair play from Mr. Justice Cassels and counsel I would refer to page 3 of the report of the commissioner where he says:
I think what we want is to do everything possible to free these gentlemen from the suspicion they are under.
That was the attitude of the judge, not a hostile attitude and not an improper attitude. I quote that to show that every official got the fairest opportunity. Many of us know His Lordship Judge Cassels; we know he is a very kindly disposed man, a generous soul, a man who endeavours to find everybody innocent if he possibly can, and he says:
I think what we want is to do everything possible to free these gentlemen from the suspicion they are under, and I would like it to be understood that every officer will have the fullest opportunity if occasion arises of clearing himself, and every official of the Marine Department who feels that without specific charges being brought up, their honour or reputation is stained in any way will have an

opportunity to come forward and clear themselves under oath.
A word with reference to one or two other departments, because this resolution says that other departments should be inquired into. I find at page 32 of the report of the Courtney Civil Service Commission a reference to one of the departments. The commissioners say:
The same remark to a certain extent applies to the Department of the Interior. 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 how the land, and more especially the timber sales, are effected.
They would perhaps not find it necessary to do that now since my hon. friend from St. Antoine Division (Mr. Ames) has given us such a clear and full exposition of that work in the west.
At page 37 we find this reference to the Militia Department:
Militia and Defence.
The expenditure in this department is going up by leaps and bounds. In 1903-4 the total expenditure, both in capital and consolidated fund, was in the neighbourhood of three and a half million dollars. In the estimates lately submitted to parliament for the fiscal year ending March 81, 1909, appropriations are asked for aggregating $6,500,000. That is to say, in four years and three-quarters the expenditures will have increased, if the supply asked for is granted, to the extent of three million dollars. Your commissioners have made a comparison between these two years for specific reasons. In 1904 there was introduced into parliament an Act respecting the Militia and Defence of Canada.
The Governor in Council may appoint a Militia Council to advise the minister on all matters relating to the militia which are referred to the council by the minister ....
It follows, therefore, that the Militia Council have the full control of the department; that it is in effect the department; and in presenting the report the department as an entity is swallowed up by the council. *[DOT]*[DOT]***
It follows, therefore, that the control of expenditure is in a great measure the business of the Militia Council, and in gauging the efficiency of the department attention should be given to the composition and powers of tbs council.
In Canada the Militia Council is made up of seven members-the (Minister of Militia and Defence, four military members bearing titles of Chief of the General -Staff, Adjutant General, Quartermaster General and Master General of Ordnance; the titles also borne by the professional members of the Army Council in Great Britain-but the other two members of the Canadian Militia Council are the deputy head of -the department and the accountant. That is to say, the Militia Council in Canada differs from the Army Council in Great Britain in that the department is swal-Mr. CROTHERS.
lowed up in the one and entirely distinct in the other.
*######
In fact, for the service performed, the Militia Department awards to its officers pay vastly higher in proportion than any other of the departments under the Crown. Since the formation of the Militia Council several adjuncts to the militia service have been created. This will be seen by reference to the evidence of Major General Lake. Your commissioners are not prepared to say whether the Ordnance Store Corps, or the Army Service Corps, or other corps are necessary, but one particular corps your commissioners regard as unnecessary and undesirable. Your commissioners refer to the staff of paymasters.
###*###
The Auditor General in his evidence shows the evil effects of this system. Large sums are sent to the district paymaster, portions of these sums are sent to the sub-paymasters, until at one time as much as $60,000, according to the Auditor General, was held by the paymaster at Halifax.
#**####
Your commissioners have referred to the high rates of pay enjoyed by the officers in the service of this department. This is no doubt a cause of grave dissatisfaction -to the members of the other departments in the public service, who, while occupied with grave questions relating to the government or the country, with their time fully occupied in the earnest pursuit of their duties, see in a favoured department people paid much better than themselves and working no harder, even if as hard, and in work of less paramount importance. The accountant of the Militia Department, who has an expenditure of six million dollars a year confined to a few appropriations, is much more highly paid than any of the accountants of the other departments. The accountant of the Railway Depart has to adjust accounts relating to a revenue of six or seven millions and has also to do the bookkeeping in connection with the expenditure of eighteen millions a year. The accountant of the Public Works has under his control accounts connected with appropriations totalling ten millions a year, and numbering some hundreds. The accountants of the Finance Department, gathering up the aetai's from all the other departments, have under their examination a daily turn over in cash of one million dollars a day, and the accountants of the Audit Office have under examination the expenditure of all the other departments. None of these accountants are so highly paid or so highly placed as the accountant of the Militia and Defence, and the result causes grave dissatisfaction.
In conclusion, your commissioners have to point out that the expenditure has grown in a little over four years from three and a half millions to six and a half millions; that the permanent and headquarters staff have increased to the number of about 220; that in addition to the general system of high pay the favoured men of the militia service in Canada draw pensions not only for themselves but for their wives and children; that the staff is sufficient for a corps of one hundred thousand men, according to the evidence submitted; that the permanent corps are under three thousand men; that

the desertions have been one in three; that the number of militia trained in the annual camps is about 40,000 men; that according to the evidence of Major General Lake, the men attached to the rural battalions have no drill except at the annual camps, and it is arguable whether the city corps are as efficient as they were some years ago; that while only 40,000 men come out for drill of age., from 18 to 50, yet compared with the population of over a million men in Canada between the ages of 20 and 40 the proportion seems small. Whether with all the large expenditures of public moneys the result as detailed shows efficiency, your commissioners leave to the consideration of Tour Exoel-lenoy. Your commissioners have not gone deeply into the question of stores purchased for the militia service, as 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 the contract for the Ross rifle was prepared by the counsel employed by the company, and no security was exacted.
If with all the consideration of the Public Accounts Committee and the War Office, the expenditure in Great Britain is such that the Public Accounts Committee consider it their duty to draw attention to expensive ideas, particularly amongst military men, and that grave irregularities are punished by reprimand, the system in Canada where the control is not as effective as in the motherland would seem to be more disadvantageous to the Dominion.
I ask hon. gentlemen to listen to the conclusions of these commissioners:-
While the commissioners have felt bound to point out what they oonsider the several defects in the Militia Department, they are constrained to report that in some cases the officers employed by that department are men of high character and fully alive to their responsibilities.
This refers to men who are getting bigger salaries than any one else in the service, and after looking into the whole' matter, the commissioners find that in; some cases they are men of high character and fully alive to their responsibilities, Don't you think, Mr, Speaker, itf would be advisable to have a little peep into the Department of Militia and Defence in view of that report from the commission? Next comes the Public Works Department, and the commissioners say:-
This department has largely increased its expenditure during the last few years, although a large expenditure, that of the ship channel, has been transferred from the Public Works Department to the control of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. The expenditure of the Public Works Department in 1903-4 was, in round numbers, $5,000,000; and this is to be increased during the coming year, according to the estimates recently brought down, to about $11,250,000. In looking over the system adopted in this department it will be found that with the exception of a very few instances all the officials both at Ottawa and in the outside are not under the Civil Service Act. In Ottawa alone hundreds of labourers are employed and in the outside service there are engineers, archiects, clerks of works, foremen and outside labourers to a very large number.
In certain cases there may be overpayments of wages such as the notorious instance which was brought to light about a year ago, when a clerk of works appointed by political influence was found to have sublet his work to another person at a much lower rate. Your commissioners consider that some steps should be taken to organize the large army of employees in connection with this department, many of whom have served their entire lifetime in its employ, and bring them under the definite regulations so that their employment may be considered fixed and stable. Your commissioners desire to point out that in this department the services of officials are often charged to several different votes. Your commissioners are of opinion that in all cases the salaries of officials should be charged against one appropriation only; and that no allowances for extra services should be paid unless a sum for the purpose has been voted by parliament, not in a general clause merely, but individually and by name. This remark should be of general application to all departments. In all such cases parliament should be fully advised of the circumstances.
Your commissioners are led to believe that in many cases works have been undertaken by the Department of Public Works at the instance of municipalities or bodies of people locally interested, in which the opinion of the outside officers of the department as to the desirability of the proposed works was not asked for. The only information sought for related to the feasibility of the works in question.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this report shows that the investigation into the Marine Department should be completed by tracing these things to their source. That is what the people of Canada want. The people of Canada do not want a witness to be cut off when he is asked whether or not he conveyed this information to the Treasury Board, or to the ministers, or to the Prime Minister himself. What the people of Canada want is an investigation that will go to the root of the matter, and which will show, if it be a fact, that lack of conscience at the bottom has been caused by lack of conscience at the top. We have had it constantly said by hon. gentlemen opposite that on the 26th of October last there W'as a majority returned to support the government, and time after time have they boasted of that majority. Why, there is not a man in this House but who knows that no part of that majority rests upon the peoples' approval of the administration. We have that statement upon the evidence of no less a person than the distinguished and shrewd politician, the right hon. the prime minister of Canada, because he has stated this very session that in the province of British Columbia alone

were the recent elections conducted on anything like principle. That being so, the result was just what we might expect, one member returned to support him and the others against him. We had the right hon. the prime minister finding fault with that state of things. I was astonished that he was surprised at that result, because it is nothing new in his career for him to find that where principle is involved he is always worsted. The right hon. the Prime Minister's talents and skill find their broadest scope and shine the brightest when he is inciting passion and generating magnetizing and utilizing prejudices. And so I say that as we have it on the authority of the Prime Minister himselt that in all the other provinces the contest was not fought on principle but on prejudice, his supporters will not again boast of the majority they have in this House.


Mr. ARTHUR ECREMENT (Berthier).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin), on resuming his seat a moment ago, was obliged to take back the statement he had just made to the effect, that the Minister of Marine had complained of being attacked on account of his being a French Canadian.
I may then be allowed, Mr. Speaker, as one of the younger members on this side of the House, to say in French, a few words of praise concerning the Minister of Marine, in regard to whom so many unkindly references have been made, in English, by hon. members on the other side.
In my case, as in that of the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Crothere), it happened that I visited this House, without ever dreaming that I would occupy a seat within its precincts. I admired, as he did, its severe style of decorations, and the impression it made on my mind, was one of awe and grandeur. It seemed to me as if there remained something of the minds of bygone generations of members flitting within its walls, and I almost broke the impressive silence reigning all around, to say to myself, what great respect should inspire such an institution, wherein men endowed with the authority of a whole people work out the improvement and progress of the country.
I am free to admit that I felt unwilling to drop all my illusions on entering this House. However, we young members of the House, are bound to drop one of these on witnessing the re-opening of this debate. We are led to believe in consequence that we are old members, considering the length of time this famous question has occupied the attention of the House and that we are called upon once more, to listen to unfair criticisms of the management of the hon. minister, whose useful career I bow to with respect and whose reputation will once more come out unsullied from the fray. It would Mr. CROTHERS.
be unbecoming on my part, Mr. Speaker, to go over all the details of the Cassels inquiry, which supplies the basis for the amendment introduced by the hon. member for St. Anne's. That evidence has for months been served out to the public by our large daily newspapers, and in any case, the hon. member for Elgin, who has just taken his seat, would not have omitted reading it all for the edification of the House.
Nevertheless, that evidence, whether obtained in Halifax or in Quebec, goes to show primarily, as stated this afternoon, by the hon. Minister of Marine, that previous to the changes brought about by the present head of the department, the condemned system had been long in existence. The hon. member for St. Ann's wishes to know what is going on in the other departments, but how embarrassing it would be to hear, from him or from some of his neighbours, what some witnesses only let us surmise as to what was going on in the department of Marine under the Conservative governments from 1869 to 1896!
Reference was made a moment ago to favouritism and partisanship. Were I willing to go over some of that evidence, I might bring to light some interesting facts. Is there not, for instance, a protracted correspondence between the department and a high official, because the latter had made the grievous mistake of buying a knife from a Liberal dealer. We see in another part of the evidence that this same officer had received instructions from the then Minister of Marine, to take good care of his friends, because he needed his friends badly.
Let our friends on the other side consider their own case, and then let them taunt the Minister of Marine for trying to lay down rules for the better and more efficient management of public affairs; let them taunt him for dismissing negligent or dishonest men; let them taunt him for discovering defective features, dating back! twenty years, legacies of the Conservative rule. All such reproofs cannot withstand the facts, which afford the most complete vindication of the Minister of Marine.
Called upon to take charge of that department, in the month of February, 1906, as early as the month of June of that same year, according to one of the principal witnesses examined, he sets down to work with vigour and energy to improve a system in existence since the glorious days of Sir Hector Langevin.
Deeds cannot be obliterated, in spite of hostile efforts, and the work accomplished by the Minister of Marine remains, in spite of all that can be done to cast a shadow over it. I would fear praising in-

adequately a work of such importance were I not aware that parliamentarians whose fund of information is large and whose opinions carry weight, brushing aside generalities with which I must be content to deal, will fully deal with the subject.
Following on the interesting statement which the hon. Minister of Marine presented to us this afternoon, as to the improvements and changes effected in his department, I may he allowed simply to recall that it is under the rule of the present minister that there was introduced a new system of book-keeping which ensures to the country, as we have seen, a large saving; that careless officers have been suspended; that a central purchase office, praised by Judge Cassels, was instituted; that a system of calling for tenders was adopted and patronage lists abolished.
The conduct of the minister on that occasion, as on many others, will have been for us of the younger generation of Canada, an object lesson in uprightness and energy.
Who is it, Mr. Speaker, who has helped the most in winning that economic victory whereby we are enabled to lead an independent life and to realize with pride that there exists a Canadian nation, an industrial and commercial nation, which has taken its place among the others by asserting what has been very aptly termed its economical independence.
Who is it, Mr. Speaker, if not the Minister of Marine, who has contributed in the greatest measure to ensuring to the business classes of this country the benefit of that great deed which has for its title the ' Franco-Canadian Treaty '.
You have read, Mr. Speaker, that statement of a writer particularly well informed as regards our country, in a book entitled ' Canada and its two nationalities '. The time is probably not far away when the development of the Dominion's resources will be on a great scale and possibly will bear comparison with that of its neighbour the United States. It is creditable to us that such a comparison should be made, and the mere fact of its being possible is in itself an argument.
Indeed the hon. Minister of Marine in providing so thoroughly for the improvement of our ports and our great river St. Lawrence -having perceived that there lies the key to our future success as a business people, and that since it reaches into the heart of the country, we are bound to deepen it to the innermost point, so as to carry the ocean as it were to the threshold of the Western country-has frightened that giant of producers, the United States, and more particularly New York.
In view of these gigantic works and useful reforms, it might have been expected
that the opposition would look beyond their ordinary range and spare their criticism to the man who had accomplished such things. However, in the light of the discussion which has taken place this evening, I see that they expect the minister to have like themselves, the power of effecting miracles ; and in the same way that they have succeeded in changing into wine boxes bearing a different brand, they expect the Minister of Marine to change the character of the men which the Conservative party had in their service, and whom the Liberal party inherited from them.
Accordingly, I shall vote against the amendment of the hon. member for St. Anne's (Mr. Doherty), in the first place, because it appears to me as misty as the cloud of suspicion, to which it refers ; then, because its adoption would entail considerable expenditure, interfere with the management of the various departments, and as stated in yesterday's ' Patrie,' a paper which has always been outspoken in its support of the member for St. Anne's, because the stand taken by the Minister of Marine will have its effect on the other departments, and a most beneficial one, and lastly, because, to my mind, we are in a position to attain the same object by other means. Careless or dishonest officers in other departments, should there be any, knowing what treatment they may expect as a result of any wrong-doing, will take means to conceal the truth from any commission of inquiry, and thereby will prevent any such commission from getting at the facts.
No doubt criticisms will be forthcoming. Partisan newspapers and speakers, well known to hon. gentlemen on the other side, will cast aspersions on honest men, who are bound to vindicate their reputation for the sake of their family, of their province, of their country. However, such criticisms will always have the same effect on the people, that great judge. An insight into the nature of their verdict may be obtained from the fact that in October last the Conservative organization found it impossible to obtain the signatures of twenty-five people in the county of Rouville to start an opposition to the Minister of Marine ; not at all, as stated by the hon. member for Cape Breton, because he is a French Canadian, but because he has remained faithful to the great Liberal principles of honesty, dignity, sincerity. Another fact to be taken into account is, the impossibility of finding in the province of Quebec, while under the leadership of the Minister of Marine, more than twelve wise men, who following in the footsteps of those people mentioned in the gospels, are sent here and flush with indignation at the sight of wrong-doing, which they themselves or their leaders are responsible for.


Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE (North Ontario).: Mr. Speaker, the Civil Service Commis-

sion, appointed in May, 1907, was composed of three business men of the highest character. As they were appointees of the government, it is to be presumed that they were favourable to the administration; but their scathing arraignment of the Department of Marine and Fisheries made a further investigation imperative. Their report was full of serious and grave charges. In consequence of that report, Mr. Justice Cassels was appointed on April 6, 1908. He is a gentleman held in the highest esteem and respect wherever he is known. At great expense of labour and time, he inserted the probe a little deeper into the affairs of the Marine and Fisheries Department; but, unfortunately, the worst disclosures were not revealed until after the general elections were held. The result of that investigation by Mr. Justice Cassels was to verify the disclosures of the Civil Service Commission. Now, there has been a great deal of discussion as to what the real scope of the commission should have been. On this side of the House there is but one opinion, namely, that a free hand should have been given to Mr. Justice Cassels to inquire into the Marine and Fisheries Department, not confining him to the years from 1904 to 1907, or to any special years or any particular subject. The conception of his duties by the Hon. Mr. Cassels was very limited and circumscribed. According to his own idea, he was merely to investigate the contracts entered into during the years from 1904 to 1907, and ascertain the prices that were paid, the current market prices, and the discounts, if any. His attitude towards the officials of the department i,s thus expressed in his own. words, as found on page 1723 of the evidence:-
As far as I am concerned, I am here to protect these officials in every possible way. I do not want to see them guilty if it is possible to acquit them.
In my opinion, that was not the proper attitude in which to approach the investigation. He should have gone into it as an investigating judge to find guilty any who were guilty. At page 7 of the report, he also says:-
My desire has been to exculpate and not to incriminate.
According to the scope of his commission, I submit that Mr. Justice Cassels' inquiry should have embraced the names of the beneficiaries of the excessive prices. No one in this House imagines for a moment that the contract and supply men who received such excessive prices, kept those excessive prices for themselves. Another branch of the inquiry that would have been beneficial, would have been the part certain members of parliament, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries himself, had in these transactions. It is extraor-Mr. S. SHARPE.
dinary that no members of parliament were called to give evidence in that investigation, although the names of some were repeatedly mentioned during the course of the investigation. I submit that the inquiry should also have extended to all the spending departments, particularly _ those which are unfavourably mentioned in the report of the Civil Service Commission, namely, the Militia Department and the Public Works Department. But notwithstanding the limited scope of the inquiry, notwithstanding the fact that the hands of Mr. Justice Cassels were tied, notwithstanding the fact that he himself had a circumscribed notion of his authority, and of the scope of his commission, he disclosed a mass of seething, reeking corruption in that department, which it will take a long time to remove, unless the most heroic remedies are applied, and that immediately. What was the effect of that disclosure on the government? I submit that it has only been superficial. Apparently, they are callous, giving the impression to the country that every large spending department of the government is permeated with the same evil. What has been the action of the government in consequence of that report? Two officials superannuated. The deputy minister, win, the hon. member for Elgin told us, was guilty of such irregularities, has been superannuated-no punishment meted out to him. The next official, Harding, is superannuated, although, according to the evidence and the report, he had financial transactions with contractors 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. This is the net result of the government's action on that report: two officials are superannuated; nine officials are really dismissed, twelve other officials are dismissed, with an intimation that they may be re-appointed if they apply for reinstatement. I ask if this is all the action that the government intends to take after all the ex" pense and trouble and time that have been incurred in this investigation? Is this the limit of the government's efforts? They are not stayed by considerations of mercy or sympathy, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries might say; but I submit that the real consensus of _ opinion in this House and in the country is, that they are stayed by considerations of Belf-preserva-tion. They dare not punish the officials as they deserve according to the findings of Mr. Judge Cassels to be punished, and I think that the utter failure of the government to mete out condign punishment to those officials, will meet with the disapprobation of the country and certainly should not satisfy the demands of this House.

Now, I desire for a few moments, to consider the results of the investigation, and what they prove. They conclusively prove:	first, that the officials were negligent, pliant, dishonest, and in some cases capable of stealing, second, the necessity of extending the investigation into all the spending departments; third, that members of parliament and officials of the Liberal party are implicated; fourth, that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is personally implicated by the evidence adduced, directly and by implication. I am not going, at this late hour, to occupy the time of the House, by going extensively into the evidence; but I wish to refer to the evidence on page 1358, where Mr. Melvin states that he paid money to Mr. MacNamara, the storekeeper; to the evidence of Mr. Longard, on page 1421, where he states that he supplied a hot-water boiler for Mr. Parsons' house; to the evidence of Mr. Thompson-Schmidt, on page 1452, where he states that he borrowed money from one of the contractors, and to the evidence of Mr. Joseph Ferguson, on page 1397, where he says he got large sums of money from contractors and supply men. Senator Choquette admitted on behalf of his client, Mr. Gregory, that Mr. Gregory had received 5 per cent on $24,831. That admission will be found on page 1046 of the evidence. On page 1388 it will be found that a witness, Mr. Merlin, admitted that employees used to help themselves out of the stores of the department.
By Hon. Mr. Cassels:
Q. You mean to say that all the employees there used to go into the stores and help themselves?-A. They could if they liked, it was open enough to do so.
Consequently there was no proper supervision in connection with the management of the Marine and Fisheries Department. On page 1,277 Mr. Macaulay admitted that he made false entries in order to square the accounts of Mr. Harding, and Harding was one of the officials whom the government has superannuated in consequence of Mr. Justice Cassels' report.
The result of the investigation shows the necessity of extending it into the other departments. It is remarkable that there were no contracts, that the contractors made the prices themselves, that the men who furnished the supplies did not have the prices fixed for them but fixed the prices themselves. No wonder the prices and the profits were excessive. It is only reasonable to assume that if the prices and profits were excessive in the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the same thing prevails in the other departments and these also should be investigated. For instance we find that Mr. Alliston Davie of Que-119
bee, testified-see page 872-that no prices were discussed:
Q. Now, here is an account amounting to $7,795.70, and this is certified to by him in the same way. Prices just and reasonable. This in November, 1906. Now, just look at that account and tell me whether or not the prices were ever riscussed between you and him, or between you and any other official of the department?-A. No, sir, they were never discussed.
A. No, prices were never discussed with Mr. Gregory or any other official.
George Wooten, on page 1410, said he received 10 per cent or so over the retail prices, thus showing the excessive prices paid by the department. A. N. Melville, on page 1359, said that he was paid from 10 per cent to 25 per cent over the ordinary retail price. On page 1447, Mr. Stevens, who gave evidence regarding Howell and Company's accounts, said that their accounts amounted to $28,000 with the Department of Marine and Fisheries in the three years, and that no prices were fixed before hand, and that in fixing the prices they added profits to the amount of about 50 per cent. They added that to the cost. He was asked:
Q. Added on to the cost about 50 per cent profits, is that about right?-A. That may be a little high. I would not like to swear it is right.
On page 1429 Mr. Langard said that he might have received 50 per cent profits in his dealings with the department. On page 1737, Ernest G. Odell, a young man only 23 years old, a grandson of the notorious official, Gregory, said that he received as much as 100 per cent profit. This is hia evidence:
Q. Your grandfather knew nothing about your arrangements I see? Then what profit did you and Mr. Ritchie get in the sales that you made to the department?-A. That was a private arrangement between Mr. Ritchie and myself, sir. Am I obliged to answer, your lordship?	.
Hon. Mr. Cassels-Yes, I think so. It is important. It has been told already in Quebec. You had better tell everything; it is no use keeping back?-A. I made 50 per cent.
Mr. Watson.-That was your share of it. And how much above that did Mr. Ritchie get?-A. If I got 50 per cent, he must have got 50 per cent.
Q. That would make 100 per cent?-A. Yes.
J. J. Murphy, who had dealings with the department for three years amounting to $43,000, said he made 25 per cent over the closest retail prices. Here is part of his evidence:
Q I take it from what you said that you found the department a very easy buyer?-
Aq. pi fact you got from the department much more than you got from other retail purchasers, 25 per cent?-A. Oh, no.
Q. Now then, just try and think; will you



say it was less than 25 per cent that yon got in excess of your retail prices from the department-in excess of your closest retail prices?-A. Well, in some cases, but not in all.
Q. In some cases you got as much as 25 per cent?-A. But not in all.
Q. In excess of your closest retail prices?- A. Yes.
If this is a fair sample of the prices that prevail in the Marine and Fisheries Department and of the profits exacted by the contractors, the inference is irresistible that a similar condition of affairs must have existed in the other departments and that therefore the investigation should be extended to them also. We find that the same contractors who dealt with the Marine and Fisheries Department also had dealings with the others. A return was laid on the table yesterday, in response to a motion of mine, showing to what extent the supply men and contractors who had been mentioned in the Cassels' report as having had illieit dealings with the other departments. What do we find? We find, for instance, that J. J. Murphy who for three years had dealings with the Marine and Fisheries Department to the extent of $32,449.29 also had dealings with the Department of Public Works to the extent of $8,508.59. Is it not reasonable to assume that he obtained the same rate of profits from the Public Works Department as he did from the other? Jos. Samson, who had dealings with the Marine and Fisheries Department in the three years amounting to $22,158, also had dealings with the Public Works Department amounting to $3,369.59. Samson and Filion dealt with the Marine and Fisheries Department to the extent of $65,809, with the Public Works Department to the extent of $10,444, and with the Militia Department to the amount of $3,490. Napoleon Mercier dealt with the Marine Department to the extent of $3,471 and with the Public Works Department to the extent of $8,000. Terreau and Eaeine sold the Marine and Fisheries Department $8,000 of goods, to the Public Works Department $1,000, to the Militia Department $6,000, and to the Post Office Department $487. I desire to emphasize the fact that these men were those reported by Mr. Justice Cassels' report as paying illegal commissions and giving illegal favours to government officials Jean Drolet sold to the Marine Department to the extent of $12,502, to the Public Works $1,287, and the Militia $21,782. Howell and Company had dealings with the Marine Department to over $20,000, with the Public Works Department, $1,000; the Poison Iron Works Company had dealings with the Marine and Fisheries Department to the amount of $150,493, with the Public Works Department $364,798.70 and with Militia and Defence $1,200.
These returns verify the suspicion in the Mr. S. SHAEPE.
minds of hon. gentlemen on this side that these contractors and supply men who were receiving extensive contracts and obtaining excessive, illegal, improper profits from the Marine and Fisheries Department, had dealings with other large spending departments, and it is natural to assume that the same evils, the same abuses, the same irregularities, the same corruptions, the same crimes existed in regard to the other departments as in regard to this. And, when the administration raises such a suspicion, it is but right that they should clear themselves from the suspicion by granting the investigation called for by the terms of this resolution.
Another reason why this investigation should be extended to the other spending departments is found in the statements of the Civil Service Commission. One of the hon. members on the other side who preceded me said that there were no other departments brought into condemnation by the Civil Service Commission. I dispute that and will quote the report of the commission in support of my contention. At page 37 of the Civil Service Commissioners' report, you will find these words:
Your commissioners regret that they have been unable to investigate the condition of things in some of the other departments. But to do the work with any pretensions to thoroughness would take much more time than would probably be agreeable to the government.	.
No doubt it would.
They have been able to go over only a very small section of even the Marine and Fisheries Department.
Yet, after going over only a small part of one department, they bring in this scathing arraignment. They speak of two other departments, and this is what they say :
Organization, discipline, zeal for the public service and regard for economy are all conspicuous by their absence. Money is wasted in small things as in great because no one seems to have any motive to do otherwise.
In reference to the Department of Militia and Defence, this is what the commissioners say :
In conclusion, your commissioners have to point out that the expenditure has grown in a little over four years from three and a half million to six and a half million; that the permanent and headquarters staff have increased to the number of about 220; that in addition to the general system of high pay the favoured men of the militia service of Canada draw pensions not only for themselves but for their wives and children; that the staff is sufficient for a corps of one hundred thousand men according to the evidence submitted; that the permanent corps are under three thousand men; that the desertions have been one in three; that the. number of militia trained in the annual camps is about 40,000 men.

Your commissioners have not gone deeply into the question of stores purchased for the militia service as there is no means by which they could appreciate whether the amounts payable for sulb-target guns or for Ross rifles are proper and just, but according to the evidence the contract for the Ross rifle was prepared by the counsel employed by the company and no security was exacted.


Hon.   S@: Which was * absolutely untrue. I explained that to the House.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would suggest to the hon. minister (Sir Frederick BoTden) that if this is absolutely untrue, he should not raise any objection to the investigation into his department. In reference to the Public Works Department, the report of the commissioners says:
The expenditure of the Public Works Department in 1903-4 was, in round numbers, $5,000,000 and this is to be increased during the coming year, according to the estimates recently brought down, to about $11,250,000. In looking over the system adopted in this department, it will be found that, with the exception of a very few instances, all the officials both in Ottawa and outside are not under the Civil Service Act.
And this is the point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House.
In certain cases there may be overpayments of wages such as the notorious instance which was brought to light about a year ago when a clerk of works appointed by political influence was found to have sublet his work to another person at a much lower rate.
If that is a fair sample of what is going on in the Public Works Department, it behooves this House to extend the investigation further into all the great spending departments. Now, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the report of Mr. Justice Cassels, page 78:
According to the evidence, a saving of about one hundred thousand dollars per annum would be effected in the Marine and Fisheries Departments alone by the change. Are there not other departments administered bv the government which could be dealt with in the same manner?
The change referred to is the abolition of the patronage system. Here is an open suggestion that the otheT departments should allow the investigation to be extended to them and so have them put into a position to effect a saving too.
Would it not be feasible to appoint a board of, say, three competent men, assisted by inspectors, conversant with ruling market prioes, to act as purchasing agents for all the departments?
Another result of the investigation was to show that Liberal members of parliament
and officials of the Liberal party were implicated in the illegal and grossly improper ii9a
transactions in the Marine and Fisheries Department :
Q. Yes. Did you speak to anybody else?- A. It seems to me I spoke to Mr. Russell, when he was a member, Judge Russell.
Q. Yes. Did you speak to anybody (else here?-A. I don't think. . . .
Q. I understand you got that.
This has reference to an order.
from Mr. Roche or Mr. Carney?-A. Mr. Roche, I think.
Q. Mr. Roche or Mr. Carney gave you that specific order?-A. Yes.
Q.AVhat was it for?-A. Ventilators.
If we refer to page 1410, we find that some of these supply men getting excessive profits and large returns from the Marine
and Fisheries Department contributed out of these extra profits to the election expenses of candidates.
Q. Then, what about those extra profits;- now, try and think; some sort of distribution made of those extra profits, Mr. Wooten ? -A. Not that I made.
Q. No, not of your profits?-A. I could not tell you, Mr. Watson.
Q. The profits of others?-A. I could not tell your, sir; I do not know.
Q. But don't you, and some others with you, participate, not in your own individual profits, but in one way or another in the extra profits that are made?-A When I take on a distriot I generally pay for it out of my own pocket. Do you mean in a political way?
Q. I do not say a political way.
Here we have the natural result of the system of granting extra profits to these supply men. During the elections they ' take on districts ' and finance them out of their own pockets.
Q. Now, is that as far as you oan go, because I was expecting you could go further than that; that is the reason I am asking you. The question, is that as far as you can go-I am putting it directly-that is, that you know of an understanding that these firms and houses that put on extra prioes are afterwards to pony up,-some of them- you know what I mean by the expression- to some oilnTS ?-A. I don't think,-but I think if I was getting some big patronage and there was an election on and my side was running, I think I would subscribe pretty well, you know.
Q. Out of those extra profits?-A. Yes.
Then, at page 1462, Mr. Harry C. Stevens being under examination.
By Hon. Mr. Cas9els:
Q. I suppose in plain English the members recommended you for a profitable con-tract?-A. They would not.
Q. They recommended what turned out a profitable contract?-A. They would not.
Q. And then when an election came on the committee came and asked for contributions? -A. Yes. And what is between the members and the committee we know nothing about.
Q. I understand. You are supporters, and they wanted you to subscribe, and you were

subscribers. That is the story?-A. Yes. That is what I wanted to convey.
Again, at page 1462, Hon. Mr. Cassels takes up the question, and the examination proceeds as follows :
Q. What do you wish to say?-A. In our work with the department we have no competitors, and the recommendation of the members was all we wanted, and we worked on that basis.
Q. Did you pay the members anything?- A. No.
Q. Did you pay to an.v fund?-A. Political fund?
Q. I don't care, any fund?-A. Not for the members.
Q. Well, 'what for ?-A. I think we have been, we may have put a little in for legitimate expenses, but I don't care to answer anything about it.
And that opens-up a prolific field. Had the investigation gone a little further, had the scope been a little broader, a great deal more would have been disclosed than was disclosed in Judge Cassels' report.
There is one other matter to which I desire to direct attention. Not only did the members of parliament nominate the patronage list, but they actually dictated the man on that list who should get the contract. Not only did they dictate the man on the patronage list who should get the contract, but they actually went so far, the department fell so low, that the members of parliament were allowed to dictate the prices of the articles that were sold to the department by the different supply men. On page 1426, Mr. Long-ard gave his evidence with reference to members of parliament dictating prices:
Q. Then the line of business, I suppose, has been the same since 1896. Perhaps this would cover the condition of affairs as applicable to you as well as to some others. I see by a memorandum here contained in an official fie fr?,m the department at Ottawa this note: u	member of parliament, requests
that 30 barrels of linseed at 65 cents raw and b8 cents boiled and 2 tons of sheet lead at 7 cents per pound be purchased from Messrs. William Robertson & Son. The oil and the lead might be purchased and kept in store as the price is low, but it cannot be paid for until the estimates pass this session.' That has the initials W. W. S. That would be Mr. btumbles. This is a memorandum he made tor the deputy minister according to the original file. Aow, does that illustrate the nature of the interviews and transactions between you and the members?-A. I cannot say it does.
Q. But of the same character?-A. I cannot say the same character.
Q. What was it then, please? That is dated 17th December, my lord. Then what was the character of the interviews between you and the members bearing upon this question of ordering and supplying goods?-A. Just to recommend us for a particular job that was going on at the time.
Q. Did either of the members speak to you about prices ?-A. I don't remember.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Q. I see, that is the way it is, you don't remember. Now, according to this memorandum you see, one of the members defined the prices. Has that been done with you sometimes?-A. I cannot say.
Even counsel for the government found to his great surprise that actually members of parliament were defining the prices at which goods should be sold to the department by different supply men. Then I think the result of the investigation shows conclusively, both by direct evidence and by implication, that the Minister of Marine and Fisheries had personal knowledge both by direct evidence and by implication. Now, the report of the commissioner is full of instances where goods were bought without tender, and I think it is a fair assumption to say that where the minister departs from the recognized business methods of conducting his department he must be held responsible for the evil results that follow. I will not take up time by quoting from the evidence that is in my hand, showing where thousands and hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of goods were purchased by his department without asking for tenders. Another thing for which the minister must be held responsible, is paying excessive prices for patented goods. Patented goods costing $150 were sold to the government for $4,500 in defiance to the Patent Act. That is a statement made by His Honour Mr. Justice Cassels, based upon the evidence. Then another piece of evidence that I think directly affects the minister who was the head of the department at that time, was that in respect to the Halli-day contract. The witness, Mr. Van Fel-son, being examined stated that he had written to the head of the department many times, but nothing was done towards liquidating this claim. Now, in the light of subsequent events the minister's failure to reply to those letters was significant. Was the head of the department delaying payment of that Halliday account ? Was lie purposely playing into the hands of the deputy minister, because we find Mr. Van Felson swears in his evidence that before the Halliday account was paid he had to pay $3,000 to Boudreau, an official in the department, and that Boudreau told him that $3,000 had to be divided up with somebody in the department. If that is the case, I say the circumstance is most significant. I do not know whether the present minister was head of the department at that time or not, but if he was at the time that money was paid over, I think the evidence is such as to fix responsibility upon him, and should have compelled him to go into the witness box and disavow any connection with the distribution of that $3,000.


Mr. TALBOT.: Is it not a fact that Judge Cassels,. in his report, distinctly

says that the report of Van Felson against Boudreau was never proved, that he never gave any evidence to the effect that he paid the $3,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I agree with the hon. gentleman that Mr. Boudreau was exonerated in a half-hearted manner in the report. But at the same time, Van Felson was a gentleman of undoubted integrity, and he had no motive whatever to go into the witness box and swear falsely that the $3,000 was paid by him to Boudreau. Mr. Justice Cassels in his report remarks that he could not see any motive for Van Felson, a perfect stranger, going into the witness box and falsifying himself with regard to that $3,000.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: The hon. gentleman must admit that Judge Cassels says positively that Van Felson never proved that he paid that money.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I think when Van Felson, a disinterested party, went into the witness box and swore to a statement of that kind, it was up to the minister to go into the witness box and swear that so far as he was personally concerned, he had no connection with it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think the hon. gentleman is going very far when he said I should be held responsible for that. Those things happened in 1905 when I was not minister of the department. The hon. gentleman has just said that I should be held responsible for purchases made in the department, because no public tenders were called. Public tenders have always been called for since I have been a minister.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I am speaking of the evidence that was adduced before Judge Cassels. I did not say that the present minister was head of the department when this payment was made; I said that if he was head of the department at the time the $3,000 was paid, it was his duty, to relieve himself from suspicion, to disavow any connection with that payment, because Boudreau, an official in the department, told Van Felson that he had to divide that with somebody in the department.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am very sorry that my hon. friend should make an allusion of that kind. I never had anything to do with that matter.


Mr. EDWARDS.: My hon. friend said, whoever was head of the department at that time.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, he said, if the hon. gentleman was then minister, he should be held responsible.
Mr. SAMUEL SHARPE Now, the minister says that goods were not bought without tender. I will refer him to the evidence of Mr. J. J. Murphy, page 1829:
Q. Now, with regard to that, out of the $20,000 which you had sold to the department during those three years, you had tenders, or public tenders had been asked for about $5,009 worth f-A. Yes, sir.
So that out of $20,000 worth there were only $5,000 in respect of which tenders had been asked. At page 1824 it appears that J. W. Woods Company sold to the department $11,492 worth and that of this only $230 was tendered for.
Q. You are right, $11,492. And outside of $230 worth, according to your own statement tor the balance you were never asked for tenders, prices were never fixed, you sent in your account, and got paid?-A. In some cases we did.
I do not see how the minister can say that tenders have been asked for in view of the evidence given before Mr. Justice Cassels.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It was not during my time.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Another question of which the present Minister of Marine must have knowledge is the Johnston matter. Mr. Johnston, according to Mr. Justice Cassels' report, is to blame in connection with two matters. At page 48 of his report Mr. Justice Cassels says:
Captain Johnston, of the steamship ' Lady Laurder,' has to discharge himself from blame in respect to two matters brought to light in the evidence adduced at Halifax.
First, in respect to the receipt by him of the sum of $1,550, apparently paid him on account of so-called salvage service performed by the ' Lady Laurier ' and the officers and crew for the steamship ' Hestia
The second, in respect to a sum of $400 received by him for services performed by the ' Lady Laurier ' and by the officers and crew of a somewhat similar character in aid of the steamship ' Mount Temple ".
I understand that Capt. Johnston was never called on to give evidence, that he was represented by counsel, that he retained in his possession the money so received and yet the minister has nothing to say in connection with his case. Yet hon. gentlemen opposite stated that every man found guilty of irregularity in Mr. Cassels' report has been dismissed from the service. I believe that Capt. Johnson is still in the employ of the government, that he has been reported guilty of two irregularities, the first being the retaining of $1,900 of the people's money. Has that money been obtained from Capt. Johnston?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If my hon. friend is stating that to the House he should give some evidence to support it. I say the finding is absolutely incorect and there is not a line to corroborate it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It is extraordinary to hear the hon. gentleman attacking his own commissioner's report. I am quoting from the findings in Mr. Justice Cas-sels' report on the evidence adduced before him.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: You are doing nothing of the sort.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Hon. gentlemen opposite accept his findings when they suit them but reject them when they do not.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Does my hon. friend think the captain of a government vessel should not be entitled to salvage dues?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Mr. Justice Cassels says it is a most improper charge.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am asking the opinion of my hon. friend.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I agree with the opinion of Mr. Justice Cassels.


George Eulas Foster: Does the minister believe that a government steamer in the service of Canada paid by the money of Canada is doing its proper duty towards Canada when it allows its officer to demand and take and keep salvage?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The rule in England in the Admiralty, where the rules are very severe, is that an officer is entitled to salvage dues.


George Eulas Foster: If an agreement has been made, clear and definite, that he is not to do it, does the minister think the captain should pay no heed to the instructions of the department and keep the money in his pocket?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Those are not the facts at all.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I understand Capt. Johnston has written to the department that he had the money and was going to keep it and has dared the department to do anything. Is that corect?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think there is such a letter.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is a question of some importance whether the captains of government steamers are to be allowed to retain salvage. The rule in the British Admiralty is that the captains are entitled to salvage dues.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: They are settled by the Admiralty Court and in this case there was an express contract between the Crown and the owners of the salvaged vessel. .


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As to the use of the vessel itself.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: 


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, and that implies the services of the crew.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is a different question from the salvage dues to the officers and crew of the vessel.


Robert Laird Borden: No, the salvage is one indivisible thing and it is distributed in each award by the Admiralty Court; a portion goes to the owner, a portion to the captain, a portion to the crew, according to their respective ratings.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is not the rule followed m England.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg pardon, it is.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Admiralty rule is that the captains and crew are entitled to salvage dues and the government claims nothing for the use of the Admiralty vessel itself.


Robert Laird Borden: Precisely. The hon. gentleman is not instructing us as to anything new. In Great Britain they have a rule which prohibits the Crown from making any claim in respect to the services of the vessel and there the Admiralty Court even makes an allowance to the officers and crew. But here there was a distinct contract.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There was no service under that contract.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I am afraid I shall interfere. This discussion is most irregular, the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) has the floor.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It shows the laxity of the department when such an official can write in such a dictatorial way, and say he has the money and purposes keeping it although the officials of the department have stated repeatedly in the correspondence that he has no right to the money. I read from page 1342 of the evidence:
Q. And now then, the whole subject being before Your Lordship as commissioner hero, I find endorsed upon that original memorandum, which I have last read, this further statement: 'You may make'-and the statement is over the initials of the minister of the department, my lord. 'You may make the claim against Pickford and Black, and we do not recognize as part of what is due to the department the amount that was paid to Captain Johnston '-it is either ' without ' or ' against.' I cannot make out which-' the authorization of the department.-L.P.B.'
In the memorandum signed by the Minister, 'L.P.B.,' he states that it is without the authorization of the department that Capt. Johnston had that money.
In reference to the question of salvage and the right of Capt. Johnston to the money 1 quote from page 50 of Judge Cassels' report:

Captain Johnston was represented by counsel. He was not examined.
Another extraordinary case where an official was not examined, although he was represented by counsel:
In my opinion he was not entitled to claim salvage without the approval and consent of the department.
I do not think language could be plainer than that statement that Capt. Johnston, in the opinion of the Hon. Mr. Cassels, was not entitled to salvage. The report continues:
I think the conduct of Captain Johnston in retaining this money is without justification.
Speaking of the ' Mount Temple ' Judge Cassels says:
The sum of $400 was paid to him and retained by him. He had no right to keep this money.
I shall abide by the opinion of Mr. Justice Cassels, and I think the department which appointed him should also rely upon his finding and proceed against Captain Johnston and make him return the money. The failure of the minister to prosecute, although the funds of the department had been misappropriated, shows acquiescence in the criminal acts committed, and makes . him to that extent responsible. I submit that the accumulation of evidence against the minister fixes the responsibility upon him, and in order to refresh the memory of the hon. gentleman, I desire to repeat the facts in connection with the investigation which in my opinion fasten responsibility upon him. First, that goods were bought by the department without tender; patented goods were bought at excessive prices in defiance of the patent Act; men were kept in their positions and some of them like Captain Johnston promoted when they were guilty of irrgularities; that the minister was written to several times in regard to the Halliday account but paid no attention; that that account was delayed for nine months before a settlement was made by the department, and that $3,000 had to be paid to Mr. Boudreau an official of the department before it was paid.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: That is not true.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I am taking the sworn evidence of Van Felson that $3 000 was paid before the account was settled, and that Mr. Boudreau told him that before that account would be settled there had to be $3,000 paid and divided between Boudreau and some one else in the department. The next thing that fixes responsibility upon the minister is the increase in the staff during October, and that the minister knowing that Captain Johnston had kept
$1,900 of the public money improperly, failed to prosecute. The question is: what is the responsibility of the minister and the cabinet. Under the principles of the British constitution there were two courses onen to the first minister, one being to ask for the resignation of the responsible head of the department, to reorganize the department and to let the blame rest where it should rest, namely, on the head of the department. The other course was for the Prime Minister to retain in the cabinet the head of that department and to shoulder the responsbility. I submit that in England the responsible head of a department which had fallen into such disgrace would not have been retained in the cabinet for 24 hours. No government in the old country would be able in defiance of public opinion to retain a responsible minister of the Crown whose department had been so discredited. It has been proven by incontrovertible evidence that the Department of Marine and Fisheries is a mass of jobbery and corruption and crime. This has been proven and reported upon by Mr. Judge Cassels, and notwithstanding, it would appear that the government is determined to defend the Minister of Marine at all hazards. Whether that be a case of choice or necessity I know not, but my own opinion is that it is a matter of necessity because the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, conscious that his department is no worse than others, is not prepared to be made the scapegoat of the administration. He has his back to the wall and he tells the others that they have to stand or fall together, and so he refuses to resign or to relieve the government from responsibility. The Minister of Marine in his defence stated that he should not be held responsible, and he gave as a reason that he was onlv continuing the system that had been inaugurated by his predecessors. All authorities on the question of ministerial responsibility fix the responsibility first on the minister himself and secondly on the cabinet as a whole if the minister remains in the cabinet and is defended. I quote from Mr. Todd's parliamentary government volume 1, page 628. 2nd edition.
As a necessary consequence of the division of the Civil Service into political and nonpolitical officers, and of the acknowledged supremacy of the members of the administration over all the subordinate employees, it is required by our parliamentary system that every branch of the public service should bo represented, either directly or indirectly, in the Houses of parliament. This duty is performed by the political heads who are themselves solely responsible for every Act of administration down to the minutest details of official routine.
In the face of such a high authority how can the Minister of Marine hold up his

officials hands and say they are clean, and that he is not responsible. Todd, page 472, volume 2, speaking of the responsibility of ministers of the Crown to parliament, says:
Notwithstanding the modern rules of parliamentary government whereby responsibility is attached to the whole administration for the acts of the several members of which the same is composed, the ancient rule that the constitution of this country always selects for responsibility the individual minister who does any particular act continues to hold good, and is directly applicable in cases of personal misconduct for which the collective administration decline to be answerable.
Speaking of the collective responsibility of the ministers Todd says. Todd, vol. ii, p. 477, 2nd edition:
The true doctrine on this subject was afterwards enunciated by the Earl of Grey in the following terms:	the essence of responsible
government is, that mutual bond of responsibility one for another, wherein a government, acting by party, go together, frame their measures in concert, and where if one member falls to the ground, the others, almost as a matter of course, fall with him.
But the application of this principle would be often partial and insufficient for the ends of justice were it not for the exception implied in Lord Derby's definition and which admits of a definite and unqualified responsibility being exclusively attached to a minister of the Crown who is proved to have done anything which renders him personally liable to the censure of parliament or to punishment by legal process.
In view of that authority, the responsibility is upon the administration for the acts of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. And what does the government propose to do? I submit that their action in superannuating two head officials, dismissing nine others, and dismissing 12 others with a string to their dismissal, is not sufficient in view of the serious charges made against the department. For the sake of the Civil Service and for the sake of the country do they purpose inaugurating any reform? I do not believe that the poor officials in the Marine Department are alone responsible for the woeful lack of moral stamina in the service. As was eloquently said by the member for Elgin (Mr. Croth-ers) it is not at the bottom but at the top we should look for the lack of moral stamina which prevails in the public service of the country. I believe, Sir, that in view of the evidence brought out by the Cassels investigation this House should extend the investigation to all the other spending departments of the government, and adopt the resolution moved by my hon. friend from St.Anne (Mr. Doherty.).


Mr. L. A. A. RIVET (Hochelaga).: Mr. Speaker, I do not purpose in the course of the few remarks I intend making, to answer-and I say it without wishing to Mr. S. SHARPE.
be offensive-the scrap-book oration of the hon. gentleman from North Ontario (Mr. 'Sharpe), jin my humble judgment, in spite of the numerous quotations with which he has favoured us to-night, he has not succeeded in advancing a single argument to justify this House in passing a condemnation upon the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, or upon the Cabinet of which he is a member, or in voting for the resolution which has been placed before you by the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty). I do not propose either to defend the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries. The hon. minister showed, this afternoon, in the most remarkable manner, that he is quite able to defend himself and the administration of the department of which he is the head. But my object in rising to-night is simply to place myself on record, in order to show my appreciation of the most excellent work which the hon. minister has performed for his country, and especially for the great port of this country, which I have the honour to represent in this House, since he has been entrusted with the responsibility of a minister of the Crown. Before proceeding any further, Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate most heartily the hon. member for St. Anne, on the fairness and moderation which have characterized the address which he has delivered in support of his motion. I may say that I have known that hon. gentleman for many years, and I expected that while he might feel it to be his duty to offer the resolution which he has submitted to-night, he would do it m a manner that would be consistent with the tone of our debates and the dignity of this House. Looking back to the record of this House for the last year, and remembering the discussions which took place last session, when the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries was trying to get his estimates passed, and when the hon. members opposite felt it to be part of their duty to resort to obstructive tactics, I think I am justified in believing that if the hon. member for St. Anne had had a seat in this House at that time, instead of joining in the chorus, he would have entered a vigorous protest against such conduct. However, I regret that I cannot congratulate the hon. member for St. Anne upon either the logic of his motion or the greater part of the address which he has delivered in support of it. The whole of his motion, as well as his argument in support of it, are based upon the assumption that because some wrong-doing was found to exist in some of the departments of the administration the other large departments, which he has not even named, must be subject to suspicion, and that, in order to lift the cloud of suspicion which overhangs them, this House should appoint a

commission, which might be called a fishing commission, in order to ascertain whether these suspicions are well-founded or not. This is the whole argument of the hon. gentleman, and I believe I am fair to him in stating that he has not advanced another argument to justify the position he has taken in this House upon this question.
In all fairness I must say that the hon. member for St. Anne has exonerated the hon. Minister,of Marine and Fisheries from any blame, so far as his personal honour is concerned; and in giving expression to that sentiment he is certainly reflecting the sentiment not only of all of the members on this side of the House, but also of those who had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the minister's policy, his method of administration, and his patriotism. He is also expressing the sentiment of the whole country, which, in the last general election demonstrated their approval, not only of the administration, but most particularly of those members of the administration who have been most signally attacked by the opposition, either in the press or on the hustings.
In regard to the matter under discussion, there are two questions which have to be considered: First, a question of fact; and second, a question of law, constitutional law-a question of ministerial responsibility. As to the question of fact, everybody admits that there was in the Department of Marine and Fisheries a condition of affairs that was certainly regrettable, and that it was the duty of the government to apply the proper remedy. I cannot understand how hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to argue that the condition of affairs as disclosed by the report of Mr. Justice Cassels, was calculated to cast suspicion on the department, when that very commission was appointed as a step towards applying a remedy. I do not understand why our hon. friends opposite are insisting on so many conditions, in view of the fact that the hon. minister has accepted the conclusions of the commission and himself has applied the remedy.
As regards the question of ministerial responsibility, I am at a loss to understand the logical connection between the acts of some officials who were appointed under the late administration and the administration of the minister. The minister certainly had every right to believe that these officials were worthy of their trust, since hon. gentlemen opposite had given them, during their 18 years' administration, their fullest confidence and had never lifted a finger to remove one of them from office. I am at a loss, therefore, to see what logical connection there can be between the acts of these officials and the conduct of the head of the department. But if there were circumstances which justified the appointment of Mr. Justice Cassels as commissioner, those circumstances are entirely lacking to justify the appointment of the commission asked for by the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty). There i3 no doubt responsibility in this matter, but what is the responsibility with which the Minister of Marine and Fisheries may be charged? It is the responsibility of having attempted to do, and having succeeded in doing, what none of his predecessors ever attempted, namely, to reform his own department. In this connection, I quite agree with my hon. friends opposite that there is responsibility to fasten upon the minister, but not responsibility of a nature calculated to reflect injuriously upon him or upon his colleagues. Some of the reforms inaugurated by the minister have been mentioned by some of the preceding speakers. The hon. minister himself, speaking in his own defence, said that during the three years of his tenure of office he had made some improvements, not only in the ordinary management of his own department, but also outside his department, in the line of bettering our system of transportation and in a general way seconding the efforts of nature and extending to the St. Lawrence route the advantages nature intended it to enjoy, and which are destined to make it the navigation route par excellence of the North American continent. But with that modesty which characterizes him, he did not tell the House that, of all the Ministers of Marine and Fisheries, he is surely the one who has done the most to improve our system of transportation by water and to put our River St. Lawrence in a condition which makes it the rival route of New York to-day, and will to-morrow make it the superior of that route in every respect. Speaking particularly as the representative of a division which forms part of the great metropolis of Canada, I consider it my duty to say that in Montreal there is but one voice in admitting that the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries has done remarkably well in putting the River St. Lawrence, and the port of Montreal in particular, upon a first-class footing. My hon. friend the minister quoted some of the resolutions passed by the board of trade and other commercial bodies of Montreal, but he did not say that to-day it is universally admitted in the commercial and financial circles of Montreal that the present government, and particularly the present Minister of Marine and Fisheries, have done more for the people of this country and the port of Montreal than was accomplished in any previous regime.
Speaking in a language with which I am not very familiar, I cannot help but feel that I am wearying the House and shall consequently not make any lengthy remarks. But referring again to what has been accomplished by this government with

regard to navigation, I shall take the liberty of quoting the report of the Hon. Mr. Justice Cassels. On page 9 of that report, Mr. Justice Cassels says:
The improvements of the navigation of the St. Lawrence and the upper lakes has been the subject of consideration by various administrations that have held office since confederation. In 1900 a more vigorous policy was adopted than has been pursued to the present time.
Well, in 1900, by the grace of God, a Liberal government was presiding over the destinies of this country, and because of that fact, a vigorous policy was adopted in order to make the River St. Lawrence and our general system of water transportation the best in America. There is another reform which has been effected by this government, and for the initiation of which we must give credit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. Those who were in this House three years ago will remember that I had the privilege of advocating a reform which, in my opinion, was intimately, connected with the future of Montreal. I said that the time had arrived to introduce into the management of that port a new system which would give impetus to the various works undertaken in it and would place that port upon a footing it had not then reached, owing to the laxity of its former management. And I had the pleasure of seeing that a few days after the hon. minister, understanding the requirements of the situation and feeling that the time had arrived to infuse a new spirit into the management of the port, introduced a Bill whereby the old management was done away with and a new management substituted, more in harmony with the situation and the conditions in the port.
And, Mr. Speaker, I have the evidence of the commercial men, and financiers of Montreal, whether Liberal or Conservative, that no reform was ever made calculated to so greatly advance the progress of the great metropolis of Canada. And perhaps I may be permitted, in passing, to pay a deserved tribute to the new commissioners who have been appointed under the guidance of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries for the noble work they have performed. I am in a position to declare, under the responsibility that attaches to my declaration as a member of this House, that to-day the port of Montreal is in a position to compete with American ports, and especially with the port of New York. I may be charged with taking a narrow view of this question, and advocating only the interest of the city of Montreal; but, as I have said, this is not a local question or one to be treated from a selfish or narrow standpoint of local interest, but from a broadly national standpoint. And, as I have said, the interests of the port of Montreal are undoubtedly bound up with the interests of all Canada. We members must all recognize, Mr. RIVET.
whether we be from Quebec, from Toronto, Halifax, or St. John, that we must equip our national port-if I may be permitted to use the expression-in a first-class manner, if we want to compete in a successful way with the port of New York. Well, Sir, this is no new thing. Everybody has seen in the newspapers that, not long ago, the railway companies of the United States decided to reduce their rates to New York in order to enable the New York route to compete with the St. Lawrence route, because last year the grain traffic, instead of taking the route to Buffalo and New York, took the St. Lawrence route by way of Montreal. But, in spite of this reduction, we are in a position to compete successfully with the port of New York, and I believe that if Montreal has been placed on such a footing, it is due largely, if not wholly, to the wise policy, the noble efforts and the far-sighted administration of this government under the initiative of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
The fact has been referred to in this House that, owing to the improvements made, the rates of insurance have been reduced by a total of about $200,000. Everybody understands that, if the owners of steamers are able to save so much simply on the rates of insurance, they are immediately put in an advantageous position as compared with their rivals of other countries. Everybody knows that to-day great improvements have been made in the channel between Quebec and Montreal. Some people may say: 'You speak always from the standpoint of Montreal.' I do not wish to be charged with a selfish spirit. .If I were not convinced, as I am, that the interests of Montreal are the interests of the whole country, I -would not stand up in this House and advocate discrimination even in favour of my own city.
In view of the attacks which have been heaped upon the methods of administration of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I thought it was my duty, as I think it the duty of every member, whether he comes from the province of Quebec or not, to stand up in this House and-to use the expression of the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Ecrement), to say a little on his behalf'. I believe that everybody who knows the minister will agree with me when I acquit him of any wrong-doing or even bad intention. At the last election, as some of the speakers have said, a compact was entered into between the administration and the electors of this country. They had gone before the people and had told them that, in view of the attacks and criticisms levelled against the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the government had appointed a commission which would investigate and probe to the bottom every charge made against the department, and, should the report of His Lordship Judge Cassels

pass condemnation upon any official in the government that official would be dealt with. The electors listened to that proposal and extended their confidence and support to the present administration. And now, when the first opportunity presents itself to go into the recommendations of the commissions, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries does his duty, and redeems his pledge to the people by dismissing these officials-very much against his feelings. As he said this afternoon he has been in receipt of pathetic appeals from mothers and wives. But in the conscientious discharge of his duties towards the administration and the country, he dismissed all who were found guilty of wrong-doing. We have fulfilled our contract with the people. And what have hon. gentlemen opposite to say? I say that they stand up there one after another, trying to open a case which, to my mind, is closed forever. They are not sincere, because, when the government appointed Mr. Justice Cassels, the opposition as well as the government supporters felt that the appointment was a worthy one, and that the country could trust Mr. Justice Cassels' findings. But now, because those findings do not go as far as their wishes-the wish being father to the thought-they place themselves in the position of a judge and try to render a verdict which the judge has not rendered, in order to satisfy themselves and their sympathizers that the government is not worthy the confidence of the country. Now this is the position, and it is a position which justifies the representatives of the electorate in placing their confidence in the members of the administration, and especially in the hon. the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
It was said by the last speaker (Mr. Samuel Sharpe) that now, surely, the minister ought to resign. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because, during the three years of his administration he has performed his duty, a thing which the head of that department during the Conservative regime had never done. The hon. minister must resign, because he enjoys the fullest confidence of the country, and particularly of his native province. He must resign, because, in the last election, the opposition, though well organized, could not find 25 men to place a candidate in the field against him. The minister must resign, because he has proved to be a worthy leader of his own province. The minister must resign, because to-day there is only one voice to testify to his sterling qualities, to his noble character, to his honest purpose, to his patriotism, to all those qualities which make a man worthy to represent his constituents in the councils of the nation. The minister must resign, because to-day we are just as proud of him as we were yesterday, and just as
willing to follow him and to serve our country under his direction. Sir, in conclusion let me say that I have read carefully the motion which has been placed in your hands, I have listened attentively to the addresses which have been delivered in support of that motion, and sitting as a member of the popular jury, I must come to the conclusion that no argument ha3 been adduced which would justify me in giving a verdict in favour of the motion now before the Chair.


Mr. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie).: One of the last remarks made by the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Rivet), who has just taken his seat, was to the effect that he had carefully read the motion which is before the House. Of all the remarks uttered by that gentleman that was the most surprising to me, because, throughout the entire course of an address lasting I believe over an hour, it was the only remark that bore any possible relation to the words of the motion at all. I regret that, owing to the lateness of the hour, and owing to the fact that to answer the hon. gentleman would require me to disregard utterly the motion itself, it will be impossible for me to give much attention to his address. As to the gentleman who preceded him, the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Ee-rement), who spoke in French, I regret, with my hon. friend from NoTth Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) that I was unable to understand his address. I regret it all the more because, though not able to understand it, I was able to appreciate the music of his voice and accent, and the apparent eloquence of his language.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has exhibited some remarkable qualities during the present session. I must congratulate him on the marvellous facility of intellect and the bewildering dexterity of mind that enable him to come to almost any conclusion that may be congenital to him, or satisfactory to his conscience, utterly irrespective of the facts. On April 30, almost a year ago, when his department, in conjunction with other departments, stood charged before the country with the most serious delinquencies, when he himself, as part of the department, stood charged with a lack of conscience, when his department stood charged with being utterly wanting in a directing head, as far as the commissioners could see, the minister saw fit to come before the House and tell of the hard work he had done in his department, to recount the undertakings he had carried out in the St. Lawrence river, and up in the neighbourhood of Port Arthur. No doubt he conceived that that was an answer to the charge of the Royal Commission. And when the hon. member for St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) saw fit to state that the resolution as it stands does not call in question, and does not make a question in this debate,

of the character and integrity of the minister himself, the minister saw fit at once to come to the conclusion that the member for St. Anne, speaking for this side of the House, had acknowledged the integrity of the character of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries as head of that department. Surely that was a delightful contortion of the mind, that was a beautiful piece of reasoning. The Minister of Marine has also come to another conclusion very satisfactory to his conscience. He comes before this parliament, and before we were in session more than a week, he assured this House that he had received a certificate of character, not only from the hon. member for St. Anne, but front this commission. He assured this House, and it is now on record, that he came out with his skirts clear from the report of Mr. Justice Cassels. Now it is indeed a beautiful piece of reasoning for the minister to come to the conclusion that his skirts are clear by an investigation through a commission which was forbidden above all things to investigate anything about him at all. The hon. member for Richmond also says that it can no longer be said that there is any charge against the minister, or any suspicion that can be levelled against him, because, he says, the minister is cleared by the report of Mr. Justice Cassels. But the hon. member for Richmond made that statement in face of the assurance of the Minister of Agriculture, in face of the assurance of the Attorney General of this country, in face of the assurance of the Minister of Marine himself, and of the Prime Minister himself, that Mr. Justice Cassels was forbidden to investigate any of the conduct of the minister of that department, but was restricted in his investigation to the underlings. Surely, it ill becomes a minister to look for a certificate of character to a commission that was forbidden to investigate anything that might throw any light on his own transactions in the department, or upon his own connection with the delinquencies that existed. We have heard about drowning men clutching at straws, but the anxiety of the Minister of Marine and his followers to obtain a certificate of character for their chief certainly bears a very strong resemblance to that picture. The minister in his defence practically repeats the speech he delivered in this House on April 30, 1908. He goes back and tries to show that the system which is now so much abused by this government was in vogue under Conservative administration. That argument has been very frequently combatted in this House and I do not think it can be combatted too strongly. It does seem to me that the country, and I think most members of this House, are tired of it. Surely the Minister of Marine, surely members on the other side of the House do not pretend to say that a Mr. MEIGHEN.
system that fits one time will fit all times. Surely they do not pretend to say that the successors of the Conservative party for all time to come are to be bound within whatever limits the Conservative party, 20 years ago or 30 years ago saw fit to be bound; surely they would not say that their successors in office for years to come, that their political successors shall have a circle drawn around them and be confined within the narrow limits by virtue of the present administration; surely they will allow some scope for the evolution of political morality and for improvements that will take place. It does not seem to me that it is a sufficient answer to this House and the country that the use of a patronage list in 1886 is a justification for its use years afterwards; surely they ought to make some allowance for the progress of time, surely they must admit that the times have out-grown that system. Supposing they do not admit that, it is not so much the system that is attacked, it is not so much the system that brings disgrace on this government and discredit on its members, as it is the abuse of the system. The abuse of the system seems to have taken root within the last few years. The abuse of this system has not been traced back by Mr. Justice Cassels nor indeed by the previous commission beyond the days of this government. Surely, therefore, they cannot hide behind the fact that the system existed to shield themselves from the consequences of their abuse of that system.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) very rightly suggests that he should not be held responsible for the sins of his predecessors. Personally it would be unjust to hold him responsible. But the Minister of Marine, in common with other members of this government who were members of the government when the minister's predecessor, Mr. Prefontaine, held that portfolio, was responsible for the discrepancies of the Marine Department at that time. I need not take the statements of Conservatives in support of that doctrine of ministerial responsibility, but shall refer to the speeches delivered by prominent Liberals in 1891 when the late Hon. Sir Hector Lan-gevin was charged in this parliament with misconduct in his own department. They will find that one of the strongest constitutional lawyers in this conutry, the late Hon. David Mills, speaking on behalf of the opposition of that day, was very emphatic upon this point. Before quoting his words, let me briefly state the circumstances: The late Hon. Sir Hector Langevin was charged with serious misconduct in connection with the Department of Public Works. Specific charges were made against him. The matter was submitted to a special committee of this House. Two reports were presented to this House, a minority report and a majority report. The majority report specifically

and unequivocally acquitted Sir Hector Langevin from anything in the nature of active participation or any connection with the irregularitites found to exist in the department. The minority report also went so far as to find that they had not evidence to connect Sir Hector with any improper transactions. The two reports coincided in that particular, but the minority report went on-and I draw the attention of the Minister of Marine to this particularly, because they are the words of his colleague in this House, the late Hon. David Mills, and the Hon. Sir Louis Davies of the Supreme Court. At page lxxxii of the Journals of the House of Commons of Canada, A. 1891, appendix No. 1, they say :
Except the desire to please and obey the minister at the head of the department, we cannot discover any motives which would induce these engineers to assist in defrauding the public in order to put money in the pockets of Larkin, Connolly & Co.
Therefore, the ground that these men considered sufficient to connect the head of the department with the frauds perpetrated by those beneath him was that they could conceive of no other motive except that they wished to please and obey the minister at the head of the department. If that ground was good then it is good today, and if it is good now it distinctly implicates the head of the department and puts him on his defence. If the same circumstances exist now as existed then they should lead to the same conclusion.
Speaking in the light of those findings of both the majority and minority reports of those days, Mr. M. C. Cameron, then member for Huron, speaking in the House of Commons of Canada, used the following words at page 5824 of the ' Hansard ':
A member of parliament, a former political friend and supporter of hon. gentlemen opposite, has, for three hours arraigned the policy and the conduct of the hon. gentlemen opposite with respect to their administration of public works, and yet upon the ministerial benches, behind them and on each side of them, there is^ not a man who has courage enough to rise in his seat and defend the position of the government. Hon. gentlemen will remember that this is not an assault solely upon the late member for Quebec West or an assault solely upon the late Minister of Public Works. It is an assault upon every hon. gentlemen who was the colleague of the Minister of Public Works while he was a member of the present administration. They supported and sustained him, and if they know anything about parliamentary, constitutional rule, they must know perfectly well that each one of them is just as responsible as the late Minister of Public Works. I am astounded at the Minister of Justice, and the Minister of War, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and the Minister of Finance, and above all the Secretary of State, should remain silent in their seats. Are they going to plead guilty to the charges levelled against them?
That is to say, Mr. M. C. Cameron, who was at that time put up by the right hon. gentleman who now leads the government to argue the constitutional aspect of this case as it affected the individual responsibility of the other ministers of the Crown, was made to say and did say that they all shared the responsibility for the guilt even of officials of the department on the ground only as stated in the minority report that there was a reasonable inference that these acts were done either in obedience to their wishes or their orders. As the hour is late I beg to move that the debate be adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 12.20 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 2, 1909.