OF THE DEBATES OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OF THE DOMINION OF CANADA SECOND SESSION-THIRTEENTH PARLIAMENT 9-10 GEORGE V, 1919 IN FIVE VOLUMES

Volume I:: Pages 1-1028	Volume II: Pages 1029-2096
" III:	" 2097-3192	" IV: "	3193-3996


Volume V:: 3997-4702



VOLUME CXXXVII


[Stage Direction]
j: de LABROQUERIE TACHi-1

[Stage Direction]
Blouse of Commons Hetmtcs
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 6, 1919.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Solicitor General) presented report of Special Committee appointed to consider and report on laws relating to sedition and seditious propaganda.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 124 (from the Senate) for the relief of Andrew Pepper.-Mr. Campbell.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Rt. Hon. Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have the permission of His Excellency the Governor General to communicate to the House the correspondence respecting the resignation of the Minister of Agriculture:
Ottawa, June 4, 1919. The Right Honourable
Sir Robert Borden, G.C.M.G.,
Prime Minister of Canada.
Ottawa.
My Dear Sir Robert,-The Government, in its consideration of the Budget to be placed before Parliament to-morrow, has reached, I take it, definite and final conclusions as- to the form it will take. As you are aware, I am not in accord with it and therefore cannot support it, either in the House or in the country. Having reached this decision, there is only one course for me to follow, and I therefore tender you herewith my resignation as a member of the Government. The reason for my decision shall be given more fully when the subject is under discussion in the House.
In view of the fact that the military business of the war, through demobilization, is not yet completed, permit me to say that only strong conviction upon this issue, reached after
earnest consideration, impels me to take this course.
I cannot refrain from expressing my appreciation of the heavy worries and responsibilities you have so courageously faced during the war, and particularly in the last year-worries and responsibilities which I venture to say the people of Canada do not yet fully understand ; and also the fine manner in which you have represented Canada overseas in the delicate and difficult negotiations preliminary to the signing of Peace.
Let me also thank you very sincerely indeed for the many courtesies and kindnesses you have shown during the past eighteen months, to one quite inexperienced in Parliamentary work and in the very intricate and difficult problems of Government in this country.
I am,
Yours truly,
(Sgd.) T. A. Crerar.
To which the following reply was given on the same day:
Ottawa, June 4, 1919.
My dear Mr. Crerar,-I have received with deep and unfeigned regret your resignation as a member of the Government; but I entirely appreciate and respect the sincerity of the convictions which have impelled you to take that course.
It will be my immediate duty to acquaint His Excellency the Governor General with your decision and to request his authority for the acceptance of your resignation.
During the period of nearly two years in which you have been one of my colleagues your high sense of public duty, your fine ability and your indefatigable energy have made your service to the country especially valuable. Within that period problems of an exceptionally difficult character have continually presented themselves and I am most grateful to you, and to all my colleagues, for the loyal assistance and earnest effort which on all such occasions have been of invaluable assistance to me in the consideration of such questions.
My association with you as one of my colleagues will j^ways be to me a happy memory; and I know that I may express this to you on behalf of all the members of the Government.
I am very grateful for your kind words in respect to my own part in public affairs since it has been my privilege to have you as one of my colleagues.
With every good wish, believe me, dear Mr. Crerar,
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) R. L. Borden.
Hon. T. A. Crerar, M.P.,
Ottawa.



The resignation has been accepted informally, as appears from the correspondence, and it will be accepted in the usual formal manner by Order in Council tomorrow.



STRIKING POSTAL EMPLOYEES.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. D. D. MeKENZIE (Leader of the Opposition): I received a telegram yesterday from Calgary which I handed to the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Maclean), thinking he might be able to give some reply in regard to it to-day. I did not show it to the Prime Minister, as I thought the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce would be present, but he is not in his seat just now. This telegram, which has reference to post office matters in the city of Calgary, reads as follows:
With the exception ot one, the entire staff of Calgary post office withdrew from duty on May twenty-sixth, and Government states men cannot return. These employees belong to an organization officially recognized by Government and their constitution includes strike weapon, which has never been objected to. Government's action cannot be construed as anything but an attack on labour-
Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. I would ask the hon. gentleman to be good enough to summarize his question, because the telegram he is reading in the nature of things, involves an attack on the Government, and that is not in order on the Orders of the Day.
Mr. MeKENZIE: I have read all the bad there is in the telegram. It goes on:
Unless immediately reconsidered, grave consequences must necessarily ensue.
The telegram is to the effect that the Government knew the men belonged to this organization, with a provision that they could go out on strike. Now the men are shut out because they went on strike.


Robert Laird Borden: I have received communications ot a similar character, and I have made replies to them which I would have been very glad to bring down to the House had I knowu my hon. friend intended to a*k this question to-day.
The situation so far as the postal employees are concerned, whether at Winnipeg or elsewhere, is very simple. In. Winnipeg they went out on a sympathetic strike although they had no grievance of their own and they were given a period of between two and three days within which to return to their duty. They were distinctly and emphatically informed that if they did not [Sir Robert Rorden.j
return to their duty by Monday noon, the 26th of May, they must regard themselves as permanently retired from the public service. I understand that a very considerable number of them were disposed to return, and seventy of them did return. The others were deterred, I understand, by the assertion made to them by interested people that the Government was "bluffing" and would not dare to carry out its proposal in regard to the men who had thus deserted their duty in the public service. A very distinct intimation was sent by telegram to Calgary, to Edmonton, and to every other western city in which strikes had not then taken place, but where there seemed a possibility that the employees in the public service would go out on a sympathetic strike. That telegram has already been communicated to the House, and will be found at page 2957 of the unrevised Hansard of the 27th of May, 1919. *L need not read it again.	*
It was a distinct and emphatic intimation to the postal employees that if they undertook to go out on a sympathetic strike, disregard their public duty, accept the direction of another authority than the Government, dislocate the public service of this country, and occasion widespread public inconvenience, they must regard themselves as permanently retired from the public service of this country.
I have had a great many communications on the subject since, and I have sent replies. I do not think it is worth while reading them to the House, but I am perfectly prepared to do so at any time if my hon. friend so desires. I can only say that the Government, having taken this position, and taken it, I think, with good cause, would render no good service to the public interest by withdrawing from it. There was the most plain and positive intimation to all these employees as to the result of the course which they proposed to take, and having given that warning I do not think they are at liberty to blame the Government of this country. They have no one to blame but themselves and those who induced them to engage in this sympathetic strike. I greatly regret that they find themselves in their present position.



CONFERENCE BETWEEN EMPLOYERS AND EMPLOYED SUGGESTED.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: I desire to communicate the contents of a tele-

gram I received yesterday, and to ask a question with regard thereto. The telegram is as follows:
Prince Albert, Saek., June 4, 1919.
E. Lapointe,
Ottawa, Orit.
Mass meeting of strikers field here this morning endorse your actions and are heartily in sympathy with proposal to hold conference of all concerned. Immediate action necessary to prevent further trouble.
(Sgd) Davis.
As this telegram indicates that labour representatives will be agreeable to the summoning of a large industrial conference of employers and employees, as has been suggested in this House, would the Prime Minister state whether the Government is considering calling such a conference?


Robert Laird Borden: I can answer my hon. friend at once. I delayed giving any definite statement on the subject until I had had opportunity of conferring with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Robertson.). Immediately on his return from Winnipeg I took the matter up with him and he informed me, as I have already stated in the House, that during the past winter and spring he has had many conferences both with employers and employed, and it was because of the suggestion received by him from the employers on the one hand, and from the employed on the other, that he suggested the appointment by Government of the Industrial Commission which is now engaged in investigating these questions in different parts of Canada. Suggestions both as to the scope of the commission and as to its personnel were presented to him by the employers and by the employed. He took all those suggestions into consideration, and I think he gave to both employers and employed the representation which they themselves had proposed. That commission will report, I hope, in a few days. It is understood that immediately on their return on the 15th of June they will make a brief report, to be followed at an early date by a fuller report. The Minister of Labour has the view, which I share, that pending the reception of that report and the information which it will afford, it would be unwise to call the general conference proposed.
There is much, however, which commends itself to my judgment in the suggestion for a general conference, and I can assure my hon. friend that immediately the work of that commission has been completed, and the results of their labours cornmunicated to the Government, most attentive consideration, and I am inclined to think favourable consideration will be given to the suggestion contained in the telegram my hon. friend has just read.



PURCHASING OF DEPARTMENTAL AND OTHER SUPPLIES.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. N. W. ROWELL (President of the Privy Council) moved the second reading of Bill No. 46, respecting the purchasing of departmental and other supplies and materials for His Majesty.
Mr. JACQUES BUREAU (Three Rivers and St. Maurice):: This is a very important Bill and a good many hon. members have expressed a desire to speak on it. With so many members away on a Friday, I think it is a bad day to take up the Bill. Many hon. members are engaged in law business, and this is the last month before vacation.
If it were possible for the minister to put it off until Monday or Tuesday it would meet the wishes of members on this side of the House.


Mr. ROWELL:: This Order has been1
on the Paper for some time. My suggestion would be that we go on with the second reading and I will leave the Bill in the committee, leaving the clause that relates to the salaries of the commissioners open; in fact, I must do that because the resolution covering salaries must be passed before that can be dealt with. Under these circumstances, any discussion that members may wish to have upon it may be had on that section. We can go on with the Bill this afternoon and get through with the rest of it.


Jacques Bureau: Is it understood that the-principle of the Bill can be discussed on that particular section? I have been informed by a good many members that they desired to speak on the question.


Robert Laird Borden: It is rather inconvenient to discuss the principle of a Bill in Committee. Are there many gen-tiemen away this afternoon?


Mr BUREAU:: A good many of them.


Robert Laird Borden: Why are they not here?


Jacques Bureau: I will tell my right hon. fiiend why. We are in a rather difficult position. We have to attend a little bit to our business. We have not obstructed the business of the House very much so far. It is known that Friday is an off day. We are practically all from the province

of Quebec on this side and we have some little work to do in the courts before the long vacation sets in.


Robert Laird Borden: We will go on, and later we will endeavour to give an opportunity to hon. gentlemen to discuss the matter.


Jacques Bureau: If that is understood it is all right.


Robert Laird Borden: Indeed, if there is any clause that is passed and there is a desire to reconsider it I do not think there would be any objection to going back to it even if it were formally passed.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Perhaps the minister would explain the Bill a little more?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The object of this
Bill is to continue the work which has been carried on during the greater part of the war period by the War Purchasing Commission. The intention of the Government is to make sure that in future the purchase of all supplies required by the various departments of the Government shall be made through a purchasing commission of business men with tenders called for from the business men of the country and wholly apart from personal or political influences. The members will recall that in May, 1915, an Order in Council was passed creating what was known as the War Purchasing Commission. The Order in Council provides that:
All purchases of clothing, equipment, arms, juns, ammunition, horses, munitions and materials of war and supplies of every kind, and all contracts for such purposes, and all contracts for transportation, payable out of the funds appropriated by the War Appropriation Act, 1915, or out of the funds appropriated by any other Act for the purpose enumerated in the War Appropriation Act, 1915, shall be made by the commission or made under its direction and control, and the commission is hereby empowered on behalf of the Government to make such purchases and to enter into or direct and control the making of such contracts.
Under that Order in Council Sir Edward Kemp, Mr., afterwards Sir, Hormisdas La-porte, and Mr. George Frederick Galt, of Winnipeg, were appointed members of this commission. The commission carried on its work of purchasing all war supplies and all supplies purchased out of the War Appropriation Fund, until the autumn of 1917, without any change in personnel. Sir Edward Kemp, upon being appointed Overseas Minister of Militia, resigned the chairmanship of the War Purchasing Commission and also resigned his membership in it. Sir Hormisdas Laporte was appointed chairman, and

Mr. W. P. Gundy, of Toronto, succeeded Sit Edward Kemp on the commission. The commission as reconstituted conducted its work under this original Order in Council without substantial change until the spring of 1918. In the month of February, 1918, the powers of the commission were enlarged so as to cover the purchasing in all departments of the Government, with the single exception of that of Government railways. An Order in 'Council was passed on the 6th February, 1918. The recital gives the reasons not only for the Order in 'Council, but also for the present legislation, so that I may be permitted to read one or two clauses from it:
And whereas the Prime Minister is of the opinion that the provisions of the above mentioned Orders in Council and the functions of the War Purchasing Commission might with advantage be extended to all purchases by the several departments of the Government for any purpose, whether connected with the prosecution of the war or otherwise, subject to the provisions hereinafter set forth:
And whereas the Prime Minister observes that the establishment of the War Purchasing Commission has resulted in a very great saving of public moneys, 'as well as in the abolition of patronage in respect of purchases for the war and it is important to extend this system as widely as possible, pending consideration of permanent provision for that purpose after fuller study and consideration of the problems involved.
Under the original Order in Council it was provided that purchases should be made by or under the direction and control of the commission. In carrying on the work the commission have acted under the latter part of this clause, viz.: the purchases have been made under the direction and control of the commission, with the results outlined by the Prime Minister in the recital to the Order in Council of February, 1918.
This commission was appointed for the period of the war and the members served in an honorary capacity. They have all given their services to the country without any compensation whatever, and I am sure the, members of the House will feel that the House owes an expression of appreciation to those public-spirited business men for the faithful and efficient service they have given to the country in this important branch of the public service. It is a matter of great regret to the Government, as I am sure it will be to the House, that one oi the members of the commission, Mr. Gundy, of Toronto, died very unexpectedly some ten days ago, while in the service of the country, and the commission has lost the benefit of his valuable services. He was deeply interested in the work of the com-

mission, and gave unstintedly of his splendid business ability in its service. So great was his devotion to his country and to his country's cause in the war, that 1 am sure if he had had the opportunity to choose the circumstances under which he would pass away, he would have chosen to die in the service of the country he loved and while working in the cause which lay so near to his heart.
The Bill provides for the creation of a Central Purchasing Commission under which in future the purchase of all supplies for the Government will be made. As I have pointed out, under the existing Orders in Council purchases were 'made under the direction and control of the commission and each department continued its existing purchasing staff. The commission did not consider it desirable to disturb the existing staffs, as the War Purchasing Commission was of a temporary character, and when it was formed they thought that probably when the war was over pre-war conditions would again prevail. But now that it has been decided to make the War Purchasing Commission a permanent organization, there is no longer any reason for maintaining the existing staffs of all the departments, and the object of the Bill is to centralize the purchasing for all the branches of the Government in one purchasing commission. The members of the House know that all great business concerns of the present day have long since centralized their purchasing in order to obtain the very best results for 'the moneys expended. Some of the benefits that will result from centralized purchasing in such a business body as this will be, first, that instead of purchasing a certain quantity of supplies for one department, this Purchasing Commission will ascertain from all the departments the total quantities of supplies of any given article which they require and will thus be able in one purchase to secure all the articles of any given class which all the branches of the Government may require. In purchasing under these conditions the commission should, and no doubt will, obtain in many cases all the desired supplies at a lower price than would be possible in the purchase of smaller quantities by different departments. There will be an advantage in having a body oi men devoting their whole attention to the business of purchasing Government supplies. Purchasing to-day has become almost a science in the large business concerns of the country. Men of the highest ability are appointed to this responsible task in order that the institutions with
which they are connected may obtain the benefit of their skill and ability. In making purchases in this way the Government will have the benefit of a thoroughly efficient organization. I am sure that members of the House will be interested to know what the total purchases of the Government amount to from year to year. During the past two or three years purchases have, of course, been enormous. Purchasing under normal conditions would not be on as large a scale as during the war years. But it must also be borne in mind that during the war years the purchase of supplies for many departments has been on a very limited scale. Some departments have been keeping the purchase of supplies down to the lowest limit and when normal conditions return the volume of supplies required by these branches of the Government will be substantially larger than the volume required during the period of the war. The estimate of the commission is that the annual purchases for the Government will be not less than $40,000,000. They have been much more than that during the war period.


Mr. PARDEE:: Why is the Railway Department excepted?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is not. Only the Canadian National railways are excepted. As a railway organization, including the Canadian Northern, they have their own purchasing branch, but the Railway Department comes under this Bill, as do all other departments.


Hon. Mr. FIELDING:: Can the minister give us any reason why the Railway Department is excepted? The Railway Department is a department of the public service of Canada. The people pay its bills and why should a distinction be 'made between it and any other?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member must have misunderstood me. The Railway Department does come under this Bill, but the Canadian National Railways do not.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, are not the
Canadian NationaK railways a part of the public service of Canada? Wherein do they differ from any other branch of the public service?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They do not differ
from any other branch of the public service so far as relates to the desirability of purchasing supplies at the best possible price and on a purely business basis. But the opinion of the War Purchasing Commission, who were requested by the Gov-

ernment to look into and report upon this matter, was that the national railways constituted such a distinct and important branch of the public service and had such an efficient purchasing organization in operation that no public interest would be served by taking it over. The Order in Council of February, 1918, authorized the War Purchasing Commission to make an investigation and report on the matter, and that was the report they made.
I was referring to the purchase of supplies. Last year there was purchased uu-der the direction of the War Purchasing Commission, apart from certain supplies which I shall mention presently, $48,718,537 worth of supplies. In addition, contracts were made for the supply of provisions and other commodities for the military camps and other public services, the contracts being made on a certain basis as to price for the supplies required for two, three or four months as the case might be. The commission has no record of the amounts supplied to the various branches of the public service under these contracts, but the total would be several million dollars. The commission during the past year has handled on the average about 100 distinct transactions a day, or a total of about 30,000 for the year. This gives some idea of the volume of business which has come before the commission and which has beer presonally supervised by the members of the commission.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Does this cut out local buying?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it does not 'cut
out local buying but simply provides that purchases shall be made by this commission. The question of where purchases should be made is a matter with which the commission deals. Provision is made in the Bill, as is necessary, that certain supplies may be purchased by the departments in small quantities or in case of emergency, which might arise in any section of the country. Just as in every well organized business where there is a central purchasing department, there must be a certain amount of latitude given to officials on the ground in the making of small or (emergency purchases, so provision is made ffor such purchases in this Bill. The Bill provides for the appointment of three commissioners to hold office for a period of ten years, and they shall cease to hold office on reaching the age of 70 years. A3 I have already intimated, the salaries are left blank, and that clause must stand
iMr. Rowell.]
until the resolution is submitted to the committee authorizing this expenditure. The main clause of the Bill defining the powers of the commission is section 6, which reads:
(1) The commission shall have the exclusive power and right to purchase, contract for, inspect and accept supplies for the public service. Provided, however, that the commission, when it deems it advisable, may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by regulation or by the commission, authorize any portion of the public service to purchase, contract for, inspect or accept supplies.
Members will see that the commission can make no purchase except upon requisition of the various departments. Under section 12 the departments must present requisitions showing the kind and quantity of supplies they require. The commission have no authority to change any such requisition, but if they feel that the requisition is not one which they should comply with or that for any other reason the attention of the Government should be drawn to it, they may communicate to the Prime Minister their observations on that requisition for such action as the Government may see fit to take in the premises.
Section 13, it will be seen, provides that estimates of the supplies required shall he made on or before such dates as may be prescribed by regulation and sent to the, commission. This will enable the commission to purchase at one time for several departments and in large quantities.
Section 16 requires that the purchases shall be by tender.
Section 17 provides that the commission shall keep full records and make such reports to the Prime Minister as he shall from time to time require.
In brief outline I have set forth the main provisions of the Bill, and I can only close as I opened: The object of the Bill is to secure the benefit of the purchase on a business basis, through one central organization, of all supplies required by the Government for public purposes, wholly free from party patronage or political influence, so that the Government will receive for every dollar expended a dollar's worth in return. Every citizen of Canada is interested in securing this result, and this Bill marks a great step in advance over the pre-war and early-war conditions.


Sir SAM HUGHES:: Will the minister kindly explain how he proposes to have the commission free from influence?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Free from political influence?


Samuel Hughes: The minister mentioned about a dozen elements of influence.

No commission in the history of Canada has been so subject to influence as the War Purchasing Commission.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no knowledge
of the work of the commission prior to the last year and a half; but during this latter period, so far as I have been able to discover, the commission has discharged its duties fairly and impartially, with a high degree of efficiency, and in a manner that has given satisfaction to the business people of this country, and I believe the same may be said of the commission during the whole period of its existence.


Samuel Hughes: But not without personal influence.


Newton Wesley Rowell: And I believe without
any personal influence.


Samuel Hughes: No, not at all.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have never heard of
any personal influence that operated upon the members of the commission.


Mr. J. H. SINCLAIR:: Was this commission responsible for the purchase of the materials used during the war in the construction of ships?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Up to February 5, 1918,
the commission was responsible for recommending the acceptance of tenders for all supplies purchased under the war vote since that date for the purchase of supplies for all departments.


John Howard Sinclair: It appeared from a certain investigation before the Public Accounts Committee that extortionate prices were paid for material, and if the commission was responsible for those purchases, I do not think there is any good reason why it should be continued.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no knowledge of the particular transaction my hon. friend refers to. But I do know the commission has been at great pains to ascertain that the tenders accepted represented good value for the prices paid. Of course, it cannot make tenders come in; all it can do is to require that tenders shall be presented, and it proceeds on the basis of accepting the lowest tender. There may have been some cases where the commission called for further tenders or endeavoured to get lower prices by reason of the first tender being excessive. I am sure that any member who looks into the work of the commission will be satisfied that it has rendered a very conspicuous piece of public service ever since it was inaugurated.


Mr. W. F. COCKSHUTT (Brantford):: Is it the intention that local buying in all the towns and cities of Canada is to be entirely cut out? For instance, if half a dozen brooms are required in Peterborough, Brantford and Hamilton, are those to be shipped from Ottawa, or are they to be bought on the spot, where no freight charges will be payable and no time lost in getting them? It appears to me the Bill is not very clear in that regard.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Bill does not affect
that question at all. It provides for the purchasing through one central commission.
Mr! COCKSHUTT: By tender?


Newton Wesley Rowell: And the principal of tender will apply. Does my hon. friend object to that principle?


William Foster Cockshutt: For very small quantities.


Samuel Hughes: To whom is this
commission to be responsible?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Just a moment while
I answer one question at a time. -


William Foster Cockshutt: I think tenders for a small number of brooms or anything of that kind is entirely unnecessary.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have already explained that. Under the powers given by this Bill there is authority in the commission to authorize-and the War Purchasing Commission has authorized in the past, and the new commission will undoubtedly authorize in the future-the purchase of small quantities of local supplies by the person in charge, just as any purchasing agent in any organization would do.


John Hampden Burnham: Will the minister compare this system with the old system? Because if that is all there is in it we will be able to understand it better.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The great bulk of the purchasing for the various departments is not covered by the small local purchases to which my hon. friend refers; that is a very small percentage of the total purchases. The main difference will toe that instead of the purchasing being done by all the departments, it will be done by this one central commission. My hon. friend from Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) asked who was responsible. The commission reports direct to the Prime Minister.


Samuel Hughes: They will be directly under the Prime Minister?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They will report direct to the Prime Minister.


Samuel Hughes: They will not be
under the control of any minister of the Crown?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, only so far as they must report to the Prime Minister.


Samuel Hughes: How far would the minister of a department have authority to deal with this commission?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I must remind the House that we are not in Committee. This is a debate on a second reading, on which - it is competent for each hon. member to speak but once in discussing the principle of the Bill. It is not in order to go into details at this stage in the same manner as in Committee.


Mr. A. E. FRIPP (Ottawa):: Has the minister made any investigation of the working of the commission which has been in operation during the last three or four years as compared with the purchasing by the departments separately through their purchasing agents?


Samuel Hughes: Hear, hear.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Order. If the hon. gentleman wishes to ask a question he may do so; but if he purposes to make a speech, that is quite another matter.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I purpose to make a speech, Mr. Speaker.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is understood that the minister has spoken.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I will withdraw that statement, Mr. Speaker. I do not purpose to make a speech, but I purpose to offer one or two observations. I am informed not only by merchants who have had dealings with the War Purchasing Commission, but also by purchasing agents of uie different departments, that the operation of this War Purchasing Commission has not been a success.
For example, I am informed that they ask for tenders for certain commodities, returnable on a certain day, but that they do not order the goods until three or four months afterwards. That is to say, no time is stated within which the goods must be delivered if the tender is accepted. The result is that it is impossible for intending tenderers to give the better price, because they do not know the date of delivery, and for that reason the War Purchasing Commission has been paying much larger prices for goods than would be paid if the

purchasing was done upon a more businesslike basis. In fact, I am told that the business of the War Purchasing Commission has been managed by one or two clerks, and that business men who have dealings with them find the commission very unsatisfactory as to prices, date of delivery, and general quantities required. On the other hand, I am informed by purchasing agents of the departments-perhaps more or less in confidence-that they were able to purchase more advantageously for the Government when they purchased solely for their own departments; that they got better delivery and better prices, and that the goods were superior. I am also informed that local purchasing is practically cut out; that the War Purchasing Commission have been buying largely in the United States and that they refuse to recognize local agents for the supplying of goods manufactured in the United States. The result is that a large number of mercantile agents have been unable to do business with this commission. I bring these matters to the attention of the House because 3D think that before we embark upon a scheme which means a large expenditure of public money in the payment of large salaries to members of this commission and its staff, we should investigate the matter more carefully and see whether the system is any improvement over the one that was in vogue prior to the creation of the War Purchasing Commission.


Mr. JOHN HAROLD (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, before the Bill goes into Committee I should like to make a few observations dealing with the principles of this measure. You will agree that this is one of the most important subjects from the business standpoint that has been brought before the House this session. I think we should concern ourselves more about the soundness of the principles which underlie this Bill than about the question whether some of the details in connection with the manner in which we have been purchasing recently are an improvement on the methods of the pa*t.
We are departing, by this Bill, from the procedure that has been adopted by the War Purchasing Commission, in that a new organization is being set up. We are combining in one department the experts and others who have been looking after the purchasing in the different departments, in order that these specialists may devote their attention and abilities to work which will benefit all departments. Let me illustrate.

During the fiscal year ended March 31,'1919, provisions were purchased in fifteen departments, dry goods in sixteen, hardware in eighteen, mechanical goods in eighteen, drugs, chemicals and scientific articles in sixteen. This Bill proposes that men shall be engaged as specialists in these different branches of purchasing. One man, for instance, will be an expert on groceries and provisions. It will be his duty to
4 p.m. study the markets, to know the goods, to find out when it will be most favourable for those who are able to tender to supply the goods to the Government. He will select articles as standards that are most generally used, in order to permit a larger number to submit tenders fbr the supplying of those goods.
Another thing we should consider is that the goods themselves must be carefully inspected; tests and analyses of certain articles will be necessary. This commission can better employ these experts and get much better general results in that respect. I know of an instance where a manufacturer was asked to tender for a certain article. He tendered at a wholesale price to the War Purchasing Department, but they purchased the goods from a jobber at a higher price. Now, the Purchasing Department were led to believe that the goods they were purchasing represented better value than those which the manufacturer in question offered to supply; but it turned out that the goods were the same as those bid on by the manufacturer. I do not blame the War Purchasing Commission for that, but under the new system that difficulty would be overcome.


Samuel Hughes: How would it be overcome?


John Harold: If a man deceived the department, it would be known to all departments, whereas if he was dealing separately with different departments it might be known only to one. Under this system the standard of the goods will be set down, samples will have to be submitted, and if the commission does its duty-and I believe it will; if it does not, it is for the House to see that it does-they will see that if goods bid on are claimed to be superior, those goods must be proved to be superior. I think, therefore., that the arguments advanced with regard to certain defects in the purchasing system will really tend to strengthen this Bill in the estimation of the House.
The people are looking to the Government to set an example of efficiency and justice
in the conduct of the business of the country. We are undertaking responsibilities in a business way which we never thought would be necessary. We have undertaken the operation of great railroad systems, and if this Government does not adopt a sound, honest, and efficient policy with regard to such business as the purchasing for the different departments, the country will not have confidence in its ability even to direct, through its officials, the National Railway System
I have had some experience in connection with the organization of just such a department as this. A large business which was organized some twenty years ago and which controls a number of amalgamated factories, saw the advisability of uniting the purchasing branches of the various departments in a central head office. Accordingly, they adopted that system, continued it ever since, and have found it most successful. The point brought out by the President of the Council (Hon. Mr. Rowell) with regard to the desirability of buying in quantities was one of the advantages which commended itself to the firm.
Moreover, the requirements of the different departments are varied, and considerable loss will result to the country unless there is some method of transferring goods from one department to another in the case of there being a surplus stock on hand. It is the duty of this commission to know the stocks of goods in the various departments, and to see that goods are transferred from one department to another if it is to the advantage of the country that that should be done.
This is an opportune time for this ques-* tion to come before the House. Yesterday the Budget was presented by our able Finance Minister (Sir Thomas White) in a masterly way. He advised us to produce and to save; and in adopting, the day following the Budget, a system of purchasing which, in my opinion, will save this country millions of dollars, is establishing a very good object lesson.
I had the privilege a short time ago of calling at the offices of the War Purchasing Commission where I had an interview with Mr. W. P. Gundy and I wish to endorse the words uttered by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Kowell) with regard to the services of the late Mr. Gundy to Canada and also with regard to the services of the other gentlemen who gave their time untiringly to the work of this commission.

I was tela that when the commission first asked for prices on typewriters, they received from all the companies the same price based upon the price for a quantity of ten. The commission protested against this and said that as the Government was a very large purchaser it v/as entitled to a further discount, and the commission were given a further discount of ten per cent which represents a very substantial saving. I was also informed that in their purchases of Kraft paper which are very large, they were able to buy it at ten per cent less than any one else.
With regard to boots, since the establishment of the War Purchasing Commission in May, 1915, over two and a quarter million pairs of boots have been purchased. When tenders were called in 1918, the boot manufacturers blamed the tanners of leather because prices had advanced so much, and they in turn, blamed trade conditions. By co-operation with the War Trade Board, a fair price for leather was arranged with the tanners; a fair price for boots was then arranged with the makers, and I give the House these figures as an instance of the work of the War Purchasing Commission in this large item which is much more important than some of the smaller ones to which they could not give the same attention. The United States' boots cost $6.45 per pair as against our price of $5.40 for Canadian pattern, and a3 regards British War Office pattern, the United States' price ranged from $7.15 to $9.05 per pair according to size as against our price of $6 for all sizes. That demonstrates that the War Purchasing Commission have done a most useful service to Canada during the past few years.
Purchases amounting to $200,000,000 were made or supervised by this commission, and the work they did must have taxed their time both night and day. From May 4, 1915, to May 31,1918, the commission held 672 sessions, and they passed upon items which were entered on minutes, the minutes of those meetings numbering 22,610. From April 1, 1918, to the third week cf February, 1919, they held 277 sessions, and they passed 15,000 minutes. The increase during the past year was due to the fact that there was placed upon the commission the additional labour of supervising purchases of all other departments of Government.
They were entrusted with making adjust-' ments on $8,000,000 worth of salmon that the Government took over, and they were successful in arranging a satisfactory price

between the canners and the British Food Minister. They were also entrusted with adjusting the cancellations of $8,000,000 worth of orders after the armistice, and they were successful in adjusting these cancellations on a compensation of less than ten per cent. They also had in hand the sale of surplus stores of the Department of Militia and Defence and the Department of the Naval Service. These articles which were left over after the armistice were disposed of by the commission, I believe, in a fair and a reasonable way. The commission also had charge of arranging the rates for the transportation of troops by rail. The first-class rate was arranged at one and one-half cents per mile where there were over 350 troops in the same train or being transported at the same time, and when there were less than 350, the rate was two cents per mile. The commission also arranged for the transportation of officers and men from overseas; the rate for officers averaging $61, and for men $.35.
If any hon. member has any doubt as to the desire of the commission to carry out, in a businesslike, just and fair way, the policy of calling for tenders, he should visit the offices of the War Purchasing Commission and make personal investigations. I had an opportunity of looking over their files in which their tenders were recorded, the books and files showing clearly what each company bid, which tender was accepted and the reason for such acceptance. I have here, without any names, some facts that will demonstrate how this policy was carried out.
For example, this is a purchase of 200 sanitary flat-top desks of a certain adopted pattern. Twenty-four firms were asked to tender; eighteen replied, of whom fourteen quoted, the tenders ranging from $9,900 to $6,300, and the lowest tender was accepted.
This is a purchase of medical supplies. Sixteen firms quoted, the total of the highest tenders was $1,969.50, and the accepted tenders totalled $1,281.
This is a purchase of surgical supplies. Fourteen firms quoted, the total of the highest tender being $2,098.30, and the accepted tenders totalled $765.80.
Of another purchase of medical supplies seventeen tenders were received, the highest bids totalling $4,069.68, and the accepted tenders totalled $2,916.88.
On a purchase of drugs, seventeen tenders were received, the highest bids totalling $7,598.85, and the accepted tenders totalled $5,014.21.

On another purchase of medical supplies, the highest tenders totalled $940.80, and the accepted tenders totalled $611.94.
On a further purchase of medical supplies, the highest tenders totalled $4,046.54, and the accepted tenders totalled $2,701.44.
Those figures should demonstrate to the House the necessity for having this business handled by men who are experts in the different lines, and also of having this business open to the free tender of any *Canadian citizen who thinks he is in a position to bid for the business. I do not see how it is going to be possible for the country to get a proper system of purchasing except by adopting the policy laid down in this Bill. Probably some modifications will have to be- made to the Bill, but I believe the general principles of it are absolutely sound and will commend themselves to the good judgment of the members of the House as well as to the general public. It will give the people of Canada a square deal, and they are certainly entitled to a square deal from the public servants in charge of the country's business.
This is the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing you, Sir, and Ufeel it a great privilege to be able to say a few words of congratulation on the Government's action in this respect. I believe this measure will help to demonstrate to the people of Canada that this Government desires to do the right thing in its administration.


John Hampden Burnham: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to a little incident which will serve as an illustration of something that has happened very frequently, and may happen much more frequently, very much to the detriment of the member for a constituency. Under the old system it used to be known that tenders for coal were required. Now this Bill does not apply to the wthole system of tendering. Consequently, there is just as much room for inefficiency and for doing evil that there was before. There is no way under Heaven by which business can be properly done if you cannot rely on the honesty of the people doing it. Let me give an instance. Instructions were sent to a janitor to find out how much coal was required, and what the price, would be. He did so, but instead of asking several people what their tenders would be, he asked only one man, and he sent that man's tender to Ottawa. It was accepted, and then the people rose up on their hind * legs and said " What sort of a member of Parliament are you to allow such work
as this to go on?" I said " I, did not do it." " Oh, yes, they said, that won't go here. You are the member for this constituency and must watch the Government in everything. You must look into this matter." So having ascertained the facts, I communicated with the Minister of Public Works, and in due time he communicated with the officer he had employed at Peterborough, one of his own officers, and found I had stated the matter correctly. I said to the Minister of Public Works " What are you going to do about it? This man is perfectly honest. I do not think he intended to do anything wrong, but the efficiency of your system is now on trial. What are you going to do?" He replied " I will have to fine him five dollars." So the Minister of Public Works fined his own agent in Peterborough for inefficiency in a transaction under this brand-new system which the member had nothing to do with, but which he will' have to watch very carefully.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK (Red Deer):: If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to offer my congratulations to my hon. friend for Brant (Mr. Harold) upon the easy fluency which characterized what he informed us was his maiden speech 'to this House. I do that more sincerely because I regret to add that his speech did not succeed in removing some distrust which 1 have of this legislation. Indeed, some of the facts to which he referred rather increased than allayed that distrust. He made some references and gave us copious figures regarding certain purchases which we made in war time that would have been a good justification of this legislation in war time, but I understand that the object of the Bill is to perpetuate in times of peace the machinery which was found necessary during the war.
In my opinion, one of the most fundamental principles which the Government need to observe, if they are going to be a successful Government now, is to make as rapid a transition in their thought from war time to peace time as is consistent with the situation. There are a good many things we had to do in war time which I think we shall be glad to discontinue, and be compelled to discontinue, in times of peace.
My hon. friend for Brant referred to the great success this commission had had in purchasing salmon, but I do not apprehend that the Government of Canada are going to be perpetually in the fish-dealing 'business. They had to purchase the salmon,

I presume, to feed the men at the front, and the same remarks apply to a great many of the other figures which my hon. friend gave. That was all right for a Government in war time, but I have, I repeat, very grave distrust of continuing that system in time of peace. The creation of this commission seems to be the shifting of governmental responsibility. We have been a country in Canada for some time now, and the various departments of the Government have had their experts making purchases for their departments., Their duties would be to study the needs of their own particular department, and if they were connected with the department and studied its needs it would appear to me on the surface, at any rate, that they would be better qualified for purchasing ifor that department than a commission would which had surveillance of all the departments of the Government. Furthermore, I think the creation of this commission will be associated with an increase in expense. I do not know what the minister's view would be on that point, but if he would assure me that it would lessen the expense he would remove one of my objections, and no doubt score a point in favour of this legislation.


Newton Wesley Rowell: If you consolidate the purchasing that is now carried on by ten or fifteen different departments into one, I believe it will very greatly reduce the expense.


Samuel Hughes: The effect has been nearly to double it.


Mr MICHAEL CLARK:: It could only decrease the expense if it reduced the number of public servants in the various departments, and I venture to say that short as the minister's ministerial experience has been, it has brought home to him the very great difficulty of reducing the public service. His belief-because it is only a matter of faith with him; he has told me he believes it would reduce the expense- partakes of the nature of a prophecy, and as I have said before, the only thing you can do with a prophet is to disbelieve him, especially when he prophesies something that is contrary to one's own experience. I have very grave doubts that it would not increase the expense. It certainly increases the machinery of government, and if my hon. friend can increase the machinery of government and reduce the expense he will certainly be something of a miracle worker, because our universal experience is that with an increase in the machinery there inevitably follows an increase in the

expense of government. These are the reasons why -1 do not accept the belief of my hon. friend on the subject. I have very grave doubts about this being a departure for the better, and I shall be glad if	those doubts	can be removed.
It is no pleasure for me to oppose any legislation introduced by the ministry, and I would be very glad if the doubts that I entertain could be removed. But they exist jn my mind and I would not be doing my duty if I did not express them.


Samuel Hughes: I had considerable experience in war purchasing both under a responsible minister and under an irresponsible War Purchasing Commission. The great objection to this commission business is that there is no one responsible. The commissioners are responsible to no minister directly. The War Purchasing Commission has been run by two or three clerks, engineered by the commission and fortunes have been built up for the favourites of the commissioners, contracts have gone almost invariably in the right direction, and I have no hesitation in saying that if the facts were made known as to the way in which the War Purchasing Commission conducted its business they would startle the people of Canada. They would be astonished at the tremendously high prices that have been paid. This whole system of Government has been running away from responsibility. I went into the war to overthrow autocracy and bring about responsible government in so far as we possibly could in Germany, in other countries and above all in Canada. This is a departure from responsible government, and it places in the hands of a commission the spending of $40,000,000 a year. If you will give me the management of that business, under the terms of this Bill, I will undertake to put any party in power at the next general election. If you have a purchasing agent for the department, the minister is responsible, he feels his responsibility, and he takes pains to see that the work is done in an efficient manner. I had to do with that business and I do not think there are anything like the irregularities going on that the general public claim there are in reference to these matters. I found that contractors were anxious to do the best they could, although there was an odd one here and there that had to be watched. I found the officers in almost all the departments toe keenest men alive. I have seen instances where contractors who had succeeded in bluffing the War Purchasing Commission tried to put the same bluff over

the purchasing agent of the department and failed, with the result that the department was able to purchase cheaper than the War Purchasing 'Commission did. When an analysis was made it was found that the prices paid by the War Purchasing Commission were for almost all commodities, higher, I know instances where local men were asked to give a quotation and their quotations were fifty per cent under the price that the War Purchasing Commission was furnishing to the department. I know of the manipulations that went on by the War Purchasing Commission to see that contracts were landed in the right centre. There will be under this system no direct responsibility and we must have responsibility when we are dealing with the administration of such- large sums as this. I agree with the objection which has been pointed' out by my hon. frien/d from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) on the question of responsibility. The minister of the department for which the purchases are made is not responsible and no one will care except the young purchasing agents who will make their millions out of it if they are permitted to go on long enough. One of the presidents of a large American railway corporation said: I would rather be president of the Inter-State Commerce Commission than president of the United States at $750,000 a year. The gentleman who will get the management of this commission will consider himself one of the most successful operators in the Dominion of Canada. The whole thing is an attempt to get this Government away from its responsibility to the House, to the members and to the people and that is one of the things that I want to fight against. Let the members be responsible to the people who elect them and let the people hold the members responsible. I am not afraid of that responsibility in my county, I never have been afraid and I never had a bit of trouble with any one in connection with this matter. Let the members, for once in the history of Canada, hold the ministers responsible.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (Oxford North):: I am sorry I was not in the House when the minister who has charge of the Bill (Mr. Rowell) gave his explanation of the measure. I have been reading the Bill and I cannot understand the necessity for three commissioners to purchase the supplies for the departments of this Government. I will guarantee to supply them with a man who, if he is furnished with a good, clever stenographer and one or two inspectors, will purchase all the supplies that the Government will require in a year and who, even then will not be any busier than the purchaser for any large institution in this country. Referring to clause 5, I find that the Governor in Council may appoint an officer to be called the director of the Purchasing Commission for Canada. What is he going to do? Is he going to direct the commission how to purchase? As I understand it, the deputy minister, or some other head of a department, may put in a request for supplies and the commission will purchase them. I suppose this director will direct them how to purchase the supplies.


Samuel Hughes: And where.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: And where. I do not know what else it can mean. I believe that under the present system there is a waste in purchasing for the Government departments, This will mean not merely three commissioners; a whole department will be built up with forty or fifty clerks, stenographers and so on. It will run into a department and a very expensive one. We want to economize. That is what we were told to do yesterday, and by the looks of the financial statement, it is necessary not only as a people but as a Government. I see no economy in this Bill as introduced. I am sorry I did not hear the minister's explanation for it. There may be a reason for it. I understand there is a great deal of waste in the purchasing of supplies by the different departments. This new department will require, I suppose, a lot of typewriters. There are.plenty of typewriters in the different departments that are not in use, but this new department will not have any old typewriters; they will insist on having new typewriters, new furniture, new stationery, almost everything new, and they will not under any possibility gather up equipment that might have been used by commissions and departments that have been abolished. There is no necessity for waste in purchasing if it is properly conducted. Why we want three commissioners to do the purchasing when one man could easily do it, is more than I can comprehend; besides which there is to be another man who is to be called the Director of the Commission. I see no sense in the Bill at all.


Mr.   G@: B. NICHOLSON (Algoma): With the details of this Bill I shall not presume to deal at this stage, but dealing with the principle underlying the Bill, if I understand it correctly, it means the employment by the Government of a competent pur-

chasing agent or agents. I do not see how any one having any business experience can disagree. Any ordinary business man, or small firm that is purchasing goods up to $100,000, without going into the millions, will find it to their advantage to pay a salary to a man who understands how to purchase, who knows where to get the right kind of goods, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Whid-den), and who knows what the goods are when he sees them. How does any large corporation, such as a departmental store, for example, do its purchasing? Does it leave it to the head of each department or employ an expert thoroughly conversant with the whole question of buying?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Is the hon. member aware that there is an expert purchasing agent in every department?


Mr. G. B. NICHOLSON:: There may be a purchasing agent in every department, but whether he is expert or not I do not know. If there is a purchasing agent in every department, the hon. member's question seems to imply that he would prefer to have a purchasing agent in every government department. But this Bill would eliminate separate purchasing agencies and concentrate the business under one department. We can amend the details of the Bill, but at the present moment we are dealing with principles. Take the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, whose system is divided into departments from coast to coast. There is not a department, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that can buy a single dollar's worth of material without going through the purchasing department, because the men at the heads of the various departments are not purchasers and do not understand that business. They are managers and devote their attention to the conduct of the business of their particular departments. But they leave to experts the question of purchases and allow them to buy the goods they require. It has been objected that by employing a purchasing agency the Government is getting rid of its responsibility. If the Government concentrates the whole purchasing for the Dominion in one agency, is that evading responsibility to any greater degree than if it distributes the responsibility throughout a multitude of agencies? From the information that we have now, each head of a department purchases the supplies for that particular department in his own way. If this work is all concentrated in one purchasing department for which the

Government is directly responsible, does the Government thereby lessen its responsibility to the country? In my judgment it would only narrow the business down to a point where it would be controllable. As things stand now, it is uncontrollable and unwieldly. My hon. friend from Red Deer, with whom I always try to agree, has laid down the principle that you cannot effect economy unless you reduce the number of employees. If there is one man in each department to-day charged with purchasing for that department, and if he is capable of doing the work with which he is charged, lie cannot be of very much use for anything else. Therefore, taking that phase of the argument alone, if you bring all thesj men under one head and employ one purchasing agent nr agency, you will have eliminated a certain number of employees. 1 presume, without, having any figures before me. that this Government purchases millions of dollars' worth of goods every year and, I have no doubt, will continue to purchase equally large amounts annually from all sources. Is it not conceivable that by reducing the cost at which these goods are purchased and improving the character and quality of the goods and obtaining the best materials that can be put into each particular article, just as any ordinary business man would do, a saving could be effected? A large departmental store could not carry on business for six months if it permitted the heads of the various selling departments to act as purchasers at the same time. No large organization producing goods in this country could successfully operate on such a basis. A lumber firm could not carry on business ii the man who had charge of the work in the woods had to purchase the goods required in connection with the conduct of the business. In principle, I think the Government is starting out along the right lines. I have not read the details of the Bill. They may not be right, and the idea of a purchasing commission may be wrong. If, as the hon. member for North 'Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) says, it is going to involve the employment of a commission and then a director, that would seem to me to be a case of overlapping, and if it is going to mean the employment of a large establishment, that again is entirely unnecessary. But with the principle of concentrating the whole business of purchasing the country's goods and placing it under the head of an expert or a small group of experts, I am entirely in accord, and contend that it will bear

analysis by any business man who wants to study it and ascertain what he would do il he were in the same position as the Government. I venture to say that if hon. members who have spoken were carrying on business for themselves, they would not even attempt to operate on any other basis than that outlined in the chief principle of this Bill, namely, the employing of experts to do work that necessarily calls for expert knowledge and a thorough acquaintance with a particular subject. Those who purchase supplies should thoroughly understand purchasing.


Samuel Hughes: We always did in the Militia Department.


George Brecken Nicholson: Perhaps so, but I am a little doubtful as to whether we always did. If we had time to go through all the ramifications of all the departments we would find that a whole lot of things had been purchased in supplies of various kinds that would not measure up to the standard. I think that if this proposal were submitted to any group of business men who are accustomed to purchasing any considerable quantity of goods they would say it is the only possible system by which efficiency can be attained. To have purchases distributed broadcast, and to have experts in engineering-for instance, in the Public Works Department-start out to buy dry goods, boots and shoes, or woollen goods, about which they know nothing, is the height of absurdity and could not possibly be carried on in any private business, because a private business is done on a basis that would not permit the waste necessarily involved in such a system.


Michael Clark: Is the Government dealing largely in woollen goods in peace time?


George Brecken Nicholson: I would say offhand that this Government is buying just as great a variety of goods in peace time as any large corporation in this country. Indeed, I heard it said by the president of one large corporation, that it was buying everything from sewing needles to battle. ships.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: May I ask a question of the hon. minister? I would like to know


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: The hon. member would be out of order in asking a question at the present time. If the minister rose to reply now he would close the debate and would therefore preclude any other hon. member from speaking.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not care whom I get the information from but I would like to know what is going to be the cost of the proposed department.


Georges Henri Boivin: That information will be given in committee.


Mr. ISAAC ELLIS PEDLOW (Renfrew South):: I have listened with considerable interest to the discussion on the principle of the Bill, but I submit that most of it so far is beside the issue altogether. As I understand the proposition, it is not quite as outlined by 'the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). In my judgment the purpose of this Bill is not to establish a department such as the hon. member, has in mind-a central authority for the purchasing of all supplies of the various government departments-but to perpetuate under another name a department already in existence. I have had some slight experience with the War Purchasing Commission, and from that experience and actual knowledge I cannot agree with the claims made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowrell) who has charge of the Bill, that it has been an unqualified success.
I will call the attention of the House and of the President of the Council to a case in point. A tender was advertised in August last for 500 four-drawer filing cabinets. It had been the custom of the department to buy steel cabinets, it being claimed by the manufacturers that they were fireproof. A manufacturing firm that I am not directly interested in, beyond the fact that it is located in the riding which I have the honour to represent, manufactures filing cabinets of oak-precisely the same in operation, but made of wood. The contention of the department was, of course, that the steel cabinets, being fireproof, were to be preferred, notwithstanding the much higheT cost.
This manufacturing concern sought my services in regard to securing for them a "look in" on tenders for this class of material, and I found that it was almost impossible to help them. In passing I might just say that this purchasing board is a mere "lean-to" of the Public Works Department; it is not a separate entity in any sense of the word-a fact which I will illustrate later on. When I approached the Public Works Department I was told that it would be necessary for this manufacturing concern, with my assistance, to institute a propaganda through the various departments in order to secure endorsation by the departmental heads of wood instead of

steel cabinets. I do not think that it should be necessary either for a manufacturing concern or for members to indulge in such propaganda. If we were in a position to convince the department that it was in the public interest to buy these wooden cabinets, it should be the duty of some person to act accordingly. We were referred to the War Purchasing Board, and with no better results. They treated us in exactly the same way; that is to say, they took the position that it was none oi their business The requisitions were sent into the War Purchasing Commission, and they simply rubber stamped them and passed them on to the Public Works Department, which made the purchases. I do not think you can convince any intelligent business man that doing business along those lines is in the interest of this country or of the public service.
The contract for the 500 filing cabinets that I have in mind was tendered for at the rate of $41 for each steel cabinet. The same cabinet exactly in dimensions and in actual service, but made of oak, was obtainable at $27. That represents a saving of $14 on each cabinet, or an actual saving on the entire contract of $7,000. When I convinced the Minister of Public Works of this feature of the transaction, there was no difficulty whatever; an order was placed for the wooden cabinets. I understand he has given instructions that no further orders shall be given for steel cabinets. Whether that is correct or not, I am not sure, but that is my information.
During the course of my investigation I found that in the preceding fourteen months 2,500 steel cabinets were ordered at an average cost of $49 each, as against $27 for the wooden cabinet, or the enormous difference of $55,000. In other words, it cost the country $55,000 more for the cabinets purchased during the previous year through the War Purchasing Commission; and it must be remembered that this is merely one sample of work that happened to come to my personal knowledge. In the fourteen months the War Purchasing Commission had actually thrown away $62,000 of the public funds. If that is to be taken as a measure of the value of the service rendered by this 'Commission to the country, then, Sir, I say the sooner we dispense with it the better.
I agree with the ideal condition enunciated by the .member for Algoma, but 1 take exception to some of the examples he referred to. For instance, he stated that it is the custom with most of the large de-

partmental stores of this country to have purchasing agents independent of the heads of the various departments. I am sure he does not wish to be incorrect, but as a matter of fact he is not correct, because I know whereof I speak. The men who have charge of the departments in such stores are entirely responsible for their particular departments. They are experts in. their own line, and they do the buying and they supervise the selling. That is beyond doubt. But that is a different position altogether to the purchasing of supplies for the Dominion Government or for a large corporation like the Canadian. Pacific Bailway. It would be to the benefit of this country if such purchasing could toe done under the supervision of the head o.f a .department as outlined by the member for North Oxford; that, I think, would be an ideal condition. There is no need 'to establish another department of the public service with its elaborate staff to purchase the necessary supplies for the various departments, even if they do amount, as is claimed by the President of the Council, to the enormous sum iof $40,000,000 a year. Such purchasing could be effected by a less elaborate staff than is outlined in this Bill.
Other points I purpose to discuss at greater length when, the Bill is in the Committee stage; but there is one section I would like to call to the attention of the minister, and that is the section destroying the effective service of the whole proposition. I refer to section 12, subsection 2.
The commission shall have no authority to change or vary any requisition.
That is just exactly the position taken by the Commission in the case I have called attention to. When I appealed to them to listen to the arguments of the manufacturer of wooden cabinets, they said, " We have nothing to do with that. We would not think of interfering with a requisition handed in to us by the head of a department." That is a vital point in the service to be rendered by such a commission. They should be in a position, to dictate to any department the class of goods required for the Government service.
If a department requisitions gold-plated spittoons, I suppose the Purchasing Commission would have no authority to say; you cannot have them gold-plated; ordinary copper will have to do. If waste-paper baskets costing $32 were requisitioned, I suppose the commission would have no authority to change or vary the requisition. If a department ordered extravagant furni-

ture of any kind, I suppose the commission would have no authority to interfere. They simply rubber-stamp the requisition, it goes in as a matter of course, no matter what its character may be. I submit that this Bill is a monstrous thing, and that subsection 2 of section 12 destroys whatever value there might otherwise be in the proposal.


Mr. THOMAS HAY (Selkirk):: As I represent a constituency in which most of the Dominion public works in Manitoba are located I wish to say just a word respecting this Bill.
I do not quarrel with the principle of the Bill, although it seems to me that if you have a staff of expert purchasers you may create a department whidh will be a very great expense to the country. I have had many complaints from the superintendents of the different works in the county from which I come with respect to purchases. Most of the dredging plants in Manitoba are located in that county, as well as the fishing industries, dry docks, and other-public works; and the purchases there are considerable each year. The St. Andrew's locks are also located in that county. I am informed that under the present system goods which are purchased are costing more than they cost under the old system. ll do not know how correct that is; up to the present I have not had a chance of looking into the matter. As I understand it, under the old system the heads of the departments there were allowed to do the purchasing, and they were in a position to buy more cheaply because of their particular knowledge of the requirements. I do not know whether these purchases were made by the Purchasing 'Commission or not; the requisitions were made to the district engineer at Winnipeg. Circulars were sent out to these wholesale houses in	Winnipeg-I	do not think
they went outside of Winnipeg-and the purchases were made from those wholesale houses. The local men in the town of Selkirk, in which these industries are located, were not given a chance to bid on these purchases; notices were not sent to them at all. I am informed that if these men had had an opportunity of tendering they could have (furnished these supplies more cheaply than they were furnished by the wholesale houses of Winnipeg, because the cost of the supplies, including freight, cartage, and other incidental charges, was greater than it would have been had the purchases been made in the town of Selkirk by the superintendents of the different public works.
We should be careful at this time not to create any more commissions which will be a burden to the country. Under the old system, if it was properly carried out, we would be in a better position to get value for our money than we will be if purchases are made through a commission
5 p.m. who will really, in any case, have to take the word of the -superintendents of the different departments. They have no other means of finding out whether or not the supplies are necessary; they must aocept the advice of the superintendents of the different works. These superintendents are on the -spot; they know what is required, and they should be trusted to make the purchases for their departments.
I believe that complaints were made to the Public Works Department with regard to the right of the superintendents to make small purchases, and that the superintendents have been allowed to purchase only to the extent of $5. I would like this Bill to provide that the superintendents be -allowed to purchase up to a greater amount than that; I believe money woul-d be saved if they were. They should be allowed to purchase such articles as steam fittings and pipes, and other articles which they may need and which can be secured in almost any town in which these public works are located. Time and money would be saved by adopting this plan. In cases where requisitions have been made to the District Engineer at Winnipeg for supplies amounting to $25 or $30, delays have occurred and the job has had to wait until the supplies came to hand. )If, in cases like that, the superintendent had the right to purchase locally up to a certain amount, time and money would he saved, the work would proceed without interruption and the country would be benefited.
I ask -the minister in charge of the Bill to give this matter, whidh is one of great importance to the country, careful consideration, and to see whether some arrangement can be made under which purchases may be made by the men in charge of -these different public works throughout the country.


Robert Laird Borden: I have t-aken a good deal of interest in the proposal, which hitherto has been carried out by Order in Council, -that purchases on behalf of the Government during the war period should be made by an absolutely independent commission. Looking hack upon conditions as they were before and as they were after -that commission was established, I have not -the slightest doubt that many

millions of dollars were saved to the people of this country by the course which I took in the spring of 1915. I have been in this Parliament for nearly twenty-three years, and I know something of 'the methods by which Government purchases have been made in the past, and I remember very distinctly the discussion and the suspicion which have frequently been aroused in connection with them. Every one who has been a member of this House, or has taken an interest in public affairs during past years, knows that the cry of unfair use of political power in respect of Government purchases was almost as strong, if not quite as strong, as the cry with respect to appointments to the public service. The principle upon which this Bill is founded. The principle upon which the Orders in Council were passed when I put forward the recommendation therefor in the spring of 1915 is precisely the same as that which has conferred very important powers upon the Civil Service Commission. That principle leads to such administration of public business as shall eliminate party political influence. The Government does not desire to abdicate responsibility; it would be absolutely impossible for it to abdicate responsibility even if it desired to do so. Whether you carry out purchases by a dozen different purchasing commissions, as has been the practice in the past, or by one purchasing commission, as is proposed by this Bill, the responsibility of the Government is the same.
A Government cannot shelter itself behind the acts of officials; it must accept responsibility for the acts of every official. If he is wrong, dispense with him, or if he is an official of the character proposed here, who can be removed only by vote of Parliament., bring his case to Parliament and ask Parliament to deal with him. In any case the responsibility of the Government continues from beginning to end.
I should be very sorry if the idea should prevail in this country that r would be better to return to a system under which beyond question political pressure and influence were- put forward and utilized, and not to adhere to a system under which, so far as I know, there has been an absolute lack of any suggestion that in making public purchases any interest except that of the public was regarded. I can say this further, that to mv mind it is exceedingly important that the time of members of the Government, which was inevitably taken up with such matters under the former system, should be free from such demands, 
and that tney should be able to say to members of Parliament and to all others: It is the duty of the particular department in question to put forward its requisition for supplies it may reasonably require, and when that requisition is put forward, you have the assurance of an absolutely independent commission that those supplies will be purchased with a sole eye to the public interest and with an absolute disregard of whether the persons who furnish those supplies belong to any political party or class. I repeat that in the public interest it is highly important that ministers of the Crown should not have their time taken up with claims put forward by persons who conceive themselves entitled to consideration. I know that my time was by no means free from questions and difficulties of that character before the Purchasing Commission was established in 1915; but since that commission was established, I do not believe that on an average one hour a month has been occupied with any such matter.
The hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Pedlow) has criticised the commission in respect of matters for which it is in no wise responsible. We never intended to give, nor do we now give the commission power to dictate to any department. Occasionally, during the past four years the members of the War Purchasing Commission have said this to me: There is such and such a requisition for an enormous quantity of supplies for war purposes; we really think this subject should be brought to your attention, because it seems to us. although we have no right to dictate, that the proposed supply is much greater than should reasonably be required. I have taken up the matter, and in many cases the representations of the War Purchasing Commission to me in that regard have resulted in a considerable reduction of the supplies ordered and purchased. After all it is simply a question of whether it is better to disperse the purchasing organization over fifteen, sixteen or seventeen departments, or to concentrate it under one systematic management. Apart from the considerations to which I have alluded, that is the chief question.
I am not going into the details of this Bill. We shall be glad of the advice and suggestions of every member of this House respecting the particular methods and proposals. We have an entirely open mind in regard to that. But I think it is my duty to say that, if there is any suggestion that the men whom I invited to undertake these

duties and who have carried them on during the past four years, have not given their full time, energy and attention to the purpose for which they have been appointed, that statement has no foundation whatever and that criticism is wholly undeserved. I know personally of the time and devotion that they have given to 1 this work, of the high and earnest sense of public duty with which they have approached it. I know further, that if the members of the Purchasing Commission had seen fit to do what I more than once urged them to do, namely to give a succinct and clear statement to the people of this country of the economies which they have made in purchases since they were first appointed in 1915, the proposals which are now presented to this House would be received with very much greater favour than has been apparent this afternoon. I, myself, have from time to time, discussed with Mr. George P. Galt, Mr. W. P. Gundy and Sir Hormisdas La-porte what the War Purchasing Commission has accomplished in economies and in saving of the funds of the public treasury during the past four years. I did no-t realize the full measure of their effective effort until casually I was told of it, sometimes; and I urged the members of the commission to prepare such a statement to be laid on the Table as would describe in suitable terms what had been accomplished in that regard. These men have been thoroughly devoted to their public duty; they have served without remuneration, and any reproaches which I have heard this afternoon aire, in my judgment, absolutely and wholly undeserved.
I desire to associate myself with what the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) said with regard .to the services of Mr. W. P. Gundy, a most earnest and devoted man who gave splendid service on this commission during eighteen months of this war, who was whole-hearted in his work and whose death is a very great loss to .the country, not only in the work which he was carrying on as member of the commission, but. in respect of the ideals and aspirations which as a good citizen of this country he always endeavoured to put forward and to uphold. I recollect very well that a few weeks after Mr. W. P. Gundy, who was a very able business man and whom I had never met before, was appointed to this commission, had come here to undertake his duties, he approached me one day and told me that he was not only intensely gratified but greatly surprised at the exceedingly efficient organization which had been built
up in the period before he became a member of the War Purchasing Commission.
We submitted to the commissioners as they were in September, 1918, the question as to making the commission permanent, and we asked them to set forth their views with regard to the matter and to put forward to us proposals which they would recommend in case the commission were to be a permanent one. The members of the commission at that time were Sir Hormisdas Laporte, Mr. George F. Palt and Mr. W. P. Gundy. I think I might, with advantage, read to the House some of the purely business considerations which they presented to me in a memorandum strongly advocating the continuance of the commission. They furnished this memorandum, of course, with the desire and intention to be relieved themselves from the duty of serving further upon the commission, and therefore, there was no personal interest which could have affected their judgment in the slightest degree. As a matter of fact, 'Sir Hormisdas Laporte has remained here discharging the duty of commissioner at great personal inconvenience, and more than that, great personal loss during the past five or six months. The disadvantages in the existing system, by which each department makes its own purchases, are according to their view these

My colleague the Minister of Immigration tells me that there is. a very important Bill to which the attention of the House should be directed at once with a view to its being assented to this afternoon. I would therefore ask that this debate be adjourned to be resumed again this day, if the House wall consent.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.
IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT. bill to amend the act passed this
.	SESSION.


Hon. J. A. CALDER (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: In the Bill
which was before this House amending the Immigration Act certain persons who advocated the overthrow of government, the destruction of property, and so on, by violence were in the prohibited classes. The matter has been inquired into further and the law officers of the Crown have advised that the section as it stands does not really cover all that was intended.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have no desire to obstruct the minister but would he say in what form this legislation comes before the House?


Robert Laird Borden: It can only be done by the unanimous consent of the House.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I did not hear the minister ask the unanimous consent of the House.
Hon. Mr. Calder moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 132, to amend the Immigration Act. He said: The object of this Bill is to repeal section 15 of the Immigration Act passed by this House and substitute therefor a new section.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is really a Bill, not an amendment from the Senate.


James Alexander Calder: It is a Bill to amend the Act which has already been passed by both Houses.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Hon. Mr. CALDER thereupon moved the second reading of the Bill.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How does the new clause differ from the old?


James Alexander Calder: Section 15 of the Bill that passed this House read as follows:
Section forty-one of the said Act is repealed and the fallowing ie substituted therefor:
" 41. Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow by force or violence of the Government of Great Britain or Canada, or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or the overthrow by force or violence of constituted law and authority, or the assassination of any official of the Government of Great Britain or Canada or other British dominion, colony, possession or dependency, or of any foreign government, or advocates or teaches the unlawful destruction of property, or shall by word or act create or attempt to create riot or public disorder in Canada, or shall by common repute belong to or be suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from, or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada by force or threat of bodily' harm, or by blackmail, or who is a member of or affiliated with any organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government; such person for the purposes of this Act shall be considered as belonging to the prohibited or undesirable classes, and shall be liable to deportation, and it shall *be the duty' of any' officer becoming cognizant thereof, and the duty of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein such person may be, to forthwith send a written complaint thereof to the minister giving full particulars."
The substituted clause reads as follows:
Every person who by word or act-


Mr. LEMIEUX:: Would the minister point out where it differs as he goes along?


James Alexander Calder: It is not the easiest thing in the world to do. The section as it passed this House read:
Whenever any person other than a Canadian citizen advocates in Canada the overthrow, etc.
Now, a person can do a good many things of this character by other means than advocating. The substituted section reads as follows:
Section fifteen of the Act to amend The Immigration Act passed at the present session of Parliament is repealed, and the following is. substituted therefor:-	.
"41. (1) Every person who by word or act in Canada seeks to overthrow by force or violence the government of or constituted law and authority in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland or of Canada, or of any of the provinces of Canada, or the government of any other of His Majesty's dominions, colonies, possessions or dependencies, or who in Canada defends or suggests the unlawful destruction of property-
That is new. That is one who advocates or suggests the unlawful destruction of property.
.-or by word or act creates or attempts to create any riot or public disorder in Canada, or who without lawful authority assumes any powers of government in Canada

That is new. That is any person who assumes any authority without lawful justification.
-assumes any powers of government in Canada or in any part thereof, or who by common repute belongs to or is suspected of belonging to any secret society or organization which extorts money from or in any way attempts to control any resident of Canada by force or by threat of bodily harm, or by blackmail-
The original section merely referred to blackmail. That is extended a little so as to include any person who belongs to any secret society or organization which attempts to extort money from or in any way to control any resident of Canada through force, or threat of bodily harm or of blackmail.
__or who is a member of or affiliated with any
organization entertaining or teaching disbelief in or opposition to organized government shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to belong to the prohibited or undesirable classes, and shall be liable to deportation in the manner provided by this Act, and it shall be the duty of any officer becoming cognizant thereof and of the clerk, secretary or other official of any municipality in Canada wherein any such person may be forthwith to send a written complaint to the minister, giving full particulars : provided, that this section shall not apply to any person who is a British subject, either by reason of birth in Canada, or by reason of naturalization in Canada.
Then there is a second subsection reading as follows:

Proof that any person belonged to or was within the description of any of the prohibited or undesirable classes within the meaning of this section at any time since the 4th day of May, 1910-
That is the date on which the present Immigration Act was assented to.
-shall for all the purposes of this Act be deemed to establish prima facie that he still belongs to such prohibited or undesirable class or classes.
What I understand that to mean is that if a person, by act or word, at any time since 1910, has done the things we have enumerated in this section then, prima facie, that person would be deemed to belong to these classes. While there is some material difference between the two sections still the main purpose of the section is as it was expressed in the section as originally introduced to the House.


Samuel Hughes: Does the minister
approve of the change?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


Mr. BUTTS:: Would it not be well for
the minister to consider whether or not it is advisable to strike out the exception in connection with Canadian or British subjects. Is not a crime committed by a Canadian just as bad as one committed by a foreigner? -


James Alexander Calder: You cannot deport them.


Robert Hamilton Butts: That is true, but you can
punish them otherwise.


James Alexander Calder: But under this section you merely provide for deportation of people who are in these classes.


Mr. ROSS:: What is the change made about the eighth line-"or who in Canada advocates or suggests the unlawful destruction of property." Is that new?


James Alexander Calder: Yes.


James Hamilton Ross: Is that the first change?


James Alexander Calder: There is a change in the first line, "every person who by word or act," etc.


James Hamilton Ross: What was the old section?


James Alexander Calder: "Any person who advocates the destruction of property or the unlawful overthrow of government."


James Hamilton Ross: What is the third change?


James Alexander Calder: I have not got them numbered in that way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend seems to be passing retroactive legislation. If a man
has entertained the views which are to be condemned, of course, since 1910, he is presumed to come within the prohibited classes. A man might have entertained these views in 1910 and since that time his views might have undergone a change and he might have become a new man.


James Alexander Calder: That is only prima facie; he can prove the contrary.
Bill read the second time and House went intd Committee on the Bill-Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
On section 1-prohibited classes:


Mr. PARENT:: What do the words "secret society" mean? Does the Bill give a definition of them?


James Alexander Calder: The words themselves explain their meaning. I do not know that I can give any other explanation.


Georges Parent: What about the Knights of Columbus?


James Alexander Calder: It is not intended to cover societies of that class.
Bill reported, read the third time and; passed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT.


[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the Honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the House went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
The Speaker informed the House that' His Honour the Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to-give in His Majesty's name the Royal assent to the following Bills.
An Act to amend The Dominion Lands Surveys Act.
An Act to amend the Railway Act (Aid for Railway Crossing's).
An Act to amend an Act to fprovide Compensation where Employees of His Majesty are killed or suffer injuries while performing- their duties.
An Act respecting Advances for the Purchase of Seed Grain.
An Act to amend The Currency Act, 1910.
An Act to iprovide for the Continuance in Force of a certain Proclamation made under
[Stage Direction]
The Finance Act, 1914, and to authorize the prohibition of the export of gold.
An Act to confirm two Orders of the Governor General in Council respecting the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway (System.
An Act for the relief of John Edwin Scott.
An Act for the relief of Claudius Henry Sherk.	.
An Act for the relief of Annie Proderick.
An Act for the relief of ISamuel David McElroy.
An Act for the relief of Mary Jane McCulloch.
An Act for the relief of Mary Garland Lewis.
An Act for the relief of William Oanham.
An Act to change the name of The Canada Accident Assurance Company to The Canada Accident and Fire Insurance Company.
An Act to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
An Act to amend the Criminal Code respecting Prevention of Fire.
An Act for the relief of EVa St. Lawrence Cronk.
An Act for the relief of Helena Clara Gabriel.
An Act for the relief of Gretna Harris Hawkins.
An Act for the relief of Samuel iBurgoyne.
An Act for the relief of James Arthur McGregor.
An Act for the relief of William Lewes Evans.
An Act for the relief of Richard Wilson Crashley.
An Act for the relief of Gladys Agnes Wilson Hawkins.
An Act respecting the Department of Health.
An Act to incorporate Canadian Merchant Service Guild.
An Act to incorporate Grain Insurance and Guarantee Company.
An Act respecting The London and Port Stanley Railway Company.
An Act for the relief of Albert Greensward.
An Act for the relief of Mary Jane Lyons.
An Act for the relief of Rose Kent Miller.
An Act for the relief of Elizabeth Winters.
An Act respecting W. C. Edwards & Co., Limited.
An Act to amend The Migratory Birds Convention Act. .
An Act to authorize the Appointment of an Air Board for the control of Aeronautics.
An Aot respecting the Central Railway Company of Canada.
An Act respecting The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.
An Act respecting the Lachine, Jacques-Cartier and Maisonneuve Railway Company.
An Act to amend The Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act, 1917.
An Act respecting The Western Dominion Railway Company.
An Act to amend The Dominion Forest Reserves and Parks Act.
An Act for the relief of Martha Campbell.
An Act for the relief of Rosa Hirst.
An Act for the relief of David Jamieson.
An Aot for the relief of Lillion North.
An Act for the relief of Thomas Davies.
An Act for the relief of Frederick Millman.
An Act for the relief of George Irvin Tuck.
An Act for the relief of Wilmot Orley Wiles.
An Act for the relief of Mary King.
An Act for the relief of William Herman Depper.
An Act for the relief of William Rogers Latimer.
An Act for the relief of William Pinkerton.
An Act to amend The Fertilizers Act, 1909.

An Act to inooroporate Canadian National Railway Company and respecting Canadian National Railways.
An Act respecting Dominion Water Powers.
An Act to incorporate the Canadian Wholesale Grocers Association.
An Act respecting The Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.
An Act respecting The Es<juimalt and Nanaimo Railway Company.
An Act respecting The Calgary and Femie Railway Company.
An Act to amend the Interpretation Act.
An Act to authorize an extension of time for the completion of the Saint John and Quebec Railway between Centreville, in the county of Carleton, and Andover, in the county of Victoria, N.B.
An Act to amend the Acts respecting the appointment of a Harbour Master at the Port of Halifax.
An Act to amend The Immigration Act.
An Act to amend an Act of the Present Session entitled An Act to amend The Immigration Act.
An Act for granting to His Majesty aid for Demobilization and other purposes.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1919.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1924).
At six o'clock the House took recess
After Recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Consideration of an amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 34, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Thomson (Qu'Appelle).
Robert Laird Borden: This is merely the substitution of the word " may " for the word " shall " with respect to the construction of that portion of the line west of Lloydminster. The Bill, as passed by this House, declared that:-
The approval of the route shall be made subject to joint construction or operation with the Canadian Northern Railway Company.
The Senate have changed the word " shall " to " may," but in the event of disagreement the matter rests on terms to be settled by the Board of Railway Commissioners.
Mr. IMIlDDLBBRO: When this Bill was before the Railway Committee I moved that the word " may " be replaced by the word " shall." My object in doing so was to ensure that it would be necessary to get the consent of the railway commissioners. The word [DOT]" may," I thought, would permit the parties to get together and thus avoid the

necessity of getting the consent of the board. A vote was taken in the committee and my amendment was carried. The Senate has now put the matter in the same form as it was before. All that I am desirous of ensuring by my amendment is that there should not be unnecessary duplication of lines, and, therefore, no unnecessary money expended in that manner. I would suggest that the amendment be not accepted by the committee.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: This matter was thoroughly discussed in the Railway Committee, and while it is true that the committee carried the amendment moved by the hon. member (Mr. Middlebro) on a vote of 21 to 20, it is also true that it was carried at a hurried stage of the proceed-' ings of the committee, and it would be well for this Committee to take into consideration these words. In the first place, this proviso was carefully prepared by Mr. Ruel, representative of the Canadian National railways along with the representative of the Canadian Pacific railway, and they were both convinced that the word "may" should remain. I understand that the question has been submitted to Sir Henry Drayton, and that he believes it is perfectly right that the word "may" as proposed by the Senate should remain in the Bill instead of the word "shall."
Senate amendment concurred in.



SECOND READINGS. '

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 126, (from the Senate), respecting The Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Redman.
Bill No. 127, (from the Senate), respecting the Grand Trunk Railway Company.- Mr. Euler.
Bill No. 128, (from the Senate), respecting The Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Devlin.
Bill No. 129, (from the Senate), for the relief of Stanley Gordon Eversfield.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed the debate on the motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell for the second reading of Bill No. 46, respecting the pur-, chasing of departmental and other supplies and materials for His Majesty.
Robert Laird Borden: I had so nearly finished what I purposed saying that it seems hardly worth while to resume, but perhaps it would be desirable to present
to the House the considerations set forth in the report of the War Purchasing Commission, to which report I have already alluded. The disadvantages of the methods which have prevailed in the past were presented to us in this way:
The need for centralization is clearly demonstrated 'by the numerous disadvantages of the present arrangements under which each department makes its own purchases, subject to approval of the War Purchasing' Commission. Some of these disadvantages may be stated as follows:
(a)	Each department is now buying supplies in utter ignorance of what the others are doing.
(b)	The departments generally do not get the benefit of the technical knowledge and experience acquired in each department.
(c)	The quantity of goods required by some of the departments is not sufficient to enable them to purchase at the best prices.
< d) When high prices prevail, owing to shortage of material, this condition is aggravated by competition amongst the Government departments themselves.
(e)	There is a lack of uniformity of specifications and also of inspection.
(f)	Large volume of emergency orders resulting in higher costs and giving opportunity for irregularities and * complaints arising therefrom.
(g)	There is a deplorable lack in the departments of study of market conditions, revisions of specifications, et cetera.
The report continues:
That co-ordination in Government buying would do much to remove or lessen the disadvantages of the present methods is beyond question. Enquiry shows that while each department may require certain supplies which are peculiar to its special needs, yet the larger proportion of the total outlay is for goods common to several departments. If the requirements in a particular line, instead of being ordered separately by each department, were bought collectively by a central purchasing office with its stall of experts for each class of goods, the larger quantities ordered, the elimination of competition among the departments, the decrease in emergency purchases, the adoption of uniform specifications and methods of inspection, and the many other improvements which would be possible would result in an enormous saving of money, and still further remove any temptations to personal favouritism which may now exist or tend to creep in in the future.
Some reference was made this afternoon to the possibility of delay through waiting for the action of a Central Purchasing Commission in respect- of small supplies required by departments of the Government in different- parts of the country. That subject has been under consideration. It was dealt with by a provision in the Order in Council, and as to emergency purchases of that character-small purchases urgently required and as to which it would be quite undesirable to go to the expense of advertising for tenders-there is no reason why these


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have followed this
whole debate, and I have very grave doubts as to the advisability of the House passing this measure. Of course, I do not pretend to discuss the relative merits of the gentlemen who were, and, indeed, still are, the members of the War Purchasing Commission. I do not know these gentlemen except Sir Hormisdas Laporte, who is one of the most distinguished citizens of my province and enjoys the very highest reputation both as a business man and as a faithful administrator. But that is not the point at issue. I believe in the old saying, which, indeed, is more than a saying because it is found in the Holy Book, that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom. I believe that every man exercising a responsible function coming within the bounds of the constitution should be amenable to Parliament; but I shall discuss that point a little later on. For the present I simply wish to say this: The war is over. It is true that yesterday the Minister of Finance said that as regards the necessities and 
requirements of 'the financial year this should properly be called a war year. I do not deny that at all, but the war is at an end, and the extraordinary proceedings bordering on unconstitutionality which took place during the war and which were criticised and challenged by His Majesty's loyal Opposition should now be discarded. The Canadian people have submitted themselves during those fouir eventful years to what I would call autocratic rule. Although a Liberal, and inclined to be - radical, I admit that the peculiar conditions existing not only in Canada but throughout the whole civilized world justified to a certain extent some of the measures which were not enacted, but imposed upon the good-will of the people of Canada. We have been governed by Orders in Council. Parliament has disregarded some of its most sacred and ancient privileges. We have witnessed in this House members of the Government receiving the emoluments of office during nearly one year without having even received a mandate from the people. I protested at the time against such a violation of the British constitution, British precedent and the ancient and time-honoured usages of our own Canadian constitution. The people resented the autocratic methods which the Government thought proper to adopt for the time being, and I warn the Government that the people of Canada to-day are not in a mood to stand for any such breaks in the future. During the war, of course, the Government had a practically free hand in spending the millions which were taken from the public exchequer for the business of the Canadian army and the Government generally. Indeed, it has come to this, that during the last four years the Government has enjoyed the fullest privileges as regards the expenditure of public money. We had yesterday from the hon. the Minister of Finance (Sir Thomas White) a statement which is now before the whole Canadian people. I may be regarded as cheeseparing, but I say that with the financial condition of Canada today as it is the duty of the Government is to put. the brake on the expenditure of public money. On this score alone I say to the Government " halt." The amount involved may not be over $50,000 or $60,000, or perhaps $100,000, but I say in all gravity, with a full sense of my responsibility and not for the mere pleasure of digging the Government in the ribs, but as a Canadian, and having regard to the financial standing of Canada, that the Government ought to exercise, the closest control over every dollar of expenditure.

My hon. friend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) is a member of a practically new government. The Government which took office in 1911 and the Union Government by which it was superseded, have created so many commissions since that time that, although an old member of the House, I would be at a loss to give a list of those commissions without speaking by the book. I think it is not going beyond the mark to say that at least forty or fifty commissions have been created since 1911. Each commission was created for the purpose of relieving the members of the Government from some of the work for which, with all due respect, the members of the Government are paid in hard cash by the people-the tax-payers-of Canada.
The financial condition of this country is most alarming. I need not repeat the figures quoted yesterday by the Finance Minister. There must be a beginning in the reduction of public expenditure. We must revert to the old Alexander Mackenzie method of practising economy. Only last evening we heard a minister of the Crown, at the head of one of the most important and responsible departments of the Government, namely the Department of Railways and Canals, admitting that in connection with the Trent Valley canal, and the deepening of the Welland canal, the expenditure was practically useless, but, as he said, we must give employment to the returned soldiers of those districts. When he was put to the test, and asked by my hon. friend from Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair), and by my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie), how many returned soldiers were employed on the Trent Valley canal, and on the deepening of the Welland cdnal, he said there were about 200 employed, although the money to be expended will reach a total of over $4,000,000 in both instances.
There is grave unrest in the country and the people will not stand very long for the wild expenditures that are being made on the most flimsy pretexts. Now, let us come to this new commission. Is it necessary? I have the greatest respect for the opinion of my right hon. friend the leader of the Government (Sir Robert Borden), but, with his experience as a parliamentarian and a minister of the Crown, is it necessary that the War Purchasing Commission which has ended its business, honourably, creditably-I frankly admit-should be continued in operation? Is it necessary that we should now embalm in the statute books legislation which makes of a temporary
commission created for a special purpose, namely, war purchases, a permanent one?
With all due respect to the Prime Minister of Canada, I say it is not going beyond the mark to say the contrary. It is not necessary to make that commission permanent. Having ended its business- the purchase of supplies during the war- it is unnecessary, now, that we are reverting to the old lines of business, to add this new burden on the shoulders of the taxpayers. I do not know exactly what this new commission will cost the Treasury, but I believe I am not far astray when I say that it will entail an expenditure of nearly $100,000 at least. I am told that an army of secretaries, typists and bookkeepers were employed during the war, and possibly during that eventful period it was proper to have that organization. The purchases were enormous in size and the amounts involved were very large, and it was proper, I repeat, that during that period a special commission should have been created in order to protect the public treasury. But, now that the war is over, the commission has ended its business. I feed confident that it has handled this business creditably and honourably, and speaking from what I know, I state most positively that a man of Sir Hormis-das Laporte's standing in the community would not give the commission anything but the best advice, and the people of the country anything but the best service. We are. however, reverting to pre-war conditions as regards the administration of each department of the Government. I was a member of government for eight years, during five of which I was directlyresponsible,with my colleagues of the Laurier Administration, to Parliament. I know that a minister of the Crown who is simply honest and is endowed with some business ability can manage his department by taking, of course, the necessary safeguards and by exercising the necessary checks upon the expenditure which comes under his eyes every day. I had one of the large spending departments to administer, namely, the Post Office Department. I know that the expenditure of such a department can be honestly supervised with the best results. A requisition is sent to the proper officer from whom it must come before the deputy minister, who is the first officer of the department, and from the deputy minister it goes before the minister. Every requisition must pass through several channels, and a minister of the Crown, if he is honest and knows his business, will be sur-

rounded by good' officials whom he will trust. Have not we reformed our Civil Service? Have not we increased the salaries ol the deputy ministers and given them, so to speak, a more extended authority to protect the public exchequer against the raids that might be made from outside? And, Mr. Speaker, have not we abolished the patronage system? If we have, not abolished it, then, Sir, some of the hon. gentlemen opposite belong to the tribe of Ananias, because we have been repeatedly informed in this House, day in and day out, that patronage had been abolished in every department of government. If patronage no longer prevails, if the system of public tender is followed in each department, what need is there to create this new commission, and for what purpose have - e this year increased the salaries of deputy ministers? Their salaries were increased first from $4,000 to $5,000, and now from $5,000 to $6,000 a year. Are they going to be deprived of all authority? What is their business if not to administer their departments and to see that expenditures are honestly made and procedure honestly carried out? I say that there are checks and safeguards at every step in each department if the deputy does his duty and if the minister in charge will simply live up to the statute defining his powers in his own department. My hon. friend, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Rowell) belongs, as I do, to the legal fraternity, and I believe that he has a keen business intellect. Will he tell me that in his own department, and sticking to his business-of course, if he is lost in Imperialistic dreams, that is another matter-he could not keep a vigilant' scrutiny on "expenditures? Now that the war is over and peace is going to be signed, let us come to essentials, let us get down to elementals-in popular language, let us get down to brass tacks. We are no longer at war. The Peace Treaty will be signed in a short while and we shall resume the even tenor of our way, constitutionally speaking. Canada is Canada. There is no revolution from a constitutional point of view. There is some unrest in the country, but it is against the Government, and the profiteers, not against the constitution. We are resuming our duties as in pre-war times, and I would urge my hon. friend to come down from the high heaven of his dreams to solid earth. Let him tackle the business of his department. Although /I do not share his views politically, I know he has enough business acumen to direct the affairs committed to his charge in conformity with the statute. What is the use
[Mr. I.emieux. 1
of that Bill? Has my, hon. friend read the statutory powers of each department? If he has, he will find that in each department there are checks and safeguards; and above all there is in the Government of Canada an officer who is the watch dog of the treasury and who officially is known as the Auditor General of Canada.
Do you beiieve, Mr. Speaker, for one moment that old Lome Macdougall, that John Fraser, that the present Auditor Genera]- whom I have not the pleasure of knowing, but who is an honest and sturdy officer of the Crown-might have been or would be in need of a commission to curtail expenditure, to see that the law as regards public tenders was followed? What are the duties of the Auditor General if not to call the attention of every minister of the Crown, when he has overstepped the mark, to the fact that he has not confined himself within the powers conferred upon him by the laws of Canada? When I was in the Government, Mr. Speaker, my nightmare was the Auditor General. I was afraid every year-


An hon. MEMBER:: A guilty conscience.


Rodolphe Lemieux: of some outside influences? It is as a Britisher that I appeal to my hon. friend; that I say to him that the war is oveT; that the time for extraordinary measures has passed; that we must resume parliamentary Government-democratic Government. The country has suffered immensely during the war; has endured sacrifices of blood and of money. It is the expectation of the country, therefore, that the era which is now opening up may be a truly democratic era. I hope that, having heard the strong protests not only from this side of the House, but from the other side as well-protests from independent members of the House-the Government will yield,^ or that they will think twice before insisting that this commission be created.
Once more I say that I do not at all criticize the members of this commission. I knew Mr. Gundy by reputation only; it was of the highest. I know personally^ Sir Hormisdas Laporte; there is no better citizen in Canada. But it is against the principle- the vicious, the autocratic principle-that I raise my voice this evening.
I said a moment ago that I had no English blood coursing through my veins. But I have the inherent logic of the French people; therefore, having regard to the protest which I have offered against this legislation, I must conclude logically. I therefore move, seconded by Mtr. J. H. iSinclair:
That this Bill he not now read the seeond time, but this day six months.


Hon. MARTIN BURRELL (Secretary of State):: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lemieux) has taken a great deal of the time of the House this evening in discussing this matter. He commenced his remarks by imitating the methods of his friend to his left, 'the leader of the Opposition (Mr. McKenzie) by quoting Scripture.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is contagious.


Martin Burrell: I suggest to him that when the leader of the Opposition quotes Scripture-and he does so very frequently- he is a little more apposite than my hon. friend. My hon. friend quoted " The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom ".
He went on to argue the point later by explaining that while he really said the Lord," he meant "Parliament." I can only say that if Parliament is to be judged in its personnel and ability by the length and irrelevance of a speech such as we have just heard, then I think to make "Parliament" and "the Lord" exchangeable terms is very unflattering to the Deity. That is

all I have to say about that. My hon. friend discoursed on many subjects that had very little to do with the measure before the House; indeed, I was almost raising a point of order until I began, towards the end of his speech, to get a glimmering idea that what he was really apprehensive of was that the constitution was going to be entirely smashed by a commission which is created to do the business of Government and Parliament in a little more businesslike manner.
The hon. member laboured the point a great deal, and several other members opposite have also laboured the same point during the last few weeks of the horrible autocracy that they allege has been existing in this Government for the last three or four years, the usurpation of the rights and powers of the people, the autocratic methods employed by government by Order in Council, and he and those who have spoken along the same lines seem persistently to forget either deliberately or unconsciously that there has been no such thing as an autocratic Government, because Parliament has put into the hands of the Government certain powers which the Government exercises, and hawing exercised them is responsible to this Parliament for what it has done. My hon. friend has used some very extraordinary arguments in support of the position which he has now expressed in the shape of a motion. Before he commenced that kind of argument, he complained that during the war the Government had had a very free hand in the expenditure of public money, but, he said, as we have now come to times of peace, the Government must exercise a closer control of its expenditures; there must be greater economy; there must be a reduction and an economy, the old watchword that is coupled with the name of Alexander Mackenzie whose example, I may say, my hon. friend and some of his friends did not always follow. He referred to the Minister of Railways' extravagance of expenditure, and I do not like to allow his reference to pass, because last night I listened to the Minister of Railways, and if the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) will pardon me, I must say I think his reference was very unfair, I would almost say grossly unfair, if that is parliamentary, to the minister who is not at present in the House. I took down his words while he was speaking, and he stated that the Minister of Railways, in regard to the Welland canal and the Trent canal had stated that the work that was

being done was practically useless. Those were his exact words, and he stated that the minister went on with those works only under the flimsy pretext of employing soldiers. I think if my hon. friend is going to contend that a fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, he had better bea/r his own words in mind and start getting wise before he so greatly misquotes the words uttered by a responsible minister of the Crown last night. He certainly cannot find in the statement made by the Minister of Railways that these works were practically useless, and that it was a flimsy pretext to go on. What the minister argued was that while there might not be a pressing necessity for going on with this work immediately, in view of the fact that there were thousands of soldiers returning to Canada and looking for work and also a great deal of unemployment in the country, which might create a dangerous situation, he thought it best to go on with the work now instead of at a later date. I will leave it tp the House if that is not a fair statement of the situation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not wish to be unfair. ' Last night we were discussing the Trent Valley canal, and I read this in Hansard, page 3298:
Mr. Lemieux:	How many ships passed
through the canal last year?
'Mr. J. D1. Reid:	I have not the record here.
I have always been under the impression that the building- of the canal was really throwing money away.


Martin Burrell: I think my hon. friend will recall the fact that (Mr. J. D. Reid) was "referring to the Welland canal when making those remarks, and the point he raised in regard to the soldiers was on the Welland canal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


Martin Burrell: And if my hon. friend
will take the context of the Minister of Railway's remarks, I do not think he will find that the minister said it was useless, whatever objections he may have raised in regard to the Trent canal years ago, and I do* not think my hon. friend can twist the statement of the Minister of Railways into a statement that the work was practically useless. I thought it worth while to refer to this, especially as the motives and results as regards the soldiers have been very frankly and fully stated to the House by the Minister of Railways.
Let me refer to another argument of my hon. friend, and one which seemed to me rather extraordinary. He asked: Is this
present commission necessary? Is it necessary to make what was a temporary 'body during the war, a permanent body now that peace has come? My hon. friend referred to the absence of British blood in his veins, but said in passing that he had that French logic in his anatomy that would make reason apparent in his argument. All I can say is that there is* not much logic when my hon. friend says in one breath that the purchases during the war, which amounted to very large sums, made the creation of a commission necessary, because it protected the public treasury, and then at the same time argues that the commission is not necessary, because, apparently, the public treasury has not to be protected in times of peace. If his argument was true in times of war, it would, with the exception that there may not be so great purchases now, be equally justified in times of peace. My hon. friend seems to argue-and this is his main argument-that in some strange way we are smashing the constitution because a commission is being appointed to transact the business of buying the various departmental needs and requirements. He pointed out that under the old method there was governmental responsibility, ministerial responsibility, that the requisitions passed through several hands; that they were carefully scrutinized by the officials of the department, the deputy minister and so on, and that, therefore, there were all the necessary safeguards. Surely, my hon. friend cannot so misunderstand the purport of this Bill as not to know that the needs and requirements of the various departments for the requisitions that are put up will go through the same processes so far as requisitions go. As far as knowing what the actual needs of the department are, the department will be responsible, and those matters will be placed before the commission in the net result of a requisition for departmental requirements. The commission which has been established is not for requisitions; the responsibility for that is on the department, but it is for the purpose of putting in a business organization which will gather up all the multitudinous threads going through sixteen or eighteen departments where, perhaps, there may be seven or eight different experts or officers buying the same type of thing, into the hands of the central business organization which will be in touch with the whole of them. I cannot see what my hon. friend is afraid of in the way of responsibility. The minister will have to

come to this House; he will, after all, be responsible for what his department needs, and although the commission on account of its knowledge of the requirements of all the departments is created to do the actual buying certain responsibilities will rest with the minister of each department.
My hon. friend urges-and I thought this was a somewhat curious and illogical argument-that in some mysterious way the establishment of this commission would clip the claws of the Auditor General.
How on earth the Auditor-General's claws are to be clipped by a commission of this kind doing the actual purchasing, I fail to see. His functions are not interfered with one iota by this commission; he will discharge his functions in precisely the same way after the establishing of this commis-ion as before. It was a new doctrine, I think, to this House which the hon. member laid down when he said that the Auditor General was the nightmare of an honest minister. I thought he was the nightmare of a dishonest minister. Fear of the Auditor General would not be entertained by an honest minister; he has nothing to fear from the Auditor General. I cannot see in any shape or form how the Government or a minister would be abdicating his functions .by adopting practically what every vast business concern with innumerable branches does, namely, centralize the machinery for the actual purchasing of its requirements. My hon. friend in his diatribe on the commission business and on throwing off the responsibility of ministers, surely has not forgotten that the Government of which he was a member established a commission, the Railway Commission-and I have not a word except of praise for its establishment, and had not at the time it was established-which certainly is less responsible than a commission of this kind, because it is far less in contact with the various departments and the ministers. In the whole language used by my hon. friend I have failed to see one argument against the establishment of this commission; I have failed to hear one reason advanced why it would not facilitate public business of the country and of the departments. I fail to see why, to use my hon. friend's words, if it helped matters and safeguarded the public treasury in times of war, it would not equally do so in times of peace. I shall certainly therefore vote against my hon. friend's motion.


Michael Clark: Is my hon. friend's mind not influenced by the thought that 
the Railway Commission has no spending power? It does not spend public money?


Martin Burrell: That may be perfectly
true, but its various decisions and their far-reaching effects are vastly more important than the decisions of a commission making purchases for departments.


Mr. A. R. McMASTER (Brome):: 1
do not intend to delay the House long by any remarks of mine, and in that way I shall gain the approval of the minister who has just taken his seat (Mr. Burrell). I always listen to him with attention when he speaks, and generally when he replies to remarks from this side of the House his words are a complaint as to the length of the speeches made by us. I wish very frankly and courteously to tell the minister and the House that we on this side intend to take just as long on any subject matter of interest to the country as we think proper, subject, always, to the gag which the majority can place upon us if they desire to do so.
The minister has stated that the argument of the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) was not a businesslike argument. He says that the proposal to appoint this commission is a businesslike suggestion, and that whatthisBill proposes to do, namely, to put the purchasing of all Government requirements into the hands of what practically amounts to an irresponsible commission, is something which all large businesses do by centralizing their purchasing activities. I grant that it is of advantage to have the purchasing centralized, but I say that in order to do that, it is not necessary for Parliament to abdicate its power and its responsibility. Suppose the Canadian Pacific directorate appointed a small purchasing committee. Suppose that small committee spent lavishly the money belonging to the Railway Company. Suppose that at an annual meeting a shareholder said to the Chairman of the Canadian Pacific "You are spending too much on this, that or the other thing." What would the minister think if the Chairman of the Canadian Pacific said: "We have appointed a committee which is only removable in a very difficult fashion every ten years. Therefore, do not blame the directors of the Canadian Pacific Railway for this extravagance, because it is the fault of the committee which you and I appointed at the last meeting." Does the minister think that that answer would satisfy the shareholders of the Canadian Pacific? It would not satisfy them for a moment. There is no man in this House

who desires to see patronage eliminated more than I do. Patronage has. been the curse of politics in this and other countries. It is what induced some people to call politics "une sale cuisine," or a dirty business. But it is not necessary, I respectfully submit, to appoint a commission of this sort to get over the difficulty. There are purchasing agents in every department, and one way to get over the difficulty would be for these purchasing representatives of every department to have an association whereby they would communicate the necessities of their several departments to one another and see that one was never bidding against the other in buying supplies, or if it is necessary to go still further -and my experience of public matters is not sufficient to enable me to state whether it is or not-a purchasing department might be formed composed of well-paid and intelligent civil servants, and presided over by the minister, who will be responsible to this House for what that purchasing department does.
" TheTninistex-said- thatministeriah^-espem-sibility would not be affected. I am sure the minister is frank and fair in his mind, and I put this proposal to him: Let us suppose that he wished to have a waste paper basket for his office as Secretary of State, and he requisitioned one. This commission, with large ideas, and believing that ministers from the West desire expensive waste paper baskets, went out and bought, we will suppose, a mahogany waste paper basket for about $40, as was done for- one of the ministers from Saskatchewan the other day. Now the minister says, " I would be responsible for that purchase." He would not be responsible. He would be responsible for asking for a waste paper basket, and responsible that a waste paper basket was bought, but he would not be responsible for the price paid for that basket, because if he was attacked for buying a trifling waste paper basket for $40 he would hold up his hands and say: "I come from a country where such extravagance is regarded as disgusting, and the responsibility for buying that $40 waste paper basket rests on the shoulders of the independent commission appointed by this House. If you feel that this waste paper basket matter is of sufficient importance, then if a joint petition of the House and the Senate is carried in both Chambers we can remove the commissioners from office." No, the responsibility of asking for the goods will be on the minister, I frankly grant, but the responsibility for the price paid for the goods will be upon the commission and not upon the minister.
What does this mean? This Bill is just a reflection of what governments have been doing in this and other countries. Administrations have got rather tired of ordinary members of Parliament; they are in the way, and things cannot be done as quickly as they could be done if ministers could only have their own sweet will. In Great Britain commissions have been formed ad libitum. They have been created in large numbers in this country, and one of the duties that falls upon the representatives of the people in this and other countries is to see that the House of Parliament resumes its functions, that it shall no longer be a rubber stamp for what the ministers desire to do.
In one sense that is not the great question. In another sense it goes to the very root of the matter. Are the ministers desirous of avoiding responsibility? In the days gone by heirs to thrones and princes must not have their teachers' hands laid upon them. They had " whipping boys ", and if the young prince did not know his lessons the-"-"whipping boy-^-got-tho flogging.-If ministers do wrong when purchases are made, if improper prices are paid for the supplies which are bought, what will the ministers say? They will say: "Turn to the whipping boy, turn to the commission; it is not our fault."


Robert Hamilton Butts: What are the objections to the Bill?


Andrew Ross McMaster: The great and main objection to the Bill is that it takes away from the ministers the responsibility which they should assume for the prices paid for the things that are bought for the public service. I have no more to say. I believe the whole subject is summed up by these few remarks. Perhaps the minister who preceded-me will at least absolve me from any of the strictures he may in the future make in regard to the length of speeches on this side of the House.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Mr. Speaker, for five or six months, in the absence of the Prime Minister, it was my privilege and responsibility to keep in touch with the work of this commission and my experience of its wofk so convinced me of its advantages that I was led to believe that the House would accept the proposal contained in this Bill without very serious objection or discussion. That accounts for the fact that in introducing the Bill I did so with a few brief observations. I believe I am right in supposing that it is because the members of the House have not had an opportunity of learning the value of the work which

has been done, and the value of the work which will be done by the continuation of
the commission that this discussion has taken place. Therefore, I shall detain the House for a few minutes in dealing with some of the observations which have been made by hon. members in opposition to this Bill. I should have thought that the very clear and forcible statement of the Prime Minister, based on his observation of the work of this commission, which has continuously reported to him during the past four years, would have convinced the House of its value. My hon. friend from Maison-neuve (Mr. Lemieux) has referred to Sir Hormisdas Laporte in very high terms. With everything he has said in regard to that gentleman I am in entire agreement. I know the character of his work on this commission, I know his fine business ability, and with what unselfish public spirit he has served the country. I agree with my hon. friend in saying that Sir Hormisdas Laporte would not advise the Government contrary to the country's interest. I want to say that Sir Hormisdas Laporte will not be on the new commission; he will not accept a position on it. His duties will not permit him to do so. But if there is one thing more than another he has urged upon the attention of the Government, it is that we should make this commission permanent. He speaks out of the knowledge and experience gained during the past four years, from what he knows of the purchasing methods in all the departments of the Government, from what he knows of the purchasing by large business houses like the one with which he is himself connected. It is not a matter of speculation with him. He knows that it will save the public millions of dollars to have this commission established. If there is one thing that he wishes to see before he retires from office after four years of service, without receiving a dollar of remuneration for the splendid work which he has performed, it is the perpetuation of this commission for the benefit of the people of 'Canada.
What is true of Sir Hormisdas Laporte is equally true of every other member of the commission. In one of the last conversations I had with the late Mr. Gundy, one of the ablest business men from my own province, who had served his country without any compensation and who would not have accepted a position oh the permanent commission because he was compelled to return, as he thought, to resume his business duties in Toronto, he said: " In my judgment the Government would 
be doing a great thing in the interest of efficiency in the management of public affairs and in the saving of public money by making this commission permanent." He urged the value of the work of this commission and the great importance in the public interest of making it permanent. As a business man he considered the establishment of this permanent commission as one of the most important achievements of any Government. What is true of Sir Hormisdas Laporte and Mr. Gundy is equally true of Mr. Galt. He joined in the recommendation whidh the Prime Minister read to the House this afternoon urging the Government to continue the commission.
My hon. friend from Maisonneuve said that there was no better business man in Quebec than Sir Hormisdas Laporte. Why should one of the foremost business men of Quebec, Sir Hormisdas Laporte, why should one of the foremost business men of Ontario, Mr. Gundy, why should one of the foremost business men of Manitoba, Mr. Galt, after years of investigation and experience in this wofik, unite in making such a recommendation to the Prime Minister if it was not that, as business men, they believed it was in the public interest to do so and that it would mean the saving of millions of dollars to Canada? Otherwise they [DOT]would never have thought of making such a recommendation. The adoption of this method of purchasing supplies during the war meant that we abolished party patronage in the purchase of millions of dollars' worth of supplies. Does any member of the House, now that the war is over, want to see a revival of that old system of patronage in the purchasing of supplies? The hon. member forMaisonneuve said that if patronage had not been abolished there must be on this side of the House some members of the society of Ananias. Party patronage was abolished in the purchase of supplies by the appointment of the War Purchasing Commission. Bring this commission to an end and in the purchase of supplies for all the departments of the Government party patronage will be restored. This Bill is to continue the work of this commission so that party patronage shall be abolished in the purchase of all supplies.
Let me read to the House what the Prime Minister said upon this subject at the opening of the last Parliament:
In addition, we have given our attention to
abolishing patronage absolutely in respect of

all purchases. Hon. gentlemen who were members of this House in the last Parliament will reoollect that in the spring of 1915 the War Purchasing Commission was established for the purpose of contnoling the purchase of all articles required by the Government for the purposes of war. It has done good work and given excellent service; the gentlemen who compose it have given their services freely and voluntarily as a patriotic duty. We have passed an Order in Council that not only war purchases but purchases of all articles, commodities or materials required by the Government shall be made through the War Purchasing Commission and hy tender and contract.
Sir Wilfrid Laurier:	Who are the members
of this commission?
Sir Robert Borden:	Hon. H. Laporte, of
Montreal, chairman; Mr. Gault, of Winnipeg, and Mr. Gundy, of Toronto. On the retirement of Sir Edward Kemp from the 'board when he went overseas, Mr. Eaporte was appointed chairman, and Mr. Gundy became the third member of the board.
That statement by the Prime Minister, made at the opening of the session a year ago, was to implement the pledge made by the Prime Minister when the Union Government went to the country in the general election in the fall <jf 1917.
I had the privilege of speaking with the Prime Minister in the province of Ontario at a number of meetings. I do not know what he said elsewhere, but I know what he said in Ontario, and according to my best recollection there was not a meeting at which he spoke where he did not point out to the electors that the policy of the Government was to abolish party patronage, not only by appointments to the public service by extending the scope of the Civil [DOT]Service Commission, but. also in the purchase of all war supplies by enlarging the powers of the War Purchasing Commission, and to make the work permanent. On every platform on which I heard the Prime Minister speak he .made that pledge to the country, and I know with what enthusiasm it was received by the people. I want to say to my hon. friends on both sides of the House, much as some of them might and db prefer the old system of party patronage in which political influence undoubtedly affects purchases in the departments of the Government, that I have been sufficiently in touch with the political life of the country for the past twenty years to know that prior to the establishment of the War Purchasing Commission political influence played a large part in the purchase of supplies in connection with the Government. The people of this country are heartily sick of that kind of thing, and they responded most cordially to the Prime Minister's announcement of policy in this matter.


Michael Clark: Does the minister contend that party purchases are an absolutely necessary result of party government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not contend that, but I say that the experience in this country under all governments-at least all governments within my recollection-is that party patronage has influenced purchases in the Government departments.


Michael Clark: England at the end at the eighteenth century was extremely corrupt, but a better state of life arose under party government, and I am glad that my hon. friend admits that party patronage and party government are not necessarily co-existent.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I quite agree that they are not, but prior to the appointment of this commission party patronage did prevail under both Governments. I ask hon. members to recall public criticism in the press and in Parliament, by the Opposition, in reference to the purchase of supplies, while the Liberal Government was in power, and, when the Conservative Government was in power, by the Liberal Opposition. Prior to the appointment of this War Purchasing Commission, in the press and throughout the country there was public criticism of middlemen who stepped in and got a rake-off and commissions. Who has heard that criticism in the past two or three years? It has ceased to exist. The business men of Canada have absolute confidence in the impartiality and fair dealing which the War Purchasing Commission has given them. They are satisfied that they have been given a square deal and that there is no discrimination, and for these reasons I submit that it is greatly in the public interest that the commission should be continued.
My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) inquired with regard to expenditures. He was not able to accept my estimate for the time being without some proof. In the different departments of the Government there are at present probably no fewer than three hundred officials engaged in connection with the purchasing,- inspection and acceptance of supplies for the Government, and the opinion of the War Purchasing Commission is that by consolidating all the work under one single purchasing commission there will be a substantial saving from the mere standpoint of the number of officials employed to do the work. There will be a saving by reason of the greater efficiency in purchasing.



If only one per cent is saved in handling business to the extent of $40,000,000 per year, it would represent an economy of $400,000 per year.


Michael Clark: With efficient government, if we have too many men employed in the departments now, it is the duty of the Government to get rid of some of them, and the duty of Parliament to see that the Government does so.
Mr.ROWELL: Again,I quite agree with the hon. member,but the difficulty is that with fifteen different departments doing a similar class of work more men are required than would be the case if there were only one department. I am sure that if hon. members stop to think, they will agree with that statement, which must appeal to the business sense of the House. Not only will there be a saving in the actual cost of administration, but there will be a saving of hundreds of thousands of dollars in the purchase of supplies.


John Howard Sinclair: What does the
minister intend to do with the present purchasing agents in the various departments? There are quite a number of capable men trained in the business of purchasing in such departments as the Post Office, Public Works, Marine and Fisheries, etc. What will be their fate after this Bill goes through?


Newton Wesley Rowell: These men must be taken over for the time being by the War Purchasing Commission. But as the work of the commission becomes organized I think the staff can be steadily reduced and those who are not required can be transferred to other departments. I do not think it would be right to turn out efficient men who are in the existing departments.
Something has been said about the absence of ministerial responsibility. The commission cannot purchase a dollar's worth of supplies unless they are requisitioned by a minister, and the minister must requisition the precise article he wants. It is not open to the discretion of the commission to buy anything they want. If a two dollar or a fifty dollar basket is required the requisition must definitely call *for it, and if a steel cabinet or a wooden cabinet is required it must be requisitioned for. The very best prices will be obtained and the best business judgment exercised in the purchasing of goods, and this question does not affect the duties of the Auditor General one iota. He will perform his work as faithfully and as fearlessly as ever.
	,


Mr. COPP:: How long has the system
under this War Purchasing Commission, been in vogue?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I explained this afternoon that the commission was appointed in 1915 to purchase war supplies, and that it was further empowered to purchase and has purchased general supplies for all branches of the Government except the-National railways since February, 1918. There are one or two other points I desire to make clear. The ministers must requisition for the supplies they need. Parliament must vote the money for every dollar that is spent; not a dollar of expenditure is taken away from ^Parliament. The War Purchasing Commission does what the Central Purchasing Branch of the Canadian Pacific railway does. It purchases, inspects and accepts goods, but the department must requisition for them and pay for them. The department must be responsible for the purchases, and for these reasons I submit that the Bill is greatly in the national interests and is the fulfilment of the. pledge made by the Prime Minister when the Union Government went to the country in the year 1917. The people approved of the policy, which is a sound one and is in the public interest, and the Government asks the House to support this Bill.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is my hon. friend in earnest when he says that this question was the chief issue in the election?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not say that it was the chief issue, but at every meeting at which I was present and at which the Prime Minister spoke he expressed the same sentiments as he did in the speech from which I quoted, and the policy was most cordially accepted by the people. This Bill is presented in fulfilment of the promise he made to abolish patronage in the purchase of all supplies.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What will be the cost of administration?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member will
get all these particulars in Committee. That the cost will be very much less, is the opinion of Sir Hormisdas Laporte, than the present cost under the several departments.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the expression " Government Railways " include all railways under the control of the Government?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In the Act which' we passed this session creating a company for the handling of all Government railways, a distinction is made between the Canadian Government railways and the Canadian Northern railway. Do we profess to say under this Bill that we have any control over the purchasing for what used to be the Mackenzie and Mann system?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is not the intention of this Bill that the commission shall deal with the purchasing for the Government railways or for the Canadian National Railway System. I explained this afternoon that the War Purchasing Commission was requested to investigate and report upon
205i
that question. They did so, and
10 p. m. their report was that, having regard to the magnitude of the undertaking of the Government railways and to the efficiency of their existing purchasing system, it was not considered desirable or necessary that the pur- -chasing for the Government railways should be done by this commission. The Government, therefore, has not included the Government railways in the Bill.
I suggest that paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) carry, but that (d) stand. It is suggested that some further consideration; should be given to the items which arec excluded in (d).
Section 2, with the exception of paragraph (d), agreed to.
On section- 3-Commission, how constituted:


George Brecken Nicholson: While I agree with the principle of this Bill, I am afraid that if we bind the Government to appoint three commissioners to do the work of purchasing which, under similar circumstances, is usually done by an expert purchasing agent, we may create a burdensome body that will not be as effective as a more direct purchasing body would be, and whose work may cause overlapping.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no objection to meeting my hon. friend's suggestion to some extent by inserting after the words " consisting of ", in the second line of section 3, the words " not more than ", so that it would be open to the Government to appoint a smaller commission if that was considered desirable.
I presume the reason why three were decided upon was that there had been three before, and that was found to be perfectly satisfactory. The commissioners divided the work amongst themselves, so that there was no overlapping. I have not, however, the least objection to amending the clause in that way and so leaving it open to the Government to appoint fewer if it is com sidered desirable to do so.
Mr. PETER McGdBBON: Following up that suggestion, I should like to ask the minister if he does not think it would be better, and feasible, to have only one commissioner. It seems to me that -the objection raised by the hon. member for Oxford North (Mr. Nesbitt), and the hon. member for Algoma East (Mr. G. B. Nicholson), is reasonable and sensible, and I cannot see why we should create a great staff of purchasing

agents as will eventually happen without a doubt. One competent official is all that should be required for that department.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend appar-
' ently overlooks the fact that we already have in the several departments approximately 300 employees engaged in this work. The task of purchasing the various classes of supplies required by all the departments is an enormous one. After those supplies are purchased, they must be inspected. The officials must see that all the supplies purchased are in accordance with [DOT]specification; that they are up to standard in quality and quantity. Then they must [DOT]accept. The officials are responsible for those three things, purchasing, inspecting and accepting, and that is a very large undertaking when not less than $40,000,000 worth of goods of all kinds are being purchased in all sections of the country. I do not think we would be justified in cutting down the number further than we have. This leaves it open to the Government to review the whole situation and decide what is most advantageous.
Mr. PETER McGIBBiON:	I can quite
understand the hon. minister's object if he is going to make these commissioners inspect everything and be an authority on everything. They will have to have proper inspectors, no doubt, to see that the quality and the standard of these goods are right. I cannot conceive of three commissioners being so qualified on everything that they can pass judgment after having inspected every line of goods this Government is going to buy. That work they will have to delegate to proper inspectors. Taking that into consideration, I do not see why it is necessary to have three commissioners.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the headquarters of the commission be in Ottawa?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The hon. member for Algoma-East (Mr. G. B. Nicholson) is apparently satisfied about this change. I am not perhaps, as keen a lawyer as the President of the Council (Mr. Rowell), but I do not think his commission is properly constituted unless he has three men. The clause says that the commission shall consist of three men, not more, but I do not think he has any authority to have a commission of less than thee.


Newton Wesley Rowell: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it does. Supposing this had anything to do with the administration of justice, or anything in the shape of magisterial jurisdiction, or anything the selection of which could be questioned-perhaps the jurisdiction will never come into question,-when you say that a certain body shall consist of not more than three, I would think you must have three io constitute that body. I can quite understand it would be otherwise if you say "not more than three and not less than one."
Mr. ROWEiLL: Much as I respect the opinion of my hon. friend, I am afraid I cannot agree with him on that as a matter of legal interpretation.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister has waxed very eloquent to-night over. the abolition of patronage, but it looks as if this Bill was conferring on the Government a little bit of patronage, and as the Civil Service Commission is to be entrusted with the appointment of all Government officials, and as the Civil Service Commissioners are the only experts we have in selecting men, they ought to have something to do with the appointment of these commissioners. I do not say that the Government should ratify the selection of the Civil Service Commission, but should we ignore it altogether?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The hon. member will recognize the fact that the Civil Service Commission does not appoint deputy ministers.


John Howard Sinclair: I understand that.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Similarly as regards a
commission such as this, which is entrusted with these responsible duties, and for which the Government must be responsible, the Government must make the appointments of members of the commission, but the staff come under the Civil Service Act as will be seen further on in the Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
On section 5-director; Transfer of any of iStaf:	of War Purchasing Commission;
Other officers, clerks and employees.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this Director of the Purchasing Commission for Canada one of the three commissioners that are to be appointed, or is he an extra man?
Mi .ROWELL: As the Bill is .drafted, I think it is contemplated that the commission should have an extra man.


Georges Parent: I suppose a salary will be provided for this new official?


Newton Wesley Rowell: There will have to be an estimate.


Mr. BELAND:: What will be his functions?
Mr. ROWEiLL: I would think his work would correspond largely with what is now being done by the secretary of the War Purchasing 'Commission, who has charge of the office operations and the general direction of the staff, under the commissioners, of - course. That is really what is contemplated. He might be called the secretary of the commission instead of the director. At present he is named the secretary of the commission. The present commission suggested that he be called a director, but if any hon. member thinks there is anything in the name I have no objection to changing it to " secretary."


Georges Parent: Will he have more power than the chairman of the commission?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Oh, no. He will be entirely subject to the commissioners.


Henri Sévérin Béland: He wears a big title.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He is a sort of field marshal, according to this.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have no objection to calling him " secretary."


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The drafters of this Act may have a specific meaning for the word " director," which would not be covered by the word " secretary," and if the minister has any doubt about it I think this subsection should stand.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am agreeable.


John Howard Sinclair: There is no reason why the Governor in Council should appoint the secretary. He should surely be appointed by the Civil Service Commission. Subsection (2) of this section provides that any member of the purchasing staff of the War Purchasing Commission may be transferred to the new commission, but there is no mention made of the members of the purchasing staffs of the different departments.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Subsection (3) deals with that. It says: " Such other officers, clerks and employees as may be necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the commission may be appointed or transferred from any other portion of the public service, under the provisions of the Civil Service Act, 1918." That is intended to cover
transfers, so far as may be necessary or be considered expedient by the minister in charge of the department and the commission.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister thinks that covers purchasing agents in the different departments?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think so. It provides
that they may be transferred from any other portion of the public service. I will consider it further, if the hon. member desires.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We have these three
commissioners and this director or secretary, and we are going to have an aggregation collected from eighteen departments. How many people does the minister think there will be altogether in this happy combination he is going to get together?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think there are at present, in all the departments and the commission combined, in the neighbourhood of 300 of these officers, if you include purchasing, inspecting and receiving staffs. It would not be feasible nor desirable to transfer them all, because in every department you must have some one to do the requisitioning and receive the supplies. So a certain number would remain in each department; I do not know how many; that is a matter to be arranged between the minister of the department and the commission. The others would be available for transfer to the new commission. I would anticipate that when the commission is fully organized the great majority of those in the different purchasing staffs of the various departments will be transferred to the commission. I think it is only a matter of fair dealing that men in the public service should not have their positions cut away by legislation without some effort being made to provide them with suitable positions. Under those conditions I would anticipate that a reduction in the staff would take place when men retired from it or were transferred to some other department of the Government and those vacancies were not filled. I do not think we coul'd anticipate an immediate reduction, but I would anticipate an early reduction in the total number. I do not anticipate any increase at 'all.


John Howard Sinclair: Who does the requisitioning?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The requisition comes
from the department to the commission.


John Howard Sinclair: From the deputy
minister?


Newton Wesley Rowell: From whoever is the proper official of the department. I presume the deputy minister would make the requisition on the authority of the minister.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not know whether the minister is aware that this method of requisitioning is simply perpetuating the patronage system.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The departments can only requisition for supplies.


John Howard Sinclair: But if they indicate in the requisitions the firms that the purchasing agents go to for their supplies, that is going back to the old patronage lists. It came out in an examination in .one of the committees the other day that the departments sent advertising for newspapers to the officer in the King's Printer's department whose duty it is to look after Government advertising, and that with that advertisement was sent a list of the newspapers in which it was to be inserted. These newspapers were selected to suit the minister, and it was simply perpetuating the old patronage system. The officer produced a number of newspapers containing a certain advertisement and they all happened to be of one stripe of politics. We asked if this was not a patronage list, and this officer denied that it was. He said: "We have no patronage lists." "What do you call it then?" he was asked. He said "I call it a selection." That was his new name for it, but it was the same old thing we used to call a patronage list. In sending out this requisition would it be competent for the officers of the department to send a list of the firms to whom the purchasing agent must go to purchase the goods?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No, it would not. Of
course, we cannot prevent the department from sending in any information it wishes with the requisition, but that is no part of the requisition. Forms are supplied on which the department states its requirements, and then the commission makes the purchases.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that about 300 officers from the various departments will come under the direction and control of this new commission. Were all of these officers appointed legally by the Civil Service Commission in the first place? Secondly, were all the employees now in the War Purchasing Commission appointed by the Civil Service Commission? In this transfer from the several departments to the
IMr. Sinclair.]
new commission will those who have not been legally appointed by the Civil Service Commission have to undergo the usual competitive examination?


Newton Wesley Rowell: This Commission was
constituted and the majority of those in its employ were appointed, before the extended jurisdiction was given to the Civil Service Commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How many are there?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I think, 33. All who have been appointed to the staff since the early part of 1918, when the Civil Service Commission was given jurisdiction over them, have been appointed on the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission and have passed whatever examination was required. I cannot tell how many are in one class and how many in another. They advertised for two or three men to do a particular class of work and I think they had 792 applications for these positions. They secured, I believe, two very efficient men, but it indicates there were a large number willing to serve.


John Howard Sinclair: What positions?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have forgotten what the positions were.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Commission itself
was only tentative or temporary. Does the minister say that the civil servants appointed in the service of that temporary Commission, will continue permanently although the Commission itself has expired?


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: No, that cannot
happen. The Commission and all its employees may pass away but the Civil Service Act of last year provided that appointments to commissions of a temporary character must be made by the Civil Service Commission. Some of the war commissions, in selecting their staffs, paid higher salaries than were given the members of the staffs of the several departments of Government. The result was an obvious discrimination between those regularly in the service and those who were taken on by these commissions. It naturally caused a great deal of dissatisfaction on the part of those in the Civil Service and a great deal of embarrassment and annoyance to the permanent departments of the Government because the persons employed by these commissions were being paid on a different basis from the others entirely. They had the very same trouble in the United States during the war only they had it in a more aggravated form than we had. It was for that reason that the Civil Service Commission was

given jurisdiction over appointments to the staffs of these commissions.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I can readily understand that a temporary commission gets its officers through the Civil Service Commission, but when that commission expires, is a servant appointed to it still an officer of the Government?	[DOT]


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This commission is
merely temporary, .and when the commission expires the staff goes out with it. They are no longer in the Civil Service *because they happened to have been servants of this commission?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend is quite right in that, and it was to meet that situation that subsection 2 of section 5 was incorporated. That gives power, with the approval of the Civil Service Commission, to transfer any employees to the new commission, thus making provision for the very situation that my hon. friend has mentioned.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Does it provide that there shall be a selection made and the ordinary methods adopted for the purpose [DOT]of obtaining a new staff, or will they merely 'be transferred to this new department?


Newton Wesley Rowell: We shall transfer such persons as are recommended by the commission with the consent of the Civil Service Commission. No one can be transferred except on those two conditions: (1) *the recommendation of the new commission, and (2) the consent of the Civil Service 'Commission.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I can readily understand that a person who is a civil servant in a regular department can be transferred 'to this commission. But if a person has been employed by this temporary commission and the commission is dissolved, I submit, his relation to the service of the 'Commission and the Government is dissolved with it, and that he is no more ar officer of the Government than if he had inever been in its employ at all. I do not think it is the idea of the Civil Service Commission that you can take that man, without advertising for help, and plant him in a permanent position under this statute. This is a new staff and you have to get from ffhe outside, over and above the men that :may be transferred from a permanent department, the employees that you require; you must ask for them in the regular way and they must be advertised for and selected by 'the Civil Service Commission,
I do not admit that temporary employment by a temporary commission gives to an employee, under the law, the right to be transferred.


Newton Wesley Rowell: What my hon. friend
says may be quite true as a matter of law, but he will see that the old commission does not go out of existence until the new one is created. The object is to continue the work which has hitherto been carried on by the other commission. The other commission, carrying it on during the past four years, has inevitably secured a number of employees who have developed a high degree of efficiency and skill in this work and in supervising the work of all the departments of Government. They have a general knowledge of all the departments which the employees in any one department, no matter how efficient they may be, have not. While these men have no claim to be transferred, yet in the public interest, having regard to the necessity of carrying on the work efficiently, the Government deems it desirable that there should be some provision whereby those possessing this ability can be transferred. That is the object of subsection 2. It does not follow that all will be transferred; it only follows that those whom the new commission may desire, and the Civil 'Service Commission recommend, will be transferred in order that the work of the new commission may be as efficient as possible.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is the way we
used to overcome the provisions of the Civil Service Act; that is by putting a man's name in the Estimates and saying: "Notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act." We have the Civil Service Commission, and it has been the boast of the Government, to the satisfaction of a great many people in the country, that nobody would get into the Civil Service except through that commission. Yet, at the very threshold of its operation we are passing an Act of Parliament by which we are taking a group of people-do not know who they are-and dumping them into a new department-because this is nothing else than a department-'without complying with the Civil Service Act.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I cannot add anything to what I said. They are now in the Government employ and cannot be transferred without the consent of the Civil Service Commission.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Thousands of men and women were temporarily employed during the war, and now the departments are

bound to dispense with their services. Why make an exception of this particular service and make the employees permanent when hundreds are being turned off in other places? They should all be treated alike and be called upon to make a new application. If they pass there can be no complaint, but you are going to transfer every one in this War Purchasing Commission to a new permanent department. After you have done that, you will find in the Militia Department, say, about twenty or thirty or forty men out of employment because their work is finished. Will they be transferred to some other department without an examination? They came in without an examination and now that their work is finished they are to be turned off. If the principle that the minister is establishing here is to be applied, these men will argue that as 'permanent places have been found in this new department for fifty or a hundred men, or whatever may be the number, it is unfair to turn them on the street. What sort of fair play is there in that? If the policy , were adopted that every one who comes into the new department should enter ab initio under the Civil Service Commission no fault could be found as there would be no favouritism or preference. What I object to is that the minister should take this particular group of employees and make them permanent without complying with the Civil Service Act.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I have already stated that I will allow the clause to stand until the Bill comes into committee again.
On section 6-Exclusive power of commission to purchase:


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister explain the signification of the expression " right to purchase "? My hon. friend from Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) said a moment ago that before the Public Accounts Committee it was established there was an officer with the King's Printer whose duty it w.as to distribute advertisements to the press throughout Canada. Advertisements given by the Government to the press constitute a purchase of space. Will this express "right to purchase " include that purchase? Some days ago, whilst discussing the Post Office Department, I suggested to my hon. friend that the Government should put an end to the policy of wide advertising in such cases as mail contracts, and I gave some concrete instances. It came to my knowledge last

year that a weekly paper published in the county of Drummond and Arthabaska had notices of tenders for mail contracts to be awarded in the province of British Columbia. This is a pure waste of money, and the commission should have power to direct the purchase of space in the press. If the minister will assure me that this expression, " right to purchase," covers the purchase of space in the newspapers for advertising purposes I have nothing more to say.


Newton Wesley Rowell: This clause would not cover such a purchase. I do not think that advertising in an ordinary newspaper could be defined as a purchasable supply. If it came under this clause the commission would thereby be made an advertising agency. I quite agree that a case such as the hon. member has mentioned should not occur. It is useless advertising for a contract that is to be awarded in a place miles away from the place of publication. The advertising should be confined to the district in which the contract is -to be given.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Could not the commission be given the necessary powers to deal with a case of this kind? ,There is no question that enormous expenditures are made for advertising. I do not object to legitimate advertisements, such as calling for tenders. The commission itself will have to advertise, arid the Bill authorizes it to call for tenders. Could not the Bill be so drafted as to include the organization of the various expenditures incurred in connection with advertising?


Mr.  A. K. MAQLEAN@: It would have no special relation to this Act. I agree generally with the remarks of my hon. friend, but I think the matter he suggests is one of departmental policy, probably covered by some piece of general legislation. Under section 6 it could not come within the scope of the commission, because if the commission were soliciting tenders for certain purchases they would first have to secure from the press tenders for the advertising, and that would not be practicable. I hardly think my hon. friend's suggestion can be covered in this Bill, which is intended to apply merely to the purchases of material.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think it will be conceded that a great economy can be effected by a proper purchase of newspaper space. Any advertising agent will tell you that space is a commodity in business, and since we are creating a commission to have jurisdiction over general purchases I think it should be given the necessary power to direct advertising.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That would more properly come within the province of the King's Printer.
Mr. LEM1EUX:	Does not the King's
Printer come under this Bill?


Mr.   HOWELL@: AH supplies purchased toy him ordinarily must come under this commission.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would like my hon.
friend to think the matter over.


Newton Wesley Rowell: In any case it would come under the interpretation clause of the word "supplies."


Arthur Bliss Copp: The .first two lines of the
clause state very definitely that the commission shall have the exclusive power and right to purchase, contract for, inspect and accept supplies for the public service. Then it continues:
Provided, however, that the commission, when it deems it advisable, may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by regulation or by the commission authorize any portion of the public service to purchase, contract for. inspect or accept supplies.
In other words, they may delegate their powers back to the departments-the very thing which the minister wants 'to avoid.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That was intended to
cover such small purchases as have been mentioned. I intend to amend that clause by making it a little more specific. I therefore move to amend the clause, first, by striking out in the fifth and sixth lines the words "or by the commission," and by adding at the end of the first paragraph of the said clause the words, "of small value or quantity or of special character." So that the first paragraph would then read as follows:
The commission shall have the exclusive power and right to purchase, contract for, inspect and accept supplies for the public service. Provided, however, that the commission, when it deems it advisable, may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by regulation, authorize any portion of the public service to purchase, contract for, inspect or accept supplies of small-value or quantity or of special character.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Of small value-not to
exceed a certain amount?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That will be defined by
regulation.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I remember a minister
of the Crown buying a .certain number of padlocks worth only a dollar each, butt he bought 350,000 of them.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That would not he "of
small value." On the suggestion of my hon. friend the Acting Minister of Trade and Commerce, I have added - the words "or quantity," so that it limits the proviso in that way.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I gave a moment ago the precedent followed by the Department of Public Works. In the statutes it is provided that the minister cannot authorize, except under the Governor in Council's warrant, for unforeseen expenditure any expenditure over $5,000 unless it is voted by Parliament. You mention a small expenditure without specifying the amount. I know the hon. gentleman would not spend thousands of dollars under that expression, but it is vague.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend will see that it will he finally settled by a regulation under that clause.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the regulations be made by the Governor in Council?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They must be approved by the Governor in Council. That is provided for later on in the Bill. The commission when organized will have to take over all these branches one at a time in order to avoid congestion of its work, which will probably take six months, because the work must be carried on continuously-


Arthur Bliss Copp: Is not the system in vogue now?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No; all the commission does at present is to direct and supervise purchases; tenders must all be passed upon by the commission. 9


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand the commission is now adjusting some of the old war contracts which the armistice terminated.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Quite so. I propose to add by way of amendment to subsection 1 this further proviso:
Provided also that pending the complete organization of the work of the commission, the purchasing for any portion or portions of the public service may be carried on by the responsible officers thereof under the direction and control of the commission.
That would facilitate the working out of the arrangements.


Arthur Bliss Copp: For what length of time?


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is not limited. There will be no objection to a limitation. It is intended to proceed with the organization just as rapidly as possible, and this amend-

ment is to avoid congestion during organization.


John Howard Sinclair: What department does the commission report to?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Directly to the Prime
Minister.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Will this commission come under the new Civil Service Act that we hear so much about?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister in his
closing speech before we divided on this question was very strong in stating that there is no purchasing power in this commission except as it receives requisitions. I think he is mistaken. This section 6 gives the commission absolute power to buy everything, and it can secure a warehouse and store millions of dollars of goods in it for distribution to the different departments as requisitions are filed. The only restriction of that power seems to be in section 14:
The commission shall not, without the approval of the Governor in Council, purchase or agree to purchase any supplies except such as are included in estimates or requisitions sent to the commission by the various portions of the public service.
That is no restriction at all. If the commission comes to the Governor in Council and says that it wants to buy large quantities of goods, the Governor in Council are not very likely to constitute themselves judges as to whether the commission should make those purchases or not. Therefore apparently section 6 gives this body absolute and unresfricted power for the purchase of whatever it may require-and as ,far as using it as an engine for patronage is concerned, it is the worst that was ever introduced into this country.
The fact that what was spread over eighteen or nineteen departments, and was not as strong as it might be on that account, is now given greater force, greater strength, greater momentum, so to speak, by being organized into one department. This is an organized system of patronage, and it will be exercised as such. To a person like myself, who is up against these things every day and knows what is going on, it is laughable-or is it not rather sad?-to hear men who are, no doubt, honest, say that there is no patronage. Why, patronage in connection with Government business is just as it always was. And now we are going to have an institution that will have power to exercise patronage wherever it wants to. If tremendously big

purchases are had in mind; if it is deemed necessary to have rake-offs, corruption, bribery, this is the institution where these things can come in. There is no check on these men, except that of their being supposed to go through the formality of getting the permission of the Government for the purchase of (supplies. The member for Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) has given us an instance of what
11 p.m. is going on in this Department now. They destroyed what was known as the patronage list, but they have substituted something else that is just as effective

a system of "selection." What is the difference between calling a newspaper a "selected newspaper" and putting its name on a "patronage list"? The only difference is that the man who is exercising the patronage may have to make out new lists very frequently-or he may be told to use the old list.
We are told that there is no patronage now in the Civil Service. I admit that the conditions are a little better now as regards to the appointment of returned soldiers, but before that element came in we had nothing but the old-time, hard-and-fast party patronage system. I had two cases last year in my own county. A customs officer and a postmaster had to be appointed, and two of the most ardent Tories in the district were selected for these positions. If that was a coincidence, it was a remarkable one. The same thing has been going on throughout the whole of my county. There is a letter on file in the office of the Civil Service Commission which I wrote in connection with these two positions. I said, in a communication to the Chairman: "Both officials who occupied these positions were Tories. I will give you the names of two men, one a Liberal and the other a Tory, and I think it is fair that you should appoint these men." I may add that I was recommending the Tory for the better position of the two. But my recommendation was absolutely ignored ,and two of the choicest brand of Tories were appointed. The minister will excuse me if I have no faith in these professions of the -non-existence of patronage. Patronage is being exercised everywhere, and will continue to he exercised; it cannot be otherwise under present conditions. We know that two of the present members of the Civil (Service Commission are tried and trained Tories. Nobody need tell me that these men are not taking the advice of their friends in different parts of the country as to whom they should appoint. That explains how they got the two men from Bras d'Or in Victoria

County; that is how they are getting men all over the country. Let nobody think for a moment that men can fool the people by making splendid speeches and saying that there iis no patronage. How delighted the people of Ontario were when they heard from the Prime Minister himself that there was no patronage. My friend the President of the Council said "amen" to this pronouncement, and people rejoiced and praised the Lord that this great day had arrived. When the Military Service Act was passed, there were some "amens" and some "hosannas", but there was a louder "hosanna" when the President of the Council announced, by telegrams, cables, messages, runners and fiery crosses throughout Ontario, that the Military .Service Act was passed for Quebec, but that it was not to be used in Ontario, and that the farmers' sons were at liberty to do as they liked. But we in this House, are getting .a little too old, a little too hard and crusty, any longer to be entertained by such speeches as we heard this afternoon and this evening from the President of the Council and the Prime Minister on this subject. For my part, .I would have more respect for the judgment and the honesty of hon. gentlemen if they would take things as they are and not try to throw camouflage over the real state of affairs. The truth is too apparent to the dullest person in the House or in the country. So far as patronage is concerned, nothing is different from what it was in the good days when party patronage was exercised by the .party that for the time being held sway in the House of Commons. That is what is going on now, although it is not admitted as it was on other occasions.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I must express my surprise at the remarks of my hon. friend. I think, however, there is one obvious interpretation of them. He has been trying to argue himself into the belief that he did not put his party in an entirely false position when he opposed this Bill. He has introduced many other subjects into the discussion of this clause; I shall not follow him in them all. As to the Civil Service, that can be discussed when we reach the Bill dealing with that matter. I shall not follow him on the Military Service Act; it is not germane to the present discussion, but I may say at least that the statement he made, is, of course, quite without foundation. But coming to the subject under discussion, I say to my hon. friend that there is no political patronage in connection with the purchases made by this commission. If he thinks there is, he has the opportunity of endeavouring to establish that belief before the Public Accounts Committee. If the name of any man producing any particular line of goods is furnished to this commission, the commission will ask him to notify them of all the goods that he handles, and he will have exactly the same opportunity to tender as every other person has. The commission has endeavoured to secure the best list that could be secured of men engaged in various lines of industry and dealing in various kinds of commodities, in order that they may receive notification of the supplies which the Government wishes to purchase, and in order that they may put in a tender if they wish to do so.
I am quite sure my hon. friend has not taken to heart what the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Lemieux) said with reference to the chairman of the commission, Sir Hormisdas Laporte, or Mr. Gundy, or Mr. Galt. Those men have not lent themselves to political party patronage, but they have carried on the business in an honesit, straightforward way. This commission is-doing .so and will continue to do so, notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. friend.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: If the minister thinks I am looking for an excuse for leading the party on this side of the House to vote against the Bill, I require no such excuse, and if the minister thinks I was wrong, how how does he account for so .many strong protests from his side of the House? I venture to think that if hon. gentlemen opposite were free from party entanglements and obligations, this Bill would never go through the House. Some of the very best men sitting behind the minister have spoken against the Bill, saying that the commission was not necessary and that it involved a further expense when every dollar should be carefully conserved.
We have at present a committee of members of this House inquiring as to where we can cut down the Civil Service. They say that everything is overlapping; thait we have ten to every one that we require in the Civil Service. Those are the statements that are made. I do not know whether they are true or not. We have also a commission to which we have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to find out where we could weed out and cut down the Civil Service. In the midst of all this the minister comes here to create a new department in which at the first flash he is to put 300 men for whom he is creating a home. He admits there is no work for them, because

he says this commission is _ being created for the purpose of cutting down work. Then he is appointing a director over them, and there is no telling how many are to be added to this new department of the Civil Service. Yet I am to be told by the President of the Council that I am afraid of my own action and the action of the Opposition in this House because we are opposed to the creation of a new department and the further involving of the people of this country in the unnecessary expenditure of millions of dollars year after year. If that is all that I have any reason to be afraid of, or if that is the only mistake I have made in my position as leader, I have very little to fear from the judgment of the people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would it not be wise to empower the commission to rent whatever buildings are necessary for the various public services in Ottawa? This question of renting buildings is a very important one and is the cause of very large expenditure; and if the minister wishes to save money by the creation of this commission he cannot apply its faculties more effectively than * in looking after rentals of buildings in Ottawa.	[DOT]


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Public Works Department is, of course, specially charged with that, and I think the commission will have plenty to do under its present powers.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister have in the Bill a clause concerning those advertisements?


Newton Wesley Rowell: What I said was that that question would come up for consideration properly under paragraph (d) of section 2, the interpretation clause, which stands over for further consideration. When that comes up the matter will be further considered.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-sale of supplies.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Should this not be by tender, if junk is sold to a reputable firm by tender?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not see any objection to putting that in. That is the procedure. I move to amend clause 7 by adding at the end thereof the words " by tender."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 9-Records of War Purchasing Commission.	/
Rodolphe Lemieux: That is to say, the commission will take over the supplies of the War Purchasing Commission in order tot Mr. McKenzie. ]


Newton Wesley Rowell: Carry on the work. .


Rodolphe Lemieux: " Documents and supplies of the War Purchasing Commission." That means that the commission has, during the war, bought supplies which are today of no use, and I suppose they are selling at public auction.


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. The supplies, such as my hon. friend refers to, that is supplies of the Militia Department and of other departments, belong to the various departments, and the commission is disposing of some of those supplies as surplus supplies. The word "supplies" in this clause means stationery, office supplies and fixtures which the commission has and which will pass over to the new commission.
Mr. J. Hi. SINCLAIR: Are there not war supplies?
Mr.'ROWELL: Those are in the possession of the different departments,-the militia supplies in the possession of the Militia Department, the naval supplies in the possession of the Naval Department, and so on.


John Howard Sinclair: This commission will not have control of war supplies?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Not under this clause.
Under clause 7 the commission has exclusive control and charge of all surplus war supplies. What we are doing in this clause is to say that supplies such as stationery, office furniture and so on which the commission has on hand will be taken over by the new commission.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 10-other duties:
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have here a letter
from one of the big business firms of Canada, it reads:
I am taking the liberty of drawing to your attention that the Government are pasing a Bill at the present time to renew the War Service Purchasing Committee. I understand that this commission is only a duplication of the purchasing machinery and is not in the interest of economy as all the Government departments have at the present time well organized purchasing offices:	I am also under the impression
that the War 'Service Purchasing Committee which is just expiring has not altogether been a success as the buying has been done by amateurs, and the consequence is that at the present time the Government is loaded up with materials, etc., bought at very high prices for which they have no use. Perhaps this matter might be worth sifting out.
That is from a business man in one of the big cities in Canada. Are the surplus

supplies in the hands of the Government very material? What does the minister say with reference to this statement that there is evidence of amateurishness in the purchase of supplies?


Newton Wesley Rowell: What is the name of rhy hon. friend's informant? '


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It has not been customary, for some months at all events, to give names.


Newton Wesley Rowell: It is so far away from
the facts, as I understand them, that I should be glad to follow it up if I had the name.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I would gladly give
the letter to my hon. friend only it is marked " Confidential " in red ink. .


Newton Wesley Rowell: I am afraid my hon.
friend should not have read it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know I could not
do that in court, but the practice has been established here of reading a letter without giving the name of the writer.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Substantial supplies
were purchased for the Department of Militia and Defence having regard to the war continuing for a longer period, but the supplies were purchased at the current market prices-at the best prices that could be secured at the time the purchases were made. When my hon. friend's correspondent speaks of supplies having been purchased by " amateurs," he evidently had not heard what the hon. member for Maisonneuve had to say about the chairman of that commission.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: But he was not doing
the buying.


Newton Wesley Rowell: The chairman of the
commission and his associates have devoted their personal attention to all these matters, and there is not a more careful business man that I know of anywhere than the chairman of that commission, Sir Hor-misdas Laporte. I never met him until I came in contact with him in connection with the work of the commission, but I have formed the highest opinion of his efficiency as well as integrity in dealing with these matters. I can assure my hon. friend that so far as the purchase of supplies is concerned the work has been thoroughly done. The actual work, of course, was done by the officers of the department.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: In view of the marvellous capacity of these men, what does
the minister say about the investigation we had into the purchase of horses in Annapolis county, where hundreds of thousands of dollars were thrown away, or albout the purchase of boots and shoes and clothing which turned out to be absolutely worthless? Where does the wonderful efficiency of the commission come in?


Newton Wesley Rowell: My hon. friend's question illustrates the value of the commission. These purchases were made before the commission was appointed, and no better proof of the efficiency of the commission could be found than that since their appointment all these criticisms have disappeared.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 12-requisition necessary:
Mr. OOPP:: Under subsection (2) of this section have the commissioners authority to refuse to fill a requisition?


Newton Wesley Rowell: No. If they think a department is requisitioning for supplies it does not need, their duty, instead of undertaking to out the requisition down, is to draw it to the attention of the Prime Minister for submission to Council. That preserves governmental responsibility. The Government muslt then take the responsibility of saying whether the quantity requisitioned shall be purchased or not.


Albert James Smith Copp: Under what clause has the
Governor in Council that Authority?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The Prime Minister would take it up with the minister of the department concerned.


Albert James Smith Copp: Under what section of this Act has he that authority? The commission have authority to purchase supplies, and this section says that they have no authority to change the requisition, but that they can do certain things. Suppose my hon. friend, desiring to keep up the style of his office, wanted mahognay furniture or a mahogany waste paper basket in his office, and requisitioned accordingly, I understand the commission would have no authority to change that requisition. If that is so, must they supply the goods?


Newton Wesley Rowell: They are not bound to
supply them. They cannot change the requisition, hut they can report direct to the Prime Minister.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What action can he take?


Newton Wesley Rowell: He has all the power that the Prime Minister has. Tt puts the respon-
32.38

sibility directly back upon the Government. If he thinks one of his colleagues is requisitioning for supplies which are not required he has all the remedies necessary for dealing with the situation.


Arthur Bliss Copp: What remedies, for instance?


Newton Wesley Rowell: I do not think it is necessary to suggest any remedies. If the Prime Minister thinks one of his colleagues is embarking on an expenditure he should not make, the Prime Minister has all the remedies in his hands.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it not restricting the powers of the commission very much to say that they cannot vary a requisition? Suppose the Postmaster General wants a padlock, and mentions a certain make to the commission. He asks for a thousand of one particular make, we will say. The commissiftn know that that is not the best make of padlock-it is their .business to know which is the best padlock, 'because they are experts, but apparently they have no power to say to the Postmaster General that the padlock he has requisitioned is not the best and that they will buy another one in its stead. As I understand it, they must report to the Prime Minister. That seems a very roundabout way, and I think it is restricting the powers of the commission altogether too much.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Some hon. members have argued that we were giving the commission too much power. On the other hand, it is suggested that we are not giving them power enough. This is the view underlying the Bill. The department must take the responsibility for the quantity and the general character of the goods it desires to have purchased. The minister of the department is responsible to Parliament. He must requisition the supply, and must finally pay the account; he must ask Parliament to vote the money. As the law now stands, he can go out and buy the supplies, but. when this commission is appointed he will have to make a requisition to the commission. If the commission had the power to change the requisition of. their own motion the minister might come to Parliament and say, " I have no responsibility." We do not think it is desirable that he should have that escape or that the commission should exercise that power. If the commission is satisfied that the requisition is not wise they report direct to the minister to whom they are responsible. They lay the facts before the

Prime Minister, that a certain department is asking for too much or for something that is not in the public interest. It appears to me that this provision maintains ministerial responsibility and ensures the best results in the purchase of supplies.


John Howard Sinclair: The objection taken was not with regard to the powers of the commission but with regard to the responsibility of the minister. The Secretary of State (Mr. Burrell) laid down very emphatically to-night the doctrine that the establishment of this commission does not affect in the slightest degree the responsibility of the minister and the Government in regard to purchases. I want to know if my hon. friend agrees with the doctrine of the Secretary of State in that connection.


Newton Wesley Rowell: Substantially so. My hon. friend is speaking in a very general way but, as applied to this Bill, I agree. That is one of the objects of this provision. The minister must take responsibility for the requisition. The commission cannot change it by its own action. The commission can report to the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister and Council, having the report of the commission, will decide if the requisition is all right and, if so, the commission will have to go ahead and' purchase. But if, upon the report of the' Prime Minister, that requisition should be reconsidered, the minister reconsiders it, and submits some other requisition and the purchase is made on that basis.


John Howard Sinclair: If there is an improvident purchase will the minister be responsible for it?


Newton Wesley Rowell: Of course he must accept responsibility.
On section 13-Estimates.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any provision in this Act by which the purchases will be reported to the Auditor General and the Auditor General will have in his report an account of the various purchases made by Ill's commission, showing the departments from which these various requisitions came and the amounts paid for the supplies enumerated in them?


Newton Wesley Rowell: The information that my hon. friend has asked for will certainly be furnished in the Auditor General's Report. There will be no change in that report.
On section 14-the supplies that may be purchased:


Rodolphe Lemieux: Should there not be
added to this clause something to the effect

that no expenditure of money can be made by the commission unless authorized by Parliament?


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is the practice as it stands at the present time and I think no amendment would be necessary, but I will consider the matter and when the Bill is in committee again we can mention it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The words "estimates" and "requisitions" are used as substantially synonymous terms. One would suppose that "included in the Estimates" would mean the regular Estimates where provision is made for furnishing the necessary moneys but the use of the word "requisitions" takes away that meaning.
Mr. [ROWELL: I would draw my hon. friend's attention to two sections which deal with requisitions and supplies respectively. He will see that section 12 provides for a written requisition. That contemplates a specific requisition for the actual supplies that may be required at any time. But the Government holds the opinion, upon the advice of the existing commission, that purchases may be made with great advantage if supplies, say for three months or for six months, are purchased instead of small supplies such as a department might requisition for a month or two, and also that it might be a great advantage to have the . supplies of certain given commodities for all the departments made at the same time. Therefore, section 13 requires that all of the departments shall send in an estimate of the supplies they will probably require for such period or periods of time as the regulation may prescribe. The regulations may require each.department to give an estimate of 'the supplies it will require for six months, or whatever period of time may be determined as being best from the point of securing the goods at the lowest price. If a department puts in an estimate then the commission may purchase on the basis of that estimate, or, if it puts in a specific requisition, the commission may purchase on the basis of that requisition. That is the reason -why these two words are used in this clause.


Rodolphe Lemieux: In view of the explanation, I would most strenuously insist that provision he made that the expenditure should first be voted by Parliament. I quite understand that cases might arise where it would be obviously the duty of the commission to take the state of the market into consideration. For instance, I remember that when the new Parliament buildings were on the point of being commenced the parliamentary committee appointed to
supervise their erection decided to buy the steel framework of the building in advance because it was hinted to one of the members that the price of steel would go up by several points, as it did. Of course, there was a saving by that purchase. But that was a very extraordinary case that occurred during war time. In normal times the commission, I think-indeed, I am positive of it-should not go beyond the amount provided by Parliament for each of the departments. I think my hon. friend ought to make that clear in the Bill.


Newton Wesley Rowell: My present view is that that is clearly the law. There is absolutely no power whereby the commission could depart, from it. However, I shall consider the matter and if it is not clear there is no objection to making it perfectly beyond question. The commission have no power, and the Auditor General would not permit them, to expend money not voted by Parliament. As my hon. friend knows, in certain emergencies public moneys may be expended under the Governor General's warrant, but only in special circumstances.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Bill should provide that each department should give an estimate of the amount of money that it will require. The Public Works Department, for instance, will require certain supplies, and it would simplify matters if the Minister of Public Works were obliged to have an item in his estimates providing for the quantity of supplies he was going to requisition, and that he should not exceed that quantity except for some special reason. It should be provided that the department would be limited to the amounts voted by Parliament. In that way the House would indirectly be in a position to ascertain the operations of the commission.


Newton Wesley Rowell: That is exactly what the procedure will be. The minister will have to come and get his supplies voted just as at present, and everything will be open to review.
On section 16-purchases to be by tender:


Rodolphe Lemieux: I move that this section be allowed to stand.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the minister consider the advisability of adding something to this section?


Georges Henri Boivin: There is a motion by the hon. member for Maisonneuve that the section be allowed to stand. The motion is not debatable. If it is withdrawn the

hon. member for Antigonish and Guysbor-ough (Mr. Sinclair) can discuss the section.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I withdraw the motion.


John Howard Sinclair: The practice has become prevalent of dispensing with public advertisement in many cases. A department professes to know the number of people who deal in certain articles in some province or vicinity, and instead of calling for tenders by public advertisement they send a circular letter or notice to the dealers. If this can be done in a fair way the practice is satisfactory. But the difficulty is that certain names are omitted from the list in the department and complaints are frequently made, as they were in the case of the War Purchasing Commission, that certain people did not get these notices. It should be easy to provide that in cases of this kind merchants or dealers could send in their names and post office addresses and be entitled to the usual notice.


Newton Wesley Rowell: I shall be glad to consider that point.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Now that the hon. member has raised his point I renew my motion and ask that the section be allowed to 6tand.
Section stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Rowell the House adjourned at 11.40 p.m.
Monday, June 9, 1919.